New Zealand’s focus on the costs of addressing environmental concerns in farm systems was putting the country further behind the rest of the world in developing quality decision support models.
An emerging area of study known as ecosystem services (ES) was gaining ground around the world as a means of analysing the tension between private, public and common shared assets over the short and long terms.
Van den Belt, Massey’s principal ecological economist, said ES studies aimed to put a value on a country’s natural capital, so often undervalued by monetary-focused economic modelling.
Agricultural modelling in NZ had significant gaps in allowances made for the country’s natural environment and what it contributed to the country’s ability to produce food.
In turn, the modelling also failed to allow for the cost primary production had on the environment, instead maintaining a straight cost-plus view of any mitigation needed to preserve the environment.
ES was based on the principal that failing to understand the connection between rational investment decisions and natural capital might lead or had already led to “uneconomic growth” where the collective costs of agricultural activities were greater than the benefits.
Taking stock and value of a country’s natural assets such as forests, wetlands, rivers and coasts in turn led to a broader view of productivity to include social, cultural, spiritual and inspirational considerations, rather than solely economic output.
“All the models we use, even Overseer, are limited to the economic cost and ecosystem services are in a blind spot in NZ.
“The interesting thing I am finding is that in having conversations with farmers, several are interested in understanding this more,” van den Belt said.
However, she emphasised ES did not set out to eliminate human activity from the environment to maintain a pristine, pre-human state.
“The ecologists are right that there are certain practices we have to stop doing because of the damage that is being done to ecosystems but that is the ecologist looking only at the cost side of the ecological ledger.
“Rather, we need to consider a benefit-orientated approach to move to a future we all want and can live in.”
That did involve hard conversations about fairness of distribution of the benefits people derived from ecosystems.
She called Nature, Natural Capital or green-blue infrastructure the provider of essential services such as pollination, water purification, flood regulation and soil formation as well as cultural, spiritual and recreational values.
“These ecosystem services are free but they are also priceless and therefore often not taken fully into account in planning or decision-making.”
She used a human comparison where one “values one’s kidneys but they are not for sale” when defining the ecosystem services approach to modelling.
In the environment, wetlands functioned like kidneys, purifying water and trapping sediments.
“But somehow these kidneys have been for sale but not valued for the production of services we also want.”
That could include their value not only to the natural environment but also to iwi, erosion control, fisheries, storm protection, climate regulation and tourism.
“In my view ecosystem services is a great way to facilitate conversations across the private and public sectors.”
The concept was not new and was used extensively overseas but had only tentatively been considered in NZ.
Overseas there were multiple examples of where countries assessed development incorporating ecosystem services.
“All the models we use, even Overseer, are limited to the economic cost, and ecosystem services are in a blind spot in New Zealand.”
Marjan van den Belt
Massey University
One classic example was the way New York City set aside the Catskills catchment from market development to enable it to remain the city’s main means of water purification, putting off a major water quality upgrade that would otherwise have been required.
That green option cost US$2 billion against a US$6 billion bricks-and-mortar investment.
A review by van den Belt and her colleagues found only “fragmented and diverse” links to ecosystem services in NZ’s academic agricultural literature.
“There is not a lot going on, it is something we could do better. There are gems of farmers who understand this link, the early adopters who have already acted on their own properties.
“They find ways to slow down or retain water, reduce erosion, improve soil formation, create habitat for pollinators, recycling nitrogen and store carbon.
“The positive examples can be scaled up through an ecosystem services approach. The laggards have to give way.
“This stuff is rocking elsewhere around the world while we have been locked in this financial bubble looking only at cost. That’s just one part of the ledger,” van den Belt said.
