Challenges of Sustaining Biodiversity

Incentives to Conserve Marine Biodiversity Conservation Within the Framework of Impure Public Goods

On the surface, environmentalism might seem like an 'easy' thing to sell to the American public. After all, marine biodiversity (to take one example) might seem like an uncomplicatedly 'good' thing -- it is necessary to preserve the health of the planet and by extension, the human species. "Biodiversity or biological diversity is defined [as] the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia [among other things], terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems" ("What is Biological Diversity or Biodiversity," Marine Bio). Species, genetic, and ecosystem diversity are all comprised within this definition ("What is Biological Diversity or Biodiversity," Marine Bio). However, preserving adequate biodiversity has still proven to be challenging, despite the profound need to do so. This paper will attempt to answer the question -- why, when it is in the interest of humanity to ensure ecological biodiversity in our waters, do we continue to resist this demand?

Marine biodiversity would be classified as an international public good (IPG). In other words, it is necessary for international cooperation to preserve these resources; this cannot be done on the national, state, and certainly not on the individual level. "Examples include the conservation of the genetic diversity on which all future evolution depends, the mitigation of climate change, the control of emerging infectious diseases, and the management of sea areas beyond national jurisdiction" (Arrigada & Perrings 798). The environment as a whole and biodiversity specifically is also what is classified as a 'pure' public good. In other words, it can be enjoyed simultaneously by many people at the same time. "Public goods are said to be 'pure' when they are both non-exclusive and non-rival (indivisible) in consumption. They are said to be impure if they are either partially excludable or partially rival -- the most common form of which are local public goods" (Arrigada & Perrings 798). An impure public good might be a lake in which a single community benefits from it and thus there might be a highly specific incentive to preserve biodiversity within the lake, an ocean would be a public good given that a far wider sphere of individuals benefits from maintaining it and also can suffer if it is not maintained.

Of course, water pollution affects all people who consume seafood from the ocean, not just the nearby residents of the ocean. Similarly, even people who do not take action to improve the ocean may still reap the benefits of environmental homeostasis which is the result of environmental preservation. "For a private good, everyone pays the same price, but is free to consume as much or as little as they want. Consumers adjust the quantity they consume given the market price. For a pure public good everyone consumes the same amount of the 'good' but is willing to pay a different price for it" (Arrigada & Perrings 801). For some people, preservation of the environment is something for which they might be willing to make a great sacrifice. On the other hand, although another person might see the benefits of having an attractive beach, the benefits from industry are far more pleasurable to him or her and thus he or she does not support conservation efforts. Yet the unsupportive and uncaring person still benefits from the ocean's biodiversity in the form of food, economic benefits such as fishing and tourism, and the overall health of the planet.

Thus the problem with goods from which everyone benefits equally means that there is comparatively little incentive for persons who are not particularly passionate about the subject to engage in self-interested actions. This is also true of local communities which may have few resources and who might want to expend resources not on conservation, prevention of poaching, and maintaining homeostasis in the environment but upon improving the local economy. "Local people make the decisions concerning land use and resource exploitation. It is costly to enforce prohibitions against their chosen activities and so prohibitions often increase monitoring cost without conservation benefits" (Bulte, Van Kooten & Swanson 9). This is why environmental regulations often generate hostility. Also, often purely local restrictions do not show significant benefits because the problems are so large in scope, further generating resistance and inaction when there is an attempt to begin to regulate the improper treatment of marine species such as in the form of prohibiting overfishing or protecting endangered species.