Nature's services can no longer be taken for granted
Question: What is the cost of the ecosystem services which nature offers us?
Answer: A whopping us $16-54 trillion!
This figure has been arrived
at with the concerted efforts of 13
ecologists, economists and geographers who reported their finding in a recent issue of Nature. Remarked Robert Costanza, an
ecological economist at the University of Maryland who headed
the study, "We come away from
this, thinking this is a minimum estimate."
Most of the estimate lies outside the formal markets and is
therefore not reflected in market
prices, the usual gauge of economic value. Basing their estimates on other published studies and their own calculations, the
researchers state that the services that
nature's ecosystem provides has for long
been overlooked until they no longer
exist or are seriously endangered.
For conservationists, in the words of
David Ehrenfeld, a conservation biologist at Rutgers University, us, "Common sense and what little we have left of the
wisdom of our ancestors tells us that if
we ruin the earth, we will suffer grievously." While accepting the results of
the new study, he added passionately, " I
am afraid that I don't see much hope for
a civilisation so stupid that it demands a
quantitative estimate of the value of its
own umbilical cord."
Nature has for long performed economic services for us. An example is the purification of New York city's water
supply by microorganisms as the water
percolates through the soil. Now the city
plans to spend us $660 million to keep
this watershed in good health while the
alternative would have been to build
a us $4 billion water treatment plant. It
is, therefore, necessary, argue the
researchers, to calculate and heed the
true worth of ecosystem services.
While making economic choices
involving nature, people do not take into
account the cost of nature's services, feels
Costanza. Citing an example, he says that
the dollar value of wetlands' flood protection and water cleansing abilities has not traditionally been considered when
its area is lost to a shopping centre. This
results in a slow but sure depletion of
natural wealth. If such costs were reflected in day-to-day transactions, then the society would pay more attention to
what is lost when land is 'developed'.
States Gretchen C Daily, a conservation
biologist at Stanford University, "We
cannot wait until we have disrupted the
planet's life-support system beyond
repair. Once gone, these ecological
assets would be difficult to replace; it can
take thousands of years to recharge
depleted aquifers or replenish topsoil."
While many scientists have lauded
the study, a few others have expressed
scepticism about its basic finding.
"There is no way of knowing how good
this number is," said Robert Repetto,
senior economist at the World
Resources Institute, a Washington based research organisation. "They have
made some heroic assumptions. I suppose it is useful for rhetorical purposes.
But the number is less important than
the fundamental point made by the
study that ecosystem services are important; I don't think reasonable
people would deny it."
Stuart Pimm, an ecologist at
the University of Tennessee,
believes otherwise. The study has
succeeded in providing "a conservative estimate of what the
environment does for us. So
often, people concerned with
protecting the environment go
up against these very highly
detailed economic analyses and
feel they don't have anything in
kind with which to respond." In
the study, a particular table lists
specific ecosystem services and
their supposed value for different
types of natural areas and this
study is helpful in providing a
checklist that national and local
policyrnakers can use in attempting to roughly gauge the economic worth of their natural assets, according to Pimm.
What impact could this study have
on the thinking of the governments?
Daily and others state that government
subsidies that distort the value of natural resources in fisheries and logging
should be abolished. Also, tax incentives
might be given to landowners to protect
the long-term assets represented by
natural capital rather than using them for short-term gain.
For others, applying traditional
economic arrangements to ecosystem
services could be another way of
gaining an appreciation of nature's
services. Graciela Chichilnisky and
Geoffrey Heal, economists at
Columbia University, using the
watershed at New York city as an example, have proposed the selling of investment shares in a given ecosystem. The capital thus raised could pay for preserving the watershed. Returns to
investors would come either from a
share of the costs saved by not having to
build a treatment plant, or, if the investment were private, by actually selling ecosystem services. In this case, clean water would be sold.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.