Abstract
Commodification of nature refers to the expansion of market trade to previously non-marketed spheres. This is a contested issue both in the scientific literature and in policy deliberations. The aim of this paper is to analytically clarify and distinguish between different purposes and degrees of commodification and to focus attention to the safeguards: the detailed institutional design. We identify six degrees of commodification and find that all ecosystem services policies are associated with some degree of commodification but only the two highest degrees can properly be associated with neoliberalisation of nature. For example, most payments for ecosystem services (PES) are subsidy-like government compensations not based on monetary valuation of nature. Biodiversity offsets can be designed as market schemes or non-market regulations; the cost-effectiveness of markets cannot be assumed. To avoid the confusion around the concept ‘market-based instrument’ we suggest replacing it with ‘economic instruments’ since relying on the price signal is not the same thing as relying on the market. We provide a comprehensive framework emphasising the diversity in institutional design, valuation approaches and role of markets. This provides flexibility and options for policy integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in different countries according to their political and cultural context.
Highlights
Valuation of ecosystem services (ES) and the use of economic instruments are increasingly becoming part of the international discussions on scaling-up biodiversity financing
Mechanisms’ (IFMs) has for some actors become extremely controversial within the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) process, especially the use of economic instruments like payments for ecosystem services (PES) and biodiversity offsets
In the scope of this paper, we focus on mandatory programs and let the use of market transactions define the difference between these instruments, so that biodiversity offsets use the market while ecological compensation does not
Summary
Valuation of ecosystem services (ES) and the use of economic instruments are increasingly becoming part of the international discussions on scaling-up biodiversity financing. Without appropriate institutional arrangements that safeguard (ensure) biodiversity and equity, there is a risk that economic instruments, as well as other types of policy instruments, will not contribute towards the three CBD objectives (Ituarte-Lima et al, 2014). These are (i) conservation of biological diversity, (ii) the sustainable use of its components, and iii) the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. The CBD calls for a broader governance approach to valuation and financing so that the IFMs do not “undermine achievement of the Convention’s three objectives” (CBD, 2010) This motivates a focus on safeguards, which we define as the specific factors in the institutional design and implementation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
