“This house believes we must commodify nature to save it”
Must we put a value on nature to save it?
While the room started out believing 'yes', the 'against' team won this fascinating debate at the Oxford World Forum 2024. Listen to the speakers and make up your own mind!
The debate session opened with an introduction from the moderator and former BBC Climate Editor David Shukman, who framed the motion and clarified that this motion would explore whether placing an economic value on nature is essential for its preservation.
The initial vote revealed a split audience, with a slight majority supporting the motion.
Each speaker then presented their perspective, alternating teams. Here are a selection:
For: Ali Zein Alabdin Ahmad argued that commodifying nature would unlock the capital needed to tackle the environmental crisis. He emphasised the urgency of achieving the UN’s 30x30 goal and the financial gap that commodification could help fill. He noted that attributing economic value to ecosystems could attract private investment, essential to scale conservation efforts quickly and transparently.
Against: Cosmo Van Steenis contended that commodifying nature creates imperfect markets, with carbon credits as an example. He highlighted that ecosystems cannot be accurately valued using current commodification methods, often leading to negative outcomes such as monoculture plantations. He advocated for alternative financial mechanisms like bonds and debt-for-nature swaps.
For: Celia Francis shared her experience working with biodiversity-rich carbon projects. She explained how commodification through carbon markets has already attracted significant private capital, highlighting a scalable model where investors receive risk-adjusted returns while supporting nature restoration efforts.
Against: Loolasho Peren stressed the equity concerns associated with commodifying nature, pointing out the risks for Indigenous communities whose lands may be exploited. He argued that ecosystems hold cultural and spiritual significance beyond financial metrics, and any commodification risks perpetuating inequality and injustice.
For: Helen Avery emphasised that the problem isn’t capitalism itself but the fact that nature has been undervalued within it. She argued that assigning value through existing economic systems could help governments and businesses recognise nature’s importance and create measurable impact.
Against: George Carew-Jones presented the difficulties in creating an ideal market for nature, noting that data limitations and subjective valuations lead to market inefficiencies. He highlighted other financing options like impact investing, which do not require commodification, and pointed to successful regulatory approaches as more effective conservation strategies.
The audience were then invited to share their perspectives and the teams had a chance for rebuttals.
A final vote was cast to see whether the audience had been persuaded.
Chair: David Shukman, Journalist and Business Fellow, Smith School on Enterprise and the Environment
For
Ali Zein Alabdin Ahmad, MSc Student, Smith School on Enterprise and the Environment
Celia Francis, CEO, Ponterra
Helen Avery, Director, Nature Programmes and GFI Hive, Green Finance Institute
Against
Cosmo van Steenis, MSc Student, Smith School on Enterprise and the Environment
Loolasho Peren, Co-Convenor, Kenya Indigenous Youth Network
George Carew-Jones, Research Associate in Sustainable Investment, Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment