An Oct 2024 report by EY NZ and WWF NZ, A Nature Positive Aotearoa, argues that a rapid, major boost to nature protection would contribute to long-term net GDP growth. However, there’s much in the report to support further thinking through a degrowth/post growth lens.
NZ is in crisis with 66% of native forest, 90% of wetlands and over 75 species lost, 46% of lakes in poor water quality and 25% of the population drinking poor water. Clean, green, we are not.
The study projects that a $64.5 billion investment in key nature targets by 2030, and $10 billion spread out to 2080, would result in a net economic impact of $272 billion by 2080—compared to a conservative ‘no action’ counterfactual.
However, impacts vary across economic sectors (see chart below, taken from the report). Manufacturing, dairy, raw milk, meat and animal products would experience economic losses. Fishing, tourism, government services, health, insurance, construction and trade would see gains. Mining, fossil fuels, electricity generation, waste services and crops would be relatively unaffected.
The model assumes substantial new revenue from carbon sequestration (see ‘other services’), with $16.9 billion in avoided costs for the government from purchasing overseas carbon credits and $39.5 billion for private landowners from the sale of carbon and biodiversity credits.
Essentially, a nature-positive, growth-based economy means some sectors and communities face recessionary pressures, while others benefit. Private landowners gain further from tokenising nature, facilitated through their property rights.
This model raises many concerns: volatility of carbon markets, entrenched inequalities and productivity issues linked to a property rights-based economy, and the lack of direct benefits for communities facing local recession. Addressing nature deficits within a growth-dependent system deepens social problems and rests economic stability upon speculative markets.
As above, degrowth (DG) advocates for establishing a rate of physical output that aligns with nature’s capacity for regeneration. It seeks neither to reduce GDP, nor raise it, but replace it with wider social and environmental metrics. DG involves a necessary but temporary reduction in output in certain sectors, followed by a long-term, post-growth (PG) economic model that maintains all production within socially agreed limits.
However, DG/PG is not solely about reducing output, but also a reorganisation of social and economic structures to ensure people’s needs are met. This embraces a democratically driven, just transition, where communities, rather than corporations or landowners, hold the primary influence over production decisions, aligning them with local needs and environmental considerations.
Communities dependent on agriculture and manufacturing—and tourism—have much to gain from exploring DG/PG thinking as an alternative way to protect their environment, safeguard their livelihoods and achieve good living standards equitably.
Photo by Jesse Cason on Unsplash
Heliocene 