ABSTRACT
Chapter 3 presented a decision rule for comparing the relative returns from the sustainable use of habitats with the opportunity cost. This decision rule was shown at two levels: that of the individual owner of the land, and that of the nation or the world as a whole. The former was used to explain how biodiversity loss can easily accompany everyday economic activity. The latter was used both to explain the kinds of values that are not captured by the individual when making land use decisions, and to suggest a rule for deciding how much biodiversity there should be. From that discussion it follows that if the divergence between national values and local private values is large, then the nation in question will have an interest in modifying market decisions to correct the relevant externalities. If the global values are additionally large, then there is yet a further reason to modify the private decisions of the landowner. In this case however it becomes important to determine whether these benefits accrue globally or disproportionately to the host or a limited group of states. In other words, which party has the greatest incentive to pay for the modification of landowners’ decisions? What is being discussed is not the appropriation of the landowner’s rights to his or her property, although that would be one extreme form of control. Rather it is the provision of incentives designed to modify land use decisions. The technical phrase is that we seek the attenuation of property rights, but preferably in such a way that the landowner in question is actually better off because of the control than without it. Instruments designed to serve these objectives such as tradeable development rights and land easements were suggested in Chapter 4. They are illustrative of the potential for mutual gain which underlies the philosophy of sustainable development – to have economic gains but not at the expense of the environment or, better still, to profit from environmental conservation.
