• Who are we?
  • In a nutshell
  • Our mandate
  • Our strategy
  • Our partnerships
  • CIRAD worldwide
  • Our values
• Research operations
  • Priority lines of research
  • Research Topics
  • Supply chains
  • Research units
  • Collective research tools
  • Research results
• Teaching & training
  • PhD training
  • Higher education
  • Available training
  • Offre de formation
  • Scientific experience
  • E-learning
  • Grants
• Innovation & expertise
  • Partnerships for innovation
  • Skills and expertise
  • Products and services
  • Technology transfer
  • The CIRAD VIP newsletter
• Publications & resources
  • Documentary resources
  • Publications
  • Science for all
  • Website Directory
  • Vidéos

The report by Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis on the economic approach to biodiversity was published recently. What does it have to say?
Jacques Weber: The report outlines the idea that there is a price to pay for maintaining biodiversity. Let's be clear about this: there is no question of putting a price on nature. Biodiversity is not just a list of species and varieties, but the sum of the interactions between living organisms. The major innovation generated by the group's work is the idea of maintaining the availability of those services that are of vital importance and are derived from those interactions. It is a fundamental change in perspective that is still in its very early stages, at least in France. The group distinguished between "remarkable" or "recognized" biodiversity, on which there is no question of putting a price tag, and "ordinary" or "functional" biodiversity, which supports all our activities and more broadly our very existence. For instance, if there is a motorway construction product that looks like destroying aquifers, we need to know how much it will cost to either restore or conserve those aquifers, which, for the firms involved, means finding a solution and putting a figure on it. Within this framework, the working group did agree to specify a predefined value, but only for metropolitan meadows and forests, as two common types of ecosystems.

What are the report's main recommendations?
J.W.: The main idea is that we should not be putting a price on nature, but on maintenance of the free services from which mankind benefits. Moreover, we should only be discussing their value as a last resort. The report also recommends setting up an independent regulatory body capable of intervening in major choices. Such a body would guarantee that we do not fall into the trap of uncontrolled merchandizing of nature. Lastly, research needs to turn towards dynamic and not just static models of biodiversity so as to integrate the interactions between all the living organisms in a given ecosystem. This fundamental debate is even more vital for our overseas regions and for developing countries, since refusing to put a price on species completely changes our approach to the relations between societies and environments. In considering the value of a species, we are firmly in the here and now. If the priority is maintaining the interactions between species, the approach is more structural, and could ensure the durability of ecosystem services.

How are these recommendations being placed on the global agenda?
J.W.: The report is France's contribution to the global study of the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity being conducted by the economist Pavan Sukhdev (TEEB). The results are expected in 2010. Moreover, during the G8 meeting in Syracuse in April, the question of reconnecting the fight against climate change with that against the erosion of biodiversity was discussed. We should also bear in mind the international declarations committing EU countries to halt the collapse in biodiversity by 2010, a target that currently seems to be out of reach. Lastly, the issues raised in the report will almost undoubtedly be given a place in the future intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES), a sort of IPCC for biodiversity.

In practical terms, what consequences will the report have?
J.W.: Until now, public policy on biodiversity was based on opinions. With this report, we now have a comprehensive inventory of the existing methodologies. It is also important to point out that the report has been approved by experts from various fields and professional sectors. This multidisciplinarity guarantees the report's legitimacy. We will now be following upcoming debates and talks closely.

Interview by Elsa Bru