Evaluation of Market Limitations in the Case of Ecosystem Services
Abstract:Biodiversity crisis is one of the many crises that
started at the turn of the millennia. Concrete form of expression is
still disputed, but there is a relatively high consensus regarding the
high rate of degradation and the urgent need for action. The strategy
of action outlines a strong economic component, together with the
recognition of market mechanisms as the most effective policies to
protect biodiversity. In this context, biodiversity and ecosystem
services are natural assets that play a key role in economic strategies
and technological development to promote development and
prosperity. Developing and strengthening policies for transition to an
economy based on efficient use of resources is the way forward.
To emphasize the co-viability specific to the connection economyecosystem
services, scientific approach aimed on one hand how to
implement policies for nature conservation and on the other hand, the
concepts underlying the economic expression of ecosystem services-
value, in the context of current technology. Following the analysis of
business opportunities associated with changes in ecosystem services
was concluded that development of market mechanisms for nature
conservation is a trend that is increasingly stronger individualized
within recent years. Although there are still many controversial issues
that have already given rise to an obvious bias, international
organizations and national governments have initiated and
implemented in cooperation or independently such mechanisms.
Consequently, they created the conditions for convergence between
private interests and social interests of nature conservation, so there
are opportunities for ongoing business development which leads,
among other things, the positive effects on biodiversity. Finally,
points out that markets fail to quantify the value of most ecosystem
services. Existing price signals reflect at best, only a proportion of the
total amount corresponding provision of food, water or fuel.
 Bishop, J. (2009), Building biodiversity business: Experience to-date
and future prospects, presentation at the conference in Athens on the
implementation of Biodiversity Action Plan for EU
 De Laplante, K. (2005), Is Ecosystem Management a Postmodern
Science, in Ecologia paradigms lost: routes pf theory change, De Kim
Cuddington, Beatrix E. Beisner (editors), Academic Press, p.p. 397-412.
 Fitzsimmons, A.K. (1999), Ecosystem management: An illusion?
PercReports, vol.17, nr.5, pp.3-5.
 Ghazoul, J., Garcia, C., Kushalappa, C.G. (2009), Landscape labelling:
A concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes,
Forest Ecology and Management, nr.258, pp.1889-1895.
 Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P.L., Montes, C. (2010),
The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from
early notions to markets and payment schemes, Ecological Economics,
69, p.p. 1209-1218.
 Ioan, I., Bran, F., Râdulescu, C.V. (2010), Dimensiunea managerialâ a
conservârii naturii, Universitara Publishing House, Bucharest, pp.149-
 Jonkers, I., Lambooy, T., Simons, H., Gussenhoven, S. (2010) Probiodiversity
business: a new landscape of opportunity,
 Myers, N. (1988), Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in tropical forests, The
Environmentalist, nr.8, pp.1-20.
 Rojas, I. (2010), Market mechanisms are a false solution to biodiversity
 Salzman, J. (2005), Creating markets for ecosystem services: notes from
the field, New York University Law Review, nr. 80(6), pp.870-961.
 TEEB (2008), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity. An
 Torras, M. (2000), The Total Economic Value of Amazonian
Deforestation - 1978-1993, Ecological Economics, nr.33, pp.283-297.
 Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J. (2010), Payments for ecosystem
services: justified or not? A political view, Environmental Science and
Policy, nr.12, pp.785-792.
 Vatn, A. (2005), Rationality, institutions and environmental policy,
Ecological Economics, nr.55(2), pp.203-217.
 Wittman, D. (1984), Liability for harmor restitution for benefit?, Journal
of Legal Studies, nr.13, pp.57-80.