Development vs Ideology?

Blog 6-Development vs Ideology?

Having stumbled across the above talk from George Monbiot on Ecosystem Services, his views raise a range of interesting insights into the concept of valuing nature, and its place within wider ideologies. Particularly he is critical of it as an aspect of neo-liberalism, and expresses disgust at how such a conception can be applied to protecting the environment. However, he highlights some useful aspects, which predominantly align with those utilised in regards to Water and Development in Africa, although his rejection of its underlying ideology raises questions over applications of ES.

First, he critiques the ‘gobbledygook’ of the ‘in-commensurable’ aspects of ecosystem valuation outlined in terms of social capital, solace values, and cultural and heritage impacts. He recognises the importance of such values, but sees the ‘fuzziness’ of the methods for their valuation as undermining the concept of ES making them difficult to value and compare. However, these criticisms are not necessarily relevant for water in terms of development, as although wetlands and rivers may hold cultural significance, they aren’t often discussed, with instead the focus of valuations being more upon resource outputs over their ‘aesthetics’ and cultural value. 

However, he then moves on to highlight that this is not an issue where aspects are able to be understandably and to some extent accurately valued, and so have ‘financial commensurability or financial measurement’. The examples he provides of measureable ES worth are wealth generated in an area from wildlife tourism, or particularly relevant in terms of Africa and Development, the valuation of watersheds. Although he uses the example of flooding in Gloucestershire being prevented through reforestation in the Cambrian mountains, it is evident that such thinking is relevant to Africa as well where commensurable values in ecosystem services being used to inform decisions. These are the aspects mostly used in ecosystem service valuations in the context of water and development in Africa, with protection of ecosystems and utilisation of resources focused on rather than the ‘softer aspects’ Monbiot, and others, widely criticise.

The aspects he focuses on next relate more closely to the ideological aspects of Ecosystem Services, that they are ‘pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive’. He criticises the idea expressed by Dieter Helm, the Chairman of the Natural Capital Committee that ‘the environment is part of the economy and needs to be properly integrated into it so that growth opportunities will not be missed.’, arguing that it illustrates the ‘government’s real agenda … not to protect the natural world from the depredations of the economy .. [but] harness the natural world to the economic growth that has been destroying it.’ This sets ups his stance of environmentalism as central to the fight against neo-liberalism, with ecosystem services part of attempts to protect the environment through appeasing capitalists, a stance supported by McCarthy and Prudham (2004) who argue ‘environmental concerns also represent the most powerful source of political opposition to neoliberalism’.

These issues lead Monbiot to the conclusion that in order to protect environments, we don’t need to appease political/environmental opponents, and in fact this leads to a slow and steady march away from environmental objectives. Instead he feels it best leave any attempts to appease and meet at a middle ground, and instead persuade those who can be entirely swayed to your views. As such he feels ES can be seen as attempt to appease capitalism and business aspects, and so Monbiot has an incredibly staunch view of ES as surrender, a shift towards the right wing, and see environmentalists as left wing protectors of environment.

This is something I disagree with, and see the stance of us vs them, and a clear cut right/left dichotomy simplistic and harmful. As I have previously discussed, and is illustrated in the work of Thomson and Barbieri, Ecosystem services can provide a helpful and useful tool in decision making. Although this can arguably be seen as a focus on economic growth, which can be seen as a harmful, neo-liberal desire, this isn’t necessarily the case in Africa. In fact, it highlights a difference between Africa and UK, perhaps much of developed world, as development in Africa is undeniably an important goal. It is vital for improving standard of living for large swathes of the population, and ES can be used as a tool to achieve this whilst working to safeguard areas for conservation.

Furthermore, where water is scarce, either spatially or temporally, to the extent that it is limiting quality of life it can be utilised to find the best ways us limited supplies. This is a very different usage to that of ES in the UK, and perhaps in this context is more useful and palatable, and even necessary and important for economic growth? Although this frames the issue incredibly simplistic and sensationally, surely not even the most ardent of environmentalists, would let the ideological roots of a policy tool prevent its use to answers questions that could help aid development, and alleviate poverty whilst also aiding conservation? Of course ES has it's flaws, isn't right for certain situations and won't always be successful in guaranteeing protection of environments, but to discount it entirely based on ideology seems somewhat short-sighted.