There is a counter trend happening to Neoclassical Economics (NC) that will result in a paradigm shift in the next decade. NC has had its day and no longer works in a eworld of inrcreased population and finite resources. Conservationsits should be preparing themselves for the New Economics built on emerging Economic approaches such as Ecological Economics, Community Economics, Buddist Economics, Sharia Economics, etc. focussing more on ethical consumption, fair trade, sociallyresponsible business, The Consumerist Model has reached its limits and is a busted flush. We need new thinking along the lines of Kalle Lasn's (Adbusters) recent book "Meme wars: The Creative destruction of Neoclassical Economics". He has marshalled a range of writers who are outlining possible ways ahead. I was trained as a Neoclassical Economist but never practicesd, shifting to Botany instead, as I came to distrust NC.s basic premises. You might want to look at a small piece I wote on the different types of Value and Risk as a starting point (http://chstirton.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/risk-value-and-values/ ) and at the idea of Well-being (http://chstirton.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/well-being/ ). These are treated a simple concepts but are a rich contexture of suble and meaningful differences. You could also profitably look at the Spiral Dynamics Model and at Ken Wilbur's 4 Quadrant Model. Finally, I believe the tide is shifting and that the trend is towards those who are the proponents of sustainable development models. But like all systems in dis-equilibrium the Neoclassical Model will resist until it collapses. Personally I think funding will not be an issue for those who work with the new models and show how conservation is part of the new approach.

This is an excellent question, and unfortunately a fact of life in recent years. On conservation biology on the one hand we suffer a decline in national funding as well as local policies. What solutions? One possible approach (among others) is to sensitize policy and groups of economic actors in ecosystem services. Many economic activities depend on good environmental quality, or ecosystem degradation on cost to society. The ecosystem approach is used by developers and managers to facilitate the creation of protected areas in the countries or regions in developing countries (whose populations are highly dependent on supply services) and areas to justify funding conservation (Daily and Ellison, 2003; Boisvert and Vivien, 2010), while the managers of protected industrialized countries (eg in Europe) areas were still not suitable tool. This topic is still more essential for managers such as in the context of future fisheries nature reserves will primarily aim to preserve fishery resources.

Many thanks Charles and Alain for your important contributions.

Cheers,

JE

Joao, you've raised an interesting question here and both Charles and Alain have made some interesting and valuable points. I personally do not feel that need to include biodiversity conservation in agendas has changed; rather, the assessment of biodiversity and its value has become more structured and needs to be more clearly articulated if support is to be given. Given that disposable income has become less in recent years, there needs to be a stronger case for support rather than the old argument of conservation for conservation sake.

The drive to implement an ecosystem approach to management, as seen in several recent environmental policies (e.g. Europe's Marine Strategy Framework Directive) has placed several questions firmly on the doorstep of environmental managers and stewards. What is the environmental value, the societal value and economic value of the biodiversity feature? Features considered less 'valuable' are less likely to receive support. Is this a better approach and is it better for conservation? Perhaps so. There are numerous examples where supposedly valuable species are the focus of an environmental policy (e.g. Habitats Directive), not because of the functional importance of that species to the ecosystem, but rather because a strong voice (often a scientist who works on that species/feature) has promoted it in the relevant forum such that it has received protection. Would the time, effort and money be better afforded to features of greater value? If the feature is of greater value, efforts to conserve it may be better received by stakeholders as the benefits of its conservation are more tangible and consequently, there may be greater support for those conservation practices which may lead to improvements in conservation practices, compliance and outcomes. So to reflect the question back to you, I wonder if the support available for conservation will reduce in the coming years or instead, the money may be better spent?

Thanks Antony for your valuable and important answer. I agree that the key-point should be 'spent money (and other resources) in a better way'. On that sense, a very important work has been carried out for several conservation stakeholders (e.g. http://www.conservationevidence.org).

Cheers,

JE