Berry Marttin, who you saw earlier on this platform, advocates nature costing instead of true costing. Peter van Bodegom, environmental biologist, saw the interview and needed to respond. He doesn’t agree with Marttin. Nature costing will let us fall in the same trap as true costing. We'll register the damage, but we need to work on pay backs. “We need nature profiting as well”, Van Bodegom says.
Who is Peter van Bodegom?
Prof.dr.ir. Peter van Bodegom is professor and head of the department of Environmental Biology within the Institute of Environmental Sciences of Leiden University, in The Netherlands. Van Bodegom enjoys working at the interface of disciplines; the impacts of human society on ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, and vice versa. He is an international authority in multidisciplinary modelling of environmental gains and losses.
Environmental Biology
What is the exact role and value of nature in human society? That’s the question Van Bodegom tries to answer using quantitative modelling. Environmental Biology links nature and human society. The discipline tries to understand the impact of human beings on nature, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning, and how - at the same time - they depend on nature for their own wellbeing.
Prof.dr.ir. Peter van Bodegom is professor and head of the department of Environmental Biology within the Institute of Environmental Sciences of Leiden University, in The Netherlands. Van Bodegom enjoys working at the interface of disciplines; the impacts of human society on ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, and vice versa. He is an international authority in multidisciplinary modelling of environmental gains and losses.
Environmental Biology
What is the exact role and value of nature in human society? That’s the question Van Bodegom tries to answer using quantitative modelling. Environmental Biology links nature and human society. The discipline tries to understand the impact of human beings on nature, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning, and how - at the same time - they depend on nature for their own wellbeing.
Van Bodegom is straight forward: nature costing - paying for the damage done to nature - justifies negative effects. It won’t encourage people to do better. When externalizing the impacts on nature “we kind of agree that we have negative effects on nature, but we just pay for it to get away with it", says Van Bodegom.
We should develop a relationship with our environment by thinking of nature profitsMake nature profitable
Van Bodegom proposes the concept of nature profits. Positive impacts on nature should be stimulated by quantifying them.
“We should develop a relationship with our environment by thinking of nature profits,” Van Bodegom states. As an example he mentions water management. "The farming system could be such that it maintains water in the soil system for a longer period avoiding floods downstream or irrigation demands later on. This provides added value for water storage. The ones experiencing this value - water managers for instance - might be willing to pay for those additional services."
How can we achieve this? Van Bodegom: “one of the instruments is natural capital accounting, which provides the balance for natural capital." Natural capital is anything that is around in nature that can provide added value to society.” Ecosystems services can be acknowledged with money or through certification, awareness, and respect.
Van Bodegom sees many opportunities for accounting and certification schemes. To put them into practice, all parties in the food system need to be on board, including consumers. “They need to be aware of the nature costs and benefits of their behavior. In some cases, you might need to change legislation.” And that is where Marttin and Van Bodegom meet. “Indeed, it demands going back to the drawing table.”
We are looking for examples of natural capital accounting anywhere on the globe, to talk about on this platform. Please share below or email me, Bianca van der Ha, editor-in-chief of the IFAMA goes Digital platform.
European Green Deal
Van Bodegom and Veerman briefly mention the European Green Deal in the video. What is that?
The European Green Deal is a roadmap for making the EU's economy sustainable. This will happen by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas and making the transition just and inclusive for all.
Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, Europe needs a new growth strategy that transforms the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where
there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 economic growth is decoupled from resource use no person and no place is left behind
Mixed Feelings
The Green Deal was presented in December 2019. The European States received the proposal with mixed feelings. The Dutch minister of Agriculture, Carola Schouten, believes the EU wants to interfere too much in policy implementation in national and local contexts. However, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron call for a rapid adoption of the European Green Deal.
A common concern is that the Green Deal is imprecise on how the roadmap should be implemented. Thus, the compliance criteria cannot be clear. That’s where Van Bodegom comes in. He states that these should be developed clearly and consistently. The Netherlands could play a leading role here, as the country has a real competency in the development of integral modelling.
Van Bodegom and Veerman briefly mention the European Green Deal in the video. What is that?
The European Green Deal is a roadmap for making the EU's economy sustainable. This will happen by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas and making the transition just and inclusive for all.
Climate change and environmental degradation are an existential threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, Europe needs a new growth strategy that transforms the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where
Mixed Feelings
The Green Deal was presented in December 2019. The European States received the proposal with mixed feelings. The Dutch minister of Agriculture, Carola Schouten, believes the EU wants to interfere too much in policy implementation in national and local contexts. However, German chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron call for a rapid adoption of the European Green Deal.
A common concern is that the Green Deal is imprecise on how the roadmap should be implemented. Thus, the compliance criteria cannot be clear. That’s where Van Bodegom comes in. He states that these should be developed clearly and consistently. The Netherlands could play a leading role here, as the country has a real competency in the development of integral modelling.
Related
Rather than the costs and benefits of nature, I prefer to think in terms of ecosystem services and ecosystem services in return. Simply services and services in return. But there is a difference. Several even.
Services and our services in return both have a different 'system' boundary. As a result, both also have a different valuation basis. Because of these differences, services and services in return are not directly comparable. The second is that ecosystem services are meant to serve the socio-economic network, whereas our services in return only make sense if they serve the ecological network.
Our economic system is based on individual gain. The earth system revolves around cooperative synergetic networks. This difference (sectoral versus integral) is also reflected integrally through the networks we form; think of CO2 and Biodiversity.
The physical networks around CO2, soil, water, nitrogen, etc., etc., form the basis for the services we purchase. We express these in terms of money, and while the human money networks even reach all over the place, the recipient of our services in return does not charge in euros; the system charges us for what we literally dó. Therfore it is an illusion to think that we can balance service and services in return within our self-designed system boundary.
Either way we will have to revise our network formula. The 'difficulty' is that system earth revolves around 'synergetic cooperative networks', and validating our services in return (i.e. integral networks) is only possible in an ecological unit of currency.
Theoretically, we should exchange 'growth of economy' for 'growth of synergy' (creating added sýstem-values). Our problem is not a lack of holistic awareness - it is more that mankind cannot manage (say, not do) its own flow of information. Yet there are ways out.
‘Eco-exergy as sustainability' (Jørgensen, 2006) describes a holistic measure of sustainability. Of interest to the CML is Jørgensen's paper 'Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators' (2010) in which he first expresses ecosystem services in a system-ecological (holistic) unit and only then monetizes them. This order is quite logical. But his formula 'biomass times information' as a holistic systemic measure cannot be explained to everyone.
Biomass (fusion of energy and material) can still be explained. But with "information" it gets a bit more complicated. Jorgensen talks about biochemical information, for example how our own body is 'organized' (and that of all other organisms). Within system earth this flow of information regulates the 'degree of organization' (of and between organisms), but if you look at the human species (say, not dó) then its awareness and respect as a commandment may be valid but it's all about 'certification'.
This is where Prof. Ronald Rovers comes in (' People vs Resources, Restoring a world out of balance, 2019). First of all, he argues that biotic effects (biomass times information) are only possible within a-biotic effects. In short, he argues that sustainability mainly revolves around materials/raw materials (iha material transition). Furthermore, Rovers makes the complexity around sustainability very practical by not starting with system-ecological considerations, but by starting with human practice. For example, people in the Paris Agreement have made agreements about the amount of CO2 still to be emitted. His reasoning for monitoring both the energy transition ánd the material transition (circularity) for CO2 is clear anyway, but above all very practical (don't bullshit but do it). A CO2 balance would also help to increase awareness and respect for Biodiversity.
What we literally dó is about energy and materials. How we 'organise' that always has everything to do with Biodiversity. Biodiversity is no different than a sustainable variety of species. If we want to remain part of it, we will have to form synergetic cooperative networks with all other organisms in everything we do. The key word here is always information. Both system-ecological and flat-practical. An example of the latter is the Environment Act.
Although the E-act is full of the word integration, it is more a typical case of saying yes, not doing yes. I live on the island of Schouwen-Duiveland (SD) in the SW of the Netherlands and have therefore been advocating an environmental vision in which CO2 and Biodiversity are the main carriers. The E-act doesn't make it compulsory, so after 3 years even the word CO2 wasn't in it. Nitrogen again has everything to do with Biodiversity. The wrangling is about what may be called 'legal' nature. Everything else, what a basic quality nature should have, simply does not exist. As far as the Environmental Act is concerned, the national government is talking about "information houses". its implementation lies with the province. But where the national government ánd CO2 ánd Biodiversity does not label landscape quality, neither does the province. The Environmental Act specifically revolves around the physical living environment. But there is no monitoring of these 'qualities', which our habitat is fundamentally about. If, like me, you ask the province why they don't set up their 'information houses' on this, it gets quieter and quieter. Meanwhile, our local concept Environmental-vision has been carried to the grave. “In the absence of support” according to my local authority. Here, too, the key word comes up again. If you don't 'inform' participants, there is no 'organisation' possible.
For example, we know we still have 10 years to stay below 1.5 warming, but we will take the time until 2050. While all kind of authorithies frame this as climate-neutral ex officio, climate-neutral is about Zero Pollution in 2050. This too is all directly related to Biodiversity (say it, not do it).
My fellow residents may seem to have just crawled out of the egg, the saying 'us are frugal' is to blame for that (not a penny too much, hey), but here frugal means having healthy respect for the elements and for instance dealing normally with circularity. Because awareness and respect are close to the surface here, I prefer to say 'us are sensible'. Some more certification and you have an excellent testing ground. Furthermore, Schouwen-Duiveland as an island is a bioregion, it's one municipality and above all we're doers! Agriculture and nature in abundance in addition to almost an overdose of reports, research, experiments, etc. Good grounds, so to speak. Even on request, I'm working on a Biodiversity Recovery Plan for SD. I only use my thoughts above as a coat rack. To hang up the 'do-it-yourself stuff'. It makes sense to substantiate the coat rack sensibly!!
Eric Odinot
06 51 36 36 56
Eric, this section is in English. Most visitors don't understand one word of Dutch.
In case you hesitate to write in English, try Deepl.com to translate.
In plaats van kosten en baten van natúur zou ik eerder zeggen, denk eens in ecosysteemdiensten en ecosysteem-wéder-diensten. Jip en Janneke zouden ‘dienst en wederdienst’ zeggen. Maar er is een verschil. Meerdere zelfs.
Dienst en wederdienst hebben beide een andere ‘systeem’-grens. Daarmee hebben beide ook een andere waarderingsgrondslag. Door deze verschillen zijn dienst en wederdienst niet rechtstreeks te vergelijken. Het tweede is dat diensten het sociaal-economisch netwerk dienen, terwijl wederdiensten pas hout snijden als zij het ecologisch netwerk dienen.
Ons economisch systeem is gebaseerd op individueel gewin. Systeem aarde draait om coöperatieve synergetische netwerken. Dit verschil (sectoraal versus integraal) komt evengoed integraal terug via de netwerken die wij vormen; denk aan CO2 en Biodiversiteit.
De fysieke netwerken rond CO2, bodem, water, stikstof, etc., etc. vormen de basis voor de diensten die wij afnemen. Die drukken we uit in geld, en de menselijke geld-netwerken reiken zelfs tot all over the place. Maar de ontvanger van onze wederdiensten rekent niet in euro’s; het systeem rekent ons af op wat we letterlijk dóen. Zo is het een illusie te denken dat we dienst en wederdienst in evenwicht kunnen brengen binnen onze zelfbedachte systeemgrens.
Hoe dan ook zullen we onze netwerk-formule moeten herzien. De ‘moeilijkheid’ is dat systeem aarde draait om ‘synergetische coöperatieve netwerken’, en het valideren van onze wederdiensten (i.c. integrale netwerken) alleen mogelijk is in een ecologische valuta-eenheid.
Theoretisch zouden we ‘groei van economie’ moeten inwisselen voor ‘groei van synergie’(creating added system-values). Onze makke is niet een gebrek aan holistisch besef - het is meer dat de mensheid haar eigen informatie-stroom niet kan managen (wel zeggen, niet dóen). Toch zijn er uitwegen.
‘Eco-exergie as sustainability’(Jørgensen, 2006) beschrijfteen holistische maat voor duurzaamheid beschreven. Voor het CML interessant is Jørgensen’s paper ‘Ecosystem services, sustainability and thermodynamic indicators’ (2010) waarin hij ecosysteemdiensten eerst in een systeem-ecologische (holistische) eenheid uitdrukt en daarna pas monetariseert. Deze volgorde is wel zo logisch. Maar zijn formule “biomassa maal informatie” als holistische systeemmaat, is niet aan iedereen uit te leggen.
Biomassa (samengaan van energie en materiaal) is nog uit te leggen. Maar bij “informatie” wordt het wat ingewikkelder. Jorgensen heeft het over biochemische informatie , bijvoorbeeld hoe ons eigen lijf is ‘georganiseerd’ (en dat van alle andere organismen). Binnen systeem aarde regelt deze informatie-stroom de ‘organisatiegraad’ (van en tussen organismen), maar kijk je naar de menselijke soort (wel zeggen, niet dóen) dan zijn awareness and respect als gebod misschien valide maar draait het om ‘certification’.
Hier komt prof Ronald Rovers om de hoek kijken (‘Gebroken Kringlopen, naar een volhoudbaar gebruik van bronnen’, 2019; ook Engelse versie). Allereerst stelt hij dat de biotische werkingen (biomassa maal informatie) pas mogelijk zijn binnen de a-biotische werkingen. Hij stelt kortom dat duurzaamheid vooral draait om materialen/grondstoffen (iha materiaaltransitie). Verder maakt Rovers de ingewikkeldheid rond duurzaamheid zeer praktisch door niet te beginnen met systeem-ecologische overwegingen, maar door te beginnen bij de menselijke praktijk. Zo hebben mensen in het Parijs-akkoord afspraken gemaakt over de hoeveelheid nog uit te stoten CO2. Zijn redeneertrant om zowel de energietransitie als de materiaaltransitie (circulariteit) te monitoren op CO2 is sowieso helder maar bovenal kei-praktisch (niet lullen maar dóen). Een CO2-balans zou ook helpen om de awareness en het respect rond Biodiversiteit te vergroten.
Wat we letterlijk dóen gaat om energie en materialen. Hoe we dat ‘organiseren’ heeft ook altijd weer alles te maken met Biodiversiteit. Biodiversiteit is niet anders dan een duurzame variatie in soorten. Willen we daar bij blijven horen, dan zullen we bij alles wat we doen ook synergetische coöperatieve netwerken moeten vormen met alle andere organismen. Het key-word daarbij is telkens informatie. Zowel systeem-ecologisch als plat-praktisch. Een voorbeeld van het laatste betreft de Omgevingswet.
De O-wet staat weliswaar bol van het woord integreren maar is meer een typisch gevalletje van wel zeggen, niet dóen. Ik woon op het eiland Schouwen-Duiveland (SD) en maak me daarom al jaren sterk voor een O-visie waarin CO2 en Biodiversiteit de hoofdragers vormen. De O-wet verplicht er niet toe dus na 3 jaar stond zelfs het woord CO2 er nog niet in. Stikstof heeft weer alles te maken met Biodiversiteit . Het getouwtrek gaat over dat wat ‘juridisch’ natuur mag heten. Al het andere, wat een basiskwaliteit natuur zou moeten hebben, bestaat gewoon niet. Mbt de O-wet heeft het Rijk het over “informatie-huizen”, de uitvoering ervan ligt bij de provincie. Maar waar het Rijk en CO2 en Biodiversiteit niet als landschappelijke kwaliteit bestempelt, doet de provincie dat ook niet. Monitoren op deze ‘kwaliteiten’, waar ons habitat fundamenteel om draait, is er dus ook niet bij. Als je zoals ik hier bij de provincie vraagt waarom ze hun ‘informatie-huizen’ hier niet naar inrichten, wordt het alsmaar stiller. Inmiddels is onze concept O-visie naar het graf gedragen. ‘Bij gebrek aan draagvlak’. Aldus de hotemetoten. Ook hier komt het key-word weer naar voren. Als je participanten niet ‘informeert’, is er ook geen ‘organisatie’ mogelijk.
Zo weten we dat we nog 10 jaar hebben om onder de 1,5 opwarming te blijven maar nemen de tijd tot 2050. Terwijl we dit ambtshalve als klimaatneutraal framen, gaat klimaatneutraal over Zero Pollution in 2050. Dit heeft ook allemaal rechtstreeks te maken Biodiversiteit (wel zeggen, niet dóen).
Zeeuwen lijken misschien net uit het ei gekropen, het ‘ons bin zuunig’ is daar debet aan (geen cent te vee heej). Maar hier betekent ‘zuunig’ gezond respect hebben voor de elementen en bijvoorbeeld normaal omgaan met circulariteit. Omdat awareness en respect hier dicht aan de oppervlakte liggen, zeg ik liever ‘ons bin zinnig’. Nog wat certification erbij en je hebt een uitmuntend proefgebied. Verder is Schouwen-Duiveland als eiland een bioregio, het is een gemeente en ons bin vooral ook doeners! Landbouw en natuur te over naast haast een overdosis aan rapporten, onderzoeken, experimenten, etc. Goede grond zeg maar. Zelfs zit ik op verzoek te peuteren aan een Biodiversiteitsherstelplan voor SD. Mijn gedachten hierboven gebruik ik slechts als kapstok. Om de ‘doe-dingen’ aan op te hangen. De kapstok zinnig onderbouwen lijkt me helemaal wat!
Eric Odinot
06 51 36 36 56
Frans that drawing board is already there and that reduction of the costs as you call 80% can be realized given the results of that drawing board. Now the Ministry absolutely does not want a Carola to respond positively and even ignores these signals.
Political reluctance, for whatever reason, blocks these developments.
The costs are also innovative, interesting thoughts that offer unprecedented possibilities. But we must approach matters integrally and include stakeholders (including food producers) in this story.
In the new world, citizens / farmers will make a difference from a product with added value for the consumer.
Thinking about true cost accounting, cost of nature and even nature profiting, it seems that the time and efforts invested in the development of these three concepts differ very much. True cost accounting has been developed relatively extensively, but even with true cost concept the impact has to be created by including these cost into the actual consumer price, only then it will influence consumer decision making of the majority of consumers and from there create impact on the players in the value chain up to farmer level and thus make a meaningful positive impact on the environment. Although I realise the additional benefits of the nature profiting concept, in my opinion it would be wise to take a step by step approach, go back to the drawing board and first try to implement a 80% solution based on implementing not just true cost calculation but, more important, also true cost pricing on a larger scale. The clock is ticking, we have no time to lose; if society waits with implementing true pricing until nature profiting is ready for large scale implementation we might face that the best will become the enemy of the good !