COP16 Dispatch: Week 2 Analysis of a Truly Nature-Positive Economic Growth
By David Baldwin, student at Florida Atlantic University
Some of us, ESA delegates, attended to a Side Event hosted by the University of Cambridge and Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership entitled “Restoring Nature, Reimagining Growth: Building a New Narrative for Action.”
Do we need a transition or a transformation for a nature-positive economy? The audience unanimously raised their hands for the transformation option, and if you were in the room, I have a feeling you would have too.
At this Side Event, the dialogue (half toward panelists and half engaged with the audience) navigated complex layers of what ties modern economic systems and what systemic shifts ought to happen to be “nature positive.” The narrative around economic growth has long been tied to relentless exploitation, expanding populations, endless land clearing, bountiful pollution, and increasing rates of extinction. Yet, we seldom question: Growth of what?
ESA Delegate Zohra Zahir calls for economic change at COP16, 30 October 2024.
Traditional measures of progress, like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), focus solely on “stuff being used up” without regard for well-being, social equity, or ecological efficiency. Panelists, particularly the Chair of Natural England, Tony Juniper, proposed shifting the global perspective away from solely GDP, and toward Genuine Progress Indicators (GPI) which integrate social well-being, longevity, and environmental health alongside economic metrics. This shift in narrative aims to move beyond GDP and embrace ecological and social indicators as pillars of progress.
A key topic of this session was the need for a stronger sense of urgency. Ideally, this urgency will be from development banks and international financial institutions to execute their role in this systemic shift. This means that the slight action we’ve seen by the private sector on the climate agenda cannot overshadow the importance of a shift in biodiversity and ecological sustainability.
Restoring nature and preserving ecosystems demands robust regulatory support, policy changes, and financial redirection toward ecologically and socially conscious objectives not solely decarbonization or profit. In the private sector, there seems to be a one-or-the-other mentality between climate and biodiversity, and to a lesser extent, the same rivalry exists in the international forum.
The financial action and capacity for biodiversity must match—if not exceed—the urgency of climate action. ESA delegate Zohra Zahir shared with the room what the Panamanian delegation said during the High-Level Segment early this morning, “Let’s stop pretending…32 years later (from the CBD’s inception at the Rio Convention) we have not done much except promising…What do we need? More speeches? More declarations? Less words, more action.” That is why I am bringing up the private sector. It was argued by panelists that the private sector must shift toward a finance model that serves both social and ecological purposes. Capitalism, as it stands, only counts profit and overlooks vital “numbers” like social equity and ecological well-being. This model is not just unsustainable, it will cease to exist if foundational changes are not made. Soon, this system will literally run out of gas.
Juniper discusses the role of environmentalists in economics during a conference at COP16, October 30, 2024.
To achieve transformation, not merely a transition, we as ecologists are at the forefront. As Juniper emphasized, “It’s high time environmentalists start talking about economics and the way economists talk about the environment.” When we bridge the dialogue between ecologists and economists, integrating ecological and social priorities into financial decision-making, the tide could indeed turn.
Economists are commonly very loose and brutal with the rhetoric surrounding the environment, so why do environmentalists seldomly criticize the economic systems that threaten the environment as prolifically? If economists have taken up so much space in environmentalism, we must put ourselves in the economic spaces, too.
I began to think of the economic principles I am most familiar with, which aside from the “Tragedy of the Commons”, came from my ecology courses. The Lotka-Voltera model, plant resource partitioning, and the basics of a sustainable ecosystem are, at their core, natural economics. Forests are circular economies, decomposing nutrients from fallen mighty trees into the soil, then into the understory plants, and onto again mighty trees that eventually will fall—with the externalities of herbivory amongst the many other aspects of forest ecology for which this blog does not have the room. In contrast to such cycles, our existing systems are linear, allowing valuable resources and benefits to leak out at every turn. By shifting towards a circular model, where waste and inputs are continually repurposed, we can realign our economic systems to be more regenerative and resilient—much like nature.
The basic flaw of capitalism is not just imminent but present: it only accounts for profit and ignores essential ecological and social variables. Nature itself is the most sustainable form of growth; modeling it is “Peace with Nature.”
So, to Zohra’s, Panama’s, and really all our points, how do we get there?
Incomes Juniper’s brilliant dissection of the layers of society, which helps us identify the points where we the people, the ecologists, are responsible for placing pressure. It is similar in purpose to C.S. Holling’s ecological economic model. Each societal layer is impacted by the one below it. A more thorough analysis of this theory will be in his book released in the US in June, Just Earth: How a Fairer World with Save the Planet.
Tony Juniper and ESA delegate David Baldwin discussing Baldwin’s new book during a conversation at the COP16 conference, October 30, 2024.
From the top down:
- Ecological Layer
- Economic Layer
- Political Layer
- Cultural Layer
- Philosophical Layer
So, if we think of the global social structure in this way, our collective cultures and philosophies are at the core of impacting the political, economic, and ultimately the ecological layer. So, we must turn our attention to the first economists, environmentalists, doctors, stewards, and scientists: indigenous people. As Juniper told me after the session, focusing on making changes in the cultural and philosophical layers is what a true bottom-up framework looks like.
Indigenous communities have practiced sustainable living for thousands of years and understand the intricate balance between nature and human well-being. By listening to these voices, we can find the best path to re-center nature in our economic systems to prioritize ecology and thus biodiversity. Listening and learning with the utmost respect to indigenous knowledge leads to a shift in cultural and philosophical ideas locally, regionally, and globally.
Then, we can place the most effective pressure on turning politician’s words (or lack thereof) into actions, transforming our economies, and persevering and restoring our ecological layer.
ESA Delegate Claire Bandet speaking with Tony Juniper at the COP16 conference, October 30, 2024.
The choice between transition and transformation is clear. A transition may be too incremental, or too slow for the crises we face. Instead, a transformation—one that aligns human activity with nature’s principles—will pave the way to a thriving, resilient, and genuinely prosperous future.
Disclaimer: Opinions are solely those of the guest contributor and not an official ESA policy or position.