Conference PaperPDF Available

The effects of economic crisis upon biodiversity conservation policies: Εvidence from Greece

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The economic crisis that has affected Greece recently, has questioned the resilience of the biodiversity conservation policy system. The fiscal measures which have been obtained to address it, have led to the misuse of the biodiversity resources and have highlighted the failure of monitoring the effectiveness, the adequacy and the applicability of the biodiversity conservation policies. The implications of the existing policies on biodiversity resources are described via PSR (Pressure – State - Response) framework by setting up “Pressure” and “Response” indicators for policy and “State” indicators for policy effects, focusing on specified fields of delinquency such as illegal hunting, fishing and logging. The observed change in “Pressure” and “Response” indicators, illustrates the upward trend of delinquency, which in conjunction with the decomposition of funding and protection mechanisms prior the financial crisis, affects structurally the biodiversity exacerbating furthermore the current situation.
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.



111
1 
E - mail: zevgolis@env.aegean.gr
           
         
          
         
       
          
         
 PSR [Pressure  - State  - Response   
         
   
          
        
        
         

THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC CRISIS UPON BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION POLICIES: EVIDENCE FROM GREECE
Zevgolis Y.1, Oikonomou V.1, Troumbis A.1
1 Biodiversity Conservation Laboratory, Department of Environmental Studies,
University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100, Mytilini, Greece,
E - mail: zevgolis@env.aegean.gr
The economic crisis that has affected Greece recently, has questioned the resilience of
the biodiversity conservation policy system. The fiscal measures which have been
obtained to address it, have led to the misuse of the biodiversity resources and have
highlighted the failure of monitoring the effectiveness, the adequacy and the applicability
of the biodiversity conservation policies. The implications of the existing policies on
biodiversity resources are described via PSR (Pressure State - Response) framework by
           
policy effects, focusing on specified fields of delinquency such as illegal hunting, fishing
and logging.         
the upward trend of delinquency, which in conjunction with the decomposition of
funding and protection mechanisms prior the financial crisis, affects structurally the
biodiversity exacerbating furthermore the current situation.
1. 
           
         
    -   
   [1].
       
         
  [3]         

          
 
          
     
  
  
         
          
         5  
             

           
          
          
[6].  [7]
          [8]
          
910]. 

11].  
        
     biodiversity hotspots) 
  ,       
 
  
           
 - -, 
    

         12  
 , 
   [13],          
       14]    
        
,  
      Natura 2000» [15].   
  [16, 17      

          
        
           
             
          
          
  
          
       
        

2. 
           

PSR [Pressure  - State  - Response  
            
       
   - 
-  - 
 [18] , 
 [19].
         
        .
  
         
o  
 
[20]. -
            


          
       ,    
, 
 [21].
          
    
          
           
.
-
  -2012        
      
             
PSR  
  - 2001 -        
 - - 2012.
3. 
          
         
 -
       2006      
          

          
»  
          
          

 
          ,
         
          
      
        
          3). 
         

  
          
   


       
- - 
        

       , 
         
         
   , 
           
- 
-    

         
 
           
           
.
 

     -
     - 2007    
        
          
.
         
          
     .      
         

  .   
  ,
            6700
          
 ,  
         
        
..

        
         
          
  
  -
 -   
    22    

4. 
        
 

, 
        

 , 
          
     )   » 
,           
  . 
     ,    


         
         



            
 23           


1. Fisher B. and T. 
Ecological Economics, 62: 93-101
2. Adams W.M, R. Aveling, D. Brockington, B. Dickson, J. Elliott, J. Hutton, D. Roe, B.
Vira and W. 
Science, 306(5699): 11461149
3. Barrett C.B., A.J. Travis, and P.      
PNAS, 108: 1390 13912
4. Lawn P.       
Conservation Biology, 22: 14181423
5. Fisher M. and G.        
Pressure? Income Shocks and Forest Use in  World Development, 33(7): 1115-
1128
6. Holling, C.         
  W.C., and R.E.
Munn), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K, 1986, pp.292-317.
7. Sunderlin W.D., O. Ndoye, H. Bikie, N. Laporte, B. Mertens and J. Pokam (2000)
Economic crisis, small-scale agriculture, and forest cover change in southern
 Environmental Conservation, 27(3): 284-290
8. Siddiqi T.A. (2000) The Asian Financial Crisis - is it good for the global environment?
Global Environmental Change, 10(1): 1-7
9. Endamana D., A.K. Boedhihartono, B. Bokoto, L. Defo, A. Eyebe, C. Ndikumagenge, Z.
Nzooh, M. Ruiz - 
        Tropical Conservation Science,
3(3):262-281
10. Hilborn R., P. Arcese M. Borner, J. Hando, G. Hopcraft, M. Loibooki, S. Mduma and
         Science,
314(5803): 1266
11. challenges of
-48
12. IMF World Economic Outlook (2012
13.             
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA
14. Pagoulatos G. and C. Triantipoulos (2009) 
South European Society and Politics, 14(1): 35-54.
15.          

16. Troumbis A.Y.   orks in Greece: Current status, Administration
-62
17. Médail F. and P. Quézel (1999) Biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean basin:
setting global conservation prioritiesConservation Biology, 13(6): 1510-1513
18. -state-response
indicators for managing biodiversity: a realistic perspective for a French biosphere
Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(7): 1719-1732
19.   The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: Challenges for
Science and PolicyConservation Biology, 21(6): 14061413
20.       -for-conservation swapsa possible financial
incentive for on-   50th Annual Conference of the
Australian Agricultural Economics Society, Sydney, Australia, 2006, pp.8-11
21. Contreras-illegal
   , Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Round Table on Sustainable Development, SG/SD/RT
22. Folke C. (2003) Socialecological resilience and  
Structural Determinants of Environmental Practice (eds. A. Biel, B. Hansson and M.
Mårtensson), London, UK, 2003, pp. 226-242
23. Sanderson S.E.       biodiversity
 Oryx, 37(4):389-390
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The 2008 financial crisis found the Greek economy in a position of fiscal vulnerability, given the large public debt, and structural weaknesses, demonstrated in a huge current account deficit. The banking system was relatively robust, but exposed to imported risks from the emerging Southeast European markets. The government adopted a ‘financial crisis reaction plan’. Its reaction affirmed long-lasting features of Greece's ‘credit-based’, partly state-controlled financial system. Sectors most visibly affected by the crisis are housing construction, tourism, shipping and the small–medium enterprise sector. Paradoxically, some facets of relative underdevelopment of the Greek model of capitalism are serving to mitigate the intensity of the crisis.
Article
Full-text available
The rate of forest cover loss in the humid tropics of Cameroon is one of the highest in Central Africa. The aim of the large-scale, two-year research project described here was to understand the effect of the country's economic crisis and policy change on small-scale agricultural systems and land-clearing practices. Hypotheses were tested through surveys of more than 5000 households in 125 villages, and through time-series remote sensing analysis at two sites. The principal findings are that: (1) the rate of deforestation increased significantly in the decade after the 1986 onset of the crisis, as compared to the decade prior to the crisis; (2) the main proximate causes of this change were sudden rural population growth and a shift from production of cocoa and coffee to plantain and other food crops; and (3) the main underlying causes were macroeconomic shocks and structural adjustment policies that led to rural population growth and farming system changes. The implication of this study is that it is necessary to understand and anticipate the undesirable consequences of macroeconomic shocks and adjustment policies for forest cover. Such policies, even though they are often not formulated with natural resource consequences in mind, are often of greater relevance to the fate of forests than forest policy.
Article
Full-text available
An integrated framework for assessing conservation and development changes at the scale of a large forest landscape in the Congo Basin is described. The framework allows stakeholders to assess progress in achieving the often conflicting objectives of alleviating poverty and conserving global environmental values. The study shows that there was little change in either livelihood or conservation indicators over the period 2006 to 2008, and that the activities of conservation organizations had only modest impacts on either. The global economic down-turn in 2008 had immediate negative consequences for both local livelihoods and for biodiversity as people lost their employment in the cash economy and reverted to illegal harvesting of forest products. Weakness of institutions, and corruption were the major obstacles to achieving either conservation or development objectives. External economic changes had more impact on this forest landscape than either the negative or positive interventions of local actors. © Dominique Endamana, Agni Klintuni Boedhihartono, Bruno Bokoto, Louis Defo, Antoine Eyebe, Cléto Ndikumagenge, Zacharie Nzooh, Manuel Ruiz-Perez and Jeffrey A. Sayer.
Book
Europe's Greece evaluates Greece's European membership and finds that it has been largely successful. Despite its reputation as a southern laggard with very little improvement, Greece has behaved much like any other members of the EU, pushing its interests and stumbling upon the large issues that are associated with membership.
Article
China's domestic economic stimulus package aims to encourage consumption of wood and wood products, raise investment in afforestation, reforestation and protection of natural forests, and support forest enterprise through reduced taxes. The forestry sector in China has developed rapidly along with the fast overall-growth of the national economy. The total output value of the sector reached $180 billion in 2007. The world economy is in recession as a consequence of the financial crisis. US and European purchasing power has decreased drastically. The central government rapidly provided a supplementary investment of $530 million in the fourth quarter of 2008, focusing on projects to protect the natural forests and to establish forest plantations designated for environmental protection, including afforestation and reforestation of 2.6 million hectares. The crisis also offers a strategic opportunity for addressing problems of wealth-distribution and poverty in forest regions, where poor living-conditions include problems of transportation, education, and health.
Article
Debt-for-nature swaps have been successfully applied in an international context to achieve nature conservation objectives in developing countries. The swap involves alleviating a country's external debt burden in exchange for that country investing the equivalent amount of resources into specified nature conservation programs or activities. This paper explores to what extent the concept might be applicable and relevant in a domestic setting – by alleviating farm debt in return for on-farm conservation activities. The case for relevance of the instrument is argued on the basis of empirical data from a grazing region in northern Australia. Stakeholders and participants are identified for debt-for-conservation swaps and details for instrument design discussed. Preliminary results from a grazier survey and lessons from a similar incentive in the USA support a critique of the incentive instrument against a range of policy criteria.
Article
Due to the current species extinction crisis, there is an urgent need to identify the most threatened areas of ex-ceptionally high biodiversity and rates of endemism (i.e., "hotspots"; Mittermeier et al. 1998; Myers 1988; Reid 1998). Conservation strategies represent a crucial issue in the mediterranean biome because this area, which represents only 2% of the world's surface, houses 20% of the world's total floristic richness (Médail & Quézel 1997). Myers initially (1988, 1990) defined 14 hotspots in the tropical biome and four in mediterranean biocli-mates (southwestern Australia, Cape Region of South Af-rica, California, and part of Chile). Like the four other mediterranean areas, the Mediterranean Basin is one of the world's major centers for plant diversity, where 10% of the world's higher plants can be found in an area rep-resenting only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (Médail & Quézel 1997). The prominent role played by these areas as reservoirs for plant biodiversity has been emphasized by Myers (1990). He hesitated, however, to group the whole Mediterranean Basin into one single hotspot be-cause it covers such a large surface area, and insufficient data were available for certain regions. In this context, Médail and Quézel (1997) performed a global survey of plant richness and endemism to more precisely define hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin; they identified 10 hotspots. Three main approaches, however, have been taken in recent studies performed by international con-servation organizations to define priority conservation areas in the Mediterranean Basin. The first approach, the "megadiversity countries" project (Mittermeier et al. 1997), defined 17 megadiverse countries based primarily on plant endemism, species richness, and political boundaries. The top countries listed were Indonesia, Colombia, Brazil, Australia, Mex-ico, and Madagascar, but the Mediterranean Basin was completely left out, although, as some authors have re-cently pointed out (Heywood 1995; Médail & Quézel 1997), several tropical or subtropical countries have lower plant diversity than the Mediterranean Basin. For example, all of tropical Africa has the same plant rich-ness (30,000 taxa) as the circum-Mediterranean region in a surface area four times larger. Furthermore, the Mediterranean Basin possesses 10.8 species/1000 km 2 , which is higher than the 3.1 species/1000 km 2 in China, 4.7 in Zaire and in India, and 6.5 in Brazil, but lower than the 40 in Colombia and 90 in Panama (Médail & Quézel 1997). In the second approach, on the opposite extreme, some recent conservation strategies treat the Mediterra-nean Basin as a unique hotspot. The Global 200 project, performed by Olson and Dinerstein (1997, 1998), included the whole area in one large ecoregion defined by one rare major habitat type (i.e., Mediterranean shrublands and woodlands). These authors emphasized that "more-detailed, fine-scale analyses are essential to identify im-portant targets within ecoregions." In a recent work, Mittermeier et al. (1998) defined 24 hotspots in which, based on plant endemism, the whole Mediterranean Ba-sin was listed second after tropical Andes. Nevertheless, including all the different parts of the Mediterranean Ba-sin in one unique hotspot seems to oversimplify the situ-ation, even on a global scale. In fact, this area has many highly differentiated biogeographical patterns and land-use practices in space and time within its complex and heterogenous landscapes. The Mediterranean region constitutes both a refuge area and one that encourages floral exchange and active plant speciation (Quézel 1978, 1985). In the western ba-sin, high-endemism areas are related to the age of the geological platform and relict endemics prevail, whereas in the east, vicariant endemism is high due to the moder-ate role of glaciations and the presence of ultramafic rocks (Verlaque et al. 1997). Between the northern and southern coasts, human effects have created two differ-ent situations (Barbero et al. 1990). The collapse of the * email f.medail@botmed.u-3mrs.fr Paper submitted September 22, 1998; revised manuscript accepted June 9, 1999.
Article
A common thread of this volume is the analysis of behavioural responses to environmental issues and environmental change; how socially determined habits of thought and action, from the level of the individual to society as a whole, govern environmental behaviour. A key challenge is to unravel mechanisms behind the creation of habits of thought and action and
Article
The financial crisis in Asia and the resulting economic slowdown may be assumed to have at least the benefit of also reducing environmental degradation in the individual countries. This paper discusses the consequences of the slowdown for energy use in Asia and the associated emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas. Impacts on land use changes and on the oceans are also briefly discussed. Conclusions about the effects of the crisis on the air, land, and ocean environment are presented.