Valuing nature

近年来，越来越多的政府和企业主张，我们应该把自然世界概念化为“自然资本”：我们应该把自然看作一种“资本”，就像机器或货币被归类为“资本”一样。我们生活在资本主义社会：但如果我们不把自然也算作资本，那么(人们是这么说的)我们就有可能不能充分地‘计算’自然。我们的想法是，如果我们真的以这种方式构思自然，就有可能获得一种将自然的价值置于决策核心的、基于市场的严格方法，无论是在政府、私营企业还是个人层面。我们在这个研究网络中的目的是思考将自然描述为一种资本形式背后的假设。特别是，我们建议解决一个似乎支撑自然资本概念的问题：我们如何概念化自然的价值。我们将探讨对自然价值的货币分析在多大程度上能够适应：(A)特定地方和生境的特殊性；(B)这些地方、生境和生态系统之间的复杂相互依存关系，这些地方、生境和生态系统被视为一个正常运作的整体的必要部分，一个需要保持弹性的整体(最终是我们的星球家园)，其明显的重点是自然‘碎片’可替代其他此类‘碎片’(例如所谓的‘生物多样性抵消’)。换句话说，经济分析能在多大程度上捕捉到生态系统的实际动态？对自然价值的量化分析是否会疏远以非量化方式与自然相关并与之互动的关键利益相关者？认为森林本质上是等待收获的金钱，还是认为它是一个特殊的甚至神圣的地方，这有意义吗？哲学传统提供了哪些资源来帮助我们以更全面的方式将自然概念化？自然提供如今日益被称为“文化生态系统服务”的概念--例如非物质、精神满足的形式--在多大程度上缓解了人们对自然资本方法中功利主义或简约化倾向的担忧？我们究竟应该如何理解我们对自然的审美、宗教和休闲体验，这些经验对于人类的健康和福祉是有价值的；自然究竟如何滋养我们？例如，我对风景之美的体验是我幸福的原因，还是它不可减少的组成部分？“文化生态系统服务”的概念是否与自然具有“内在价值”的概念相冲突？“自然资源”或“生态系统服务”的讨论强调自然为我们做了什么，却没有直接鼓励我们问一问我们应该为自然提供什么服务，我们是否应该感到不安？我们将来自不同领域的感兴趣的各方--包括政界人士、艺术家和感兴趣的公众--聚集在一起，这将有助于澄清当我们解决这些紧迫的问题和问题时，利害关系是什么。因此，我们的目标是影响政府和官僚计算和决定如何计算自然的这些问题的方式。我们打算通过研究自然资本概念在一个特定地点--东盎格利亚沼泽--的价值和应用问题，将剑桥郡的视角引入该项目。我们相信，这将集中人们的注意力；并使那些看似抽象的问题能够在具体的现实中被看到。芬兰德(S)的价值是什么？研究网络将从聚集感兴趣的各方(主要来自英格兰东部地区)开始，我们打算以提出如何思考自然价值的新政策建议作为结束。该网络的成果将在展览会、小组讨论和公开会议上直接向公众公布，并在网上--以及在地方、区域和国家媒体上公布。

In recent years, it has been argued-increasingly-by government and business that we ought to conceptualise the natural world as 'natural capital': that we ought to think of nature as a kind of 'capital', just like machinery or money are classed as 'capital'. We live in a capitalist society: but then (so it is said) we risk not 'counting' nature adequately if we don't count _it_ as capital, too. The idea is that if we do conceive of nature in this way, it is possible to secure a 'rigorous', market-based method of putting the value of nature at the heart of decision-making, whether at the level of government, private enterprise or the individual. Our aim in this research network is to think through the assumptions behind the characterisation of nature as a form of capital. In particular, we propose to address an issue that appears to underpin the concept of natural capital: how we conceptualise the _value_ of nature. We will explore the extent to which the monetary analysis of nature's value, with its apparent emphasis on the substitutability of 'pieces' of nature for other such 'pieces' (so called 'biodiversity-offsetting', for example), can accommodate: (A) the specificity of particular places and habitats; and (B) the complex interdependence of these places, habitats and ecosystems, considered as necessary parts of a functioning whole, a whole (ultimately, our planetary home) that needs to be kept resilient. To what extent, in other words, can _economic_ analysis capture the actual dynamics of ecological systems? Do quantitative analyses of natural value alienate key stakeholders, who relate to and interact with nature in non-quantitative ways? Does it make sense to think of a forest as essentially money waiting to be harvested; or as a special or even sacred place? What resources does the philosophical tradition offer that should help us conceptualise nature in a more holistic way? To what extent does the idea of nature providing what are increasingly now called "cultural ecosystem services"-such as forms of non-material, spiritual fulfilment-mitigate worries about utilitarian or reductive tendencies in the natural capital approach? How exactly ought we to understand our aesthetic and religious and leisure-ly experiences of nature as valuable in relation to human health and well-being; just how exactly can nature nourish us? For example, is my experience of the beauty of a landscape a _cause_ of my well-being or an irreducible _component_ of it? Is the idea of "cultural ecosystem services" in conflict with the notion of nature having "intrinsic value"? Should we be troubled that talk of 'natural resources' or 'ecosystem services' stresses what nature has done for us, but doesn't encourage us directly to ask what service we should be providing to nature?Our bringing together interested parties from across the spectrum -- including politicians, artists, and interested members of the public -- will help clarify what is at stake when we address these urgent issues and questions. We aim for what we come up with therefore to impact the way that governments and bureaucrats compute and decide these questions of how to 'count' nature. We intend to introduce a Cambridgeshire-focused perspective into the project by examining the question of the value and application of the concept of natural capital in relation to one particular site: the East Anglian Fens. This will, we believe, concentrate minds; and enable what can seem abstract questions to be seen in their concrete reality. What is/are the value(s) of Fen-lands?The research-network will begin by bringing together interested parties (mostly from the east-of-England region), and we intend for it to end by producing new policy-proposals for how to think the value of nature. The results of the network will be made directly available to the public at an Exhibition, in a panel-discussion and an open conference, and online - as well as in the local, regional and national media.