Valuing Nature or Pricing Nature's Destruction?

Valuing Nature or Pricing Nature's Destruction?

Photo: FERN. Creative Commons License LogoThis image is licensed under Creative Commons License.

Economic valuation of nature is not new. In fact, it has been a companion of capital accumulation for centuries. Yet, despite the long history of valuing select portions of nature economically, there seems to be a new quality to current approaches. Jutta Kill's paper "Economic Valuation and Payment for Environmental Services: Recognizing Nature's Value or Pricing Nature's Destruction?" explores where the recent initiatives aimed at 'ending the economic invisibility of nature' differ from previous approaches to economic valuation of nature.
We have invited a number of scientists, academics and environmentalists to provide different views and starting points for the discussion. Their reviews of the paper will successively be uploaded here to fuel the debate.

Now, we are inviting you to comment and discuss online! (Please note: The discussion has ended by now).

We hope that you will actively participate and contribute to a lively debate on this highly controversial issue. You can post your comment from this day forward until December 11, 2015. After that the author, Jutta Kill, will respond to the comments uploaded and posted. All inputs will feed into our ongoing discussions and work plans for 2016 and beyond.

We are inviting you to comment and discuss online!

Summary and concluding remarks

Commentary on this Discussion Paper

“Denominating biodiversity in dollars…justifies the claims of those with the greatest purchasing power worldwide to the greatest share of the earth's biomass and all that it contains.”
Kathleen McAfee
In the end, selling monetary valuation as saving the planet goes along with the current advocacy of economic growth as the solution to human induced climate change.
Clive Spash

Commentary: Greenwash! Now in New Improved Formulae

This report is an excellent overview of the pitiful state of environmentalism and its neoliberalisation. The issues raised are important and should be taken seriously. I would like to suggest a few areas in which the argument could benefit from some further reflection.

By Clive Spash
The major problem I see is not that economic valuation approaches are used, but that they tend to become the major logic of arguing, even within circles of conservation biologists, that it tends to become pervasive and all-embracing.
Kurt Jax

Commentary: Pursue a dual strategy

We should not completely abandon economic arguments; but instead of hectically following and reinforcing the trend, we should lessen the prominence of these arguments by strongly fostering alternative ones, especially those which relate to the very intuitions and reasons why people protect nature.

By Kurt Jax
Nature does not “provide services” as a laundry does. It is not delivering services. Falling prey to this terminology, we may end up perceiving nature not in its ecological naturalness and its fertility, resilience, diversity and richness and not even as experienced nature but as large service industry.
Konrad Ott
The new economy of nature tends to produce a similar right to decide what lives and what does not in the /natural world/ according to its economic value for capital, whether that world lies in the hands of corporations or of states.
Ivonne Yanez

Commentary: The role of the state

The new economy of nature tends to produce a similar right to decide what lives and what does not in the /natural world/ according to its economic value for capital, whether that world lies in the hands of corporations or of states.

By Ivonne Yanez
... the key battle over the new forms of economic valuation of nature is not about how to improve measurement techniques so that externalities can at long last somehow be internalized."
Larry Lohmann
The market no longer conveys the message “we can grow as much as we want as long as we pay the price.”
Herman Daly