Can Nations Trade Conservation Efforts?

New research proposes a market-based approach for achieving the 30×30 conservation targets, allowing countries to trade conservation efforts and significantly reduce marine protection costs

Growing up, I was fascinated with the natural world: animals, plants, even funghi! To me, there wasn’t anything prettier than a wild animal or a majestic oak tree. How could people damage them without thinking about it twice? The conservation activist in me was born.

Over the years, I have kept a close eye on new conservation news and ideas. 30×30 is gaining a lot of traction. I have even evaluated it in some of my own research papers. You may be wondering what 30×30 is and what news Silvia has read recently that is prompting her to write this. See below!

In an ambitious bid to protect our planet’s oceans, researchers at UC Santa Barbara have proposed a groundbreaking market-based approach to achieving the 30×30 conservation targets (Yes, they propose mixing biology and economy, once again, to deliver win-win scenarios). This initiative aims to protect 30% of the world’s land and sea by 2030, a goal set by the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). See the figure below for the percentage of land protected in each country as of 2017.

Unfortunately, ocean conservation has been lagging. Despite widespread agreement on conserving marine environments, the high costs associated with protecting them have hindered progress. This new approach, detailed in a recent study published in Science, offers a potential solution by allowing countries to trade conservation obligations, significantly reducing the overall costs of marine protection.

I know it sounds complex, but let me dissect it for you.

The 30×30 initiative is a key component of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a treaty developed to address our planet’s various environmental crises, including widespread extinction. However, while the GBF mandates conservation targets, it does not specify which areas should be protected (something that I’ve worked on myself) or how to finance these efforts (not an expert, so that’s why I’m all ears here). This gap has left many countries needing help to meet their commitments due to the high economic costs of conserving valuable marine areas.

To address this challenge, Dr. Juan Carlos Villaseñor-Derbez, Dr. Christopher Costello, and Dr. Andrew Plantinga from UC Santa Barbara proposed a novel solution: a transferable conservation market. This system would allow countries to trade conservation obligations, enabling nations with lower conservation costs to sell their efforts to those facing higher costs.

“It seemed like most nations were genuinely committed to marine conservation, but the costs of conserving were preventing some from engaging in it at all,” said Villaseñor-Derbez. As usual, solutions could be right outside the box.

The researchers developed a comprehensive model to estimate such a market’s potential costs and benefits. They combined data on the distribution of 23,699 marine species on the one hand with fisheries revenue data on the other to understand conservation supply needs for coastal nations worldwide. Their results help determine the cost of protecting different marine habitats, considering each country’s economic capabilities.

The researchers defined “trade bubbles” based on biological and geographic factors to ensure that conservation efforts are spread equitably across various marine habitats. Countries can trade conservation credits only with other nations within these predefined bubbles. This approach ensures that trading does not result in neglecting specific habitats and maintains ecological balance.

The idea is simple: Let some countries protect more than 30% so that they can help me protect a lower percentage and my population’s limited economic resources.

The study’s findings indicate that a market-based approach to marine conservation could lead to substantial cost savings. Allowing nations to trade conservation obligations can significantly reduce the overall costs while increasing the effectiveness of achieving the 30×30 targets.

In a global market scenario, their model estimated that this approach could yield cost savings of 37.4% to an impressive 98%!

One of the authors gives us an example of how this could work:

“For example, Norway, which has valuable fisheries, might pay Palau, a country that has already invested significantly in coastal conservation, to conserve additional areas on Norway’s behalf,” explained Costello. This system benefits both nations: Norway can fulfill its conservation obligations at a lower cost, while Palau receives financial compensation for its conservation efforts. Win-win.

But their research goes beyond a mere idea. The researchers tested various trade bubble policies, ranging from global markets to more restricted regional and ecoregion-based markets. Surprisingly, even with these constraints, the market-based approach consistently reduced conservation costs.

The highest savings were achieved in a model representing a global market where every nation stands to gain from trade. However, even under more restricted policies, they observed significant cost reductions, highlighting that they may have a point here.

Let’s discuss these ideas, shall we?

Indeed, the proposed market-based approach represents a significant shift from traditional conservation methods. By a lot.

However, by allowing countries to trade conservation obligations, the system leverages economic incentives to achieve environmental goals more efficiently. This approach kills two birds with a stone: it reduces the financial burden on individual nations AND promotes international cooperation in marine conservation.

Remarkably, though, a critical aspect of this approach is its flexibility. This idea means that nations can decide how much of their conservation obligations to fulfill within their waters and how much to trade with others.

This flexibility is particularly beneficial for developing nations, which might struggle to meet their conservation targets under the current 30×30 framework. The market system allows these countries to balance their financial resources with their conservation responsibilities.

From a personal perspective, though, I propose some restrictions to promote biodiversity conservation. For example, if a country has a coastal region with endemic species or ecosystems (those not found elsewhere), these areas should have a 30% conservation minimum. Further, the protected areas should be chosen carefully to ensure that cascading impacts in non-protected neighboring areas don’t destroy them.

That said, this market-based system could incentivize habitat restoration, a key goal of the GBF. What do they mean by that? Nations specializing in marine resource extraction can compensate those focusing on biodiversity conservation, creating an explicit financial incentive for protecting marine ecosystems.

This aspect addresses a significant gap in the current 30×30 approach, which rarely provides direct payment for conservation efforts. And we don’t want nations to lose motivation regarding conservation.

Additionally, lowering conservation costs is a central principle of economics applied by governments and industries worldwide. By harnessing this principle for marine conservation, the proposed market system could unlock substantial resources that can be redirected towards other pressing environmental issues. These could involve many initiatives, including protecting biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction or mitigating climate change’s effects.

Overall, though, I think that, while not perfect, this innovative market-based approach to achieving the 30×30 conservation targets offers a promising solution to the financial challenges of marine conservation.

Allowing countries to trade conservation obligations can significantly reduce costs, promote international cooperation, and incentivize habitat restoration. This approach represents a practical and effective way to protect our planet’s marine environments, ensuring a healthier and more sustainable future for all. If not the final solution, it is a step in the right direction.

No idea will solve the current biodiversity crisis, but let’s hope we brainstorm solutions like this and find the perfect (and winning) one. Saving our ecosystems will be one of the biggest challenges for our generation. Will we pass the judgment of time?