How much does the opportunity for future generations to see the wonders of the world cost? What value do we place on the unique creatures of this Earth and the ecosystems that they form? The intrinsic value of nature seems to be fading over the years as other seemingly urgent issues take priority. Even for ecologists, the argument for environmental management is always rooted in the goods and services nature provides, rather than in its awe and beauty.
When it comes to why exactly more protected areas are not yet in place, it is not about a lack of public demand or scientific justification, but rather a perceived cost.
National Geographic conservationist Enric Sala wrote in his book The Nature of Nature regarding his experience meeting with presidents, prime ministers, and other world leaders about ocean protection. The conversation almost always comes down to concerns about the destruction of fishery businesses.
But it is understandable why people are reluctant about setting protectionist policy around natural land. Building more shrimp farms, fishing zones, and other areas of agricultural practices does have its short-term gains for those industries. Quarterly financial returns, annual GDP growth, political reelections—these incentives makes little to no space for investments into ecological management.
Rather than making the argument for the losses from exploiting wildlife, the convincing case is whether there are economic benefits in setting these protection policy in the first place. What does our economy have to gain from protected areas?
Indeed, marine reserves do make less fish available to fishermen, but an unexpected spillover effect is the size increase that makes up for this difference. For spindly lobsters, setting up a marine protected area (MPA) has increased mean sizes up to 13%. Further, biomass has increased by three folds—meaning in the long run, more and bigger fish will be available outside the reserves. This change was seen in reserves along the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, and even in the clams of Fiji.
Moreover, mangroves are known to protect local communities from floods and hurricanes, offsetting the potential cost of natural destruction. A study by the United Nations Environment Programme estimated Thailand’s mangrove forests to be valued at 3.5 million USD per square kilometer per year. This number factors in its many ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, erosion control, storm protection, food production, and tourism.
With a multitude of other benefits—both in the private and public sector—it is clear that nature conservation is a contributor to the global economy, not a drain.
The United Nations and other scientists has urgently called for a goal that by 2030, at least 30% of the Earth must be protected to stop complete degradation of important ecosystem services. For reference, only about 17% of land is currently protected. Not only is the world not investing enough to protected areas, the correct type of land must be designated. In other words, protected areas must be ones located near a community (to reap all the benefits of nature and maintain a sustainable source of protection) and be areas of key biodiversity.
It is less costly in terms of money and human life to keep our green infrastructure in place, rather than forced to rebuild them later on. Natural capital makes up so much of our global economy, yet little action is taken that reflects its importance. Not only is protecting more of the natural world essential to our survival, it is also integral to foster a prosperous economy.
Sources:
Enric Sala, The Nature of Nature: Why We Need the Wild, National Geographic (2020)
How Marine Protected Areas Help Fisheries and Ocean Ecosystems
Thailand: Regenerating mangroves for now and the future
We need to protect and conserve 30% of the planet: but it has to be the right 30%