To better preserve it, the State puts nature at a price, Liberation, 11/05/09 Guillaume Launay
A report attempts to assess what would cost France the loss of biodiversity. Or we discover that a hectare of forest is worth 970 euros.
Who bumps the eye by doing bzzz bzzz all day long and who nevertheless saves the community the trifle of 150 billion euros per year? Answer: bees and, more generally, pollinating insects, without which fruits and vegetables would be hard to reproduce. The figure seems absurd, but it is supported economically: if the bees disappeared, it would be necessary to pay to do the work for them or find substitute products. Globally, the first estimates predict that in 2050, the loss of biodiversity could represent 7% of world GDP. 14 billion euros per year.
While international work on the economics of biodiversity is developing (read below), France is making a contribution: a multidisciplinary group, chaired by the Inspector General of Agriculture Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, made public ten days ago a report (1), bushy and fascinating, which elaborates tracks to better take into account the value of nature in the economic sphere. A much more complex exercise than that of carbon, since the diversity of nature makes it difficult to reducible to a single unit of measurement.
What is the point of giving a price to nature?
The observation is the accelerated erosion of biodiversity. The report mentions a "process in progress towards an extinction of biodiversity, almost exclusively due to human activities". But giving a price to this biodiversity a priori was not at all unanimous in the working group. Between the regret to be forced to go through the monetary value to understand the issue and the fear of commodifying nature, many environmentalists hesitate to take the plunge. And so they all hammered that measurement did not mean working. For Allain Bougrain-Dubourg, president of the League for the protection of birds, “in this case, you have to be constantly in search of ethics. But in a market economy, we cannot consider that nature is priceless either. It's contempt. ”
The approach chosen is therefore not to set a price for bringing nature into trade - my highway destroys hamsters, we set a price per hamster and I reimburse -, but to be able to bring the variable "nature" into cost-benefit calculations. “Today, in a project, biodiversity is counted for zero in socio-economic calculations, explains Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis. Between two traces of a TGV line, for example, only time will count. ” The work of this group thus responds to the conclusions of the Grenelle, which provides that any infrastructure project must be evaluated with regard to its impact on nature.
What services are we talking about?
The report considers three types of services rendered. The most direct is the sampling service, when the man uses the food, fresh water or wood at his disposal. This is probably the most obvious to assess. But it is much more complex to give a value to regulatory services (carbon storage, water regulation and filtration, erosion control, etc.) and to so-called “cultural” services: tourism, education…
The group also decided to focus on mainstream biodiversity and did not want to give value for "remarkable" biodiversity. "What is irreplaceable would have infinite value, which does not do much," justifies Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis. We do not defend Notre-Dame de Paris by the economic value of its tourist receipts. ” The group favored an approach by milieus, rather than by species, to account for all the interactions. But it is not excluded one day to evaluate the services of such and such a species, for example, the vulture, scavenger very useful in matters of public health.
Why is one hectare of forest worth 970 euros?
The most detailed example is the forest. Not because it would be the most threatened ecosystem in France, but because this is where the data is most numerous. Conclusion, the direct value (wood) only counts for a tenth of the biodiversity of a hectare. Either 90 euros, against more than 500 euros for the fixing and storage of carbon, 90 for the quality of water or even 200 euros for recreational services ... These are evaluated according to the "revealed prices", that is - to say what individuals are ready to spend (in transport, for example) to benefit from a service which is free (the walk in the forest). Total: an average of 970 euros per hectare of French forest.
A reference value which is only a minimum, in particular because of missing data. "We are well aware of the appallingly reductive nature of our work," admits Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, the president of the multidisciplinary group. But we are sure that it is worth at least that. ”
The case of meadows is more delicate. The “sketched” value is around 600 euros. But this sum is "very undervalued", according to a member of the group, in particular because the data to assess their recreational value are lacking. However, the meadows are decreasing: today one hectare cultivated in cereals yields more to the farmer than a hectare of pasture. On the other hand, the latter's interest in biodiversity is much higher: there are 60 to 80 different plant species on a meadow. Hence a call to review the mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy. On the maritime side, the services rendered by the French coral reefs are evaluated from 5 to 000 euros per hectare and per year (ie several billion euros), including fishing, coastal protection, water treatment, tourism, etc.
What concrete actions can be expected from the report?
The publication of the report was not followed by a resounding announcement from the Ministry of Ecology, much to the chagrin of some participants. There is no shortage of recommendations, however. In matters of taxation for example, by emphasizing that certain tax exemptions (towards farmers or fishermen in particular) could be "re-examined in the light of their impact on biodiversity".
In terms of research too, and particularly concerning the French overseas departments, which make France one of the richest countries in terms of biodiversity. The research models used are still in the running-in phase, but the challenges are colossal. Present at the presentation of the report, the Indian economist Pavan Sukhdev, who works on a global assessment of the price of biodiversity, warns: "In this matter, failure would be morally unacceptable and would lead to human tragedy."
(1) “Economic approach to biodiversity and ecosystem services”, group report chaired by Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, April 2009, available on the site
