Building Biodiversity Business IUCN

8/14/2019 Building Biodiversity Business IUCN

1/164

Building

BiodiversityBusinessJoshua Bishop, Sachin Kapila, Frank Hicks,Paul Mitchell and Francis Vorhies


2/164

2

4

1

5

3

6

1. One of the 73 frog species found in theGamba Complex, Gabon Carlton Ward Jr.

2. A water lily in Jacana, BotswanaIUCN Photo Library IUCN / Sue Mainka

3. Masked butterflyfish in the Red Sea, EgyptIUCN Photo Library Christian Laufenberg

4. Chameleo dilepis Carlton Ward Jr.

5.Alcedo leucogaster Carlton Ward Jr.

6. Forest in the Garajonay National Park, SpainIUCN Photo Library Jim Thorsell

Carlton Ward Jr. is an environmental photojournalist from Florida,USA with graduate training in ecology and anthropology. Throughhis photographs, he aims to promote conservation of naturalenvironments and cultural legacies.


3/164

Building Biodiversity BusinessJoshua Bishop1, Sachin Kapila2, Frank Hicks3, Paul Mitchell4 and Francis Vorhies5

1 IUCN (International Union or Conservation o Nature)

2 Shell International Limited

3 Forest Trends

4 Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Limited

5 Earthmind

2008


4/164

Publication Data

Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. and Vorhies, F. 2008.Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union or Conservation o Nature:London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland. 164 pp.

Shell International Limited, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the authors 2008

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1019-8

Reproduction o this publication or educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permissionrom the copyright holder provided the source is ully acknowledged.

Reproduction o this publication or resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission o thecopyright holder.

In this report the collective expression Shell is sometimes used or convenience in contexts where reerence is made to thecompanies o the Royal Dutch / Shell Group in general or where no useul purpose is served by identiying a particular companyor companies.

The ndings, interpretations and conclusions expressed here are those o the authors and do not necessarily refect the views oShell, IUCN or those interviewed. Any errors are purely the responsibility o the authors.

All economic values are as noted in quoted source materials and have not been converted to the equivalent value in 2008 terms.

This review should not be used as the basis or investments or related actions and activities.

Cover design by 3R Communications Ltd.

Graphic design by Shell Visual Media Services.


5/1641

Contents

Contents

Acknowledgments

Author inormation

Preace 8

Executive summary 10

Chapter 1. Introduction 14

Chapter 2. Context: the biodiversity challenge 16

2.1 Biodiversity, ecosystem services and conservation 16

2.2 Funding biodiversity conservation 20

Chapter 3. Rationale: why biodiversity business? 24

3.1 The business case or biodiversity 25

3.2 The conservation case or biodiversity business 27

3.3 The development case or biodiversity business 28

Chapter 4. The biodiversity business landscape 30

4.1 The spectrum o biodiversity business 314.2 Agriculture 33

4.2.1 What is biodiversity-riendly agriculture? 33

4.2.2 Agriculture status and trends 34

4.2.3 Agriculture what is working / not working 37

4.2.4 Agriculture gaps and business investment opportunities 40

4.3 Forestry 41

4.3.1 What is sustainable orestry? 41

4.3.2 Forestry status and trends 42

4.3.3 Forestry what is working / not working 43

4.3.4 Forestry gaps and business investment opportunities 45

4.4 Non-timber orest products 46

4.4.1 What are NTFP? 46

4.4.2 NTFP status and trends 47

4.4.3 NTFP what is working / not working 48

4.4.4 NTFP gaps and business investment opportunities 51

4.5 Fisheries and aquaculture 52

4.5.1 What are sustainable sheries? 52

4.5.2 Fisheries and aquaculture status and trends 53

4.5.3 Fisheries and aquaculture what is working / not working 554.5.4 Fisheries and aquaculture gaps and business investment opportunities 57


6/1642

Building Biodiversity Business

4.6 Biocarbon 58

4.6.1 What is biocarbon? 58

4.6.2 Biocarbon status and trends 59

4.6.3 Biocarbon gaps and business investment opportunities 63

4.7 Payments or watershed protection 64

4.7.1 What is watershed protection? 64

4.7.2 Payments or watershed protection status and trends 65

4.7.3 Payments or watershed protection gaps and business investment opportunities 65

4.8 Bioprospecting 68

4.8.1 What is bioprospecting? 68

4.8.2 Bioprospecting status and trends 69

4.8.3 Bioprospecting what is working / not working? 71

4.8.4 Bioprospecting gaps and business investment opportunities 734.9 Biodiversity osets 75

4.9.1 What are biodiversity osets? 75

4.9.2 Biodiversity osets status and trends 76

4.9.3 Biodiversity osets gaps and business investment opportunities 78

4.10 Biodiversity management services 80

4.10.1 What are biodiversity management services? 80

4.10.2 Biodiversity management services status and trends 83

4.10.3 Biodiversity management services gaps and business investment opportunities 83

4.11 Ecotourism 844.11.1 What is ecotourism? 84

4.11.2 Ecotourism status and trends 86

4.11.3 Tools or managing impacts 87

4.11.4 Ecotourism contributions to conservation 88

4.11.5 Ecotourism what is working / not working 89

4.11.6 Ecotourism gaps and business investment opportunities 90

4.12 Recreational hunting and sportshing 92

4.12.1 Hunting and sportshing status and trends 92

4.12.2 Hunting and sportshing what is working / not working 94

4.12.3 Hunting and sportshing gaps and business investment opportunities 95

4.13 Conclusions on the biodiversity business landscape 96

4.13.1 Enabling environment 97

4.13.2 Business development services 98

4.13.3 Investment opportunities 99

Chapter 5 Review o biodiversity business promotion mechanisms 102

5.1 Mechanisms to promote biodiversity business 102

5.1.1 Enabling environment 103

5.1.2 Business tools 104

5.1.3 Financing instruments 105


7/1643

Contents

5.2 Review o mechanisms 105

5.2.1 Creating an enabling environment or biodiversity business 106

5.2.2 Mandatory policy 107

5.2.3 International laws and regulations 1075.2.4 Local and national policy and institutions 109

5.2.5 Voluntary policies 113

5.2.6 Key lessons / challenges and opportunities 116

5.3 Biodiversity business tools 118

5.3.1 Introduction 118

5.3.2 A typology o biodiversity business tools 118

5.3.3 Key lessons / challenges and opportunities 121

5.4 Financing instruments 123

5.4.1 Financing instruments the range 1235.4.2 Key lessons / challenges and opportunities 127

5.5 Conclusions on business promotion mechanisms 128

Chapter 6. Conclusions 130

6.1 Key ndings and opportunities 130

6.2 Critical success actors 133

6.3 Towards a Biodiversity Business Facility 134

6.3.1 What exactly would a Biodiversity Business Facility do? 138

6.3.2 How to develop a Biodiversity Business Facility 1386.4 Closing remarks 139

Appendix A. Overview o selected biodiversity unds 142

Appendix B. Overview o selected think-tanks and business incubators 148

Glossary and list o acronyms 150

Glossary 150

Acronyms 153

Index 156


8/1644


List o fgures

Figure 1. Extinctions per thousand species per millennium 18

Figure 2. Growth o global protected areas over time 19

Figure 3. The Red List Index or birds in dierent ecosystems 20Figure 4. Regional variation in the percentage o the overall cost o eective reserve networks that are met 21

Figure 5. Biodiversity in development nance: tapping new sources 22

Figure 6. Area o organic agriculture and wild harvested plants worldwide 38

Figure 7. Certied orest area worldwide 43

Figure 8. Aquaculture production in developed and developing countries 54

Figure 9. Growth o the global carbon market (value o carbon contracts) 60

Figure 10. Orders o magnitude in drug discovery 69

Figure 11. Biodiversity osets and net positive impact 76

Figure 12. The growth o international tourist arrivals 86

Figure 13. The playing elds o interest 103Figure 14. General screening process 131

Figure 15. Overview o a Biodiversity Business Facility 134

Figure 16. What would a Biodiversity Business Facility do? An illustration or NTFP 139

List o tables

Table 1. Status o the USA mitigation market 77

Table 2. Biodiversity management services oered by dierent providers 82

Table 3. A tourism typology 85

Table 4. Selected ecosystem markets and their potential or growth 96

Table 5. Global subsidies 19941998 (US$ billion per annum) 112

Table 6. Certication strengths and weaknesses: the case o coee 116

Table 7. BioTools or biodiversity business 119

Table 8. The nancing spectrum 124

Table 9. Biodiversity Business Facility SWOT analysis 136

Table 10. Attributes o a Biodiversity Business Facility 137

List o boxes

Box 1. Biouels and biodiversity 34

Box 2. Combining rural development and biodiversity conservation 36

Box 3. UNCTAD BioTrade principles and criteria 39

Box 4. Promoting certied timber markets in Central America 44Box 5. High Conservation Value Network launched 44

Box 6. The value o wild plants, animals and reshwater sheries in Senegal 46

Box 7. Bamboo and rattan acts and gures 47

Box 8. The sustainability o the bushmeat trade 48

Box 9. Linking conservation and local economic development at Flower Valley, South Arica 48

Box 10. PhytoTrade Aricaa 50

Box 11. The Marine Stewardship Council and certication o sheries 56

Box 12. ForTuna by WWF and TRAFFIC 57

Box 13. A selection o biocarbon initiatives 60

Box 14. The potential o avoided deorestation 62Box 15. The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards 63


9/1645

Contents

Box 16. Payments or watershed protection in Costa Rica 65

Box 17. The Water Fund 67

Box 18. The National Biodiversity Institute o Costa Rica 70

Box 19. The Inland Sea Shorebird Reserve 76Box 20. The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) and the

International Association o Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) Biodiversity Working Group (BDWG) 80

Box 21. Guidelines and standards in the tourism industry 87

Box 22. Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council 88

Box 23. Rainorest Expeditions 89

Box 24. Establishment o an ecound through tourist contributions 91

Box 25. Hunting and shing associations and conservation activities 93

Box 26. The Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project in Zambia 94

Box 27. Biodiversity policy in the orest sector 110

Box 28. Fiscal incentives or private reserves in Brazil 111Box 29. Corporate social responsibility standards and biodiversity 114

Box 30. IFC and biodiversity on the opportunity side 120

Box 31. Indicators o biodiversity perormance 121

Box 32. The GEF, World Bank and biodiversity nance 124

Box 33. Terra Capital Biodiversity Enterprise Fund or Latin America 126


10/1646


Acknowledgments

This report was prepared by Joshua Bishop (IUCN), Sachin Kapila (Shell International Limited), Frank Hicks (Forest Trends) andtwo consultants: Paul Mitchell (Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Limited) and Francis Vorhies (Earthmind). We wouldlike to acknowledge the support o the ollowing people or their input and assistance during the preparation o this report:

Project Steering Committee: IUCN (William Jackson, Gabriel Lopez), Shell Foundation (Kurt Homan), Shell InternationalLimited (Richard Sykes) and Royal Dutch Shell (Lex Holst).

START Challenge Team (Shell Global Solutions): Dave Sands, Keara Robins, Anne Ooms and Linda McKane.

Michael Jenkins (Forest Trends) or his early encouragement and practical support throughout the study.

Reviewers o previous drats, including: Matt Arnold, Nick Bertrand, Gary Bull, Rebecca Buttereld, Guilia Carbone,

Santiago Carrizosa, Catherine Cassagne, Giles Davies, Herbert Diemont, Ben Dixon, Holly Dublin, John Forgach, PhilFranks, Dominique Ganiage, Alastair Green, Sje Gussenhoven, Tom Hammond, Dixon Harvey, Nigel Homer, William

Jackson, Namrita Kapur, Horst Korn, Pedro Leitao, Iris Lewandowski, Niall Marriott, Peter May, Je McNeely, BernardMercer, James Morant, Jennier Morris, Tammy Newmark, James Parker, Matthew Parr, Adam Pool, Lorena Revelo, LuizRos, Rina Rosales, Chucri Sayegh, Je Sayer, Sonal Shah, James Spurgeon, Ian Swingland, Jolanda van Schaick, Sonja,Vermeulen, Terry Vogt, Angelika Voss, Karen Westley and Clive Wicks.

Special thanks to Mohammad Raq (IUCN) or his challenging and constructive input on numerous occasions, to RickSteiner (University o Alaska) or his inspiring ideas on private sector support or biodiversity conservation, and to ChrisWest (Shell Foundation) or his practical insights into the challenge o blending business interests and the public good.

All those consulted during the interviews or their time, insight and expertise.

Gill Dwyer Stanbridge and Madi Gray or their editorial assistance.


11/1647

Joshua Bishop

Dr Joshua Bishop is Senior Adviser, Economics and Environment, at IUCN. His work ocuses on how to promote economicallyecient and more equitable approaches to nature conservation, while also presenting the case or conservation in economicterms. Prior to joining IUCN, Dr Bishop worked at the International Institute or Environment and Development in London, andas a consultant and sta member o several organisations in West Arica. A consistent theme o his work has been to enhancethe contribution o nature conservation to poverty reduction through the use o economic tools and market-based mechanisms.Dr Bishop holds a BA rom Yale University, an MPP rom Harvard University, and a PhD rom University College London.

Sachin Kapila

Mr Sachin Kapila is Group Biodiversity Adviser within the Sustainable Development Division o Shell International Limited.He has a broad range o experience encompassing strategy, project management and on-the-ground implementation, anda responsibility or establishing global biodiversity policy, developing appropriate tools and guidelines and managing /ostering relationships with key external organisations. Sachin came to Shell rom one o the worlds largest environmentalconsultancies covering a variety o regions including Latin America, Arica, South-East Asia and the Middle East. He hasa personal interest both in developing new and innovative approaches to conservation nancing through market-basedsolutions and in methods o attracting investment through capital markets to deliver benets to investors, the environment andlocal communities.

Frank Hicks

Mr Frank Hicks has over 20 years o international development experience, the majority o which has been gleaned indeveloping countries. He is currently Director o the Business Development Facility at Forest Trends. Prior to this he oundedand was President o Sustainable Development International, a Costa Rican organisation that provides consulting services onsustainable agriculture, agricultural certication, enterprise development, strategic planning, and development nance. Hehas also been Director o the Rainorest Alliances Sustainable Agriculture Program, and Vice President o Organic CommodityProducts, an organic chocolate company, based in Costa Rica. Having been involved in promoting community-based eco-enterprises in various guises or many years, working on this report provided an exciting opportunity to analyse biodiversitybusiness across a spectrum o industrial sectors and to eed inormation and insights into his work with Forest Trends.

Paul Mitchell

Dr Paul Mitchell is an independent consultant with over 15 years experience o management o environmental and socialissues in the natural resources sector. His particular ocus has been mining, aggregates and oil and gas in Europe, theAmericas, Asia and Arica. In recent years he has worked closely with clients including the Energy and Biodiversity Initiativeand the Business and Biodiversity Oset Program on guidance or companies that wish to improve their management obiodiversity. This report represents an opportunity or him to explore a complementary market-based approach and take alook at the bigger picture o conserving biodiversity.

Francis Vorhies

Dr Francis Vorhies has over 20 years o international experience as a sustainability economist. In Johannesburg he set upEco Plus, an innovative consultancy ocused on business, economics and the environment, and in Nairobi he worked orthe Arican Wildlie Foundation under a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) / Global Environment Facility(GEF) grant to build biodiversity economics capacity in the orestry sector. In Geneva, Dr Vorhies established new globalprogrammes on economics and business or IUCN, and in Oxord he was the chie executive ocer o the European aliate

o the Earthwatch Institute. In early 2005, Dr Vorhies ollowed his wies career back to Geneva and ounded Earthmind,a not-or-prot sustainability network. His interest in this publication is based on his belie that capitalist tools can help us toconserve biodiversity.

Author inormation

Author inormation


12/1648

1 Billion is equivalent to thousandmillion throughout this publication.

Preace

The natural diversity o the living world, with its myriad species, complex ecosystemsand constantly evolving genetic structure, is a priceless inheritance. At the sametime, this biodiversity is commonly under-valued by modern economies, resultingin its rapid and accelerating disappearance. Some experts liken the current rateo biodiversity loss to the great extinctions o prehistoric eras, with the importantdierence that todays loss is entirely due to human activity.

Ironically, while the biological oundation o our lives is eroding beneath oureet, human economies continue to thrive, generating ever-greater quantities andqualities o material goods and consumer services. Poverty and confict continueto afict the lives o billions1, but at the same time overall economic growth meansthat increasing numbers o people around the world enjoy unprecedented levelso prosperity.

On the one hand, diminishing biodiversity, and on the other, expanding economies.The two phenomena are not unrelated. Modern economies are very good atproducing what people will pay or. They are not so good at preserving whatis priceless. Much o the ongoing loss o biodiversity can be attributed, directlyor indirectly, to the production and consumption o goods and services to meethuman needs. The growing problem o climate change will urther exacerbatebiodiversity loss.

Action is urgently required to halt the loss o biodiversity, but governments and non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot do it alone. Policies and regulationsthat require business and consumers to reduce their environmental ootprintare important, but not sucient. Much existing biodiversity policy is essentiallyswimming against the tide o economic growth, and constantly alling short. Taxingbusinesses and consumers or seeking charity rom them could raise signicant sumsor biodiversity conservation, but does little to alter day-to-day decision-making inthe market place.

The question is how to enlist both the purchasing power o consumers and theproductive capacity o business to help meet the global biodiversity challenge. Thisin turn requires that we nd ways to make a stronger business case or biodiversityconservation.

With a little ingenuity (and political will), a compelling business case can beconstructed or environmental protection and improvement. Twenty years ago, ewpeople imagined that an entire industry could be created around mitigating climatechange. Today it is a reality the international carbon trade, or example, toppedUS$30 billion in 2006 and is expected to exceed US$50 billion by 2008. Whynot the same or biodiversity?

Can we create or expand markets or genetic diversity, species conservation andecosystem resilience in the same way that markets have been created at a globallevel or carbon, and in some countries or sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide(NOX) and groundwater salinity? The power o market-based environmental policyis no longer in doubt. But biodiversity is still largely neglected by private nance.

The challenge o building biodiversity business is not trivial. There is a needto develop new business models and market mechanisms or biodiversityconservation, while also raising awareness and persuading the public and policy-


13/1649

makers that biodiversity (or component ecosystem services) can be conserved on acommercial basis. Recent experience with market-based approaches to controllingcarbon dioxide (CO

2) and other pollutants provides practical cautions as well as

encouragement.

This report is the ruit o collaboration between IUCN and Shell InternationalLimited, which aim to identiy potential market-based mechanisms and new businessopportunities to conserve biodiversity. It represents the results o consultation withmore than 60 organisations, including commercial banks and insurance companies,private oundations, multilateral and bilateral aid agencies, NGOs, think-tanks,academics and investment und managers.

Based on in-depth interviews and a detailed literature review, this report provides asnapshot o the biodiversity business landscape. It reviews a range o biodiversitybusiness sectors, assesses what has worked (or not) and why, describes themain constraints and identies opportunities to expand market-based biodiversityconservation within each sector. The report also reviews the policy rameworks,technical resources and nancing mechanisms needed to enable biodiversitybusinesses to grow, in each case highlighting lessons learned rom experienceand uture opportunities.

The authors conclude that there are numerous pro-biodiversity business opportunitiesthat can generate positive nancial returns as well as real biodiversity benets.

Many initiatives have been established with impressive results however, nonehave achieved signicant scale or leveraged substantial private investment. There isa need to build on existing initiatives, recruit additional investors and entrepreneurs,and raise the bar in terms o both the scale and conservation benet o privateinvestment. To this end, three separate but related institutional unctions must beullled: namely the development o appropriate enabling policy; the provision otechnical and managerial support tailored to biodiversity business; and access toappropriate nance rom investors who understand the particular constraints andopportunities o creating new businesses and markets.

We hope this report will be o interest to a wide audience, including those whoare new to biodiversity business, as well as current and uture practitioners. ForShell and IUCN, this report provides the oundation or uture collaboration on

business-oriented approaches to biodiversity conservation. Yet this report is notjust about Shell and IUCN, or what they can achieve by working together. Theultimate aim is to identiy new opportunities and mechanisms that can mobilise abroad coalition o businesses, conservationists and other stakeholders around ashared vision o market-based biodiversity conservation.

Preace


14/1640

Executive summary

Biodiversity orms the oundation and abric o lie on earth but is eroding beneaththe eet o human activity. In the poorest countries, the deterioration o the naturalenvironment is making it increasingly dicult or millions o people to meet evenbare subsistence needs. Equally, as countries prosper, society is becoming lesstolerant o environmental damage and increasingly aware o the extent to whichour economies depend on healthy and diverse ecosystems.

Successive international treaties and national strategies have committed governmentsto stem the tide o biodiversity loss. An imposing edice o environmental policyis in place in most countries. As much as US$20 billion per year is raised rom

public nance and private philanthropy or global conservation activities mucho this money is used to maintain over 100,000 protected areas covering nearly12 percent o the worlds land surace. Yet all this is not sucient. The act is thatcurrent eorts to conserve biodiversity are overwhelmed by the adverse impacts ogrowing human economies. Spending on protected areas remains decient andundervalued ecosystem services are being eroded.

I current approaches to conservation are not sucient, what more can bedone? One answer is to harness the very market orces that are oten blamedor biodiversity loss. The challenge is to re-orient the economic incentives thatdrive private investment, production and consumption, and to make biodiversityconservation a viable business proposition in its own right. In other words: buildingbiodiversity business.

Biodiversity business is dened in this report as: commercial enterprise thatgenerates prots via activities which conserve biodiversity, use biologicalresources sustainably, and share the benets arising rom this use equitably.

This denition refects the three over-arching goals o the United Nations Conventionon Biological Diversity (CBD), which also calls or increased eorts to enlist theprivate sector in biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and equitable benetsharing. In both the environmental and business communities, there is growingrecognition o the potential to conserve biodiversity on a commercial basis. Ieven a small proportion o private capital fows, international trade and nationaleconomic output could be harnessed or biodiversity business, the resulting

contribution to conservation would be enormous. Increased private investmentin biodiversity business would have the greatest impact in developing nations,where the conservation unding gap is most extreme and where many criticallyendangered species and habitats are virtually unprotected today.

This report presents a snapshot o the emerging biodiversity business landscape,its constraints, opportunities and requirements. It is based on a 12-month studyinvolving literature review, analysis and extensive consultation with practitioners,policy-makers, donors and commercial investors.

From a conservation perspective, a major attraction o biodiversity business is thepotential to generate new and additional investment in conservation activities.At the same time, some people remain sceptical o the motives o the private

sector; while others worry that market-based approaches may distort conservationpriorities. Nevertheless, this report argues that notexploring what markets candeliver is no longer an option.


15/16411

From a business perspective, the reasons to invest in biodiversity business areincreasingly compelling. They are most obvious in cases where private protabilitydepends directly on the health o ecosystems ecotourism ventures, or instance.Similarly, it is now recognised that greater variability in genes, species andecosystems is associated with increased resilience and biological productivity inagriculture, ranching, orestry and marine sheries. Even businesses in urban areas,lacking a direct interaction with the natural world, can be motivated by new policyincentives and changing consumer preerences to go green. Corporate action onbiodiversity can help businesses distinguish themselves rom competitors while alsoimproving relations with investors, employees, local communities and others.

New biodiversity business models may also help reduce rural poverty. Whileemployment and skills development are a normal part o every business, biodiversitybusiness has the added benet that it oten stimulates a fow o unds romrelatively wealthy urban centres to the countryside, as well as rom industrialised todeveloping nations. Growing markets or ecosystem services and or biodiversity-riendly energy, ood, bre and recreation should provide ample opportunities orrural entrepreneurship and employment.

Today, biodiversity conservation is mainly viewed by business as a risk or liability,rather than a potential prot centre. However, this perception is beginning tochange. As public awareness o the global biodiversity crisis grows, an increasingnumber o companies see a business advantage in developing processes

to integrate biodiversity into their operations, as well as seeking market-basedsolutions and opportunities. Furthermore, even with modest initial returns rom mostbiodiversity business investments in the range o 5 to 10 percent per annum there are signicant prots to be made as the sector grows rom niche marketsto mainstream business.

A broad spectrum o dierent sectors and models o biodiversity business areexamined in detail in this report. Their status and trends are described, along withconstraints and opportunities or investment.

Examples include organic agriculture and certied timber. By demonstrating thepotential o more sustainable production practices, these businesses are showingthe way orward or mainstream agriculture and industrial orestry sectors

historically responsible or signicant biodiversity loss. Although accounting orless than 5 percent o the overall market today, the growth rate o sustainable orcertied products is three to our times greater than the market average. The marketor sustainably harvested timber and organic agriculture, or example, has beengrowing at double-digit rates.

Businesses that provide a range o ecosystem services in emerging markets suchas water quality and watershed protection are also considered in the report.One major area o growth is the demand or climate mitigation services throughbiocarbon i.e. biomass-based carbon sequestration in orests and wetlandsand through soil conservation.

Another biodiversity business is based on the search or new compounds, genes

and organisms in the wild, known as bioprospecting, an industry that could beworth US$500 million by 2050. The report also examines ecotourism, sporthunting and shing. The latter sectors are already large and growing: ecotourism

Executive summary


16/1642


is expanding at a rate o 2030 percent per year as compared to 9 percent ortourism as a whole, while private expenditure on recreational hunting and shingis estimated at US$70 billion per year in the USA alone.

Less conventional markets include biodiversity osets, wetland mitigation,conservation easements and biodiversity banking. Such businesses can be basedon either legislation or voluntary commitments that oblige companies to minimisethe biodiversity loss resulting rom their activities and to oset (compensate) orresidual losses by restoring or enhancing comparable sites. Emerging experiencein Australia, Brazil, South Arica and the United States has shown that suchapproaches can make a signicant contribution to conservation eorts andgenerate substantial business opportunities or oset providers, although there areconcerns about the environmental eectiveness o osets.

One major hurdle acing all biodiversity businesses is developing practical indicatorsor measuring negative impacts and positive contributions to biodiversity. Experience

in some countries shows that biodiversity assets, in the orm o endangered speciesor natural habitat, can be registered, tracked and even traded under appropriateregulatory rameworks. Nevertheless, the world still lacks agreed standards,methods and indicators or valuing ecological assets and ecosystem services.

The development o biodiversity business also depends on a conducive enablingenvironment, namely the ramework o laws, regulations, taxes, subsidies, socialnorms and voluntary agreements within which companies operate. For businessesto value biodiversity, it must ultimately become more protable to conservebiodiversity than to ignore or destroy it. A combination o increased rewards orconservation, increased penalties or biodiversity loss and increased inormationon the biodiversity perormance o business will help to create a biodiversity-

riendly economy.In many countries, signicant reorm o the enabling environment may be requiredto enable biodiversity business to grow, particularly where existing policies arepredicated on conservation o biodiversity by governments and charities, wherethe role o business in conservation is limited by law, or where policy incentivessuch as perverse subsidies are causing continued harm to ecosystems.

Another constraint on biodiversity business is the lack o understanding betweenthe worlds o business and nature conservation. Priorities, time scales andjargon all dier. Natural scientists oten lack the nancial acumen and consumerorientation o the private sector; conservationists typically lack business planningand management skills. At the same time, most business people lack understanding

o how their companies operations aect and are aected by biodiversity andecosystem services, or how to manage biodiversity in their operations. In addition,the long-standing diculties o integrating conservation and development agendasstill remain. Nevertheless, new biodiversity business tools are being developedthat can bring these worlds together and bridge gaps in planning, managementand perormance assessment.

Even with the best policies and tools in the world, biodiversity benets will notmaterialise or be sustained unless biodiversity businesses survive long enoughto become commercially viable. Access to patient capital or investment andexpansion is a critical actor in the growth o biodiversity businesses. While mostbusinesses depend on nancial support rom banks or investors to cover initial

start-up costs, in the case o biodiversity businesses there may be a need or somegrant nance or subsidies to help entrepreneurs get beyond the pilot and learningphase and to stimulate demand or commercial conservation services.


17/16413

Various existing nancing instruments have been adapted or biodiversity business,ranging rom grants to debt and equity nance. The experience o early andon-going initiatives can help guide the choice o an appropriate nancing blendor new biodiversity businesses. While most biodiversity und managers seek

co-nancing and preer debt nance to equity, a range o innovative nancialsolutions are being tested that combine commercial and non-commercial investors.The integration o nancing with technical and business support is increasinglycommon and can help ensure that biodiversity business delivers signicantconservation outcomes as it grows.

These are early days or biodiversity business and there is much to learn. Oneclear need is or an integrated approach to building biodiversity business,combining policy advice, technical assistance and innovative nance, at a vastlyincreased scale compared to current eorts. This report outlines a proposedBiodiversity Business Facility, which would unction as: (i) a think-tank, to addressand infuence the enabling environment and develop biodiversity business metrics;

(ii) a business incubator, to build capacity and provide technical assistance tosupport new biodiversity business ventures; and (iii) a unding mechanism, toinvest in and secure co-nance or growing biodiversity businesses. Although theeventual scope and orm o such a Facility remains to be dened, its potentialimpact could be enormous. The rst step is to assemble a portolio o biodiversitybusiness enterprise, in order to test, rene and demonstrate the viability o this newapproach to conservation.

Around the world, there are mangrove orests that may soon be cleared to makeway or shrimp arms, but which could instead be conserved through paymentsor ecosystem services as natural sh hatcheries, storm buers and water ltrationsystems. Similarly, there are thousands o ragments o degraded natural habitatthat could be linked and restored, by means o biodiversity osets, to orm vital

biological corridors or threatened species. And rural communities around theworld could be supported to build the skills and networks necessary to marketvaluable non-timber orest products.

For such initiatives to fourish, or pro-biodiversity markets to develop, xed ideasand institutional inertia need to be overcome. Experience is the best teacher andthe coming years will be crucial to demonstrate, document and share the resultso various market-based approaches to biodiversity conservation in dierentcontexts.

Rhetoric is not sucient. What is needed are more concrete examples onancially viable biodiversity businesses and unctioning markets or ecosystemservices. Only on the basis o practical experience will it be possible to convince

all stakeholders public and private to work together to conserve biodiversity ona sustainable and commercial basis. The ultimate aim o this report is to promotemore inormed experimentation and investment, based on a clear understandingo what biodiversity business needs to thrive.

Executive summary


18/1644

Introduction

This report explores the potential o market-based approachesto biodiversity conservation and develops a ramework orbuilding new biodiversity business models.

Market mechanisms are not a panacea but can be apowerul complement to existing approaches to biodiversityconservation.

The report aims to learn rom eorts to broaden the scope o

biodiversity conservation, assess experience o market-basedapproaches and identiy high potential opportunities to buildbiodiversity business.

This report explores the lessons and potential o market-based approaches tobiodiversity conservation. The premise o this report is that international commitmentsto halt the loss o biodiversity cannot be achieved unless, and until, the conservationo ecosystems becomes a positive business proposition on a global scale.

The rationale or conserving biodiversity through the market is increasingly widelyrecognised. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) a peer-reviewed, our-

year, global assessment o the consequences o ecosystem change or humanwell-being concluded that: new business opportunities will emerge as demandgrows or more ecient or dierent ways to use ecosystem services or mitigatingimpacts or to track or trade services2.

There are many ways and means to engage business in biodiversity conservation,o course, including increased regulation and awareness-raising to discourageenvironmentally harmul activities, increased tax and / or charitable contributionsby business to conservation activities, and more research and development (R&D)to promote biodiversity-riendly technologies. The ocus o this report on buildingbusiness models and markets or biodiversity does not imply any criticism ordevaluation o such approaches, which should be seen as complementary.

The concept o biodiversity business is developed in this report as a ramework oridentiying and promoting new business opportunities, linked to the conservationand sustainable use o biodiversity and equitable sharing o the benets and costsarising rom its use. More specically, this report aims to:

Learn rom eorts in the public sphere to broaden the scope o biodiversityconservation across the landscape, both within and outside the network oprotected areas (PAs); to restore degraded ecosystems and conserve intacthabitat; and to ensure positive benets or local communities, both as an endin itsel and because conservation is not sustainable without their support.

Assess the main obstacles to market-based approaches to biodiversityconservation, such as lack o nance, limited knowledge about how to supply

biodiversity through the market, lack o enabling policy or market-basedbiodiversity conservation, and weak capacity o governments to develop andimplement such policies.

2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005.

Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:Opportunities and Challenges or Businessand Industry. World Resources Institute:Washington, D.C. (www.maweb.org).

Chapter 1
http://www.maweb.org/http://www.maweb.org/


19/16415

Identiy high potential opportunities to build biodiversity businesses, includinginvestment in commercial enterprise as well as activities that build the oundationso biodiversity markets, such as market research and product development,pilot testing o biodiversity business concepts, pre-commercial purchase obiodiversity services based on competitive business principles, and, whereappropriate, policy advice related to market creation or biodiversity.

Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 o the report provide the context and rationale orocusing on market-based approaches to biodiversity conservation. They setout the business case or biodiversity and the conservation case or business,together with other perspectives on market-based biodiversity conservation.Chapter 4 orms the core o the report, assessing a range o business modelsthat generate biodiversity benets, as well as gaps and opportunities or newinvestment. Chapter 5 describes the enabling policies, business tools and nancinginstruments used to build biodiversity business, concluding again with an analysiso gaps and opportunities. Finally, Chapter 6provides an overall conclusion andrecommendations or the urther development o biodiversity business.

This report is intended to provoke discussion and debate, but also to providea resource or all those who may be interested in market-based approaches tobiodiversity conservation. More importantly, we hope that this report reinorceseorts to integrate economic development with biodiversity conservation, especiallyor rural communities in developing countries, whose livelihoods and security are

intimately linked to the conservation and sustainable use o their surroundingbiological resources.

Chapter 1Introduction


20/1646

Context: the biodiversitychallenge

Global environmental challenges and the persistence opoverty are increasingly well documented, as is the rapiderosion o biological diversity in most parts o the world.

Government-established protected areas cover 12 percento the earths land area, but many diverse ecosystems areunder-represented, particularly marine ecosystems, while evenwell-managed protected areas are increasingly vulnerable toexternal pressures, such as climate change.

Inadequate unding and generally weak public sectorinstitutions seriously handicap conservation eorts in developingcountries.

Global unding or biodiversity conservation relies heavily onpublic spending and philanthropy, although in many countriesthe private sector plays an increasing role.

Estimates o the additional unding required to halt biodiversityloss on a global scale range rom as little as US$1 billion perannum up to US$45 billion per annum, refecting not onlydiverse ambitions but also the lack o reliable data on currentspending and its eectiveness.

Contemporary concerns o conservationists and the wider sustainable developmentcommunity ocus on the continuing deterioration o the natural environment, togetherwith the persistence o poverty in many parts o the world. The Millennium EcosystemAssessment (MA) is the most recent comprehensive statement o the signicantenvironmental challenges acing society today, which include climate change,biodiversity loss, increasing water scarcity, and nutrient deposition3. The challengeo poverty is likewise well documented by many dierent organisations, such as theWorld Bank and the UN Millennium Project. The need or a coordinated global

response to environmental and development challenges has been recognised ormany years and is illustrated by the prolieration o multilateral agreements andpolicy statements, notably the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002)and the Millennium Development Goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals).

2.1 Biodiversity, ecosystem services and conservation

This chapter ocuses on responses to the loss o biological diversity (or biodiversity),as articulated in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).The CBD denes biodiversity as: the variability among living organisms rom allsources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems andthe ecological complexes o which they are part; this includes diversity within

species, between species and o ecosystems(Article 2).

3 www.maweb.org.

Chapter 2
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoalshttp://www.maweb.org/http://www.maweb.org/http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals


21/16417

The CBD urther denes and provides guidance or the sustainable use obiodiversity and its component resources. The latter include genetic resources,organisms or parts thereo, populations, or any other biotic component oecosystems with actual or potential use or value or humanity, while sustainableuse is dened as the use o components o biological diversity in a way and ata rate that does not lead to the long-term decline o biological diversity, therebymaintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations o present and uturegenerations.

Put simply, biodiversity is lie on earth. At a undamental level, all economies andall businesses depend, directly or indirectly, on biodiversity and its componentresources. Biodiversity is similarly recognised in the MA as the oundation o allecosystem services, which in turn support and protect economic activity andproperty4. The MA adopts an inclusive denition o ecosystem services, whichconsist o provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural benets provided bynatural ecosystems.

A growing body o research documents how biological diversity increaseseconomic productivity in a range o sectors, enhances our direct enjoyment onature, reduces ecological and health risks, and improves resilience in the ace oshocks5. Thus, by conserving biodiversity, we secure the ecosystem services uponwhich all economies rely.

Despite the socio-economic importance o biodiversity and ecosystem services,their values are not well refected in contemporary economic and developmentpolicies, investment decisions and private consumption patterns. This has beenhighlighted repeatedly in multilateral policy discussions, or example the 2007G8 environment ministerial meeting in Potsdam, which called or a study o theeconomic signicance o the global loss o biodiversity as well as eorts toenhance public and private nancing o conservation6.

Humanitys dependence on biodiversity is increasingly apparent while the globalloss o biodiversity is increasingly well-documented. The MA, or example, reportsthat the current pace o species loss is up to 1,000 times higher than the backgroundrates typical over the earths history (Figure 1). Habitat is disappearing rapidly, aswe continue to develop land or arming, orestry, livestock pasture and other uses.

For example, a total o 670,000 km2

o tropical orests were lost in the Caribbean,Central and South America in the period 1980 to 19957. Mangrove orests, oncecovering more than 200,000 km2 o coastline, have suered losses o up to 86percent in certain locations and continue to disappear at a rate o 12 percent per

year8. 20 percent o the worlds coral rees have been eectively destroyed andshow no immediate prospects o recovery, with a urther 24 percent considered atrisk o imminent collapse9.

4 EFTEC. 2005. The Economic, Social andEcological Value o Ecosystem Services:A Literature Review. Final report or theDepartment or Environment, Food andRural Aairs: London, UK (January);Farber, S.C., Costanza, R. and Wilson,

M.A. 2002. Economic and EcologicalConcepts or Valuing Ecosystem Services.Ecological Economics 41: 375392;Pagiola, S., von Ritter, K. and Bishop,J. 2004. Assessing the Economic Valueo Ecosystem Conservation. EnvironmentDepartment Paper No. 101. TheWorld Bank: Washington, D.C.

5 Hooper, D.U., Chapin III, F.S., Ewel,J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel,S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau,M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setl,H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J.and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Eects oBiodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning:

A Consensus o Current Knowledge.Ecological Monographs 75(1): 335.

6 www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pd. Related initiatives include the CBDWork Programme on Incentives (www.biodiv.org/incentives/review.shtml),work by the Organisation or EconomicCo-operation and Development onthe economic aspects o biodiversity,the Environmental Valuation ReerenceInventory (www.evri.ca), as well as theBioecon research programme (www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk), the Natural CapitalProject (www.naturalcapitalproject.org) and the ecoSERVICES projecto Diversitas International (www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.html), among many others.

7 See www.ws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pd or urther exampleso habitat change and loss.

8 Duke, N.C., Meynecke, J-O., Dittman,S., Ellison, A.M., Anger, K., Berger, U.,Cannicci, S., Diele, K., Ewel, K.C., Field,C.D., Kiedam, M., Lee, S.Y., Marchand,C., Nordhaus, I. and Dahdouh-Guebas,F. 2007. A World Without Mangroves?Science(6 July 2007): 41b42b.

9 Wilkinson, C. (ed). 2004. Status oCoral Rees o the World: 2004.Available at www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004 .

Chapter 2Context: the biodiversity challenge
http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.evri.ca/http://www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk/http://www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk/http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/http://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdfhttp://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdfhttp://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004http://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdfhttp://www.fws.gov/birds/documents/HabitatLoss.pdfhttp://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.diversitas-international.org/core_ecoserv.htmlhttp://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/http://www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk/http://www.bioecon.ucl.ac.uk/http://www.evri.ca/http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdfhttp://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/__Anlagen/2007-03-18-potsdamer-erklaerung-en,property=publicationFile.pdf


22/1648


Figure 1.Extinctions per thousand species per millennium

100,000

10,000

1,000

Marinespecies

Projected futureextinction rateis more thanten times higherthan current rate

Current extinctionrate is up to onethousand timeshigher than thefossil recordFor every thousand

mammal species lessthan one went extinctevery millennium

Distant past(fossil record)

Recent past(known extinctions)

Future(modelled)

Long-term averageextinction rate

Mammals Mammals Birds Amphibians All species

100

10

1

0.1

0

Source:Redrawn with permission, based on an original gure prepared or the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment by Philippe Rekacewicz and Emmanuelle Bournay o UNEP / Grid-Arendal.

Eorts to conserve biodiversity are likewise changing, based on improvedunderstanding o the drivers o biodiversity loss. At a global level, the main legalinstrument or conservation is the CBD, which has been signed by more than 160national governments and has three over-arching objectives10:

1. The conservation o biological diversity.

2. The sustainable use o its components.

3. The air and equitable sharing o the benets arising out o the utilisation ogenetic resources.

The most common means o conserving biodiversity is to restrict human activity inareas which are considered highly diverse, contain rare or endangered species, orwhich generate important ecosystem services (including cultural services). The CBDdenes a protected area as a geographically dened area, which is designatedor regulated and managed to achieve specic conservation objectives (Article2). Over 12 percent o the global land surace is currently protected under arange o legal and customary arrangements designed to ensure the conservationo important ecosystem benets (see Figure 2). Additional conservation measuresinclude an expanding regulatory and enorcement toolbox, including EnvironmentalImpact Assessments and a range o other measures and mechanisms designedto assess, avoid and / or mitigate the biodiversity losses oten associated witheconomic activity.

10 Other important biodiversity-relatedinternational agreements include theConvention on Conservation o MigratorySpecies (www.cms.int), the Conventionon International Trade in EndangeredSpecies o Wild Fauna and Flora (www.cites.org), the International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources or Food and

Agriculture (www.planttreaty.org), theRamsar Convention on Wetlands (www.ramsar.org), and the World HeritageConvention (whc.unesco.org).
http://www.cms.int/http://www.cites.org/http://www.cites.org/http://www.planttreaty.org/http://www.ramsar.org/http://www.ramsar.org/http://whc.unesco.org/http://whc.unesco.org/http://www.ramsar.org/http://www.ramsar.org/http://www.planttreaty.org/http://www.cites.org/http://www.cites.org/http://www.cms.int/


23/16419

Figure 2.Growth o global protected areas over timea

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

1873

1883

1893

1903

1913

1923

1933

1943

1953

1963

1973

1983

1993

2003

Cumulative area of sites of known date

Cumulative number of sites of known date

numberofsites

areainkm2

a 38,427 protected areas covering some 4 million km have no date and are not included in thecumulative graph.

Source:Redrawn with permission, based on Figure 1 in Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., andLysenko, I. 2005. Measuring the extent and eectiveness o protected areas as an indicator ormeeting global biodiversity targets. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 443455. See www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pd#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22.

While most ocial protected areas are state property, local communities andprivate landowners also protect signicant areas o land that do not appear inglobal statistics. In Namibia, or example, community-managed conservanciescover more than 74,000 km2 or 9 percent o the countrys land11. At a global level,one estimate is that the total orest area under community conservation is roughly

equivalent to the area conserved in public protected orests12

.Despite the impressive growth o PAs and an expanding conservation toolbox,there are major gaps in the global conservation network. Many areas that containsome o the worlds highest concentrations o endemism and species diversitystill lack protection. Less than 1 percent o marine ecosystems, or example, arecurrently protected.

Even more disturbing is the evidence emerging rom a range o sources whichsuggests that current eorts to conserve biodiversity are merely slowing, ratherthan reversing, the global erosion o biodiversity (see Figure 3). There is growingrealisation that the world is unlikely to achieve a signicant reduction o the currentrate o biodiversity loss by 2010, as agreed by government leaders at the World

Summit on Sustainable Development in 200213. Long-term prospects or conservationremain very uncertain, due to climate change and a host o other threats (e.g. therapid spread o invasive alien species through trade, increasing concentration ohuman populations in coastal areas, developments in biotechnology). Growingawareness o climate change, in particular, has led to increasing concern aboutits adverse impacts on biodiversity, but also o the potentially signicant role thatbiological resources can play in mitigating and adapting to climate change14.

11 www.dea.met.gov.na/met/ArchivedNews/030824news.htm.

12 Molnar, A., Scherr, S.J. and Khare, A.2004. Who Conserves the WorldsForests? Community-Driven Strategiesto Protect Forests & Respect Rights.Forest Trends: Washington, D.C.

13 www.biodiv.org/decisions/deault.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7200.

14 Kapos, V., Herkenrath, P. and Miles,

L. 2007. Reducing Emissions romDeorestation: A Key Opportunity orAttaining Multiple Benets. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22http://www.dea.met.gov.na/met/ArchivedNews/030824news.htmhttp://www.dea.met.gov.na/met/ArchivedNews/030824news.htmhttp://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7200http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7200http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7200http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-06&id=7200http://www.dea.met.gov.na/met/ArchivedNews/030824news.htmhttp://www.dea.met.gov.na/met/ArchivedNews/030824news.htmhttp://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publications/GlobalTargets/Measuring_PA_Extent.pdf#search=%22chape%20harrison%20spalding%22


24/1640


Figure 3. The Red List Index or birds in dierent ecosystems

1988

Terrestrial

Freshwater

Marine

1992

RedListIndex(setto100in1988)

wors

e

better

1996 2000 2004

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

90

Source:Redrawn with permission, based on Figure 5 in Butchart, S.H.M., Statterseld, A.J., Baillie,J., Bennun, L.A., Stuart, S.N., Akakaya, H.R., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Mace, G.M. 2005. Using RedList Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360,255268.

The biodiversity challenge is greatest in the developing world, where conservationeorts are oten constrained by political and macroeconomic instability, widespreadpoverty, under-developed local economies, lack o capacity and resources andinstitutional weaknesses in relevant public sector bodies. It has been estimated thatwell over one hal o all protected areas occur in nations where governance is

weak15

. The result is many poorly protected paper parks, a ailure to conservebiodiversity, and, in other cases, confict with local communities. Biodiversity inthe high seas, beyond national waters, is likewise threatened by the absenceo adequate international agreements and enorcement mechanisms. Majorcomponents o biodiversity notably invertebrates remain largely unknown toscience and outside the scope o contemporary conservation eorts.

2.2 Funding biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity conservation has long relied on public nance and private philanthropyto secure the resources it needs. Unortunately, reliable data on current biodiversityunding and expenditure is not readily available. One recent estimate is that the

world spends approximately US$10 billion per annum on conserving ecosystems

16

.Another source suggests that global spending on PAs is about US$6.5 billion perannum17, while a third source estimates spending on PAs by developing countrygovernments at between US$1.3 billion and US$2.6 billion per annum18. Poordata on current unding is exacerbated by uncertainty about the eectiveness oconservation expenditure.

Published estimates o global conservation spending almost certainly underestimatethe true level o eort and resources available. In the United States, or example,private charitable giving mainly by individuals to organisations involved inenvironment and animals amounted to US$8.86 billion in 2005 (out o totaldonations o US$260 billion)19. The budget o the US National Park Service wasUS$2.256 billion in Fiscal 200620, while direct public spending on state-level

wildlie conservation activities came to almost US$1 billion in 200521. Spending onconservation measures under the 2002 Farm Bill adds another US$3.8 billion per

year22. Even allowing or some double-counting, and bearing in mind that signicant

15 Pearce, D.W. 2005. Paradoxes inBiodiversity Conservation. WorldEconomics 6(3): 5769.

16 Pearce, D.W. 2005. ibid.

17 James, A., Gaston, K.J. and Balmord,A. 2001. Can We Aord to ConserveBiodiversity? BioScience51: 4352.

18 Molnar, A., Scherr, S. J. and Khare, A.2004. Who Conserves the WorldsForests? Community-Driven Strategiesto Protect Forests and Respect Rights.Forest Trends: Washington, D.C.

19 Giving USA. 2006. The Annual Reporton Philanthropy or the Year 2005.AAFRC Trust or Philanthropy: NewYork, N.Y. See: www.ap-ggc.org/rm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pd.

20 www.nps.gov/aqs.htm.

21 McKinney, C., Ris, L., Rorer, H. andWilliams, S. 2005. Investing in Wildlie:State Wildlie Funding Campaigns.U. Michigan. See: www.teaming.com/pd/Investing_in_Wildlie_Full_Report.pd; www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/nalReport.pd.

22 Mayrand, K., Dionne, S., Paquin,M. and Pageot-LeBel, I. 2003. TheEconomic and Environmental Impacts o

Agricultural Subsidies: An Assessmento the 2002 US Farm Bill & DohaRound. Unisera International Centre:Montreal, Canada (January).
http://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdfhttp://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdfhttp://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdfhttp://www.nps.gov/faqs.htmhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.teaming.com/pdf/Investing_in_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf;%20www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/pubs/finalReport.pdfhttp://www.nps.gov/faqs.htmhttp://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdfhttp://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdfhttp://www.afp-ggc.org/frm/presentations/Giving_USA2006-Turning_Data_Into_Action-Julia_McGuire.pdf


25/16421

spending on conservation by local governments and other public agencies is notincluded in the these gures, it seems clear that public and charitable spending onwildlie conservation in the USA alone exceeds US$15 billion per year. Moreover,even this gure is dwared by private spending on wildlie-related recreationalactivities such as hunting, shing and observing wildlie, which amounted toUS$120 billion in 2006 (just under 1 percent o GDP)23.

The unding requirements or biodiversity conservation (or more narrowly or PAs)are equally uncertain, refecting the dierent ambitions o analysts and a lack oconsensus on how much area should be protected in order to conserve biodiversity.One modest assessment suggests that an additional US$1.1 billion is required tocover the basic expenses o PA management in developing countries and countrieswith economies in transition24. This is perhaps optimistic. Most analysts agree thatthere is a large unmet need or biodiversity nance, especially in the developingworld (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Regional variation in the percentage o the overall cost o eectivereserve networks that are met

%o

veral

lconservationcostcurrentlymet

increasing regional mean per capitaincome

Developing

Asia

Sub-Saharan

Africa

NorthEurasia

NorthAfrica/

MiddleEast

LatinAmerica

Europe

Australia/

NewZealand

Developed

EastAsia

NorthAmerica

Pacific

100

80

60

40

20

0

Source:Redrawn with permission, based on Figure 3 (Regional variation in the percentage o theoverall cost o eective reserve networks that are met) in Balmord, A., Gaston, K.J., Blyth, S., James,A. and Kapos, V. 2003. Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benets,and unmet conservation needs. PNAS100(3): 10461050 (4 February). Copyright 2003

National Academy o Sciences, U.S.A.

Other recent estimates o the global conservation unding gap include:

US$1213 billion per year over 10 years to expand and manage PA systemsin developing countries25.

Up to US$45 billion per year (over 30 years) to secure an expandednetwork o PAs covering 15 percent o terrestrial and 30 percent o marineecosystems, mainly in the tropics. Note that this estimate includes a provisionor compensation o opportunity costs incurred by current resource users26.

The latter estimate may seem daunting, particularly when compared to current

government expenditure on conservation. When compared to private spendingon nature-based recreation or the growth o green consumer purchasing, on theother hand, such sums seem much less extraordinary.

23 US Fish & Wildlie Service. 2007.2006 National Survey o Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlie-AssociatedRecreation: National Overview. See:library.ws.gov/nat_survey2006.pd .

24 Vreugdenhil, D. 2003. Protected Areas

Management; Biodiversity Needsand Socioeconomic Integration.World Institute or Conservation andEnvironment (available at: www.birdlist.org/downloads/PA_Systems.doc ).

25 Bruner, A., Hanks, J. and Hannah, L.2003. How Much Will Eective ProtectedArea Systems Cost?Presentation to theVth IUCN World Parks Congress, 817September: Durban, South Arica.

26 Balmord, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P.,Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E.,Jenkins, M., Jeeriss, P., Jessamy, V.,Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N.,Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M.,

Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper,K. and Turner, R.K. 2002. EconomicReasons or Conserving Wild Nature.Science297: 950953 (9 August).

http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006.pdfhttp://www.birdlist.org/downloads/PA_Systems.dochttp://www.birdlist.org/downloads/PA_Systems.dochttp://www.birdlist.org/downloads/PA_Systems.dochttp://www.birdlist.org/downloads/PA_Systems.dochttp://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006.pdf


26/1642


The world as a whole is not short o unds. What is lacking is the motivation orincreased private investment in biodiversity, especially in the tropics, where boththe conservation need and unding gap are greatest. The potential or changethrough increased engagement o the private sector is highlighted in Figure 5,

which contrasts the gap in biodiversity unding with the scale o developmentassistance, private capital fows, exports and domestic markets in developingcountries. I even a small raction o global economic activity can be mobilisedor conservation, then prospects or biodiversity could be signicantly improved.Chapter 4 o this report describes recent experience in several countries andsectors that suggests how this can be done by building biodiversity business. First,however, we look more generally at the case or bringing the private sector intobiodiversity conservation.

Figure 5. Biodiversity in development nance: tapping new sources

ODA

Internationalprivate capital

flows to developingcountries

Developing country exports

US$4,335 billion in 2006(World Bank, 2007)d

US$104 billion in 2006

(of which $19 billion indebt relief)a

US$647 billion in 2006(Global Development Finance, 2007)c

2.8% for biodiversity(2002-05 average)b

Developing country domestic markets

~US$11,000 billion in 2006(World Bank, 2007)e

a www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34469_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html.

b OECD. 2007. Statistics on Biodiversity-Related Aid.www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crs (July).

c World Bank. 2007. Global Development Finance The Globalization o Corporate Finance inDeveloping Countries. I: Review, Analysis, and Outlook. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.

d World Bank. 2007. Prospects or the Global Economy. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.go.worldbank.org/PF6VWYXS10.

e Ibid.
http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34469_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.htmlhttp://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crshttp://go.worldbank.org/PF6VWYXS10http://go.worldbank.org/PF6VWYXS10http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crshttp://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_34469_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html


27/16423


28/1644

27 See or example: www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Re 5 Earth Prots Fund.doc.

28 Friends o the Earth International. 2005.Nature or Sale: The Impacts o PrivatizingWater and Biodiversity. Issue 107

(January); Von Wiezkacker, E.U., Young,O.R. and Finger, M. 2005. Limits toPrivatization: How to Avoid Too Mucho a Good Thing. Earthscan: London.

Rationale: whybiodiversity business?

Biodiversity business generates prots through productionprocesses that conserve biodiversity, use biological resourcessustainably and share the benets arising out o this useequitably.

Biodiversity business should complement rather than replaceexisting approaches to conservation.

There is a strong business case or biodiversity and a good

conservation case or business, but more work is needed topresent and demonstrate the case.

There are good reasons to expect biodiversity businesses tocontribute to other global objectives, notably the reductiono poverty in developing countries. However, eorts to buildbiodiversity business must ensure that the very poor are notdisplaced rom their jobs or cut o rom natural resources thatthey previously exploited.

The preceding chapter identied biodiversity as a central component o sustainabledevelopment, highlighted growing evidence o biodiversity loss, and noted theinadequacy o traditional unding rom public and charitable sources, as well asinstitutional weaknesses that undermine conservation eorts. This chapter developsthe case or another approach to biodiversity conservation, building on the powero business and markets. We develop the concept o biodiversity business, whichmay be dened as:

Commercial enterprise that generates prots through production processes whichconserve biodiversity, use biological resources sustainably and share the benetsarising out o this use equitably.

The idea o proting rom biodiversity conservation may seem strange, but thisis in act an essential condition or mobilising private investment in conservation.Without prot, business dies and markets stagnate. This chapter explores the caseor enlisting business and the prot motive to complement existing mechanisms ordelivering conservation results.

Some argue that the main positive contribution that business can make tobiodiversity conservation is simply to provide cash, through taxes or charitablecontributions, or conservation activities carried out by governments, NGOs orcommunity organisations27. Others emphasise the need to reduce the biodiversityootprint o existing businesses, through government regulations, binding voluntaryagreements or under pressure rom NGO advocacy campaigns28. All o theseapproaches have their place in the conservation toolbox. The premise o this

report, however, is that biodiversity would benet rom the development ocomplementary approaches that make conservation a protable business activityin its own right.

Chapter 3
http://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.dochttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.dochttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.dochttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.dochttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.dochttp://www.iucn.org/themes/ceesp/Wkg_grp/Seaprise/Ref%205%20Earth%20Profits%20Fund.doc


29/16425

29 Pearce, D.W. 2005. Paradoxes inBiodiversity Conservation, WorldEconomics 6(3): 5769 (JulySeptember).

30 Daz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin III, F.S.and Tilman, D. 2006. BiodiversityLoss Threatens Human Well-Being.PLoS Biology4(8): 13001305.

31 Naidoo, R. and Adamowicz, W.L.2005. Economic Benets o BiodiversityExceed the Costs o Conservation

at an Arican Rainorest Reserve.The National Academy o Scienceso the USA, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508036102.

Taxes on private wealth raise large amounts o money, which is used to providevaluable public goods and services, including biodiversity conservation. In practice,however, most government tax revenue is simply redistributed (e.g. rom workers topensioners). What little money remains tends to be spread thinly, used politicallyand very oten ineciently. In most countries, and especially at the global level,the share o public spending allocated to biodiversity conservation is trivial 29.

A more undamental problem with this tax-and-spend approach is that it ails toaddress the main threats to biodiversity. So long as private entities continue withbusiness as usual albeit at a reduced pace due to the burden o tax and / orcharitable contributions conservation eorts will continue to struggle against theadverse impacts o economic activity.

A second common approach to enlisting the private sector in biodiversity conservationis to persuade producers and consumers to reduce or rerain rom environmentallyharmul activities. This may be achieved through mandatory or voluntary measures.Examples include environmental assessment and mitigation requirements or largeinvestments, land-use zoning, restrictions on allowable technology, emission standardsto limit pollution, voluntary commitments to reduce waste and avoid damage tohabitat. Private expenditure to undertake such actions can be substantial, wherecompliance is good. Like tax-and-spend, however, this approach also involvesswimming against the tide. So long as environmentally-harmul activities are lesscostly or more protable than biodiversity-riendly ones, people might be tempted to

cheat, or make only token contributions to environmental protection while continuing todevote most o their eort to damaging activities. As a result, governments (and someNGOs) are obliged to spend considerable eort on monitoring and enorcement.

Frustration with conventional approaches to conservation has led to a searchor new ways to align private and public interests in biodiversity. This may beseen as part o wider eorts to enlist the private sector in the provision o publicgoods, through publicprivate partnerships, corporate social and environmentalresponsibility, and the use o economic incentives. Examples include cap-and-trade or tradable quota systems, resource user ees and pollution taxes, competitivetendering o management services and concessions, certication and labelling oenvironmental perormance, perormance bonds and bonuses. These instrumentsare described in more detail in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.

3.1 The business case or biodiversity

The business case or biodiversity is easy to make when a rm depends directly onbiodiversity to operate. Nature-based tourism is one example where the incomestream to private enterprise depends very clearly on the health o the surroundingecosystem. In such cases, business owners and managers need little persuasion toinvest in biodiversity management.

Examples can be ound in other business sectors, where greater biodiversity isassociated with lower costs, increased productivity and ultimately higher prots.In a range o contexts, scientists have discovered that greater variability in genes,

species and ecosystems is associated with increased biological productivity,resilience and consumer preerence30. For example:

More diverse ecosystems are preerred destinations or tourism 31.

Chapter 3Rationale: why biodiversity business?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508036102http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508036102http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508036102http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0508036102


30/1646


Biologically diverse soils are generally more productive or agriculture 32.

Marine biodiversity is associated with increased productivity o sheries 33.

Crop genetic diversity is a key actor in maintaining disease resistance and

yields34.Diverse tropical orests are prime locations in which to nd novel genes andcompounds or agricultural, industrial and pharmaceutical uses35.

Despite increasing evidence o the commercial benets o conservation, or manybusinesses the case or investing in biodiversity remains unclear. Understandingwhat biodiversity means and how it aects business value is the rst hurdle. Asnoted in the preceding chapter, the CBD oers a comprehensive denition obiodiversity and a comprehensive ramework and guidelines or biodiversitymanagement. Unortunately, the language o conservationists does not alwaysresonate with business audiences36.

The degradation o ecosystems and the services they provide destroysbusiness value and limits uture growth opportunities.

Source:World Business Council or Sustainable Development. 2005. Sustaining Ecosystemsand Ecosystem Services, Issue Brie, June.

For most business sectors and companies, biodiversity conservation remains aliability, an obligation or a cost, rather than a prot centre. The main drivers oprivate investment in conservation are thus legal requirements, charitable impulses

32 Tilman, D., Reich, P.B. and Knops, J.M.H.

2006. Biodiversity and EcosystemStability in a Decade-Long GrasslandExperiment. Nature441: 629632.

33 Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont,N., Duy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern,B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K.,Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala,E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J.,Watson, R. 2006. Impacts oBiodiversity Loss on Ocean EcosystemServices. Science314: 787790.

34 Evenson, R.E. and Gollin, D. 1997.Genetic resources, internationalorganisations, and rice varietalimprovement. Economic Development

and Cultural Change45(3): 471500.35 Rausser, G. and Small, A. 2000.

Valuing Research Leads: Bioprospectingand the Conservation o GeneticResources.Journal o PoliticalEconomy108(1): 173206.

36 The CBD Secretariat has increasedits eorts to engage business in theimplementation o the Convention,including the preparation o aguide to the CBD or the privatesector. See www.biodiv.org.

37 EEA. 2005. Market-Based Instrumentsor Environmental Policy in Europe.Technical report No 8/2005, EuropeanEnvironment Agency: Copenhagen;Huber, R.M., Ruitenbeek, J. and Seroada Motta, R. 1998. Market-BasedInstruments or Environmental Policymakingin Latin America and the Caribbean:Lessons rom Eleven Countries. WorldBank Discussion Paper No. 381, TheWorld Bank: Washington, D.C.; Stavins,R. 2003. Market-Based EnvironmentalPolicies: What Can We Learn romU.S. Experience and Related Research?Faculty Research Working Papers SeriesRWP03-031, John F. Kennedy Schoolo Government, Harvard University:Cambridge, MA; Tietenberg, T. 2002.

The Tradable Permits Approach toProtecting the Commons: What HaveWe Learned? Nota di Lavoro36.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mat tei: Venice.
http://www.biodiv.org/http://www.biodiv.org/


31/16427

Chapter 3Rationale: why biodiversity business?

and inormal pressure rom investors, shareholders, local communities and / orNGOs. More generally, the business case or investing in biodiversity is expressedin terms o:

Avoiding delays, securing access to natural resources as well as access to

capital, insurance or partnerships.

Relationships with employees, communities and regulators.

Policy infuence or the potential to inorm emerging environmental regulations.

As awareness o the business case or biodiversity increases, more companiesare seeking to distinguish themselves rom competitors and gain avour with thepublic by supporting conservation eorts. This may include direct association obusiness product and services with natural environments in advertising campaigns;voluntary reporting o business impacts on biodiversity or o business contributionsto conservation activities.

Other investors and entrepreneurs are discovering that biodiversity conservationcan orm the basis o protable new business models. These include the supply ocommodities and services according to emerging standards o biodiversity-riendlyproduction, supported by independent certication or assurance mechanisms, aswell as the supply o ecosystem restoration and management services to bothpublic and private customers. Chapter 4 o this report describes a wide range othese new biodiversity business models.

3.2 The conservation case or biodiversity business

Market-based and business-oriented approaches to environmental managementare increasingly popular with governments, NGOs and businesses around theworld. Growing evidence indicates that market-based policies can achieve someenvironmental objectives at lower economic cost than conventional approaches,such as uniorm pollution standards or technology mandates37. Other advantagesclaimed or market-based approaches include greater fexibility and innovation,more sensitivity to consumer preerences, improved access to investment capitaland, in some cases, reduced enorcement costs due to better alignment betweenprivate and public interests.

On the other hand, some people question the potential o market-based mechanismsor environmental management, particularly in countries where regulatory capacityis weak38. Others note that certain aspects o biodiversity may be dicult toaddress using market-based approaches, due to cultural barriers or institutionalweaknesses. A undamental barrier to assessing and comparing conventional and

market-based biodiversity conservation is the lack o experience with biodiversitybusiness. Examples are rare, small-scale and oten poorly documented. What isclear is that market-based approaches to ecosystem management are attractingincreasing support rom both public agencies and private investors, as well asgrowing interest rom the research community39.

Within a corporate governance ramework geared more to sustainability andequity, the concept o sustainable protability should thereore be viable andperhaps even a necessary condition o making the transition to a sustainableeconomy as eciently and painlessly as possible. Excelling in the pursuit olegitimate protability while simultaneously making continuous progress towardsgenuine sustainability will become an increasingly important test o real business

leadership.Source:Jonathon Porritt. Earth, Wealth and Wellbeing. In Resurgence234, January / February2006.

38 Greenspan-Bell, R. and Russell,C. 2002. Environmental Policy orDeveloping Countries. Issues in Scienceand TechnologySpring: 6370.

39 Daily, G.C. and Ellison, K. 2002. The NewEconomy o Nature and the Marketplace:

The Quest to Make Conservation Protable.Island Press: Washington, D.C; Ferraro,P.J. and Kiss, A. 2002. Direct Paymentsto Conserve Biodiversity. Science298(29 November): 17181719; Fox, J.and Nino-Murcia, A. 2005. Status oSpecies Conservation Banking in theUnited States. Conservation Biology19(4):9961007; Gutman, P. (ed.) 2003. FromGoodwill to Payments or EnvironmentalServices: A Survey o Financing Options orSustainable Natural Resource Managementin Developing Countries. Danida andWWF: Washington, D.C.; Jenkins, M.,Scherr, S. and Inbar, M. 2004. Marketsor Biodiversity Services. Environment46(6):

3242 (JulyAugust); Johnson, N., White,A. and Perrot-Matre, D. 2001. DevelopingMarkets or Water Services rom Forests:Issues and Lessons or Innovators. ForestTrends with World Resources Instituteand the Katoomba Group: Washington,D.C; Landell-Mills, N. and Porras, I.2002. Markets or Forest EnvironmentalServices: Silver Bullet or Fo

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	daisy
View:	244 times
Download:	3 times

Building Biodiversity Business IUCN

Documents