On ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ in the proposed Nature and Well-being Act (The Wildlife Trusts and RSPB)January 11, 2015
This post responds to an invitation to add my views to a comments thread regarding the recently published ‘Green Paper’ for A Nature and Well-being Act (hereafter ‘Green
Paper’), by the The Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. The comments thread makes reference to work of mine by the anonymous ‘todaysmysteryguest’, writing on Jan 8th (for which many thanks!). The comments respond to a letter by the The Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, which in turn responds to a blog post critiquing the uses of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ language and thinking in the Green Paper, as well as a 38 Degrees petition started by the author of this post, Ginny Battson, requesting that such language be removed.
I am broadly in support of the Wildlife Trusts’ (WTs) and RSPB’s Green Paper. In particular, I agree that it is immensely important to celebrate the systemic connections between ecological and human well-being – a context affirmed in various UK government documents including the Lawton report (2010), the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment, and DEFRA’s White Paper on the Environment (2011). It also seems appropriate that an advisory non-departmental public body – perhaps an ‘Office for Environmental Responsibility’, as proposed in the Green Paper – be established to take forward the monitoring and integration challenges and commitments identified in the above government interventions.
My comments here relate to the use of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ language in the ‘Green Paper’ for describing and defining aspects of ‘nature’. I understand the desire and even imperative to be pragmatic, and thus to use language and categories considered to have political and economic traction. Given a market- and growth-oriented political economy in which the flows of money, the models of economics, and the balance-sheets of accountants hold sway, the choice to use economic and monetary designators of value is part of this pragmatism. As the RSPB and WTs say in their response to Ginny Battson’s post:
we believe that one of the most profound reasons for nature’s decline is the inadequate consideration for nature within decision-making processes at all levels of government and in many parts of business. At the moment nature is almost always ‘trumped’ by the language of ‘profit’, ‘growth’ and ‘jobs’ – often overlooking the many ways that it supports us all, including, ultimately, our jobs and economy.
Meanwhile, their Green Paper asserts that ‘many natural services are undervalued, or not valued at all, because they are not directly traded in markets‘ (p.21, emphasis added), and that this:
has led to the unsustainable over-exploitation of the unvalued and undervalued elements of the environment for short-term gain and has resulted in their accelerating degradation over time, reducing their ability to produce future human wellbeing (p. 21).
There are different ways of thinking about this, however. First of all, are we being asked to vest all power for valuation to the allegedly self-regulating capacity of markets, such that it is only when some aspect of nature is visible to and even traded in markets that it is valued? Doesn’t the established propensity for market-driven behaviour to under- or de-value ‘nature’s values’ imply caution in asserting exchangeable values for the natural environment as a means of addressing the failure of markets to be kind to ‘nature’? Isn’t there a stronger role for government here? – to act so as to protect natures and peoples from such ‘market failures’ through regulation and taxation that reduce problematic consolidations of growth and profit; perhaps exactly through providing stronger ecological and human well-being reasons for preventing destructive developments associated with such growth.
Instead, what we are seeing is an immense amount of work by both private and public sectors to make nature, or at least numbers considered to represent particular measures of nature, more and more visible in economic models and accounts. But this in itself will not prevent the liquidation of thus-calculated ‘nature’s assets’. Such prevention is the stuff of political choice and action based on different sorts of values.
The government’s Natural Capital Committee (NCC) is ‘developing methods to measure and monitor the health of nature and ecosystems at a national level so that we can determine whether as a society we are having a positive or negative impact on it, and action can then be taken accordingly’ (as affirmed in RSPB’s and WT’s response to Battson’s post). Such calculations, however, are not enough to encourage different and enforceable practices of governance – by either government or business – towards the natural world. It is unclear, for example, how exactly the new set of ‘natural capital’ categories and metrics devised by the NCC will enhance existing practices of ecological assessment, or translate into care for the emergent and exacting vitality, variability and dynamism of real species and ecosystems.
Also worrying is a framing by the NCC of ‘natural capital’ as the parts of nature that produce value for people, as in:
Natural capital refers to the elements of nature that produce value (directly and indirectly) to people, such as the stock of forests, rivers, land, minerals and oceans’.
The value that nature produces for people is highly varied and situated (so who chooses which value to value?). At the same time particular land-, river- and marine-scapes can generate multiple values for different people, values which may sometimes be in conflict with one another. Choices for which natures to value, and how to do this, thus are lodged firmly in the arena of power and politics. New economic frames and practices of valuation are likely to privilege particular types of calculative expertise and may consolidate inequitable accumulations of the nature values thus calculated. There are also aspects of nature that do not noticeably ‘produce value to people’. Are these not then valuable?
These observations, of course, are nothing new, and some are also made in the NCC’s writings. But questions remain. Why and how exactly are ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystems services’ constructions of ‘nature’ better than other ways of considering nature’s value? Are economic accounting models appropriate for creating and calculating ecological values? And if ‘[n]atural capital therefore includes all elements of the environment, including natural resources, that provide benefits to people now and in future’ (albeit with some stated exclusions – the NCC names the sun as amongst these), then are natural capital accounts able to generate measures for all these present and future benefits? It seems certain that the registers, categories and partitions of ‘natural capital accounts’ will create their own externalities and overflows, since this is in ‘the nature’ of such calculative models. Natural capital accounts cannot in themselves redress the fact that economic models and analyses create externalities. There are always ‘outsides’ to the simplifying grids of such models.
The particular language of ‘natural capital’ and ‘ecosystem services’ affects how we understand and relate with the multiple selves of ‘the natural environment’. Herman Daly’s article linked to in Ginny’s original post observes that the term ‘capital’ derives from ‘capita’, meaning head of cattle. In the case of cattle biological and ecological constraints bear on productive dynamics. Such dynamics are intrinsically relational, embedded in the particular characteristics of environmental contexts. Commercial dairy herds in the soft, moist hills of Somerset and Devon are starkly different to the hardy cattle of nomadic pastoralists in the unpredictably varying drylands of Africa (such as north-west Namibia where I conduct research). When such particularities are conceived as stocks of ‘natural capital assets’, with ‘capital’ and ‘assets’ also conveying common understandings as wealth that can be calcuated and accumulated in monetary terms, we are embarking on a process of abstraction and homogenisation that lifts us away from what is particular about such contexts. Indeed, a key intention of natural capital accounts is to calculate ‘natural capital’ in the aggregate (i.e. overall) in such a way as to permit subsitutability between the calculated values for different types of capital, as well as between different types of ‘natural capital’. This paves the way for losses and gains to be exchanged between these different ‘capitals’, such that ‘no net loss’ allegedly occurs in aggregate. ‘Natural capital accounting’ abstracts the productive dynamics of nature into a ‘stock of natural capital assets’, conveyed in the specific numerical monetary values that can be factored into treasury and/or business accounts alongside columns for other monetised capital values and costs. Through this process nature calculated as natural capital assets is indeed being made more legible in monetary terms.
The question I ask myself here is this. When we convey nature in monetary terms, is it nature that we value or is it money? This is a deceptively simple question. These valuations and calculations effect multiple acts of translation that turn ‘nature’ from a series of particular, complex, dynamic, and interacting constituents, into a universal category (money) that is capable, at least conceptually, of being part of generalisable exchanges. Natural capital accounts in the UK context thus propose potential substitutabilities between ‘land use categories’ for areas of land used as ‘units of accounting’, between different units of ‘natural capital’, and between sites of development and sites of enhancement calculated using biodiversity offsetting metrics. The intention is that aggregate measures of ‘natural capital’ are maintained, even as losses are justified through the possibilities offered by substitutability.
The WTs and RSPB clarify that they are not proposing or supporting any pricing, buying or selling of natures thus accounted for as ‘natural capital’. But there are signs that this sort of leveraging of ‘natural capital assets’ is exactly what follows accounting practices considered to enhance the economic visibility of these assets. Indeed, the second working paper of the NCC on ‘corporate natural capital accounting’ introduces this as a methodology to enable landowners to recognise the full natural capital values of natural capital ‘assets’ and ‘liabilities’ under private ownership (i.e. two-thirds of Britain); and provides a methodology for converting these values and the ecosystem flows they generate into monetary terms. For large landowners there may be considerable gains from leveraging and selling newly legible ecosystem services and various offsets from lands they own. In written evidence submissions to the UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committtee’s inquiry into biodiversity offsetting (2013), the large landowner and construction company Lafarge Tarmac, as well as the Mineral Products Association (representing large landowners and mineral-based extractive industry), both affirm interests in becoming providers of biodiversity offsets on their land, if the price is right. In such contexts calculated monetary values for ‘natural capital assets’ may act in nature’s favour by discouraging conversions to more destructive land uses. But questions also arise regarding the consolidations and accumulations of privately owned capital(s) supported by such accounting practices, and the inequality on which they are based. Inequitable land ownership in Britain, in combination with a disproportionate capture by large landowners of farming subsidies based on taxation, does not feature in the Green Paper as amongst the factors reducing well-being amongst communities by limiting access to natural areas, but surely is relevant.
I have great appreciation for the work of the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts for the direct relationships they sustain with varied and emplaced species, habitats, and ecosystems, their encouragement that diverse peoples enjoy access to these natures, and their emphasis on science-based evidence on which to make decisions. Much of their Green Paper stresses all of these dimensions. Their embrace, rather than contestation, of ‘natural capital’, ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘no net loss’ thinking, however, seems confusing. These approaches do not necessarily encourage better behaviour and practices by peoples in relation to natures. They may, in fact, offer an increasing array of technical justifications for causing particular losses.
The Wildlife Trusts’ and RSPB’s Green Paper opens by asserting that ‘our environment is under more pressure than ever before’ and that we need ‘fundamental changes in how we value, use and interact with our natural world’. I agree. But I would question whether wrapping natures’ values further into financial accounts and balance sheets is either the most ecological, or the most equitable, way forward in terms of generating these fundamental changes.
Recent work of mine on these and related issues includes:
Sullivan, S. and Hannis, M. 2014 Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England. LCSV Working Paper 5.
I am also working on a monograph entitled The Natural Capital Myth: Nature, Finance, Values to be published by MayFlyBooks.
Comments and/or reality checks are welcome!
 cf. Helm, D. 2014 Taking natural capital seriously. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 30(1): 109-125, p. 109.
 Mace, G. 2014 Towards a framework for defining and measuring changes in natural capital. https://www.naturalcapitalcommittee.org/working-papers.html NCC Working Paper, p. 2.
 Ibid. p. 3.
 See, for example, Smith, N. 2007 Nature as accumulation strategy, pp. 16-36 in Panitch, L. and Leys, C. Coming to Terms with Nature. London: Socialist Register, The Merlin Press.
 Ibid. p. 6.
 Ibid. p. 4.
 Moreover, for ‘traditional’ pastoralists in multiple global contexts, the translation of ‘head of cattle’ into the more abstract ‘stock’ of cattle in itself effects a violent reduction of the complexity of biographical knowledge and poetic celebration that pastoralists tend to have with each individual animal.
 For a full discussion of these points, see Helm op. cit.
 As in Mace, op. cit. . p10.
 Mace, op. cit. p. 6, following the newly invigorated UN System for Economic and Environmental Accounts (SEEA).
 See DEFRA guidelines on biodiversity offsetting; Helm op. cit., pp. 118-120; see critique in, for example, Hannis, M. and Sullivan, 2012 Offsetting Nature? Habitat Banking and Biodiversity Offsets in the English Land Use Planning System. Dorset: Green House.
 See, for example, Carbon Trade Watch, Counter Balance and re:Common 2014 The Natural Capital Financial Facility: a window into the “green” economy.
 Mayer, C. 2014 Introduction to the Natural Capital Committee’s Corporate Natural Capital Accounting Project, NCC Working Paper.
 See discussion in Sullivan, S. and Hannis, M. 2014 Nets and frames, losses and gains: Value struggles in engagements with biodiversity offsetting policy in England. LCSV Working Paper 5, p.15. Similarly, the mining conglomerate Rio Tinto, with IUCN, thus has been ‘exploring opportunities to generate marketable ecosystems services on land owned or managed by the company’, including ‘potential biodiversity banks in Africa, as well as the opportunity to generate marketable carbon credits by restoring soils and natural vegetation or by preventing emissions from deforestation and degradation’. See, for example, Bishop, J. 2008 Building Biodiversity Business: Notes from the Cutting Edge, Sustain 30: 10-11, p. 10, discussed in Sullivan, S. 2009 An ecosystem at your service? The Land, Winter 2008/9: 21-23; The embrace by Rio Tinto of biodiversity offsetting as a potentially significant business opportunity is discussed in Benabou, S. 2014 Making up for lost nature? A critical review of the international development of voluntary biodiversity offsets. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 5: 103–123.
Choreographed by Katy Wilson to ‘Stomache Music’ by Colin Murrell (apologies for poor sound quality – sound was recorded only through video camera)
Sian Sullivan | Penny Whitecross | Trevor Williams | Katy Wilson
Lighting – Amar Shah
Bloomsbury Theatre 1993
At the Edinburgh Forums on Natural Capital and Natural Commons: From disavowal to plutonomy, via ‘natural capital’November 21, 2013
In Edinburgh over the next two days the inaugural World Forum on Natural Capital claims that ‘a revolution is taking place in how businesses and governments account for natural capital’, and that ‘there has never been a better time for senior decision makers to exercise leadership for the benefit of business and the planet’. Meanwhile, the counter-Forum on Natural Commons, held by an array of social movements and civil society organisations, believe that this ‘revolution’ ‘is the first step to creating financial markets in water, air, soil and forests’ thus ‘effectively privatising nature’. This seems to be a pivotal moment in contemporary struggles over how nature is best valued, managed and allocated.
These struggles are nicely illustrated by some of the tweets tugging on the concept of ‘natural capital':
People abuse nature if they think it is free, they’ll value it better if they see its value – @AlexSalmond #NatCap13
Concept of #naturalcapital has more to do with the expansion of capitalism than sound ecological management #natcap13
If CEOs and CFOs get it, things happen – @andyheald on embedding #naturalcapital accounting. #natcap13
1question no longer on the table @ #natcap13 is how 2 reduce environmental impact. Why should you if you can offset it?via @counter_balance
Restoring ecosystems is good but not if it ‘allows’ destruction elsewhere. So how do you pay for it? Tax the polluters #natcap13 #notforsale
And so on..
In reflecting on the logics pulling this concept in different ways, I offer a few thoughts as follows…
Offsetting nature | disavowing reality[i]
In 1938 the pioneer of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud published a short essay entitled ‘Splitting of the Ego in the Process of Defence’.[ii] In this, he asserts that in order to accommodate traumatic and dangerous reality the ego may behave in remarkable ways. In short, a defensive splitting can be effected such that the threat associated with particular behaviours is both acknowledged and systematically turned away from. Attention instead is directed towards fetishised solutions that facilitate continuation of the dangerous but satisfying behavior, at the same as constituting symptoms of the acknowledged reality of the danger that exists. Freud uses the term ‘disavowal’ to describe this simultaneous defence against and displaced acknowledgement of reality, while the creation of a fetishised substitute as symptom of the recognition of psychical trauma is referred to as a displacement or transference of value.
The insights of psychoanalytic theory increasingly are being brought to bear in understanding our human psychical relationships with current environmental crisis.[iii] A particular intention is to shed light on the multiple defences being erected socially so as to avoid facing the trauma of the broken socioecological systems that are the fallout of modern industrial effort, and that may effect our own demise as a species. These defences act to reduce psychic exposure to such traumas whilst permitting the simultaneous avoidance of behavioural choices that might act to reduce the trauma itself. They thereby permit continuation of the satisfactions generated by practices acknowledged to be causing danger. In this analysis, then, contemporary environmental crisis, and the violence to other species, landscapes and cultures that underpins this, is seen as causes of dangerous psychical trauma,[iv] acknowledged precisely by transferring attention instead towards ‘solutions’ that seemingly ‘offset’ this danger.
Current systemic proposals and policies for the offsetting of environmental harm, through proliferating mechanisms such as carbon offset markets, wetland mitigation banking, species banking and biodiversity offsetting, do precisely this. They can be understood as ‘symptoms’ indicating recognition of the danger posed by the environmental harms caused by economic development and financial investment, that act as artful ways of turning away from the direct effects of this harm and its underlying causes.
In this reading then, offsets, and the market structures on which they are based, are functioning as fetishised substitutes for genuinely pro-environmental behaviour. They are fetishised as solutions to the socioecological dangers posed by capitalist ideology and practice, when instead they permit the sustenance of the satisfactions and privileges afforded through continuation of these same dangerous practices. Thus biodiversity offsetting is proliferating in accompaniment with massive new investment in extractive industry and industrial agriculture, both of which are extremely destructive to local ecologies and cultures. This is creating a paradoxical situation in which environmental care and conservation is thoroughly development-led – paid for and managed by the corporations and structures generating the scarcity (and thus the enhanced value) of environmental health.[v] Indeed, in some cases investment organisations can profit simultaneously from harms caused by investments in development and investments in conservation elsewhere. We heard from one major public financing organisation today, for example, about how financial investment in a conservation bank for biodiversity offset credits is receiving lucrative returns from the sale of these credits, whilst also requiring that investments by the same organisation in development should include offsets in their environmental requirements, which in principle could be purchased from the offsets also provided by the investing company.
The defence of the collective capitalist ego (if its possible to speak of such a thing) is thereby sustained precisely through deepening the rift between acknowledged danger and the substitute ‘solutions’ that mask this danger, such that satisfying yet danger-producing behaviours can be sustained. In psychoanalytic terms such intensified splitting engenders conditions ripe for psychosis – for a disavowal of reality that becomes pathological. It constitutes a rejection of both the reality of development-related environmental harm and of the redress and prohibition of satisfactions that this reality suggests would be rational (reduced consumption or desisting from the harmful practices, for example). It thus creates the artful possibility of disavowing the harm caused by corporate enterprise and global patterns of consumption, and the associated dangers for our species as well as the other species that are our companions here on earth. It is a brilliant move that sustains the fantasy that corporate capitalism is good for nature, as well as creating opportunities for connected corporate capitalist entities to profit from conservation solutions that become fetishised substitutes for the destruction that these solutions seemingly offset. What is in fact sustained here is the control over the global economy and the global environment vested in a closely entangled ‘super-entity’ of corporate and financial organisations and their shareholders. This is why offsetting as a solution to development engendered environmental harm is contested by social movements and civil society organisations globally.[vi]
This is of concern for a number of reasons. For one, it masks the massive environmental destruction on which the current global political economy and its structures of investment is built. More worryingly, it masks the time-lag of environmental debt that will it seems catch up with us sometime soon. This is in terms of the major pressures that will be caused by anthropogenic climate change generated by our human experiment with fossil fuel burning. It is also in terms of the lag in species extinction associated with reduced ranges and habitats. The latter situation is addressed in part through expansionary aspirations in establishing protected areas globally, but this generates its own crises. It frequently entails the eviction of local and indigenous peoples,[vii] or at least the significant modification of pre-existing land use and access practices. The irony here is that frequently it is these same cultural practices that have generated the landscapes now of such value as areas to be protected for modern conservation purposes.[viii] The associated massive loss of emplaced biocultural diversity is a tragedy not only for the cultures and peoples directly affected but for all of us who have much to learn about how to live directly with other species as living companions,[ix] rather than as contemplated exhibits, viewed from behind protective barriers and as on-screen and dramatised natural history spectacles.[x] And even these ‘protected areas’ seem not in fact to be protected when it comes to finding that they also house economically important fossil fuels and minerals. Thus licences have been granted for the mining of oil from under the UNESCO designated Biosphere Reserve of Yasuní National Park in Ecuador (considered the most biodiverse location on the planet), the boundaries of the UNESCO World Heritage Site Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania have been adjusted to make way for uranium mining, and numerous other examples abound.[xi] Not to worry though – the harms caused by these extractive developments no doubt will be ‘offset’ through both biodiversity and carbon offset investments, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief and continue with our busy consumptive lives. Of course, this is of little reassurance for the indigenous Huaorani forest communities – including Tagaeri, Taromenane, Oñamenane and Huiñatare – who live in voluntary isolation in Yasuní, and whose sustaining lifeworlds hang in the balance of decisions made in distant government and corporate boardrooms. Or for Tanzanian villagers finding that mining concessions can override pre‐existing land uses within so-called Wildlife Management Areas bordering Selous,[xii] and who now also have to attend to the projected environmental health impacts of industrial uranium mining.
Indeed it is starting to appear as though the clearing of people from landscapes for conservation is rather systematically linked with the creation of cleared landscapes for industrial mining activity. In this, then, above and below-ground ‘natural capital’ are in competition with each other, and, it seems that only the size of the flows of capital will determine which will be invested in. This has been seen rather tragically in the case of Yasuní, wherein funds from the international community to ‘keep the oil in the soil’ have not materialised and, since money seemingly is the only measure of value, the choice instead apparently is now to exploit the oil. This choice enhances biodiversity crisis, the production of CO2 emissions associated with global climate change, and control by global corporate wealth whilst demolishing local cultures with much to offer regarding how to live in long-term attunement with other species. Hence pathology.
The nature of ‘natural capital’
The remaking of nature as ‘natural capital’ enters this scene as a pragmatic metaphorical tool for increasing the value visibility of nature within the contemporary global market economy. The metaphor has a history that is coincident with the expansion of neoliberal governance forms that took hold with the Reagan-Thatcher years of the 1980s and in the wake of the Washington Consensus agreed in 1989 as the austerity-inducing guide to International Monetary Fund and World Bank lending practices. Indeed, current usage of the term ‘natural capital’ is associated with, amongst others, the late Professor David Pearce – the environmental economist who was also economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher.[xiii] The metaphor is powerful in its conception of ‘nature’ as a ‘stock’ of ‘assets’ producing goods and flows, or ‘ecosystem services’, as modern conservation and economic science would have it. It is considered that bringing nature as ‘natural capital’ into modern accounting and economic practices will enable nations and corporations to better recognise their natural capital wealth and thus manage this for both sustainability and profit. The whole enterprise is built on increasing the visibility of nature to capitalism, the argument being that nature has been violated because it has not been measured, costed or priced appropriately in contemporary market structures.[xiv] The utopian vision here is that capitalism will thus become better aligned with ‘nature’, so as to generate the multiple wins of a ‘green economy’ wherein economic growth is maintained and ‘natural capital’ is too.[xv]
This is a laudable vision. At the same time there is considerable slippage here between aligning capital so that it works better with ‘nature’, and conceiving of nature so that ‘it’ is better aligned with capital. I have used the metaphor of a doubled-edged sword to describe this move that is able to cut both ways, and have suggested that there is cause for concern in current endeavours to account for nature literally as if it can behave, i.e. be put to work, as money capital.[xvi] The simple observation here is that money capital is leveraged through practices that split actual stored capital so as to create more financial value and thus greater liquidity or flow of money in the system over all. These practices include: fractional reserve lending, in which the total value commanded by a bank is a vast multiplication of the value it actually houses; the splitting of debt into complex tradable packages that turn it into assets on the portfolios of ‘securities’ managers; and the management of large virtual funds of money through betting on ultimately unpredictable market probabilities. Nature revisioned as materialised capital, i.e. as capital that is visible in financial/ised accounts, might be leveraged through similar processes. Indeed, a growing raft of financial products are being constructed so as to capitalise the ‘value’ stored in standing nature, and then to leverage this value in such a way that more money can be made.[xvii]
Notwithstanding the presence of well-meaning individuals and organisations within the natural capital nexus, there is a shadow side to the current revisioning of nature as ‘natural capital’. ‘Nature’ is being painstakingly conceptualized, abstracted and constructed such that ‘it’ is made more visible to an economic system led by concentrated wealth and power. This is a system associated not only with extreme disrespect regarding the finely-tuned system of life within which we are embedded, but also with desperate and growing socioeconomic inequality. Ideology aside, recent systems theory analysis by Stefania Vitali and co-authors – an analysis that considered connections and material flows between over 43,000 trans-national corporations and financial institutions – has demonstrated that the financial flows controlled by the corporate world are dominated by what they describe as a super-connected corporate ‘super-entity’.[xviii] They write that overall the global network of Trans-National Corporations and financial institutions ‘consists of many small connected components’, but the largest connected component, consisting of ‘3/4 of all nodes contains all the top TNCs by economic value’ and accounts ‘for 94.2% of the total TNC operating revenue’. This entity of corporate and financial connections consists almost entirely of major international financial institutions, and these few organisations and associated individuals are basically able to act as a bloc to determine network control and ownership. This is indicative of extreme inequality in wealth distribution and economic control. It is also a mirror of extreme poverty which means that in 2013 the richest 200 people were calculated to have about $2.7 trillion, i.e. more than the wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people combined (around $2.2 trillion in total or $630 per person).[xix]
Some of the organisations identified as part of this concentration of wealth and control have a presence at the inaugural World Forum on Natural Capital taking place over the next two days in Edinburgh. It is thus tempting to see in part an interest in nature as natural capital as a new attempt by this bloc and its associates to conjure and invigorate a new frontier for capital accumulation.
In this reading then, increasing the visibility of nature as capital to capitalist enterprise means finding coherent modern methodological accounting abstractions that can create and perform nature as if it is money. It has little to do with reconfiguring human relational approaches to the embodied forms and relationships that constitute ‘nature’. For this we need to turn towards different sorts of practices based on the energetic, affective and also material exchanges that come from direct relationships with entities in themselves.
There are many routes towards such different value practices and culturenature entanglements. What is interesting, but unsurprising, is that these also propose systematic redress and unlearning of many the Enlightenment ‘truths’ we have inherited in our collective cultural urge to be ‘modern’. These include recognising the socioecological benefits of commons as a coherent form of organisation based on more equal sharing and representation; and approaching the myriad entities that surround us with curiosity and affection (or biophilia) – understanding these to be kin rather than as disconnected and threatening ‘aliens’ to be managed and instrumentalised from afar. They include pragmatic choices such as procuring closer to home and thereby reducing the embodied energy and other impacts of globalised production systems, as well as generating energy from renewable sources and consuming less overall. These are some of the themes picked up on by the Forum for Natural Commons that is occurring as counter to the Forum on Natural Capital in Edinburgh. The former emphasises a view that market-based solutions are not necessarily the best route towards solving market failures.[xx] Or, as Einstein is reputed to have said, that ‘we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking that created them’.
[iii] See especially the volume edited by Weintrobe, S. (ed.) 2013 Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge; and Fletcher, R. 2013 How I learned to stop worrying and love the market: virtualism, disavowal, and public secrecy in neoliberal environmental conservation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 31: doi:10.1068/d11712.
[x] Igoe, J. 2010. The spectacle of nature and the global economy of appearances: anthropological engagements with the images of transnational conservation. Critique of Anthropology 30: 375–397.
[xi] See, for example, Büscher, B. and Davidow, V. (eds.) 2013 The Ecotourism-Extraction Nexus: Political Economies and Rural Realities of (un)Comfortable Bedfellows. London: Routledge.
[xiii] Pearce, D. 1988 Economics, equity and sustainable development. Futures 20(6):598-605.
[xvi] See Sullivan, S. 2013 The Natural Capital Myth
[xvii] see, for example, www.forestbonds.com; Cranford, M., Henderson, I.R., Mitchell, A.W., Kidney, S. and Kanak, D.P. 2011 Unlocking Forest Bonds: A High-Level Workshop on Innovative Finance for Tropical Forests. WWF Forest and Climate Initiative, Global Canopy Programme and Climate Bonds Initiative. http://www.globalcanopy.org/materials/unlocking-forest-bonds; Cranford, M., Parker, C. and Trivedi, M. (2011), Understanding Forest Bonds: A Guide to Raising Up-front Finance for Tropical Forests. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme. http://www.globalcanopy.org/sites/default/files/UnderstandingForestBonds_0.pdf UNEP-FI and Global Footprint Network 2012 E-RISC: A New Angle on Sovereign Credit Risk. Online. http://www.unep.org/PDF/PressReleases/UNEP_ERISC_Final_LowRes.pdf; UNEP-FI, Volans and Global Footprint Network 2011 Integrating Ecological Risk in Sovereign Credit Ratings and Investments http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/UNEPFI_Ecobonds_Brochure.pdf. On issues relating to ‘materialising’ biodiversity loss as insurable risk see Dempsey, J. 2013 Biodiversity loss as material risk: tracking the changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation. Geoforum 45:41-51.
Back in Norway again! This time as part of a ‘high-level’ Plenary Panel on ‘Trade-offs in National Policies’ at the 7th Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity – the theme of which was ‘Ecology and Economy for a Sustainable Society’ (27-31 May 2013). Designed to enhance science-policy communications following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the Trondheim Conferences on Biodiversity have been organised by the Norwegian Government and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity since 1993.
The panel was moderated by Pavan Sukhdev, leader of the high-profile UN and EU programme on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). I was extremely honoured to be invited to speak alongside key actors in the biodiversity policy world, namely Sir Bob Watson, Co-Chair of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment; Edgar Selvin Pérez, Director, National Council for Protected Areas, Guatemala; Valerie Hickey, Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES), World Bank; Nik Sekhran, UNDP; Anthony Cox, Head of the Climate, Biodiversity and Water Division, OECD; and Diego Pacheco, Head of Delegation, Bolivia (from left to right in the image above).
It is an honour to be invited to be part of this panel – thank you.
I want to make some comments on the creation of nature as ‘natural capital’.
Yesterday afternoon, Pavan Sukhdev mentioned the Higgs-Boson which is an elementary particle in subatomic physics. Now I am not a physicist, but the story of the Higgs particle is interesting. It was first theorised in 1964, but was only tentatively confirmed to actually exist in March of this year. Its existence is important in order to confirm particular models in physics. And indeed since the 1960s, immense work and resources went into finding it, including the construction of a massive particle collider at great expense and with significant environmental impact. (1)
The Higgs particle is now considered to be an objective fact that exists and has an effect in the world. Another way of looking at this, however, is to say that it has been brought into being through all the work, resources and technical construction that permitted its observation.
I think that the creation of nature as ‘natural capital’ is similar to this. In some respects ‘natural capital’ does not really exist. It is brought into being by particular ways of conceiving, measuring and valuing nature (2). Nonetheless, it is a way of thinking about and constructing nature that has the potential to have powerful effects in the world.
One of these effects might be the provision of numerical information that can assist with generating the sorts of accounting feedback needed to change behaviours and preferences so as to stimulate actions that are more friendly to biodiversity. Great work is being done in this direction. We heard yesterday, for example, about the Trucost and TEEB for Business report that provides prices for the costs of corporate impacts on what have been treated as environmental externalities (3). This is fantastic work, but I would also like to learn more about how companies would in fact internalise these costs and continue or perhaps discontinue their business. We are also hearing about the World Bank’s WAVES [Wealth Accounting and Valuing Ecosystem Services] project, which seeks to assist countries to recognise the capital value of unexploited assets, including perhaps biodiversity (4).
It is noticeable that these approaches seek to change behaviours by making biodiversity more visible within the current economic paradigm. As we have heard this is done through economic methods that assign monetary values to aspects of nature, that turn ecosystem services into work that can be priced, and that construct biodiversity – the myriad breathing and living entities with whom we share earth – into a form of capital, just like any other.
This also worries me. It is a movement that seeks to demonstrate nature’s value, but within the economic and evaluative system that has devalued nature so atrociously. Is there a possibility that by making biodiversity increasingly visible to market logics we might enhance rather than reduce its exposure to market failure?
There is another connection here that I think it is important to make. This relates to the extent to which the economic valuing of ecosystems and biodiversity might contribute to current patterns in wealth allocations – which have a tendency towards both significant inequity, and ‘plutonomy’ – that is, to disproportionate influence by the very wealthy in society. We heard a lot yesterday about poverty, and about the intentions in the Sustainable Development Goals to eradicate poverty – but I think we need to understand this much more clearly as the mirror of extreme wealth. Many figures exist on this, but to provide a snapshot – Bloomberg Magazine reported last year that the global economy allocated US $2.7 trillion in net worth to 200 people who they describe as ‘the billionaires who pull the levers on the global economy’. [That’s an average of 3.5 billion each.] The poorest 3.5 billion people were allocated only $628 each(5). [A report published this year by Oxfam states that globally the incomes of the top 1% have increased 60% in twenty years. The growth in income for the 0.01% has been even greater(6).] In addition, the divergence in wealth seems to have intensified since the financial crisis.
These figures are concerning not least because it is obscene for such poverty to exist alongside such wealth, but because economic inequality – both between and within countries – has also been shown to be a robust predictor of rates of biodiversity loss(7).
In relation to this I hope that the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals place due emphasis on measures and mechanisms of wealth distribution as an indicator of societal progress, in the knowledge that this also connects with environmental impacts.
To sum up.. some questions I have include:
- to what extent does current economic valuation for ecosystems and biodiversity contribute to, or counter, unequal wealth distribution, both within and between countries?
- Is there more to say about where the appropriate boundaries of economic valuation might lie? for example, might there be basic societal commitments to the sustenance of biodiversity, or to wealth redistribution, that are beyond pricing?(8) And how can governments be supported to enact such commitments?
- And finally, how might it be possible to more fully recognise, and also to learn from, the diverse other ways that people all over the world have lived with, known and valued other species? On this point, cultural and linguistic diversity correlate strongly with biodiversity presence – we know this because most biodiversity hotspots and national parks tend to be located in areas of high linguistic and cultural diversity(9) – both of which are sadly as threatened today as biodiversity. Is it possible for us to create deliberative forums for listening to and learning from different ways of living with and valuing other species and ecosystems? .. rather than requiring that everyone, every species, everywhere, succumb to the reductive evaluative framework of capital.
In preparing for the Plenary Panel, panelists were asked to complete an ‘aide memoire’, guided by the following three questions:
a) How can public service, business and households be made aware of the meaning and values of biodiversity and of the actions they can take to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity?
b) How can the biodiversity and economic planning sector assess and integrate biodiversity values and actions into national planning, poverty reduction, accounting and reporting?
c) In what ways can the ecological foundation for measurements of societal progress beyond GDP be advanced?
Below I include my ‘aide memoire’ as guided by these questions.
Title of presentation –
On Evaluative Frameworks, Value Pluralism and the Wealth-Poverty-Biodiversity Nexus
By Dr Sian Sullivan, Leverhulme Centre for the Study of Value, and Birkbeck College, London University
Abstract Since the CBD entered into force in 1993, enormous work and resources have gone into various layers of biodiversity assessment, measurement and accounting. These have included National Biodiversity Assessments, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 and subsequent National Ecosystem Assessments, various academic analyses of biodiversity indicators, and now the move towards Natural Capital Accounting. Over the same period, there has been no reduction in the rate of global biodiversity decline. This raises questions about the relationship between measurement, assessment and accounting on the one hand, and the actions needed to prevent decline on the other.
Current measurement and accounting practices for ‘valuing nature’ are occurring within an economic calculus designed to support both biodiversity and economic growth, through voluntary internalization of new nature prices and market incentives. It is not clear, however, that such design can produce the massive changes needed to reverse or even slow down biodiversity decline, because of the strong vested interests in developments that transform habitats, damage biodiversity and displace relatively low-impact livelihoods. Given measured links between income inequality and biodiversity decline, both within and between countries globally, it also seems clear that biodiversity decline will continue in the absence of strongly redistributive policies both between and within countries.
Such trends suggest that support for biodiversity will require:
strong regulation and planning;
progressive and redistributive taxation and public service policies;
and deliberative spaces from local to global levels where plural value considerations can enter democratic decision-making regarding choices for both biodiversity and economic sustenance.
– How might the CBD process support the need for strong and collaborative regulation by well-advised governments so as to mandate the cessation of actions damaging to biodiversity?
– How can the relationship between inequality and biodiversity decline be better measured, understood and incorporated in policies that support Sustainable Development Goals and targets?
– How might poverty be understood more systematically as a relational phenomenon mirroring mega-wealth and over-consumption, and arising from socio-economic structures that impoverish both people and biodiversity?
Key discussion points and conclusions
– What are the appropriate boundaries of economic valuation and natural capital accounting? What are the contexts in which other evaluative frameworks might be more appropriate for making decisions that halt actions causing biodiversity decline?
– Is there a possibility that making biodiversity increasingly visible to market logics as ‘natural capital’ will increase rather than reduce its exposure to market failures?
The conference’s core message was projected in large letters on various screens throughout the event:
(2) I discuss this further in a blog post called ‘The Natural Capital Myth’ for the Public Political Ecology Lab, http://ppel.arizona.edu/blog/2013/03/15/natural-capital-myth
(3)Trucost Plc and TEEB for Business 2013 Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Businesshttp://www.teebforbusiness.org/js/plugins/filemanager/files/TEEB_Final_Report_v5.pdf
(5)Miller, M.G. and Newcomb, P. 2012 The world’s 200 richest men. Bloomberg Markets Magazine 1 November 2012http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/the-world-s-200-richest-people.html
(6)Hickel, J. 2013 The truth about extreme global inequality. Aljazeera 14 April 2013 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/04/201349124135226392.html, after Oxfam 2013 The cost of inequality hurts us all. Oxfam Media Briefing 18 January 2013.
(8)On which, see Bolivia’s ‘Framework Law of Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well’ (http://www.ftierra.org/ft/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4288:rair&catid=152:cc&Itemid=210), in which Chapter 2, Art. 4(2) states that ‘The environmental functions and natural processes of the components and systems of life of Mother Earth are not considered as commodities but as gifts of the sacred Mother Earth’.
It’s official. We live in a magical universe.
I have always known this, somewhere. In my heart, in my belly, in the places where the onslaught of modernity’s cynicism has not been able to reach. But now it is confirmed. Because last night I was privileged to watch – awed and humbled – the dance of the aurora borealis across a crystal clear Arctic sky near Tromsø in Norway.
As the atmosphere erupted into shimmering sheets of light above us, I heard Francesco, a self-professed aurora addict from Italy and tonight’s Arctic Guide, say ‘words are not adequate to describe this’. I agree. Nonetheless I will try.
I saw rainbow snakes curling and unfurling. Huge elongated forms suspended unimaginably high above, stretching from dark horizon ahead to bright moon above the snow-dressed mountains behind. Immense curtains of travelling light chased each other across the sky. Sometimes these consolidated into tendrils of numinous intensity that reached out as if to connect with each other, only to dance apart again in starbursts of green energy. They became horseshoes, hearts, circles and spirals – looping whorls of brightness that opened into fans and umbrellas of falling light that filled the sky and bathed us in luminosity. Mesmerising slow undulations were followed suddenly by dancing waves of florescent pink and green light, cascading urgently through space and weaving around the moon, as if possessed by the joy of possibility itself.
Science tells us that these performances are caused by solar flares on the sun’s surface. Highly energised particles burst into massive bubbles on the sun, each up to a hundred times the size of Earth. These bubbles of excited energy push photons and electrons out into space and towards Earth’s atmosphere. Here they collide with Earth’s magnetic field.. This happens to be perfectly formed so as to shield Earth’s biosphere from being torched by this energetic onslaught. The moving particles constituting Earth’s magnetic field are pulled into a torus-shaped strange attractor that forms concentrated rings of magnetic energy around the latitude degrees of the high 60s and low 70s. It is this that makes aurora activity visible around these latitudes in both north and south of the planet. Amazingly, although separated by thousands of miles, the shifting forms of the borealis and australis auroras are identical.
All of this is quite astonishing enough. But there are silences in science’s explanations. Science cannot tell us why the auroras dance as they do. Why they form shapes that evoke snakes, birds and rainbows, and why their tendrils of light seem sometimes to race towards each other – to reach out as if to greet and connect with one another. Science cannot predict aurora movement, or even forecast aurora activity with exactness. And it cannot explain why the aurora affect is one of the experience of consciousness, sentience, vitality and heart-opening beauty.
The stories and explanations of peoples living ancestrally with the aurora point towards different understandings. I hear that indigenous peoples of Alaska see their ancestors in the dancing lights of the auroras, reading guidance and approval for human activity in their shifting shapes and changing energetic intensity. Those of the Scandinavian Arctic regions see the souls of unborn children in the lights, as well as warning young children to behave well lest they be snatched away by the giant snakes in the sky. Whatever the variations, they seem to amplify a sense of human connectedness with the mysterious dance of the aurora. To fold the immensity of the aurora into a cultural poetics that entangles human significance with cosmic sustenance, and that reads the appropriateness of human action in aurora entrails.
Science at its best also affirms this resonance of human and cosmic. Subatomic physics tells us that we too are made of the same dancing particles of light that form the aurora. That we are simultaneously matter and energy, our bodies an ephemeral borrowing of particles that have been around for billions of years. And science also speaks of our actions bringing forth the worlds we then see.
But the instrumentalist and capitalist ethos in which scientific curiosity surfaced and succeeded has pulled our attention away from these connecting meditations. In emphasising controlled environments and new orders of discrete categories it has made a fissionable world poised for capture and circulation as capital. It has unbound the bonds connecting nature’s entities, and unwoven the fabric of long-maintained cultural land-, sea- and sky-scapes. It is an orientation that makes a mockery of magic, and that creates cynics of us all.
Perhaps we can live instead as if each sound, each step, each word, each action is redolent with connecting meaning and significance. As if each moment is a possibility for re-membering the privilege of being an utterly unique and magical constellation of atoms, memories, flesh and choice-full consciousness; inhabiting an equally unique and magical universe – where an aurora of the particles of which we too are made dances regularly, and beautifully, across the sky. Affirming a capacity for wonder as a necessary human capability, and confirming the yearning to live with and be nourished by mystery as key for human flourishing.
This, for me, is the aurora affect. A reminder of the privilege of being a part of – not apart from – a universe whose unfathomable meaning communicates through the experience of magic.
1.For a short computer graphics reconstruction of this follow this link.
2. Unexpected breaches in the earth’s magnetic field, coupled with current high levels of solar activity, are causing concern about the enhanced geomagnetic storms that may occur as a result.
3. As in this image:
4. See physicist Fritjof Capra’s The Tao of Physics.
It’s November and I am in Oslo for the Norwegian Association for Development Research conference Development for a Finite Planet: Grassroots Perspectives and Responses to Climate Change, Resource Extraction and Economic Development. The conference has collected together an array of fascinating papers on local engagements with, and contestations of, environmental issues, in contexts as far apart as South Africa’s townships and the Amazon forests of Ecuador. I have been invited to be the discussant for the three papers constituting one of two partner panels on Resistance to Environmental Interventions, consisting of papers by both established and up and coming researchers on resource access and social justice issues. This post is constituted by my notes in response to the following papers:
George Holmes (Leeds University, UK) The politics of scale, hegemony, and resistance to a protected area in the Dominican Republic.
Narayana Rakesh, Darley Jose Kjosavik and N. Shanmugaratram (all at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB) Confronting neo-liberal appropriation: slums as land occupation movements by Dalits in Bangalore, India.
Clare Tompsett (Norwegian University of Life Sciences, UMB) Community forests for subsistence or business? The ‘re-assemblage’ of the van panchayats.
The papers in this panel provide detail for particular circumstances that I am not directly familiar with, so I learned a lot from them about the complex ways that state-corporate structuring and governmentalityi is playing out in specific contexts; as well as the particular patternings of fortune and misfortune that are deepening as a result.
For example, in the paper on slums as occupation movements in Bangalore, India, presented by Darley Kjosavik, rural patterns of exclusion for Dalit slum dwellers are reproduced in urban areas of Bangalore, at the same time as neo-liberal policies are also reproducing caste inequalities through strengthening caste-based exclusions from access to resources. In George Holmes’ paper on resistance to a protected area in the Dominican Republic, élite capture of the forest reserve in this case echoes former kleptocraticii structures associated with Generalissimo Rafael Trujillo, under which the appropriation of Forest Reserve land and resources prior to Trujillo’s assassination in 1961 was severe enough to receive mention on Wikipedia. And in Claire Tompsett’s paper, new Ecosystem Services and REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries) discourses applied to Himalayan forests are creating innovative ways of leveraging new monetary values from nature. These are attracting a new layer of actors and organisations interested in these new values, and are redirecting traditional co-management institutions (van panchayats) so that they facilitate market access to these values.
At same time, these structures are continually being reshaped through the agency of those they affect – through varied strategies of alignment, resistance and forms of struggle. The detail provided in this panel regarding how this is playing out ‘on the ground’ links the papers in this panel coherently with those in the partner panel yesterday: by Conor Cavanagh (UMB/York University, Canada) and Tor A. Benjaminsen (UMB) on The art of resisting green governance: linking cases from Mali, Tanzania and Uganda; Faustin Maganga (Dar es Salaam University, Tanzania) on Resistance to BINGO-sponsored conservation in Tanzania: insights from participatory management of water, forest and wildlife resources; Sayuni Mariki (UMB), Hanne Svarstad (NINA, Oslo) and Tor A. Benjaminsen (UMB) on Elephants over the cliff: explaining wildlife killings in Tanzania; and Hanne Svarstad (NINA), Helga Kerkelund (NINA/SUM) and Tor A. Benjaminsen (UMB) on The tourism success of Kilimanjaro National Park: the identification and explanation of a local counter-narrative of exclusion. .
The current global moment of post financial crisis is particularly potent for the study of these dynamics. This is permitting restructuring and austerity strategies that are opening up new possibilities for resource access, and as such are justifying a deepening of pressures on varied locations and populations – often mediated by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). So, in the India case study presented by Darley Kjosavik, austerity and financial self-sufficiency agendas are justifying a grabbing of urban land and resources, through reconstituting slums as valuable real estate. This requires the eviction of slum dwellers – who of course happen to be of the scheduled castes. The authors of the India paper correctly identify this as a form of contemporary primitive accumulation.iii Such processes connect slum dwellers in Bangalore, to circumstances such as those now prevailing in Greece – where land and natural resources are being parcelled up and made available to outside investors under the sorts of IMF structural adjustment policies previously more familiar to countries in Africa. And of course many of the case studies presented in this panel and the partner panel yesterday afternoon provide detail regarding the implications of various forms of ‘green grabbing’, or the grabbing of conserved nature value made possible through creation of new markets in monetized measures of an increasingly scarce, and therefore valuable, nature health. These interventions construe biodiverse and carbon-rich landscapes as new sources of monetary value, through their standardisation and conversion into REDD+ and other forms of conservation credits.
George Holmes in his paper identifies an important and constantly negotiated binary between, ‘a top down, distant state creating protected area territories – and local communities who try and reshape these protected area territories to their liking’. The papers in this panel indicate that this binary can also be seen between REDD+ ready territories and developable urban land, on the one hand, and local communities engaging with these incursions on the other. These are all processes of de- and re- territorialisation that constituting basic and ongoing contestations over access and meaning in relation to land and resources that become poised for state-corporate capture and value accumulation.
In thinking through these connections between the papers presented in this panel it seems worth drawing some more attention to this. I think the productive tensions generated by this binary provide a way to link these papers, as well as to distil a key aspect present in many of the papers I have heard at this conference.
In all of these papers there seems to be a deepening of a situation whereby outside interests are cloaking areas in standardised forms of rationalisation, regulation and accounting that usually have little to do with local values, practices and organisations (and may even constitute radical departures from underlying local ontologies – i.e assumptions about the nature of the world that is inhabited). This creates a productive tension between these different interests, and importantly between the very different logics that animate them. Whilst the specific ways in which these tensions play out in different contexts are different in each of the case studies, it strikes me that there are also a lot of connecting similarities.
As such, I think we can perhaps introduce a bit more theoretical liveliness in thinking through the correspondences between the cases presented here – which all describe dynamics of both state-corporate capture and of local reshaping, resistance and contestation. I am reminded here of work by philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, and particularly their piece on what they call ‘nomadology’ in A Thousand Plateaus (1988(1980) London: The Athlone Press).
In this they call us to think about the repeated productive tensions that are generated as the rationality of the state-capital relation seeks to create and incorporate layers of human and natural ‘capital’ that otherwise exist in a relation of exteriority to state management. Such incorporation tends to be resisted, because it entails losses of freedom, autonomy, and emplaced practices that function through different rhythms and rationalities. They refer to the polarities of this binary as State or Royal science on the one hand, and Nomad science on the other.
One way to conceptualise this is to think of the structural differences between the games Chess and Go (cf. Deleuze and Guattari op cit. p.389).
Chess is organised into strict striations of space – both physical and conceptual. Movement through space is highly controlled and the pieces played with are constituted of formalised identities that are hierarchically organised and that can only act and move in pre-defined ways.
The sorts of nature counting that is occurring today to make PES and REDD+ schemes possible, are examples of the ways in which state science incorporates landscapes, and peoples’ relationships with these, through standardised mapping technologies that in theory can be replicated, regardless of where they are being rolled out. In this way, local contexts globally are submitted ‘… to civil and metric rules that strictly limit, control, localize’ (Deleuze and Guattari, op cit. p.363). These rationalisations currently are part and parcel of the juggernaut of green neoliberal governmentality – which seeks to create opportunities for incursions of finance into the sustainability frontier, so as to create new financial value and thus contribute to so-called ‘green growth’. It is encapsulated by the dictum that ‘you cannot manage what you cannot measure’, as repeated at every opportunity by Pavan Sukdhev.iv
The game ‘Go’, on the other hand, works to different logics. The space of movement is relatively free of rigid boundaries and divisions; the rhythm of play involves unpredictable moments of both stasis and effervescence; its pieces are identical pellets organised along relatively nonhierarchical lines. In this game, power emanates more from situations in specific circumstances, rather than from hierarchically organised and rigid identities.
Deleuze and Guattari use the metaphor of the game Go to describe the logics of contexts existing, or desiring to exist, in relations of exteriority to the state-capital alliance.
In the contexts described in the case studies of this panel and the partner panel yesterday we see how the state-capital alliance creates new forms of accounting for, i.e. regularising landscapes – both rural and urban, natural resources and peoples, so as to further entrench neoliberal forms of governmentality and thus also release to new value. As such the striations of state science are deepened. We also see the creative ways in which recipient peoples are variously shaping, resisting and escaping these striations, so as to retain some form of autonomy in an ongoing context that is basically imperialistic. The complexity seen in the different cases is generated by the productive tensions between these different logics. As such, there is something akin to a ‘pattern that connects’ the different cases, even though the specific details of how this plays out clearly are diverse.
To close then, given the regularising and accumulating juggernaut of the state-capital alliance – and the environmental degradations, systemic inequities and structural violence with which it is associated – the question I seem to always be left with, is – how is it possible to create, embed and amplify new forms of socio-environmental organisation that move things in a different direction? The papers presented in these two panels seem to confirm a situation whereby, whatever people do to assert sovereignty over local and often ancestral circumstances, they frequently and/or ultimately lose out to the broader structural forces of the state-capital relation and its guiding logics. If this is the case, then as scholars concerned with describing and diagnosing the contemporary distribution of fortune and misfortune, how might we support each other to contribute work that offers different tools for conceptualising, and assisting struggle, so as to compose futures in which both human and nonhuman diversities flourish? So, I suppose that a question to ask here is this: how might we as scholars contest structural dynamics so as to refract, as well as to describe, the inequities that frequently constitute the material of our research?
i I use ‘governmentality’ in a Foucaultian sense, as a consideration of the praxes, discourses and institutions that are empowered to govern the ‘conduct of conduct’ («conduire des conduites», Foucault, M. 1994 Dits et écrits IV. Paris: Gallimard, p.237, see Foucault blog).
iii Primitive accumulation was the term deployed by Marx (Marx K (1974 ) Capital, Vol I (trans. S. Moore and E. Aveling). London: Lawrence and Wishart) to denote the initial creation and capture of surplus necessary for all subsequent capitalist relations of production and exchange. For Marx, the two critical enclosures are of land as property and human activity as labour, but the term primitive accumulation can apply to the enclosure and commodification of any productive forces that are not a priori manufactured for sale. Such appropriations require dramatic, albeit subsequently naturalised, conceptual transformations. The conversion of land into private property, thus requires the rejection of prior values, access or use rights so that land itself becomes capital that can be owned for most intents and purposes absolutely. Marx presciently stated that “[a]s soon as capitalist production is on its own legs, it not only maintains this separation [of labour from the means of capitalist production], but reproduces it on a continually extending scale” (Marx 1974 [1867):668). Massimo de Angelis (2001 Marx and primitive accumulation: the continuous character of capital’s “enclosures”. The Commoner 2) thus refers to the ontological, as opposed to historical, condition of capitalist production. Many other authors have stressed this ongoing nature of “primitive accumulation”, from Rosa Luxemburg writing in 1913 (Luxemburg, R. 2003(1913) The Accumulation of Capital. London: Routledge), to David Harvey writing in 2010, whose reframing of primitive accumulation as ‘accumulation by dispossession’ speaks volumes about the consequences of such capture (Harvey, D. 2010 The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. London: Profile Books). As such, recent analyses frame the process as “continuous” (de Angelis op cit.), “permanent” (Bonefeld, W. 2001 The permanence of primitive accumulation: Commodity fetishism and social constitution. The Commoner 2; Harvey, D. 1975 The geography of capitalist accumulation: a reconstruction of the Marxian theory. Antipode 7(2):9–21) and “contemporary” (Glassman, J. 2006 Primitive accumulation, accumulation by dispossession, accumulation by “extra-economic” means. Progress in Human Geography 30(5):608–625). I discuss the forms and implications of current primitive accumulations of newly monetised and financialised ‘natures’ in the paper Banking Nature? The spectacular financialisation of environmental conservation.
iv Pavan Sukhdev is a career banker from Deutsche Bank and head of the globally influential UN/EU programme The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). He is a founder-CEO of GIST Advisory, ‘a specialist consulting firm which helps governments and corporations discover, measure, value, and manage their impacts on natural and human capital’ and author of the recently published Corporation2020, a text and movement that urges firms to become multiple win ‘capital factories’, that ‘produce a surplus of all types of capital — financial, natural, human’.