Transcript c - OECD

Staunching Biodiversity Loss
Christopher D. Stone
Workshop On The Economic And Trade Implications
Of Policy Responses To Societal Concerns
Trade And Agriculture Directorates
Organisation De Coopération Et De Développement Économiques
Paris, France
November 03, 2009
Benefits of the living environment
Resources
– Food, fiber, fuel, pharmaceuticals,
chemicals
Ecosystem services
– nutrient recycling, water, air and soil
quality, pollination, seed dispersal, pest
regulation
Nonmaterial benefits
– Spiritual, religious, recreational,
aesthetic
Collateral but distinct policies
Limiting bio-specific losses
– CITES, ESA, MMPA, ICRW
Sustainable use of specific resources
– Fishery treaties (IATTC); “game” regulations
Defending against bio-invasion
– IMO regulations; WTO Agreement on SPS
1980: IUCN World Conservation Strategy
1992 : Convention on Biologic Diversity
– Looks beyond individual species to synergistic values of broad
portfolio: to the interactions among living organisms and
between them and the physical world
CITES (1975)
Shields species from exacerbation of trade
– Dampens extraterritorial demand
– Misses domestic consumption, habitat loss
Permits by managers
– Annex I (presently endangered species
require permit of exporter and importer
– Annex II (Will become endangered w/out
control
Require export permit
– Annex III (particular Party wants cooperation)
Requests appropriate documentation
Objectives of CBD
[T]he conservation of biological
diversity
the sustainable use of its components
the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits arising out of the utilization
of genetic resources
Value of variety . . . .
Today’s favored
(dominant)
varieties may be
vulnerable to
impacts of climate
change.
Among presently
“wild” varieties
may be “originals”
with potential
breeding benefit to
repair the
dominant hybrid.
Broadest portfolio of . . . .
Species? “Higher” taxonomic species?
– Rain forests or grasslands?
Morphologies?
Behavior?
Genes?
Ecosystems?
Useful to us?
No agreed upon metric:
– CO2 (climate change) DUs (ozone)
Filling the Ark
Ui = direct utility of i per se
Di = distinctiveness of i
[synergistic value in set]
Pi = how much i’s survival
chances improved by
protective measure
Ci = cost of i-protecting
measure
Priority ranking is:
–Ri = [Ui + Di] (Pi / Ci)
Institutional Impediments
Public good: undersupplied by markets
Multiple causes of decline
– Deliberate hunting; habitat loss; climate change
Causal uncertainties of remedies
– Limits on ecosystem fragmentation?
Multiple parties (comp. climate change)
Difficulty showing cost-benefit advantages
No generally accepted metric
– contrast CO2 and DUs
Public perceptions:
Which society? Rich-Poor tensions
Nominal awareness and support is weak
– U.S.: 68% unfamiliar with term; EU: “majority”
– EU: (when explained) 43% rate “very serious”
– U.S. “Strongly agree” “We have a personal (69%) /moral
(65%) responsibility to protect all animal and plant life.”
– But how sturdy are these views?
Abstract: no icon for portfolio / variance
Little sense of immediate personal impacts
Diminishing personal experiences with Nature
Limited outlets for grass root contributions
Resistance
From developing countries
– Hampers economic development
– Expensive to implement
From developed (esp. U.S.)
– Uncertainty of commitments & conflicts
Intellectual property (TRIPS), technology transfer,
open-ended funding, restrictions on biotechnology
“equitable sharing” of “benefits”(?)
Deflected emphasis from protecting forests
(Rich NGOs) to “biosafety” (Poor)?
Conversion of forest as a function of priceadjusting policies
Assume: (Biodiversity rich) forests are
being converted to (biodiversity poor)
grazing/agricultural land: What policies
will retard the process?1c
expands
expands
farm
Original Q forest
CO = 0
Conversion of forest as a function of policy
regimes: (1) Open Access (2) subsidized
$/Acre
FBiodiv
$/Acre CO
Subsidy to
convert
DFOPEN
FO = 0
Forest retained
QOPEN
Forest converted
CO = 0
Effects of (3) abolishing subsidies to convertors; (3) Stabilizing
Property rights and (4) subsidizing for not-mkt values
$/Acre FBiodiv
$/Acre C
DCO
DFOPEN

DF +subsidies
DF”CLOSED”
Forest
OPEN
Q
Retained
  Converted 
Why an international
challenge
Highly migratory species
whales, migratory birds
Globilization of trade
demand in A causes decline in B
exacerbation of alien species
 Optimal portfolio is global
Optimal sets require global participation
Desired set: {a, b, c, d . . . . . . . . . . .z } U.S., Brazil,
Greenland and India, and no others, offer among
themselves, a, b, c, d, e, f and g,
g
a b cd
a b c
d e
f
Greenland (g)and
Brazil (e, f) is each
indispensable
Either U.S. or India is
dispensable if the other
conserves a, b, and c.
Constraining conversion of
biologically “rich” land
Assumes foundational policy is to
dampen conversion of “rich” acreage
Crude policy
– decline of forest-land not co-linear with
decline in any biodiversity metric
– rich “hot spots” often redundant in their
offerings: species/genes: filling out optimal
sets will require supplemental devices to
target sparser but crucial sites
The Economic Value of Marine Biodiversity:
what we would like to know in theory
$
Total Value
0.75
Marginal costs
0.5
0.25
0
Marginal benefits
0
0
0
.25
Q*.5
.75
1.0
Marine Biodiversity
: blog postings (2008)
Advertising bids on Google search terms:
“climate change” = $2.67; “global warming” = $2.00; biodiversity = $1.29