Washington and Biodiversity

What is Biodiversity?

A great deal of debate surrounds the most appropriate way to define biodiversity. Most agree that biodiversity includes three major components: living organisms, their relationships with each other, and their relationships with the land, air, and water around them. It therefore includes most of what we commonly call nature and attempts to capture all of the naturally occurring differentiation and variability present in a given area. Most also agree that conservation efforts related to biodiversity should focus on native species. This common belief stems from the fact that exotic species frequently pose a grave threat to the health of native species, their ability to productively interact with each other, and their ability to productively interact with the natural world around them. This preference for endemic biodiversity also reflects a basic value judgment that local species are of higher importance to local conservation efforts than non-local species. For the purposes of this paper, the emphasis is on native biodiversity. The three part definition provided above is a broad one. Other more detailed definitions of biodiversity serve practical purposes in technical and scientific fields, yet these comprehensive descriptions are unlikely to aid this investigation as they include controversial concepts that defy integration into public policy.

What Value does Biodiversity Have?

Ideally, the amount of biodiversity present in an area could serve as an objective and isolated measure of its biotic and abiotic richness. The combined measurements of species diversity, genetic variability, species prevalence, and a number of other separate metrics might provide a rudimentary valuation of any given area's biodiversity. Yet, the eventual value of an area (or resource) depends on a multitude of subjective and contextual factors that may have little to do with the number of species residing within it. In other words, when creating public policy, what it is generally matters less than what we want to use it for. Some may argue that biodiversity possesses intrinsic value independent from human concerns. They may be right. But to consider it in the context of public policy, and market-based policy in particular, biodiversity must be viewed from a distinct perspective that includes subjective human preferences and larger, context-specific, factors. For instance, two acres of land, identical in terms of all the measurements listed above, may be of wildly different value to society if one is in a rural area and the other is in an urban one. This value difference could result from the urban acre providing convenient recreational and flood protection services that the rural acre does not. Therefore, to place a concern for biodiversity in the broader sphere of public policy, it must be assigned value in a way that incorporates subjective and contextual issues related to human needs and human goals.

Economists, biologists, and public policy experts have all attempted to establish the value of biodiversity in terms appropriate for their given professions. Arguments continue on whether anyone has accomplished this goal in a complete and useful manner. As this paper is concerned with the efficacy of market-based policies in meeting biodiversity goals, the favored method of expressing biodiversity's worth will be an economic one. One economist categorizes biodiversity in a way that leads to a well-rounded and representative valuation through including subjective and contextual factors. By breaking down the economic functions of biodiversity into the four parts of ecosystem productivity, insurance, knowledge, and ecosystem services, economist Geoffrey Heal describes how the components of biodiversity provide for humanity. The first, second, and third entries on his list capture how healthy levels of biodiversity ensure the continued "productivity and robustness of natural plant communities" (Heal 6), the provision of "variability that could be critical in responding to the environmental changes wrought by humans" (Heal 8), and how we "can learn, from natural organisms, to make chemicals that have important and valuable properties" (Heal 8).  These three components demonstrate that biodiversity provides opportunities for economic gain, security against future disasters, and greater genetic knowledge. The final entry on this list of economic functions argues that biodiversity plays a key role in the provision of ecosystem services or "the wide range of conditions and process through which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help sustain and fulfill human life" (Daily and Ellison 12).  All of these categories relate biodiversity to human endeavors and, therefore, allow it to be considered in the context necessary for establishing public policy. It is important to note that the value attributed to biodiversity, like most things, is dynamic and must therefore be continually reassessed to reflect changing conditions and beliefs. It is also important to note that the first three economic functions listed above are mostly public goods. Economists use this term to describe goods that are available to all regardless of who paid for it. The last function listed, ecosystem services, is also a public good (most of the time) but has the best chance to become a private one through changes in public policy.

Washington and Biodiversity

Hundreds of laws and rules, created and promulgated at the federal, state, and local levels, serve to protect parts of Washington's native biodiversity. Many argue that this complicated web of piecemeal regulation fails to preserve biodiversity in its entirety-pointing toward deteriorating natural resources across the state as evidence. Large federal programs, like the Clean Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, have positively affected the amount and variety of species and natural resources under their protection. State administered programs, like Washington's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, are also bound to have a positive affect on biodiversity conservation. Even some localized zoning decisions appear to be making valuable preservation and restoration contributions. While a comprehensive consideration of all of these programs together exceeds the scope of this investigation, some reoccurring themes are worth mentioning as they illustrate how market-based policies might be used successfully to conserve biodiversity within this regulatory web.

The Washington Biodiversity Council received a report in June 2006 that provides an institutional assessment of the state's current approaches to conserving biodiversity. The report, called Institutional Assessment: Preliminary Findings, breaks these approaches down into six categories of which two, "Stewardship and Restoration" and "Regulation," are particularly germane to the creation and implementation of market-based policies. Under "Stewardship and Restoration," the report provides two lists, one describes what is working and one describes what is not. Among the former, the report suggests that budding public efforts at the state and local levels have increased the recognition of, not only what biodiversity is, but why it is important. It also mentions that efforts to define, categorize, and prioritize areas of concern related specifically to biodiversity are making important progress. In the "What Isn't Working" category, the report lists five major shortcomings related to stewardship and restoration efforts. These include the absence of an "overarching state policy on biodiversity conservation," the fact that "biodiversity as a concept has not been incorporated into the culture or plans of most conservation institutions," and that "there is no standing organization or entity" with the explicit purpose of conserving biodiversity in Washington (La Tourrette 3).  Correcting these deficiencies requires broad institutional changes that exceed the scope and influence of market-based policy. However, the assessment lists two more examples of things that are not working that such policies may help to rectify. The final two shortcomings outlined in the report under "Stewardship and Restoration" efforts both involve a systemic lack of coordination among those institutions charged with preserving biodiversity. The institutional assessment asserts that the "Conservation efforts of various public and private conservation institutions are not well coordinated at any geographic or institutional level" (La Tourrette 4).  Second, the report also states that "major unresolved gaps in biodiversity conservation efforts" persist between these efforts. One way to encapsulate these failings into a single concept is to label current conservation efforts as non-strategic, or lacking in the identification of long-term goals and the means necessary to achieve them. Without clear goals, a corresponding allocation of resources to meet them, and a way to measure the progress made by using them, it is impossible to use a truly strategic process. The second major approach to conserving biodiversity in Washington, as presented in Institutional Assessment: Preliminary Findings, is labeled "Regulation." Like the last approach discussed, the report first mentions many of the positive things that the existing institutional framework has accomplished in this arena. Specifically, it notes how current and past regulations have successfully preserved many individual components of biodiversity (La Tourrette 7),  or slices of the larger whole of biodiversity. An example of this is the state's multiple-agency approach to saving anadromous fish. On the other side of the analysis, in the things that aren't working category, the report presents a number of general regulatory problems that fall under the broad categories of the inconsistent application and enforcement, the generation of policy in isolation, and the reactive nature of existing regulations (La Tourrette 8-9). Market-based policies have the potential to address the last two of these, as future paragraphs will explain, but the first one is simply a matter of political will that requires public understanding and pressure, not new policy designs.

Developing and implementing market-based policies will not necessarily increase the level of coordination between public institutions — unless institutional reform occurs. Likewise, developing and implementing market-based policies will not directly fix the regulatory shortcomings presented above. However, as these policies require the creation of specific goals to be used, these goals might in turn be used to direct the efforts of other programs in a coordinated fashion while also filling the gaps left by their limited scopes-thereby acting as a catalyst for broader institutional and regulatory change.

Next. . .