The economics of biodiversity and business

While climate scientists lament the fact that their flagship compendia, such as the IPCC reports, come under endless attack, scientists working on other environmental issues would love such high-profile pronouncements, even if they came with a similar cost. IPCC-envy was one of the rationales for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in 2005, and it is the main impetus behind the current development of an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. When the equally inelegantly named TEEB process (it stands for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) was set up at the G8+5 meeting in Potsdam in 2007 its political patrons had a clear model in mind. They hoped that just as Lord Stern’s review of the economics of climate change, published in 2006, firmed resolve for action among governments and helped set in motion the processes that led to last year’s Copenhagen climate conference, so this new report should encourage a more serious global approach to the costs that damaged and dysfunctional ecosystems impose on people.

It’s worth noting that this approach implicitly assumes, as do many people, that the point of the IPCC and such endeavours is to find reasons for action, rather than dispassionately to assess the issue. Another caveat is that, as far as the climate is concerned, big and well publicised reports have manifestly not delivered the goods in terms of what UN negotiators call “environmental integrity”—producing actions that really do reduce emissions. But that does not mean that the TEEB process is either propagandistic or pointless. Treating the services provided by ecosystems as part of the economy is a good idea, and the various ways in which their value can be sustained, or even enhanced, deserve study. …