1 / 31

Financial support for biodiversity protection in developing countries -

Financial support for biodiversity protection in developing countries -. Does the CBD mechanism lead to an appropriate level of biodiversity protection?. Contents. Introduction „Adequate“ Provision of Biodiversity Financial Resources, Costs and Negotiations  Efficiency? Case study – CV

mignon
Download Presentation

Financial support for biodiversity protection in developing countries -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Financial support for biodiversity protection in developing countries - Does the CBD mechanism lead to an appropriate level of biodiversity protection?

  2. Contents • Introduction • „Adequate“ Provision of Biodiversity • Financial Resources, Costs and Negotiations  Efficiency? • Case study – CV • Conclusion

  3. Introdution Introduction I -Biodiversity as Global Public Good - Externalities € MB [global] MC MB [LDC] XQuantity of protected biodiversity Xopt Xldc

  4. Introduction Introduction II – Idea of CBD • CBD Article 20(2) “... new and additional financial resources....“ • Article 21(1):“... The contributions shall be such as to take into account the need for predictability, adequacy and timely flow ...“

  5. ? Adequate = Efficient Adequate = Efficient Provision of Biodiversity € MB [global] MC Provision by GEF = efficient? MB [LDC] XQuantity of biodiversity protection Xopt Xldc

  6. Question Efficient Level of Financial Support? • Resources & Costs • Negotiations on replenishment of GEF-Fund

  7. Financial Resources & Costs Financial Resources of GEF-Fund for Biodiversity Protection

  8. Costs of (Global) Biodiversity Protection

  9. Resources & Costs Acceptance Costs  Efficiency € MB (glb=social) MC (private & current) B MC (social) A E C D Xglb Xpot Xover X Quantity of protected biodiversity

  10. Negotiations Negotiations on Replenishment - Facts • Every four years replenishment of GEF-Fund • Representatives of donor countries negotiate • National contributions (should reflect)economic power of nation* • But…….

  11. Negotiations Contributions of Nations to the GEF-3 (extract) front-runner leader taillights

  12. Negotiations Characterisation of Conditions for Negotiations • Reminder: Good in question  global external effects  Need for global collective action • CBD  global collective action • However: agents are representatives of nations

  13. Negotiations Public Choice TheoryAssumptions • Governmental agents try to maximise their personal benefits • Personal benefit = reelection

  14. Negotiations View of National Agents on Financing Biodiversity Protection in LDC • Aim: Solution of problems • Biodiversity not easy to protect • Important short term problems at home (easier to solve than loss of biodiversity) • Each nation little influence  overall level of biodiversity protection • Success difficult to communicate • Good will be provided anyway

  15. Negotiations Activity of Nations • Spend a lot of money on national short term interests • Spend hardly any money on global longterm interests • In other words: Free-rider • Why contribute to GEF at all? • International reputation • Not to lose international credibility

  16. Undersupply Thesis Undersupply Thesis • Financial resources smaller than (possible) benefits • Indicators: • Costs >>> financial resources • Hardly any incentives for protection for national agents Test of thesis  Benefits of biodiversity protection for developed countries?  CV-study

  17. CV-Study CV-Study: Benefits of Biodiv Protection • How to define „Biodiversity“ • Genes? • Surface area? • Species?! • Subject of valuation: „Protection of half of threatened species (animals and plants) who would become extinct if nothing further would be done in the next ten years“

  18. CV-Study (External) Benefit of Additional Biodiversity Protection MB [global] MC MB [MDC] MB [LDC] 25.000 species Xldc X Quantity of protected biodiversity

  19. CV-Study Characteristics of Case Study • Basic population: residents in Germany (older than 18 years) • Telephone inquiry • WTP question format: dichotomous choice • Payment vehicle: tax increase • Frequency & duration: monthly for ten years

  20. CV-study Case Study – Results • n = 1017 • 92% agree with payments: more developed countries  less developed countries • 62% ‚Yes‘ to WTP-Question

  21. CV-Study WTP Result & Discussion I • Mean of sample: approx. 22 Euros per capita per month • But: 59.6% of contacted people refused to participate or dropped out • If they would pay 0 Euros  9 Euros (mean)

  22. CV-Study WTP vs. GEF contributions Discussion II • Overall benefit depends on size of basic population • Individuals (9 €) (66.4 million) Euros7 billion • or households (9 €) (34,8 million)  Euros 3.8 billion

  23. 3.8 – 7 billion Euros (annual) WTP – Annual Benefit MB [global] MC MB [MDC] MB [LDC] 25.000 species Xldc X Quantity of protected biodiversity

  24. Results of Related Studies • Hanley, Spash & Walker (1995):WTP Britain contribute to (GEF)*~ 47-62 £ annual • Kramer & Mercer (1997): WTP for additional 5% of tropical rain forest  21-35 US-$ (one-time) • Horton, Colarullo, Bateman & Peres (2002): • Subjects: people from Italy and UK • Good: additional rain forest in Brasil 5% (20%) • WTP: 30 £ (39 £ ) annual •  WTP = 600 million in Italy and in UK

  25. Overall Discussion I • German actual expenditures for Global Environmental Facility •  US$ 60 million •  < 1 Euro per year per capita • WTP >> 1 Euro per year per capita • Study result: undersupply thesis: approved

  26. Summary & Overall Discussion II • Developed countries emphasise need of orientation at global benefit • Developed countries interested in cost-sharing  (incremental costs) • No comparable instrument on MDC side • CV study: GEF contributions  global benefit of protection • Efficiency considerations  higher contributions to GEF

  27. Methode stößt mit der fragestellung an seine grenze Aber ich weiss keine bessere Verleich der Zahlen mit Kosten!! Geht in gleiche Rtg.

  28. Explanatory Variables & Validity • self-efficacy (= belief in effect of payment) (+) • bid level (personal financial costs of contribution) (-) • responsibility (of the respondent for the protection of species) (+) • age (-) • threat appraisal (perceived threat as consequence of loss of biodiversity) (+) • Opinion: right of md countries to interfere in biodiversity protection affairs of ld countries (+) • Pseudo-r2= .34 (Nagelkerkes) • Sample not representative: e.g. “education bias”

  29. Case study – results II

More Related