IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iep/wpidep/0505.html

Negotiation Processes for the Protection of Biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Figuières

    (INRA, UMR LAMETA)

  • Stéphanie Aulong

    (Station biologique de la Tour du Valat and UMR LAMETA)

  • Robert Lifran

    (INRA, LAMETA)

Abstract

Consider a developing country that has the potential for biodiversity conservation, and developed countries that benefit from biodiversity but are not in position to produce it. From the statu quo, some incremental protections of biodiversity would be harmful for the developing country but would benefit the developed countries and the world as a whole; in other words, biodiversity protection is a global public good. The negotiation problem is then: how to organize compensation transfers from the developed countries to the developing country to sustain a higher (Pareto optimal) level of biodiversity, given that: i) each developed country has an incentive to free-ride on transfers conceded by others, ii) no supranational authority exists that has both the necessary relevant information on countries's willingness to pay for biodiversity, and the power to impose a socially beneficial profile of transfers? This paper investigates how, and to what extent, the theory of resource allocation processes can shed light into this issue, and how it can be best tailored and qualified to cope with the problem at hand. The focus is put on the incentive properties of the suggested negotiation processes, and their ability to respect countries' sovereignty.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Figuières & Stéphanie Aulong & Robert Lifran, 2005. "Negotiation Processes for the Protection of Biodiversity," IDEP Working Papers 0505, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France, revised May 2005.
  • Handle: RePEc:iep:wpidep:0505
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.idep-fr.org/IMG/document/dt/dt0505.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Dynamic Processes for Public Goods: An Institution-Oriented Survey," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 9-48, Springer.
    2. Champsaur, Paul & Dreze, Jacques H & Henry, Claude, 1977. "Stability Theorems with Economic Applications," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(2), pages 273-294, March.
    3. John Roberts, 1979. "Incentives in Planning Procedures for the Provision of Public Goods," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 46(2), pages 283-292.
    4. Scott Barrett, 1994. "The biodiversity supergame," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(1), pages 111-122, February.
    5. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    6. Parkash Chander & Henry Tulkens, 2006. "Theoretical Foundations of Negotiations and Cost Sharing in Transfrontier Pollution Problems," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 123-134, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Stéphanie Aulong & Katrin Erdlenbruch & C. Figuières, 2005. "Un tour d'horizon des critères d'évaluation de la diversité biologique," Post-Print hal-00452144, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henry Tulkens & Parkash Chandler, 1992. "Aspects stratégiques des négociations internationales sur les pollutions transfrontières et du partage des coûts de l'épuration," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 43(4), pages 755-768.
    2. Kimitoshi Sato, 2016. "The MDP Procedure for public goods and local strategy proofness," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 5(1), pages 1-31, December.
    3. Spagat, M., 1995. "Leaving some stones unturned: A reassessment of iterative planning theory," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 85-105, September.
    4. Finus, Michael & Rundshagen, Bianca, 1998. "Toward a Positive Theory of Coalition Formation and Endogenous Instrumental Choice in Global Pollution Control," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 96(1-2), pages 145-186, July.
    5. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    6. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann, & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert C. Mitchell & Stanley Presser & Paul A. Rudd & V. Kerry Smith & Michael Conaway & Kerry Martin, 1997. "Temporal Reliability of Estimates from Contingent Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 73(2), pages 151-163.
    7. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    9. Lori D. Snyder & Robert N. Stavins & Alexander F. Wagner, 2003. "Private Options to Use Public Goods Exploiting Revealed Preferences to Estimate Environmental Benefits," Working Papers 2003.49, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Ahmet Tolunay & Çağlar Başsüllü, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Sequestration and Co-Benefits of Forests in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-27, March.
    11. Michael Finus, 2024. "A Mechanism for Addressing Compliance and Participation in Global Public Good Treaties: A Comment," Graz Economics Papers 2024-14, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    12. Winands, Sarah & Holm-Müller, Karin & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2013. "The biodiversity conservation game with heterogeneous countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 14-23.
    13. Datta, Nikhil, 2019. "Willing to pay for security: a discrete choice experiment to analyse labour supply preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103390, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Cook, David & Proctor, Wendy, 2007. "Assessing the threat of exotic plant pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 594-604, August.
    15. Parkash Chandler & Henry Tulkens & Jean-Pascal Ypersele & Stephane Willems, 2006. "The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic and Game Theoretic Interpretation," Springer Books, in: Parkash Chander & Jacques Drèze & C. Knox Lovell & Jack Mintz (ed.), Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition, chapter 0, pages 195-215, Springer.
    16. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill & Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Mazur, Kasia, 2013. "Calibration of values in benefit transfer to account for variations in geographic scale and scope: Comparing two choice modelling experiments," 2013 Conference (57th), February 5-8, 2013, Sydney, Australia 152176, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Sk Samim Ferdows, 2012. "Whether WTP Is Affected By Some Other Factors? A Case Study On Durgapur," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 2(3), pages 1-4, June.
    18. Jacques H. Drèze & Charles Figuières & Jean Hindriks, 2006. "Voluntary Matching Grants Can Forestall Social Dumping," CESifo Working Paper Series 1867, CESifo.
    19. Roach, Brian & Wade, William W., 2006. "Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 421-433, June.
    20. G. Dionne & P. Lanoie, 2002. "How to Make a Public Choice about the Value of a Statistical Life : The Case of Road Safety," Thema Working Papers 2002-14, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iep:wpidep:0505. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Gregory Cornu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amseafr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.