Andra Horcea-Milcu
The Dasgupta review published on the 2nd of February 2021 adds to similar efforts of the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB, 2010) or the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) to understand and make visible the value of nature using an economic rationale. The full review (ca. 600 pages) and its abridged version (ca. 100 pages) can be accessed here. Interestingly, it is followed on the 12th of July by the first draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, which outlines targets for action from now to 2030.
The Dasgupta review recognizes the current biodiversity crisis emphasizing that the achievement of prosperity comes at the expense of nature. Being akin to the Nicholas Stern review on the economics of climate change (2006), the review is aligning the urgency of halting the biodiversity crisis to that of limiting global warming. It draws clear links between the economy and biodiversity, showing the need to shift from business as usual to reverse ecosystem degradation. Consequently, the review urges to rethink the role of nature in the economic system and proposes three ways forward to an arguably wellbeing economy: 1) to ensure humanity’s demands on nature do not exceed supply; 2) to change how economic success is measured (going beyond GDP); and 3) to transform institutions in the financial and educational field.
The core message of the Dasgupta review seems to be that the current economic models, driven by the pursuit of growth by any means necessary, are failing and are thus in urgent need of transformative change. The landmark review calls to redesign economic models to (inherently) value nature and makes first steps towards contesting the paradigm and intent of the status quo in the economic system, that of continuous growth.
Although the intrinsic value of nature is acknowledged, relational values are conspicuously missing from the Dasgupta review. By narrowly considering nature mostly as an asset that humans are collectively failing to sustainably manage for their own interest, the review does not challenge the supremacy of the “economic” over the “social” and over “nature”. Likewise, the review is exclusively employing the language of economics with terms such as “externality”, “pricing”, “natural capital” prevailing. Profiling economics as the only solution to the environmental degradation may misleadingly spur reactions in the range of immediate investments in biodiversity conservation, measures erroneously deemed to be sufficient.
“If restoration of a wetland is investment, then so is conservation: Investment can mean simply waiting.”
By providing solely an economic rationale for conserving biodiversity, the review is omitting the myriad other ways is which nature is valuable for people. Consequently, the process of valuation that informs, as well as the power relations that influence decision-making remain outside the scope of the analysis. However, increasing evidence (e.g. here or here) points towards the transformative potential of valuation beyond a technical endeavor, indicating that plural valuation methods and processes, while acknowledging their challenges, can be part of an intervention toolbox of government agencies.
The collection of perspectives on this review is extensive, with numerous social media responses, going beyond what could be summarized within the limits of a blog entry. In academia, primarily depending on scholars’ research background (but not limited to this), perspectives tend to span extreme viewpoints; from seeing the review as an endeavor to not engage with in order to not reinforce the same imbalances that caused nature’s crisis in the first place, toward seeing it as a missed opportunity, and finally toward seeing it as an ‘ally’ in making the case for biodiversity. More resources, such as a review of the review, other reflections in academic journals, or a video where Partha Dasgupta introduces the review, are available.
References
Martín-López, B. Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice (2020). Plural valuation of nature matters for environmental sustainability and justice | Royal Society
Pascual, U., Adams, W.M., Díaz, S. et al. Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. Nat Sustain (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7
Nature 573, 463-464 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02882-0
About the author
Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the Helsinki Institute for Sustainability Science (HELSUS) and within the human-nature transformations group from February 2019 to August 2020. During this time, she focused on the relationship between values and knowledge in landscape management and its implications for managing plurality in collaborative settings. Now she inquiries about the potential role of values as leverage points for sustainability transformation at the Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Andra is a lead author of the IPBES Values assessment. You can follow Andra on ResearchGate, Twitter