There is no contradiction between protecting the environment and economic well-being

This is according to a report that dealt with the economics of ecosystems and biological diversity prepared for the United Nations in preparation for the Copenhagen conference. For the attention of decision makers

In December, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen for a summit conference in an attempt to reach an agreement on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a reduction that will moderate global warming. This agreement is supposed to replace the Kyoto Convention from a decade ago.

Ahead of the convention, a report written by economists in collaboration with ecologists is published, the main conclusions in the report are that: "Investing in nature protection yields huge profits"; "Investing in conservation and protection: coral reefs, groves and forests, swamps and lakes, brings profits of hundreds of percent."

The report is based on research carried out by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB), a supported body funded and audited by the UN and many countries.
"TEEB" is an attempt to give economic value to the "environmental services", those "services" provided to us by the natural world... for free: purification of drinking water, protection of the coast from storms, services that are constantly provided on a global scale.

The director of the study - Pavan Sukhdev, an economist at Deutsche Bank, clarifies that the conclusions of the study are based on data collected from 1100 studies carried out in many countries, in different environments, in many different habitats and conditions. According to him "it doesn't matter how the data is presented... we always reach a profit ratio of 25/1 to 100/1. In other words, it can be reliably said that - investment in environmental protection yields profits.
One of the focal points that the report referred to are forest areas and groves, it was found that "the continued loss of forests causes an annual loss of 4 trillion dollars (trillion = one thousand billion). Nature conservation organizations call for the expansion of the protected areas in the marine environment, in order to preserve the existing ones and to allow the renewal of edible fish populations. Today less than 1% of all oceans are protected. According to the report: the cost of expanding the defense of the seas to 30% will be about 40 billion dollars. Following and because of the protection, income from fishing will increase and in the case of protecting corals, profit from tourism and protecting beaches from destruction by storms, a cost from which a profit of 4 trillion dollars will be generated.

Examples of areas whose preservation yielded profits:

• - A study in Costa Rica showed that intact groves have more insects that pollinate coffee flowers, coffee plantations near the groves yielded 20% more yield.
• Reserved grassland areas in New Zealand enable the supply of drinking water to communities. Without the conservation, the cost of water supply would have been 100 million dollars per year.
• In Vietnam, 120 square kilometers of mangroves were planted at a cost of 1 million dollars. The mangroves saved expansion and maintenance of dams at a cost of 7 million dollars.

As part of the summit in Copenhagen, the countries will call to fund a process for the protection of forests, "TEEB" also shows that the correct and cheapest way to reduce emissions is by stopping burning, felling and destroying the forests. "TEEB" shows that the failure of the markets to take into account the cost of "environmental services" harms not only the environment, not only the climate but also and above all the economy.

The report provides proof of the economic viability of preserving and protecting the natural environment. In the past I referred to the economic viability of nature conservation, (individual) economists joined the "greens" and tried to convince "policy makers" of the viability of nature conservation for economic reasons, now there is an official economic body backed by the UN and many countries, a body that will present the data in a form that will be understandable For the decision makers, an understanding that will hopefully be convincing enough to change the direction of thought and action, changed for the benefit of the environment,

The report suggests courses of action for policy makers:
1 - Investing in environmental infrastructures: will enable efficient and cheap preparation of infrastructures for climate hazards, will improve the security of water and food supply, since investing in ongoing maintenance is cheaper than trying to repair systems that have collapsed. "TEEB" estimates that an investment in the conservation of mangroves will bring profits of 40%, an investment in the conservation of groves and equatorial forests will yield a 50% profit, an investment in the conservation of grasslands and supported habitats will yield an 80% profit.
2 - Providing remuneration and incentive benefits in exchange for environmental services. The compensation will be given to residents who will preserve nature and their immediate environment.
3 - Determining a price for damage to the environment: regulations to protect nature and the environment will establish (financial) responsibility for anyone who harms nature, establishing a mechanism that will enforce the regulations and collect the price.
4 - Cessation of subsidizing industries, entities and activities that cause damage to the environment.
5 - Recognition of the importance of protected areas, recognition of the importance of conservation and the benefits that conservation provides: in the world there are protected areas on about 14% of the surface (ground). 6% of the "territorial waters", but only 0.5% of the oceans, as a sixth of the world's population relies on reserved areas that provide a large part of the population's needs. An investment of 45 billion dollars in nature conservation will ensure essential environmental services, clean water, fertile soil, flood prevention, etc., about 5 trillion dollars per year.

The "TEEB" report shows the benefits as well as the immediate need to change the policy regarding environmental priorities:
6 - An immediate stop to all forms of damage to forests must be included in any agreement and activity to stop global warming;
7 - Protection of the coral reefs (in the equatorial regions), areas from which they make a living and where about 500 million people live.
8 - Saving and preserving the world's fish, today the population of edible fish is collapsing in the entire world,
9 - Recognizing the connection between damage to the environment and the continuation of poverty in rural areas, implementation of the "Development Goals for the Third Millennium" policy.
10 - An agreement that would link the protection of forests to the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions.

To this must be added the treatment (how?) of frozen soil (permafrost) areas that thaw, emit matan (greenhouse gas) and harm the life of indigenous tribes. Natives in PermaProsert territories as well as natives of islands, Africa and other "developing" countries are harmed because of the activities of "developed countries" therefore their demand for funding for protective measures against the damage is justified, funding that will come from those who have the means - the developed countries.

Ahead of the gathering in Copenhagen, ahead of the "Year of Biodiversity" International Year of Biodiversity, there is a broad basis for the demand to stop harming our environment, a moral, logical, scientific basis and now again an economic basis.

Because the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.

Asaf