生物多样性 ›› 2022, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (11): 22177.  DOI: 10.17520/biods.2022177

• 生物多样性保护对策专题 • 上一篇    下一篇


赵阳, 李宏涛()   

  1. 生态环境部对外合作与交流中心, 北京 100035
  • 收稿日期:2022-04-10 接受日期:2022-08-29 出版日期:2022-11-20 发布日期:2022-12-01
  • 通讯作者: 李宏涛
  • 作者简介: E-mail: li.hongtao@fecomee.org.cn

Economic measures for biodiversity conservation

Yang Zhao, Hongtao Li()   

  1. Foreign Environmental Cooperation Center (FECO), Ministry of Ecology and Environment, PCR, Beijing 100035
  • Received:2022-04-10 Accepted:2022-08-29 Online:2022-11-20 Published:2022-12-01
  • Contact: Hongtao Li


当前各国协调经济与生态的关系呈加速态势, 主要表现在: (1)深化。从“发展优先, 兼顾保护”到二者并重, “在发展中保护, 在保护中发展”, 再到“保护优先”, 越来越强调统筹协同“以保护优化发展, 以发展促进保护”; (2)分化。发展中国家大多依赖财政与金融, 发达国家则将市场作为主要资金渠道, 逐步形成以系统化的法律体系、多元化的激励机制、契约化的公私合作模式和市场化交易为主体的生态产品价值实现体系; (3)多元化。自然价值的多元性决定政府需要综合运用多种举措, 以减少单一政策的局限性; (4)市场化。加强市场解决财政在环保投入不足的主体作用已成为主流。本文为探索我国向“自然受益型”经济转型, 梳理了30多个国家在不同行业实施经济手段的150个实例, 以多元化视角归纳为8种举措: 顶层设计、环经核算、生态转型、绿色金融、市场认证、激励改革、气候协同和实施配套; 并从10个方面分析以经济手段促进生物多样性保护的国际经验和趋势, 各国之间的共性及分化; 最后提出利用“2020后全球生物多样性框架”提供协调各国行动一致的平台机制, 以外促内, 内外结合, 通过创新政策工具和组合应用, 促进我国经济政策与生态环境政策融合的建议。

关键词: 2020后全球生物多样性框架, “自然受益”经济转型, 以经济手段保护生物多样性, 经济政策与生态环境政策融合, 协调发展与保护


Background & Aims: Biodiversity, climate, food and livelihoods are inextricably intertwined. To effectively address issues within the economy, nature and the climate emergency, we need to adopt a holistic and integrated approach to transform systems at scale. It is critically important to understand “trade offs” between economic growth and nature loss; in other words, how economic measures for biodiversity conservation can be achieved through the cooperation of government, finance and business sectors. We draw on international experience across biodiversity-reliant industries in order to shed light on China’s transformative development that embeds the value of nature in all economic decision-making.

Methods: Main approaches adopted in this research include desk review, comparative study, and categorization. Through the lens of momentums characterized by pluralization and marketization in the economic measures for biodiversity conservation on the global scale, wer analyzed 150 examples of nature-positive economic instruments applied across numerous industries in more than 30 countries. We classified these instruments into 8 categories: (1) Top-level Design, with commitments to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030 using timetables and roadmaps; (2) Environmental Economic Accounting, e.g. UN-SEEA, GEP (Gross Ecosystem Product) and Natural Capital Protocol, etc.; (3) Ecological Transformation, especially in three key socio-economic systems: food, land and ocean use, infrastructure and built environments, energy and extractives; (4) Green Finance, outlined in classifications of both “Green Financing” and “Financing Green”; (5) Market Certification, with a focus on soft commodities, e.g. Eco-Label, Rainforest Alliance, etc., (6) Incentive Reform, including the traditional “Business As Usual” (BSU) replaced by No-Net-Loss and Nature-positive outlooks, harmful subsidies eliminated and redirected, and financial flows realigned; (7) Climate Synergy, the value of biodiversity mitigating and adapting to climate change embeded in all economic decision-making to ensure actions were within ecological thresholds; (8) Supportive Instruments, legal and administrative measures that are carried out to reinforce effectiveness of economic policy, e.g. ESG information disclosure and quotas, permits, and licensing. Furthermore, we analyzed and compare the similarities and differences of countries adopting the above economic measures.

Results: Across countries, we found the following trends of economic measures for biodiversity conservation: (1) Intensification. Previous thought that “economic growth is prioritized over ecological conservation” had been challenged by “economy and ecology are put on an equal footing” (Ecology Priority). More and more emphasis had been placed on synergy among government, finance and business to achieve transformative change towards carbon neutral, nature positive and equitable development standards; (2) Differentiation. In the three traditional policy instruments, countries in the developing world relied mainly on public funding and finance from the government sector while developed countries use the private sector market as the main channel for conservation resources; (3) Pluralization. Since the value of nature is multi-dimensional, governments need to use a variety of economic instruments rather than a single policy to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives. Economic policies should bridge connections to livelihood and well-being, climate change, and resource management; (4) Marketization. Fostering the role of markets in ecological conservation solved issues such as a lack of public funding and inconsistencies between financial and taxation systems in meeting environmental goals. Without this, economic problems such as market failure, excessive use of natural assets, unclear property rights, high transaction costs, and asymmetry in supply and demand result.

Conclusions: A combined approach of “Top-down” and “Bottom-up” actions are proposed to synergize government, finance and business sectors. We encourage that institutions take advantage of opportunities arising from the "Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework as an internationally overarching framework providing platform and metrics for coordinated national actions. This will expedite application of policy portfolios on global scale and promote the integration of economic and environmental policies, of which market incentives remain at the core.

Key words: Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Nature-positive economic transition, economic instruments for biodiversity conservation, integrate economic policy with ecological and environmental policy, economic growth harmonized with eco-conservation