Author: Elizabeth Robinson, RSF Scientific Committee member and environmental economist, Acting Dean of the LSE’s Global School of Sustainability, seconded from her role as Director of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
How would you define regeneration and what are some key aspects behind this concept?
A concept as wide and complex as regeneration is difficult to define. When thinking about regeneration, it is, for example, important to consider broad aspects of resilience and sustainability, how ecosystems and landscapes can recover and adapt and be enhanced.
My thinking aligns with RSF’s vision. There is no option to restore the planet to a state that resembles the pre-Anthropocene planet, and likely no broad will to either. Further, if we focus too much on restoration, efforts to operationalise the concept of regeneration might end up having the same potential problems as operationalising the concept of sustainability, which has been defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But considering how we have degraded the planet and have already surpassed some planetary boundaries, we should perhaps imagine regeneration as restoring and enhancing the planet.
How is climate change impacting workers and how can we implement adaptation strategies to minimise the negative impacts?
The capacity for adaptation and building resilience will be crucial in determining how industries cope with climate changed-linked changes in weather extremes. We are already seeing the negative effects of climate change on workers, particularly those working in high-exposure sectors, including outdoor workers, and those working indoors without adequate cooling. Interventions such as providing shade, hydration, or cooling, are generally effective, but we need to be mindful of the risks of maladaptation. For example, solutions that seem helpful in the short term, such as shifting to evening and night working, can create new problems down the line, such as disrupted sleep patterns or increased exposure to infectious diseases.
Autonomous adaptation, when workers make their own adjustments, is already occurring. Examples include workers changing their clothes or working hours, or taking more breaks, but labour supply is still being negatively affected by heat, suggesting limited impacts of adaptation. Long-term negative health outcomes are also a concern, but we still don’t have enough information about how people’s health is affected over time by increasing heat.
Mechanisation can help to maintain productivity, particularly in sectors like agriculture. But this in turn has issues for employment and a just transition for workers. There are studies, such as those led by Dr Shouro Dasgupta, that show how some regions—like Northern Europe—labour supply and labour productivity, may currently be benefiting from increasing temperatures. However, this benefit may be short lived.
What are your thoughts on the effectiveness of REDD and the challenges associated with carbon offsets and forest protection?
One of the biggest challenges with REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) has been the difficulty in measuring and establishing a reasonable counterfactual—that is, determining what would have happened without an intervention, and this is particularly so with regards to forest degradation. On top of that, the cost of carbon under REDD has often been set far too low, making the system less effective than it should be. There have also been instances of communities, instead of being paid for actual carbon reductions, being compensated for their efforts, or for biodiversity co-benefits, which of course is important in as much as there are financial transfers into lower-income countries and communities, but is problematic for emissions reduction. And further, linking REDD+ to carbon offsets does not lead to permanent emissions reductions.
More broadly, there could be dynamic inefficiencies at play if higher-income countries aren’t doing enough to reduce their own emissions and accelerate a green transition, but rather are relying on offsetting their emissions in lower-income countries, which isn’t a sustainable long-term solution.
What is your perspective on payment for ecosystem services and its role in promoting sustainable practices?
For governments, investing in ecosystem services – that is, the benefits that people get from nature and biodiversity – makes sense, because we are so dependent on nature. For example, urban tree planting has immense benefits for air quality, biodiversity, and community well-being, in addition to contributing to climate mitigation.
Payments for ecosystem services can work as a way of protecting and enhancing natural capital, by assigning an economic value to nature, and as such ensuring that there is explicit value associated with natural resources that people depend on. It has the potential to encourage better land management practices and integrate ecological health into economic planning. But how effective this approach is depends on many factors, including how an initiative is implemented. The payment provides a financial incentive for an individual or community to conserve, rather than convert, the natural resource base. But done without consideration for the local context, including property rights, access, and equity, it can worsen the livelihoods of some, and lead to conflict and increase inequalities.
How do you see the valuation of nature evolving in the context of the Anthropocene and changing attitudes toward environmentalism?
How we put an economic value on nature is an increasingly important conversation. By putting an economic value on nature, we can make explicit the costs associated with its loss.
Nature can be conceptualised as a silent stakeholder in decisions that affect its future, and therefore humanity’s future. One can argue that an ecosystem services approach contextualises nature primarily in human terms, focusing on how it serves our needs or economic interests. However, there are arguments that this perspective can be limiting, and some would argue that ecosystems, that is, nature and biodiversity, have their own intrinsic value, independent of human utility.
By shifting our mindset to see nature as an active participant rather than a passive backdrop, we can start to make what could be considered better informed decisions. This includes considering the long-term impacts of our actions on ecosystems and embracing a broader understanding of what it means to coexist with the natural world in the Anthropocene.
How can we reshape the narrative around regeneration to involve stakeholders?
The narrative around regeneration probably requires more time and patience, and perhaps we still need to reach a social tipping point where communities collectively recognize the importance of regeneration efforts.
Here in the UK, the Covid-19 pandemic prompted quite a lot of reflection on how we responded to the pandemic and how we might best move forward. During the pandemic, one could argue that there was a palpable sense of solidarity and a renewed appreciation for our national health system and the role of the state in protecting public well-being. This moment highlighted the importance of preparedness and the need to prioritise health, both human and ecological. But it is not clear that we actually did build back better. If we can carry forward the understanding of interconnectedness and the value of collective action, we may be better positioned to embrace regeneration as a critical goal. Acknowledging the role of both individual and societal responsibilities is vital as we navigate the complex challenges ahead.