Reducing Biodiversity Loss

In the last post it was asserted that setting a parameter for biodiversity loss is particularly difficult considering how little we know about the matter; it might be expected therefore, that acting on its prevention is similarly challenging. Fortunately, this is not entirely the case, and here I outline various approaches to preventing biodiversity loss.

Whilst Dietz and Adger contend that “biodiversity loss is the product of the complex interaction of factors” making it difficult to pinpoint single specific causes beyond mere ‘economic growth’, it has been established in a number of studies that land-use change is without doubt the biggest driver of biodiversity loss globally (for example Lewis et al). Whilst pollution and climatic changes play their parts, the destruction of habitats and manipulation of land for human purposes leads the way in terms of negative consequences. Thus, it would appear that primarily we need to deal with controlling land-use changes.

Lewis et al establish that as 70% of species on the US endangered list rely on non-federal land and as such look at voluntary agreements with private landowners. Such agreements would be incentivised and entail owners conserving their land and potentially even taking steps to increase its suitability for certain species (presumably those most endangered in a given region). Amongst their findings is the drawback of the approach requiring large budgets for effective conservation, conceding that whilst incentives-based policies have the potential to be most effective, they can be almost inconsequential at low-budget levels. An alternative to this often sees states taking over tracts of land for protection on society’s behalf in the form of nature reserves; of course this also requires substantial funding but also a degree of private cooperation in the discussion of property rights.

Another step that has been taken is to regulate the trade of endangered species both nationally and internationally. CITES (Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is a treaty signed in 1973 with the intention of ensuring “international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival”. Theoretically it is designed to drive prices up and quantities down, but as Dietz and Adger note, it is entirely dependent on how effectively its restrictions are enforced.

The same authors conclude that neither international trade regulations nor state land protection necessarily represent the best means of reducing biodiversity loss (another option is that of forestry plantation, discussed by Alkemade et al – an approach that seeks to reverse the effect of habitat loss and shows the potential to reap small but significant rewards). However, if we consider the role companies could play in a similar context, there appears to be some scope for moving conservation forward.

This could take one of the two approaches discussed (if not both): incentives or legislation. Companies could be rewarded for actively taking steps to reduce their impact of biodiversity or they may be required by law to offset their activities with the purchase of land for protection. If structured effectively this could mean that economic growth (which it is unreasonable to expect to slow in many areas of the world in the coming decades) would be tangibly coupled with a reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss.