Susanne Menzel Institute of Agricultural Economics University of Göttingen Graduiertenkolleg...
-
Upload
dennis-montgomery -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Susanne Menzel Institute of Agricultural Economics University of Göttingen Graduiertenkolleg...
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Financial support for biodiversity protection in developing countries -
Does the CBD mechanism lead to an appropriate level of biodiversity
protection?
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Contents
• Introduction
• „Adequate“ Provision of Biodiversity
• Financial Resources, Costs and Negotiations Efficiency?
• Case study – CV
• Conclusion
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Introduction I -Biodiversity as Global Public Good - Externalities
€
MC
MB [LDC]
Xopt
MB [global]
XQuantity of protected biodiversity
Xldc
Introdution
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Introduction II – Idea of CBD
• CBD Article 20(2) “... new and additional financial resources....“
• Article 21(1):“... The contributions shall be such as to take into account the need for predictability, adequacy and timely flow ...“
Introduction
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Adequate = Efficient Provision of Biodiversity
Provision by GEF = efficient?
€
MC
MB [LDC]
Xopt
MB [global]
XQuantity of biodiversity protection
Xldc ?
Adequate = Efficient
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Efficient Level of Financial Support?
• Resources & Costs
• Negotiations on replenishment of GEF-Fund
Question
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Financial Resources of GEF-Fund for Biodiversity Protection
Source Period Spending Annual spending
GEF 2002b 1992-2002
US$ 1.4 billion US$ 140 million
GEF (gefweb.org)
1991-1999
US$ 991 million (grants) plus US$ 1.5 million (co financing)
US$ 310 million
Financial Resources & Costs
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Subject of protection
Annual costs
(US$ million)
Author
Traditional protection of tropical rain forests
170 Reid & Miller (1989)
2000 species (500 individuals per species)
1250 Reid & Miller (1989)
Comprehensive global conservation programme
300,000 James et al. (1999)
Global network of protected areas
27,500 James et al. (1999)
1.4% of the land surface of the earth
500 Myers et al. (2000)
Costs of (Global) Biodiversity Protection
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Acceptance Costs Efficiency
XQuantity of protected biodiversity
€
MC (private & current)
MC (social)
MB (glb=social)
Xover
A
Xglb
C
B
Xpot
E
D
Resources & Costs
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
• Every four years replenishment of GEF-Fund
• Representatives of donor countries negotiate
• National contributions (should reflect) economic power of nation*
• But…….
Negotiations on Replenishment - Facts
Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Nation Contribution in US$ million
GEF/GDP (%)
Sweden 72 0.03
Denmark 36 0.023
UK 190 0.012
Germany 264 0.012
Japan 423 0.011
France 163 0.011
… …. ….
USA 500 0.0023
Spain 19 0.0023
front-runner
leader
taillights
Contributions of Nations to the GEF-3 (extract)Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Characterisation of Conditions for Negotiations
• Reminder: Good in question global external effects
Need for global collective action • CBD global collective action• However: agents are representatives of
nations
Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Public Choice Theory Assumptions
• Governmental agents try to maximise their personal benefits
• Personal benefit = reelection
Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
View of National Agents on Financing Biodiversity Protection in LDC
• Aim: Solution of problems• Biodiversity not easy to protect• Important short term problems at home
(easier to solve than loss of biodiversity)
• Each nation little influence overall level of biodiversity protection
• Success difficult to communicate• Good will be provided anyway
Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Activity of Nations
• Spend a lot of money on national short term interests
• Spend hardly any money on global longterm interests
• In other words: Free-rider
• Why contribute to GEF at all?– International reputation– Not to lose international credibility
Negotiations
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Undersupply Thesis
• Financial resources smaller than (possible) benefits
• Indicators:– Costs >>> financial resources
– Hardly any incentives for protection for national agents
Test of thesis Benefits of biodiversity protection for developed countries? CV-study
Undersupply Thesis
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
CV-Study: Benefits of Biodiv Protection
• How to define „Biodiversity“– Genes?– Surface area?– Species?!
• Subject of valuation:„Protection of half of threatened species (animals
and plants) who would become extinct if nothing further would be done in the next ten years“
CV-Study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
(External) Benefit of Additional Biodiversity Protection
MC
MB [LDC]
MB [global]
Xldc
MB [MDC]
X Quantity of protected biodiversity
25.000 species
CV-Study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
• Basic population: residents in Germany (older than 18 years)
• Telephone inquiry
• WTP question format: dichotomous choice
• Payment vehicle: tax increase
• Frequency & duration: monthly for ten years
Characteristics of Case Study
CV-Study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Case Study – Results
• n = 1017
• 92% agree with payments: more developed countries less developed countries
• 62% ‚Yes‘ to WTP-Question
CV-study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
WTP Result & Discussion I
• Mean of sample: approx. 22 Euros per capita per month
• But: 59.6% of contacted people refused to participate or dropped out
• If they would pay 0 Euros 9 Euros (mean)
CV-Study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
WTP vs. GEF contributions Discussion II
• Overall benefit depends on size of basic population– Individuals (9 €) (66.4 million) Euros 7
billion– or households (9 €) (34,8 million) Euros 3.8
billion
CV-Study
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
WTP – Annual Benefit
MC
MB [LDC]
MB [global]
Xldc
MB [MDC]
X Quantity of protected biodiversity
25.000 species
3.8 – 7 billion Euros
(annual)
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Results of Related Studies
• Hanley, Spash & Walker (1995): WTP Britain contribute to (GEF)*~ 47-62 £ annual
• Kramer & Mercer (1997): WTP for additional 5% of tropical rain forest 21-35 US-$ (one-time)
• Horton, Colarullo, Bateman & Peres (2002): – Subjects: people from Italy and UK– Good: additional rain forest in Brasil 5% (20%)– WTP: 30 £ (39 £ ) annual WTP = 600 million in Italy and in UK
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Overall Discussion I
• German actual expenditures for Global Environmental Facility US$ 60 million < 1 Euro per year per capita
• WTP >> 1 Euro per year per capita
• Study result: undersupply thesis: approved
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Summary & Overall Discussion II
• Developed countries emphasise need of orientation at global benefit
• Developed countries interested in cost-sharing (incremental costs)
• No comparable instrument on MDC side• CV study: GEF contributions global
benefit of protection• Efficiency considerations higher
contributions to GEF
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Methode stößt mit der fragestellung an seine grenze
Aber ich weiss keine bessere
Verleich der Zahlen mit Kosten!! Geht in gleiche Rtg.
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Subject of protection
Annual costs
(US$ million)
Author
Traditional protection of tropical rain forests
170 Reid & Miller (1989)
2000 species (500 individuals per species)
1250 Reid & Miller (1989)
Comprehensive global conservation programme
300,000 James et al. (1999)
Rep. global network of protected areas
27,500 James et al. (1999)
1.4% of the land surface of the earth
500 Myers et al. (2000)
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Explanatory Variables & Validity• self-efficacy (= belief in effect of payment) (+)• bid level (personal financial costs of contribution) (-)• responsibility (of the respondent for the protection of
species) (+) • age (-)• threat appraisal (perceived threat as consequence of loss of
biodiversity) (+)• Opinion: right of md countries to interfere in biodiversity
protection affairs of ld countries (+)• Pseudo-r2= .34 (Nagelkerkes)• Sample not representative: e.g. “education bias”
Susanne Menzel • Institute of Agricultural Economics • University of Göttingen
Graduiertenkolleg ‘Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity‘
Case study – results II
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 3 4 5 8 10 17 26 40amount in Euro
% a
cce
pta
nce