INSIGHTS

PERSPECTIVES

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on May 3, 2018

BRIDGE: CLIMATE AND BIODIVERSITY

How to pay for saving biodiversity

Can private sector involvement in a global agreement help to conserve global biodiversity?

By Edward B. Barbier,1 Joanne C. Burgess,1 sity loss. Dinerstein et al. recently called for ing mechanisms, including the CBD and GEF,
Thomas J. Dean2 a global deal, complementing the 2015 Paris have boosted conservation efforts but failed
Climate Change Agreement, for conserving to deliver enough funding to where it is most

T
he 1992 Convention on Biological half of the terrestrial realm for biodiversity needed. As a result, global conservation falls
Diversity (CBD) was one of the first by 2050 (3). Here, we explore how such a deal far short of what is required to attain safe
international environmental agree- might be implemented to overcome the fund- biodiversity levels.
ments negotiated. In the same year, ing problem in biodiversity protection.
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) As with any public good, biodiversity con- A GLOBAL AGREEMENT FOR BIODIVERSITY
for funding biodiversity conservation servation suffers from a free-riding problem, Governments around the world have agreed
in developing countries was launched. Yet in which governments have an incentive to to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which in-
25 years later, biological populations and di- provide less than the optimal level of fund- clude the goal of conserving at least 17% of
versity continue to decline both on land (1) ing in the hope that others will cover the terrestrial and inland water habitats and
and in the oceans (2). The main reasons are costs. This is especially pertinent when the 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 (4).
chronic underfunding of global biodiversity benefits of such payments accrue to other However, the existing Aichi Biodiversity Tar-
conservation; the lack of incentives for global countries. In particular, global funding to gets are widely seen as too modest in scale
PHOTO: CULTURA RM/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

cooperation; and the failure to control habitat support conservation efforts in developing to save global biodiversity (1–3). Scientists are
conversion, resource overexploitation, spe- countries, which host most biodiversity, is increasingly calling for an expanded goal of
cies invasions, and other drivers of biodiver- woefully inadequate to prevent habitat loss saving half the terrestrial realm, which could
and overexploitation. The global benefits of cost up to $80 billion annually (3). If a new
1
Department of Economics and School of Global biodiversity conservation are much greater biodiversity agreement also extends the Aichi
Environmental Sustainability, Colorado State University, than the benefits accruing to developing Target of conserving 10% of coastal and ma-
Fort Collins, CO 80253-1771, USA. 2College of Business countries. Left on their own, the latter coun- rine areas (4) to 50%, an additional $19 billion
and School of Global Environmental Sustainability,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80253-1201, tries will preserve insufficient biodiversity. could be required each year (3). This suggests
USA. Email: edward.barbier@colostate.edu Existing international institutions and fund- a total annual biodiversity conservation bill

486 4 MAY 2018 • VOL 360 ISSUE 6388 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Published by AAAS
 ambitious, the aggregate reduction will fall
short of limiting global warming to 2°C. Al-
though some corporations have announced
voluntary pledges and low-carbon strategies
to comply with the Paris Agreement, the pri-
vate sector does not participate formally in
the accord, nor do corporations contribute to
its climate financing. A recent proposal ad-
vocates that the Paris Climate Change Agree-
ment should add a formal mechanism to
allow corporations, cities, and other nonstate
actors to formally join the accord (7).
We should expect a similar outcome from
any new global agreement on biodiversity
that relies just on targets and funding by
governments. Overcoming the critical fund-
ing gap and extending the Aichi Targets for
saving global biodiversity thus requires not
only a Paris-style deal but also the direct
involvement of the private sector. Cities,
nongovernmental organizations, and other

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on May 3, 2018

nonstate actors could also have a role, as
proposed for the Paris Agreement (7). Cor-
porations in key sectors—such as seafood,
forestry, agriculture, and insurance—have a
considerable financial stake in global biodi-
versity conservation and thus should be able
to formally join the global agreement. As full
participants, companies would declare their
own corporate targets, policies, and time-
lines, subject to 5-year review, for attaining
the overall goal of conserving at least 50%
of $100 billion. For comparison, the interna- ment, the key objective should be agreeing of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and ma-
tional community currently spends only $4 on a global target, with countries making rine habitats by 2050. In addition, corporate
billion to $10 billion each year (3, 5, 6). voluntary pledges to meet the goal. The participants should provide financial and
The flexible architecture of the Paris broad goal and time frame could extend one technological assistance for conservation in
Agreement is ideally suited to a biodiversity or more of the existing Aichi Biodiversity developing countries, through international
accord. Under the Paris Agreement, a global Targets (4), for example, to conserve at least bodies such as the GEF.
target was agreed to, but countries made in- 50% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and
dividual pledges to meet the goal. Negotiated marine habitats by 2050, as proposed in (3). RATIONALE FOR CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT
within the United Nations Framework Con- However, establishing an overall target for Corporations that undertake climate change
vention on Climate Change, the Paris Agree- the global agreement for biodiversity is only mitigation may not gain financially from
ment is based on all 195 signatory countries a first step. As in the Paris Agreement, all their actions. Instead, the benefits from
reaching a consensus on a few key goals: countries should declare their own national averting global warming occur only over the
limiting global warming to 2°C, substan- targets, policies, and timelines, subject to long term and are shared widely. By contrast,
tially reducing greenhouse gas emissions 5-year review, for attaining the overall tar- certain industries—such as seafood, forestry,
by 2050, and having rich countries assist get. For wealthier countries, these targets agriculture, and insurance—can benefit di-
poor nations in abating emissions. The ac- and timelines should also include finan- rectly from supporting biodiversity conserva-
cord allowed individual countries to pledge cial and technological commitments to as- tion. For example, conserving marine stocks
their own national targets, abatement poli- sist conservation in developing countries could increase annual profits of the seafood
cies, and timelines for emission reductions, through the GEF, other international bodies, industry by more than $50 billion (8); simi-
subject to 5-year review. In addition, wealthy or bilateral pledges. larly, protecting coastal wetlands could save
countries have pledged $100 billion a year in the insurance industry $52 billion annually
climate finance for developing countries by GOING BEYOND NATIONAL PLEDGES through reducing flood damage losses (see
2020 and have pledged to continue raising A Paris-style agreement among countries the table) (9). The inclusion of corporations
$100 billion a year until 2025. would raise current global biodiversity con- alongside governments in the design and
Similar to the Paris Agreement, a global servation toward safer levels. However, na- implementation of a global agreement for
agreement for biodiversity would address tional governments are unlikely to provide biodiversity could help coordinate and align
the loss of uncertain but potentially irre- sufficient funds to enable global conserva- incentives to support greater and more effec-
versible and essential global ecosystem ben- tion to reach safe levels of biodiversity. Again, tive conservation. This is especially important
efits. As the governing body of the CBD, the the Paris Agreement is instructive. Current for agricultural concerns, which if they agree
Conference of the Parties (COP) would be national pledges, if fulfilled, will limit green- to join the global agreement for biodiversity
well placed to initiate negotiations for such house gas emissions substantially by 2050, could curtail global land-use change that is
a global agreement. Like the Paris Agree- but unless pledges are amended to be more threatening terrestrial biodiversity (1, 3). For

SCIENCE sciencemag.org 4 MAY 2018 • VOL 360 ISSUE 6388 487

Published by AAAS
INSIGHTS | P E R S P E C T I V E S

example, agriculture has an incentive to pro- 2050—and an overall financing goal, such as profits they earn from conservation to assist
tect habitats of wild pollinators, who along providing $100 billion annually to assist con- developing countries, this could raise $25
with managed populations enhance global servation in developing countries. billion to $50 billion annually in additional
crop production by $235 billion to $577 bil- The agreement should also include a funding (see the table).
lion annually (10). The distinctive partner- mechanism for corporate leaders to formally Such a corporate contribution would mean
ship between countries and companies may commit their organizations to the accord’s that these industries would share with gov-
also create new marketing opportunities, global conservation target and financing ernments in meeting the estimated $100
such as certified and legitimate product and goals. Individual corporations and industrial billion annual funding needed to protect
labeling schemes, further boosting benefits organizations can then be invited to accept, biodiversity (3). The financial commitment
from biodiversity conservation and creat- or accede to, the negotiated agreement. By could be even larger if other major global
ing additional incentives to support a global joining the global agreement for biodiversity, industries and corporations with a stake in
agreement for biodiversity. companies and associations could cooperate biodiversity conservation, such as the food
Some leading corporations and industries with governments to establish well-defined, and beverage industry and other agricultural
in natural resource–based sectors are already quantifiable conservation goals for critical concerns, also agreed to join the global agree-
taking concrete steps toward conserving bio- habitats and determine the financing targets ment for biodiversity and contribute to its
diversity. For example, 10 of the 13 seafood and timelines for providing assistance to de- funding objectives. For example, if agricul-
companies that control up to 16% of the veloping countries. ture contributed 10% of the estimated $235
billion to $577 billion that it receives annu-
ally in wild and managed pollination services
Financial benefits from biodiversity conservation (10) to the agreement in order to conserve,
create, and restore wild pollinator habitats,

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on May 3, 2018

Examples of biodiversity financial benefits and potential investments by key global industries
this would amount to about $20 billion to
BENEFITS FROM BIODIVERSITY POTENTIAL FINANCIAL $60 billion per year in additional financing.
INDUSTRY ANNUAL REVENUES BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION CONSERVATION TARGET INVESTMENT
A global agreement for biodiversity would
Seafood $252 billion (11) Increase in annual profits Increase marine $5–10 billion engage government and industry, and hope-
by $53 billion (8) biomass stocks annually*
fully other nonstate actors, in a manner un-
Forest products $300 billion (14) Attain sustainable forest Increase area of $15–30 billion paralleled in the history of conservation. In
management goal (13) protected forests annually† addition, the current global biodiversity cri-
Insurance $4300 billion (15) Reduce estimated global Increase area $5–10 billion sis is in large part due to the lack of interna-
flood damage losses of of protected annually‡ tional commitment and funding over the past
$52 billion annually (9) coastal wetlands 25 years. A global agreement for biodiversity
*Based on 10 to 20% of potential benefits from biodiversity conservation. would also overcome these shortcomings.
†Based on 5 to 10% of annual revenues of $300 billion, which are the global earnings of the 100 largest forest, package, and paper companies (14). Ensuring safe levels of global biodiversity
‡Based on 10 to 20% of potential benefits from biodiversity conservation.
will require the corporations that can benefit
financially from conservation to join efforts
global marine catch and 40% of the larg- For example, if they join the accord, lead- in order to avoid continued irreversible loss
est and most valuable stocks (11) have com- ing corporations and associations in the sea- of biodiversity. j
mitted to the Seafood Business for Ocean food, forestry, agricultural, and insurance
REFERENCES
Stewardship initiative for more sustainable industries should be involved in establishing
1. G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Dirzo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
management of seafood resources and the the targets for marine, terrestrial, and coastal U.S.A. 114, E6089 (2017).
oceans (12). Similarly, in 2006 the Interna- habitat and biodiversity conservation that 2. B. Worm et al., Science 314, 787 (2006).
3. E. Dinerstein et al., BioScience 67, 534 (2017).
tional Council of Forest & Paper Associations, are consistent with the overall global con- 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, “Strategic Plan for
which represents the global forest products servation goal and timeline. These targets Biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi Biodiversity
industry, committed itself to improving en- could include specific objectives relevant to Targets” (2010); www.cbd.int/sp.
5. E. B. Barbier, Resources 180, 25 (2012); www.rff.org/
ergy efficiency, reducing emissions of green- each industry, such as increases in marine research/publications/challenge-rio20-funding.
house gases and other pollutants, increased stocks for seafood companies, forest area 6. Global Environment Facility; www.thegef.org/about-us.
7. D. C. Esty, P. Boyd, Yale Environ. 360, 20 March 2018;
recycling, controlling illegal logging, and protection for forestry industries, and coastal https://e360.yale.edu/features/to-move-paris-accord-
sustainable forest management (SFM) cer- wetland habitats for insurers (see the table). forward-bring-cities-and-companies-on-board.
tification (13). Between 2000 and 2015, the Furthermore, as part of the global agreement 8. C. Costello et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 5125
(2016).
total SFM-certified area supplying the forest for biodiversity, individual companies should 9. C. S. Colgan, M. W. Beck, S. Narayan, Financing Natural
products industry increased from 62 million pledge their own business targets, policies, Infrastructure for Coastal Flood Damage Reduction
(Lloyd’s Tercentenary Research Foundation, 2017).
hectares (Mha) (12% of the total forest area) and timelines for attaining the overall indus- 10. S. G. Potts et al., Nature 540, 220 (2016).
to 310 Mha (54% of the total forest area) (13). try goal. 11. H. Österblom et al., PLOS ONE 10, e0127533 (2015).
Participating corporations could also part- 12. Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship; http://key-
stonedialogues.earth.
DESIGNING A GLOBAL AGREEMENT ner with governments in providing financial 13. International Council of Forest & Paper Associations,
FOR BIODIVERSITY and technical assistance for conservation in Sustainability Information (2006); www.icfpa.org/
resource-centre/sustainability-information.
The first step in designing a global agree- developing countries. Because much of the 14. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Global Forest, Paper &
ment for biodiversity would be for the COP world’s remaining biodiversity habitat is Packaging Industry Survey—2016 edition survey of 2015
of the CBD, which comprises solely national in tropical zones, there is a direct financial results; www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/assets/pwc-
annual-fpp-industry-survey-2016-10.pdf.
governments, to begin negotiating such an benefit to natural resource–based companies 15. Ernst & Young, Global insurance trend analysis 2016
agreement. The key objectives of the COP that assist developing countries in protecting (2017); www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/
ey-global-insurance-trends-analysis-2016/$File/ey-
should be to establish a global target—such this habitat. For example, if the seafood, for- global-insurance-trends-analysis-2016.pdf.
as conserving at least 50% of terrestrial, in- estry, and insurance industries allocated just
land water, coastal, and marine habitats by a small fraction of the likely revenues and 10.1126/science.aar3454

488 4 MAY 2018 • VOL 360 ISSUE 6388 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

Published by AAAS
How to pay for saving biodiversity
Edward B. Barbier, Joanne C. Burgess and Thomas J. Dean

Science 360 (6388), 486-488.

DOI: 10.1126/science.aar3454

Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on May 3, 2018

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/486

REFERENCES This article cites 7 articles, 3 of which you can access for free
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6388/486#BIBL

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Use of this article is subject to the Terms of Service

Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.