Appendix 2
Policies to Reduce Biodiversity
Loss and Enhance Human
Development Require a
Concerted Approach
B
oth poverty and economic development
affect global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem goods and services.
More food, water, and firewood are needed
to sustain population growth, especially in
the poorer parts of the world. At the same
time, expected rising levels of affluence in
emerging economies will add to the demand
for products like meat, construction timber, and paper. When current technologies
and consumption patterns prevail, increased
global consumption by a larger and richer
population will drive:
• expansion of agriculture, forestry, and bioenergy production;
• i ntensification of production, leading to
overexploitation and pollution from excess
nutrients and contaminants; and
• h igher exploitation of remaining natural
ecosystems.
In the context of rising demand for food,
water, and firewood, growing populations
that lack the capabilities to minimize environmental impacts of production will be more
susceptible to overexploiting and degrading
their livelihoods. As a consequence of land
use expansion and more intense use, global
biodiversity loss will continue unabated or
accelerate without additional policies.1 Largest losses are expected in Central and South
America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan
Africa (map A2.1).
The importance of biodiversity for development is recognized by Millennium Development Goal 7, which includes targets to
“reverse the loss of environmental resources”
and “reduce biodiversity loss.” However,
there is scant quantitative evidence on ways
in which especially poorer people depend on
biodiversity, although patterns can be distinguished. In general, it seems that poor people
depend more on renewable natural resources
than on biodiversity. However, the value of
biodiversity aspects in terms of risk insurance,
ecosystem resilience, and larger area ecosystem services (such as temperature regulation)
still represents a large knowledge gap.2
Traditionally, policies to reduce biodiversity loss focus on area protection measures.
However, these measures have no effect on
the unprotected surrounding areas. Furthermore, expanding protected areas and reducing deforestation would impose limits on
175
176 a p p e n d i x
2
G L O B A L M O NI T O R IN G R EP O R T 2 0 1 1
MAP A2.1 Average change in species populations, relative to the intact situation (mean species abundance
or MSA), 2000 and 2050
IBRD 38470
APRIL 2011
2000
Greenland
(Den)
Faeroe
Islands
(Den)
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Russian Federation
Estonia
Latvia
Canada
Denmark Russian
Fed. Lithuania
United
Ireland Kingdom Germany Poland Belarus
Belgium Czech Rep.
Channel Islands (UK)
Slovak Rep. Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
Austria Hungary Moldova
Mongolia
Liechtenstein
Romania
France Slovenia
Switzerland
CroatiaB&HSerbia
Georgia AzerUzbekistan Kyrgyz
Montenegro Kos. Bulgaria
Andorra
D.P.R.
Rep.
Albania FYRM
Turkey Armenia baijan Turkmenistan
of Korea
Portugal Spain
United States
Japan
Tajikistan
Monaco Italy Greece
Syrian
Cyprus
Rep. of
Gibraltar (UK)
Islamic Rep. Afghanistan
China
Arab
Tunisia Malta
Lebanon
Korea
of
Iran
Rep.
Iraq
Israel
Bermuda
Morocco
Kuwait
(UK)
Bhutan
Pakistan
West Bank and Gaza Jordan
Bahrain
Nepal
Algeria
Libya
Qatar
Arab Rep.
Former
St. Kitts and Nevis
The Bahamas
Saudi
of Egypt
Spanish
Bangladesh
Dominican Antigua and Barbuda
Cayman Is. (UK)
United Arab
Arabia
Sahara
India
Cuba
Rep.
Mexico
Emirates
Dominica
Myanmar Lao
Mauritania
Oman
St. Lucia
Haiti
P.D.R.
N. Mariana Islands (US)
Mali
Belize Jamaica
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Cape Verde
Rep. of
Niger
Thailand Vietnam
Eritrea Yemen
Guatemala Honduras
Senegal
Chad
Barbados
Guam (US)
Burkina
Sudan
The Gambia
El Salvador Nicaragua
Grenada
Cambodia
Philippines
Djibouti
Faso
Federated States of
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Trinidad and Tobago
Benin
Costa Rica Panama
Sri
Micronesia
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Ghana
Sierra Leone Côte
R.B. de
Guyana
Central
Lanka
Brunei
Suriname
Venezuela
D’Ivoire
African
Rep.
Liberia
Palau
Somalia
Cameroon
Malaysia
Colombia
Togo
French Guiana (Fr)
Maldives
Uganda
Equatorial Guinea
Kenya
Singapore
São Tomé and Príncipe
Gabon Congo
Ecuador
Rwanda
Seychelles
Dem. Rep. of Burundi
Papua
Indonesia
Congo
New Guinea
Tanzania Comoros
Brazil
Timor-Leste
Peru
Angola
Zambia Malawi Mayotte
Iceland
The Netherlands
Isle of Man (UK)
Zimbabwe
Namibia
Madagascar
Botswana Mozambique
Paraguay
Argentina
Nauru
Solomon
Islands
Vanuatu
(Fr)
Bolivia
Chile
Marshall
Islands
South
Africa
Uruguay
Mauritius
Réunion (Fr)
Swaziland
Lesotho
MSA (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
not included
New
Caledonia
(Fr)
Australia
New
Zealand
2050
Greenland
(Den)
Faeroe
Islands
(Den)
Norway
Finland
Sweden
Russian Federation
Estonia
Latvia
Denmark Russian
Fed. Lithuania
United
Ireland Kingdom Germany Poland Belarus
Belgium Czech Rep.
Channel Islands (UK)
Slovak Rep. Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Luxembourg
Austria Hungary Moldova
Mongolia
Liechtenstein
Romania
France Slovenia
Switzerland
CroatiaB&HSerbia
Georgia AzerUzbekistan Kyrgyz
Montenegro Kos. Bulgaria
Andorra
D.P.R.
Rep.
Turkey Armenia baijan Turkmenistan
of Korea
Portugal Spain Monaco Albania FYRM
United States
Japan
Tajikistan
Italy Greece
Syrian
Cyprus
Rep. of
Gibraltar (UK)
Islamic Rep. Afghanistan
China
Arab
Tunisia Malta
Lebanon
Korea
of
Iran
Israel Rep. Iraq
Bermuda
Morocco
Kuwait
Jordan
(UK)
Bhutan
Pakistan
West Bank and Gaza
Bahrain
Nepal
Algeria
Libya
Qatar
Arab Rep.
Former
St. Kitts and Nevis
The Bahamas
Saudi
of Egypt
Spanish
Bangladesh
Dominican Antigua and Barbuda
Cayman Is. (UK)
United Arab
Arabia
Sahara
India
Cuba
Rep.
Mexico
Emirates
Dominica
Myanmar Lao
Mauritania
Oman
St. Lucia
Haiti
P.D.R.
N. Mariana Islands (US)
Mali
Belize Jamaica
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Cape Verde
Rep. of
Niger
Thailand Vietnam
Eritrea Yemen
Guatemala Honduras
Senegal
Chad
Barbados
Guam (US)
Burkina
Sudan
The Gambia
El Salvador Nicaragua
Grenada
Cambodia
Philippines
Djibouti
Faso
Federated States of
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Trinidad and Tobago
Benin
Costa Rica Panama
Sri
Micronesia
Nigeria
Ethiopia
Sierra Leone Côte Ghana
R.B. de
Guyana
Central
Lanka
Brunei
Suriname
Venezuela
D’Ivoire
African Rep.
Liberia
Palau
Somalia
Cameroon
Malaysia
Colombia
Togo
French Guiana (Fr)
Maldives
Uganda
Equatorial Guinea
Kenya
Singapore
São Tomé and Príncipe
Gabon Congo
Ecuador
Rwanda
Seychelles
Dem. Rep. of Burundi
Papua
Indonesia
Congo
New Guinea
Tanzania Comoros
Brazil
Timor-Leste
Peru
Angola
Zambia Malawi Mayotte
Iceland
The Netherlands
Isle of Man (UK)
Canada
Paraguay
Argentina
Nauru
Solomon
Islands
Vanuatu
(Fr)
Bolivia
Chile
Marshall
Islands
Uruguay
Zimbabwe
Namibia
Madagascar
Botswana Mozambique
South
Africa
Swaziland
Lesotho
Mauritius
Réunion (Fr)
MSA (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
not included
Source: PBL 2010, http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2010/Rethinking_Global_Biodiversity_Strategies.
Australia
New
Caledonia
(Fr)
New
Zealand
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information
shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank
Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any
endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
G L O B A L M O NI T O R IN G R EP O R T 2 0 1 1 agricultural land expansion, pushing land
and food prices upward. This would especially affect urban people who depend on the
market for their food. Therefore, additional
measures should include smarter and bettermanaged land use, alternative consumption
patterns, and the development and application of technologies to increase production
efficiency per hectare. Measured by food
prices, these routes would provide relief for
urban poor, increasing food security and
affordability. However, rural poor people are
oftentimes particularly vulnerable to changes
in land values and uses. Potential increases
in natural rents could affect rural poor for
whom land entitlements are not adequately
arranged, making them vulnerable for displacement by larger landholders with access
to technology and markets.
In conclusion, policies to reduce biodiversity loss and enhance human development
require a concerted approach. Some of these
options are already being discussed at the
international level; others appear to be more
contentious (changing consumption patterns), requiring careful consideration at the
national level, and will be dependent on voluntary approaches. This requires broadening
the scope of biodiversity policies on all levels
of decision making. Although most management decisions affecting biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services are made at a local
level, these local decisions are conditioned by
national and international policies beyond
appendix 2
nature conservation. International policy
domains, including agricultural and forestry sector policies, development assistance
(including the role of international financial
institutions) and international trade provide
clear opportunities to integrate biodiversity
and ecosystem goods and services in their
policies in ways that can support poverty
reduction as well as sustainable use and conservation of natural resources.3
Notes
1. PBL 2010.
2. CBD 2010.
3. Kok et al. 2010.
References
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010.
“Linking Biodiversity Conservation and
Poverty Alleviation: A State of Knowledge
Review.” Technical Series No. 55, Montreal,
Canada.
Kok, M. T. J., S. Tyler, A. G. Prins, L. Pintér,
H. Baumüller, J. Bernstein, E. Tsioumani,
H. David Venema, and R. Grosshans. 2010.
“Prospects for Mainstreaming Ecosystem
Goods and Services in International Policies.”
Biodiversity 1 (1–2): 45–51.
PBL (Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency). 2010. Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring Structural Changes
in Production and Consumption to Reduce
Biodiversity Loss. Bilthoven, Netherlands.
177