Including nature in the calculation of GDP, paying states that protect ecosystems. These are the proposals of the biodiversity economics analysis commissioned by the British government.
"Nature is our home. Good economics demands we manage it better." So says Partha Dasgupta, emeritus professor of economics at the University of Cambridge. The British Treasury commissioned him to review the scientific literature on the economics of biodiversity. It is the first time a finance ministry has assigned such a task. After a year and a half of work, with the support of a commission of 18 experts, the result is the so-called Dasgupta review. More than 600 pages, dense with charts, tables and bibliographic references, reaching a very clear conclusion: we must revolutionise the way we think, act and measure economic success, for the benefit of nature and our own prosperity. And we must do so quickly, before it is too late.
"Truly sustainable economic growth and development means recognising that our long-run prosperity relies on rebalancing our demand of nature's goods and services with its capacity to supply them. It also means accounting fully for the impact of our interactions with nature across all levels of society. Covid-19 has shown us what can happen when we don't do this," Partha Dasgupta states in a press release.
Similar conclusions had been reached by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes), an independent intergovernmental body accredited by the United Nations. In its Global assessment published in 2019, it had put in writing that "the biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole depends, is being altered to an unparalleled degree." And "the rate of biodiversity decline is unprecedented in human history." Some examples? Soil degradation has reduced productivity on 23 per cent of land. The disappearance of pollinating insects, by compromising agricultural production, could translate into annual monetary losses of between 235 and 577 billion dollars. Around one million animal and plant species risk extinction.
As well as painting a picture of the alarming situation we find ourselves in, the report on the economics of biodiversity puts forward a number of solutions.
To meet the needs of a growing global population without overstepping our planet's limits, the first priority is to protect natural capital — for example by establishing further protected areas or investing in so-called nature-based solutions — and to try to repair the damage done so far. "Within the context of fiscal stimulus packages in the wake of Covid-19, investments in natural capital have the potential to offer high and rapid returns," the study notes.
The analysis also addresses a widely debated question: what is the most reliable metric for measuring economic growth? GDP is useful, the study argues, but too incomplete. If states want to equip themselves with the right tools to shape their economic policies, they must also incorporate nature's resources into their accounting systems.
Finally, a rift needs to be bridged. Local communities hold precious knowledge about ecosystems, yet it is national and international authorities, or industrial supply chains, that hold the reins of decision-making processes. Where ecosystems lie within national borders, as in the case of tropical forests, states must be paid for safeguarding them for the common good. Where they fall in extraterritorial zones, as in the case of the oceans, charges must be imposed for their commercial exploitation (which should be prohibited in environmentally sensitive areas). These are significant changes, the study emphasises, that become possible only if underpinned by a profound rethinking of our educational and financial systems.
