ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE MODE FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION MEASURES AND THEIR IMPACT ON FAIRNESS AND EQUITY

596

CHAPTER ONE

  1. INTRODUCTION

The modern society is very concerned about the loss of biodiversity, especially in tropical forests. The traditional approach has been to create “protected areas” (PAs) where human usage and presence are minimized or at least limited, as urged by conservation organizations and accepted by governments. Currently, there are over 100,000 protected areas throughout the world, with the tropics accounting for 28% of the total land area (by area). Protected areas, according to research, have reduced deforestation rates, prevented species extinction, and preserved land and water resources (Brooks et al., 2009).

A perfect example is biodiversity conservation in European grasslands where numerous species and ecosystems are endangered by intensifying cultivation and abandoning marginalized areas (Henle et al., 2008; Metera et al., 2010; Young et al., 2005). Conservation funds are rear. Therefore, conservation agencies must use their funds economically and must choose conservation options that maximize the fulfillment of their preservation objectives with available funding resources ((Birner and Wittmer 2004; Wätzold and Schwerdtner 2005; Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006; Naidoo and Ricketts 2006). Although large-scale cultivation and farm management in marginal areas can be better preserved, they are costly for farmers.  If landowners in such a situation are not required to take land use steps that benefit biodiversity. The first alternative is to purchase land and take land-use measures or employ firms themselves in order to implement the land-use measures needed to protect biodiversity (hereinafter known as the ‘buy alternative’) (Schöttker et al., 2016). Many organisations and NGOs such as the Schleswig-Holstein Nature Protection Foundation (Stiftung Naturalistic Schleswig-Holstein 2012) and the UK Royal Society for Bird Protection (Moss et al. 2011),