Dios Habla en Nuestra Conciencia y Grita en Nuestro Dolor

This chapter describes the baseline used in the OECD Environmental Outlook. To analyse the impact of different options, a number of studies have been compiled, many of which used a different reference scenario than the OECD baseline. Variations in reference scenarios may be caused by different assumptions, model parameters or differences in drivers. For example, the policy package in Chapter 6 draws on a reference scenario implemented with an improved version of the IMAGE-GLOBIO model suite (a new forestry module), and assumes slightly different economic drivers (economic crisis).

The different reference scenarios span a considerable range of outcomes for biodiversity. Mean Species Abundance (MSA) in 2050 ranges from 60% to 65%.

Biodiversity loss between 2000 and 2050 in terms of MSA ranges from 6.7 to 9.9 percent points in the different scenarios. Provided the impacts of biodiversity options are reported as a relative change to the baseline, the underlying baseline is assumed to be of lesser importance.

between 2000 and 2050 (Figure 3.7). This large impact illustrates the sensitivity of baseline projections to assumptions on agricultural productivity;

ƒ Natural areas shrink by an additional 9 million km2 _{by 2050. This is mostly due to}

expansion of arable land into grazing areas, and conversion of grazing land to nature areas. Arable land would expand by more than 12 million km2 _compared

to the baseline scenario for 2050 to about double the area in 2000 (Figure 3.8); ƒ The additional loss in wilderness area would be 6 million km2 _{or some 40% higher}

than in the baseline scenario (see Figure 3.8). 3.3.2 Liberalisation of agricultural trade

This variation assumes liberalisation of agricultural markets worldwide by the gradual removal of import tariffs and other market distortions up to 2015. Economic growth, food consumption and demographic developments follow baseline projections (based on Verburg et al., 2009).

Trade liberalisation works in multiple directions

The effects of agricultural trade liberalisation on biodiversity loss differ markedly between regions (Huang and Labys, 2001; Eickhout et al., 2006). Anticipated effects include better dissemination of environment-friendly agricultural technologies and improved efficiency by shifting production to the most productive regions (Antweiler et al., 2001). Natural areas with low costs of labour and land may see increase in agricultural production. This will incur biodiversity losses (Barbier, 2000; sCBD and PBL, 2007). Abandoned agricultural areas offer opportunities for nature restoration, but at the risk of losing specific elements of agro-biodiversity. With stagnation of agricultural productivity (compared to the baseline), additional MSA loss may occur by 2050 caused primarily by expanding agriculture.

Figure 3.7 Prevented loss Increased loss Net prevented loss -100 -50 0 50 % of baseline MSA loss

Crops Other

Net prevented loss

Stagnation in agricultural productivity growth

Global results

The assumption of trade liberalisation of agricultural produce yields different trends:

ƒ The total additional loss in MSA is 0.3 percent points relative to the baseline scenario. This amounts to an additional 4.5% of the baseline loss between 2000 and 2050 (Figure 3.9). If abandoned land is left to fully recover to its natural state, biodiversity loss is only marginally larger than in the baseline (total potential after 2050);

ƒ Natural areas will shrink by an additional 0.4 million km2 _{by 2050;}

ƒ The additional loss in wilderness area would be around 1 million km2_{, mostly}

tropical forest and grassland in Central and South America (Figure 3.10.). Land converted in the tropical forest biome consists of cerrado type vegetation, woodlands formerly cleared for timber and tropical rainforest (Verburg et al., 2009).

Small net global biodiversity effects mask large regional changes

The relatively small net global effect masks considerable regional impacts on biodiversity. Trade liberalisation results in expansion of grazing areas in Central

With trade liberalisation of agricultural produce (compared with the baseline scenario), additional MSA loss may occur by 2050 caused primarily by shifting agriculture between world regions. Figure 3.9 Prevented loss Increased loss Net prevented loss -10 0 10 20

% of baseline MSA loss

Pressures Crops Pasture Climate change Other

Liberalisation of agricultural trade

Prevented global MSA loss compared to baseline scenario, 2000 – 2050

Net prevented loss after full recovery Recovery of MSA on abandoned land after 2050

With stagnation of agricultural productivity (compared to the baseline), further loss in natural area by 2050 is most prominent in OECD countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. For wilder- ness areas, several biomes are affected, mostly in tropical forests, savannah and grasslands.

OECD

-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 million km2 Stagnation in agricultural productivity growth; Natural area per region

Boreal forest Temperate forest Tropical forest Grassland and steppe Scrubland and savannah Ice and tundra Desert -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 million km2 Stagnation in agricultural productivity growth; Wilderness per biome

Change in natural area and wilderness compared to baseline scenario, 2050

Central and South America Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Russia and Central Asia South Asia China region Figure 3.8

and South America at the cost of wilderness areas. Cropland will decrease in OECD countries, mainly in the European Union and North America. The principal reason is a shift in livestock production particularly beef cattle from the OECD region with heavy reliance on feed supplies to pasture-based production in Central and South America particularly Brazil with abundant land and lower labour costs. The imbalance between the net increase in pasture area (0.6 million km2_{) and the}

decrease in cropland (0.3 million km2_{) reflects differences in productivity between}

land-use in the two regions.

The effects of trade liberalisation are estimated to be less significant in other world regions. In China, for example, most of the suitable areas are already used for agriculture and in Sub-Saharan Africa, substantial agricultural expansion is also foreseen without trade liberalisation. Further acceleration is held back by constraints other than international trade opportunities (see Sections 3.2 and 6.1)1). In this option, trade liberalisation has no effect on economic growth and

consumption levels, which could aggravate the environmental effects (as seen in the same option in: sCBD and PBL, 2007).

1) Most African nations have preferential access to the EU or other OECD markets, which would erode with global trade liberalisation. Opportunities for regional trade are considered to be economically more rewarding for Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO and World Bank, 2009).

With trade liberalisation of agricultural produce (compared with the baseline scenario), additional MSA loss may occur by 2050 caused primarily by shifting agriculture between world regions. Figure 3.9 Prevented loss Increased loss Net prevented loss -10 0 10 20

% of baseline MSA loss

Pressures Crops Pasture Climate change Other

Liberalisation of agricultural trade

Prevented global MSA loss compared to baseline scenario, 2000 – 2050

Net prevented loss after full recovery Recovery of MSA on abandoned land after 2050

With stagnation of agricultural productivity (compared to the baseline), further loss in natural area by 2050 is most prominent in OECD countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. For wilder- ness areas, several biomes are affected, mostly in tropical forests, savannah and grasslands.

OECD

-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 million km2 Stagnation in agricultural productivity growth; Natural area per region

Boreal forest Temperate forest Tropical forest Grassland and steppe Scrubland and savannah Ice and tundra Desert -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 million km2 Stagnation in agricultural productivity growth; Wilderness per biome

Change in natural area and wilderness compared to baseline scenario, 2050

Central and South America Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Russia and Central Asia South Asia China region

With trade liberalisation of agricultural produce, natural area will be lost by 2050 mainly in Central and South America, while natural areas will increase in OECD countries. This affects mostly tropical forests and grasslands.

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 million km2 Liberalisation of agricultural trade;

Natural area per region

Boreal forest Temperate forest Tropical forest Grassland and steppe Scrubland and savannah Ice and tundra Desert -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 million km2 Liberalisation of agricultural trade;

Wilderness per biome

Change in natural area and wilderness compared to baseline scenario, 2050

OECD Central and South America Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Russia and Central Asia South Asia China region Figure 3.10

With trade liberalisation of agricultural produce, natural area will be lost by 2050 mainly in Central and South America, while natural areas will increase in OECD countries. This affects mostly tropical forests and grasslands.

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 million km2 Liberalisation of agricultural trade;

Natural area per region

Boreal forest Temperate forest Tropical forest Grassland and steppe Scrubland and savannah Ice and tundra Desert -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 million km2 Liberalisation of agricultural trade;

Wilderness per biome

Change in natural area and wilderness compared to baseline scenario, 2050

OECD Central and South America Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Russia and Central Asia South Asia China region

Eight options for