Posted on 13 November
2009 - Gland, Switzerland: Many economists
are failing to assess the value of their
countries’ natural resources, putting
billion’s of people’s well-being at risk
and contributing to catastrophic species
loss, according to a new United Nations
Environment Programme report.
The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity for National and International
Policy Makers 2009 (TEEB), released today,
states that governments must adopt better
accounting systems that measure the true
value of natural resources, and integrate
them in government decision-making.
WWF welcomed the report,
urging governments to heed the call to reform
their economic policies to halt the destruction
of natural resources.
“Governments need to
pay attention to this report and start looking
at nature in a more holistic way”, said
WWF Director of Global and Regional Policy
Gordon Shepherd, “With smarter approaches
to economics this can change but right now
we are paying for their ignorance.”
Investing in conservation,
management and restoration of ecosystems
will provide economic returns and services
to society that outweigh the immediate monetary
returns of unchecked use of natural resources,
such as the clear-cutting of forests or
overfishing, according to the report.
“We are running down
our natural capital stock without understanding
the value of what we are losing” the report
states.
“Degradation of soils,
air, water and biological resources can
negatively impact on public health, food
security, consumer choice and business opportunities.
The rural poor, most dependent on the natural
resource base, are often hardest hit,” according
to the report.
“The problem is that
economists do not give market prices for
ecosystem services and biodiversity,” according
to the study. “This means that the benefits
we derive from these goods (often public
in nature) are usually neglected or under-valued
in decision-making.” “This in turn leads
to actions that not only result in biodiversity
loss, but also impact on human well-being.”
The report also makes
several recommendations for policy-makers.
They include, for example,
that policy must address reforming environmentally
harmful subsidies – up to a third of which
currently support fossil fuel use – and
invest in ‘ecological infrastructure’. The
latter “can provide cost-effective opportunities
to meet policy objectives, such as increased
resilience to climate change, reduced risk
from natural hazards, and improved food
and water security as a contribution to
poverty alleviation.”
In addition, Shepherd
said businesses must likewise re-evaluate
their use of the natural resources on which
they depend to ensure their long-term profits.
In doing so, they can be part of the solution
to current environmental crises, such as
species loss and deforestation.
“Ultimately, this must
be a wide-ranging effort to re-evaluate
natural resources and it must involve everyone,
including private industry, governments,
international agreements like the Convention
on Biological Diversity, and indigenous
and local people,” said Shepherd. “It will
take a concerted effort to make our planet
healthy again.”
TEEB’s study on The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
was launched by Germany and the European
Commission in response to an earlier G8+5
Environment Ministers proposal to develop
a global study on economics of biodiversity
loss.
