Why nature must be made visible in decision making – Inside track

Too often, nature is treated as a constraint to development. The prime minister’s comments earlier this year about the impact of bat conservation on the completion of HS2, sparked frustration within the conservation community, as this unhelpfully framed nature as being in conflict with economic growth.

In reality, the opposite is true: nature underpins our economy. Bank of England data has shown that over half of the UK’s GDP depends on ecosystem services. Yet, despite this dependence, the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. By undervaluing nature we are both harming the environment and eroding our economic resilience.

But why is nature so often undervalued and how can we better account for it in decision making? This was the question tackled last week as the Institute of Civil Engineers and Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science brought together academics and professionals from construction to ecology and economics to explore exactly that.

Nature is an afterthought
Before any discussion of solutions or policy recommendations, there was a clear consensus in the room: the way nature is currently framed in decision making is fundamentally flawed. Dr Ben Groom illustrated this clearly by reminding attendees that the loss of bats could cost the economy $27 billion as they act as natural insecticides, saving us the need for costly chemical alternatives. Yet while pesticides are counted in GDP calculations, bats – and the essential services they provide – are not.

It is understandable that the UK pursues economic growth through development in infrastructure and industry, as emphasised by Dame EJ Milner-Gulland, but unless the principles of the Environment Act are embedded into clear enforceable policy, nature will remain on the sidelines in projects to come.

Sir Dave Lewis delivered a clear warning to government in his plenary speech: inconsistent policy is creating uncertainty for the private sector and unless that changes, businesses will continue to struggle to plan and invest in nature positive outcomes.

Throughout the day, a few key themes emerged which, when pieced together, help build a clearer picture of what’s holding the government back from truly integrating nature into decision making.

1. The nature metric debate
Economists and businesses want a simple, comparable number to integrate nature into models and decision making, much like the carbon metric for emissions. But many ecologists argue biodiversity is too complex and context dependent for any single “nature metric” to be meaningful.

Dr Natalie Duffus, captured this tension well, by highlighting that even when we claim to be “measuring biodiversity”, we’re usually only capturing parts of it, in habitat condition, species richness or ecosystem services, rather than its full complexity.

The takeaway? Transparency matters. If we use metrics, we must be honest about what they do and don’t capture.

2. Delay in implementing The Dasgupta Review
A key milestone in bringing biodiversity into decision making, mentioned throughout the event, was The Dasgupta Review. Commissioned by the Treasury and led by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, it was published in 2021 and praised for its powerful critique of mainstream economics and the failure to account for natural capital. However, as Dame Milner-Gulland pointed out, turning the review recommendations into actionable policies has been frustratingly slow.

We agree and have spent the last few years working out exactly how the government could make progress on this, from equipping the national wealth fund to updating the Bank of England’s remit.

3. Nature isn’t included in cost benefit analysis, but it should be
Joseph Lowe, formerly of HM Treasury, spoke about the Green Book, the government’s core guidance for appraising policies and projects using cost benefit analysis. Yet, as Lowe highlights, nature valuation is not included consistently in the Green Book, something he recognised as needing to change.

Professor Ian Bateman offered a solution to some of these challenges: using marginal abatement curves (MACs) for nature restoration, already a proven tool in climate policy. A nature restoration MAC would rank restoration actions by their cost per unit of ecological benefit, helping decision makers ensure limited public funds are used where they deliver the greatest environmental returns.

This is a chance to futureproof our economy
The event made one thing clear: integrating nature into public decision making is not just about conservation, it’s about changing how we define value, growth and progress more widely.

The government’s recent food strategy announcement, which referenced the Dasgupta Review’s call to the “invisibility of nature” is an encouraging shift in rhetoric. But words alone aren’t enough, nature must be put at the heart of the decisions that shape our economies and communities. Otherwise, we risk undermining the very foundations of our future wellbeing and resilience.