Response to George Monbiot : Put a price on nature? We must stop this neoliberal road to ruin

I enjoyed reading this post as it makes a powerful attack on ecosystem services and natural capital and challenges my core research agenda positioned at the interface of the built and natural environment; where ecosystem services meets spatial planning. I am an academic and a planner who champions the use of ecosystem science. This is important as George Monbiot in his polemic is in danger of throwing out the ecosystem service baby with the dirty bathwater.

I too have serious misgivings with the way that ecosystem services are used in isolation and selectively cherry picked to favour a particular land use decision or inappropriate compensation through biodiversity offsetting. Monbiot is also guilty of his own cherry picking by reducing the huge work in the NEA to simply £s for different habitats such as living close to green spaces. It was far more than that and tried to signal what was happening to our natural environment across key habitats through different scenarios, using an ecosystem services framework as a lens to help view this. Its chief problem was that it was measured by its weight in kg than in its comprehensive findings which echo many of Monbiot’s concerns.

The problem with the NEA and the ever increasing number of ecosystem service messiahs is that ecosystem services form just one (principle 5) of the 12 principles of the ecosystem approach. These are termed the Malawi principles and collectively represent a powerful and sensible umbrella for policy and decision making http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml. Its just that most people forget this unifying framework including George. Its value lies in its collective use. No pick and mix or cherry-picking allowed. Decisions are made through choice which is inclusive, transparent and where trade offs are made clear.

Now I was a Principal Investigator for the National Ecosystem Assessment follow on project 2012-2014 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx which sought to progress the NEA translating the science into practical tools that can be used for better policy and decision making. As part of that work I fought very hard with my colleagues to get the full recognition of all 12 principles of the ecosystem approach embedded into the conceptual framework. Our own work package on tools for policy and decision making championed this and developed a resource for people to use drawing on a logical decision cycle http://neat.ecosystemsknowledge.net/

Thus the lesson is that if we view ecosystem services within the umbrella of these principles we avoid the very mistakes that Monbiot speaks about. But equally we are able to use the intelligence collectively to help put the environment back on the agenda and move it away from its traditional perception as an enemy of enterprise and as a constraint to development. Thus we get the language of multiple benefits which engages decision makers. That’s good and if we can use nature without abusing it then so be it.

Now I am a planner and I am acutely aware that the level of environmental knowledge amongst the planning profession is inadequate. Equally most ecologists knowledge of the planning system is inadequate. We need common ground and language to help people understand the multiple benefits we can get from nature otherwise it will remain overlooked in policy and decisions or poorly accounted for as in the Treasury Green book for example. The term ecosystem services is unhelpful jargon to be sure in addressing this challenge. It implies environmental exclusivity and there is a need to try and use a language that is rooted in the current hooks that the industry or profession use in their daily work or have to through statutory obligations. That is why NPPF paragraph 109 and the Duty to Cooperate are key planning terms that offer a way in to get built environment professionals thinking about nature’s value. So rather than waste time on debunking

lenses lets develop glasses that enable all professionals to incorporate the value of nature into their decisions.