Course:ECON372/OK2019WT2/Topic19
Economics of Biodiversity Preservation
Group #1
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2020/04/how-these-threatened-animals-could-bounce-back/
Summary:
This National Geographic article talks about multiple different endangered species and the different reasons for their endangerment. It begins talking about the panda and how after decades of focused conservation they were able to final get the panda out of the endangered species list, however that is only 1 animal, they discuss the Sumatran rhinos and how poaching has killed 70% of their population in 20 years, or the cotton-top tamarin a monkey in the Colombian jungles and how agriculture and urban development lead a critically endangered level until Walt Disney's conservation fund protected numerous habitats and began education campaigns. They discuss the Monarch butterfly and how after their decline 20 years ago Canada, US and Mexico began conservation efforts bringing them back to most forests in North america, and the Grizzly bears whose numbers were around the 50000 and now after development and hunting is estimated only around 600-800 left in the 1950s, this gained them the protection from the US conservation act and quadrupled there population on the last 50 years.
Analysis:
In this article we saw many species that became endangered for different reasons but under various protection and re population efforts are starting to see a sense of stability, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. With the increasing urban sprawl and agriculture spread many ecosystems (Habitats) have been badly or irreversibly damaged, this is a big problem in terms of preservation and biodiversity for many reasons. Most animals in the endangered species list are not the problem but the symptom, a health ecosystem is essential for all animals that live in it, there is no point in trying to save the polar bears if there is no where left for them to live, many of this species are interlaced with each other in many ways such as food chains, this are complex systems and removing any part of the equation will drastically change the results.
This is important because when looking at preservation efforts we must assess where our resources are most effective, maybe the best way to save a species is actually to concentrate our efforts on saving some other species that will improve their ecosystem in a better way (value based on contribution to health of habitat), and there lies the heart of the problem, there are many ways to help preserve all specie but a very limited amount of resources to do so, and acquiring more resources is a tricky business. Suppose the best way to save the grizzlies was actually to save the insects that preserve the ecosystem they share indirectly increasing the population of grizzlys, it would be much harder to raise funds to save insects people tend to spend money on getting rid off than to raise funds to save a cute looking bear. The unfortunate reality is that most people don't have the time or interest to learn how these systems work and they tend to donate to save the animals they like best, not the ones that need the most saving. A good example is the Panda, an animal that nerd extinction but now is off the endangered list because of the huge amount of resources and effort put into there preservation, how many other animals are in the same situation the pandas were in but receive much fewer resources for their preservation.
And lastly it is important to take into account the opportunity cost of saving this species, not only does it take a large amount of investment to preserve a species and their ecosystem but it also cost all the potential gain that area entails. Most ecosystems that are preserved contain a large amount of resources such as; fertile soil, oil, fishes, minerals, lumber and many more, preserving that land is a constant battle of keeping its ecosystem healthy and preventing it from being used.
With all this in mind where are resources best spent, is it better to spend a large amount to save one species more or devid that amount to save two? What if people care more for a particular species, does that make their survival more valuable? This article highlights the tremendous progress we have made with many species and also how far we still have to go to revert a small amount of damage we have caused to so many ecosystems and species.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 15 | I cannot read the article, as it is protected by a paywall, and not yet available online through UBC's library. |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 44 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 7 | |
| Total | 86 |
Group #2
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 0 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 0 | |
| Summary (20) | 0 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 0 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 0 | |
| Total | 0 |
Group #3
https://india.mongabay.com/2020/02/indian-government-proposes-a-10-year-plan-to-protect-birds/
Summary:
The Indian government has proposed a 10 year plan to protect endangered birds in the country. India has more then 1300 species of native birds, around 100 of which are listed as endangered. India's conservation programns have traditionally focused on popular and highly visible species like Tigers and Elephants, because of this the protection of bird species has long been a secondary objective. Now a new plan proposes a variety of plans ranging from short to long term in order to curb the decline in bird populations. These include the protection of birds in urban areas and the maintenace of wild bird habitats. The proposed HCP also singles out "rare" species not currently listed as endangered that should be considered for special conservation measures. The act which includes the proposed 10 year plan would be an addition to India's National Wildlife Action Plan, initiated in 2017 and intended to carry on until 2031, which also has specific goals for the conservation of bird species. In general, areas singled out for higher conservation efforts are pre-existing Protected Areas, Wetlands and important sites along migratory bird routes.
Analysis:
This effort at biodiversity preservation by the Indian state is a good example of the use of a decision rule, where the rareness or uniquness of a particular species is used as a determining factor in the preservation decision. Notably, in most of these instances the proposed increase in preservation activity will take place in areas allready set aside for such activites or under state control, as in the Noah problem, the Ark seemingly can only be so big. None of these species are mentoned as possessing particular market value, whether as a source of food or perhaps decorative feathers. Instead the value ascribed to the value of these species seemingly derives from existence value, or perhaps some measurment of public enjoyment of the aesthetic value these birds bring to the often urban areas where these preservation activites are taking place. In addition, the diversity related benedit from preservation activities emphasises the idea of species hot spot based conservation, though in a regional rather than a global context. The cost of this program appears to be limited in the sense that much of the area set out for further preservation activity already has limitations put on that land use, or is in economically marginal land like wetlands, leaving primarily the unspecified monetary expenditure by the Indian state.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 16 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 43 | |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 6 | |
| Total | 85 |
Group #4
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/government-conflict-of-interest-a-threat-to-fish-biodiversity-scientists-1.4693865
Summary:
This article posted on CTV news covers how to government of Canada deals with preserving and maintaining a healthy fish stock. Since 2012 the government has been looking at fish level data to try and build a prosperous future for marine life. This has led them to be conscious of the actual level, while making important regulations or demands. This has led to a conflict of interest as demand for fish increases, while fish stock is decreasing. They understand that there is a threshold that shouldn’t be depleted beyond, or it takes a long time for levels to return to a healthy state. To mitigate this risk, they put policy’s in place to restrict fisheries that have a low, but at the same time, increase quotas for fish that need to be in a recovery stage. It later points out that scientific data is only presented by scientists, the policies are put in place by a department in consultation.
Analysis:
This article is very interesting when looking at sustainable polices. There is clearly another motive for why the department has faced a conflict on interest on the two polices, which is money. It also talks about how the department has been discussing putting fish on an endangered list for over 10 years now. This makes an important connection to the chapter because money fish species would be put on the red or blue BC list for animals to be preserved. Data has only been collected on 10 species of fish with over 940 other fish species being unknown on the stock levels. This leaves a grey area for whether or not fish levels in the 940 species are endangered or not. If more time and energy is put into getting more accurate data on these species, they can use this to make an informed decision for which species needs to on the watch list or not. This is not an unreasonable proposal as other countries like the US and Europe have very accurate data levels on relevant species. The minister uses ignorance is bliss to his advantage when making the decision of what quotas should be. Without knowing the levels, they can get away with less than optimal decisions for a sustainable future. The minister right now has the power to also ignore data and let other considerations take higher prevalence when making decisions.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 15 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 33 | What determines the optimal level of protection? That is one of the main questions in the chapter. What policies can move us towards more sustainable management? |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 8 | |
| Total | 76 |
Group #5
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/raise-taxes-firms-harm-nature-oecd-g7
Summary:
The study examines the research by Watts, Jonathan on "Raise Taxes on Firms That Harm Nature, OECD Tells G7 Countries". The Watts argues that the G7 group raises the concern for the government to increases tax burden to firms that harm that degrade habitats such as wildlife. The head of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) asserts that taxes related to the environment are 1.6% only of global economic output. Given those tax policies of respective countries that do not express concern of biodiversity further undermines ecosystems and leads to climate breakdown (Watts). Along with this, the anonymous mega UN report indicates a decline of the life-support systems of the Earth. For instance, biodiversity finance flows $50b yearly, which is equivalent to a tenth of total subsidies paid among fuel firms indicating no concern for the environment.
However, to reduce the rate of degradation, the OECD and UN highlight the following measures. First, fossil fuel companies should be tied to politics to help redirect economic systems that would steer natural growth rather than focusing on material extraction. The approach makes legislator not to rely on fuel companies for them to win elections (Watts). Secondly, focusing on ecological education and advocating rights for forest dwellers among other indigenous communities who are ready to defend nature. Also, public opinion through school strikes and extinction rebellion encourages politicians to initiate a new green deal that employs more people in restoring renewable and nature. The article purportedly asserts that quantifying the nature in terms of dollars would lead to further degradation though nature though recognized for its essentials and as a foundation of life. Thus, it crucial for countries to change the fundamentals of growth models, including developing policies that recognize and safeguard the value of natural capital (Watts). Most global conferences are critiquing the current economic model that is destructive to nature.
Analysis:
The news article that was found to be related to Chapter 19: Economics of Biodiversity Preservation, was published in The Guardian online news article on May 7, 2019. The article was written by Jonathan Watts and is titled “Raise taxes on firms that harm nature, OECD tells G7 countries”, and it talks about the significance and need for the actions by the international agencies to call for vital change of culture and priorities to prevent appalling biodiversity loss. According to the report sourced by the author, recommendations made by the OECD to the G7 group of rich nations was to have their respective governments multiply their investment in restoration of nature and go to the extent of raising the tax burden on corporations that destroy the environment or degrade wildlife. The suggestions came after the recent new UN mega-report showing that there is an alarming decline in the life-support systems of the earth. It was clear that the world is heading for a catastrophe due to the environmental degradation, and it was high time for people to put in place a new culture, which will respect life and nature. Since Canada is among the G7 nations, the recommended policy change and shift in priorities towards conservation of the natural biodiversity affects it, as much as it affects the entire North American region. The article is directly connected to the 19th chapter of the course material as it illustrates how the international agencies, especially the United Nations, have relentlessly shown how the loss of nature is an economic problem to all the nations across the globe. Moreover, for the efforts to avert the problem to be successful, developed states like Canada and the U.S. must use any tools available, scale-up their investment for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and change the way they produce, consume, and dispose the material goods.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 17 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 20 | Largely a summary, not an analysis. Why is the loss of biodiversity a problem? How come it isn't efficient? How about the critique of economics. Can you interpret it? |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 8 | |
| Total | 65 |
Group #6
https://conservationtools.org/guides/95-economic-benefits-of-biodiversity
Summary:
This article explores many of the substantial economic benefits that biodiversity generates as a result of economic research. The first part of the article introduces the relevant background of biodiversity. Each species has a specific role and function in the ecosystem. Species are produced and regulated in the biological chain in various ways, such as plant growth. Ecosystem diversification can produce higher productivity and better withstand environmental pressures. In ecosystems, large species are usually more likely to become extinct than small species and threaten the same or greater threats to small biodiversity. A climate that protects biodiversity can balance and many other important ecosystem services. Food production, medicinal plants, and outdoor tourism all depend on biodiversity. So biodiversity is the foundation of economic activity.The second part of the article explores Economic Impact Studies on biodiversity. First, the author discusses the economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. The author uses three examples to explore the importance of biodiversity for the sustainable operation of agriculture, forests and natural ecosystems, but the development of natural land by human activities is causing species to die out at a rate of 10,000 Times. In the United States, biodiversity generates annual revenues of the US $ 319 billion and annual revenues of the US $ 2.928 billion (calculated in 1997). The author believes that there is a need to link biodiversity conservation with poverty alleviation and to develop a convention on biodiversity. It is also necessary to protect biodiversity in agricultural or forestry systems because high agricultural productivity and human health depend on the activities of diverse natural biomes. Finally, the loss of biodiversity leads to the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases.
Analysis:
The first is that the direct value of biodiversity is consumable use-value: it refers to direct consumable, that is, the value of natural products without market transactions. For example, farmers go uphill to cut firewood, hunt wild animals, grow vegetables, and raise poultry. Secondly, the indirect value of biodiversity refers to the value that cannot be directly converted into economic benefits. Because of the function of the ecosystem and serves the human living environment. It can be analyzed and understood from the following aspects.
(1) Provide support systems for the expendable and productive value of biodiversity;
(2) Conserving water sources and preventing soil erosion;
(3) the contribution of biodiversity to inter-species gene flow and co-evolution in ecosystems;
(4) the contribution of biodiversity in regulating climate and material cycles;
(5) The value of biodiversity in aesthetics, social culture, science, education, spirituality, and history are also considerable. In the world, the nature of tourism in nature tourism generates 12 billion US dollars in taxes each year.
The third point is the potential use value: there are many types of wildlife, and only a few of them have been fully studied by humans. The value of using large numbers of wildlife is unclear. But this wildlife certainly has great potential for use. Once a wild animal disappears from the earth, it cannot be regenerated, and its various potential uses are gone.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 30 | Little analysis. How does this relate to the cost of conserving biodiversity and the benefits? What does this material say about the efficient level of biodiversity and whether or not we are actually anywhere close to that efficient level. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 8 | |
| Total | 78 |
Group #7
https://blog.oup.com/2019/05/economic-protect-world-wildlife/
Summary:
Humanity has always struggled to balance the protection of biodiversity and economic growth. As the economic activities of humans change so does the degree of impact they have in the environment. Throughout history, we can see the decline of the Earth’s biodiversity, and economics can help us understand its causes but it can also help us find a solution for the losses. For the most part, the protection of the environment was not given any priority or consideration for farmers, as the wellbeing of their families could have been affected if such considerations were taken. Therefore, the governments implemented incentives for the farmers to be more wildlife-friendly without forsaking the wellbeing of their families. Yet there are some occasions in which the policy could fail to accomplish what is intended. For instance, the Lesser Prairie Chicken, a species protected by the Endangered Species Act in the United States, was a case in which the policy worsened the situation of the specie and was badly formulated. According to the policy, the bird was supposed to be protected at all cost, this meant that the landowners had to have more control irrigation, construction, and energy. There have been many states that have already complained about the method and try to seek policies that are more cooperation between the government and the private sector. The economic analysis supports the idea that cooperation is the best solution to counter the loss of biodiversity.
Analysis:
As explained in the article a well-constructed policy is key for the protection of diversity as well as for the economy itself. In the example the article gives the Endangered Species Act will add cost to the production, traditionally the policymakers will use a command and control approach to the situation, meaning that they will establish the equilibrium quantity in which the environmental impact will be taken into account as well as the normal cost of production. Thus, because the benefit for the producer will increase if the quantity is increased the farmer or landowner will have an incentive to produce more than the equilibrium to make more profit. Moreover, the landowner could be more prone to increment their benefit as, under ESA, the costs are the sole responsibility of landowners. For this reason, the government and the private sector have to cooperate to find a sustainable solution. For instance, there could be compensation from the government that covers the revenue that the private sector might have if they were to produce more. Another possible solution is finding a way in which the preservation of biodiversity could be the focus of profit. In that way the private sector will still be bearing the costs of the preservation but profiting from them, meaning it might turn into an investment.
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 13 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 15 | What you have done here is very confusing. The article presents ideas in a very economic style, which should have been easy to related directly to the chapter - efficient level of biodiversity, incentives for protection, value of biodiversity, etc. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 9 | |
| Total | 57 |
Group #8
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/02/rich-countries-could-be-asked-to-pay-billions-to-protect-biodiversity-aoe
Summary
This article from the Guardian suggests that, ‘Rich countries could be asked to pay billions to protect biodiversity’ and global NGO’s have expressed their concern that the UN is lacking on global nature agreement. In order to stop the biodiversity loss our environment is facing a global agreement was put forward, where rich nations would contribute financially to small countries, with high biodiversity. This proposal was put forward at a meeting held in Rome and the idea of countries paying to poor countries, with high biodiversity because of the ‘service their ecosystem provides’. These measures according to Conservationists will hopefully ‘provide an accessible, science-based global goal on biodiversity loss, equivalent to targets to limit global heating’. Delegates from over 140 countries responded to this agreement, which included proposal such as ‘reduce pollution from plastic waste..’
During these talks, nations from Latin America and Africa, expressed concern as to their need of having ‘support to protect their ecosystems’ and ‘share profits from discoveries linked to making new drugs’. The negotiating team was led by Leonardo Cleaver, who is from Brazil stressed on ‘need for financial support’. There are already small-scale schemes to help ecosystems ‘reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation’. All of this, depends on the ‘obtaining sufficient funds from developed nations’ as all these targets are out of reach ‘without resources’. The negotiating teams member, stressed how biodiversity is our life on the planet and its about assuring our survival here. These payments will ‘support poor countries with high biodiversity’. Talks were to be held, in China about this, however due to outbreak of coronavirus talks moved to Rome and Chinese delegation was unable to attend. The Kumming agreement was first of its kind as this is the first time China took lead on environmental impacts.
A lot of NGO’s, are ‘disappointed at UN’s ambitions of the talks and level of urgency following first talks’. The DG OF WWF stressed, how many species are threatened and we are causing irreversible damage and urgent actions needs to be taken to overcome these obstacles and must have clear ‘Paris style agreement for nature that includes a clear 2030 set of science-based and measurable goals and targets. Biodiversity loss was highlighted as the third biggest risk to the world.
Analysis
This article from the Guardian highlights Biodiversity Preservation, which is what Chapter 19 is based on. It uses many ideas that are present in this chapter. Firstly, biodiversity is defined in the textbook as, the variation that exists at all levels of biological organization: variation among individuals in a species, among species in a community, among communities in an ecosystem, and among ecosystems themselves. This is important as this variation is critical to the survival of million of biological organisms and also human beings as the top predator. All this problems of nature and biodiversity that are coming down on us it is not because of events around the world effecting millions but because of massive human demographic growth and technologies of economic maintenance and expansion as highlighted in the book. The whole concept of these talks depends on support from developed nations, if they don’t participate this will be a lost cause and humanity will suffer from the constant degradation the environment will be facing. Some poor countries need support from countries as it is their ecosystems, that help millions to live. Although small-scale schemes exist, larger schemes need to come into place. The faster we as a community, the UN, world organizations come together to lay goals for the nature the better it will be.
However, a problem is that a lot of developed nations with high biodiversity are not willing to support poor countries and their nature, their benefits for them are much less compared the costs associated with it. It is also a great sign that world power such as China has taken the initiative to start the agreement and shows the world wants to come together to solve these issues. Since this is the third biggest risk to the world in terms of likelihood and severity, quick action is required from everyone, specially developed and rich nations, whose contribution could make the difference between living and being deal for millions of biological organisms and humankind
| Category | Mark | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Article Source (10) | 10 | |
| Article Relevance (10) | 10 | |
| Summary (20) | 20 | |
| Course Related Analysis (30-50) | 37 | It is a classic free rider problem with a public good. Biodiversity is a public good. Nations are likely to try and free ride on the contribution of others, and in aggregate we won't get the efficient level protected. |
| Extended Analysis (0-20) | ||
| Presentation (10) | 10 | |
| Total | 87 |