Connecting Global Priorities Biodiversity and Human Health

Drawing on the findings discussed throughout
this volume, these indicators may include
parameters of water quality; the extent, quality
and distribution of important habitats; wildlife
population movements; animal and plant health
status; and various indicators of biodiversity loss.
Similarly, in some circumstances the indicators
used by the health community (nutritional
status and availability, births, deaths, morbidity,
occurrence of specific diseases, etc.) may help to
bring specific ecological issues into focus or help
identify areas in which conservation measures
need to be assessed, strengthened or revised. The
same holds true for the development sector, since
the delivery of ecosystem services are supported
by biodiversity. Inter-disciplinary partnerships
to identify existing indicators which can be used
directly or modified to address cross-cutting issues
are an important element of capacity building for
the ecosystem approach, and help to promote
co-operation. Examples of cross-cutting indicators
which might be considered are provided in Table 2
below.
6. Assessing the economic value
of biodiversity and health:
Providing estimated economic values for an
ecosystem service can be useful for internalizing
that value and guiding decision-making and more
integrated policy analysis. If used effectively, and
in conjunction with other tools, some valuation
approaches can help us reconsider our relationship
with the natural environment, alerting us to the
consequences of our choices and behaviour for the
environment and human health. Translating the
value of natural resources and costs associated
with conservation into economic terms can
promote more equitable, effective and efficient
conservation practices, help to identify more
efficient means of delivering ecosystem services,
identify more cost-effective alternatives, and
allow for a more thorough assessment of tradeoffs
(TEEB 2010). Significantly, some aspects of
ecosystem functioning such as ecological resilience
cannot be fully captured in quantitative valuations.
However, in most cases, economic values can be
presented as complementary information, thus
contributing to the overall calculation.
Valuation approaches linking ecosystem
functioning and health that support decisions
about resource allocation may appeal to a variety
of stakeholders, including many of those in the
public health and conservation sectors. Many tools
for monetary valuation of ecosystem services have
been developed in recent decades (for a recent
review see e.g. Brouwer et al. 2013; for different
approaches see also see also Gómez-Baggethun
et al. 2014; Nelson et al. 2009; Brauman et al.
2007; Costanza et al 2006; Nunes et al. 2001).
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB), a global multidisciplinary initiative that
seeks to mainstream the value of biodiversity
and ecosystem services, has been particularly
successful in drawing attention to the global
economic benefits associated with biodiversity
conservation and the growing financial ecological
and human burden associated with its loss (http://
www.teebweb.org) (MacDonald and Corson 2012).
People rely on a range of ecosystem services to
sustain livelihoods, health, and well-being, of
which only a subset can be reflected in economic
evaluations in monetary terms; still fewer can be
addressed through market-based instruments.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB) follows a tiered approach in analyzing
and structuring valuation, including: societal
recognition of values; demonstration value in
economic terms where possible; and in some cases,
using market-based mechanisms to capture value.
The TEEB initiative calls for the internalization
and assessment of values of biodiversity and
ecosystem services where it can practically
and appropriately be carried out, based on the
recognition that it is unacceptable “…to permit
the continued absence of value to seep further into
human consciousness and behaviour, as an effective
‘zero’ price, thus continuing the distortions that drive
false trade-offs and the self-destructiveness that has
traditionally marked our relationship with nature”
(TEEB 2010:12).
The approach also acknowledges several of the
limitations, risks and complexities involved in
266 Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health