When nature goes on display
If the general public remains fond of such shocking figures, one might question this monetization of the oceans on a global scale and the methods employed, which are not detailed in the report.
24 000 billion: a figure that hits the mark
Measuring this value can thus be considered to awaken consciousness, even if this figure is imprecise. This is evidenced by the significant media coverage of this publication.
A monetization that raises questions
Certainly, alongside the aforementioned report, an annex report details in about twenty pages how the global economic value of the oceans was determined.
However, the interest in the "price of nature" to raise public awareness should not overshadow the questions about how this value is used. Because it is indeed meant to be "used" as a tool. Like a hammer that has no interest if there is no nail to drive in, the economic value of the oceans is only of interest if it is mobilized. To illustrate this point, let us refer to
Certainly, alongside the aforementioned report, an annex report details in about twenty pages how the global economic value of the oceans was determined. Without even going into the details of the methods and choices made, one might question the accuracy of these results when considering the abundance, diversity, and precautions of scientific publications that report extremely precise economic evaluations of ecosystem services at localized scales.
Why do these economists put in so much effort to assess the value of a small piece of nature when twenty pages are enough for WWF to provide the value of the oceans worldwide? One could argue that after all, even if this value of 24 000 billion might have a few zeros more or less – obviously, no one can reasonably conceive of such a value – using this attention-grabbing strategy allows the reader, and thus the citizen, to reflect on the importance of ecosystems.
Moreover, despite the media enthusiasm for figures, which have the advantage of being read and integrated quickly, it must be remembered that environmental economics is not used solely for awareness and advocacy purposes, and that using it carelessly as a "loss leader" at such large scales can lead to a slippery slope. In particular, assigning an economic value to ecosystem services allows for integrating environmental costs and benefits into the cost-benefit analysis of a project to decide whether or not it is "profitable" by incorporating an environmental component, or to determine the amount of a market tool, such as a tax or a subsidy. It goes without saying that in these cases, a zero more or less makes a difference.
In these studies, it is not the gross economic values of coastal ecosystems that are used to defend preservation, but their evolution in two scenarios with or without action from the Conservatory and its managing partners.
However, the interest in the "price of nature" to raise public awareness should not overshadow the questions regarding the ways this value is used. Because it is indeed meant to be "used" as a tool.
Like a hammer that has no purpose if there is no nail to drive in, the economic value of the oceans is only relevant if it is mobilized. To illustrate this point, let’s refer to the project that Vertigo Lab carried out for the Conservatory of the Coast, consisting of case studies that fundamentally share the same objective as that of WWF: to advocate for the protection of ecosystems by mobilizing their economic values. In these studies, it is not the gross economic values of coastal ecosystems that are used to defend preservation, but their evolution in two scenarios with or without action from the Conservatory and its managing partners. This allows for highlighting the benefits provided by conservation policy and thus arguing in its favor.
In fact, ecosystems will not see their value drop to zero overnight if the Conservatory disappears. It would be misleading to entirely attribute the value of the ecosystems of natural sites to the simple strategy of the Conservatory, just as it is misleading to imply that in the absence of action from decision-makers to preserve the ocean, 24 000 billion dollars would be lost. That is why measuring the "price of the oceans," confined to a simple estimate, will only be of interest if it balances two scenarios of implementing a protection policy to establish a comparison of our actions on these spaces.
It goes without saying that in these cases, a zero more or less makes a difference.
Moreover, despite the media enthusiasm for figures, which have the advantage of being as quickly read as they are integrated, it should be noted that environmental economics is not used solely for awareness and advocacy purposes, and that is why misusing it as a "loss leader" at such large scales can lead to a slippery slope.
Notably, assigning an economic value to ecosystem services allows for the integration of environmental costs and benefits into the cost-benefit analysis of a project to decide whether or not it is "profitable" by incorporating an environmental component, or to determine the amount of a market tool, such as a tax or a subsidy. It goes without saying that in these cases, a zero more or less makes a difference.
In fact, to demonstrate the relevance of the still widely criticized concept of "price of nature," it would certainly be more effective to use it in a reasonable and reasoned manner rather than employing it poorly as a "loss leader" for mass dissemination.
Any good marketing student will have learned the loss leader technique: attract customers with a low-cost product to generate traffic at the point of sale and hope to sell other products. This marketing technique can be generalized to many other fields to effectively, quickly, and impactfully attract attention. This is precisely what WWF seems to have done with the release of a report in 2015 titled "
