Collateral biodiversity benefits associated with ‘free–market’ approaches to sustainable land use and forestry activities

Abstract

Concern over the ever more rapid and widespread losses of biodiversity has instigated various remedial actions: whether in situ conservation, such as the establishment of protected areas, or ex situ, such as the conservation of germplasm in gene banks. In the past, such activities were funded and managed by the public sector; however, in recent years, public support has declined and this has spawned a growing interest in conservation opportunities that might arise from 'free-market' approaches to sustainable land use and management. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the key framework for articulating policies and actions on biodiversity; however, progress in developing suitable economic and market incentives for biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use has been slow, with activities such as bioprospecting and ecotourism making some, albeit limited, headway. Given the United Nations Framework for Climate Change or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's (UNFCCC's) high profile within the public and private sectors, there is some potential for using it to help advance CBD objectives and provide the much-needed economic incentives for conservation, through some of the market-based mechanisms presented under the Kyoto Protocol. Significant potential lies in the fact that many 'natural' forests and certain other ecosystems are both major stores of carbon and areas of valuable biodiversity. Thus, any attempt at conserving these areas has the potential to yield both carbon and biodiversity benefits. So far, however, the conservation of natural forests is not included in the Kyoto Protocol's definition of sinks. Instead the creation of sinks - through the establishment of fast-growing monocultures - may well lead to biodiversity losses, especially if partly degraded lands are cleared for this purpose. If real progress is to be made, our understanding of the relationship between land use and biodiversity benefits needs to be improved, and more appropriate proxies for biodiversity need to be developed. At the same time, we need to have a clear understanding of the precise nature of the potential synergies and be more able to identify possible jointaction opportunities that exist between the UNFCCC, the CBD and the Convention on Combating Desertification and other international trade and economic agreements.

Using Carbon Investment to Grow the Biodiversity Bank

“…Carbon accounting under Kyoto must be revised to remove incentives that could exacerbate the biodiversity crisis and to ensure that appropriate credit is given to activities that restore native vegetation. Some key issues that need to be examined include accounting for the carbon emissions associated with deforestation (Niesten et al 2002), incorporating soil carbon dynamics in accounting schemes (Johnson & Curtis 2001), considering nonforest ecosystems (Koziell & Swingland 2002), and greater acknowledgement of the uncertainties in carbonsequestration projects (de Jong 2001). Without careful consideration of the implication of carbon-offsetting rules, it is unlikely that biodiversity-friendly schemes will be competitive.…”

Land degradation control and its global environmental benefits

“…So, the loss of habitat through land degradation in, for example, the conversion of forest lands to grassland results in the local extinction of plant and animal species (Sala et al, 2000). Conversely, sustainable land use and forestry are increasingly being financed as one legitimate way to enhance what is called 'collateral biodiversity' (Koziell, 2002) or the unplanned but deliberate increase in biodiversity through actions other than those directly related to species.…”

Social interactions and resource ownership in two private protected areas of Paraguay

“…This offered new recipes for the conservation of natural resources especially as the costs of conservation are high for governments who often perceive there to be little tangible compensation for their efforts. Free-market approaches to conservation include the creation of markets for genetic resources and ecological products, the promotion of land trusts and conservation easements, and the establishment of private protected areas, which have been extensively discussed since the early nineties (Koziell and Swingland, 2002). In this paper private conservation is defined as the efforts by private organizations (NGOs, research centres or companies) to preserve the land and its biodiversity values.…”