Biodiversity loss and forest conservation has formally been on the international policy agenda since the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) in the 1980s (MacDonald, 2010). Despite the efforts in this critical matters, biodiversity and forest loss is still increasing, heading towards devastating consequences for the Earth and future generations (WWF, 2017). Though the first discussions were framed mainly in a state-centric context, this has changed over the past decades with globalization and the following rise of other non-state actors in the international system such as non-profit organizations (NGOs) and the business sector, shifting from a state-centric approach to a multi-centric one (Falkner, 2003). Nowadays, firms have a crucial role in the international level and are participating actively in the global arena. This inclusion presents several challenges that must be taken care of if biodiversity and forest conservation want to be promoted and done effectively. The present essay aims to critically evaluate the challenges of including or regulating international businesses within the regime’s global policy frameworks. To achieve this, I will briefly describe two of the programmes that the international framework holds concerning biodiversity and forests conservation. Next, I will analyse the main challenges that arise when engaging firms in the global regime. Finally, I will mention the implications that can be withdrawn from the analysis and conclude that though great challenges arise when incentivising the participation of international businesses and regulating them in the regime’s global framework, the best way to maximize the benefits for biodiversity and forests conservation is through the involvement of all the existing actors both in the national and international level, and the need for a proper design and agreements that distance from vague and broad commitments that are far from conserving our environment.
Two of the programmes that were created to address biodiversity on the one side and forests loss on the other, are the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was opened for signature in 1992 for the Rio Summit. Its main goals are “[1] The conservation of biological diversity; [2] the sustainable use of components of biological diversity; [3] the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources” (CBD, 2017). Despite the efforts and the alleged binding feature of CBD, there are various academic opinions that criticise its effectiveness (MacDonald, 2010), while the ongoing loss of biodiversity suggests that this convention is far from delivering the desired outcomes.
REDD+ is a UN programme created in 2008 planned to be implemented in developing countries to mainly reduce greenhouse emissions and increase carbon sequestration by the conservation of forests in developing countries (UN-REDD Programme, 2017). Though adjustments have been made there is still progress to be made to make it an effective system. This is mainly because of the way it functions: after complying with certain requirements, developing countries get paid for the reforestation of timbered forests, without taking into account the type or quality of species replanted, resulting not only in the loss of original forests but also the biodiversity that inhabits it. Even though REDD+ does not look after biodiversity conservation, it can negatively affect it, a fact that exposes another flaw in the global regime: different systems overlapping and influencing in a negative way the goals of others.
On the other hand, in this already mentioned multi-centric world, international businesses play a crucial role because of globalization and the trade of different goods and services that constantly take place worldwide. According to Macdonald (2010), the efforts of building a global environmental governance has been seen by firms as a threat to their growth and profits, resulting in an active behaviour against the different instruments designed by international organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme. Their wealth has given them enough power to influence states behaviour and subsequent cautious decisions when signing agreements and binding documents. However, in the present there are several multinational firms that have decided to participate actively in the conservation of biodiversity and forests though the main driver of these engagements is not the environment but the possibility of the forthcoming disappearance of certain species that can endanger the future of their businesses (Winn & Pogutz, 2013).
As previously mentioned, CBD has encountered several obstacles trying to deliver an effective framework for biodiversity. As Rands, et al., 2010 remark, there is an important amount of the Earth’s territory and species not even considered as protected areas or habitats, exposing them to disappear. The task of preserving biodiversity is increasing with time and the business sector has an important role to play in this matter. One main challenge is to create more mechanisms that will incentivise their participation and positive inputs, and this has to be done by offering benefits from doing so. In relation to biodiversity conservation, this can be done through Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES), “a series of payments to land or other natural resource managers in return for a guaranteed flow of ecosystem services” (Defra, 2013, p. 13) on a property that would otherwise have been used for another activity. PES can be public, private or a mix, and it can be a good mechanism to complement the efforts of the global regime in the conservation of biodiversity loss. Because firms seek their own interests and benefits, CBD can be seen by businesses as a dangerous set of rules. If companies can receive benefits from taking care of the environment, as seen in the Vittel company case, then PES could be a good instrument and model. The French company decided to implement PES privately when encountering obstacles that jeopardized their business and profits as a result of the pollution produced by farmlands next to their water catchment (Perrot-Maître, 2006). The outcomes proved that when properly designed and taking into account all the parties’ interests, this mechanism can actually fill the gap that the international agreements have left behind. The company started negotiations with landowners through a third party that was in charge of reconciling both parties’ interests weighing their costs and benefits, and clear binding contracts were the product of long by fruitful negotiations. Vittel could save the water catchment and the farmers received not only payments for maintaining a cleaner production, but also technology transfer and ‘know how’ in greener and newer farming methods.
The difference between North and South countries present another challenge when including international firms in the global regime, specifically when talking about technology and ‘know how’ capacity. While the first ones have a higher level and amount of these elements, developing countries are still struggling with a limited capital for investing in new technologies and knowledge expansion (Rands, et al., 2010). This can be observed when analysing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) data, a voluntary-based mechanism established in 1993 that sets certain standards for forest management and sustainability (FSC, 2017) certificating firms that satisfy their minimum requirements. FSC is an expensive certification that offers limited incentives for developing world countries, the ones that would need an advanced technology and knowledge to be able to certify its companies (Dobilas & MacPherson, 1997). The evidence shows that the majority of the certificates are concentrated in developed nations: Europe and North America own 78% of the FSC accreditation while only 20% is allocated in Asia, Africa and Latin America (Pattberg, 2005). These digits expose the great difference between the developed and developing world, a fact that also exacerbates the disparity that exists between them. Certification is a voluntary mechanism that offer companies advantages over those firms who don’t have it. By keeping the certifications in the North, the South gets locked out of the international business sector, making even more difficult its participation in business opportunities and consequent progress.
Nevertheless, FSC and other similar certifications can become a positive instrument when trying to expand sustainable development through biodiversity and forest conservation, resulting in ‘environmental upgrading’. “Environmental upgrading takes place when a company improves its environmental performance through changes in product and process technology, management systems, waste and emission treatment and so on” (Jeppesen & Hansen, 2004, p. 263). This environmental upgrading is a positive influence that international firms can have over smaller ones especially in developing countries because “low-cost suppliers that operate in environmentally lax regulatory regimes may lose their competitive edge unless steps are taken to comply with externally defined standards” (Dobilas & MacPherson, 1997, p. 17). The first ones usually require these accreditations from suppliers or own offices in Third World countries, in order to make business agreements and trade with them. This dynamic compels the South world companies to achieve their standards elevating their productive methods, therefore promoting a more responsible behaviour towards forests conservation (or biodiversity loss).
Certain implications can be withdrawn from the previous analysis. The cautious and careful attitude of states and businesses towards international agreements with respect to biodiversity and forests conservation or the environment in general has made it necessary to find a framework that will be able to include every actor participating in the global regime. While states are not willing to give in more sovereignty that includes physical territory and natural resources, businesses are not keen to participate in these treaties without returning profits either. Governents must incentivise businesses to participate actively in the conservation of the environment and the expansion of sustainable development. This can be made through subsidies that encourage firms to invest in new and greener technologies or change their productive methods.
This also implies that there is a need to reduce the gap that exists between developed and developing countries to reach better agreements and mechanisms that will help address environment conservation properly. Through PES and FSC, ‘environmental upgrading’ can take place in developing countries that either don’t have the income or technology to do so. At the same time, these market-based mechanisms can improve the worldwide environmental standards, making it easier when later at the global scale, minimum requirements must be established to run global programmes.
But using these instruments imply that price must be put on nature. The problem is how to measure the wildlife and what elements must be taken into account to do so. There is an ongoing discussion on this matter, on whether or not it is right to do it and how to do so (Keulartz, 2013). Unfortunately, if this is not done, businesses will see no benefits from investing in biodiversity or forest conservation.
Despite the efforts of the global regime to address and solve biodiversity and forests loss, the evidence shows that these are still increasing and with them has come the loss of species and whole habitats (WWF, 2017). The existing global programmes like the CBD and REDD+ have only been able to address the problem partially, for this, other instruments should be considered. There are several challenges that appear when including or regulating international businesses in the regime’s global framework, and the first of all is how to make corporations participate actively in the conservation of the environment. As a complement to CBD, PES has proven to be an effective mechanism when designed properly and all the parts’ interests are considered. On the other hand, FSC is a certification that can complement programmes like REDD+, that require minimum standards from developing countries to participate. By involving and regulating the business sector in the conservation of biodiversity and forests, technology and knowledge transfer can also be achieved, like in the Vittel case. On of the most important elements is that all parties must be involved both at the national and international level, taking into account the vast differences that they have. The business sector must be regulated and included in the global regime, otherwise no matter the efforts, biodiversity or forests loss will be a difficult task to fullfill.