Prioritizing Development A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals
Book contents
Chapter 2 - Targets for Biodiversity and Deforestation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 May 2018
Edited by
Summary
This is a first attempt at estimating benefit-cost ratios for the biodiversity and deforestation targets. Benefits in particular require more analysis. Also, the potential linkages between different targets need to be examined. The two most promising targets investigated in terms of benefit-cost ration are ÒBy 2030, stem the loss of coral reefs by 50%Ó, which has a BCR of 95.3 and ÒReduce global forest loss by at least 50%Ó, which has a BCR between 29.7 and 99.4.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Prioritizing DevelopmentA Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, pp. 38 - 53Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Bobbink, R., et al. (2006). GLOBIO 3: Framework for the assessment of global terrestrial biodiversity. In: Bouwman, A. F., Kram, T., and Goldewijk, K. Klein (eds.), Integrated modeling of environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. NEAA/MNP, Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), 171–186.Google Scholar
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). (2012). Post 2015 Development Agenda: Goals, Targets, Indicators. Special Report. Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). (2012a). Resourcing the AICHI Biodiversity Targets: A First Assessment of the Resources Required for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Retrieved from: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/fin/hlpgar-sp-01/official/hlpgar-sp-01-01-report-en.pdf. Last accessed June 11, 2014.Google Scholar
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). (2012ab). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2012–2020: Technical Rationale (document COP/10/27/Add.1). Available at: http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/default.shtml.Google Scholar
De Groot, R. et al. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services. Ecosystem Services 1, 50–61.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2010). Regulatory Impact Analysis. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/ria.html. 47.Google Scholar
European Commission (EC). (2001). Recommended interim values for the value of preventing a fatality in DG Environment Cost Benefit analysis 2001. European Commission. Available at: ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/others/pdf/recommended_interim_values.pdf.Google Scholar
Finlayson, C. M. and Spiers, A. G. (1999). Global Review of Wetland Resources and Priorities for Wetland Inventory. Wetlands International. Available from http://www.wetlands.org/Portals/0/publications/Report/WI_GRoWI-Report_1999.pdf.Google Scholar
Gorte, R. W. (2009). U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon Sequestration. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Hussain, S., McVittie, A., Brander, L., et al. (2011). The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Quantitative Assessment. Draft final report to the United Nations Environment Programme.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. and Coburn, R. (2010). Trees for Carbon Sequestration. Primefact 981. Government of New South Wales, Australia.Google Scholar
Markandya, A. and Chiabai, A. (2013). Economic loss of ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050, Chapter 4. In: Lomborg, B. (ed.), How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World?: A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spalding, M. D. and Grenfell, A. M. (1997). New estimates of global and regional coral reef areas. Coral Reefs, 16: 225–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar