REM 621 TOPIC 15: ECONOMICS & BIODIVERSITY

1. REM 621TOPIC 15: ECONOMICS & BIODIVERSITY

2. What is biodiversity and how much is being lost? • Biodiversity is defined by one source as: "… the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur." (U.S. OTA) • Recorded biodiversity (species) loss since 1600: • vertebrates … 337 species • invertebrates … 389 species • plants … 90 species • Recent losses may be 128 (birds) to 176 (mammals) times the background rate

3. The green section represents the narrow view of biodiversity as the number of species in a System. Source: Noss (1990)

4. Why is biodiversity disappearing? • Market failure explanations • Policy failure explanations • Equity issues (spatial & inter-generational) • Also, “Human society has a choice in regard to the amount of biodiversity that will be retained along its development path, and this choice has thus far been made in a haphazard fashion” (Swanson 1995:2) • Efficient extinctions? (recall Colin Clark ….)

5. The “Poaching” Problem within a National Park in Tropical Developing Country Park Protection Farming Vulnerable Species Access to natural resources Eco-tourism Livelihood Poaching

6. Economics and which species to preserve • Neoclassical view: benefits minus costs (CBA) • Ecological economics view: consider uncertainty • Initial view: single species valuations • Grizzly bear …. $18.50 • Bald eagle …. $12.40 (1990 US$/year/person) • Blue whale …. $9.30 • Bighorn sheep …. $8.60 • California sea otter $8.10 • Whooping crane …. $1.20

7. More complex views of biodiversity value • Weitzman (1992) proposed a measure of biodiversity related to genetic distance • Which species to save was analyzed using a constrained optimization model • The strategy that minimizes the loss of extinction is the one that permits one species of a closely related pair to go extinct • Another view concerns the probability of extinction and cost effectiveness of improving the odds (MC of increasing survival probability) • Noah’s ark problem (Metrick & Weitzman 1998)

8. Noah's Ark Problem • Concerns selecting which species to preserve, given limited resources for conservation. • Merrick and Weitzman (1998) construct a model to determine what society's ranking of species to save should be (based on various types of values, survival probabilities and conservation costs) • They compare this to real conservation expenditures, finding these differ significantly from the model rankings. • Equation is: Rj = (Dj + Uj)(ΔP/c) where R is the rank of spp ‘j’, D is genetic distance measure for ‘j’, P is probability of survival and ‘c’ is conservation expenditures

9. Economic Damages from Biodiversity Loss in the presence of a threshold Source: Perrings and Pearce (1994)

10. Safe Minimum Standard (SMS) Def. Society may be willing to pay a premium for the preservation of key environmental resources, just like we purchase insurance protection as individuals. Society may wish to take the steps to preserve these resources but only if the cost or 'insurance premium' is not too high. The burden of proof should be shifted to those who would argue against a safe level of conservation of important environmental resources.

11. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) • Came into force in 1993 & ratified by 193 countries and signed by 168 (as of Nov 2010) • Funding for PAs, national strategies, training & education programs & international co-operation • Global Environment Facility (GEF) – see text, p306 • Acting without ‘full knowledge’: “Noting also that where there is a threat of significant reduction of loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimise such a threat.” (CBD, p2) • Application of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and Safe Minimum Standard (SMS)

12. Oaxaca Declaration on Biodiversity • The scientists participating in the DIVERSITAS First Open Science Conference, Integrating biodiversity science • for human well-being, held in Oaxaca, November 10-12, 2005, support the conclusions of the Conference • Biodiversity Science and Governance held in Paris in January 2005, and of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: • Biodiversity is our natural heritage and forms the foundation for a wide variety of ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being. • Irreversible destruction of biodiversity is taking place globally as a result of human activities, and there is insufficient political attention to its extent and consequences. • Scientific knowledge of biodiversity must be substantially increased, and immediate actions must be taken to protect biodiversity based on existing knowledge. • Mechanisms to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity have been developed at national and international levels; these should be supported and considerably expanded. • Therefore, they call upon governments, policy makers and citizens: • to launch and support ambitious interdisciplinary research programmes to explore the Earth’s biodiversity, the causes and consequences of its loss, and the best means to conserve and use it; • to integrate biodiversity into the criteria considered in all economic and policy decisions as well as environmental management; • to commit resources to build the capacity, especially in developing countries, to undertake biodiversity research and implement biodiversity protection. • They urge United Nations bodies and national governments to establish a properly resourced international • scientific panel on biodiversity that includes an intergovernmental component and that aims at providing, on • a regular basis, scientifically validated information and independent scientific advice to governments, • international conventions, policy makers and the wider public.

13. International Mechanism of Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) • The Final International Steering Committee meeting took place in Montpellier in November 2007, and defined a possible IMoSEB • The main features of an IMoSEB would involve: • Support from networks of scientists and knowledge holders • Capacity to conduct assessments • Ability to answer quickly in case of ecological crisis • The mechanism itself would: • Be independent, • Involve mainly researchers, nominated by governments, and proposed by the scientific community • Involve international organizations and conventions • Be hosted by UNEP

14. Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a mechanism proposed to further strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and add to the contribution of existing processes that aim at ensuring that decisions are made on the basis of the best available scientific information on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES is proposed as a broadly similar mechanism to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science-policy interface has two main requirements: a) that scientific information is relevant to policy demands and is formulated in a way that is accessible to policy and decision makers; and b) that policy and decision makers take into account available scientific information in their deliberations and that they formulate their demands or questions in a way that are accessible for scientists to provide the relevant information