33 to 1

I was reminded of this staggering ratio last week at the Grantham Institute – hosted “Nature-Positive Futures” conference at Imperial College London.

33/1 is the ratio of nature-negative to nature-positive subsidies (source: UNEP) and a stark reminder that although we must do everything we can to increase the inflows of capital to restore and protect nature, we have to pay attention to reducing negative flows (“the numerator”) as well.

In my remarks in the panel discussion, I highlighted three ways businesses can act now to embed nature in their business models: Can nature be harnessed to increase revenues (think improving wildlife populations to increase ecotourism)? Or to lower costs (can mangroves be used to protect a power plant from storm surges at a lower cost than a concrete-based seawall)? Or to reduce risks by making food supply chains more resilient to pests and other costly interruptions?

All three are measures which integrate nature into existing business models and don’t depend on policy signals or the development of “nature markets”. Instead, nature is bundled with the production of commercial goods. My point here is not to discredit innovative mechanisms but to point to additional ways of “mainstreaming” nature into the current operating system of the economy. I recently published a paper with Sugandha Srivastav on the topic: Inflated expectations? Assessing the case for private investments in nature - full access here.

More generally, my thoughts keep circling back to the food system and the impact of agriculture on nature. Together with forestry, it is the biggest driver of global biodiversity loss. Transforming what and how we eat will be crucial, and publications I keep coming back to lately are:

The UK Government’s Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security – published earlier this year and summarising the threat of biodiversity loss through a national security lens. Food and agriculture stand out as key sectors to transform.
This foundational article in Nature from 2020: Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy, which again underlines the criticality of transforming the food system. It is honest about trade-offs but cautiously optimistic (although it might negatively downgrade that assessment given the 6 years that have lapsed since its publication).

The Benefits of Bundling