Nature delivers $510b bounty but needs more resources
Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson |
Australia’s natural environment contributes more than $510 billion to the nation’s bottom line every year, a report as found, making it as valuable as the finance and mining sectors combined.
But the federal government is not investing enough in biodiversity to ensure its continued health, and should lift spending to ensure it continues to prop up the economy.
Environmental group 30 By 30 released the findings on Wednesday in a report that analysed the environment’s financial contributions to the economy, including its direct and indirect value.
It comes one month before the federal government is due to release its emissions target for 2035 under the Paris Agreement, and one day after a Farmers for Climate Action survey showed most considered climate change their biggest threat.
The Nature Economics report, prepared by Cyan Ventures, sought to put figures on benefits provided by Australia’s natural environment by analysing its impact in different industries.
Putting a dollar figure on those benefits was challenging, author and managing partner Fraser Thompson said, but vital to assessing its impact and requirements.
“Nature doesn’t send us an invoice, it’s not like we pay for these ecosystem services that we enjoy,” he told AAP.
“From an economist’s standpoint, we would say this is a classic information failure that we have with understanding the value of nature, and what we can’t measure we often don’t value.”
Researchers assessed direct benefits from the environment, such as food, raw materials, water, tourism and recreation, and indirect benefits such as air quality, water purification, flood control and pollination.
The report found the environment provided $138.2 billion each year in direct benefits, representing 5.3 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product, with its greatest contributions to tourism and water.
But including nature’s indirect contributions to Australia’s economic output, such as climate regulation and erosion prevention, it totalled $510.7 billion.
The study did not account for “non-use benefits” of the environment such as social benefits, Dr Thompson said, to avoid overestimating its financial impact.
“It was a pretty conservative estimate because we wanted it to be robust and the fact that we get to $510 billion per annum, which is 20 per cent of Australia’s GDP, I was surprised it was that high,” he said.
“It speaks to how important nature is.”
Despite its economic contribution, the report found federal government spending on biodiversity averaged $476 million per year over the past decade, rising to $762 million or 0.1 per cent of the budget in 2024.
The report recommended an increase in environmental funding to one per cent of the budget, or $3.4 billion a year, which it said could be achieved by redirecting funds from the Fuel Tax Credit scheme and disaster recovery expenditure.
The findings proved Australia’s future prosperity was linked to its ecosystem, Pew Charitable Trusts director Tim Nicol said, and its impact should not be underestimated by governments or businesses.
“We need to start treating investment in nature the same way we treat investment in infrastructure,” he said.
AAP
