An economic valuation of nature

‘In the kingdom of ends’ wrote Kant, ‘everything has either a price or a dignity.  What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity’.

Historically, nature has been viewed as having a dignity, as priceless.  Though I believe that biodiversity should be preserved for its own sake, that it is an end in itself and therefore has a dignity, I also believe this attitude has been partly responsible for the overexploitation of nature.  Businesses are fundamentally concerned with profits.  They weigh up costs and benefits of potential actions and chose those which yield the highest benefits at the smallest costs.  When a mangrove forest (for example) is felled and replaced by aquaculture conservationists could protest that a ‘priceless’ habitat is lost.  This approach does not help inform business’ decisions; accountants can only enter this cost into their calculations as £0.  As a result, when weighing up the costs and benefits of a business decision, the costs of ecological damage are not taken into account.  There are two possible solutions to this problem: change the world economic system so that objects of dignity are protected at all costs, or quantify the economic costs of ecological damage so that businesses can take them into account when weighing up potential costs and benefits.  The first option is not viable, even human life is not protected at all costs (otherwise the NHS would be extremely costly).  This leaves us with the second option.  It is an option which many people are uncomfortable with for reasons I will explore.  First I will start with an example.

Take the example of the felling of a mangrove forest to replace it with aquaculture.  Not taking ecological costs into account, a business may generate a profit from converting to aquaculture and growing shrimp.  However, this does not take into the account the costs of felling a mangrove forest.  These costs include the services the intact mangrove forest provides humanity with such as: flood prevention, timber production and a habitat to species which can be sustainably exploited as food.  Having taken this information into account it is more likely that a business will choose to maintain the mangrove forest in its pristine form to sustainably harvest timber.  Alternatively there are benefits which are shared between people who do not own the resource such as flood prevention.  If the benefits of flood prevention are made clear to the government then they will have the option to pay a business not to cut down the mangrove and to protect it instead, saving themselves the costs of dealing with flood damage.

A problem with the argument is that it ‘admits’ biodiversity has ‘equivalents’.  Thus, this approach can be used to rationalise and justify the loss of species.  However, these species will go extinct anyway with no value attached to them if they are only deemed priceless.  Therefore we have nothing to lose.

Another possible solution is to use markets, again many people are sceptical and distrustful of markets but first it is important to understand what markets are and what they are good at.  Markets facilitate the transfer of goods between people.  They ensure that those who value the good highest receive the good and the seller gains the highest possible price, thus markets create efficient solutions.  Markets can be applied to conservation where the benefits an ecosystem provides are shared over everyone in the world.  For example trees act as Carbon sinks, reducing the CO₂ in the atmosphere.  Deforestation releases this CO₂ into the atmosphere, a cost paid by everyone in the world.  A mechanism which is being considered and trialled is the payment for people to protect forests (REDD).  In this way a market is established in which money is paid for the protection of forests.

In conclusion, many are instinctively wary of attempts to put economic values on nature, however, until now nature has been given no value at all.  By giving it a value we have nothing to lose.

a

The importance of learning to connect with nature

‘More children are admitted to hospital with injuries resulting from falling out of beds than falling out of trees’ (https://twitter.com/#!/NTPressOffice).  The importance of learning to love nature

Firts of all let me start by stating that I agree with the sentiment that the world will be a better place if more children are exposed to, and emersed in, nature.  Let me also say that I would rather we did not all get hung up on the above statistic for two reasons: 1) statistics can be misleading and manipulated, it’s better to concentrate on the underlying message, 2) complaining that not enough children are admitted to hospital as a result of injuries sustained whilst enjoying wild nature is not the greatest piece of PR for the argument promoting a greater exposure to nature.

So what does it matter if kids don’t spend any time in trees anymore?

The future of biodiversity, of nature, depends largely upon how we value nature.  If the general public don’t enjoy trees, birds and bees then these species are less likely to be saved and are more likely to go extinct.  Moreover, developing an appreciation of nature helps us develop as people.  In a world of information overload, a world in which many kids are exposed to high levels of stimulation (e.g. television, facebook and twitter) children struggle to catch onto one idea and run with it before the next is presented to them.  Nature gives us an opportunity to slow down, to explore a whole idea and reflect upon it.  

Taking an analogy from my previous essay, I believe that we all have an innate ability, a predisposition, to enjoy nature (the Biophilia hypothesis).  But we cannot enjoy nature without practice (think of your own analogy).  So, if we are to value nature then we must be exposed to it, immersed in it.  If we are not, we will not learn to enjoy it, will miss out on the spiritual fulfilment it can offer us and miss out on opportunities to slow down and reflect.  Moreover, from the conservation perspective, if the children of today do not learn to value nature then the adults of today will not bother to conserve it. 

For the above reasons I believe that organisations such as zoos and the national trust have a hugely important role to play in the education and development of the next generation, especially as more and more people live in cities.  Also, taking this approach it is important not that those who enjoy nature encourage other likeminded people to get into nature.  Instead, efforts to engage people with nature should be prioritised, should be aimed at inner city children.  I acknowledge that it is difficult to create a tick list for the personal development of children, I appreciate that it is hard to quantify the extent to which children engage with nature.  More importantly though, I believe that the personal development of children and an appreciation of nature, upon which everyone one of us relies, deserves a proportion of education resources.  For this reason also, I would like to acknowledge the purposeful work of zoos and organisations working towards this end.

If you are interested in the Biophilia hypothesis then recommend W. O. Wilson’s ‘Biophilia, or some of the work of Andrew Balmford (which is more accessible) such as ‘http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1389192/Is-that-a-bee-a-bird-or-Pikachu.html’

Attitudes towards failure and excellence

I’m going to start by blogging about something which, at first sight, has nothing to do with conservation.  I’m going to start with a blog about our attitude towards success and, more importantly, towards failure.  There are two fundamentally different attitudes towards the attainment of excellence which fall at opposite ends of a spectrum.  The talent theory of excellence states that those who achieve highly do so because they are ‘naturally gifted’.  The practice theory of excellence may acknowledge (or not) that individuals differ in their natural abilities, but maintains that these differences are insignificant compared to the effect of training.  The practice theory of excellence states that training is not only necessary but sufficient to make one world class in any skilful discipline.  This has been the subject of much debate which has really gotten nowhere.  I am not going to support either argument.  Instead I am going to write about what I think that we can learn from the two attitudes.

Our attitude towards excellence is something which we generally do not question but it can have very important impacts on how we view failure and how those we influence (such as children) view failure.  A person who believes in the practice theory of excellence believes that their achievements are the result of hard work and learning from past experiences.  When they fail they are aware they they have the capacity to improve upon their performance, to improve through experience.  In contrast, if one is constantly told ‘you did well, you must be really gifted’ then one will begin to believe that their achievements are not the result of their hard work but of their natural talent.  When one fails they will be more likely to believe that they have hit their peak.  In such a mindset every challenge becomes a risk of realising that one can progress no further.  One cannot be blamed for deciding not to try, to adopt the attitude ‘if I don’t try, I can’t fail (and if I don’t fail I am more likely to still improve)’.

Therefore, even if the practice theory of excellence is not correct and some individuals are naturally more predisposed to excel in a discipline, such individuals will still benefit from the mindset that the practice theory of excellence fosters.  A mindset in which failure is embraced as a chance to learn, improve and progress.  A change in mindset must begin in schools where children’s attitude towards success and failure can be moulded.  But it must continue with us past school into our everyday lives.  We must continue to search for feedback, to put aside our egos, honestly assess our mistakes and learn.  Obviously this applies to conservation, where our margin for error is so thin that, rather than sweep failures under the carpet, we must expose everyone and learn from them.  This is why only funding assessment of habitat restoration projects for 2 or 3 years is so senseless.  To invest a large sum of money in a project and then not learn from its shortcomings or to only tick a box to denote a project either a success or a failure is not good enough.  Each conservation intervention represents an opportunity to learn especially the ones which fail.