Can the economic value of nature and biodiversity be measured? Not only can it, but it must. The academic of Indian origin Partha Dasgupta, professor at Stanford University and advisor to the British Government, has won the XVI Frontiers of Knowledge Prize in Economics from the BBVA Foundation (considered by many as a prelude to the Nobel Prize).
His environmental ideas, which were born in the seventies and which could have sounded utopian or revolutionary in their beginnings, are today relevant. Because the environment is increasingly at the center of the economy, although it is not always reflected in the usual indicators. Such as 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. Therefore, many nations are actually poorer than they believe (or than the numbers say).
Wealth is relative. “You can have fertile land and earn a lot of income by selling the harvest. But over time the soil deteriorates, you have to apply fertilizers. So the value of your wealth decreases even though you are making a lot of money.”
How can you measure the value of a coast or a forest, which are usually public assets without a market sale value? This academic maintains that it is possible and, in fact, the United Nations is incorporating its models to more accurately value the wealth of the planet. “To know the value of a beach you have to measure the will you have to enjoy it. For example, calculating how many kilometers one is willing to travel to get there. More recently, the systems have been refined to carry out a qualitative analysis: thus, in a lake the quality of the water, the richness of the fauna, its impact on the ecosystem are studied.”
This economist warns that not all economic processes are substitutable or replaceable, but rather they are interconnected. If silicon mines have to be dug to switch to renewable energy, there may be a net loss for the ecosystem. For Dasgupta, it is necessary to return to worrying more about asset values ??than capital flows. “We calculate the depreciation of the machines but we do not appreciate the loss of value of public assets 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 sitting on ecological capital and great biosphere wealth.”
To avoid these distortions, Dasgupta advocates rethinking the international economic and fiscal architecture. “You enjoy the Amazon rainforest, because it is a common asset of the planet. If we want to avoid deforestation by Brazil, we would have to pay the country to take care of it,” he maintains. And where to get the money from? “Every day thousands of containers transit the oceans without paying tolls, unlike on highways. An international institution should be created, like the IMF or the World Bank, that charges a fee and redistributes it to encourage countries to take care of their natural reserves.”
Is there political will? “If we are able to join forces to increase military spending, we can also do so to protect the planet’s ecosystem.”
