BIODIVERSITY LECTUREToday, I’ll talk about the development of market approaches to conserving biodiversity and theprivate sector as new features of international environmental policy. Market approaches may, ormay not, be a positive means of conservation. It depends greatly on who is investing, who is doingthe work, who is benefiting, what outcomes for biodiversity result, and the specific settings youlook at. However, it’s important to get some perspective on these approaches, so that we can seewhat, if anything, they can do.[SLIDE] I’ll discuss four aspects in my lecture, and we can then open up for further exploration.1. Why are some actors increasingly turning to the market and the private sector as a way toprotect biodiversity?2. What does relying on the market mean for the concept of biodiversity?3. What are the market strategies being used so far?4. What are some international environmental politics issues?Over the 1990s, the private sector became more important in conserving biodiversity in bothdeveloped and developing countries. Companies opened private parks and began promotingecological tourism to see wildlife in their habitats. Government institutes made agreements withcompanies to study biological and genetic material to use in making perfumes or medicines.Scientists acting as entrepreneurs tried to get private funds in return for access to the ecosystemservices that national parks can provide. Local communities founded their own ventures to profitfrom tourists and research investments. These developments contrast greatly with the traditional roles given to national governments. TheBiodiversity Convention envisages governments as the central actors in conservation through1setting up protected areas like national parks, making and enforcing laws for land use, andcontrolling the settlement of people near biologically rich areas. But private actors are apparentlyemerging alongside governments as new international environmental actors. This is happening at atime when there is growing skepticism of the capacity of governments to decide and act.Why is there a new focus on the market as a way to conserve biodiversity? I think the explanationlies in a mix of changes in international environmental politics and in the philosophy of protectingbiodiversity. [SLIDE] First, the implementation of traditional strategies, by government actors, is increasinglybeing seen as ineffective. At the same time, private actors are appearing – not just companies, butnon-governmental organizations, local communities, and landowners – alongside governmentactors. These actors are not just implicated in biodiversity loss, but are now thought to be part ofthe solutions.Second, the view of biodiversity as a resource that can be exploited has taken deeper hold.Conserving wildlife and enjoying the beauty of ecosystems aren’t the dominant motivations anymore. Instead, governments and international agencies are defining biodiversity as something thatpeople need to benefit from if they are to be motivated to act to protect biodiversity.First, let’s look at the implementation issue. We need to look back at what you’ve been studying sofar. The Biodiversity Convention was negotiated in 1992, but there is widespread agreement thatextinction rates and habitat destruction continue to worsen overall. Conservation can mean different things depending on what you believe is required for the survivalof biodiversity. For example, conservation might relate to preserving species, local populations,2genetic diversity, biological resources, habitats, and ecosystems. The point is that your ideas aboutthe causes of biodiversity loss and the existing deficiencies in management responses will lead todifferent ideas about what to do. In the last few decades, in situ conservation in the form ofpreserves have been the most common solution. National parks are supposed to be sacrosanct intheir wildness. By excluding humans, it is thought, the pressures on species and habitats willdecrease. To a lesser degree, attention has focused on breeding programs that aim to restore speciesto the wild. [SLIDE] However, the reality has been vastly different. In many places, people have “invaded”preserves, converting land by logging and agriculture, killing wildlife through poaching or forbushmeat to eat, and carrying out mining. Intensifying population density makes it harder forpeople to live off their land, so they need to move to marginal lands. Local communities also resistbeing excluded from the lands that they have historically used. In turn, government agencies oftenhave been unable to maintain strong boundaries around national parks. They cannot afford toprovide the staff or vehicles needed to patrol perimeters. Staff can become demoralized and resign.Staff can also become corrupt and misappropriate funds. Finally, there continues to be a low levelof scientific knowledge about biodiversity. There are countless species not known to humanscience, but likely to disappear before they are recorded. The lack of knowledge is thought tohamper conservation efforts. These observations and causal explanations have been around for a while. Indeed, this year, theBiodiversity Convention Secretariat made a new Strategic Plan for the next decade. The plan lists arange of obstacles to implementing the convention. [SLIDE] Two examples are: [read from theoverheads]. These are conventional views of what the problems are, implying that the solutions areto do with more resources and better enforcement. Later, we can discuss whether or not these views3really target “the problem” or not. I personally don’t think they do. For now, the key thing is howinternational and domestic actors are framing what needs to be done, and by whom.[SLIDE] One diagnosis that international policy-makers make, then, is that the people who live inor around preserves lack the incentive to conserve biodiversity. They don’t have a reason to carefor wildlife. Alternatively, their poverty is forcing them to destroy habitats. If they could somehowfind incentives to alleviate the pressures leading to extinction, they would change their behavior.These incentives could be employment, outside investment, community development, and politicalpower to determine their own lives. Another diagnosis is that governments,