For millennia, natural infrastructure — such as river systems, wetlands, coastal plains, sand dunes and forests — supported the development of human civilization. Our ability to harness such infrastructure, for everything from food and drinking water to storm-surge protection and flood mitigation, has been central to our success as a species, and it will prove vital to our survival.
Technological advances propelled the evolution of infrastructure. Green turned to gray, with concrete, cable and steel delivering energy, communications and transportation — and, with them, unprecedented growth and development.
However, while rapid modernization produced once-unimaginable prosperity, it has had grave unintended consequences, not least of which is the environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions that are jeopardizing our very existence.
Illustration: Mountain People
The question now is how to meet urgent environmental goals — reducing emissions and protecting and restoring nature and biodiversity — while enabling developing economies to fulfill their legitimate growth aspirations.
The answer, as a recent report from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank suggests, might well begin with an explicit acknowledgement of nature as infrastructure.
Viewing nature as infrastructure is transformative, because it forces us to think in a more systemic way. As we pursue growth and development, we must not only avoid damaging nature, we must also strengthen and enrich it through “nature-positive” investments — all while tapping its vast potential to deliver essential services.
Biologists already do this when they benchmark how to restore degraded land. Now economists must get on board and enhance their tools for capturing the value and complexity of natural capital.
For example, biodiversity covers not just the number of species, but also their genetic diversity and diversity of functions. Yet another dimension of biodiversity is the complex evolutionary history of species — when they were separated on the “tree of life.” It is only by deepening our understanding of biodiversity that we can comprehend nature’s full potential — and our effect on it.
This knowledge is site-specific, and acquiring it would require contributions from scientists and local populations. The good news is that models for such collaboration already exist.
The massive Three-North Shelter Forest Program, aimed at preventing two large deserts from merging in Northern China, was a flawed endeavor at the start, with only single tree types planted. Over the course of two decades, deeper knowledge of the local environment and the participation of local communities transformed it into a success.
Governance and incentives are also crucial to protect and nurture natural infrastructure. In Indonesia, mangroves have long protected communities, particularly poorer households, from deadly tidal floods, but they are being depleted in regions with weaker state capacity. In Egypt, by contrast, efforts to restore mangroves have been aided by revenues from ecotourism and beekeeping, which produces honey and supports the delivery of vital pollination services.
The nature-as-infrastructure approach demands that we assess what nature can deliver before considering gray solutions, and it can help countries close their infrastructure gaps in truly sustainable ways. However, gray infrastructure would always be necessary for growth and development. This demands that we design it better, to minimize its effects on nature.
For example, renewable-energy infrastructure has a large ecological footprint, and road infrastructure fragments and damages ecosystems. Solutions such as colocating infrastructure on brown sites and providing auxiliary infrastructure (such as wildlife highway crossings, green urban spaces and nature-restoration offsets) can help mitigate these effects.
Of course, financing might pose a challenge. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed to a year ago, assumes that US$598 billion to US$824 billion per year would be needed by 2030 to close the biodiversity funding gap. Such sums, needed to protect and then begin to restore nature, could only be generated by valuing nature properly and creating markets that would mobilize private and institutional capital.
To this end, “nature as infrastructure” must be developed as an asset class, using new tools and financial instruments. At the micro level, this would require better pricing of nature’s services — such as usage charges or permits and taxes for damaging activities — and adaptive local regulations.
Micro-level policies can support the development of other financial instruments and, eventually, markets — for performance-linked bonds, policy-based lending, debt-for-nature swaps and nature credits, to name a few examples — to channel more financing into nature. Lessons from carbon markets should be heeded, to avoid repeating past mistakes.
Special attention must be paid to low-income economies, many of which are highly vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation, but have rich natural endowments that should be valued properly. Multilateral development banks can catalyze the nature-as-infrastructure approach, ensuring that it is incorporated into all aspects of their operations. Ultimately, this strategy should also guide individual infrastructure projects and national growth strategies.
The consequences of the infrastructure decisions made today would be felt for decades to come. Only by committing to invest in green — and to build gray better — can we ensure we lay the groundwork for a fairer, more sustainable, and inclusive global economy.
Erik Berglof is chief economist at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch