Can the economic value of nature and biodiversity be measured? It is not just that it can be measured, it is that it must be measured. The academic of Indian origin Partha Dasgupta, professor at Stanford University and adviser to the British Government, has won the XVI Frontiers of Knowledge in Economics Award from the BBVA Foundation (considered by many to be a precursor to the Nobel).
His ecological ideas, which were born in the seventies and which may have seemed utopian or revolutionary at the beginning, are today relevant. Because the environment is increasingly at the center of the economy, even if it is not always reflected in the usual indicators. Like for example the GDP.
“But the states will continue to use it as a measure because it gives them advantages”, says Partha Dasgupta in a telematic conversation with this newspaper. In what sense? His message is that GDP does not take into account the degradation of ecological capital and the natural environment. So many nations are actually poorer than they think (or the numbers say).
Wealth is relative. “You can have fertile land and get a lot of income by selling the crop. But over time the soil gets damaged, you have to throw fertilizers on it. Therefore, the value of your wealth decreases, even if you earn a lot of money”.
How can you measure the value of a coast or a forest, which are usually public goods without a sale value on the market? This academic claims that it is possible and, in fact, the United Nations incorporates its models to more accurately value the wealth of the planet. “To know the value of a beach, you have to measure the willingness to enjoy it. For example, calculating how many kilometers you are willing to travel to get there. More recently, the systems have been fine-tuned to carry out a qualitative analysis: thus, in a lake, the quality of the water, the richness of the fauna and the impact on the ecosystem are studied”.
This economist warns that not all economic processes are substitutable or replaceable, but are interconnected. If to switch to renewable energies it is necessary to dig silicon mines, there can be a net loss for the ecosystem. For Dasgupta, we should once again worry more about asset value than capital flows. “We calculate the depreciation of the machines, but we do not appreciate the loss of value of public goods such as forests”, he complains. “It’s a paradox. There are countries classified as developing economies, in the tropics or like the Congo in Africa, which are based on an ecological capital and a great richness of the biosphere”.
To avoid these distortions, Dasgupta advocates rethinking the international economic and fiscal architecture. “You enjoy the Amazon rainforest, because it is a common good of the planet. If we want to avoid deforestation by Brazil, we should pay the country to take care of it,” he says. And where can we get the money? “Every day thousands of containers transit the oceans without paying tolls, unlike what happens on motorways. An international institution should be created, such as the IMF or the World Bank, which charges a fee and redistributes it to encourage countries to take care of natural reserves”.
Is there political will? “If we are able to join efforts to increase military spending, we can also join efforts to protect the planet’s ecosystem.”
