Photo: Leopoldina.org
BIODIVERSITY and BIODIVERSITY
Our goal is to preserve our native flower meadows.
An ethical and economic paradigm shift is required to stop the fatal loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystems. In order for our planet to remain stable and resilient, capital and investments are needed to preserve species-rich habitats
People's well-being depends on intact, well-functioningecosystemsand the provision of theecosystem services(OSL) off.
They provide oxygen to breathe, clean water, food, raw materials for medicines and much more. There are also a number of cultural services that significantly increase the quality of life.
The diverse ES of nature are also an important prerequisite for the economic prosperity of our society. They are the basis for our economic existence and the well-being of people, as well as the basis for almost all economic value chains.
However, biological diversity also harbors enormous innovation potential, for example in the development of new medicines, technical developments (bionics) and industrial raw materials. Last but not least, it serves as a genetic resource for the long-term security of our nutrition.
natural capital
Economic metaphor for the earth's limited supply of physical and biological resources and the limited provision of goods and services by ecosystems.
TheResearch Group on Sustainable Finance at the University of Hamburghas evaluated more than 150 scientific studies and confirmed that the loss of biodiversity leads to financial risks.
The basic requirements for intact biodiversity are met when sensitive ecosystems are protected from human intervention, disturbed ecosystems are restored and biodiversity-friendly land use models are introduced.
However, we can only master the complex challenges we face if we also bring about systemic change.
According to scientific calculations, we need to protect 30% of our planet to stop the climate crisis and BIODIVERSITY COLLAPSE at current levels.
In addition, environmentally harmful subsidies must be reduced (in Germany alone, these are on average
EUR 65 billion pa) as well as serving the unlimited growth and profit interests of some lobby groups.
It is clear that we need a trend reversal to stop the fatal loss of biodiversity. We must develop solutions that ensure that our planet remains stable and resilient.
However, we can only master the complex challenges we face if we also bring about systemic change.
According to scientific calculations, we need to protect 30% of our planet to stop the climate crisis and BIODIVERSITY COLLAPSE at current levels.
In addition, environmentally harmful subsidies must be reduced (in Germany alone, these are on average
EUR 65 billion pa) as well as the servicing of unlimited growth and profit interests of some lobby groups!
The 'Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Program (TEEB)', the 'Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA)', and the 'Natural Capital Finance Alliance' have quantified the value of ecosystem services and the economic losses due to biodiversity loss.
To finance all this, it needs at least US $ 500 billion in NATURE CONSERVATION CAPITAL annually.
A theoretical possibility to provide this capital would be the "internalization of external costs".
External costs or negative externalities arise, among other things, from overexploitation of natural resources, overexploitation or pollution of ecosystems as well as damage or destruction of ecologically valuable biotopes. These negative externalities, also known as "damage costs", quantify the negative impact on biodiversity that can be assigned to each polluter.
These external costs are currently borne by the general public, i.e. socialized!
This means that these "damage costs" are not currently reflected in current market prices and are therefore in no way taken into account in the economic decisions of those responsible.
With the "internalisation of external costs", those costs that run counter to the preservation of biodiversity ("damage costs") would be included in the product price. The problem with this would be that if these costs were added to the consumer price ("in order to achieve honest product prices"), unimaginable price explosions would occur for many products, which would most likely result in an abrupt decline in the general level of prosperity result.
Therefore one would beCause-based assumption of "external costs"the much more realistic option.
Negative externalitiesshould be attributed to the respective polluters who are responsible for thisCompensate for "damage costs" in successionwould have to.
Since those responsible for the negative effects on biodiversity collect all the profits from their value chains and thus privatize them, it would be more than justified for these companies to also bear the associated "external costs" and not pass them on to the general public as has been the case up to now, so be socialized.
As a counterpart and 'best practice model', the pricing of CO2e emissions and their cause-related, monetary compensation through the purchase of CO2e certificates can be used for the benefit of earmarked project financing to mitigate climate change.
(National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina 2020: "Global Biodiversity in Crisis - What can Germany and the EU do about it?").
Politicians or possibly other decision-making bodies committed to the COMMON WELL must create globally coherent framework conditions so that the economy is obliged to provide capital for the preservation of ecosystems. The economy was and is innovative and therefore adaptable. All she needs is the right specifications and a realistic time frame in order to adapt to difficult specifications and to implement them.
Especially since the sustainable safeguarding of ecosystem services is also in the best interest of the business community itself. Every company has an existential interest in being profitable in 10-15 years. However, that would no longer be possible if the destruction of biological diversity proceeds at the current rate or if we have reached 2 degrees Celsius global warming and large parts of the planet are no longer habitable.
To do this, the protagonists must be made aware of the drama of the situation, so that the short-term, possibly even economic and growth-inhibiting specifications become dogma. Only then will the economy be willing to move forward voluntarily in order to develop long-term, livelihood solutions more quickly.
But not only the economy but also every single one of us must be aware that he is a resident of 'Planet A', our only earth and therefore bears responsibility for himself and all other people to really do everything to protect the to promote domestic biodiversity by all means. For this we need a better understanding of each other but also of nature.
It's about the future of all of us!
The majority of economics sees and thinks of people from the beginning as a selfish creature (homo oeconomicus), who only cares about their own advantage and thus creates prosperity for everyone in a wondrous way. This image of man is wrong and urgently needs to be updated. A system that rewards selfishness breeds selfishness. We need a reconsideration of the values that sustain people in their cooperative aliveness.
We need an ECONOMIC PARADIGM CHANGE, in the course of which all actors – companies, consumers, governments and the financial world – understand environmental protection as the key to success.
Instead of further destroying biodiversity, we must move to a system in which business and nature serve each other and society benefits.
In order to integrate biodiversity as a criterion in economic decisions and to develop effective plans for its conservation, all relevant actors need an honest understanding of the biodiversity damage, ecosystem degeneration, excessive resource extraction and pollutant emissions they cause and what they expect and will do making reparations.
Effective protection of biodiversity goes beyond combating species extinction. If we want to preserve the services of nature, there must be a variety of intact ecosystems with the most diverse species, genetic variations and connecting elements.
For this it is necessary to consider the following objectives:
-
the preservation and regeneration of as many native ecosystem species as possible,
-
the protection of genetic diversity and native species,
-
securing essential, basic ecological functions,
-
the expansion of ecosystem services and
-
the restoration of diverse ecosystems for maximum carbon storage (climate crisis).
Compensation for biodiversity losses
main mechanism
Compensation measures are a voluntary or mandatory tool for companies to compensate for unavoidable negative impacts on an ecosystem by funding restoration measures elsewhere (“offsetting”).
Biodiversity conservation potential: what can be achieved?
-
Compensation makes sense when an intervention is considered unavoidable and the same ecosystem functions can be provided in a similar spatial context.
-
It is particularly effective when the relocation or restoration of habitats is suitable for the protection of the affected local species and the impacts to be compensated for can be measured using a standardized method.
-
Most often, compensatory mechanisms address land conversions such as sealing through infrastructure construction or settlements, but they could also be extended to include the effects of cropping and resource extraction.
Protective measures: what needs to be considered?
-
Unlike carbon emissions, biodiversity is local and not easily related to a globally measurable quantity.
-
When considering the decision to take compensatory action, the hierarchy of harm reduction should be followed:
1) avoidance,
2) minimization,
3) similar and equivalent on-site restoration
4) Compensatory measures elsewhere. -
The idea of equal and equitable on-site restoration is important so that compensatory measures take account of the uniqueness of local ecosystems.
-
Other important principles for financing restoration projects are compliance with protection goals and designation reasons for protected areas and spatial reference in the case of resettlement.
-
Finally, the temporal component must also be considered: alternative habitats must exist before the original
External costs or negative externalities are negative effects on biodiversity that are not reflected in current market prices and are therefore not taken into account in the economic decisions of those who cause them.
These "damage costs" arise from overexploitation of natural resources without compensation, overexploitation or pollution of ecosystems, activities that lead to overexploitation or pollution of ecosystems and have an overall negative impact on biodiversity._cc781905 -5cde-3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_
These costs, which are currently borne by the general public, i.e. socialized, should be borne by those who cause the costs, which, as a matter of course, privatize the profits from the value chain. Product value creation einnahmen are integrated into economic decision-making and "internalised".
The pricing of CO2 emissions and their causer-based, monetary compensation through the purchase of CO2e certificates for the benefit of earmarked project financing to mitigate climate change can serve as a model.
National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (ed.) 2020: "Global Biodiversity in Crisis - What can Germany and the EU do about it?"
Photo: Pixabay Royalty-free
Nature provides valuable
-
material (e.g. groceries),
-
regulatory (e.g. regulation of climate and pollination) and
-
intangible contributions (e.g. learning experiences and inspiration)
for the people (Figure SPM.2).
These contributions are of vital concern to people's quality of life as they each represent significant economic, social and cultural value (well recognized)2 {2.3.5
Nature's contributions to people, including ecosystem services, are essential for their livelihoods, for the economy and for a good quality of life;
accordingly, they are a prerequisite for the preservation of human life on earth.
Nature has significant economic and cultural value to the world's societies. For example, it contributes to human health by, among other things, supplying raw materials for the manufacture of medicines, offering food for a varied diet and supporting the maintenance of mental and physical health through green spaces.
MEDIAN VALUES of important regulating ecosystem services are among others
-
regulation of freshwater quantity and quality $1,965 per hectare per year,
-
the conservation of natural habitats ($765 per hectare per year),
-
climate regulation ($464 per hectare per year) and
-
air quality regulation ($289 per hectare per year)
-
the pollination ????
-
soil formation (humus) ???
-
flood control and erosion control ???
(IPBES - Regional Assessment 2016-2018 - BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA)