There's no contradiction between believing in the intrinsic value of nature and valuing the services it provides, writes Mark Reed

Defra has launched a best practice guide and action plan to help businesses and conservationists work together to deliver environmental benefits.

The idea is that business pays land managers for the value of the services they can provide from nature (eg carbon, clean water and biodiversity), above and beyond what normal markets would pay, so that these services can be maintained and enhanced. Businesses can then communicate the benefits of this work to their stakeholders, adding value to brands, and in some cases directly increasing profitability, for example by reducing water treatment costs for water utilities.

Valuing nature's services

The idea of "paying for nature's services" is controversial. Opponents argue that it is morally wrong to put a price-tag on nature, and that the government is seeking to privatise nature in an attempt to fix a problem that was caused by our capitalist system undervaluing nature.

But in the same way that we are prepared to put a figure on the economic value of a healthy workforce without putting a value on a human life, I see no contradiction between believing in the intrinsic value of nature and valuing the services it provides.

We should be investing in nature conservation primarily because we intrinsically value non-human life, but as outlined in the National Ecosystem Assessment, there is also a strong case that healthy ecosystems bring many benefits to our economy and society.

Whose pocket?

Of course, this still leaves the thorny question of who should pay. Some argue that this should be the responsibility of the state, by providing land managers with information and capacity to manage the land more sustainably, through taxes and incentives, or by nationalising land.

Some of this is already happening, for example, the annual farming subsidy from the EU, but this provides little incentive to invest in healthy ecosystems. At a time when the environment has to compete against health, education and international development for limited government budgets, we need to throw everything we've got at the environmental problems we now face. Creating new markets to pay for nature's services should be one of a mix of policy instruments, each of which has benefits and drawbacks.

As with information and training campaigns, taxes and incentives, creating new markets can have unintended consequences. We don't want a world where markets for carbon mean land is afforested at the expense of biodiversity, water quality and beauty. It is vital to ensure these rapidly emerging markets are effectively regulated.

Paying for peatlands

I've been working with scientists, conservationists and members of the policy community over the past decade to understand the science behind the carbon, water and biodiversity benefits of paying to restore of one the UK's most important habitats for conservation: peatlands.

Peatlands are the UK's largest soil-carbon store and absorb carbon slowly over millennial timescales, but in their damaged state they can release this carbon to the atmosphere rapidly. A loss of only 5% of UK peat carbon would equate to a year's worth of greenhouse gas emissions from the whole UK economy.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands highlighted in 2011 that around 80% of UK peatlands have been damaged in some way. Restoring damaged bogs not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions– it allows the bogs to capture greenhouse gases, while repairing habitats for internationally important wildlife and ensuring clean drinking water supplies.

However, there is a danger that without appropriate guidance, frameworks and monitoring, markets for peatland restoration may cause more harm than good. Investing in peatland restoration cannot become an excuse for companies to offset their carbon without reducing emissions at source. Payments must lead to new environmental benefits that otherwise would not have occurred, and land managers need to guarantee that restoration always brings long-term benefits and does not compromise carbon and the other services we rely on from the land.

I have been working with the IUCN's UK Peatland Programme and other partners in a Defra-funded research project to devise the pilot Peatland Code. We've just put a draft online for feedback.

The code is designed to help fund peatland restoration by providing guidance to restoration projects, and although not designed to "offset" companies' emissions, it will provide sponsors with quantification and official recognition of the climate and other benefits arising from the projects they fund.

Perhaps through initiatives like this, we might all be able to start sharing responsibility for the state of nature that we're in – government, business and public working together to get a better balance of benefits from the way we currently use our land.

Mark Reed is a professor in interdisciplinary environmental research in the Centre for Environment & Society Research at Birmingham City University's School of the Built Environment. Follow him on Twitter at @lecmsr.

This content is brought to you by Guardian Professional. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox