Paradoxes in Biodiversity Conservation
• Author(s): David Pearce
• Published: September 2005
• Pages in paper: 14
Abstract
Biodiversity is important for human wellbeing, but it is declining. Measures to
conserve biodiversity are essential but may be a waste of effort if several
paradoxes are not addressed. The highest levels of diversity are in nations least
able to practise effective conservation. The flow of funds to international
biodiversity conservation appears trivial when compared to the scale of
biodiversity loss. International agreements may not actually protect or conserve
more than what would have been conserved anyway. Protected Areas may be
‘paper parks’, protected in name but not in practice. The very act of protection
may contain self-destructive features because local communities can easily suffer
loss of income and assets, making them unwilling partners in the act of
protection. In turn, this places the protected area at risk and may also divert
unsustainable harvesting activities to non-protected but equally diverse
ecosystems. In tackling these issues the real biodiversity challenge is redesigning
conservation effort, making it truly additional and making it compatible with
poverty reduction.
Register for personal access to all papers for just £47.99
To download papers you need a subscription to World Economics Journal.
Get access to the full 20 year archive of thousands of papers and abstracts.
Order online now for 1 years immediate access for 1 user via username/password.
You do not need a PayPal account to pay by card.
Institutional Subscriptions, Contact Us
Existing Subscriber Log-in
More Papers From This Author in World Economics:
Does European Union Environmental Policy Pass a Cost–Benefit Test?
Most European Union countries are committed to some form of regulatory
impact assessment, and in some cases these assessments involve the formal use
of cost–benefit analysis. The European Treaty of Union also calls for a
comparison of costs and benefits for all European regulations. Despite this, only a
limited number of regulations have been subject to cost–benefit analysis. Using a
variety of sources, this paper investigates whether or not a selection of major
environmental regulations would pass a cost–benefit test. The general answer is
that, while some do, most do not. This finding has major implications for the
efficiency of European environmental legislation, and reflects on the willingness
of Member States to sign up to inefficient regulation.
Read Full Paper >
Valuing the Future
One of the most controversial areas of economics is the practice of discounting:
attaching a lower weight to future costs and benefits than present costs and
benefits. Discounting appears to offend notions of sustainable development and
the interests of future generations. Recent advances in the theory of discounting
hold out strong hope that the ‘tyranny of discounting’ can be avoided through the
use of time varying discount rates (TVDRs). This paper reviews the recent
rationales for TVDRs and applies the results to issues such as nuclear power and
global warming control.
Read Full Paper >
Save the Planet: Sell Carbon
This article examines the political economy of agreements on global greenhouse emissions reduction. The author explains the complex emissions trading mechanisms set up under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and considers the likely size and structure of a future market for emissions credits.
Read Full Paper >