WATER UK
Sex, the City and nature
We can trust market economics to reveal the true value of chewing gum and Ferraris – but
should take care with more complex matters such as conservation, writes Barrie Clarke
E
very so often the Establishment gets its
knickers tangled about prostitution. Now
is one of those times. In a liberal
academic (but public) corner of the media-
blogosphere, there is a real hoo-ha about
‘people trafficking’. The origin was a journalist’s
allegations that the number of women being
transported and forced to work as ‘sex slaves’
had been grossly exaggerated. Citing research
showing that most ‘sex workers’ were willing
participants and even gained some ‘dignity’ from
the job, the writer claimed that evidence was
being distorted to back up a campaign for all
prostitution to be outlawed (1).
As things warmed up, familiar complexities
were rehearsed. Is the current legal position fit for
purpose? Would more regulation reduce harm?
Should there be a ‘crackdown’? Is the ‘sex
industry’ a trade like any other? How different are
the services it provides and the jobs it creates?
Does the market show the true value of the offer?
Or might it do so, if freed to function more
normally? There are no easy answers. But it would Valuing nature reason to conserve” (4). But it is more aware of
be hard to argue with the commentator whose In environment circles there is mounting its limitations. It thinks that not everything that
view is summed up in her heavily ironic reference anticipation about how the case for funding has a value can be traded, and cautions that
to “the longed-for day when a young job-seeker conservation projects could be strengthened by “where valuation is used it should generally be
loses benefit if she turns down a perfectly applying economic valuation methods to the one component of a broader decision-making
respectable place in the sex industry” (2). benefits humanity derives from nature – eco- process”. The problem, though is that free market
system services. economics is assumed by many to be the one
Commodities Natural England (NE) has published a report true way of allocating resources.
Most people would probably agree that the which argues that biodiversity and the One speaker at the launch of NE’s report
market can be more trusted to reveal the true environment should be treated as critical asked why efforts to promote investment in
value of chewing gum, say, or Ferraris, than sex. infrastructure for investment purposes (3). It nature had not been as successful as hoped.
But this raises an interesting debate about what looks forward to embedding new valuation Answering himself, he asked another question –
we are happy to treat as commodities and what techniques in decision-making. As evidence NE do stakeholders really believe that change is
really lies outside the market economy, or at includes case study projects with rather precise needed? He was right to ask. To reveal true
least in a more complex relationship with it. financial values. The benefits of ‘realigning’ some value, economic and market mechanisms are all
Leaving aside specialist definitions and Marxist land on the Humber estuary in flood protection we need in many areas, have a useful part to
theory, these questions are live and relevant in and in wildlife and habitats are assessed at play in some, but in others should not be
many areas of life. Take banking and ecology. £400,667 and £535,000 a year respectively. expected to carry the day. In these last cases,
The future shape of the banking industry is However, NE is also realistic. It is clearly right some kind of belief framework or cultural
under intense scrutiny. One focus is how much to say that “it is not always possible to elicit consent is needed that cannot be created to
trust to put in regulation and/or markets to make monetary values for all eco-system services in order – even to fit the one true way. ■■■
different sectors work properly and protect every situation”; and “the public good bclarke@water.org.uk
ordinary people. Part of this is an argument characteristics of many eco-system
about the wisdom of splitting “too big to fail” services…make complete commoditisation 1) Nick Davies, Prostitution and trafficking,
banks into ‘utilities’ and ‘casinos’. Utilities that impossible and undesirable in some cases”. The Guardian, 20 October 2009
offer vanilla services to you and me would be 2) Catherine Bennett, No trafficking?
tightly regulated. Their exposure to market forces One true way? The Observer, 25 October 2009
would be less than their investment bank The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds too 3) No charge? Valuing the natural environment,
cousins – they would be bailed out if the need is enthusiastic about valuing eco-system services. Natural England, October 2009
arose. Even in banking the potential for In its new report on the subject it says 4) Naturally, at your service: Why it pays to
commoditisation varies. “Economic valuation can provide a powerful invest in nature, RSPB, October 2009
16 Water & Wastewater Treatment November 2009
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56