All of these vital functions of nature have economic values
that long have been ignored — but that must change if we are to stop the
destruction and degradation of ecosystems around the world, the UN Environment
Program said in report Wednesday.
Governments and businesses need to incorporate the value of
such natural capital into their decision-making, and not just pay attention to
traditional economic measures such as manufacturing, mining and energy
production, the report urged.
The two-year study, released at a conference of the UN
Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, attempts to show the economic
implications of failing to stop the alarming loss of species and damage to
ecosystems due to pollution, overexploitation or habitat destruction.
The poor, who depend heavily on nature for food and shelter,
are particularly vulnerable, so sustainable management of natural capital can
help fight poverty, the report said.
“The time for ignoring biodiversity and persisting with
conventional thinking regarding wealth creation and development is over,” Pavan
Sukhdev, the study leader, said in a statement.
As an example, overexploitation of global fisheries leads to
an annual loss of $50 billion every year compared to a more sustainable fishing
scenario, the report said. Insect pollinators provided an economic value of 153
billion euros ($211 billion) in 2005, it found.
As the world's cities grow, showing the value of “ecosystem
services” like water purification and flood control provided by the surrounding
countryside can help city authorities maximize efficient use of natural
capital, said the report, titled “The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity.” For example, New York City authorities paid landowners in the
Catskill mountains north of the city about $1.5 billion to prevent run-off of
waste and nutrients into nearby watercourses to avoid building a new water
treatment plant for up to $8 billion. Water bills for New Yorkers went up by 9
percent, instead of doubling as they would have with a new filtration facility,
the study said.
The report did not provide an overall estimate of annual
global costs from biodiversity loss because not enough data is available from
the many different kinds of ecosystems, said Joshua Bishop, chief economist at
the International Union for Conservation of Nature who was involved in the
study.
Bishop said the process of quantifying biodiversity losses
is far more complicated than the British government's Stern Review of climate
economics, which estimated the cost of reducing greenhouse gases.
The two-week UN conference aims to come up with 20 targets
for 2020 to stop or slow this biodiversity loss.
Scientists say human activities are driving species extinct
at a rate 100 to 1,000 times the historical average and threatening ecosystems.
Environmental groups hope the report will convince
government ministers gathering next week to take steps to counter these trends.
“This is building the pressure on the ministers,” said Tove
Ryding, policy adviser on biodiversity for Greenpeace. “We're hoping they see
this as a strong call for action.”
