Prime Minister Boris Johnson welcomed the Dasgupta Review, which he says makes clear that “protecting and enhancing nature needs more than good intentions – it requires concerted, coordinated action.”
“This year is critical in determining whether we can stop and reverse the concerning trend of fast-declining biodiversity,” Johnson said.
Biological diversity is, in fact, declining faster now than at any time in our history. Since 1970, there has been on average almost a 70% drop in the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. Around one million animal and plant species – almost a quarter of the global total – are believed to be threatened with extinction.
Beyond its intrinsic – and incalculable – worth, biodiversity provides fundamental natural “dividends” that nourish and protect us: from basic sustenance through fish stocks or insects that pollinate crops, to soil regeneration, and water and flooding regulation. Not to mention the cultural and spiritual values that enrich our lives.
The total absence of these essential “ecosystem services” in national balance sheets has only served to intensify exploitation of the natural world.
A very simple example of the gaping holes in our accounting might see woodland destroyed to build a shopping centre. GDP records an increase in produced capital, but no depreciation of the “natural capital” that absorbs carbon, prevents soil erosion, creates a habitat for much-needed pollinators, and provides direct benefits to us – from recreation to purified air – that reduce burdens on health services. Such losses carry economic costs.
Nations are judged to have thriving economies at the same time as their biological assets are decimated. Estimates show that between 1992 and 2014, produced capital per person doubled, but the stock of natural capital per person declined by nearly 40%.
Governments exacerbate the problem: the total global cost of subsidies that damage Nature is estimated to be up to US$6 trillion per year. Accumulating produced capital at the expense of Nature is what economic development has come to mean for many people, according to the Review.
Dasgupta argues that the species extinction crisis we face – of our own making – is undermining the “productivity, resilience and adaptability” of Nature. This, in turn, has put our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing at serious risk. “Nature is our home,” he said. “Good economics demands we manage it better.”
The landmark 600-page report makes clear that urgent and transformative action taken now would be significantly less costly than delay, and will require change on three broad fronts:
Firstly, humanity must ensure its demands on nature do not exceed its sustainable supply. We must urgently increase the global supply of “natural assets”. Recommendations include the expansion and improved management of Protected Areas, and enacting policies that “discourage” damaging forms of consumption – meat-heavy diets, for example.
Secondly, we must adopt different metrics for economic success. This requires moving towards an “inclusive” measure of wealth, one that injects natural capital into national accounting as a critical first step. Dasgupta was among the Cambridge academics to help the United Nations launch their updated ‘Ecosystems Accounting’ framework at the end of last year.
However, this “inclusive wealth” should ultimately go further, so that national economics can also account for human health, knowledge and skills right through to the value of communities – all essential to what we think of as “productivity”.
Leading Cambridge academics including Professor Diane Coyle are already building on Dasgupta’s work to define new ways of measuring economic success – physical, financial, human, natural and social capital – at the University’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy.
