The case for preserving and enhancing nature’s biodiversity can be made along three dimensions. First the moral obligation, that we should protect nature for its own sake. Why do we have the right to destroy it? Second, the social benefits to health and wellbeing that nature provides. Numerous studies have evidenced the benefits of nature to our psychological, physiological and cognitive, social, aesthetic and spiritual wellbeing. Third, and seemingly increasing in importance in our capitalist world, the economic benefits – the so called “eco-system services” provided by nature. These ecosystem services are typically grouped into four broad categories: provisioning, such as the production of food and water; regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits.

Many ecosystem services are now being assigned economic values. As UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon puts it: “It is time to recognize that human capital and natural capital are every bit as important as financial capital.” The global initiatives TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), led by Pavan Sukhdev, seeks to “make nature’s values visible” through mainstreaming the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making at all levels. Its approach to valuation helps decision-makers recognize the wide range of benefits provided by ecosystems and biodiversity, demonstrate their values in economic terms and, where appropriate, suggest how to capture those values in decision-making. More broadly, as our understanding of the social and economic value of nature evolves, new means of measuring the cost and benefit of nature are being developed, for example through natural capital accounting. According to some estimates, the total annual global value of ecosystem services is in excess of $125 trillion, more than total global GDP itself. Importantly however “the valuation of ecoservices (in whatever units) is not the same as commodification or privatization. Many eco-services are best considered public goods or common pool resources, so conventional markets are often not the best institutional frameworks to manage them. However, these services must be (and are being) valued, and we need new, common asset institutions to better take these values into account.”

Looking forward, as these values – and this value – becomes better understood, both governments and corporations will seek to enhance nature’s capital or reduce their impact on it. A number of governments are developing long term plans for enhancing long-term natural capital, for example in the UK taking forward the recommendations of the Natural Capital Committee. Similarly growing recognition of the economic value of ecosystem services will lead to core business considerations that recognise their explicit value. Natural capital will therefore become more commonplace in accounting systems, and will impact the way that leading organisations choose to operate and report (e.g. Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan; Puma’s ground breaking environmental P&L. Indeed a number of workshop attendees spoke of increasingly becoming conscious stewards. As one put it: “As we become more aware of the consequences of our actions, there is a sense of stewardship of the world – not only in how we manage our home, but also in how we live in our ecosystem. We start to behave as conscious stewards.” Let’s hope so.