The value of nature for a sustainable economy and a just society
by Reinhard Loske
Quite a few politicians today seem to believe that they have to provide public evidence of their economic competence by making disparaging or sarcastic remarks about nature conservation and biodiversity goals whenever conflicts arise between economics and ecology. Unfortunately, this applies not only to right-wing and left-wing populists, but also to some conservatives and liberals, and occasionally even to representatives of centre-left parties.
Whether it‘s old beech forests standing in the way of planned new motorways; the habitats of rare species such as the pug bat or the field hamster making the development of industrial sites more difficult; hedges or flower-rich verges preventing the maximisation of agro-industrial production; dry grasslands or wetlands blocking the extraction of stone, gravel, sand or rare earths; or porpoises making themselves at home precisely where liquid gas terminals or offshore wind farms are to be built – in each case, the supposed economic experts always trot out the same cliché: we really can’t let this kind of eco-sentimentality get in the way of pursuing major economic development projects. Economic growth comes first! Nature conservation second! Compensation for the destruction of nature later, and somewhere else!
Some political figures also like to use arguments that pit nature conservation against social justice goals. For example, when the German left-wing populist Sahra Wagenknecht recently wanted to accuse the “eco-bourgeoisie” and the “virtue signallers” she looks down upon of a supposed lack of social empathy, she picked upon – of all things – the common toad (‘Bufo bufo’, to give it its Latin name) with which to beat them about the head: the Greens, she said, shared the sufferings of “every roadside toad”, but at the same time ruthlessly increased heating costs for “people who are freezing” through carbon pricing. Another false dichotomy. People come first! Nature conservation second! Biophilia, i.e. the love of living things, is a luxury available only to high earners!
Both of these ways of caricaturing and belittling nature conservation and biodiversity goals are crude and cheap. Above all, however, they are indefensible, not only from a cultural, ethical and scientific perspective, but also from a socio-economic one.
The subjugation of nature?
Let’s start with the basics. It is true that the history of European culture and ideas provides countless examples of how relentlessly, in the relationship between man and nature, we have pursued dominance and expansion, making ourselves the measure of all things. To demonstrate this, people like to go back a long way, for example to Genesis, in which humanity is told, ‘replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth…’ (Genesis 1.28). The philosophers and Enlightenment thinkers René Descartes (1596-1650) and Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626), coming from a completely different direction, are no less frequently cited as alleged arch-criminals against any inherent rights of nature. Descartes, for example, saw animals as ‘insentient machines’ and humans as ‘the rulers and owners of nature’, while Bacon famously (though perhaps apocryphally) proposed torturing nature on the rack in order to wrest her secrets from her. No apparent trace of respect, let alone love, for any living thing.
There is not enough space here to discuss at appropriate length the deeper causes of anthropocentrism, the exploitation of nature, and technocratic ambitions of dominance. However, we should not make things too easy for ourselves, because all these quotations must always be understood and evaluated in their specific historical context. Ahistorical reductionism must be avoided.
“Mother Nature”
At the same time, it is important to recognise that there has always been an integral view of nature in European thought, in religious-mystical as well as philosophical and political ways of thinking.
Whether it be Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) celebrating and turning to good use the healing power of plants; Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) seeing animals as ‘brothers and sisters of humankind’ and describing ‘Mother Earth’ as a nurturing being; Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) calling the earth a ‘shining star’ and thus adopting an early astronaut’s perspective on our blue and fragile planet; the conservative philosopher and politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) warning against the ‘sophists, economists and masters of arithmetic’ who sought to reduce the sublimity and beauty of nature to mere money; the great liberal John Stuart Mill (1806-1873,), to whom it seemed a dystopia ‘if every strip of land is taken into culture’, which is why he recommended a ‘stationary’, i.e. no longer growing, economy once basic human needs were met; or Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), who warned in his ‘Dialectic of Nature’ (published posthumously) that we should not flatter ourselves too much on account of our supposed ‘victories over nature’, because she would take revenge on us for each of these victories – all of them recognised that our lives and our survival (as individuals, as a community and as a society), our culture and our economy are based on nature and the cost-free services it provides us with: fertile soils, healthy food, clean water, a benign climate, pure air, biodiversity, pollination by insects, pharmaceutical resources, the necessary space for exploration, regeneration, reflection and inspiration, and much more.
A forest, for example, is more than just wood for people to use, it is also a carbon sink, a water reservoir, a source of oxygen, an air filter, a habitat for animals, plants, fungi and other creatures, and a site of productive activity, of culture, reflection and inspiration for many people. The Saxon forester and mining administrator Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645-1714), who was the first to outline the modern concept of sustainability in his famous book ‘Sylvicultura oeconomica’ in 1713, understood this, just as did Caspar David Friedrich (1774-1840), who in his magnificent paintings was able to capture light, atmosphere and even silence better than anyone, as the most important painter of the Romantic period and at the same time a pioneer of modernism.
This had little or nothing to do with overblown sentimentality, but much to do with powers of observation, an understanding of how things are interconnected and an awareness that our existence is embedded in nature, that human and planetary health are thus closely interwoven, and that we should not stray too far in our alienation from nature.
Scientific evidence
The fact that the destruction of the natural foundations of life, the erosion of their capacity for regeneration and the weakening of their resilience pose an existential threat to us human beings as well, especially the vulnerable, weak and defenceless, is therefore by no means a new discovery. Though today, of course, thanks to the rapid progress of modern science, especially research into the environment, oceans, resources, climate and biodiversity, we can better describe and understand our ecological plight and predict and anticipate its consequences, even if there are still gaps in our knowledge.
Thus, thanks to the work of the World Biodiversity Council (IPBES),[1] founded in 2012, we know how much benefit human societies derive from ecosystem services while at the same time they overexploit, degrade and destroy large swathes of nature – 75 per cent of the land surface and 66 per cent of the oceans have been severely impacted. Over 85 per cent of wetlands, together with their extremely diverse flora and fauna, have been destroyed. The rate of species extinction today is hundreds of times higher than the average over the last 10 million years. The IPBES estimates that around one million species of animals, higher plants, mosses, lichens, fungi and microorganisms could become extinct in the next few decades – possibly even considerably more, because we do not yet know the exact number of extant species (‘hidden biodiversity’). So the web of life is threatening to come apart, or has already torn in many places, with unforeseeable consequences for human economic activity.[2]
Natural capital as a third form of capital?
The answer given by conventional environmental economics to this fundamental crisis – for example, in the study ‘The Economics of Biodiversity’ by Partha Dasgupta (2021)[3] – runs essentially as follows. After World War II, it was not surprising that the initial focus in the economies of the industrialised world was on manufactured capital (houses, factories, infrastructure, machinery, vehicles). With increasing development, the importance of ‘human capital’ has also increased, i.e. the role of education, training, research and knowledge-intensive services. This process is now being repeated in a similar way in the countries of the southern hemisphere, where (not least as a result of colonialism) there is often still a lack of the most basic necessities of life. According to Dasgupta, this intense focus on manufactured and human capital has led to nature – the very foundation for human existence – being increasingly overlooked. Nature must therefore now be recognised as ‘natural capital’ – monetised and accounted for and thus integrated into the decision-making processes of governments, companies, financial institutions and civil society. In short, the portfolios of decision-makers must in future include three forms of capital: manufactured capital, human capital and (ever scarcer) natural capital, so that different weighting and trade-off processes take place and the obliviousness of mainstream economics to nature comes to an end.
The World Biodiversity Council has long held a similar view, which was strongly influenced by the highly influential 2012 study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB).[4] In 2016 already, the IPBES estimated the value of insect pollination services for global food production at ‘up to 577 billion US dollars per year’, thus effectively putting down a marker for the monetary value of natural services.[5]
Criticism of the economisation of nature conservation
However, the quantification and economisation approach has drawn considerable criticism because of its disregard for social and cultural considerations and for questions of power. Critics question whether it is realistic to believe that we can find a way out using the same means that have led us so deeply into the crisis of nature, namely the economisation of ever more areas of our lives and of the entire natural world. Doesn’t the answer lie rather in a cultural and political change based on knowledge and values and in the suppression of commercially-driven exploitation interests rather than in allowing market prices to show us the value of nature?
In 2022, the IPBES presented an expanded and differentiated strategy for monetisation, one that is not just about putting price tags on direct ecosystem services, such as the carbon-storing capacity of forests and peatlands, but also about ‘pricing in’ nature’s contributions to overall climate regulation, to human well-being, to cultural and spiritual identities and to safeguarding the interests of local and indigenous communities. Nature’s own rights are to some extent also taken into account here.[6]
There is now talk in many places of ‘nature for nature’,[7] ‘nature for society’,[8] and ‘nature as culture’.[9] The next few years will show to what extent this new framing of the arguments bears fruit.
There is no call here to celebrate as a paradigm shift the attempted analytical transition from a more instrumentally conceived ‘economics of biodiversity’ to a more integral ‘socioeconomics of biodiversity’; after all, at its core, it is still money on which everything depends, and towards which everything drives. But from a pragmatic, realpolitik perspective, we can certainly speak of a step change in perception. The decisive factor, though, will be whether and to what extent the expanded and differentiated valuation approach for ecosystem services finds its way into the political and economic practice of governments.
Phasing out nature-destroying subsidies and investing in nature
This applies also, and in particular, to the reduction of ecologically harmful subsidies and to increased investment in the conservation and regeneration of nature. Subsidies create powerful perverse incentives in areas such as agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining, but also in the transport, energy and industrial sectors, subsidies which lead to environmental destruction, market distortion and the concentration and consolidation of power. Unfortunately, as Partha Dasgupta says, ‘we are still paying ourselves for consuming nature’. We are on a course which is not just wrong but fatal, and this must be corrected, even if it entails political conflicts, because many people perceive the reduction of existing subsidies as a tax increase or as the withdrawal of supposed entitlements.[10]
The huge damage caused to the natural environment by subsidies is currently offset by far too little investment in the conservation and further development of nature reserves or the restoration and rehabilitation of eroded natural areas. This amounts to just 0.1 per cent of global GDP and needs to be greatly increased.
The combination of realistic nature-inclusive accounting and correspondingly amended wealth indicators, ecologically ‘true’ prices, the phasing out of subsidies for the destruction of nature and preventative investment in nature conservation and development now represents a significant opportunity for sustainable development. In any event, it is clear that the protection of biodiversity is not a soft luxury option that can be afforded when the economy is booming, but a sine qua non of human economic activity.
Protected areas
Of course, such essentially economic approaches are not in themselves enough. Equally important for biodiversity are sufficiently large and interconnected protected areas, as envisaged (the protection of 30% of land and sea areas by 2030) in the international nature conservation agreement signed in Montreal in December 2022.[11] This addresses both largely untouched wildernesses in which natural development processes can unfold with little or no human influence (‘process conservation’ or ‘rewilding’)[12] and in addition ‘convivial nature conservation strategies’ in which local and indigenous populations and their traditional knowledge bases are to be systematically involved – thus enabling them to become guardians of biodiversity.[13]
What is crucial is that the protected areas do not just exist on paper (‘paper parks’) and that the revenues from the conservation and utilisation of biodiversity are shared fairly among all stakeholders (‘equitable sharing’, as stipulated already in the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity). As a general principle, the chances of success are greatly enhanced by close links between such protected areas and local value creation strategies, by the development of sustainable tourism concepts, environmental education and nature education, by co-operation between government agencies and civil society actors, and by widespread political participation.
If such an integrated approach to protected areas and rewilding projects is not taken, fierce conflicts with stakeholders with an interest in the utilisation of the land are almost inevitable. However, it is also true that the agricultural and forestry lobby often opposes such projects even if they are based on cooperation and public participation from the outset. The basic refrain of nature conservation opponents often sounds the same and goes something like this: ‘Those high and mighty city types, the nature conservation bureaucrats and the elites whose knowledge of nature only comes from books, they want to dictate to us – we who live in, with and from nature – what we have to do. We’re not going to accept that.” Right-wing populists in particular fuel and cultivate such sentiments and use them to stir up political trouble.
Reintroduction programmes for large herbivorous mammals, such as back-bred ‘aurochs’ (so-called Taurus cattle), Przewalski’s horse or bison, seem to have a certain appeal for large sections of the public, even if such projects regularly lead to conflicts with organised agriculture and forestry as well as with hunting groups.
This capacity for conflict applies in particular to the return of species such as wolves, lynx, beavers and, as is now in prospect, brown bears. Effective cooperation, moderation and education strategies as well as sound political decisions and legal frameworks are required here to enable humans and wild animals to live together even in settled areas. However, it seems unlikely that this can take place entirely without conflict.
In order for such projects to be accepted by the local community, it is important to be able to point to successful models elsewhere, such as, in Germany, the Eifel National Park, or the transformation of the former Döberitzer Heide military training area near Berlin into a large wilderness area. Successful nature conservation projects enjoying broad support can make an important contribution to overcoming the urban-rural divide that currently threatens to undermine our democracy in many places.
Integrating biodiversity protection across all policy sectors
Above all, however, quantitative and qualitative biodiversity targets must be systematically integrated into the sectoral policies of governments, from agricultural, forestry and fisheries policy to energy and climate policy, from fiscal policy to foreign trade, from transport to development, from spatial planning to the circular economy. Modern biodiversity protection is above all a cross-cutting issue and is ultimately aimed at the whole (‘Whole World’), not ‘only’ at 30 per cent or even half of the total area (‘Nature needs half’).[14]
In order for this to be accomplished, the protection of biodiversity must be considered as an integral part of the planning and implementation of all sectoral policy from the outset. Take the example of supply chains: in the global acquisition of biotic and abiotic raw materials by the manufacturing and processing industries, it must be ensured that there is no damage to biodiversity and no externalisation of other environmental damage. Or the energy transition: even as the use of renewable energy is being expanded, nature conservation goals must not simply take a back seat. Often, if not always, both objectives can be achieved together, for example in the case of agrophotovoltaics. Or agricultural subsidies: simply cultivating the land according to quantitative criteria should no longer be subsidised. Instead, in addition to the promotion of healthy food production, the provision of services for the common good must also be rewarded, including the protection of biodiversity. This and much more should be designed in such a way that it does not lead to a further build-up of administrative and supervisory bureaucracies, but rather to a reduction in these and a strengthening of producer responsibility.[15]
It is also crucial that national and international competition policies are organised in such a way that they promote diversity and do not destroy it, so that monopolies and oligopolies do not form and existing ones are broken up, especially in the areas of seeds, land use, food and energy. As long as this is not done in the manner and degree required, biodiversity policy will have a very difficult time in the face of vested interests, institutional inertia and bad habits.
The particular responsibility borne by local authorities
Local authorities in general, and in particular the environment, building and transport departments of city, district and borough councils, represent another important factor in the promotion of biodiversity. They have a central role to play, because they maintain parks, paths and roadsides and design our public spaces. In many places, the maintenance of what is known as ‘green infrastructure’ as it is practised today, mostly with the help of machines, is unfortunately a biodiversity destroyer of the first order. Is it really necessary for roadside verges and ‘green spaces’ to be systematically robbed during the flowering months of their splendour of daisies, mullein, viper’s bugloss and carnations, or even of nettles and thistles, which is so vitally important for insects, just so that what some consider ‘order’ and ‘safety’ can be maintained? Is it not rather our ideas about order and (traffic) safety that need to be updated? The answer can only be a resounding ‚Yes!‘.
But individuals, companies, educational institutions and civil society as a whole also have an important role to play in the biodiversity transition.
What we can all do
Individuals can make their immediate environment nature-friendly, for example by cultivating their gardens in a biodiversity-friendly way instead of creating sterile lawns and keeping them permanently clipped and pristine with noisy lawnmowers and artificial fertilisers and pesticides; they can contribute to humus formation and soil health by composting and using natural fertilisers, reverse unnecessary land sealing, participate in regional producer/consumer cooperatives or sharing clubs and thus become ‘prosumers’; they can shop sustainably and seasonally, lead less consumption- and resource-intensive lifestyles and get involved in nature conservation organisations and initiatives. ‘Rewilding’ can happen not just in large conservation areas, but also on a smaller scale, in our everyday lives, in our thoughts and actions, even on our balconies.
Companies both large and small, manufacturing and trade, production and service companies can all do a great deal for biodiversity, from the design of company premises to direct investments in nature conservation, from the ‘nature-positive transition’ to the ‘greening’ of their supply chains, from ‘learning from nature’ in product design and production processes (biomimesis, bionics, biological cycles) to training their own employees in a better understanding of nature.
Education for biodiversity: the value of knowledge
Of course, knowledge and education are not everything. But a thorough knowledge of the necessary conditions for biodiversity, nature conservation and climate stability, as well as of the metabolic processes between society and nature, should be part of the basic curriculum in kindergartens, schools and universities, and embedded in the corporate knowledge of companies and trade unions, civic associations and churches, parliaments and governments. This is how appreciation of nature can develop – and perhaps also a fascination with and love for it.
Making fun of the pug bat or the harbour porpoise and belittling them as irrelevant would then perhaps only come across as embarrassing and ignorant.
Reinhard Loske is a Professor at the University of Witten/Herdecke and a member of the board at the Institute for Ecological Economy Research in Berlin and at the Stockholm Right Livelihood Foundation. His previous roles include President of the Cusanus University in Koblenz (until 2021), Senator for the Environment, Construction, Transport and Europe for the German city state of Bremen (2007-2011), Member of the German Bundestag (1998-2007), and head of the ‘Sustainable Germany’ research group at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (1992-1998).
The German version of this article was published under the title Biologische Vielfalt als Menschheitsfrage in issue 11/2024 of Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik.
[1] https://www.ipbes.net/
[2] Leibniz Forschungsnetzwerk Biodiversität (2024): 10 Must-Knows aus der Biodiversitätsforschung: https://www.leibniz-biodiversitaet.de/mainnavigation/aktuelles/10-must-knows-aus-der-biodiversitaetsforschung-3
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review
[4] https://teebweb.org/
[5] IPBES (2016): Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/pollinators
[6] https://www.ipbes.net/the-values-assessment
[7] Nature4Nature (2024): https://www.nature4nature.net/
[8] UN Environment Programme (2022): Nature for Society: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/nature-society
[9] UN University (2023): Nature as Culture: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/nature-society
[10] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/economy-and-finance/phasing-out-environmentally-harmful-subsidies_en
[11] https://www.cbd.int/gbf
[12] For Europe see: Rewilding Europe (2024): Making Europe A Wilder Place: https://rewildingeurope.com/
[13] https://www.convivialconservation.com/
[14] https://natureneedshalf.org/
[15] Loske, Reinhard (2023): Ökonomie(n) mit Zukunft. Jenseits der Wachstumsillusion, Natur und Text, Rangsdorf b. Berlin