Why bartering biodiversity fails
Why bartering biodiversity fails
复制标题
为什么以物易物生物多样性会失败
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
William G. Lee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Walker;Ann Brower;R. Stephens;William G. Lee
管制性生物多样性交易（或生物多样性“抵消”）越来越多地被提倡作为一种既能进行养护又能进行发展的方式，同时实现生物多样性的“无净损失”甚至“净收益”，但迄今为止，它在促进发展的同时却使生物多样性的损失永久化。寻求改善生物多样性成果的生态学家正在开发更好的评估工具，并建议更严格的限制和执行。我们解释了为什么这些建议忽视和不能纠正未能保护生物多样性的关键原因。可行的贸易需要简单、可衡量和可互换的商品，但保护生物多样性等复杂、难以衡量和不可互换的资源所需的货币、限制和监督是昂贵和棘手的。这些保障措施损害了贸易的可行性，对贸易商和监管官员都没有好处。政治理论预测，（1）生物多样性保护利益将无法抵制官员抵制和放松保障措施的动机，以促进以生物多样性为代价的交流和资源开发，（2）贸易比纯粹的行政机制更容易受到破坏环境保护的制度动态的影响。因此，通过生物多样性贸易实现零净损失或净收益在行政上是不可能的，在技术上也是不现实的。它们在没有可靠解决方案的情况下激增，表明生物多样性抵消计划是成功的“象征性政策”，可能掩盖生物多样性的丧失，分散采取行动的动力。
Regulatory biodiversity trading (or biodiversity “offsets”) is increasingly promoted as a way to enable both conservation and development while achieving “no net loss” or even “net gain” in biodiversity, but to date has facilitated development while perpetuating biodiversity loss. Ecologists seeking improved biodiversity outcomes are developing better assessment tools and recommending more rigorous restrictions and enforcement. We explain why such recommendations overlook and cannot correct key causes of failure to protect biodiversity. Viable trading requires simple, measurable, and interchangeable commodities, but the currencies, restrictions, and oversight needed to protect complex, difficult‐to‐measure, and noninterchangeable resources like biodiversity are costly and intractable. These safeguards compromise trading viability and benefit neither traders nor regulatory officials. Political theory predicts that (1) biodiversity protection interests will fail to counter motivations for officials to resist and relax safeguards to facilitate exchanges and resource development at cost to biodiversity, and (2) trading is more vulnerable than pure administrative mechanisms to institutional dynamics that undermine environmental protection. Delivery of no net loss or net gain through biodiversity trading is thus administratively improbable and technically unrealistic. Their proliferation without credible solutions suggests biodiversity offset programs are successful “symbolic policies,” potentially obscuring biodiversity loss and dissipating impetus for action.