Natural Capital Valuation and the Problem of "de dicto" OR "de re"

Preface

One part of designing an economic system which is ecologically sensible and sustainable is the approach of assigning monetary values to "natural capital".  Efforts are underway in various places around the world to do that.  I believe those efforts are commendable and necessary, but there might be a problem that should be kept in mind.
............................
Will the Valuation be "de dicto" or "de re"?

http://www.isecoeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ONeill-what_is_lost_through_no_net_loss.pdf

To value an object merely as a vehicle for "services" is to value it de dicto.  The object is substitutable.  To value it for its specific, intrinsic characteristics, for its inherent, essential nature is to value the object de re.  It is not substitutable.

Valuing some objects de dicto is entirely appropriate.  A case in point would be tools.  To do so with other objects, such as living, sentient beings, is ethically questionable.  In some cases, even the nonliving portion of a landscape may not be substitutable in terms of the well-being of various people.

One proposal in the natural capital valuation approach is to implement offsetting markets.  If, for example, there's a loss of an ecosystem or a portion thereof in one area, then in another area one (of equal value) would be restored, or created, or preserved.  Supposedly, there would be no net loss.  But, what if the lost item is valued "de re" by the people in the area or region?  Then there is a net loss, and the well-being of some people is reduced.

In the article at the link above, Professor John O'Neill gives a critique of the whole idea of natural capital valuation (including offsetting markets).  The article at the link below is a slightly different version of the one above.  He makes some very important points which need to be given serious consideration.

https://www.cusp.ac.uk/themes/m/m1-6/#1475182667098-0328ae0f-4bcbf2c7-159ee609-9652

I well remember when offsetting markets were created for air pollution.  "Unused" carbon emissions could be sold to companies above their limits in order for them to keep polluting the atmosphere (for some limited time).  No net gain in air pollution.  Or, in exchange for being above their limits re emissions, polluters could buy tracts of forests and preserve them in order to reduce CO2 in the air.  Only the good side of that scenario was promoted in the media; it still is today.  So, the question is:  how well has "cap and trade" (carbon offsetting) worked out for our atmosphere?  In my view, not very well at all.

I'm not saying that natural capital offsetting markets are strictly comparable to carbon offsetting.  Nevertheless, the latter is a cautionary tale.
............................
Conclusion

While I believe that natural capital valuation is a worthwhile endeavor, policy makers must be extremely careful as to how they use it.  Markets rarely have been kind to nonhuman life.  Nor have they been kind at times to the abiotic portion of the ecosphere.  In particular, it's questionable whether or not offsetting markets could, or should, be utilized in all cases of natural capital.  See the links above for a full discussion.
...........................
Not only my opinion.  Be Well