In Common: The key issues with plans to profit from 'natural capital'

Remember, you can join The National for just £1 for three months with our exclusive offer for newsletter subscribers.

How can we privatise more of Scotland’s natural resources? Well here comes a new market framework to show you how. Say goodbye to more public money and hello to more large investment firms buying up what you see around you. Because why stop at trees when you can sell it all.

Common Weal recently published its response to the Government’s proposed Natural Capital Market Framework Consultation.

The Scottish Government has defined natural capital as our “geology, soil, air, water, plants and animals”.

The framework maps-out how we as a nation can look to profit out of those natural assets, this includes things such as food production, renewable energy and building materials. Additionally, this could account for our carbon credit scheme and flood defences.

READ MORE: Common Weal's concerns with plans for Scotland's 'natural capital'

The whole make-up of the framework is rather disturbing and without a doubt Common Weal is against its implementation in its current form. The framework shares similarities with many other initiatives looking to privatise natural capital.

Most notably this includes the “PFI for trees” scandal, and the “Green Investment Portfolio”. All the above looking to bump foreign investment and view everything as some kind of carbon credit.

Overall, the principles outlined in this framework make it even simpler for private companies to extract profits from Scotland, create harm within our communities and further afield, even though the Scottish government was aiming for the opposite.

As the system stands there are already too many loopholes, this just adds another way in which private companies can trick the system and see public money funnelled out of Scotland.

The overarching problem with schemes and framework such as these is profit and investment will always come above anything else. That includes reducing pollution, community benefits or creating a fair land ownership pattern in Scotland.

Using a market framework instead of legislation and regulation will always fall short of what is truly needed to cut our carbon output because it has no motivation to do so. The market will always seek higher profits over climate obligations.

Although it seems that Scotland has abandoned climate pledges we know net-zero is simply not enough, we must push further. Markets and private investment won’t get us there.

Furthermore, by looking at this as the solution we not only discount proper legislation to stop the production of carbon, but we side-step successful policies. Shifting from a market solution to a Polluter Pays stance would allow Scotland to effectively fund the work that needs to be done to repair the damage caused by pollution.

Scotland has a long history of public assets being 'developed' by private companies

That could include the taxing of carbon or adding an externalities tax to products which would not only allow consumer to make informed choices, but it would also aide us in funding publicly owned mitigation and repair projects.

We can’t have confidence in expanding this approach because it currently doesn’t work. As the Scottish Government points out, applying a privatised market framework to our natural capital is really just a continuation of structures such as the carbon credit scheme.

A recent estimate of the "social cost of climate emissions" put the price at over $1000 per tonne of carbon.

In comparison the current cost of a UK carbon credit stands at $60 per tonne of carbon. Meaning that the natural capital framework would result in 94% of carbon damage going unfunded and no-one accountable to do anything about it.

The carbon credit scheme has always been priced painfully lower than what it should be to make it environmentally effective. However, when run with the interests of private companies and foreign investment as a priority, this was always bound to happen.

The continuous need to open up every public element to foreign investment is sometimes blamed on the Scottish Government’s inability to borrow to the extent in which they need.

Yet, this wasn’t something fully thrusted upon them. Poor negotiation concerning the fiscal settlement with Westminster has got us into this pickle. Purely relying upon foreign investment is neither the best solution, yet more of an acknowledgement of failed negotiations.

Furthermore, introducing a Natural Capital Market Framework does little to address community issues out with climate mitigation. For example, poor land ownership patterns which remain highly concentrated could be further damaged with this market framework. We already have large investment firms such as Gresham House owning large portions of Scottish land.

But since this framework would value capital over the diversification of landowners we could see an even more monopolised land ownership pattern emerging.

READ MORE: UK democracy is broken – why will nobody fix it?

This is most definitely not in the interest of communities, especially rural communities who struggle ever year to purchase the land in which they live in and around.

Our natural resources don’t need any more profit extraction or frivolous frameworks that prioritise capital over carbon cutting. We need proper legislation and regulation, polluters to pay, and communities’ real needs met.