1

1

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Sectoral scenarios and mainstreaming biodiversity (working title) SBSTTA Review version. Do not cite or quote!!!

2

Sectoral scenarios and mainstreaming 1

biodiversity (working title) 2

SBSTTA version – for review and internal use only 3 PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment 4 Agency 5 The Hague, 2014 6 7

Corresponding author 8

Marcel Kok (marcel.kok@pbl.nl) 9

Rob Alkemade (rob.alkemade@pbl.nl) 10

11

Authors 12

Marcel Kok, Rob Alkemade, Henk Westhoek, 13

Martha van Eerdt, Mark van Oorschot, Jan Janse, 14

Tom Kram, Johan Meijer, Michel Bakkenes, Tanya 15

Lazarova (PBL) 16 17 Villy Christensen, Louise Teh (UBC) 18 19 Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Vincent Linderhof 20

(WUR) 21 22 Roderick Zagt (Tropenbos) 23

24

Supervisor 25

Keimpe Wieringa 26

27

Contributors 28

Stephan van der Esch, Ben Ten Brink, Paul Lucas, 29

Maryia Mandryk, Nora Steurer, Natalia Lutti 30

Hummel, Sofia Argyropoulou, Antoine le Gal, 31

Matthijs Kolpa (PBL) 32

33

Acknowledgements 34

…… 35

36

English editing 37

…… 38

39

Graphics 40

Marian Abels, Johan Meijer, Filip de Blois 41

3

Contents 1 Main Messages ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2

Chapter 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 15 3

1.1. Context and rationale.................................................................................................................. 15 4

1.2. Aim and research questions ........................................................................................................ 15 5

1.3. Definitions and Approach............................................................................................................ 16 6

1.4. Report outline ............................................................................................................................. 20 7

Chapter 2. Biodiversity futures .............................................................................................................. 21 8

2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 21 9

2.2. Trend scenario and its implications for biodiversity .................................................................. 22 10

2.3. Drivers of biodiversity loss in the Trend scenario ...................................................................... 26 11

2.4. Ecosystem services at risk in the Trend scenario ....................................................................... 31 12

2.5. Pathways: how to secure long-term sustainability .................................................................... 35 13

2.6. What is the major contribution of the sectors and what are the main options ........................ 40 14

Chapter 3. Production of food, fuel and natural fibre........................................................................... 42 15

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 42 16

3.2. Description of the food sector .................................................................................................... 42 17

3.3. Impact on biodiversity / benefits from ecosystem services ....................................................... 44 18

3.4. What is the sector already doing in favour of biodiversity? ...................................................... 47 19

3.5. What are the long term options? ............................................................................................... 55 20

3.6. Possible actions to further reduce the loss of biodiversity ........................................................ 63 21

Chapter 4. Wood production sector ...................................................................................................... 68 22

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 68 23

4.2. Description of the wood production sector ............................................................................... 69 24

4.3. Impacts on natural resources including biodiversity .................................................................. 76 25

4.4. What is the sector already doing in favor of biodiversity .......................................................... 83 26

4.5. Effects of long term options in the wood production sector ..................................................... 93 27

4.6. What are the options for the various actors within the forestry system? ............................... 100 28

Chapter 5. The water management sector ......................................................................................... 107 29

5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 107 30

5.2. Description of the sector ........................................................................................................... 107 31

5.3. Impacts and benefits ................................................................................................................. 110 32

5.4 . What is the sector already doing in favour of biodiversity? ................................................... 112 33

5.5. What are the long term options? ............................................................................................. 118 34

4

5.6. Possible actions to further reduce the loss of biodiversity ...................................................... 119 1

Chapter 6. Fisheries ............................................................................................................................. 120 2

6.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 120 3

6.2. Description of the fisheries sector ........................................................................................... 121 4

6.3. Fisheries impact on biodiversity ............................................................................................... 122 5

6.4. What are the long term options? ............................................................................................. 124 6

6.5. What is the sector already doing in favour of biodiversity? .................................................... 126 7

6.6. Barriers and possible actions to further reduce the loss of biodiversity. ................................ 127 8

Chapter 7. Strategic directions for mainstreaming biodiversity in sectors ......................................... 129 9

7.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 129 10

7.2. Barriers and levers for mainstreaming biodiversity in sectors ................................................. 130 11

7.3. Integrated approaches on the landscape level ....................................................................... 132 12

7.4. Business & biodiversity initiatives in supply chains. Contribution of different actors ............. 137 13

7.5. Consumption change, healthy diets and biodiversity .............................................................. 145 14

7.6. Mobilising sectoral finance flows for biodiversity .................................................................... 147 15

7.7. Capacities needed for mainstreaming biodiversity .................................................................. 152 16

7.8. Biodiversity and ecosystems as part of the Sustainable Development Goals .......................... 155 17

7.9. Implications for biodiversity policies ........................................................................................ 159 18

19

20

5

Main Messages 1

In general 2

The mid-term evaluation of progress (sCBD, forthcoming1) towards meeting the Strategic Plan for 3

Biodiversity 2010-2020 will show that based on current trends, pressures on biodiversity will 4

continue to increase at least until 2020, and that biodiversity will continue to decline. While 5

there has been some progress, in most cases this will not be sufficient to achieve the goals set for 6

2020. Additional action is therefore required to keep the Strategic Plan on course. Mainstreaming 7

of biodiversity into sectors needs to be part of those actions. Improving current efforts as well as 8

a massive scaling up will be necessary to halt biodiversity loss. 9

Adopting a sectoral perspective in mainstreaming biodiversity is essential, as sectors such as 10

agriculture, wood production, water-management and fisheries to a large extent shape the 11

world’s biodiversity. These sectors are dependent on biodiversity and healthy ecosystems in 12

various ways to provide food, fibre, wood, energy, fish and clean water to the world’s growing 13

human population. At the same time, under a continuation of current trends, these sectors will 14

also contribute to the further loss of biodiversity in the coming 10-20 years. 15

o Demand for food, fibre, wood, water and energy is projected to increase 1.5-2 fold with 16

rise in global population and increasing wealth. 17

o Agricultural land will expand further, and so will managed forests at the expense of 18

primary forest and other high conservation value land. 19

o Scale of global supply chains will be expanded and more frequent movement of transport 20

vessels will accelerate new arrivals of invasive alien species, pests and disease causative 21

agents. 22

23

Mainstreaming biodiversity into sector relevant decision-making processes (‘governance for 24

biodiversity’) will create a powerful and necessary complement to nature conservation and 25

species protection (‘governance of biodiversity’). However, it is also important to realize that 26

there are limits to what sectoral mainstreaming strategies can achieve for reducing biodiversity 27

loss. Mainstreaming therefore always needs to be part of a broader policy approach (Figure 1) 28

29

o Mainstreaming biodiversity is defined in this study as the process of embedding 30

biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private 31

actors that impact on biodiversity, so that it is conserved and the services that it provides 32

are sustainably used both locally and globally. 33

o In situations with natural resource management policy frameworks for sectors in place, 34

mainstreaming contributes to compliance and going beyond the regulatory minimum, in 35

situations where these are lacking mainstreaming strategies may contribute to filling a 36

regulatory void at the basic level. Reaching the informal economy will remain a challenge 37

(in agriculture - subsistence and family farming - wood production and fisheries). 38

o Both public and private (business, civil society) actors are important for mainstreaming 39

biodiversity in production sectors, each with separate but interrelated roles and 40

responsibilities. 41

1 This report will be made consistent with the final version of the GBO-4 report before publication, for the

current version the latest draft for review is used.

6

1

Mainstreaming biodiversity within sectors is more likely to succeed if and where biodiversity is 2

aligned with the core interests of the primary producers, consumers and intermediate suppliers. 3

o For agriculture this means emphasising the value of biodiversity in/for pest control, 4

pollination and soil fertility, and protecting natural elements that reduce erosion risk and 5

enhance water availability. In addition the protection of the diversity of crop, livestock 6

and fish varieties (agro-biodiversity), and their wild relatives are of long term interest for 7

maintaining viable and resilient crop varieties and livestock breeds. 8

o Sustained wood production, similar to the role of biodiversity in the agricultural sector, 9

depends on a well-functioning forest ecosystem. Diversity of tree species is essential to 10

provide the variety of different forest products. Forests and its services also provide 11

services to agriculture and water-management. 12

o In water management biodiversity and well-functioning ecosystems are essential for the 13

provision of clean water. Natural elements and upstream forests in catchment areas and 14

natural river, lake and wetland systems regulate water flows, allow adequate water 15

provision for the different users and decrease the vulnerability to climate change. 16

o In fisheries protecting the variety of fish stocks is essential for both biodiversity and fish 17

production. Responsible fisheries and aqua-culture can prevent establishment and 18

spread of invasive alien species. Fish stocks are dependent of healthy ecosystems such as 19

coastal zones and coral reefs. 20

o In transport and trade activities in all sectors applying appropriate measures to prevent 21

invasive alien species, as well as pests and diseases is urged. 22

23

Mainstreaming biodiversity should preferably build on goals that primary producers, 24

governments and other actors throughout the supply chain have in common, and initiatives they 25

are already taking in the field of sustainable production methods and securing resource supplies. 26

Such initiatives provide linkages towards biodiversity and might form a basis for scaling-up by 27

capitalizing on their knowledge and experience. Figure 2 depicts the broad perspective on sectors 28

taken in this study. We suggest, while noting regional variations, the following starting points for 29

mainstreaming amongst primary producers, actors in the supply chain and on the consumption 30

side: 31

o Primary Production: mainstreaming efforts toward primary producers need to emphasize 32

their dependency of a healthy and sustained natural resource base that is able to deliver 33

food, fiber, wood, fish and clean water. At this level there is a direct relationship 34

between more sustainable production methods and successfully reducing the current 35

rate of biodiversity loss. 36

o Supply chain: sustainability at large is becoming increasingly important for actors 37

throughout the supply chain, but without necessarily paying sufficient attention to 38

biodiversity. Mainstreaming needs to focus on better including biodiversity concerns in 39

existing and emerging sustainability efforts. 40

o Consumption: amongst end-users awareness of and attention to biodiversity in 41

consumption choices is thus far largely missing. Mainstreaming efforts towards 42

consumers could raise awareness of the benefits of biodiversity for food security as well 43

7

as healthy and sustainable diets. This would help to create demand for more biodiversity 1

friendly produced consumer goods. 2

Various actors in different parts of the supply chain (such as processors, traders, retailers, 3

investors and banks) hold key positions to create demand for more sustainably, biodiversity-4

friendly, produced consumption goods (see again figure 2). A relatively small number of actors 5

may be able to realise major changes throughout the value chain, which provides important 6

levers for change. 7

o Decisions taken by primary producers are influenced by key actors throughout the value 8

chain, including consumers and other end-users. 9

o Building partnerships between public and private actors to explore the potential for 10

mainstreaming biodiversity, much improves the perspective on levers of change. 11

12

A number of governance and market failures hinder the mainstreaming of biodiversity in sectors. 13

These include : the lack of a level playing field for sustainably operating companies; long-term 14

financing of sustainable solutions; lack of law enforcement hampering the exclusion of illegal, 15

unsustainably, produced goods; lack of payment systems awarding the actors that need to 16

perform sustainable management; consideration of local interests and organization of local 17

involvement in sustainable production; cross-sectoral alignment of efforts; valuation of 18

biodiversity and environmental services beyond resource security; concrete operationalization of 19

the concepts of biodiversity and ecosystem services; awareness of the problems and possible 20

solutions; knowledge on the actual on-ground impacts of mainstreaming efforts; as well as 21

poverty as driver of unsustainable resource use. 22

To contribute to the realisation of the Biodiversity 2050 Vision of the Strategic Plan and the Aichi 23

Biodiversity Targets, sectors need to adopt a broad set of options and step-up and scale-up their 24

efforts towards sustainable, biodiversity-friendly, production methods. There are alternative 25

pathways for sectors to do so, emphasizing either intensified production on relatively smaller 26

areas, more sustainable use over more extended areas or the contribution of changes in 27

consumption patterns. How these alternative pathways work out for biodiversity was analysed 28

in detail (using a model-based back-casting approach). The outcomes of this analysis are provided 29

for global, terrestrial ecosystems in figure 3, while figure 4 provides sectoral detail that will be 30

elaborated below. Note that the impact of important drivers, such as invasive species, is not 31

included in this analysis. 32

o Scenario-analysis in this report shows three different pathways for agriculture, forestry, 33

water-management and fisheries to contribute to halting biodiversity loss, while at the 34

same time realising a much broader set of sustainability objectives including eradication 35

of poverty, feeding the world, supplying clean energy and limiting global temperature 36

increase to two degrees. 37

o Biodiversity is described in this analysis as the ‘mean species abundance relative to the 38

abundance of originally occurring species’ (MSA). Furthermore consequences for several 39

ecosystem services are provided 40

o These pathways should not be interpreted as a blueprint. Rather they are used to identify 41

potentials of different technical and behavioural options, necessary efforts, trade-offs 42

and synergies to halt biodiversity loss from a sectoral perspective. 43

8

Production of food, fuel and natural fibre 1

Food production and its supply and demand chain is the economic sector with the largest impact on 2

biodiversity, contributing for 60-70% of the total reduction of MSA in terrestrial ecosystems and 3

about 50% of MSA in freshwater systems. As the demand for food, fuel and natural fibre will 4

continue to increase over the coming decades, improved production methods and a more balanced 5

use of natural resources are of utmost importance. While the largest share of the impact is at the 6

primary production stage, key opportunities to reduce the pressure on biodiversity are mainly in the 7

hand of other actors along the supply chain. 8

9

In regions with low crop productivity, increasing crop yields by means of sustainable intensification is 10

an effective and profitable way to reduce pressure on land and thus avoid conversion of forests, 11

wetlands and other more natural areas into cropland. This requires a joint effort of governments and 12

private actors. At the same time, in order to improve food security, this sustainable intensification 13

needs to be carried out in an inclusive way, which means that it simultaneously enhances livelihoods 14

in rural areas, especially of smallholder farms. Food security will also benefit from the nutritional 15

benefits provided by biodiversity. In regions with high crop yields, local farmland biodiversity is 16

typically low. This can be improved through the introduction and restoration of semi-natural 17

landscape elements, perhaps with recreational use, and small set-aside areas of farmland. If 18

prudently done, such a shift towards multifunctional land use will increase biodiversity while 19

affecting crop yields only marginally. The sustainable development of the livestock sector and the 20

prevention of converting areas with primary vegetation into agricultural land are also important 21

actions for reducing the impact of the agriculture sector on biodiversity. In addition, increased uptake 22

of certification schemes, which address biodiversity issues, and participation in initiatives, such as the 23

Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) or the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), are other 24

important options for producers. Finally, nutrient losses and nitrogen and pesticide emissions need 25

to be addressed, as these cause major stresses to proper functioning ecosystems. This could be done 26

through the establishment of policies, such as the EU framework directives on nitrates and water. 27

28

The supply chain and consumer market, most notably retailers, restaurants and catering business, 29

could play a major role in this shift towards more biodiversity friendly agriculture. However, the 30

private sector needs governmental support for this, e.g. by promoting certification systems, 31

encouraging Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and regulating markets to create level playing 32

fields. Small holder farmers need a guarantee on return of long term investments. At the 33

consumption side, the two most important actions are the reduction of food wastes (through 34

initiatives such as FAO’s Save Food) and dietary shifts (especially in developed and emerging 35

economies) towards a more plant-based diet. 36

Wood production sector 37

The demand for wood products, such as timber, wood fuel, pulp and paper will continue to increase. 38

There will also be a rising demand for wood-based bio-energy, driven by climate targets. The main 39

sources of these products are forests. The extraction of wood products is a main driver of biodiversity 40

loss in forests, accounting for about 5-10% MSA loss, while agricultural expansion is the main driver 41

for forest loss. 42

43

9

The options to reduce biodiversity loss, while maintaining production are, shifting production to high-1

yield plantations established in degraded and low-biodiversity areas, implementing sustainable forest 2

management in (semi) natural forests and, increasing processing efficiency and the re-use and 3

recycling of wood products. Government involvement is necessary to complement sectoral action in 4

aspects as: land tenure, land-use planning (in order to secure benefits of “land-sparing”) and 5

development of options to value forests and their services. Because of the high biodiversity 6

contained in forests, and the significant value of well managed forests for conserving this 7

biodiversity, any option that reduces incentives to convert forests rather than manage them for 8

timber and other products and services is beneficial for biodiversity conservation. In a general sense, 9

this implies strengthening the business case for sustainable forest management (based on a broad 10

range of forest products and services, and viable, risk-mitigated investment opportunities) and 11

weakening the business case for illegal logging and trade through governance reform, law 12

enforcement and closing markets for illegal produce. 13

14

Challenges for governments are combating illegal logging, stimulating certification systems and the 15

creation of local markets for sustainably produced forest products. 16

However, a large part of global wood use is out of reach of the industrial wood sector, and is driven 17

by local informal wood production and collection. The main options to reduce biodiversity impacts of 18

the informal and small scale sector must address the underlying governance and market failures that 19

constrain the development of the informal sector and favour the persistence of unsustainable 20

practices presently. For local and subsistence use, wood production outside the forests such as in 21

agro-forestry systems and micro-plantations could play a large role. 22

Water management sector 23

Ensuring freshwater availability, water quality and water safety and meeting the demands of all users 24

of the world’s water systems, will continue to pose challenges in the future. Mono-functional, 25

technical (so-called ‘grey’) solutions, traditionally chosen by the water management sector, have not 26

only led to extensive alteration of water bodies and biodiversity loss, but have also hampered 27

multifunctional use. 28

29

In many cases, water management goals can be achieved by naturally functioning ecosystems, 30

thereby creating a synergy with biodiversity protection. For this reason, ecologically-based water 31

management should be the preferred approach if biodiversity goals are to be achieved. Where 32

technical solutions are unavoidable, they need to be implemented with minimum side-effects on 33

nature. ‘Green infrastructure’ solutions are possible in the fields of: land-use management (such as 34

forest and wetland conservation and restriction of agricultural practices in source areas of drinking 35

water), improved treatment and recycling of wastewater, integrated river basin management 36

(preservation of wetlands for water retention and filtration, maintenance of river flow, restoration of 37

fish migration, floodplain extension as natural flood protection), lake management (restoration of 38

connectivity between lakes and wetlands, natural shorelines), stream restoration (re-meandering, 39

riparian zones), reduction of water demand, generation of hydropower (although difficult to combine 40

with biotic demands, mitigation measures can be implemented in their design and management). 41

42

In all these fields, already several initiatives are being taken in various parts of the world. Still, the 43

implementation of ecologically sound water management is generally speaking in its infancy. 44

10

Historical, traditional and institutional barriers, and the unequal division of costs and benefits, limit 1

its wider use. Public demands for multifunctional water bodies, broader cost-benefit-analyses and 2

fair financial attribution of these costs and benefits among stakeholders, are factors that could 3

support the ‘green way’ in water management. Based on sound knowledge of the water systems and 4

the water users in a river catchment area, stakeholders including public authorities, consultants, 5

executive companies, NGO’s, water users and scientists should work together to create innovative 6

solutions per river basin 7

Marine fisheries sector 8

Seafood provides around 3 billion people with their protein needs, and supplies one tenth of global 9

agricultural trade. As such, fisheries and aquaculture production is important for food security, 10

livelihood, and economies. 11

The global demand for seafood is predicted to increase from around 150 million t in 2010 to over 210 12

million tons in 2050, and as global capture fisheries production has stagnated in recent decades and 13

projected increased demand for seafood will have to be met by increased aquaculture production. 14

The increased aquaculture production will have implications for biodiversity, e.g., through increased 15

use of and impact on forage fish species, and land and water resources, but these are topics that 16

have not been explored in much detail and which therefore are poorly understood. 17

The stagnation of fisheries landings can be linked to overexploitation, which remains a global 18

problem for fisheries production and profitability. Yet, there has been progress in the parts of the 19

world where fisheries management is effective, including in the North Atlantic, which was where 20

overexploitation initially was recognized as a major problem. 21

In other parts of the world where fisheries management is non-existing or ineffective, (i.e., notably in 22

the developing part of the world), the main instruments for making fisheries sustainable include 23

altering the incentives fishers have for fishing. This can be promoted by by ending the widespread 24

use of capacity-increasing subsidies, and by introduction of local management of fisheries resources, 25

e.g., through co-management arrangements or Territorial Use Rights Fisheries (TURFs). 26

There has been considerable progress with introduction of certification schemes for capture 27

fisheries, and this has contributed toward sustainability. The vast majority of certified fisheries are, 28

however, in developed countries, and this market may be approaching a saturation level (as 29

indicated by decrease in the number of fisheries that are currently undergoing certification). The 30

situation for fisheries certification may thus be comparable to what is happening with certification 31

for forestry. 32

Fishing directly impacts biodiversity through the removal of fish and modification of marine habitats. 33

Further, destructive fishing practices directly damage or modify habitat structure with resulting 34

impacts on both target and non-target species. The widespread and increasing use of bottom-35

impacting fishing gear as are of concern, as are the use of other destructive fishing gears that impact 36

vulnerable habitats such as coral reefs, sea-grasses, cold water corals and sponge grounds-habitat 37

types that are declining at accelerating rates worldwide. 38

Challenges for governments to obtain sustainability of fisheries are of at least two categories, for 39

domestic fisheries there is a short- to medium-term trade-off between employment and income on 40

11

one hand, and rebuilding of fish populations on the other. Further, international agreements are 1

needed for sustainable exploitation of highly migratory and straddling fish stocks as well as for open 2

ocean fisheries, notably to avoid mining of these resources. 3

Need for cross-sectoral approaches 4

There are clear linkages between the sectors presented here, which also implies that solutions 5

that are looked for need to be looked at in coherence to avoid trade-offs and capture possible 6

synergies . 7

Strategies 8

Based on the foregoing main messages, what strategies can public and private actors follow to 9

support the above mentioned economic sectors in reducing biodiversity loss and enhancing the 10

sustainable use of natural resources? 11

12

In order to sufficiently embed biodiversity considerations into sectoral policies, strategies and 13

practices, an intensified collective mainstreaming effort is needed by countries, the private sector 14

and civil society. An integrated approach is necessary to effectively step-up and scale-up efforts 15

to mainstream biodiversity and help move sectors into a more biodiversity-friendly direction. 16

Promising strategic options include: 17

18

o Integrated planning approaches at land as well as at sea, in order to ensure that sector 19

development is balanced with biodiversity conservation and that all opportunities to 20

employ ecosystem services are utilized. 21

o Cooperate with private sector initiatives to maximize the inclusion of biodiversity in the 22

many voluntary and private rule-setting, reporting and verification mechanisms (such as 23

certification, CSR, accounting, disclosure/transparency) that are currently emerging. 24

These drive many of the management decisions of the front-runners businesses relevant 25

for primary production. 26

o Facilitate private initiatives to shift future investments towards a biodiversity-friendly 27

direction, using various innovative finance mechanisms (IFM). Different IFMs will suit 28

different sectors and scales. 29

o Organize informational and educational campaigns to demonstrate what (agro)-30

biodiversity can do for improved food security and more healthy diets and what negative 31

impacts current food production has on biodiversity. Redesign public and private 32

procurement policies as to expand the demand for biodiversity friendly, certified 33

products and target public health and nutrition. 34

o Build the capacities needed within governments and the private sector to move sectors 35

into a biodiversity-friendly direction, including improved awareness and knowledge, 36

capacities for integrated policy approaches within governments, decision-support tools in 37

business and reporting mechanisms that include biodiversity. 38

o Strengthen shared visions and sense of urgency in sectors on the sustainable use and 39

conservation of biodiversity. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets and 2050 Vision of the 40

Strategic Plan for Biodiversity could be reflected in sectoral long-term goals and 41

strategies. The SDGs will provide a good starting point for follow up within sectors. 42

43

12

While these options require the joint effort of private and public actors, public policies will be 1

hugely important to make this happen. 2

o Governments at home could improve integrated policy approaches, using both 3

sectoral policy mechanisms (agricultural plans, national forest plans, fisheries, 4

integrated water management planning, climate adaptation and mitigation plans, 5

energy planning), broader economic planning (poverty reduction, economic 6

planning) and biodiversity policy mechanisms (NBSAPs) in coherence; provide the 7

necessary regulatory and enabling conditions under which biodiversity friendly 8

practices and players can compete fairly; create co-management schemes on the 9

landscape level; stimulate business opportunities and protect innovative initiatives 10

for biodiversity throughout the supply chain; create the conditions (get rid of harmful 11

subsidies, use public procurement) to make biodiversity-friendly production a part of 12

the ‘new normalcy’ of sustainable production and consumption; Science, technology 13

and education can play important roles to develop technologies for sustainable use 14

of biodiversity and inform on status of biodiversity with scientific evidence to all 15

relevant actors, including those in business sector, consumers and youth. 16

o Governments together, in the UN/Bretton Woods institutions and multilateral 17

conventions have to ensure coherent global norms and policy approaches (CBD, UNCCD, 18

UNFCCC, WTO) for sectors and biodiversity important sectoral bodies (FAO, WHO, WB) 19

and other regimes like trade (e.g. trade barriers for certified products, subsidies), finance 20

(e.g. FDI, investment-conditions), development assistance (e.g. on ground projects, 21

development planning) and climate (e.g. REDD+, ecosystem-based climate adaptation) 22

and inclusion of biodiversity in UN partnerships with business such as the Global 23

Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative and the UN Forum on Sustainability Standards; 24

and support development of private norms of private norms, reporting and review 25

mechanisms (e.g. ISEAL or ISO for certification). 26

o The CBD can play a leading role in mainstreaming the soul and content of the Aichi 27

targets into public and private governance of sectors. This can be done through 28

international norm development using the Aichi Biodiversity Targets as starting point, 29

active participation in newly emerging public and private partnerships and active 30

engagement in the implementation frameworks of existing policy frameworks and 31

coordination mechanisms in the UN and increased collaboration with the Bretton Woods 32

institutions. In addition the CBD could include biodiversity initiatives and goals of sectoral 33

bodies and other convention into their own strategies. A key challenge will be to create 34

ownership and leadership amongst key players in public and private governance for 35

biodiversity. 36

37

Successful mainstreaming of biodiversity in production sectors will inherently become a very 38

diverse, dispersed and long-term process, involving many different actors. As this approach also 39

has its limitations, it needs to be seen as part of a broad policy agenda, where governments need 40

to play a complementary, regulatory and guiding role. The challenge will be to ensure coherence 41

between relevant public, societal and private decision-making processes and actions, and 42

between both national and international levels. 43

44

13

1

Figure 1. Governance of biodiversity and governance for biodiversity 2

3

Figure 2. Broad perspective on sectors 4

5

14

1

Figure 3. Pressures driving biodiversity loss in baseline and in three pathways 2

3

4 Figure 4. Options to prevent biodiversity loss in three pathways 5

15

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

1.1. Context and rationale 2

The mid-term evaluation of progress (sCBD, forthcoming) towards the attainment of the Strategic 3

Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets shows that, if we stay on our 4

current path, pressures on biodiversity will continue to increase at least until 2020, and that 5

biodiversity will continue to decline. While there has been some progress, in most cases on current 6

trajectories this will not be sufficient to achieve the targets set for 2020. Additional action is 7

therefore required to keep the Strategic Plan on course. Improving current efforts as well as a 8

massive scaling up will be necessary to halt biodiversity loss. Mainstreaming of biodiversity into 9

sectors needs to be part of those actions. 10

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity prominently recognizes the importance of mainstreaming 11

biodiversity across government and society to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, and 12

to promote its sustainable use. Strategic Goal A of the Plan aims to ‘Address the underlying causes of 13

biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society’, strategic goal B aims 14

to ‘Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use’ and strategic goal D aims 15

to ‘Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services’. 16

This report is intended to support the further mainstreaming of biodiversity across society. It adopts 17

a sectoral perspective, as sectors to a large extent shape the future of the world’s biodiversity. This 18

report specifically looks at the agriculture, forestry, water-management and fisheries sectors. These 19

sectors are highly dependent on biodiversity and healthy ecosystems and will, while providing food, 20

fiber, wood, energy, fish and clean water to the world’s population, have it in their hands to reduce 21

their impact on biodiversity. 22

The question of how sectors can contribute to the protection of biodiversity and its sustainable use, 23

is so far receiving relatively little attention in biodiversity assessments. This report contributes to 24

filling this gap. This report has two parts. First, it explores the substantive biodiversity issues that 25

need to be addressed by different actors within the production sectors in the coming decade to 26

contribute to a world of ‘living in harmony with nature’. Issues associated with the production of 27

food, fuel and natural fibre are examined, as are issues associated with forestry, water management 28

and fisheries. The potential for biodiversity ‘friendly’ technological and behavioural options in these 29

sectors is identified, as are strategic choices to be faced, the synergies between biodiversity 30

conservation and sustainable use and sector priorities, trade-offs that need to be addressed, barriers 31

and levers for change and priority actions for the coming decade. Second, the report looks at the 32

governance challenge of getting biodiversity mainstreamed into sectors by various actors. We 33

identify promising options for public and private actors to mainstream biodiversity and help move 34

sectors into a more biodiversity-friendly direction. 35

1.2. Aim and research questions 36 This report is a contribution to the fourth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-4). The aim of this report 37

is to provide insights that can support countries, non-state actors and international organisations to 38

mainstream biodiversity and its sustainable use in production sectors. 39

16

The main question this report addresses is: ‘How can countries, non-state actors and international 1

organisations, support sectors to mainstream biodiversity and in that way contribute to its 2

conservation and sustainable use?’ 3

The following sub-questions will be answered for food, fuel and natural fibre, forestry, water 4

management and fisheries: 5

a. How does the sector benefit from and depend on biodiversity and ecosystem services and 6

what are the risks of further biodiversity loss for these sectors? 7

b. What actions are the actors in the sector already taking to reduce biodiversity loss and 8

improve its sustainable use and what are the barriers and levers for change? 9

c. What are the long term options for different actors in the sector to reduce their impact on 10

biodiversity and contribute to meeting the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the 2050 11

vision of the Strategic Plan? 12

13

And based on this analysis the last sub-question will be answered: 14

d. What are the possible strategic directions for policy making for countries, other actors and 15

international organisations to support sectors towards reducing biodiversity loss and 16

enhancing its sustainable use? 17

1.3. Definitions and Approach 18 19

Definitions 20

In the context of this report mainstreaming (or integration) is understood as the normative idea of 21

taking a specific objective of one issue domain (here biodiversity conservation and its sustainable 22

use) and declaring that this objective should be integrated into other issue domains (here agriculture, 23

forestry, etc.) where it is not (yet) sufficiently addressed. The process of mainstreaming entails 24

developing strategies to bring issues that have emerged as legitimate societal concerns into a context 25

where interests and decision-making have tended to be conflicting to that issue. The conflicts that 26

may come from that cannot be ignored (Halpern et al., 2008; Kok et al., 2011; Nunan et al., 2012) 27

Given this, biodiversity mainstreaming can then be defined as “the process of embedding biodiversity 28

considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact or 29

rely on biodiversity, so that biodiversity is conserved and sustainably used both locally and globally” 30

(GEF/STAP, 2013). The desired outcome of mainstreaming biodiversity is a more sustainable use of 31

natural resources and improved conservation; or put differently, more biodiversity friendly 32

production and consumption. 33

The emphasis on both public and private actors in the definition of biodiversity mainstreaming is 34

based on the recognition that the narrow consideration of mainstreaming as a matter for 35

predominantly public policy with little attention to the contribution of business and civil society is 36

outdated (see Karlsson-Vinkenhuyzen et al., 2013). This is not to say that mainstreaming biodiversity 37

as a public policy approach is not necessary, but rather that a broader approach is necessary that 38

does justice to the role of non-government actors, such as the private sector and civil society, needs 39

to and can play in mainstreaming biodiversity. 40

17

Mainstreaming biodiversity requires that it will be related to the core values and interests of 1

different actors in the mainstream of economic decision-making, here the sectors that strongly 2

influence the world’s biodiversity, now and in the future. We explore how the sustainable use and 3

conservation of biodiversity is, or can be made more relevant in specific, sectoral contexts with the 4

aim to find levers to move decisions and actions in a more biodiversity friendly direction. 5

Biodiversity, and especially the services derived from ecosystems, are essential for a secure 6

production and supply of food, fibres, fuels, energy and freshwater. Biodiversity is a multifaceted 7

concept and include diversity within species, both in wild and domesticated species, among species 8

and between ecosystems. These facets of biodiversity have different roles in delivering the various 9

ecosystem services. In this report we use “biodiversity” in a broad sense conform the definition of 10

the CBD. We look at terrestrial, aquatic and marine biodiversity (see figure 1.1). However, not all 11

facets of biodiversity will be addressed equally in the report. When describing ‘biodiversity loss’ we 12

mainly focus on biodiversity of wild species, as such, the production sectors are main drivers of 13

biodiversity loss (GBO-3; PBL, 2010). When describing the benefits of biodiversity we mainly focus on 14

the (genetic) diversity of domesticated species, their wild relatives and biodiversity at ecosystem 15

level that provide essential services. As such sectors may safeguard and conserve these facets of 16

biodiversity and improve its sustainable use. 17

Benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity are generally referred to as ecosystem services (MEA, 2005). 18

The production of food, wood, fibres and the provision of (drinking) water themselves are considered 19

provisioning services. Provisioning services depend on several regulating ecosystem services, such as 20

the maintenance of soil fertility, pest control, pollination, the prevention of erosion, water retention 21

by soil and vegetation and climate regulation. Another category of ecosystem services is cultural 22

services, such as spiritual, aesthetic services and providing space for recreation. These services all 23

depend on well-functioning ecosystems. The capacity of provisioning services from, mainly, agro-24

ecosystems is often maintained and enhanced by technical means, such as the application of 25

fertilizers, pesticides and soil and water management. 26

The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services is not straightforward. Whether more 27

biodiversity would imply more ecosystem services depends largely on the type of ecosystem service. 28

Biodiversity plays a crucial role in the provision of regulating services; examples include the role of 29

pollinators and a large variety of predator species reducing outbreaks of pests in agricultural fields. In 30

addition biodiversity is essential for hosting genetic resources, for crop and livestock improvement. 31

Biodiversity is also to some degree important for cultural services as, for example, a diverse flora and 32

fauna is appreciated by people, but biodiversity is highly ignored when focusing on the production of 33

agricultural products. 34

18

1

Figure 1.1. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use from a sectoral perspective (to be updated) 2

Approach 3

In this study the primary production of food, fibre and fuel on land (mainly related to agriculture and 4

livestock), and water (fisheries and aquaculture), forestry (timber, paper, fuel) and water 5

management (secure supply of freshwater, flood protection) and their cross-sectoral relationships 6

are considered. The sectors associated with the production of these goods are at the one hand in 7

various way dependent on well-functioning ecosystems and the sustainable use of biodiversity and at 8

the other hand together are responsible for respectively XX%, yy% and zzz% of biodiversity loss in 9

terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems, in terms of Mean Species Abundance (an indicator for the 10

intactness of ecosystems, this will be further explained in chapter2). Other sectors that negatively 11

impact biodiversity are energy and industrial production sectors. These will not be included in this 12

study as they are not or to a lesser extent directly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystem services 13

and their impacts on biodiversity is regulated by climate change and air pollution policies. Impacts on 14

biodiversity from mining and other resource extractions are locally relevant and responsible for xx% 15

of biodiversity loss (ref ). Eco-tourism and nature conservation and are also not included as separate 16

sectors. 17

Production sectors show a diverse range of actors; ranging from small-holders and subsistence 18

farmers, family farmers, fisher folk, industrial farmers, small and medium enterprises, to 19

internationally operating business. The emphasis of this study is on the production side, with primary 20

producers and the ecosystems and natural resources they are dependent on. (Primary) producers are 21

in turn part of national, regional and/or global supply chains, in which traders, processing industries, 22

retailers, financers and consumers can influence primary production and sourcing. We will analyse 23

the possible role of various actors as “agents of change” in mainstreaming biodiversity that we have 24

schematically depicted in the hour glass in figure 1.2. This shape also reflects the opportunity that a 25

focus on concentration points in number of actors may provide levers to make change happen. 26

19

1

Figure 1.2. Production sectors, supply chain and consumption 2

The analysis of each production sector starts with a brief analysis of the main actors and trends in the 3

sector. This provides a first understanding of the context in which biodiversity mainstreaming needs 4

to be implemented. This analysis is followed by identifying the benefits that biodiversity and 5

ecosystem services provide for a specific sector. These dependencies show the risks that actors in the 6

sectors will run if biodiversity loss continues as is expected in business as usual scenarios. Although 7

the GBO-4 synthesis (ref) shows that targets for mainstreaming will not be met if current trajectories 8

remain unchanged, it also makes clear that within the sectors covered in this report many initiatives 9

are taken that point in the right direction. We analyse initiatives in sectors (following the structure 10

depicted in 1.2) that take biodiversity into account, to make sure to build on what is already 11

happening in sectors and avoid the suggestion that only (national) governments can act (Hajer, 12

2010). We analyse these initiatives to better understand barriers and identify levers for change in a 13

more biodiversity friendly direction. 14

For the analysis of the ‘substantive agenda’ for mainstreaming biodiversity in the sectors to meet the 15

long term biodiversity goals, we explore alternative strategies using a model-based, back-casting 16

approach. We quantitatively analyse three alternative pathways that are designed to meet the 2050 17

vision as part of a broader set of long term sustainability goals, including climate goals and the 18

eradication of hunger (Kok and van Vuuren (eds.), 2012). PBL’s integrated assessment models 19

IMAGE/GLOBIO (see annex 1 for more detail) is used to identify actions that are needed to meet 20

these goals in the coming 10 years. The pathways should not be seen as blueprints to meet the goals, 21

but rather as an ‘aide’ to span up a solution space to identify the potentials of various options, 22

synergies between them and trade-offs that need to be faced. These three pathways are elaborated 23

for each of the four sectors covered in this report. 24

20

Based on, i) initiatives taken by important actor groups within the sector, ii) barriers and levers for 1

change derived from that, and iii) the outcomes of the scenario-analysis, we identify priority actions 2

for the sector for the coming decade and what will be needed to implement them. 3

Building on the analysis for the four sectors covered, in the last part of the report we turn to the role 4

which countries, non-state actors and international organisations can play in mainstreaming 5

biodiversity in sectors. We identify strategic directions for action to get the mainstreaming of 6

biodiversity in sectors realized. In doing so, we make a distinction between actors involved in 7

‘governance of biodiversity’ and actors that can play a role in ‘governance for biodiversity’. We 8

furthermore realize that there are limits to the synergies between sectoral interests and biodiversity 9

and hence to mainstreaming as a policy strategy. Mainstreaming policies therefore need to be 10

considered in coherence with biodiversity conservation and protection measures. We turn back to 11

that question in the last chapter. 12

1.4. Report outline 13

This report is organised as followed. Chapter 2 provides context for the sectoral analysis. To start, the 14

chapter identifies the consequences for biodiversity of a business as usual scenario. It continues to 15

sketch the three alternative pathways that are designed to meet the Biodiversity 2050 vision, while 16

also meeting a broader set of long term sustainability goals (including climate goals, eradication of 17

hunger, feeding the world’s population and access to clean energy and water). In chapter 3-6 we look 18

at how biodiversity can be addressed in the production of food, fuel and natural fibre, forestry, water 19

management and fisheries. In chapter 7 various strategic directions for mainstreaming will be 20

presented and the contribution public and private actors have to make. 21

22

23

24

25

26

21

Chapter 2. Biodiversity futures 1

2.1. Introduction 2

Biodiversity has been declining and is expected to decline in the future. A continued loss is practically 3

inevitable during the next decade, and wide-ranging and big efforts will be required to break the 4

longer term trend. The fate of biodiversity depends directly or indirectly on a series of human 5

activities that are mainly focussed on the production of food and other natural products, industrial 6

production and transportation. These activities, undertaken in pursuit of human development, pose 7

serious challenges to better balance development aspirations with the natural environment including 8

biodiversity. On one hand, managed ecosystems developed by humans make up a large share of the 9

total, with big implications for the presence, numbers and distribution of species. For example, 10

agricultural land managed more or less intensely makes up about one third of the global land area. 11

Although traditional agricultural landscapes harbour a high diversity of species, land conversion and 12

agricultural intensification are causing the loss of suitable habitat for many species and are therefore 13

some of the main causes of loss of biodiversity to date. In addition, remaining (semi-)natural areas 14

are not immune for pressures on presence and distribution of species. For example, hunting, air and 15

water pollution and climate change are bound to affect the vitality of ecosystems, in the worst case 16

leading to the extinction of species. While nature conservation measures are an important and often 17

effective means of ensuring that high nature value areas are preserved together with their specific 18

species distribution, the overall state of global biodiversity is shown to decline gradually over time 19

[GBO-3, GBO-4 synthesis, Rethinking, Rio+20]. 20

Biodiversity, and especially the services derived from ecosystems, are essential for a secure 21

production and supply of food, fibre, fuels, energy and the supply of freshwater. Biodiversity is a 22

multifaceted concept and includes diversity within species, both in wild and domesticated species, 23

among species and between ecosystems. In this report we use “biodiversity” in a broad sense 24

conform the definition of the CBD. However, not all facets of biodiversity will be addressed equally in 25

the report: When describing ‘biodiversity loss’ we mainly focus on biodiversity of wild species, as 26

such, and this is expressed as the mean abundance of species relative to their abundance in ‘original, 27

undisturbed’ ecosystems (MSA; Alkemade et al., 2009). Human activities often disturb ecosystems 28

and are therefore the main drivers of biodiversity loss, in terms of MSA (GBO-3; PBL, 2010). When 29

describing the benefits of biodiversity we mainly focus on the (genetic) diversity of domesticated 30

species (agro-biodiversity), their wild relatives and biodiversity at ecosystem level that provide 31

essential services. 32

In order to bring long-term biodiversity goals within reach, the use of natural resources will need to 33

be reduced and environmental impacts of extraction, manufacturing, consumption and disposal of 34

commodities must be reduced. These link closely with human development in terms of volume and 35

orientation, and are inextricably linked with activities by economic sectors, in turn driven by 36

consumption. Keeping the main causes indicated above in mind, a limited number of major 37

categories of actors are selected in this report for further analysis of options to improve the baseline 38

trend. It must be noted that the energy sector - in the broad sense ranging from primary energy 39

supply to use of energy services - is not addressed specifically in this report. Still, we acknowledge the 40

fact that energy is the largest contributor to emissions of greenhouse gases and thus climate change, 41

and the latter is recognized as an increasingly important contributor to the loss of biodiversity. As 42

climate and related energy policies are already analysed and discussed intensively, in part driven by 43

22

concerns over biodiversity losses, there was not much to add in the context of this report. Evidently, 1

climate change mitigation is an important element of response strategies, and it is addressed in two 2

ways in the analyses reported here. First, an ambitious climate change target is explored for its role 3

in reducing the loss of biodiversity as part of the pathways presented in section 2.5. Second, the 4

supply of bio-energy as one of the means to reach the 2 degrees climate target is taken on board 5

with respect to the land-use, as well as air and water pollution effects. 6

Hence, the focus in this report is on food (including bio-energy) , forestry (including traditional bio-7

energy), water management and fisheries. These sectors are described in more – also region specific 8

- detail, in the chapters 3 to 6, while below, the global perspectives for reduction of biodiversity loss 9

in the context of broader sustainable development targets are presented. This global outlook serves 10

as backdrop for the more detailed sector analysis, and is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. The sector 11

chapters 3 to 6 should not be regarded as a more detailed elaboration of the global scenarios 12

presented here, but rather as assessments of opportunities and barriers for biodiversity sparing 13

measures for the sector, with due attention for regional and within-sector diversity. 14

Questions addressed in this chapter are: 15

1. How will direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss develop in the period until 2050 in the 16

absence of dedicated policy interventions, and what will be the impacts on biodiversity 17

resulting from this benchmark projection? 18

2. How can current and future pressures on biodiversity be linked with the most important 19

types of human activities, i.e. what aggregate categories of human activities give rise to what 20

level of biodiversity loss? 21

3. What alternative pathways can be identified, aiming to deliver on the long-term vision for 22

biodiversity: ‘By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, 23

maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential 24

for all people’? (CBD, ?) 25

In the following chapters the implications for the level and characteristics of activities in the selected 26

sectors will be addressed in more detail, also highlighting regional differences. 27

For this study, we draw upon the recently published scenario study `Roads from Rio+20’ (PBL, 2012) 28

to answer the first and third questions above. Only relatively minor adjustments were made for the 29

purpose of this study. Below is an overview of the scenarios used in this study. To do this, we first 30

look at the benchmark or ‘Trend’ scenario, and how drivers of biodiversity loss develop in the 31

selected sectors. Next, we identify the alternative pathways leading towards halting of further loss of 32

biodiversity, and how drivers and sectors can contribute to that goal. 33

The main drivers of biodiversity loss are land use for agricultural production and forestry, climate 34

change, pollution, fragmentation, infrastructure, exploitation and fisheries (Alkemade et al., 2009; 35

Sala et al., 2000). 36

2.2. Trend scenario and its implications for biodiversity 37

General characteristics 38

The baseline scenario ‘Trend’ is a benchmark, not a forecast, and serves to understand the challenges 39

faced by the sustainable development goals and targets, and the efforts needed to realise them. A 40

23

‘surprise-free future’ is constructed in the sense that trends in key variables continue more or less 1

unmodified from recent history. Basic socio-economic mechanisms continue to operate in the same 2

fashion and no explicit new policies are introduced to meet sustainability goals. Important current 3

trends include gradual introduction of new technologies, involvement of business and civil society in 4

decision-making, and remaining economic inequalities. The baseline also assumes that the trend 5

towards modernization along the same lines of the western model continues, albeit with regional 6

specificities. 7

8

The Trend scenario assumes that world development continues to focus on economic development 9

and globalisation. The scenario also assumes a further increase in the consumption of food, the 10

production of material goods and services and the use of energy carriers, although with a tendency 11

towards saturation at higher income levels. New and more ambitious environmental policies are not 12

assumed in the Trend, with the exception of measures that contribute directly to human health, such 13

as reducing air and water pollution, as these go hand in hand with increasing per capita income. 14

15

Main trends in population, economic activities, food and energy use are: 16

In 2050 9.2 billion people, from around 7 billion in 2010; 17

GDP increases fourfold between 2010 and 2050; 18

Food consumption increases around 1.7 times; 19

Agricultural land expands by 4 billion km2, around 10%; 20

Energy use increases 1.8 times; 21

22

The global population is projected to grow until 2050, mostly in the current low-income countries in 23

Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Middle East, and predominantly in urban areas (UNDESA, 24

2011; Figure 2.1). China and the OECD countries are projected to experience significant population 25

ageing. In contrast, the currently more youthful populations in other regions are projected to grow 26

significantly until 2050. The world’s population is becoming increasingly urbanised: currently, around 27

50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas and this is projected to rise to nearly 70 % by 2050 28

(UNDESA, 2012). 29

30

24

Figure 2.1. Global demographics in the Trend scenario: total rural population and urban population 1

per region 2

3

The global economy is projected to grow further at approximately historical rates, with the highest 4

growth rates assumed in developing countries. The global economy has nearly quadrupled over the 5

last 40 years. In the Trend scenario, it is assumed that the economic growth in terms of GDP 6

continues at a similar pace (See Figure 2.2). The projection describes long-term structural trends, 7

rather than short–run business cycles and other deviations from the trend due to economic and/or 8

political crises. These can have profound regional and global impacts over periods up to a decade 9

long, but are assumed to have no lasting impact on the underlying drivers of economic growth. 10

Periods of economic stagnation, such as the global crisis since 2008, can reduce the use of natural 11

resources. At the same time, investments in knowledge and new technologies will decline, and 12

attention for environmental problems and longer term sustainable development may suffer from 13

focus on solving the immediate economic problems. 14

15

Regional developments will be very different, leading to an important shift in the global balance in 16

terms of economic leverage. While growth in OECD countries is projected at around 1.5–2 % per 17

year, in current low income regions growth rates reach 3–5 % per year due to the large potential for 18

growth in labour and capital productivity. For Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, projections 19

are higher than the historical rates as these regions are assumed to profit from globalisation and a 20

favourable demographic development. For the Asian regions, growth rates will be similar to or 21

slightly lower than the historical rates as a result of the assumed maturing of their economies. For 22

sub-Saharan Africa, GDP growth is forecast to remain relatively low until 2030, after which rapid 23

growth is assumed to ‘take-off’, as happened earlier in Asia. 24

25

As a result, by 2050 the current OECD share in the global economy has fallen to less than 32 % - from 26

54% in 2010. At the same time the emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and 27

South Africa (BRIICS) are expected to contribute to more than 40%. The share of agriculture in GDP 28

will continue to decline as a result of the structural shift towards manufacturing and services. 29

30

25

1 Figure 2.2. Global economic growth Trend scenario 2

3

World food production is projected to follow demand, which will increase significantly in the coming 4

decades due to population growth and diet changes. Total food calories intake per person will 5

increase, mostly in current low-income countries facing under-nutrition. The share of basic staple 6

food decreases, while the share of animal products in diets is expected to increase, in line with 7

historical trends under increasing income. Marine fish catches are expected to decrease, while 8

aquaculture will be increasingly important for fish production. 9

10

The area of land for agriculture also expands until 2050, but far less than the agricultural output as 11

increases in the average productivity of the land (output per hectare) provide the major contribution 12

to the increase in output. Crop yields increase as a result of technical progress, better management, 13

mechanisation, pest and disease control, etc., especially in regions where yields are currently far 14

below their potential under prevailing climate and soil conditions. Livestock production tends to shift 15

from pastoral systems requiring vast grazing areas to mixed and landless production systems. The 16

latter implies that more food crops will be used to feed livestock, but the crop areas required for that 17

are relatively small compared to the grasslands abandoned. In total, some 4 million km2 agricultural 18

land is added, around 10% of the extent in 2010. 19

20

The Trend scenario projects a 65 % increase in global energy consumption and supply in the 2010–21

2050 period (Van Vuuren et al., 2012b; Figure 2.3). The major part of this increase takes place in 22

current low-income countries. In the Trend scenario, the total per capita energy consumption in high-23

income countries does not change much, but there is a continued shift towards more electricity and 24

natural gas. In many low-income countries, per capita energy use increases strongly (up to double), 25

with the largest increases in oil products and electricity use. 26

27

Energy supply continues to be dominated by fossil fuels, assuming no fundamental changes of 28

current policies, as their price in most situations is projected to stay below alternative fuels. In the 29

longer term, higher production costs and thus higher prices are projected for oil and gas, as 30

26

conventional resources become depleted. As a result, the use of coal is expected to increase strongly, 1

particularly for electric power generation. Energy from non-fossil sources is also expected to increase 2

substantially in the Trend scenario. Altogether, the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 3

gases from the energy sector is bound to increase further, contributing to ongoing climate change. 4

5 Figure 2.3. Global primary energy supply in the Trend scenario [check if data update is needed] 6

7

2.3. Drivers of biodiversity loss in the Trend scenario 8

In the introduction of this chapter, the different categories of causes of biodiversity loss were 9

mentioned, and their impact on MSA loss is shown in the preceding Section 2.2. Below the 10

developments for each in the Trend scenario are presented. This presents a basis to better 11

understand the drivers of biodiversity loss and its relevance for the sectors addressed in the next 12

chapters. 13

Agricultural land use change (cropland, pastures and bio-energy) 14

The most obvious loss of habitat occurs from changes in land cover, mostly from natural vegetation 15

systems to agricultural land and to a lesser extent to other purposes such as built-up area, mining, 16

recreation grounds, and others. As indicated, while this was the dominant factor behind MSA loss to 17

date, the contribution at the global scale up to 2050 is far less significant. Note that the expansion is 18

distributed very unevenly across the world, and regionally still significant MSA losses are projected. 19

Agricultural activities can also be discontinued, if and where the physical and/or economic conditions 20

no longer provide sufficient incentives for farming livelihoods. Normally, the abandoned agricultural 21

land may revert to a (semi-)natural state, unless soil degradation is too severe to sustain that 22

process. However, in any case the transformation can take a very long time before it reaches a state 23

of species richness and distribution that is close to the undisturbed level. Up to 2050 this adds to the 24

total loss of MSA. 25

Besides the extent of remaining natural areas, the intensity at which (semi-)natural and cultivated 26

area is used also contributes to changes in species distribution and extinction rates. Intensification is 27

27

projected to continue into the future, leading to an increase in harvested food crop yields of just 1

below one percent per year on average. While this is all-important to limit expansion of agricultural 2

land, it implies also negative impacts on, and from, the more intensively managed areas. Higher 3

inputs of capital (mechanization) and of fertilizers and other chemicals, regulation of ground water 4

tables and other management options can have negative impacts on land as well as on ground- and 5

surface water bodies, see below under Pollution and Disturbance, and consequently on biodiversity. 6

Disturbance: fragmentation, encroachment and infrastructure 7

In addition to direct loss of habitat and environmental degradation, human activities have negative 8

effects on nature and biodiversity through disturbance of the remaining (semi-)natural areas. 9

Fragmentation means that large, continuous natural ecosystems get divided into smaller patches as 10

the result of establishment of agriculture and associated access roads. This implies that species 11

requiring large areas for living space will decrease in numbers. Where human activities, such as 12

agriculture and mining provide easier access to the surrounding nature areas, encroachment 13

increases as humans enter the land for hunting and gathering, for recreation and other purposes. 14

This affects the species distribution directly, as selected species are targeted for hunting and 15

gathering. In addition, more frequent human presence decreases the attractiveness for species. 16

Infrastructure effects relate to roads and the intensity of their use. While the direct surface occupied 17

by roads is small, as is the case for built-up urban area, the presence and distribution of species is 18

seriously affected at distances up to hundreds of meters from the roadside. 19

In the Trend scenario, the impact of infrastructure on biodiversity increases significantly as more 20

people with higher on average income are bound to lead to more road capacity and more intense 21

traffic. Fragmentation and encroachment depend on agricultural land, hence they are important for 22

the MSA loss to date, but do not change much up to 2050. 23

Forestry 24

The provision of wood products from forest and woodlands leads to loss of MSA. The area affected 25

and the degree of impact on biodiversity differs between prevailing production systems, which are a 26

subject to economic considerations. Depending on the species composition of the forests, the market 27

value of the species, and other factors such as accessibility, labour costs, etc. trees are felled by clear-28

cutting forest patches (natural or planted), by selective logging of trees or by harvesting dedicated 29

forest plantations. Plantations produce the biggest volume per hectare, but due to the use of a single 30

or a few species and the intensive management, their biodiversity impact is the highest. On the other 31

side of the range, selective logging has less impact on biodiversity, as the forest remains in place. But 32

this requires much larger forest areas. Clear-cutting is somewhere between the two other systems. In 33

particular in tropical forests, so-called reduced impact logging (RIL) practices ensure that the effect of 34

the forestry operations is even smaller than with regular selective logging. Wood is also made 35

available when forest areas are converted to agricultural land, depending on the region and on local 36

conditions, more wood is put on the market or gets burned for – sometimes illegal - land clearing. 37

Production of traditional biofuels (fuel wood and charcoal) is secured in part by harvesting residuals 38

from industrial forestry operations, but also by dedicated clear-cutting at increasing distances from 39

expanding urban areas in developing regions. 40

In the Trend scenario, the forest plantation area increases only slowly to reach 124 million hectares 41

in 2050 (from 100 million ha in 2010). In addition, increasing forest areas are taken into production 42

28

for selective logging and clear-cutting to fulfil the growing demands. In total, the forestry area 1

increases from 4.4 million km2 in 2010 to 7.5 million km2 in 2050. 2

Pollution: nitrogen and phosphorus compounds 3

Two aspects of water and air pollution are tracked for their impact on biodiversity. First, application 4

of fertilizers on agricultural land leads to surpluses that contribute to pollution of ground- and 5

surface water with impacts on freshwater biodiversity, and ultimately also on coastal seas. In 6

particular, when application rates are poorly balanced to plant uptake, and to a certain extent this is 7

an inevitable effect of striving for high yields. The elevated concentration of nutrients in freshwater 8

bodies leads to eutrophication, and thereby to significant losses of biodiversity in lakes (Figure 2.2). 9

For rivers and wetlands, the N and P related effects are an important element of the overall MSA 10

impact of cultivated land adjacent to, and/or upstream of the water bodies. 11

As shown in figure 2.3, the second impact arises from deposition of N compounds from the 12

atmosphere, leading to eutrophication with consequences for species in natural ecosystems. Due to 13

differences in sensitivity of species, this affects the original distribution. The amount of N deposition 14

depends on the emission of air pollutants (Figure 2.1). Subsequently, through atmospheric 15

concentration and deposition rates the spatially explicit deposition is established. The sensitivity of 16

natural systems is translated into a map of the critical load, where the degree to which the projected 17

deposition exceeds the critical threshold is the driver of the terrestrial MSA loss. 18

For terrestrial biodiversity the global effect of N and P is relatively limited, though local effects may 19

be significant for distinct plant species and ecosystems (See Figure 2.1). For freshwater biodiversity, 20

however, it is a very important contributor. 21

Climate change 22

Climate parameters, such as average temperature, high and low extreme temperatures, precipitation 23

sums, droughts and excess periods, etc., determine occurrence and distribution of species. Run-off 24

and water temperature also matter for marine biodiversity. Hence changes in climate affect the 25

vitality of ecosystems and their quality in biodiversity terms. Note that the most recent IPCC report 26

indicates that climate change impacts are bigger than in earlier research [IPCC AR5/WGII]. In 27

addition, climate change induced sea level rise can bring about loss of vulnerable ecosystems, such as 28

coastal wetlands, river deltas and mangrove stands. 29

Climate change results from changes in atmospheric concentration of radiative forcing agents, e.g. 30

the net effect of emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and their effective atmospheric 31

lifetime. Natural variability, and indirect and feedback effects play an important role in the degree of 32

climate change as well. As far as human influences are concerned, the emissions of greenhouse gases 33

play the primary role. CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is the major contributor, followed by methane 34

(from energy, industry and agriculture) and nitrous oxide (from industry and land use), changes in 35

land-use CO2 fluxes and carbon stocks, and a range of industrial gases. Tropospheric ozone from air 36

pollution, and direct and indirect aerosols are important as well, however the latter are subject to 37

very large uncertainties [IPCC- AR5/WGI]. Total global greenhouse gas emissions, aggregated into 38

CO2-equivalents, continue to grow rapidly in the TREND scenario to over 700ppm in 2050 (from 39

around 300ppm pre-industrial). In the same year the global average temperature rises to almost 2.5 40

degrees above the pre-industrial level. Note that this temperature effect is the transient in 2050, the 41

equilibrium effect of the higher forcing will not be reached until more than a century ahead. 42

29

Water flow regime 1

For biodiversity in freshwater systems, a driving factor is the disturbance of the flow with 2

consequences for the survival and distribution of species. Agriculture is the largest consumer of 3

freshwater for irrigation, but other uses, such as households, industry and electricity production, also 4

withdraw large volumes of water. Besides the effects of such changes in run-off, the building of dams 5

and reservoirs, weirs and other river bed modifications leads to serious disturbance of the natural 6

flow. In the analysis of the Trend scenario, historic and future reservoirs, the latter only for 7

hydropower production, are accounted for (see Chapter 5). 8

The combined effect of the projected changes in the drivers of biodiversity loss in the TREND 9

scenario is shown for the world in Figure 2.4 in terms of the mean species abundance (MSA) indicator 10

for terrestrial systems, and Figure 2.5 for freshwater systems. Land-use related effects (crops, 11

pasture and forestry) together amount to two thirds of the total loss of terrestrial MSA. 12

13

[PM marine fisheries and aquaculture? to be added] 14

15

As illustrated in Figure 2.4, the major causes of loss of terrestrial biodiversity to date, expressed as 16

mean species abundance (MSA), are manifold. Loss of habitat due to agriculture (crops and pasture) 17

is the main cause (note that the MSA loss on cropland is generally higher than on pasture as for many 18

species the transformation is more profound on cropland). The MSA loss per hectare depends not 19

only on the type of land-use, but also on the natural land cover type that is replaced by cultivated 20

land. Adding to the direct land conversion, fragmentation of continuous tracts of natural land into 21

smaller, isolated patches affects the species distribution. The second largest cause is related to 22

disturbance: encroachment and infrastructure. In particular, in the period 1970-2010 climate change 23

has become a significant factor as well. Relatively smaller effects are caused by other activities such 24

as forestry, and by deposition of air pollutants. Note that the impact of other important drivers, such 25

as invasive species, is not included in this analysis. The impact on agro-biodiversity is not described in 26

detail. However, the diversity of wild-relatives of crop and livestock species is may be implicitly 27

addressed by the MSA measure. Diversity of crop varieties and livestock breeds is related to 28

intensification and large scale agricultural production (e.g. Hoffman, 2013). 29

Figure 2.4 shows that many of the factors increase in strength under Baseline assumptions (See 30

section 2.5). While the impact of agriculture still increases, other factors increase much stronger and 31

the role of agriculture in the additional loss between 2010 and 2050 is relatively small compared to 32

climate change and infrastructure. 33

30

1

Figure 2.4. Global terrestrial MSA loss by pressure factor in the Baseline [was: Figure 2.8] 2

For freshwater systems, a similar set of human activities lead to loss of MSA. However, the impacts 3

vary between the different types of freshwater systems, such as lakes, rivers and wetlands (See 4

Figure 2.5). Hydrological disturbance, e.g. of water volumes and flows are the result of extraction and 5

of modification of the river bed, including the building of dams and weirs in rivers, and drainage of 6

wetlands. In particular, dams built for irrigation, hydropower, drinking water or combined purposes 7

cause major changes in the conditions for many species. Secondly, water quality suffers from 8

elevated concentration of nutrients from agricultural land and from concentrated point sources, such 9

as sewage and industry outlets. In particular in lakes this leads to eutrophication with consequences 10

for species distribution and even extinction. But also in rivers and