Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
$5,000,000,000,000: The Cost Each Year of Vanishing Rainforest
British scientific experts have made a major breakthrough in the fight to save the natural world from destruction, leading to an international effort to safeguard a global system worth at least $5 trillion a year to mankind.
80 per cent of the world's remaining terrestrial biodiversity live in forests. (Getty images)
Groundbreaking new research by a former banker, Pavan Sukhdev, to place a price tag on the worldwide network of environmental assets has triggered an international race to halt the destruction of rainforests, wetlands and coral reefs.
With
experts warning that the battle to stem the loss of biodiversity is two
decades behind the climate change agenda, the United Nations, the World
Bank and ministers from almost every government insist no country can
afford to believe it will be unaffected by the alarming rate at which
species are disappearing. The Convention on Biological Diversity in
Nagoya, Japan, later this month will shift from solely ecological
concerns to a hard-headed assessment of the impact on global economic
security.
The UK Government is championing a new system to
identify the financial value of natural resources, and the potential hit
to national economies if they are lost. The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (Teeb) project has begun to calculate the global economic
costs of biodiversity loss. Initial results paint a startling picture.
The loss of biodiversity through deforestation alone will cost the
global economy up to $4.5trn (£2.8trn) each year – $650 for every person
on the planet, and just a fraction of the total damage being wrought by
overdevelopment, intensive farming and climate change.
The annual economic value of the 63 million hectares of wetland worldwide is said to total $3.4bn. In the pharmaceutical trade, up to 50 per cent of all of the $640bn market comes from genetic resources. Anti-cancer agents from marine organisms alone are valued at up to $1bn a year.
Last week, a study by the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Natural History Museum in London and the International Union for Conservation of Nature suggested more than a fifth of the world's plant species are threatened with extinction. The coalition hopes that linking the disappearance of biodiversity to a threat to economic stability will act as a "wake-up call".
Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, believes the UK has a crucial role in bringing countries together to agree on action. In an exclusive interview with The Independent on Sunday, Mrs Spelman warned: "We are losing species hand over fist. I would be negligent if I didn't shout from the rooftops that we have a problem; that the loss of species will cost us money and it will undermine our resilience in the face of scientific and medical research. We are losing information that we cannot re-create that we may need to save lives and to save the planet as we know it."
The Government, working with Brazil, will use the 193-nation summit in Nagoya on 18 October to push for an agreement on sharing the benefits of biodiversity. They hope to thrash out an early draft of a deal which would ensure that regions rich in natural resources, including South America, Asia and Africa, receive the benefits enjoyed by developed countries. In many parts of the world, the survival of the natural environment is a matter of life and death for the people who live there. Forests contribute directly to the livelihoods of 90 per cent of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty. Half of the population of the developing world depends indirectly on forests.
But for many, the environmental and economic damage is already done. The collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery in the 1990s is said to have cost $2bn and tens of thousands of jobs, while mangrove degradation in Pakistan caused tens of millions of dollars of damage to the fishing, farming and timber industries.
More than a quarter of the world's original natural biodiversity had gone by 2000, and a further 11 per cent of land biodiversity is expected to be lost by 2050. According to some estimates, the rate of extinction is up to 1,000 times that expected without human activity and, now, climate change.
"The way we are doing things is not sustainable," Mrs Spelman added. "Biodiversity is where climate change was 20 years ago – people are still trying to understand what it means and its significance. Things that we thought nature provides for free, actually if you lose them, cost money."
The scenario is already being played out in China, where the demise of its bees has led to workers climbing ladders to cross-pollinate plants. "We have to do everything we can to stop that happening here and elsewhere," said Mrs Spelman, who last month addressed the environmental event at the United Nations. Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, had demanded urgent action. "Too many people still fail to grasp the implications of this," he said. "We have all heard of the web of life. The way we live threatens to trap us in a web of death."
The breakthrough in the battle to persuade countries worldwide to sign up to the biodiversity agenda is the development of Teeb, part-funded by the British, German and Norwegian governments, which calculates the value of nature and the cost of its loss. Developed by Mr Sukhdev, an Indian banker turned environmental economist, its data will be broken down by countries and regions. "'We must all work towards making the meeting in Nagoya a decisive moment in history," Mr Sukhdev said.
Mrs Spelman was critical of the last government for its approach to the problem. She told the IoS: "Mistakes have been made, well-intended, about saying we are going to stop the loss of biodiversity within a decade. Scientists will tell you that's not possible."
From greenbacks to green issues: The banker who wants to save the Earth
Who better to put a value on global biodiversity than an international banker with environmental credentials? Pavan Sukhdev, who spent much of his career working in international finance, was first approached by the EU Commission and Germany in March 2008 when he was with Deutsche Bank in India, and asked to measure the economic cost of the global loss of biodiversity.
Latests findings of the study were presented at the United Nations last month. It was widely praised in environmental circles for its ability to model the impact of a loss of biodiversity on global rates of poverty and economic inequality.
Mr Sukhdev is leading a team of scientists in the project backed by the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, along with the German, Norwegian, Dutch and Swedish governments. Prominent figures include Defra's chief scientific advisor, Prof Bob Watson, who is a leading expert on biodiversity.
Mr Sukhdev was involved in environmental projects in his native India, including sitting on the board of the Bombay Environmental Action Group and working alongside the Indian States Trust to develop "green accounts" for businesses that also consider the environmental impact of economic development.
In 2008, he took a sabbatical from Deutsche Bank to become a special adviser to the United Nations Environment Programme, overseeing three programmes measuring the combined economic cost of global ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss.
In his spare time he manages a model rainforest restoration and ecotourism project in Queensland, Australia, and farming in southern India.
- Posted in

21 Comments so far
Show All$5 Trillion seems like a lot of money - to 'us' little people.
It is a telling sign of the accumulated influence of right wing media glorifying profit that this fairly effective argument has to be made in this manner.
I agree NateW. How can you put a $ value on a beautiful National Forest; A grove of Redwood trees 2000 years old; a pristine, unspoiled habitat of any kind for that matter. The $5,000,000,000,000.00 figure and any other $ figure is sheer nonsense.
Not only is "putting a price tag on nature" a utopian fantasy (in the bad sense of the term), one only an economist could love... and not only is it aesthetically and morally objectionable... it's more sinister than that. The efforts of those who try to calculate the monetary value of "ecosystem services" -- efforts practiced by "progressive" environmental economists, moreover -- are nothing less than the vain attempt to extend capitalist logic to the realm of ecological protection, precisely to reproduce and extend the very system (capitalism) that is responsible for looming biospheric destruction in the first place.
Well, the banker has part of it.
Go all the way; call the natural world and all it's inner workings, and asset. The BIG asset.
Everything we "take" from the big asset is Liability + Owners' Equity. We turn the earth's living harmony into money, which is a liability to pay back. We do it for the "riches" it brings, "owner's equity", based on an inflating economic system.
Until we see the BIG accounting equation, every last bit of nature will be destroyed to fill the belly of the beast.
It's not about how much losing rain forest will affect the economy, it's about how it's effect on the chain of life affects mankind's ability to survive.
The ocean's, the rain forest, they are all a web. You can't put a monetary value on them. If you turn that asset into money you have to restore the ecosystem to payback that asset!
That's the way the BIG accounting equation should work!
Might want to add a little benign hedging while we are at the value equation.
Well put Bill. Did you happen to catch this video from a few days ago? Brilliant and more importantly, wise Chilean Economist by the name of Manfred Max Neef was interviewed recently by Amy Goodman. His conception of "Barefoot Economics" provides an economic paradigm that is elegant, simple, and holistic all at once.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/09/23-2
Shoot, 7,000,000,000 people that would what only cost each person $1400.00 dollars or so and If we can get another 5,000,000,000 people on board in a few years that $1400.00 would be cut almost in half.
Quite a clever trick those corporate accounters have in figuring out how much the people owe them.
FOOD CHAIN
Man, the top, the pinnacle, the key link in the chain of life of this planet that has a closed system, there is no where else.
Should not this give us pause and reason to be as caretakers and guardians because nothing is limitless?
When we take all the oil and gas out of the earth, which are our cushions, shock absorbers and we get changes what will give us a chance when all is so unmoving and rigid ?
Wood is useful, nice to look at but it does not produce oxygen to breath but trees do, will we over cut trees and cut our own throat to please our selves.?
This includes trees from all over the world , can we really believe that when we rape any part of the world, in this enclosed system , that we can escape the consequences?
Deserts , are they an ecological balance or are they what is left when we at the “ top of the food chain “ use the mantra of we will subdue ?
This is just part of the situation as it stands today . There is more .
Tony
Great comment, Tony. Remember when Franklin sais "it is a republic if we can keep it"? Well, the Earth has gone the same way as our democracy. That has been gone a long time now. Mankind has been a plague on this planet since we were cave people. Killing and wars and destroying this planet is the legacy of us humans. Those of us that care about the ecology or about peace are labeled kooks. I think the soon we become extinct, the better for the rest of the species. If any survive the greed and shallowness of humans.
joecool; Thank you. Tony
With sustainable management of forest ecosystems and use of industrial Hemp and other sources for construction and paper we can reverse this trend.I agree with the other posters that a monetary value on rain forest ecosystems and the myriad species that they support is ridiculous.The sad thing is that this has been allowed to go on for so long until the sixth great extinction has progressed so far.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (sic) may be shaken off by Gaea earth (mother Nature )by then,like a bunch of plague infested fleas.
peace
How much are your lungs worth to you?
Would you mind if each year a percentage of
your lungs was removed?
Nearly every big living creature needs something to remove
carbon dioxide from their system.
With a poorer set of lungs, your blood carbon dioxide levels
will rise until the removal rate equals the production rate.
This sets a severe limit on physical effort.
Removing the rainforests takes away part of our worlds lungs
and releases extra stored carbon dioxide as well. It reduces the
amount of carbon that will be removed from the atmosphere. More than
ever, we need our worlds lungs.
Lungs, blood, flora and fauna- all serves a purpose in the web of life. Humans on the other hand? We've forgotten ours. My hope is that we learn it again real soon.
every tree lost can be replaced by man with 10 new ones -the present state of afters reflects the quality of the so called leaders and ecologists
edweg
Planting trees only goes so far toward rebuilding lost ecosystems. And I wouldn't lump the poor ecologists in with the "leaders", economists on the other hand...
Lump them together and stampede them off a cliff before that very fate befalls the rest of us.
"The coalition hopes that linking the disappearance of biodiversity to a threat to economic stability will act as a "wake-up call"."
Economic stability is a thing of the past if it ever even existed there. It'll be somewhere between a decade and never before we figure out how to how to balance "economic stability" with environmental stability.
In the meantime we are faced with a set of circumstances which requires a complete repudiation of nearly our entire way of life and a willingness to accept the unknown- not something we humans tend to do.
Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, had demanded urgent action. "Too many people still fail to grasp the implications of this," he said. "We have all heard of the web of life. The way we live threatens to trap us in a web of death."
That's exactly what I've been saying for years- though he puts it pretty damn succinctly. We already understand the problem, we already have many solutions. Implementing those solutions will not enable us to maintain the status quo, but in fact requires us to abandon the very practices which maintain and promote the status quo. Exactly what that could/should look like is in many ways an open question, however there are men and women far more intelligent than I working on this one too.
One of these is a brilliant and more importantly wise Chilean Economist by the name of Manfred Max Neef. He was interviewed recently by Amy Goodman. His conception of "Barefoot Economics" provides an economic paradigm that is elegant, simple, and holistic all at once.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/09/23-2
It is worth noting that there are only 7 comments on this video so far.
Changes are afoot that will transform the way we live. There will be no avoiding this fact. We can accept this and become willing participants in the process (collectively and individually) or we can be dragged kicking and screaming (literally) into any number of dark dystopias.
If anyone has any contacts at the UN, perhaps they could put the word out that there are many thousands, perhaps millions of individuals scattered across the globe who understand these issues. Some of us through training or innate ability (old souls perhaps?) understand the world through a systems thinking process; we have long understood the dynamic interplay of forces that operate within systems. For us the parts don't even begin to make sense until seen within the context of the whole system. For us the social and environmental phenomena we witness today reads not like a series of articles with diverse conclusions, but like a never-ending epic novel. And while the details of the story are still being hashed out, unless the fundamental structure of the plot of this narrative is dismantled and rebuilt, the fate of our protagonists and of the biosystem itself is grim.
We (I humbly count myself as one) represent a veritable brain trust of farmers, historians, engineers, psychologists, teachers, carpenters, artists, etc that could be employed to perform any number of useful and important duties in this effort across all scales of human communities. Lord knows we would be glad to have meaningful work.
I accept that it's not a terrible idea to put a big price tag on it, but only because the delusional empire can't think any other way.
In the real world though it's silly. The Earth works how it works because Mother Nature made it that way. And it has t be that way.
don't imagine you can buy your way out of the disaster you insist on making- not even for 5 trillion, or a trillion times that.
When you say something like that it suggests the possibility that we can buy it back.
go talk to Evo Morales. We call her Pachamama,
and she is not for sale.
I doubt putting a pricetag on what was a phenominally beautiful planet, before we dropped down out of the trees and
started slash'n and burn'n everthing in sight, will wake up
the "Bozosapiens" from their sleep-walking state, as it is
rather too late in the game already anyway!
Mother-earth/Gaea will recover after she shakes the "plague-
fleas" (man) off her back as JHempseed remarked, and yes the
other species here and in the rest of the Universe will all
breath a collective sigh of releif after we're gone Jcool9!
I expect Gaea will awaken soon; she's been very patient with
us in hopes we might evolve into an intelligent species.
Too bad it didn't pan out! Ya te hay as the Hopi's say!
a yellow, eight-sided life raft sells for just under a thousand dollars to a shopping man in the store...
if a drowning man in the ocean wishes to buy one, it will cost much more...
they know this...
the world has no price tag...it is priceless...
A Republican boss, who once ruled me, stated this as his philosophy: "Everything is money, only in different forms."
Kids wouldn't need a whole lot of schooling to learn that, especially if that encompasses all there is to know on earth.
Republicans also have the ‘afterlife’ covered, for those who kneel and obey (and give).
And give.
$