The problem of biodiversity conservation has been on the environmental agenda for quite long due to the unceasingly bad impact, which industries have on the environment. However, when it comes to defining the issue that causes the most concern and debates at present, one must mention the marine biodiversity and the possible positive effects that impure public goods may have on it. The biodiversity rates in the World Ocean in general and every single sea, in particular, are shrinking down rapidly, and unless adequate measures are taken to handle the issue, an environmental catastrophe is unavoidable.
According to the recent report, impressive shrinking of fishes has been noticed recently (Arriagada, and Perrings 802). Therefore, the problem of marine biodiversity conservation exists, and, more importantly, it is growing out of proportions extremely fast due to overconsumption and pollution. Unless the use of impure public goods is introduced into the process of public-goods supply, the marine biodiversity rates are going to drop to a shockingly low level.
Before going any further, it will be necessary to shed some light on the nature and definition of impure public goods. According to the existing sources, impure public goods are traditionally defined as the goods that “are either partially excludable or partially rival” (Arriagada, and Perrings 799).
In fact, “Biodiversity conservation, like many other IEPGs, is an impure global public good” (Arriagada and Perrings 801), as recent researches state. One might argue that the issue of biodiversity conservation does not quite fit into the range of phenomena that the concept of impure public goods embraces. However, it should also be kept in mind that the definition of impure public goods is rather loose and that, to comply with the basic definition, a phenomenon in question must meet two key requirements, i.e., being non-rivalrous and non-excludable. The concept of impure global goods seems to suit the given definition since impure global goods do not presuppose competition and, at the same time, can be accessed by the customers without the latter actually having to pay for it.
The fact that the issue concerning the global marine biodiversity and the effects that impure public goods may possibly have on these rates can lead to the development of a range of externalities that should also be born in mind. Indeed, according to what Arriagada and Perrings say, “The costs and benefits associated with many human activities spill over jurisdictional boundaries, thereby generating externalities that are often reciprocal and quantitatively significant” (Arriagada, and Perrings 803).
In other words, the failure of the wildlife products to consider the decline of wildlife population in the process of decision making “because there do not exist appropriate economic institutions and incentives to get ‘consumers of wildlife to regard the costs they impose on those deriving utility from conservation” (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 7) is often regarded as an externality in the production of impure public goods. As a rule, several key types of externalities are traditionally associated with the concept of impure public goods. Among these externalities, the inability of the consumers of the above-mentioned products to realize that their excessive consumption affects the wildlife in a very negative way and the failure to carry out a private provision of a specific product (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 7) are usually mentioned.
The technological issues of the public goods supply are also worth mentioning. As Bulte, Kooten and Swanson explain, the development of the technological advances for the changes in environmental issues to occur is the point at which the process of addressing the problem is thrown from one extreme to another. To be more exact, the legal person in question may either be provided with the rights to shape the environmental management standards in the manner that the given party finds the most suitable, or, on the contrary, to be prohibited from making a single step without consulting the corresponding authorities first (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 8).
Therefore, a thorough reconsideration of the existing regulations must be carried out so that the execution of the new principles should be more efficient. Given the scale of the threat, it is necessary to create a single set of principles to comply with when dealing with the issue.
Finally, the issue of economic incentives should be touched upon. There is no secret that the impact of wildlife on the community is very high. The environment in which people live shapes their health, habits, traditions, and life altogether. As a result, the effect of wildlife on society cannot be neglected and certainly should not be underestimated. More to the point, the process of a continuous wildlife exploration leads to the discovery of a range of factors, most of which are most likely to affect the current flow of the economy and introduce a range of changes into the balance between demand and supply. As a result, it is important to consider the types of economic incentives, which may stir the environmental concern and, at the very least, spread awareness regarding the threat that wildlife in general and marine biodiversity in particular.
Speaking of the existing types of incentives, Bulte, Kooten and Swanson offer a very decent account of the incentives classification, which is currently adopted in economy: these are common values and norms, or, speaking in economic terms, “threats or moral suasion” (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 2); command and control (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 2); and market incentives (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 2). As far as the concept of impure goods and environment conservation are concerned, the incentives for impure public goods can be identified as homogenous harvesting (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 3), efficient resources management (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 3) and spillover effects (Bulte, Kooten and Swanson 4). It should be noted that not all of the incentives are regarded as positive; the last one, i.e., the spillover effect, is traditionally viewed as a drawback of the economic incentives application.
With a focus on the impure public goods, a range of improvements can be done to the current state of the environment in general and marine biodiversity in particular. Unless the required measures are undertaken, and the safety rules are enhanced for the transportation of potentially hazardous materials, marine biodiversity will be threatened greatly and may face complete extinction in several decades. Recent researches have sown that the biodiversity rates are dropping at present and have proven that urgent steps must be taken to promote a sustainable economy; the enhancement of the impure public goods concept may contribute to the promotion of sustainable economy. Thus, economic strategies affect current environmental issues. It is in people’s power to change the course of the events, and the required measures must be taken to address the issue of the shrinking marine biodiversity.
Works Cited
Arriagada, Rodrigo and Charles Perrings. “Paying for International Environmental Public Goods.” AMBIO 40, (2011), 798–806. Web.
Bulte, Erwin H., G. Cornelis van Kooten and Timothy Swanson. Economic Incentives and Wildlife Conservation. The Netherlands: Tilburg University. 2003. Print.