I will be discussing the above issue at this event:
“Debating Nature's Value” — 27 June at Chartered Accountants' Hall
ICAEW is partnering with the University of East Anglia and Anglia Ruskin University in a programme of discussions “Debating Nature's Value”. This is a grouping of academics largely from the arts and humanities who challenge the notion of natural capital.
The topic for discussion is ‘Natural Capital- Key Part of Accountancy or Just a Political Slogan'- will involve Victor Anderson asking whether monetary valuation of natural capital can be precise enough to inform policy-making. This will be followed by Richard Murphy who will be discussing whether the accountancy profession as it stands can adapt to integrating natural capital into company accounts or if it will have to drastically change in response.
Timings: 12:30 — 14:30, 27th June (ICAEW, 1 Moorgate Place, London)
Please contact Felicity.Clarke@anglia.ac.uk to register
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
cycling through an Ardennes forest surrounded by bird song with the sun slanting through the trees, no cars, no houses, just me & the bike.
Not sure how anybody could place a value on that & I think it would be a grave error to try.
But we can do something quite different – and what I will propose will not place a value as such on the environment
This is an interesting debate.
I suspect that the real question to be answered is that humanity has a vested interest, a compulsion to survive. So any measure we arrive at will be biased because of this. There is a logical argument that the Earth, Gaia, has the more powerful right to dictate terms, but the Earth does not have a voice.
If population increases at the present rates and the Earth’s resources continue to be consumed, then the value attached to the term Natural Capital will need to be adjusted year on year, increased as the value of natural resources is slowly consumed.
Classical accounting seems to support the notion that pursuit of profit and growth of net assets (and thus shareholder value) is the name of the game. If this is the case then a simple way to integrate the notion that we are managing Natural Capital is to depreciate assets based on their likely future value. For example, if oil companies value oil in the ground at current prices, perhaps there should be an additional reserve deducted from this value which takes into account the carbon cost of burning those reserves?
On a national level, perhaps we should include as collateral the carbon storage value of countries that maintain our forests, waterways and natural habitats and make it easier for these countries to obtain advice and funding from a Green Global Bank, instead of destroying those resources for short term gain.
Valuing Natural Capital is a debate that needs to take place, personally, I fear that the process of change required will be too slow to safeguard the legacy we will be leaving to future generations.
I will send you my paper Bob