Browsing by Author "Simpson, R. David"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Cost-effective conservation: A review of what works to preserve biodiversity
    Ferraro, Paul J.; Simpson, R. David (Resources for the Future (RFF), 2001)
    This article discusses different approaches to biodiversity conservation, advocating for the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of direct payments over indirect payments. It is important to consider not only the theoretical differences but also the lessons revealed from implementation of both direct and indirect approaches. There are multiple options for financing conservation; innovative approaches are not necessarily better than more traditional financing methods. Although conservation schemes that promise more leverage for less money sound appealing, they likely will not deliver the expected outcomes. There is a cost to conserving biodiversity and, with few exceptions, the most cost-effective conservation is through direct payments.
  • Thumbnail Image
    The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments
    Ferraro, Paul J.; Simpson, R. David (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002)
    International donors invest billions of dollars to conserve ecosystems in low-income nations. The most common investments aim to encourage commercial activities, such as ecotourism, that indirectly generate ecosystem protection as a joint product. We demonstrate that paying for ecosystem protection directly can be far more cost-effective. Although direct-payment initiatives have imposing institutional requirements, we argue that all conservation initiatives face similar challenges. Thus conservation practitioners would be well advised to implement the first-best direct-payment approach, rather than a second-best policy option. An empirical example illustrates the spectacular cost savings that can be realized by direct-payment initiatives.
  • The economics of conservation investments
    Ferraro, Paul J.; Simpson, R. David (2002)
    International donors invest billions of dollars to conserve ecosystems in low-income nations. An emerging debate rages among academics and practitioners as to the most effective forms of conservation investment. Among the more popular initiatives to achieve this objective is the use of development interventions in the peripheral areas of endangered ecosystems. Such interventions indirectly provide desirable ecosystem services through two mechanisms: (1) by re-directing labor and capital away from activities that degrade ecosystems (e.g., agricultural intensification); and (2) by encouraging commercial activities that supply ecosystem services as joint products (e.g., ecotourism). We contrast this dominant approach with an approach that pays for ecosystem protection directly. Based on theoretical and empirical analyses, we argue that investments aimed at making payments that are conditional on conservation performance are likely to be far more cost-effective than the currently popular indirect approaches to conservation investment. Although direct payment initiatives have imposing institutional requirements, we argue that all conservation initiatives face similar challenges. An empirical example from Africa illustrates the substantial cost savings that can be realized by direct payment initiatives.
  • Protecting forests and biodiversity: Are investments in eco-friendly production activities the best way to protect endangered ecosystems and enhance rural livelihoods?
    Ferraro, Paul J.; Simpson, R. David (AB Academic Publishers, 2005)
    A debate has been raging in recent years among conservation practitioners and advocates. What are the most effective mechanisms for preserving the imperiled forest habitats that shelter most of the world's terrestrial biodiversity? In the past few decades most money has been going into "indirect" interventions such as "Integrated Conservation and Development Programs". While no one could object to efforts to achieve such worthy goals, several authors suggest that more "direct" approaches - payments in exchange for conservation performance - would better achieve conservation objectives. We argue here that direct incentives might better achieve both conservation and development objectives. While the problems facing both conservation practitioners and development specialists are indeed daunting, we feel that the arguments for direct approaches are compelling both as conceptual propositions and as practical policy advice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Protecting forests and biodiversity: Are investments in eco-friendly production activities the best way to protect endangered ecosystems and enhance rural livelihoods?
    Ferraro, Paul J.; Simpson, R. David (2003)
    In the next section (II), we describe the economics of direct and indirect approaches to protecting ecosystems and biodiversity. In sections III-V, we address common criticisms of direct payment approaches and attempt to answer the question, 'If direct approaches are more desirable, why have indirect approaches been more commonly employed in recent years?' In section VI, we offer a brief review of how direct payments are working in practice around the world.