Teoría evolutiva en el estudio de las emociones

In this report the analysis concentrates on issues of technical viability and performance of various options, implemented alone or in combination. Implementation costs were not estimated, neither in terms of direct (net) costs incurred by stakeholders, nor in the macro-economic terms GDP and welfare. For the combination of options the research team used its own judgement about the ambition levels of the included options (Chapter 5).

However, when considering measures to mitigate direct drivers of global biodiversity loss, more attention to issues of governance and diverging interests is necessary. This could on the one hand identify potential hurdles for implementation, and opportunities for implementation on the other hand (see for instance, Biermann et al., 2009). One way would be to assess the options on i) technical feasibility with consideration of relevant regional differences; ii) in-built

incentives to what extent direct benefits can be expected for the actors involved; and iii) conflicting or coinciding interests outside the sectors in which an option is to be implemented. These aspects warrant further attention but are beyond the scope of this report.

Most of the basic options reduce losses in global biodiversity by 2050, on all three indicators MSA (left), natural area (middle), and wilderness area (right). Change in global biodiversity of options expanding protected areas and reducing deforestation by 2030.

Figure 4.31

Expanding protected areas – 20% Expanding protected areas – 50% Reducing deforestation Closing the yield gap Reducing post-harvest losses Changing diets – Healthy diet Changing diets – No meat Improving forest management – High ambition Mitigating climate change – Without bio-energy Mitigating climate change – With bio-energy 25%

-20 0 20 40 60 % of baseline MSA loss Basic options Sensitivity variants

Change in global biodiversity of options expanding protected areas and reducing deforestation by 2030

Prevented MSA loss, 2000 – 2050

Change in global biodiversity per option compared to baseline scenario

-5 0 5 10 15 20 million km2 Basic options Sensitivity variants Natural area, 2050 -5 0 5 10 15 20 million km2 Basic options Sensitivity variants Wilderness, 2050

Mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services

One approach to reducing biodiversity loss is for the sectors to take into account the impacts on land use and biodiversity explicitly in decision making processes. This is called mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services, moving

biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns beyond their traditional biodiversity constituency and into related policy fields (sCBD, 2006; Kok et al., 2010; sCBD, 2010). It aims to make biodiversity a standard concern in the sectors that influence drivers of losses of biodiversity and environmental goods and services.

Mainstreaming biodiversity requires countries to put greater emphasis on policy coherence at national and international level, to ensure policy in one area does not increase the pressure on biodiversity unnecessarily. One way is to systematically proof policies for impact on biodiversity (sCBD, 2010). Another is to make valuation of ecosystem services in either monetary on non-monetary terms an integral part of decision-making on policies that impact ecosystems. Given that habitat loss and degradation is the largest pressure on biodiversity globally, land use planning policies are an important avenue to mainstream biodiversity concerns. Other avenues are consumer products and production systems, for instance through certification of product chains or by improved communication of consumer product footprint, and integration of biodiversity concerns in agricultural management. Trade-offs between policy fields will not disappear but mainstreaming biodiversity will help in an explicit treatment of these trade-offs, as well as using available synergies.

Benefits of mitigating indirect drivers are difficult to trace to specific locations The effects of mitigating indirect drivers of biodiversity loss are more difficult to pinpoint at specific locations or ecosystems. In contrast, efforts to expand or improve protected areas are better able to show their benefits, for instance, by the numbers of species protected or ecosystems preserved. For example, it is not easy to trace or project where the environmental effects of a reduction in meat consumption or an increase in agricultural yields will exactly occur. This depends on a range of global, regional and not least local conditions: access to land, land prices, trade policies, capital and financing problems, labour costs and many others. This makes the benefits of policies that target direct drivers more elusive to pin down in terms of locations and number of endangered species saved. It also creates a responsibility gap and presents a governance issue. The same holds for improvements in more sustainable use of environmental goods and services, making it more difficult to promote and get public support for the required policies. Results of a survey sent out to CBD national focal points

The focal points of the CBD parties were invited to respond to a survey, aimed at assessing perceptions on i) benefits to biodiversity, ii) desirability and iii) feasibility of the different options presented in this chapter. In total, eighteen questionnaires were returned with responses from all continents. Too few responses were received to make definite conclusions, or to investigate alternative option ambitions. The results seem to suggest that reducing meat consumption was evaluated low in terms of desirability and feasibility. In contrast, options that directly benefit forests, Improving Forest Management and Reducing Deforestation, scored high on perceived benefits to biodiversity as well as on desirability and

feasibility. Other options, such as Expansion of Protected Areas showed no clear pattern for perceived benefits to biodiversity desirability and feasibility (see also Annex A).