In order to preserve biodiversity in the long term, the Ministry of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (UVEK) has developed a national biodiversity strategy on behalf of the Federal Council. It was adopted by the Federal Council on 25 April 2012. The corresponding action plan is expected to be completed by the end of 2017. It will set out concrete measures to achieve the ten strategic objectives to ensure the long-term conservation of biodiversity in Switzerland. In this section, we examine the stability of our three-feature IEA model for biodiversity protection when countries are asymmetrical. We consider two separate types of asymmetries. First, we address the asymmetry of conservation benefits and costs of countries defined as “double-sided asymmetry.” Then we look at countries that have different conservation ceilings. For both types of asymmetries, we analyze the stability of the coalition without and with the inclusion of a transfer scheme. National strategies and action plans for biodiversity are the main instruments for implementing the convention at the national level. The Convention requires countries to develop a national biodiversity strategy and to ensure that it is integrated into business planning in all areas where diversity may be compromised. By early 2012, 173 contracting parties had developed NBSAPs.  Our model makes an innovative contribution to the literature for the protection of international biodiversity by including (1) a natural conservation ceiling in each country associated with a hyperbolic cost function, (2) the inclusion of local conservation benefits to present the various criteria on which the benefits of biodiversity are perceived, and (3) the sub-arreality of the global conservation function. For a more complete analysis, we examine these characteristics in the hypothesis of countries that are both symmetrical and asymmetrical, and we also allow transfers that could be implemented by an international biodiversity credit market.
We focus on these characteristics to examine the impact they have on coalition stability and the potential for effective agreements on biodiversity. Rooms, J.M.. (2011). The values of biodiversity and ecosystem services: why should we put economic values on nature? Biology Reports, 334 (5-6), 469-482. The third feature is the under-nudity of the overall conservation function. IEA models focus primarily on reducing emissions and generally define overall emission reduction levels as the sum of individual emission reduction levels for all countries. For biodiversity, there is no standardized, generally accepted measure of aggregated conservation levels. That is why we take up a conceptual framework developed by Weitzman (1998).
In this context, conservation measures are associated with groups of species or ecosystems. A measure of diversity can in principle be based on the difference between species in a single sentence. Although this information is generally not available, the framework can be put into service using a species census as an approximate measure of biodiversity. The census of species is conceptually simple, but it is still close to biodiversity, albeit at the ecosystem level (Weikard 2002, Proposal 1). Since it is plausible that two countries retain some common species, we assume that the overall preservation of biodiversity is a sub-additive function of the aggregate of individual biodiversity preservation of all countries. Punt et al. (2012) has developed an explicit model of aggregation of biodiversity across regions. The model of this document focuses on the preservation of biodiversity as an intrinsic political objective. We consider it to be one of the IEA`s main biodiversity objectives, and this is one of the main objectives of the CBD (UN 1992), for example.