Perverse Market Outcomes from Biodiversity Conservation Interventions

Abstract

Conservation interventions are being implemented at various spatial scales to reduce the impacts of rising global population and affluence on biodiversity and ecosystems. While the direct impacts of these conservation efforts are considered, the unintended consequences brought about by market feedback effects are often overlooked. Perverse market outcomes could result in reduced or even reversed net impacts of conservation efforts. We develop an economic framework to describe how the intended impacts of conservation interventions could be compromised due to unanticipated reactions to regulations in the market: policies aimed at restricting supply could potentially result in leakage effects through external or unregulated markets. Using this framework, we review how various intervention methods could result in negative feedback impacts on biodiversity, including legal restrictions like protected areas, market-based approaches, and agricultural intensification. Finally, we discuss how conservation management and planning can be designed to ensure the risks of perverse market outcomes are detected, if not overcome, and we address some knowledge gaps that affect our understanding of how market feedbacks vary across spatial and temporal scales, especially with teleconnectedness and increased international trade.

Conserving Tropical Forests: Can Sustainable Livelihoods Outperform Artisanal or Informal Mining?

“…Activities that can serve as conservational in some areas may be drivers of deforestation in others; e.g., although some agroforestry can supplement fish farming in parts of MDD, it can be (and often is) a driver of deforestation in other areas [41,42]. Furthermore, changes in policy and services to incentivize sustainable livelihoods in certain local settings may yield unintended consequences (e.g., changes in water streams and deforestation) in others [14].…”

“…With increasing recognition that threats to biologically important landscapes are linked to social and economic pressures [12][13][14], some argue that forest management and sustainable livelihood perspectives should be combined [15]. As such, a challenge that arises is how to make conservation a more attractive and viable option for individuals and local communities, in service of both ecological and consumptive economic values.…”

Biodiversity conservation in a telecoupled world

“…Similarly, we need to understand how conservation interventions can create perverse telecoupled market feedbacks and spillovers (Lim et al 2017). Although there are models that can link international trade to land use, there is a lack of models that can capture the potential spillover effects of telecoupling and how these may affect biodiversity, thus preventing managers from deriving management insights (an exception is the GLOBIOM model [Valin et al 2013]).…”

Embracing Complexity and Complexity-Awareness in Marine Megafauna Conservation and Research

“…Protection of important breeding or feeding grounds within one jurisdiction may prove to be necessary but not sufficient to conservation efforts if sensitive life stages move among unprotected waters, whether intra-or international. Policies that inherently recognize the complex relationships among ecological, social and economic systems and the influence these relationships can have on policy outcomes across jurisdictions can also ensure that wellintentioned megafauna conservation policies do not displace, and in some cases magnify, marine megafauna bycatch, or different risks in other jurisdictions (Lenzen et al, 2012;Lim et al, 2017).…”