Biodiversity key to human well-being

Despite the pledge to halt the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, most countries have failed to achieve the 20 Aichi Biodiversity targets as stated in the UN’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-20. Degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems has continued unabated if not accelerated during the last decade. The recent Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services conducted by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) notes that one million species are at the risk of extinction during the coming decades. Out of 18 ecosystem services evaluated except for agricultural, fish and bioenergy production and material harvest, all services reported negative trends between 1970 to 2019. According to the Centre for International Forestry Research, each year the world loses $6.3 trillion worth of ecological services due to the degradation of forest and land. If unchecked this will have an adverse impact on economies, ecosystems, lives and livelihoods. It will also jeopardise the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals.

Biodiversity provides several goods and services that are critical to human well-being and good quality of life. The genetic pool that it contains helps develop new crop varieties and drugs which assume relevance to combat the adverse effects of rapid environmental change. Nature helps reduce vulnerability to climate change, extreme weather events and health risks such as zoonotic diseases. For instance, a recent UN report estimated the direct economic losses due to disasters between 1998 to 2017 at $2.98 trillion (in 2017 $) of which climate-related losses accounted for 78 per cent of these losses (UNISDR 2018). The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is now in the process of formulating the post-2020 biodiversity strategy.

In this background, the UK government in March 2019 commissioned an independent global review headed by Sir Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge to assess the economic value of biodiversity and to identify actions that will simultaneously enhance biodiversity and economic prosperity. The report calls for a paradigm shift in the way we think, act and measure economic success and to protect and enhance our prosperity and the natural world. It calls for institutional, financial and educational reforms to improve the outcomes for nature.

Governments assess progress or well-being in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP, however, is a flawed measure since it does not consider how environmental degradation or income distribution impact long term well-being. For instance, a barrel of oil or a tonne of iron ore extracted today is counted as an addition to GDP. Being non-renewable resources, these resources once extracted are no longer available for future generations and hence will constrain long-term economic growth and welfare. Traditional national income accounts consider depreciation of man-made capital but not of natural capital even though its depletion will affect long-term well-being and sustainable development.

While there have been initiatives to incorporate sustainability concerns in national accounts such as the UN’s System of Environmental Economic Accounting or Green GDP these are yet to gain wide acceptance by governments. The review argues that to accurately measure well-being one ought to consider the concept of inclusive wealth which covers not only produced capital (factories, machines, roads) and human capital (skills and knowledge) but also natural capital such as soils, forests and lakes. Tracking the changes in these three forms of assets will better capture social well-being.

The coverage and investments in Protected Areas (PAs) need to be increased in both land and sea. According to the report, to protect 30 per cent of the world’s land and oceans and manage them effectively by 2030, would require an average investment of $140 billion annually which is just about 0.16 per cent of global GDP and less than a third of the current global subsidies that support activities that destroy nature. The benefits from this would be immense such as lowering climate and health risks. Let alone increase the coverage of PAs, the report notes that only 20 per cent of existing PAs are managed well. It calls for greater involvement of indigenous people and local communities in the management of PAs.

Maintaining our current living standards would require 1.6 Earths which is unsustainable. This calls for a shift towards a sustainable food production system, decarbonising our energy and transport systems, reordering our consumption and production patterns and reducing food wastages estimated at 1/3rd of global food production to lower our carbon footprint. Further, we need to reduce perverse subsidies (globally estimated at $4-6 trillion annually) that favour destruction of nature. It calls for increased financial flows and implementation of Payment for Ecosystem Services schemes to reward those who conserve and supply ecosystem services.

Businesses and financial institutions are increasingly concerned about nature-related financial risks and their impact on their production and revenues. They, therefore, need to incorporate sustainability concerns to hedge their businesses and institutions from these risks. The report calls for an increase in green investments and nature-based solutions to address climate and health risks which are cost-effective and have several co-benefits such as generating employment opportunities and help in Covid-recovery stimulus programmes.

To connect people with nature, the review calls for reforming our educational system whereby the study of natural history is made part of the curriculum from the early stages. Ultimately, all citizens should be naturalists. It calls for empowering citizens to ensure better outcomes for nature. Sadly, in our country citizens who champion environmental or social causes are slapped with sedition cases and branded as anti-nationals and terrorists.

Despite swearing by environmental conservation, it is lamentable that India has been weakening its environmental regulations and promoting policies to destroy nature. Even after ten years, the Kasturi Rangan Committee’s recommendation to notify 37 per cent of the Western Ghats as an ecologically sensitive area has not been implemented due to opposition from politicians and those with vested interests.

(The author is an economist)