ABSTRACT
In summer 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, the world’s nations agreed a global Convention on Biological Diversity. It aims to protect the world’s biological resources from further erosion or, at least, to slow that rate of erosion down. Yet the rate of erosion of biodiversity is increasing. Despite the Convention, the need to demonstrate the importance of conservation remains as strong as it ever was, perhaps stronger. One aspect of the process of changing government and popular perceptions about biological resources is to show that the sustainable use of biodiversity has positive economic value, and that this economic value will often be higher than the value of alternative resource uses which threaten biodiversity. Subsequent chapters are concerned with three fundamental characteristics of the biodiversity debate:
demonstrating the economic values of biological resources in the contexts where the values are often not reflected in market processes;
explaining why, despite those economic values, biodiversity continues to be threatened;
finding ways to capture or realize economic value.
Recognition of a broader total economic valuation of natural assets can be instrumental in altering decisions about their use, particularly in investment and land-use decisions which present a clear choice between destruction or conservation. Such decisions are being faced in both developed and developing countries, where a host of competing social and economic claims increasingly conflict with the resource demands of area protection. Greater understanding of the functioning of natural ecosystems combined with enhanced valuation techniques are an increasing influence on national conservation strategies, while international and multilateral initiatives emphasize the global dimension to the issue of biodiversity loss. We argue that addressing the economic causes of biodiversity loss is extremely important if the world really does want to slow down the erosion of its biological resources. Much of the biodiversity that needs saving resides in the developing world. Since biodiversity conservation is not, understandably, a priority for the developing world, the resources needed for conservation must come from the North, while the political commitment must come from the South and North alike. However we would like the world to be, the brute fact is that only policies which offer mutual self-interested gains to both North and South stand a chance of succeeding. In the longer term we may hope for changes of attitudes and priorities in the world generally, especially as incomes rise in the South. But relying on such changes to bring about conservation is foolhardy and counterproductive. That is why the economic approach matters. It does emphasize mutual economic gain as the foundation for the solution to the biodiversity problem.