Problem framing and study set-up

Problem framing

The biodiversity crisis can be framed in many ways, depending on the definition, importance and value of biodiversity (expressed by different indicators). Thus, the framing may range from irreversible species loss to putting the well-being of people at risk as essential (local) ecosystem services are lost.

A pressure-based approach is regarded as the interface between drivers of change and a range of sustainability and biodiversity issues, whatever definition is taken (Spangenberg, 2007). Our modelling framework views world biodiversity loss as essentially an issue of growing competition for limited and dwindling resources. Within this framework, several generally recognised human-induced pressures (Sala et al., 2000; sCBD, 2010) are responsible for ecosystem loss in extent and quality (degree to which they resemble their natural state; Bouwman et al., 2006; Alkemade et al., 2009). The model framework allows for integration and analysis of direct and indirect pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. This enables analysis of options for reducing these pressures, and thus the formulation of relevant policy actions.

The approach takes human land-use as a central and pivotal point, from which relationships are drawn with biodiversity and with the delivery of essential goods and services (Braat and ten Brink, 2008; de Groot et al., 2010). Land-use, ecosystem extent and ecosystem quality are crucial for both MSA and ecosystem goods and services delivered. This approach builds on the concepts and interests in the CBD framework, Millennium Assessment and TEEB analyses. As such, it presents a valuable addition to assessment of future trends and targets for biodiversity and related issues.

Study set-up: baseline and options

Options are assessed by comparing a Business-As-Usual scenario with several solution- oriented scenarios. The results depend on the many assumptions on (autonomous) future developments in the presence and absence of additional policies beyond 2010. According to the OECD Outlook for 2030, baseline probability is skewed towards higher pressures on the environment that reflects the

expectation of accelerated growth and consumption in dynamic new economies (Bakkes et al., 2008; OECD, 2008). Uncertainties in the future energy system stem from assumptions on lifestyle and technology. It is not easy to give a quantitative indication on the probability of these projected autonomous trends. However, several of the quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainties are present in both the baseline and options (Table 7.1). Therefore, expressing the option effects relatively (as prevented baseline biodiversity loss, or prevented land-use expansion) is a more robust way of communicating the option effects.

An alternative set-up would be to formulate several scenarios with different levels of autonomous development, and explore the effects of the options on each of these ’alternative’ baselines. Including, for instance, stronger autonomous efficiency in improvements in agriculture leaves less room for effects of further improvements in an option. Then, discussion focuses on projections of autonomous

improvements. But to focus on potential effects of policy actions, a relatively policy- poor baseline was selected to show the full potential of options.

Comparing options

The effects of individual options should be compared with caution. Firstly, their effect depends on the assumed ambition and level of implementation. Secondly, the impact of options is largely based on studies for which the underlying baseline scenarios vary. Thirdly, the list is not exhaustive. Options are conceivable which could not be integrated because of time constraints. The theoretical potential to limit biodiversity loss is thus greater than the options in this report. For instance, no options were included that counter the effects of infrastructure, or that reduce fibre and timber consumption.

The option comparison summarised in Figure 4.10.1 shows the relative and not the absolute impacts on biodiversity loss in MSA (left part) compared with the respective baselines. This figure should be interpreted as a coarse ranking of promising options.

Options combination

Setting the combination of options required choices on the options and

implementation levels. The options included are relevant because they match the recommendations of the Third Global Biodiversity Outlook, and counteract several main pressures (sCBD, 2010).

The combination of options analysed is only one example of possible solution mixes, but indicates that concerted action is required to harvest the combined potential of options. Moreover, trade-offs and leakage to other ecosystems and regions can be avoided by combining and aligning them with other policy areas. However, concerted actions over different sectors are not easily achieved and may take a long time.

In the absence of concerted sectoral biodiversity policies, ecosystem degradation will continue. Losses of species and ecosystems are not easily reverted. It takes decades to a century or more for ecosystems to fully recover with high chances

Uncertainties in indirect drivers of biodiversity loss

Population growth Assumptions based on UN medium projection.

Economic growth The direction (increase) is certain, but the size has considerably more uncertainty. Uncertainty skewed towards more environmental pressure from higher growth in industrialising countries. The current economic downturn is expected to have no significant effect on long-term economic trends.

Consumption growth The direction (increase) is certain but the growth rate has considerable uncertainty, as it is a combination of economic development leading to more disposable income and demographic development. Agricultural productivity Assumptions based on FAO projections. Discussion about the ability to continue long-term productivity

growth as assumed in the baseline scenario (which includes for instance the Green Revolution jump). Energy use Direction certain (growth) but developments in the energy system and energy mix

are uncertain and depend on lifestyle, economic growth and technology. Technology and labour

productivity Labour productivity assumed to converge towards (not necessarily reaching) long-term industrialised country average. Assumed trend includes large technological transitions (e.g., ICT) although their exact future timing is hard to predict.

that abandoned land is used for purposes other than nature development. Therefore, expanding the protected area network deserves immediate attention in the policy arena and thus presents a no-regret action. This accentuates the need to prioritise areas that need further protection.

Temporal and spatial scales

The option assessment period extends to 2050. The biodiversity gains of climate change mitigation, sustainable forestry, and nature recovery on abandoned lands are likely to occur significantly beyond this time horizon. Long-term processes are involved in all options. Thus, the potential effects of the first two options are probably underestimated. Because of these long-term responses, the risk of losing ever more biodiversity in the absence of sectoral polices, and the higher chance of success when additional habitat loss is prevented, makes it highly likely that the period up to 2030 is crucial for effective policy interventions.