Abstract
Genetic resources have been widely used for agricultural animal breeding, drug development, and biomaterials. Coherent assessments of global warming on biodiversity based on economic models are necessary. Little research, however, has been done in the quantitative evaluation incurred across multi sectors including a primary industry sector and a pharmaceutical sector based on genetic resources (PGR) at a global level, though both citizens and stakeholders are keenly interested in this issue. Accordingly, this study focuses on a part of biodiversity, and assesses impacts of global warming on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and PGR industries using a CGE model, the evaluation model for environmental damage and adaptation (EMEDA). Simulated results by EMEDA indicate that: USA, Russia, EU-25, Oceania, East Asia and the rest of the world will experience economic growth, with other regions offsetting economic damages in the primary industry sector. Most regions offset damages in the PGR sector under the various scenarios including the 2 \(^\circ\)C climate target by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A dynamic version of EMEDA for estimating emissions trading is available at http://beta.genv.sophia.ac.jp/~emeda/Dynamic_EMEDA.pdf.
See UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs (1999) for a detailed discussion on the RAS method.
IPCC (2014) summarized that reducing the discovery of genetic resources from marine species useful in specific industries. Many patents associated with genes of marine organisms are related to pharmaceutical, agricultural and aquaculture industries (Arrieta et al. 2010). Therefore, we select agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and PGR sectors.
This study uses the base year 2004 in line with the base year of the GTAP7 database.
Anthoff and Tol (2012) used 0.025 for a temperature parameter since they define the parameter for temperature change as a warming of 0.025 \(^\circ\)C per year, or 2.5 \(^\circ\)C per century. However, our study has various temperature scenarios based on the RCPs in the year 2090. Therefore, these \(\rho _{\text {rcp}}\)s are calculated by the authors using the RCPs prediction.
For convenience, we define the years 2055 and 2090 for the likely range years 2046–2065 and 2081–2100 from the IPCC WGI AR5, respectively.
RCP2.6 mean temperatures in the years 2055 and 2090 are both +1.0 \(^\circ\)C. Therefore, we do not use RCP2.6 in the year 2090 for EMEDA scenario, though the likely ranges are different; 0.4–1.6 in the years 2046–2065, and 0.3–1.7 in the years 2081–2100.
Since loss of ecosystem may affect mostly primary industry sectors, we assume total sectors affected by changing biodiversity are sum of primary industry and PGR sectors.
References
Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations of public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–477
Anthoff D, Tol RSJ (2012) The climate framework for uncertainty, negotiation and distribution (FUND), Technical Description, Version 3.6. https://05f0e81c-a-5f9963c9-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/fund-model.org/fund-model/Fund-3-6-Scientific-Documentation.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cr1YpQvWX74oKfw8zka_idyRFdbxhZ7qyYFlLzIwG-J_7QuL0wR9aCdIPKe8r8vMJZZjH73K1g5Yy6cTAE7TPnrQrRvHANW5YwxMFYcjNaihqDxJeV5HQaRnUW0Mw-Lt04wwEyCWzFsefCjpGebdw4tGcsUeoO52mpsIWAL_wtwMWYTmmm_AyhQmlOLr8aqLn-iXnBv4g7tR510LuOBFpO0GKjpfBllr499AUFMWmviSLa18iQ%3D&attredirects=0. Accessed July 2016
Arrieta JM, Arnaud-Haond S, Duarte CM (2010) What Lies underneath: conserving the oceans’ genetic resources. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(43):18318–18324
Bennett JW (1984) Using direct questioning to value the existence benefits of preserved natural areas. Austr J Agric Econ 28:136–152
Chen WY, Jim CY (2010) Resident Motivations and willingness-to-pay for urban biodiversity conservation in Guangzhou (China). Environ Manag 45:1052–1064
Drummond MF (1992) Economic evaluation of pharmaceuticals: science or marketing? Pharmacoeconomics 1:8–13
Fankhauser S (1994) The economic costs of global warming damage: a survey. Glob Environ Change 4(4):301–309
Fankhauser S (1995) Valuing climate change: the economics of the greenhouse. Earthscan Publications, UK
(FAO) Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (2011) Coping with climate change: the importance of genetic resources for food security. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, November 2011. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3866e.pdf. Accessed July 2016
Hope CW (2006) The marginal impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: an integrated assessment model incorporating the IPCC’s five reasons for concern. Integ Assess J 6(1):19–56
(IEEP) Institute for European Environmental Policy, Ecologic and GHK (2012) Study to analyse legal and economic aspects of implementing the Nagoya Protocol on ABS in the European Union. Executive Summary of the Final report for the European Commission, DG Environment. IEEP, Brussels and London. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/international/abs/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf. Accessed July 2016
(IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf. Accessed July 2016
(IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Working Group II contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf. Accessed July 2016
Kontoleon A, Pascual U, Swanson T (2007) Biodiversity economics: principles, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, UK
Lee CK, Mjelde JW (2007) Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: the case of the Korean DMZ. Ecol Econ 63:511–520
Maddison DJ (2003) The amenity value of the climate: the household production function approach. Resour Energy Econ 25(2):155–175
Martin-Lopez B, Montes C, Benayas J (2007) The non-economic motives behind the willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 139:67–82
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan (MHLW) (2013). http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/. Accessed July 2016
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan (MIC) (2009) 2005 input–output Tables. http://www.soumu.go.jp/toukei_toukatsu/data/io/005index.htm. Accessed July 2016
Nordhaus WD (1991) To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect. Econ J 101(407):920–937
Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (2000) Roll the DICE again: economic modeling of climate change. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) RICE: a regional dynamic general equilibrium model of optimal climate-change policy. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2012) OECD environmental outlook to 2050. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264122246-en
Pattanayak SK (2001) How green are these valleys? Combining revealed and stated preference methods to account for ecosystem costs of deforestation. Working paper 01–02, February 2001, Research Triangle Institute
Plamberk EL, Hope CW (1996) PAGE95: an updated valuation of the impacts of global warming. Energy Policy 24(9):783–793
RCP Database (2009). http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/tnt/RcpDb. Accessed May 2016
Statistics Bureau, Japan (2013). http://www.stat.go.jp/. Accessed May 2016
ten Kate K, Laird SA (1999) The commercial use of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing. Earthscan Publications, UK
Tol RSJ (1995) The damage costs of climate change toward more comprehensive calculations. Environ Resour Econ 5(4):353–374
Tol RSJ (1999) The marginal costs of greenhouse gas estimations. Energy J 20:61–81
Tol RSJ (2002) Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part I: benchmark estimates. Environ Resour Econ 21:47–73
Turpie JK (2003) The existence value of biodiversity in South Africa: how interest, experience, knowledge, income and perceived level of threat influence local willingness to pay. Ecol Econ 46:199–216
United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs (1999) Handbook of input–output table compilation and analysis. Studies in methods—-handbook of national accounting: series F. United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, New York
Washida T (2010) An advanced methodology for global warming: an evaluation model for environmental damage and adaptation. (In Japanese) Mimeo, Sophia University. http://eco.genv.sophia.ac.jp/paper/emeda/emeda.pdf. Accessed July 2016
Washida T, Yamaura K, Sakaue S (2014) Computable general equilibrium analyses of global economic impacts and adaptation for climate change: the case of tropical cyclones. Int J Glob Warm 6(4):466–499
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Yamaura, K., Sakaue, S. & Washida, T. An assessment of global warming and biodiversity: CGE EMEDA analyses. Environ Econ Policy Stud 19, 405–426 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-016-0165-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-016-0165-2