More than a decade and a half since the last comprehensive national study on the cost of environmental degradation in Jordan, government efforts in recent years have instead focused on preparing a number of specialized studies and assessments addressing priority environmental issues.
اضافة اعلان
Over these years, the picture of natural resources has changed, as pressures on land and water have expanded, and the effects of drought, desertification, and climate change have intensified.
Between a figure estimated many years ago at around 205 million dinars annually for the cost of environmental degradation in Jordan, and the "interlinked losses" imposed by the current state of the environment, the "actual" economic cost of this degradation has remained outside "regular, updated calculations."
Although Jordan possesses a "large amount" of "specialized" data and studies covering water, waste, biodiversity, climate change, and air quality, alongside "more recent" assessments of climate risk and vulnerability, this knowledge remains scattered across different sectors and institutions, and has not been converted "into a periodic national economic account that determines the scale of loss and its sectoral distribution."
Given this picture, according to environmental experts, the "absence of an updated figure" for the cost of environmental degradation becomes more than just an "economic gap" — it "deprives" decision-makers of a "tool" to measure the "scale of avoidable losses" and to determine "where environmental investments and funding should go."
Ecosystem Services
The services provided by ecosystems are among the most important foundations that people and society rely on to achieve economic and social wellbeing, since the value of ecosystems is not limited to the natural resources they provide, but includes a wide range of "direct and indirect benefits," according to Eng. Khaled Ali Al-Marafi, elected regional advisor for West Asia at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and member of the Projects and Scientific Committee at the Jordanian Society for Desertification Control and Badia Development.
These services, he told Al-Ghad, include supply services such as providing food, water, timber, and natural resources, and regulating services such as air and water purification, climate regulation, and reducing flooding and soil erosion, among others.
Al-Marafi noted that these services are "closely linked" to the cost of environmental degradation; when ecosystems are exposed to pollution, depletion, or biodiversity loss, "their capacity declines" to provide their services, leading to "economic and social losses" that may not appear directly at first.
He pointed out that estimating the cost of environmental degradation is not limited to calculating the value of "lost" natural resources, but also includes the value of lost environmental services and the costs borne by society as a result of their "decline."
Accordingly, he said, assessing ecosystem services represents an "important tool" for understanding the economic impacts of environmental degradation and for supporting policies aimed at "protecting" natural resources and achieving sustainable development.
He added that the importance of this issue is increasing in Jordan given the "limited" natural resources and "climatic and human pressures," including overgrazing, poor land use, and climate change.
He confirmed there are previous estimates of the cost of environmental degradation in Jordan, most notably a 2004 World Bank study that estimated it at around 205 million dinars annually, roughly 3% of GDP at the time.
Some data indicates that land degradation and soil salinity formed a significant part of this cost.
However, in his view, these figures should be read as estimates for a "specific reference year," not as a "fixed official price" for environmental degradation that can be applied to 2026. He based this view on the fact that the size of the economy, resource prices, land uses, and climate conditions have changed significantly since that time.
Still, he did not overlook the fact that Jordan possesses "environmental data and statistics," but the challenge lies in converting them into a periodic economic indicator of environmental degradation. He gave an example, explaining that knowing the area of "degraded" land, or the percentage of "decline" in vegetation cover, "is not enough on its own"; these changes must be translated into "economic losses" covering agricultural production, pastures, water, biodiversity, and environmental services.
This, according to him, requires ongoing cooperation between government bodies, universities, and research centers, and the use of field data, remote sensing, and geographic information systems, according to a unified national methodology.
Lack of Information
Al-Marafi warned that the absence of an updated figure on environmental degradation makes it difficult for decision-makers to know the scale of losses if environmental problems are not curbed.
He added that the lack of information may make desertification-control and land-rehabilitation projects appear as an "additional burden on the budget," rather than being viewed as an "investment that prevents future losses."
Among the other challenges he cited was the difficulty donors and funders would face in "assessing the real return" on these projects and identifying which areas deserve "priority."
What is needed today, he said, is not a new study "that ends up in a drawer," but rather a "continuous national system" for calculating the cost of environmental degradation, "updated periodically," and linked to economic planning and the general budget.
He called for this system to include a "unified" land database, indicators for desertification, vegetation cover, soil productivity, pastures, and drought, alongside developing "economic accounts for ecosystems" and gradually linking them to "national accounts."
As for scientific research institutions, he urged them to "unify" measurement methodologies and produce updatable indicators, so that every environmental project has a clear "baseline" and "indicators measuring the scale of losses" avoided.
Preparing the Studies
Since the previous study on the cost of environmental degradation was prepared — the last one dating back to 2010 — no "comprehensive national study," "updated using the same methodology," has been conducted. However, work in recent years has focused on preparing a number of specialized studies and assessments addressing priority environmental issues such as water, waste, biodiversity, climate change, and air quality, according to Eng. Maha Al-Ma'aytah, Assistant Secretary-General for Technical Affairs at the Ministry of Environment.
Al-Ma'aytah attributed this to the fact that calculating the cost of environmental degradation "accurately" requires having "integrated" and "updated" data from multiple sectors and national bodies, and adopting a "clear," nationally "agreed-upon" methodology, in order to link environmental impact to its resulting "economic and social cost."
Among the most recent of these studies, she noted, is the Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment in Jordan, which addresses risks at the national and governorate levels, covering the water, agriculture, food security and health, biodiversity and ecosystems, tourism and cities, and infrastructure sectors.
Its findings indicate that water scarcity and drought top the list of "climate risks" facing the Kingdom, alongside heat waves, flash floods, desertification, and ecosystem degradation.
These risks, according to Al-Ma'aytah, have implications that go beyond the environmental dimension, extending to production and health sectors, water and food security, infrastructure, and the economy in general.
She continued: "Today, given the economic, environmental, and climate changes the Kingdom has experienced, and the recent studies and data now available, there is a need to update this type of study to reflect the current reality."
This, in her view, has become "necessary," especially given the directions of the Economic Modernization Vision and its sustainable environment driver, which affirms that environmental protection and the sustainability of natural resources are "an essential part of the development and economic growth path."
However, she stressed that the data and studies currently available form an "important base" that can be relied upon when preparing a comprehensive, updated economic assessment of the cost of environmental degradation.
Al-Ma'aytah noted that the Ministry of Environment affirms the importance of "updating" the environmental degradation cost study, especially since many factors have "changed" since the previous study was prepared — whether in terms of pressures on natural resources, the effects of climate change, or population and urban expansion and economic activities.
However, this updated study, in her view, should not be "limited" to determining a total figure for losses, but must also clarify the "economic cost" for each sector and "the impact of environmental degradation" on natural resources, health, productivity, infrastructure, and economic sectors.
It must also include the "benefits achieved" from investing in environmental protection, reducing pollution, and adapting to climate change.
She stressed that having an updated study would help the government identify the "highest-priority" sectors and issues, and direct investments and funding toward actions and projects that achieve "significant environmental and economic impact" and "strengthen the transition" toward a green economy and resource sustainability.
The Importance of Biodiversity
According to biodiversity specialist Ihab Eid, knowing the economic cost of biodiversity loss is an extremely "important" matter, as it serves as a "key tool" in decision-making, helping compare the cost of protecting nature against the economic and social costs Jordan may bear in the future as a result of its "loss."
This, he said in remarks to Al-Ghad, shifts biodiversity from being viewed as "merely an environmental file" to being considered "part of" the state's economic, water, and food security.
Eid believes the average cost of environmental degradation cited in the World Bank report is "a very modest figure" if the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services were calculated more comprehensively.
He gave an example: the annual global economic value of agricultural production directly linked to just one ecosystem service — pollination — is estimated at between $235 billion and $577 billion, noting that this value reflects not only "species loss" but also "the services nature provides for free," such as soil protection, water regulation, pollination, carbon storage, and support for tourism and agricultural production, alongside strengthening resilience to the effects of climate change.
For this reason, Eid believes the core problem lies in the "lack" of sufficient figures on biodiversity degradation that decision-makers can rely on, resulting from "insufficient" attention given to this issue.
He stressed that the lack of information on the value of ecosystem services and their loss keeps the cost of their degradation "hidden" and not visible, which "weakens" Jordan's ability to set priorities, allocate budgets, and convince decision-makers of the economic return on investing in nature.
The matter does not stop there, he said; the lack of information also "weakens" the ability of civil society institutions and researchers to build projects based on "strong economic evidence," and makes comparisons between development projects and options for protecting and restoring ecosystems "incomplete."
Although there are previous estimates of the cost of environmental degradation, he affirmed that they do not "reflect the reality" of the cost of biodiversity "loss" itself, and that the World Bank study has "gaps and limitations" related to data and the scope of assessment.
Eid does not believe the lack of data relates to a "failure to recognize" the importance of calculating the cost of environmental degradation, but rather to the failure to translate that cost and the value of natural capital into a practical, national, institutional, and periodic procedure, for several reasons.
He summarized these reasons as: the biodiversity file not being given "sufficient priority" compared to some other investment projects, alongside the "fragmentation" of data among institutions, the lack of "regularity" in environmental information, and the "limited" linkage between environmental and economic indicators.
Among the other reasons he cited: the "weakness" of specialized capacities in environmental economics and ecosystem service valuation, as well as the "insularity" of some institutions working in this field, and the failure to apply the concept of genuine "participation and inclusion" of specialists and experts to the required degree.
He expressed regret over the continued reliance on what he called the "usual approach" to measuring biodiversity through the number of endangered species, the area of protected reserves, and the state of habitats. While not dismissing the importance of these indicators, he sees them as "insufficient" to convince, for example, finance or planning ministers, or even the prime minister, of what the loss of a given ecosystem means economically, and how much it would cost to replace the services it once provided.
He called for making use of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan approved by the Prime Ministry to develop "national accounts" for natural capital and ecosystem services, and to link them to the national economic cost.
He urged government bodies to conduct a "periodic assessment" of the cost of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, instead of relying on studies "spaced far apart in time," and to move from a "solo" institutional approach to "collective, participatory national" work, in which relevant bodies agree on a "unified" mechanism and methodology for collecting, analyzing, and updating data.
He stressed the importance of strengthening investment in long-term scientific research and databases, and converting environmental information into economic indicators that decision-makers can use — indicators that should be incorporated into budgets, feasibility studies, environmental impact assessments, and investment decisions.
