Photo credit: phys.org
World leaders are set to convene at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference, COP16, this October in Cali, Colombia, aiming to implement a robust strategy to combat species extinction driven by human activity. This gathering will focus on the ambitious Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which outlines 23 targets and four primary goals designed to halt biodiversity loss.
The current biodiversity crisis is alarming, with pollution, climate change, habitat destruction, and resource exploitation threatening a million plant and animal species with extinction. Human activities have dramatically altered approximately 75% of terrestrial ecosystems and 66% of marine environments.
As global representatives seek unified action towards the biodiversity targets established by 196 nations—echoing a structured approach akin to the 2015 Paris Agreement’s climate goals—a new perspective has emerged from scientists at Yale University. Their research paper, published in PNAS, introduced by Eli Fenichel, Oswald Schmitz, and Monica Dean, advocates for a hierarchical method to evaluate the economic contributory value of biodiversity.
The proposed methodology starts with the assessment of individual species and builds up to a comprehensive understanding of ecosystem biodiversity. This approach emphasizes the need for targeted efforts in each nation, focusing on a selected number of key species to formulate a tailored strategy.
Economic Importance of Biodiversity
The World Economic Forum reports that more than half of the global GDP is reliant on nature, with nature-dependent sectors contributing about $2.1 trillion to the GDP in the U.S. Nonetheless, existing biodiversity assessments frequently fail to adequately link biodiversity value with economic implications, according to the researchers. They argue that while the Kunming-Montreal framework aims to recognize biodiversity’s value for humanity, the lack of standardized valuation methods could hinder global progress towards biodiversity objectives.
The authors contend that developing a single biodiversity index that accurately reflects its economic value is unrealistic. A more effective approach would involve a classification system allowing for the evaluation of individual species according to their contributions to human well-being, which can differ significantly depending on local contexts. For example, certain plants might be crucial for preventing soil erosion, whereas certain animal species might be integral to local tourism or pollination efforts.
“It’s counterproductive to simplify biodiversity into a singular metric,” Fenichel remarked. “The significance of biodiversity varies across different locales and requires tailored, localized solutions.” Changes in biodiversity should thus be understood as part of a broader ecosystem’s natural wealth, prioritizing ecological relationships and their implications for human livelihoods.
Investing in Conservation
Policymakers can employ this clear economic valuation framework to strategically direct investments in conservation initiatives. By integrating biodiversity considerations into economic planning, governments can take significant strides toward addressing the substantial biodiversity finance deficit, estimated at over $700 billion annually.
“This perspective acknowledges that species should not be treated as isolated units. Instead, we advocate for a holistic valuation approach, recognizing the importance of species to ecological processes that support both ecosystems and human quality of life,” Schmitz emphasized.
While their initial valuation system may not be perfect, the authors suggest that statistical measures can evolve over time, much like those in national economic accounting have. “We simply need a starting point. Immediate comparability may not be feasible, but through an iterative learning process, better decisions can be made regarding biodiversity,” Fenichel concluded.
Source
phys.org