What Is Biodiversity Agreements

Alvarado-Quesada, I., Hein, L., & Weikard, H.-P. (2014). Market-based mechanisms for biodiversity conservation: a review of existing systems and the design of a global mechanism. Biodiversity and Nature Conservation, 23(1), 1–21. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0598-x. Finally, the symmetric country hypothesis often used in IEA models is often too restrictive: the costs and benefits of protecting biodiversity vary considerably from country to country. Many countries that are well endowed in terms of biodiversity wealth are among the lowest incomes (Swanson and Groom 2012). In addition, the natural upper limit of nature conservation also differs from country to country. Programmes have been set up in search of thematic objectives (e.B forest, mountain and coastal biodiversity) as well as programmes with cross-sectoral objectives (e.B. expansion of protected areas, environmental communication and education, and public relations). Developed countries provide funds under their respective bilateral development programmes, but also in the form of funds from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The management of the world`s environmental resources is a difficult task, as binding rules must be agreed at the international level but implemented at the national level. A wide range of international environmental agreements (EIAs) have been negotiated to address specific environmental concerns.

In particular, some of the most important international conventions established for the conservation of biological diversity are the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on the Conservation of Wild Migratory Species (CMS), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITCFA), the Fire Convention (also known as the Ramsar Convention), the World Heritage Convention (WHC) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The scope and participation of these contracts vary, but all have more than 120 signatories. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these international treaties is a matter of concern (Young 2011) and biodiversity loss remains a key issue on the global environmental agenda. Our model shares some characteristics with a model developed by Winands et al. (2013), but differs in some important aspects. First of all, the specification of the model is different. While Winands et al. (2013) use a substitution constant elasticity utility function (CES) to account for different degrees of substitutability between ecosystems, we use a quadratic utility function to represent the sub-indicator aspect of global biodiversity conservation. Second, Winands et al. (2013) use protected hectares as a conservation measure, while we propose a species count. Third, the four country categories in our model differ from those presented in their study. In Winands et al.

(2013), countries differ in two dimensions: prosperity and biodiversity richness, while in our model countries, the benefits and costs of nature conservation are different. Finally, we consider a model with (n = 12) countries (with 3 countries in each category), which allows to take into account many different types of agreements, that is, coalitions composed of different numbers and types of countries. Winands et al. (2013) limit their analysis to four countries, (n = 4), one of each type. In the run-up to the Conference of the Parties (COP 11) on biodiversity in Hyderabad, India, in 2012, preparations have begun for a global vision of biodiversity involving existing and new partners, building on the experience of the World Wide Views on global warming. [45] The first feature we include in our IEA model for biodiversity conservation is the specification of a hyperbolic cost function. This specification is crucial in the case of biodiversity, as countries have a certain endowment of biodiversity that can be maintained within their borders. .

Comments are closed.