While biodiversity is at the core of nature, should it be the primary nature unit that we focus on to channel finance to nature today? And how might this change over time?
Unfortunately incrementalism is a trap and the truth is, to use your example, Coke's soda business and value chain is incompatible with planetary boundaries, for which no nature tech or regen. ag. fix currently exists. Nearly twenty years ago Doug Isdell Coke's then CEO committed to becoming 'water neutral', in 2015 they announced they 'gave back to nature 115% of water used' which was sales volume but not account for the volume of water used in production, in particular irrigation for sugar, the numbers vary from just under 100 to several 100 litres of water per litre bottle of Coke on shelf.
Starting with dependencies has been done and it failed, unless you are Doug Isdell, who was rewarded with the top job at WWF. That speaks volumes.
For a more radical approach recommend reading a paper "Constructing Sustainable Consumption: From Ethical Values to the Cultural Transformation of Unsustainable Markets" by Doug Holt. It's maybe a decade old, but that's where we are; the only circular economy working is recycling research.
That said it's 100% and well past the time to pursue biodiversity, pay for ecosystems services and restore natural capital, if we must use those market terms, but to be frank, meeting corporates where they are rather than nature where it is, will not cut the mustard. From my survey of the emerging biodiversity market, the frenzied drive towards parcelling biodiversity into a standard unit & tradable financial derivative is a category mistake & it is the lack of transparency around financial flows that is holding the market back. The depressing part in all of this as someone who is now long in the tooth is watching the 30 something professional technocracy create a massive self serving bureaucracy for sustainability-as-usual. Sorry, but its the truth.
Thanks Eric. I need to spend some more time to digest this, but I think that one way to persuade corporates to invest in ecosystem services that really deliver for nature too is to convince them that solutions founded in high integrity ecosystems will be more resilient. Have you seen the work of CreditNature? They are trying to link their Nature Investment Certificates and Credits to ecosystem services
I really like this conversation, Will. I was asked something similar recently and I think it's an important conversation to have because the business-biodiversity-[?business impact?] connection will be more complex than the business-GHG-climate change link. And understanding this link will be important for designing an effective tool here. So, thank you for helping me think more about this.
Unfortunately incrementalism is a trap and the truth is, to use your example, Coke's soda business and value chain is incompatible with planetary boundaries, for which no nature tech or regen. ag. fix currently exists. Nearly twenty years ago Doug Isdell Coke's then CEO committed to becoming 'water neutral', in 2015 they announced they 'gave back to nature 115% of water used' which was sales volume but not account for the volume of water used in production, in particular irrigation for sugar, the numbers vary from just under 100 to several 100 litres of water per litre bottle of Coke on shelf.
Starting with dependencies has been done and it failed, unless you are Doug Isdell, who was rewarded with the top job at WWF. That speaks volumes.
For a more radical approach recommend reading a paper "Constructing Sustainable Consumption: From Ethical Values to the Cultural Transformation of Unsustainable Markets" by Doug Holt. It's maybe a decade old, but that's where we are; the only circular economy working is recycling research.
That said it's 100% and well past the time to pursue biodiversity, pay for ecosystems services and restore natural capital, if we must use those market terms, but to be frank, meeting corporates where they are rather than nature where it is, will not cut the mustard. From my survey of the emerging biodiversity market, the frenzied drive towards parcelling biodiversity into a standard unit & tradable financial derivative is a category mistake & it is the lack of transparency around financial flows that is holding the market back. The depressing part in all of this as someone who is now long in the tooth is watching the 30 something professional technocracy create a massive self serving bureaucracy for sustainability-as-usual. Sorry, but its the truth.
Thanks Eric. I need to spend some more time to digest this, but I think that one way to persuade corporates to invest in ecosystem services that really deliver for nature too is to convince them that solutions founded in high integrity ecosystems will be more resilient. Have you seen the work of CreditNature? They are trying to link their Nature Investment Certificates and Credits to ecosystem services
I really like this conversation, Will. I was asked something similar recently and I think it's an important conversation to have because the business-biodiversity-[?business impact?] connection will be more complex than the business-GHG-climate change link. And understanding this link will be important for designing an effective tool here. So, thank you for helping me think more about this.