Target 4: Sustainable consumption and production and use ... · SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 4 DO NOT CITE 1 1 Target 4: Sustainable consumption and

SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 4 DO NOT CITE

1

Target 4: Sustainable consumption and production and use of 1

natural resources 2 3 By 2020, at the latest, governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have 4 taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and 5 consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe 6 ecological limits. 7 8 Preface 9 10 The use of natural resources takes place at the society-nature interface. Society 11 extracts natural resources from ecosystems that enter production processes to 12 satisfy consumption. But society’s dependence on nature goes beyond provisioning 13 services provided by ecosystems. Society also relies on the regulating and supporting 14 capacities of ecosystems. For example, ecosystems can work as a sink for pollutants 15 generated as by-products of the economic process, but also can be an important 16 element of cultural identity or human well-being. Using an ecosystem within its 17 ecological limits requires, at least, that the rate at which society extracts resources 18 and generates pollution does not exceed its regeneration time and absorption 19 capacity (UNEP, 2010). 20 21 Aichi Target 4 aims at contributing to the target established by the Johannesburg 22 Plan of Implementation of changing unsustainable patterns of consumption and 23 production by requiring that by 2020 the Parties have taken, or planning to take 24 measures to promote sustainable consumption and production (SCP). In this chapter 25 we aim to understand which steps have been taken towards the achievement of Aichi 26 Target 4. We first provide a brief overview of internationally agreed goals towards 27 SCP, together with an overview of current SCP initiatives worldwide. After, we explore 28 some of the indicators suggested by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to 29 assess progress towards the target (CBD, 2012). These include the Ecological 30 Footprint (EF) and related indicators as well as trends in population and extinction 31 risk of utilized species. We analyse the EF, the Human Appropriation of Net Primary 32 Production (HANPP), the Water Footprint (WF) and the Primary Production Required 33 to sustain marine fisheries (PPR). 34 35 The EF measures the amount of biologically productive land needed to fulfil human 36 consumption and to absorb anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 37 (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). The WF measures the freshwater required for the 38 production or consumption of a country and the freshwater required to assimilate 39 the load of pollutants (Hoekstra and Hung, 2002). The rationale behind the choice of 40 the indicators was to cover pressures from consumption and production on 41 terrestrial, freshwater and also marine ecosystems. For terrestrial ecosystems, EF and 42 HANPP were used. The EF provides information on the effects of consumption 43 patterns, by considering trade it also allows to understand how a country 44 appropriates domestic and international biocapacity. The HANPP is spatially explicit 45 and provides an indication of the intensity of land use, in comparison with EF, it 46


2

allows a better understanding of the effects of production on the ecosystems (Haberl 1 et al., 2004a). These are different metrics that provide complementary information. 2 We also explore the trends in the extinction status of utilised species, through the 3 Red List Index (RLI). Section 1 ends with short term (2020) projections of the main 4 indicators. Section 2 focuses on the main actions required to achieved Target 4, as 5 well a cost-benefit analysis. Section 3 highlights the implications for biodiversity of 6 not achieving the Target. Section 4 provides a long-term vision (2050) of the 7 evolution of the indicators and achievement of the Target. Section 5 discusses the 8 uncertainties. Finally, Section 6 provides a summary table of the progress towards 9 the achievement of the Target. 10 11 12 1. Are we on track to achieve the 2020 target? 13 14 1.a. Status and trends 15 16 There is widespread recognition that production and consumption patterns are the 17 main cause of environmental degradation (UN, 1992; UN, 2002; UN, 2012). Several 18 initiatives, at different geographical scales, have been put in place to address 19 society’s unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. 20 21 At the international level, the adoption in 2012 of the 10-Year Framework of 22 Programmes (10YFP) on Sustainable Production and Consumption developed by the 23 Marrakesh Process was the latest effort towards SCP. The 10YFP main objectives are 24 the support of regional and national policies and initiatives to accelerate the shift 25 towards SCP, provide technical assistance and capacity building to developing 26 countries and serve as a platform for international knowledge sharing (UN, 2012). 27 Two main means of implementation are a trust fund, to support SCP programs and 28 the global SCP clearinghouse, to support knowledge sharing (UN, 2012). 29 30 Substantial progress on SCP has been achieved through multilateral environmental 31 agreements (MEAs). For example, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete 32 the Ozone Layer phased out 98% of the ozone-depleting substances (Ozone 33 Secretariat, 2012). Currently, there are six biodiversity related MEAs, all highlight the 34 importance of sustainable use of biodiversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity 35 (CBD) objectives are “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of 36 its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the 37 utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources 38 and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights 39 over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding” (UN, 1992b). 40 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 41 Flora (CITES) aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals 42 and plants does not threaten their survival. In more than 40 years of existence, CITES 43 has been able to achieve some success, fifty-seven taxa were transferred from 44 Appendix I (species threatened with extinctions) to Appendix II (species whose trade 45 must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival). 46


3

Controls on international trade and national and regional management can be an 1 effective way of improving species conservation status, and promote its sustainable 2 use (UNEP-WCMC, 2013). Nevertheless, a case by case analysis is needed to measure 3 real success (UNEP-WCMC, 2013). The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 4 Species of Wild Animals (CMS) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian 5 migratory species throughout their range. The main objectives of the International 6 Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture are the conservation and 7 sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture and the fair and 8 equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their use, for sustainable agriculture 9 and food security. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands main mission is “the 10 conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and 11 international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable 12 development throughout the world”. Currently, approximately 2200 sites are listed 13 as wetlands of international importance and cover 208 million hectares. Finally, the 14 World Heritage Convention (WHC) aims to conserve the world’s natural and cultural 15 heritage. Under this convention approximately 141 sites are conserved due to its 16 natural importance. 17 18 Regional and national scales are very important for SCP policies; as it is at this scale 19 that most of the voluntary, information-based, regulatory and economic tools can 20 operate (UNEP, 2012a). Numerous initiatives at both scales exist (UNEP, 2012a). For 21 example, under the African 10-Year Framework Programme on Sustainable 22 Consumption and Production, a project for the development of an African Eco-23 labelling scheme is underway. Certification initiatives under different schemes are 24 already in place for several sectors, fisheries, forestry, tourism, leather and textiles, 25 agriculture and energy (Janisch, 2007). However, the development of an African 26 Ecolabelling scheme would help this region to expand market access of African 27 products, enhance the progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and 28 would demonstrate Africa’s engagement in SCP (Janisch, 2007). In Europe, the 29 Europe 2020 strategy presents the growth strategy for the coming decade; one of its 30 pillars is sustainable growth, which aims at promoting a more resource efficient, 31 greener and more competitive economy (EC, 2010). Linked to this strategy is the 32 European Biodiversity Strategy for 2020 (EC, 2011). Through the SWITCH 33 programmes (SWITCH-Med and SWITCH-ASIA), the European Union is fostering 34 cooperation to promote SCP in other regions. The SWITCH-Med is supporting nine 35 countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian 36 Occupied Territories and Lebanon) in the development of National SCP Action Plans 37 (EC/UNEP, 2012). The SWITCH-Asia program aims to promote sustainable products, 38 processes, services and consumption patterns in Asia by improving cooperation with 39 European retailers, consumer organizations and the public sector and by providing 40 funds to projects that will contribute to this goal (www.switch-asia.eu). 41 42 At the national level one of the key tools to achieve SCP practices is through 43 sustainable public procurement (SPP)1, one of seven the Marrakesh process task 44

1 The definition of Sustainable Procurement according to UNEP is the following: “process whereby organisations

meet their needs for goods, services, works and utilities in a way that achieves value for money on a whole life


4

forces (Brammer and Walker, 2011; UNEP DTIE, 2012; UNEP, 2011). The potential of 1 SPP to influence SCP is related not only with the great volume of money involved, 2 but also with variety of sectors involved. Public procurement accounts to 13 to 20% 3 of GDP in industrialized nations, and more in developing nations, for example, in 4 Brazil it accounts for 47% of GDP (IISD, 2012). Public procurement can foster 5 innovation at the supply chain level, but also promote change both at the production 6 and consumption side (Marty, 2012; UNEP, 2012a) (see Box 4.1). The other 7 Marrakesh process task forces are sustainable products, sustainable buildings and 8 construction, sustainable tourism, sustainable lifestyles, education for sustainable 9 consumption and cooperation with Africa. 10 11 Begin Box 4.1. – Case Study: Sustainable Timber Action 12 Approximately 18% of all wood and related products imported by the European 13 Union (EU) every year are from illegally logged timber (WWF, 2008a). European 14 public authorities buy approximately 15% of the total timber and paper sold (STA, 15 2013). As of March 2013, the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) renders illegal the import 16 of illegally harvested timber in the EU. The establishment of procurement policies, 17 requiring governments to purchase only legal timber, can be an effective way of 18 excluding illegal timber from segments of a consumer country's market (Brack and 19 Buckrell, 2011). The goal of Sustainable Timber Action (STA) is to use public 20 procurement to increase awareness in Europe about the human and environmental 21 issues caused by deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and 22 about the impact of unsustainable consumption and production of forest products 23 on climate change, biodiversity and people dependent on forests. STA work has 24 developed a toolkit for sustainable timber procurement, and has enabled the 25 establishment of the European Sustainable Tropical Timber Coalition, a coalition of 26 European local governments who aim to use public procurement to boost the 27 market for sustainable tropical timber. 28 End Box 4.1. 29 30 Businesses and civil society organizations have a key role in moving towards SCP 31 (UNEP, 2012a). For example, the number of business adhering to voluntary 32 sustainability reporting initiatives and product certification schemes has been 33 increasing (for more information on certification schemes see Target 6 and 7, UNEP, 34 2012a). Recent developments in the Life Cycle Analysis field may open a door to 35 product certification based on quantified impacts to biodiversity (Baan et al., 2013; 36 Curran et al., 2011; Koellner et al., 2013). 37 38 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with World Business 39 Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) developed a guide to help business 40 addressing biodiversity in their operations (IUCN, 2014). In this guide it is shown how 41

basis in terms of generating benefits not only to the organisation, but also to society and the economy, whilst minimising damage to the environment.”. Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP) is the sustainable procurement of governments.


5

four knowledge products2; the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Protected 1 Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the Red List of Ecosystems; are relevant for 2 businesses to manage the risks and opportunities associated with their impact on 3 biodiversity (Table 4.1). 4 5 Table 4.1. Relevance of four knowledge products to businesses 6 IUCN RED LIST OF THREATNED SPECIES

RED LIST OF ECOSYSTEMS

KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS

PROTECTED PLANET

Identification of sensitive areas during screening process and baseline surveys.

Supporting conservation actions

Compliance with environmental standards, certification schemes and biodiversity safeguard policies.

Valuation of ecosystem services.

Reporting a company’s environmental footprint

Application of the mitigation hierarchy.

Design of offsets

Minimization of impacts on biodiversity

Rehabilitation and restoration programmes

7 As highlighted in Table 4.1, biodiversity offsets are mechanisms that can be used to 8 compensate for significant biodiversity impacts arising from a project, after 9 prevention and mitigation measures have been taken (BBOP, 2009). A recent 10 assessment of offset and compensatory programs worldwide accounted 39 active 11 programs, 25 in development (Madsen et al., 2010). The minimum size of the market 12 associated with these programs was assessed to be 1.8-2.9 billion dollars per year, 13 with more than 86000 ha of land covered by some sort of conservation or protection 14 (Madsen et al., 2010). North America is the world region which has more active 15 programs (14) and where more are is covered more than 50000 hectares (Madsen et 16 al., 2010) 17 18 The UNEP’s SCP Clearinghouse (www.scpclearinghouse.org) hosts a worldwide 19 database on SCP initiatives. Currently, the database contains 680 entries, 91% 20 correspond to on-going initiatives. There is a fairly good distribution of SCP initiatives 21 around the globe; Europe takes the lead with approximately 22% of the initiatives. In 22 all regions, the role of United Nations or other international organizations in 23 promoting the implementation of SCP initiatives is relevant, comprising 42% of the 24 initiatives. In Europe, North America and Asia/Pacific this relevance is shared with 25 governments and other public institutions. Interestingly, the role of the business 26 sector as a promoter of SCP is higher in North America. The number of SCP initiatives 27

2 Knowledge products are platforms or baskets of knowledge that comprise assessments of authoritative

biodiversity information supported by standards, guidelines, data, tools, capacity-building and tangible products (IUCN, 2014).


6

allocated to energy, water, agri-food and waste (major themes of SCP) totalized 461 1 entries3. Amongst these, 30% addressed the agri-food sector, 26% energy and waste 2 sectors and 19% the water sector. 3 4 1.a.i. Ecological Footprint 5 6 The Ecological Footprint (EF) measures the amount of biologically productive land 7 and sea area needed to produce the resources required to fulfil human consumption 8 and to absorb the anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the so called 9 carbon footprint, Borucke et al., 2013; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). The 10 comparison of the EF (of production or consumption) with the biocapacity (a 11 measure of the amount of biologically productive land and sea available to provide 12 these services), allows understanding at some extent the (un)sustainability of 13 currents patterns of both production and consumption (Kitzes et al., 2009a, 2009b; 14 Monfreda et al., 2004; Wackernagel et al., 1999). Since 1961, the Ecological 15 Footprint has always increased (Figure 4.10 - A). In the early 70’s, consumption by 16 humans exceeded biocapacity, meaning that since then Humanity is in an overshoot 17 situation (WWF, 2012). Overshoot occurs when ecosystems services are demanded 18 at a pace faster than they can be renewed (Catton, 1982). Increasing anthropogenic 19 CO2 emissions have been the main driver of overshoot (Moore et al., 2012; WWF, 20 2008b). In 2007, the global Ecological Footprint was approximately 18 billion global 21 hectares (gha); i.e., humanity used the equivalent of 1.5 Earths to support its 22 consumption and absorption of CO2 emissions. Through time EF’s more significant 23 components have changed. For example, cropland represented approximately 50% 24 of the total footprint in the 60’s, and 20% in 2008; carbon uptake area represented 25 approximately 10% of the total footprint in 60’s, and 50% in 2008 (Figure 4.1 -A). 26 27 In absolute terms, the highest EF is found in Middle Income countries, whereas the 28 biggest ecological deficit is found in High Income countries and is mainly caused by a 29 high carbon footprint (Figure 4.1 –B). As proposed by Ehrlich and Holdren (1971), the 30 human impact on the environment can be determined by three main variables, 31 population, affluence (consumption) and technology4. Galli et al. (2012) analysed a 32 time-series of EF and Biocapacity to understand the contribution of the different 33 variables5 in the environmental impact generated by economic growth (High, Middle 34 and Low income countries). From 1965 to 2005, the global per capita footprint 35 remained stable (Galli et al., 2012), however global population has more than 36 doubled representing a huge increase in global EF (Figure 4.10 - A). The analysis of 37 per capita trends of EF and population showed that High Income countries were the 38 only ones where per capita EF increased more than the population; in Low income 39 countries there was a reduction in the per capita EF (Galli et al., 2012). Such results 40 enable to understand the main drivers of environmental impact in the different 41 countries’ groups. In High Income countries, the increase in total EF was mainly 42

3 Acessed on 2

nd January 2014. Note that in this total double counting exists, as an initiave can be accounted

under several diferente sectors. Nevertheless, this analysis sheds some light on the relative importance given to SCP in the diferente sectors. 4 Under the well known I(mpact)=P(opulation) x A(ffluence) x T(echnology) formula.

5 In this study EF is intended as the product of per capita consumption (A) and level of technology (T).


7

driven by improvements in life style, in Middle Income countries the increase in total 1 EF was due to population growth, and to a lesser extent improvements in life style, 2 in Low income countries the increase in total EF was mainly driven by population 3 growth, since per capita EF has decreased. 4 A

B

Million&Global&Hectares&

5 Figure 4.1. A) Evolution of the Ecological Footprint by different EF components, B) Ecological 6 Footprint and biocapacity for High, Middle and Low income countries6, in 2007. Data from 7 Global Footprint Network (2012). 8 9

10 Figure 4.2. Per capita EF and % composition by different components, for High, Middle and 11 Low Income countries, in 1965, 1985 and 2005. From Galli et al. (2012). 12 13

6 The definition of the different income categories can be found in Galli et al. (2012).


8

The reasons behind changes in per capita EF vary between the different countries’ 1 groups (Figure 4.2). In High income countries, the carbon footprint component grew 2 from 31% in 1965 to 63% in 2005, and the cropland footprint component decreased 3 from 37% in 1965 to 18% in 2005. This might be interpreted as a sign of structural 4 change of the economy from agricultural dominated society to an industrial 5 dominated society (Galli et al., 2012; Krausmann et al., 2013). In Middle Income 6 countries, the same patterns as in High Income countries were found. The carbon 7 footprint component increased from 16% in 1965 to 46% in 2005 and the cropland 8 footprint component decreased from 51% in 1965 to 28% in 2005. Low Income 9 countries exhibit the more pronounced increase in the carbon footprint, more than 10 100% in 2005 when compared to 1965 levels, the cropland footprint component 11 decreased from 62% in 1965 to 44% in 2005. Galli et al. (2012) point out that these 12 results suggest that Middle and Low income countries are following the same 13 development pattern as High Income countries. As it is in Middle and Low income 14 countries that the highest economic and population growth will occur in the coming 15 decades, decisions made in such countries will largely influence global sustainability 16 (see Box 4.2). Also, increases in EF will result in greater pressures on terrestrial 17 ecosystems in these countries. The EF of production refers to the demand placed on 18 local ecosystems, if compared to biocapacity it provides insights on the extent of 19 overexploitation (Figure 4.3). 20

21 Figure 4.3. Ecological Footprint of Production vs. Biocapacity. From Galli et al. (in press) 22 23 There is a lot of controversy around the EF. On the one hand, it is one of the best 24 communication tools when it comes to inform society about their impact on the 25 planet. On the other hand, it has received several criticisms ranging from its 26 methodology to the policy messages it conveys (see van den Bergh and Grazi, 2014; 27 Blomqvist et al., 2013; Giampietro and Saltelli, in press; Rees and Wackernagel, 28


9

2013; Wackernagel, 2014, for the latest criticisms and responses). One of the 1 criticisms relevant for this Target concerns the fact that the EF should not be 2 consider as a sole indicator to assess (un)sustainability of ecosystems exploitation. It 3 only considers CO2 emissions as source of pollution, whilst other pollution sources, 4 like nitrogen or phosphorous deposition (see Aichi Target 8) might have more 5 detrimental impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity (Butchart et al., 2010). Another 6 criticism concerns the fact that the EF cannot provide insights about the 7 sustainability of the exploitation of the ecosystems (van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 8 1999; Fiala, 2008). Particularly, it is not informative regarding the intensity of land 9 use. Van den Bergh and Verbruggen (1999) point out that for EF accounting, an 10 intensive land use would translate into a smaller footprint whereas an extensive land 11 use into a higher footprint, irrespective of the environmental consequences of 12 fertiliser and pesticides use, groundwater control and irrigation. Fiala (2008) 13 analyzed the correlations between the EF and land degradation, and the results 14 show that the footprint captures almost no effect on land degradation. When it 15 captures it, it does so in an opposite direction. 16 17 Probably the most widespread critique of the EF is that it is mainly a measure of 18 carbon footprint. Recently, Blomqvist et al. (2013) showed that overshoot occurs 19 only in the carbon footprint component, and that none of the other land use 20 categories have an ecological deficit suggesting that no depletion is occuring at the 21 global level. In their reply, Rees and Wackernagel (2013) acknowledge this limitation, 22 that stems from current accounting methodologies, since cropland, built-up land and 23 grazing land footprints can only be less than or equal to the respective biocapacity, 24 correcting the footprint in respect to the issues raised will lead to higher footprint 25 estimates. 26 27 The EF does not directly measure biodiversity; however, it can be used as an 28 indicator of the drivers or pressures that cause biodiversity loss (Galli et al., in press; 29 Kitzes and Wackernagel, 2009; WWF, 2008b). The main consumption categories 30 assessed within the EF are energy (fossil fuels), food products (cropland and grazing 31 land, fishing grounds) and forest-related products (forest land). All of these can be 32 related to anthropogenic threats to biodiversity. The Carbon footprint component 33 measures the unbalance between the rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and that 34 of CO2 sequestration by the biosphere. The higher the footprint, the higher is the 35 accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, which represents increasing threats to 36 species through shifts in habitat ranges due climate change. The footprints of food 37 and forest-related products are deeply related with two of the main drivers of 38 biodiversity loss, habitat loss (land use change, habitat destruction and 39 fragmentations) and overexploitation. The EF can provide insights on the drivers of 40 land use change. Weinzettel et al. (2013) analysed how world regions displace land 41 use to other regions, and found that 24% of the global EF (without the carbon 42 footprint component) was displaced through international trade. They showed that 43 richer countries displace land use to lower income countries. For example, Europe’s 44 consumption requires land from Central and Latin America and Asia. Similarly, Galli 45 et al. (in press) concluded that the stabilization of the EF of production, mainly 46


10

cropland footprint, during the 1974-2008 period, reflects a stabilization of the 1 pressures on ecosystems which lead to an improvement of Switzerland’s biodiversity 2 status. Nevertheless, the EF footprint of consumption did not decrease, but the 3 products (and biocapacity) were being imported from other countries. This means 4 that Switzerland reduced the pressures on its ecosystems, but instead exerted 5 indirect pressures on the ecosystems in the countries from which imported products. 6 7 1.a.ii. Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) 8 9 Net Primary Production (NPP) is the net carbon assimilated by terrestrial vegetation 10 in a given period. NPP is the energetic basis of all ecosystems as it determines the 11 amount of energy available for transfer from plants to other trophic levels. The 12 Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) tries to capture the 13 aggregate impact of land use on biomass available, in each year, in ecosystems 14 (Haberl et al., 2007a). According to (Erb et al., 2009; Haberl et al., 2007b; Krausmann 15 et al., 2013) it is measured as follows: 16 17 HANPP = NPPpot - NPPeco = HANPPluc + HANPPharv, with NPPeco = NPPact – HANPPharv 18 19 NPPpot is the potential NPP or the NPP that would be produced by the vegetation in 20 the absence of human interference; NPPeco is the NPP that remains in the 21 ecosystems after harvest. In NPPecp computation, NPPact is the NPP of the actual 22 vegetation, and HANPPharv the NPP harvested by humans. HANPPluc represents the 23 differences between the NPP of the vegetation under actual land uses and the NPP if 24 it had remained native vegetation not influenced by management practices. 25 Normally, HANPP is expressed as a percentage of potential NPP. 26 27 The HANPP has been increasing through time, more than doubling in the last century 28 (Krausmann et al., 2013). This increase occurs as a result of land use change and 29 biomass harvest mainly due to agriculture (Haberl et al., 2007a; Krausmann et al., 30 2013; Vitousek et al., 1986). Globally, the HANPP is approximately between 30% and 31 40% (Haberl et al., 2007a; Imhoff et al., 2004; Krausmann et al., 2013; Vitousek et al., 32 1986), However, from the remaining 60% of NPP, 53% is not harvestable since it 33 comprises growth in root systems, preserved land and wilderness areas with no 34 logistical infrastructure for harvest (Smith et al., 2012). As a result, 30% of HANPP 35 indicates a high level of anthropogenic dominance of the biosphere. 36 37


11

1 Figure 4.4. HANPP and HANPP per capita from 1910 to 2005 from five world regions (FSU-EE 2 = Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; Western Industrial = North America, Europe and 3 Oceania). HANPPharv is the NPP harvested by humans, and HANPPluc represents the 4 differences between the NPP of the vegetation under actual land uses and the NPP if it had 5 remained native vegetation not influenced by management practices. From Krausmann et al. 6 (2013). 7 8 Asia is the world region with the highest increase and the highest values of HANPP in 9 2005, with approximately 47% of NPP0 being appropriated by humans (Figure 4.4). In 10 all other world regions, the increase in HANPP throughout the last century was not 11 as fast, in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the percentage of NPP0 12 appropriated by humans has decreased since 1990, reflecting the disintegration of 13 the agricultural production system after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Krausmann 14 et al., 2013). In all regions (except Asia), HANPP was below 25% in 2005. Despite the 15 general increase in the rate of HANPP, per capita HANPP has been decreasing in all 16 world regions since 1910 (Figure 4.4). Since biomass consumption is almost in 17 perfect correlation with population growth (Krausmann et al., 2013), the global 18 decrease in per capita HANPP indicates an increase in the efficiency of biomass 19 production in relation to NPPpot, whereas regional differences reflect the amount 20 and type of biomass consumed and the net balance of biomass imports and exports. 21 Although it is clear that HANPP provides an idea of the human domination of the 22 biosphere a decrease in HANPP does not necessarily reflect moving towards a more 23 sustainable situation. For example, increases in NPPact can be reached due to use of 24 fertilizers, resulting in a lower HANPP. 25 26 The HANPP has been suggested as an indicator to measure the pressures of the 27 socio-economic activity in biodiversity (Haberl et al., 2007b), as it keeps track of one 28 of the most important drivers of biodiversity loss: land-use change. Although some 29 studies have explored the relationship between biodiversity loss and HANPP, this still 30


12

needs to be better understood (Haines-Young, 2009). Haberl et al. (2004b) analysed 1 the relationship between HANPP and the species diversity of autotrophs and 2 heterotrophs in agricultural landscapes in Austria; they found that HANPP (%) was 3 inversely correlated with the species diversity. Haberl et al. (2005) analyzed NPPact, 4 NPPt, NPPh and HANPP (%) as potential determinants of bird species diversity. NPPact 5 revealed to be the best predictor of bird species richness and was inversely 6 correlated with the percentage of endangered species. Recently, Dullinger et al. 7 (2013) studied Europe’s extinction debt and showed that historical data of HANPP 8 (and other socioeconomic indicators) are better correlated with the proportion of 9 threatened species than the current values of the same indicators. Despite these 10 indications on the relationship between HANPP and biodiversity, it is important to 11 mention that HANPP does not account for the qualities of the primary productivity 12 appropriated (Smil, 2011). For example, harvesting food crops on land that has been 13 cultivated for centuries is clearly a different appropriation from cutting down a 14 forest stand in a biodiversity hotspot. 15 16 1.a.iii Water footprint 17 18 The water footprint (WF) was developed by Hoekstra and Hung (2002). It measures 19 all the freshwater required for the production or consumption of a country and the 20 freshwater required to assimilate the pollution load. Since 1995, water consumption 21 has increased approximately 30%, but the relative shares of the water footprint’s 22 components have remained the same (Arto et al., 2012). Hoekstra and Mekonnen 23 (2012) determined that the global annual average WF, for the period 1996-2005 was 24 9087 billion m3. Of this total, 74% concerned the consumption of green water 25 (rainwater stored in the soil, mainly important for agriculture), 11% blue water 26 (surface and ground water), and finally 15% grey water (for the assimilation of 27 pollutants). Sector wise, agriculture alone appropriated 92% of global WF, industrial 28 production 4.4% and domestic water supply 3.6%. Globally, irrigation for agriculture 29 was responsible for 90% of the consumption of blue water, also irrigation is 30 responsible for 70% of global water withdrawals (Siebert and Döll, 2010). 31 China, India and the United States are the regions with higher WFs of production 32 (Figure 4.5 – A), being responsible for 38% of global WF. However, the WFs of 33 consumption (Figure 4.5 – B) of China and India, in per capita terms, are amongst the 34 lower values. Niger, Bolivia and Mongolia have the higher WFs of consumption 35 mainly due to the green WF (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). 36


13

1 2 Figure 4.5. A) Global water footprint of production (mm/y on a 5’X5’ grid), B) Global per 3 capita water footprint of consumption (m3/y/cap). From Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012). 4 5 Freshwater ecosystems are amongst the most altered, because of water flow 6 modifications and water consumption (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment, 2005), and 7 are probably the ecosystems where more competition for resources, between 8 humans and the rest of the biosphere, exists. Such alterations and competition have 9 obvious consequences for freshwater biodiversity. The Freshwater Living Planet Index 10 shows the greatest decline amongst all the biomes analysed, 37% between 1970 and 11 2008 (WWF, 2012). The main threats to freshwater biodiversity are overexploitation, 12 water pollution, flow modification, destruction or degradation of habitat and 13 invasion by exotic species (Dudgeon et al., 2006). 14 15 Vörösmarty et al. (2010) performed a global analysis of threats to freshwater, taking 16 into consideration both the water security and biodiversity dimensions. According to 17 their results, 80% of the world’s population lives in areas where incident biodiversity 18 and human water security threats exceed the 75th percentile. Figure 4.6 shows the 19 geographical distribution of both threats and unravels their close relation. In regions 20 like the United States, Europe, China and India, the high threat incidence is also 21 geographically related with high water footprints (Figure 4.5 -A). In areas of high 22 incident threats to human water security and biodiversity, the main drivers for both 23 are the same: water resource development and pollution and watershed disturbance 24 and biotic factors, the latter are more relevant for biodiversity (Vörösmarty et al., 25 2010). 26


14

1

2 Figure 4.6. Global geography of incident threat to A) biodiversity and B) human water 3 security. From Vörösmarty et al. (2010). 4 5 1.a.iv Primary Production Required to sustain the marine fisheries catch (PPR) 6 7 The Primary Production Required to sustain the fisheries catch (PPR) is obtained by 8 back-calculating the fisheries flows, and is expressed in primary production and 9 detritus equivalents for all pathways from the exploited species captured in the 10 catch down to the primary producers and detritus (Pauly and Christensen, 1995). 11 This index can be expressed per unit of fishery catch relative to primary production 12 and detritus of the ecosystem required to sustain that catch (%PPR). Total catch has 13 increased exponentially since 1950s to 1990s and since then it has been fluctuating 14 (Coll et al., 2008; Pauly et al., 2002). The %PPR has also shown a geographic 15 expansion from the northern countries to the global ocean and also in depth (Swartz 16 et al., 2010, Figure 4.7). 17


15

1 2 Figure 4.7. Primary Production Required (PPR) to sustain global marine fisheries landings, 3 expressed as percentage of local primary production for A) 1950 and B) 2005. From Swartz 4 et al. (2010). 5 6 Associated to PPR calculations, a measure of the sustainability of fishing activities 7 linked with the production lost from the oceans when fishing showed that fishing 8 has gone less sustainable with time (Coll et al., 2008). In 1950, the probability of a 9 fish catch being occurring sustainably in a certain geographical area was higher than 10 75% (Figure 4.8). Through time, this probability has decreased considerably. In 1990, 11 in certain areas of the large marine ecosystem, especially in the Eastern China coast, 12 the probability of sustainable exploitation was close to 0% (Figure 4.8). Globally, in 13 2004 the probability of having areas of sustainable exploitation of the oceans was 14 lower than 60% (Coll et al., 2008). 15 16 Current and future trends of exploitation of marine resources poses also important 17 impacts to marine biodiversity worldwide (Costello et al., 2010; Worm et al., 2006) 18 (Chapter 6 provides an in depth analysis of fisheries and sustainability). This is 19 especially relevant for larger organisms (Christensen et al., 2003; Lotze and Worm, 20 2009), but also to smaller organisms (Anderson et al., 2011). The ecosystem-based 21 approach to fisheries process (Christensen and Maclean, 2011; Link, 2011; Pikitch et 22 al., 2004) argues for a change in the way fishing is developed. It requires a change of 23 vision to optimize and reconcile the exploitation of marine resources and 24 conservation of diversity and ecosystem services. This approach is still in its infancy 25 globally, but regional case studies are promising. For example, when countries work 26 towards sustainability of fishing by following the Code of Conduct for Responsible 27


16

Fisheries developed in 1995 by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the 1 United Nations, which includes a set of recommendations for reducing the negative 2 impacts of fishing activities on marine ecosystems, the sustainability of fishing 3 activities increases (Coll et al., 2013). This can have a positive impact on the quantity 4 of fishing products and on exploited marine ecosystems. 5 6

7 Figure 4.8. Historical ecosystem overfishing assessment for large marine ecosystems. Psust 8 (%) is the probability of having sustainable fishing occurring in a certain area during the A) 9 1950s and B) 1990s. Adapted from Coll et al. (2008). 10 11 1.a.v. Impacts of utilization on the status of species 12 13 People depend upon biodiversity and use wildlife in a variety of ways. Birds, 14 mammals and amphibians are hunted, trapped and collected for food, sport, pets, 15 medicine, materials (e.g. fur and feathers) and other purposes. The Red List Index for 16 birds, mammals and amphibians showing trends in survival probability driven by 17 utilization illustrates the changing status of these species groups, owing to the 18 balance between negative trends driven by unsustainable exploitation, and positive 19 trends driven by measures to reduce overexploitation. It excludes changes in status 20 driven by other factors (such as habitat loss or climate change). 21 22 For all three groups, there is a small decline in RLI (Figure 4.9). The RLI reveals the 23 trends in the overall extinction risk of species, a decreasing RLI means that the rate of 24 extinction is expected to increase, whereas a flat RLI means that the rate of 25


17

extinctions is expected to remain relatively unchanged. Hence, a small decline in RLI 1 indicates that overall levels of utilization are unsustainable. Many species are now 2 threatened with extinction owing to over-exploitation. It is likely that the results for 3 these groups will be mirrored for other wildlife groups once data become available. 4 5

6 Figure 4.9. Red List Index for all birds (9861 species), mammals (4350 species) and 7 amphibians (4554 species) showing trends in status driven by utilization or its control; 8 declines indicate that unsustainable exploitation is driving these species ever-faster towards 9 extinction. Source: BirdLife International and IUCN. 10 11 Lenzen et al. (2012) provided an insight on the implications of consumption patterns 12 to threats to biodiversity. They found that approximately 30% of species threats were 13 driven by international trade, and mainly exerted by consumption patterns of 14 developed economies in developing economies (Table 4.2). 15 16 Table 4.2. Five top-ranking internationally traded commodities (causes), by country of 17 production and final consumption. Adapted from Lenzen et al. (2012). 18 THREAT SUFFERED DUE TO PRODUCTION IN

DRIVEN BY CONSUMPTION IN

COMMODITIES/THREAT CAUSES

Papua New Guinea Japan Agricultural products Malaysia Singapore Biological resource use, pollution China USA Pollution from manufacturing Mexico USA Coffee and tea Canada USA Forestry, agriculture, grazing, pollution from

manufacturing and mining

19 20 1.b. Projecting forward to 2020 21 22 Until 2020, it is expected that economic development and population growth 23 continue to drive the increasing consumption of natural resources (Figure 4.10 - A). 24 As income rises, the demand for processed food, meat, dairy and fish increases, 25


18

exerting additional pressure in food producing systems and more specifically on land 1 (Godfray et al., 2010). 2 3 In per capita terms, the Ecological Footprint (without CF) and HANPP show a 4 decreasing trend that is likely to continue until 2020 (Figure 4.10 – B). This result 5 indicates a decrease in the appropriation of land by each person, which could be a 6 result of efficiency gains in the agricultural sector. However, Krausmann et al. (2013) 7 show that the decrease in per capita HANPP is mainly a result of a decrease in the 8 consumption of biomass for energy purposes. While the EF without the CF has 9 decreased the EF, while the CF remains stable (and in absolute terms it increases 10 more than EF without CF), this comparison highlights the fact that decreased 11 demand for cropland due to agricultural activities as only been possible due to 12 industrialization of agricultural practices, hence contributing to a higher carbon 13 footprint (more energy inputs and fertilizers)7. 14 15 The intensity of resource use (quantity of resource per monetary unit) has been 16 decreasing, and short term projections indicate that it will keep decreasing, except 17 for water, whose intensity seems to have stabilized (Figure 4.10 - C). Until 2020, 18 efficiency improvements are likely to be over-compensated by economic and 19 population growth indicating that the main goal of sustainable production and 20 consumption, which is decoupling economic growth from resource use, has not been 21 achieved. 22 23 Begin Box 4.2. – Case Study: Ecological Footprint of China 24 China is the most populated country in the world and one of the countries with 25 higher growth rates. China’s economic growth has induced structural changes in the 26 economy, has improved the quality of life of their population and has been inducing 27 lifestyles changes (Chen et al., 2007; Galli et al., 2012; Gaodi et al., 2012; Hubacek et 28 al., 2009). Such progresses have unavoidable repercussions on the environment; the 29 per capita EF of China increased from 0.95 global hectares (gha) in 1961 to 2.1 gha in 30 2005 (still below the world average of 2.6 gha per capita). The main changes 31 occurred at the carbon footprint level; in 1961 it represented 7% of the global per 32 capita footprint whereas in 2005 it represented 54% (Chen et al., 2007; Galli et al., 33 2012; Gaodi et al., 2012). 34 35 Hubacek et al. (2009) estimated the EF footprint of China for 2020 taking into 36 account population, income growth, urbanization and lifestyle changes as well as 37 structural economic changes (increased efficiencies8 in agricultural, industrial, 38 transportation and communications and in the services sectors), their projections 39 indicated that in 2020 the national per capita EF would be 2.1 gha. This value has 40 been reached in 2005, between 2000 and 2005 the increase in the chinese per capita 41 EF was higher than in any other period (Galli et al., 2012; Gaodi et al., 2012). In 2020, 42

7 Other emissions then the ones associated with agricultural practices are included in the carbon footprint

component of the ecological footprint. 8 Efficiencies in the resource use refer to use of resource per unit of total economic output. Improved efficiencies

mean that more economic output is produced using fewer resources.


19

and considering that China seems to be following a development pattern similar to 1 developed countries with high resource use (Galli et al., 2012) it is likely that the per 2 capita EF will be much higher. China’s per capita footprint is well related with 3 urbanization rates (Gaodi et al., 2012). In Beijing, it was estimated that the per capita 4 EF would almost double 2005 values reaching 9.93 gha in 2020 (Hubacek et al., 2009). 5 These results highlight the urgency of implementing measures to change 6 consumption and production patterns in China. These actions should include raising 7 public awareness for the need of sustainable consumption patterns, specially in 8 urbanized areas; promote sustainable construction and efficient buildings, expansion 9 and improvement of the public transportation system and optimization of the 10 industrial structure (Chen and Lin, 2008; Gaodi et al., 2012; Hubacek et al., 2009). 11 End Box 4.2. 12 13 14


20

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

ResourceuseperGDP

EFwithoutCF(gha)

HANPP(ton)

WaterFootprint(m3)

EFwithCF(gha)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

PercapitaGDP

Percapitaresourceuse

EFwithoutCF(gha)

HANPP(ton)

WaterFootprint(m3)

EFwithCF(gha)

GDP(2005constantUSD)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0

5

10

15

20

25

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

GrossDomescProduct(GDP)

Resourceuse

Popula on(billion)

EFwithoutCF(biliongha)

HANPP(PgC)

WaterFootprint(1000km3)

EFwithCF(biliongha)

GDP(billion2005constantUSD)

C

B

A

1 Figure 4.10. A) Extrapolations of currents trends of population, Gross Domestic Product 2 (GDP) (secondary axis), Ecological Footprint (with and without the Carbon Footprint 3 component), Water Footprint and Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production; B) per 4 capita extrapolations of current trends of GDP (secondary axis), Ecological Footprint (with 5 and without the Carbon Footprint component), Water Footprint and Human Appropriation 6 of Net Primary Production, C) extrapolations of currents trends of intensity resource use of 7 Ecological Footprint (with and without the Carbon Footprint component), Water Footprint 8 and Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production intensities (resource use per unit GDP). 9 Data sources: (UN, 2013a), for Population; UN (2013b), for GDP; Global Footprint Network 10 (2012), for Ecological Footprint Data; Krausmann et al. (2013), for Human Appropriation of 11 Net Primary Productivity; Arto et al. (2012), for Water Footprint. Extrapolations were 12 performed applying linear regressions on current trends. 13 14


21

In an effort to assess the sustainability of the levels of consumption in 2020, we 1 compared the projected values of the indicators analysed with indicative ecological 2 safe limits established for each of the indicators boundaries (Table 4.3). By 2020, it is 3 projected that humanity has reached critical boundaries for at least two indicators. 4 The EF exceeds biocapacity by 8 billion gha, due to increasing anthropogenic carbon 5 emissions that cannot be assimilated by the sinking capacity of forests. Other studies 6 also show that carbon sinks cannot assimilate the total of carbon emissions 7 generated due to human activities (Canadell et al., 2007; Le Quéré et al., 2009). A 8 similar perspective is shown for the levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in major 9 rivers around the world; water requirements for pollution assimilation may 10 compromise the water availability for human consumption (Canfield et al., 2010; Liu 11 et al., 2012). 12 13 By 2020, the Blue Water Footprint is expected to reach by 2300 km3y-1 (data not 14 shown in Figure 4.10). Such value is likely to be greatly exceed as some studies 15 present the current freshwater consumption level at 2600 km3y-1 (Rockström et al., 16 2009). Taking into consideration the interval of freshwater consumption’s safe 17 ecological limit is 1100-4500 km3y-1, it is possible that by 2020 this has been 18 exceeded globally. Smakhtin et al. (2004) analysed water stress at the global level, 19 taking into consideration not only water availability and total use but also the 20 environmental water requirements. They showed that basins where water use was 21 in conflict with environmental water requirements covered 15% of world land 22 surface. More recently, Hoekstra et al. (2012) analysed the water scarcity in 405 river 23 basins taking into consideration the environmental water requirements (Figure 4.11). 24 Twelve of the river basins analysed are continuously under water scarcity. But the 25 majority of the basins, face water scarcity between 9 and 2 months per year. 26 27

28 Figure 4.11. Number of months of water scarcity in world’s major river basins, based on the 29 period of 1996-2005. Water scarcity occurs when blue water footprint exceeds blue water 30 availability. From Hoekstra et al. (2012). 31 32 By 2020, HANPP is projected to reach 17 GtC (Figure 4.10). However some studies 33 place current HANPP at 20-24 GtC (Bishop et al., 2010; Running, 2012). Having these 34 differences into consideration, it is likely that by 2020 HANPP has exceeded the 35 critical boundary of 25GtC. Bishop et al. (2010) estimated that, in order to minimize 36 the changes to natural biomes, humans must reduce their HANPP to 9.72 GtC per 37


22

year. This would imply not only reductions in consumption, but also changes in the 1 ways human natural productivity. Apart from strict dematerialization changes can 2 include extension of product life, re-using and recycling (Bishop et al., 2010). 3 4 Irrespective of the ecological limits considered, the effect of current and future 5 values of consumption on nature are difficult to determine. Tipping points (critical 6 thresholds) are still difficult to determine and identify. Reaching a tipping point 7 might mean an irreversible regime shift with potentially important consequences for 8 biodiversity, ecosystems services and human well-being (Barnosky et al., 2012; 9 Leadley et al., 2010; Scheffer et al., 2012; Steffen et al., 2011). 10 11 Table 4.3. Comparison between levels of consumption in 2020 and the ecological safe limits 12 established for each of the indicators. 1 Global Footprint Network (2012) and WWF (2012); 2 13 Gerten et al. (2013) 3 Running (2012) and Smith et al. (2012). 14 INDICATOR USE BY 2020 AVAILABILITY

Ecological Footprint (without CF) 9 (billion gha) 12 (billion gha)1

Ecological Footprint (with CF) 20 (billion gha) 12 (billion gha)1

Blue Water Footprint (not shown) 2300 (km3 y

-1)* 1100 - 4500 (km

3y

-1)

2

HANPP 17 GtC ** 25 GtC3

* Projected values might be under estimated, in UNEP (2012b) current consumption of blue water is 15 shown as 2600 km

3. ** Projected values might be underestimated, in Running (2012) current values 16

of HANPP reached 20 GtC. 17 18 19

20 Figure 4.12 - Statistical extrapolation of the number of percentage of category 1 nations in 21 CITES (left) and CITES appendix I listings (right). Long dashes represent extrapolation period. 22 Short dashes represent 95% confidence bounds. Horizontal dashed grey line represents 23 model-estimated 2010 value for indicator. Extrapolation assumes underlying processes 24 remain constant. 25 26 In the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and 27 Flora (CITES), species are grouped according to their degree of protection. Appendix I 28 includes species threatened with extinction, trade is permitted only in exceptional 29 circumstances. In CITES, countries are classified according to the alignment of their 30


23

national legislation to meet the requirements for implementation of the Convention. 1 Category 1 countries are those who legislation is believed to meet the requirements 2 for implementation of CITES. 3 4 The projected increase in the number of countries classified as Category 1 in CITES 5 shows a continually improving commitment from the international community to 6 ensuring that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not 7 threaten their survival (Fig 4.12 – left). By 2020 it is projected that approximately 8 two thirds of the Parties of CITES will have introduced legislation that will meet the 9 requirements for implementation of CITES. Appendix I listings are expected to 10 increase, which indicates that more species that are internationally trade will be 11 threatened by extinction. However, the rate of increase seems to be decelerating 12 (Figure 4.12 – right). 13 14 15 1.c. Country actions and commitments9 16 17 Most countries have established targets or similar measures related to the promotion 18 of sustainable consumption and production (high). These targets are generally inline 19 with the Aichi Biodiversity Target (high) and if achieved would make a significant 20 contribution towards the achievement of this target. 21 22 The national targets that have been set tend to focus on supporting sustainable 23 production (medium). For example Serbia, in its NBSAP, has set an objective related 24 to developing and strengthening mechanism to ensure the sustainable use of 25 biodiversity. There has been comparatively less emphasis on issues related to 26 sustainable consumption. Two examples, which are counter to this general trend, are 27 Brazil and Finland, which have both established targets, which directly refer to 28 promoting sustainable consumption. 29 30 A number of countries have addressed specific issues that are not directly referred to 31 in Aichi Biodiversity Target 4 but would none the less make contributions towards its 32 attainment. Some countries have chosen to focus their attention on the impacts of 33 specific sectors. For example Suriname has established an objective related to the 34 promotion of responsible tourism and Japan has established a key action goal on the 35 development of policies specifically related to sustainable business activities. 36 37 38 39

9 This assessment is based on an examination of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans from the

following countries: Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Colombia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, England, The European Union, Finland, France, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Myanmar, Serbia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Timor Leste, Tuvalu and Venezuela. In addition it considers the set of national targets developed by Brazil. This assessment will be further updated and refined to account for additional NBSAPS and as such these initial findings should be considered as preliminary and were relevant a level of confidence has been associated with the main statements. This assessment focuses on the national targets, objectives, priority actions and similar elements included in the NBSAPs in relation to the international commitments made through the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.


24

2. What needs to be done to reach the Aichi target? 1 2 2.a. Actions 3 4 The unsustainable use or overexploitation of resources is one of the main threats to 5 biodiversity. Recognizing that achieving sustainable production and consumption is a 6 long-term process, meaningful steps need to be taken by 2020 to ensure progress 7 towards it. While some natural resources are being used more efficiently to produce 8 goods and services, this is outweighed by increasing total levels of consumption, and 9 it is unlikely that ecosystems can be kept within safe ecological limits given current 10 trends and patterns of consumption. Against this background, possible key actions to 11 accelerate progress towards this target include: 12 13

(a) Promoting the inclusion of conservation and sustainable use in 14 corporate sustainability plans; 15

16 (b) Strengthening partnerships among companies and industry 17

associations, civil society and government agencies, in an accountable and 18 transparent manner, to promote sustainable practices that address biodiversity; 19

20 (c) Developing incentives, regulations and guidelines to encourage 21

business development in sustainable production and consumption; 22 23 (d) Encouraging companies to determine and disclose their biodiversity-24

related externalities (footprint); 25 26 (e) Establishing government sustainable procurement policies that are in 27

line with the objectives of the Convention; and 28 29 (f) Developing sector specific sustainable production and consumption 30

plans (Targets 6 and 7). 31 32

The programmes of work on forest biodiversity and agricultural biodiversity, the 33 Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity as well 34 as the work on sustainable use, business and biodiversity and impact assessment 35 provide some guidance on the types of actions that could be taken to reach this 36 target. 37 38 Promoting sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is a complex task and 39 requires actions a combination of supporting policies, technological innovations and 40 lifestyle changes (UNEP, 2012a). Lebel and Lorek (2008) point out some challenges 41 associated with moving towards sustainable production and consumption. For 42 example, efforts to tackle environmental problems in one place might shift them 43 somewhere else; this may also represent an increase of the environmental problem if 44 technologies available in the displacing country are more efficient (an example is the 45 carbon leakage phenomena). Efforts to reduce environmental impacts of making 46


25

products can be overcompensated by a net growth in the demand for those products, 1 or if their end of life generates more environmental impacts. Also changing lifestyles 2 towards sustainable development may be difficult when marketing urges people to 3 consume. 4 5 Several actions on SCP already exist, however the lack of integration into coherent 6 policy frameworks and strategic plans might impair their effectiveness in contributing 7 towards sustainable development. Thus, it is recommend that at the country and 8 international level, all stakeholders work together towards an integrated SCP action 9 plan (UNEP, 2012a). Also, countries should seek to gather more data and establish 10 harmonized set of indicators to measure effectiveness and track progress of SCP 11 policies (UNEP, 2012a). Government cooperation between businesses and industries 12 can harness market forces to drive the shift to SCP. Governments should develop 13 incentives to encourage business investments in SCP (UNEP, 2012a). Such incentives 14 can have the form of loans or financial assistance, or sustainable public procurement 15 policies (see Box 4.1, OECD, 2008; UNEP, 2012a). Another action towards the 16 achievement of SCP regards the establishment of national standards or mandatory 17 labels to limit environmental damages of a certain production process or product, 18 fostering innovation and promoting greener supply chains (Lebel and Lorek, 2008; 19 OECD, 2008; UNEP, 2012a). Actions should also focus not only on the production side, 20 but also on the demand side raising awareness on people about their impact on the 21 environment (Lebel and Lorek, 2008; UNEP, 2012a). One of the most pressing issues 22 in SCP is waste; waste production has risen tenfold in the past century, and it is likely 23 that it continues to increase in the next century (Hoornweg et al., 2013). 24 25 Reducing or minimizing the direct and indirect pressures on biodiversity and 26 ecosystem services is the first step to promote their sustainable use (SCBD, 2011). 27 This is the goal of the Strategic Goal B of the Aichi Targets (see Targets 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 28 and 10). Table 4.4Table 4.4 presents a summary of actions to decrease the pressures 29 on biodiversity and ecosystems. 30 31 Table 4.4. Example of actions needed to achieve Strategic Goal B. 32 TARGET 5 By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Increase productivity of converted lands [through culturally and ecologically appropriate means] and restrict further [industrial] agricultural expansion.

Restrict infrastructure expansion.

Change consumption patterns (less demand of lad-related products)

Involve local communities in management

Stop illegal timber harvest and trade

TARGET 6 By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.

Eliminate harmful subsidies

Stop Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing

Eliminate destructive fishing gears and practices

Precautionary approach to prevent overfishing

Support Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ conserved territories and areas in river, coastal and marine ecosystems, including customary and subsistence-based fishing practices (such as satoumi in Japan and tagal in Malaysia”

TARGET 7 Production certification


26

By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

Reduce post-harvest losses

Change consumption patterns

Support Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ conserved territories and areas, particularly low-impact and subsistence-based livelihood strategies

TARGET 8 By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

Uncrease nutrient efficiency

Decrease manure production

Reduce nutrient loss

TARGET 9 By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Develop indicators of invasions

Standardization of terminology

Control pathways of introduction (for example, ornamental plants, pets, ballast water)

TARGET 10 By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

Reduce fishing effort

Mitigation of pollution and land-based activities on coral reefs

Development of marine ecoturism

Support Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ conserved territories and areas in coastal and marine and other vulnerable ecosystems, including customary and subsistence-based fishing practices

1 2 2.b. Costs and Cost-benefit analysis 3 4 A green economy is a resource efficient economy, that invests in natural capital and 5 promotes human well-being (UNEP, 2011). Promoting SCP is the first step for the 6 establishment of green economies. Investing in greening key sectors, like agriculture, 7 fisheries, water and forestry requires a small cost when compared to long-term 8 benefits (UNEP, 2011). The aggregate global cost required for the transition towards 9 green agriculture was estimated to be US$ 198 billion per year (between 2011-2050), 10 and represents an yearly increase in value added of about 9%, and additional 47 11 million additional jobs in comparison with the business as usual scenarios (UNEP, 12 2011). Greening the fisheries sector could increase resource rents from negative 13 US$ 26 to positive US$ 45 billion a year, under such scenario fisheries value added 14 was estimated to be US$ 67 billion a year (UNEP, 2011). Regarding the water sector, 15 an annual investment of US$ 198 billion per year (between 2011-2050) water use can 16 become more efficient and consequently increase agricultural and industrial 17 production. Under such scenario, by 2050 7% less people would live in water stressed 18 regions in comparison with the business as usual scenario (UNEP, 2011). Investing 19 US$ 40 billion in reforestation per year (between 2011-2050) could raise the value 20 added in forest by 20%, and the carbon stored by 28%, in comparison with business 21 as usual (UNEP, 2011). 22 23 At the national level, achieving Target 4 will require domestic studies focusing on key 24 impacts of consumption and production patterns on biodiversity, in order to identify 25 priorities for action and the potential role of different actors in the public and private 26 sectors. These national studies are expected to require up to US$ 19.5 million (SCBD, 27 2012), globally. Finally, national action plans should be developed to ensure that 28 national production and consumption is kept within safe ecological limits; in this 29


27

regards the High-level Panel stress the role of governments in developing public 1 procurement strategies in line with SCP objectives. The approximate initial 2 investment required for these actions is expected to be between US$ 44 and 85 3 million, with recurrent yearly expenditures of US$ 8 to 15 million (SCBD, 2012). 4 5 6 3. What are the implications for biodiversity in 2020? 7 8 Biodiversity status has been declining (Butchart et al., 2010). The main identified 9 drivers of this decline are habitat loss and degradation driven by unsustainable 10 agriculture, infrastructure development and other factors, overexploitation, pollution, 11 biotic change, invasive alien species and climate change. All these drivers result from 12 the human domination and exploitation of the biosphere for satisfying consumption 13 needs. The projected increases in the indicators analysed are in line with other 14 projections from the literature, and suggest that, despite of efficiency gains, 15 decoupling economic growth from economic growth as not yet occurred. 16 17 As a result, pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity will continue. As “…it is only 18 possible to reduce or halt the loss of biodiversity if the drivers and pressures on 19 biodiversity are themselves reduced or eliminated” (SCBD, 2011), it is likely that we 20 will assist to a the continuation of the decline of biodiversity status until 2020 for the 21 majority of ecosystems (see Targets 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14). 22 23 24 4. What do scenarios suggest for 2050 and what are the implications for 25 biodiversity? 26 27 Scenarios for 2050 of the Ecological Footprint (EF), Human Appropriation of Net 28 Primary Production (HANPP) and Water Footprint (WF) are available. All scenarios 29 project an increase in the human dominance of the biosphere in 2050, unless strong 30 measures are put in place (Ercin and Hoekstra, 2014; Krausmann et al., 2013; Moore 31 et al., 2012). 32 33

Moore et al. (2012) indicate that, following a business as usual path, humanity’s 34 Ecological Footprint is projected to increase to over 31 billion gha (3.4 gha per 35 capita) by 2050. Alternative scenarios showing a reduction of the Footprint until 36 2050 require a stabilization of the emissions at 50% of 2005 levels by 2050 (IEA’s 37 BLUE map scenario), a low population growth (UN, 2008) and a change in dietary 38 patterns towards less meat (Moore et al., 2012). For this scenario, humanity would 39 require 0.9 Earths to meet their consumption and assimilation of emissions (Moore 40 et al., 2012). These scenarios suggest that in order to meet sustainability (EF equal or 41 smaller than biocapacity) aggressive goals are required for each of the drivers. 42 However, if only the environmental goal of emissions stabilization at 50% of 2005 43 levels is kept projections show a stabilization of the EF at about 1.5 Earths (Figure 44 4.13). 45


28

1 Figure 4.13. Baseline and BLUE map Ecological Footprint scenarios until 2050. From Moore 2 et al. (2012). 3 4 In HANPP projections for 2050 all scenarios show an increase in total HANPP 5 (Krausmann et al., 2013, Figure 4.14). The scenario with a lower increase in HANPP 6 (Scenario C), the assumption underlying this scenario are a constant global average 7 biomass consumption of 0.3tC/cap/yr; a decrease in average HANPP per unit of final 8 biomass consumption of 26%, reflecting gains in efficiency (Krausmann et al., 2013). 9 Scenarios with higher HANPP values for 2050 reflect different choices of bioenergy 10 scenarios (Scenarios D and E). Scenario D considers that additional 50 EJ/y over the 11 present level of 50EJ/y will come from bioenergy, Scenario E considers additional 12 250Ej/y. For the both scenarios 60% of the additional bioenergy will be supplied by 13 agriculture and 40% by forest, also in both scenarios increases in production 14 efficiencies are taken into account. 15 16

17 Figure 4.14. Scenarios for the development on HANPP until 2050, under 5 different 18 scenarios. From Krausmann et al. (2013). 19 20 Biofuels are seen as one of the most promising alternatives for fossil fuels, in fact the 21 supply of energy from biofuels was amongst all other renewable energy sources the 22 one that grew the most (IPCC, 2011). However, many biofuels actually increase GHG 23 emissions in comparison to fossil fuels when direct and indirect land use change as 24 well as nitrous oxide emissions are accounted for (Gibbs et al., 2008; Hertel et al., 25 2010; Plevin et al., 2010; Searchinger et al., 2008). The increased demand in 26 bioenergy, especially due to increased biofuel consumption, has raised concerns 27


29

about how much land can be used to produce both food and energy purposes for an 1 increasing population with greater energy demands. 2 3 Bioenergy potentials have great ranges. Dornburg et al. (2010) performed a 4 sensitivity analysis based on water limitations; protected areas and food demand 5 and established a range between 200-500 EJ/y. This would require the conversion of 6 natural areas to croplands or a great increase in yields, or both (Haberl et al., 2013). 7 However, current yield trends will be insufficient to meet food demand in areas 8 currently designated to food production (Ray et al., 2013), as a result land 9 conversion for bioenergy production would compete with land conversion for food 10 production. 11 12 Recently, Haberl et al. (2013) estimated that the maximum physical potential of the 13 world’s area outside croplands, infrastructure, wilderness and denser forest to 14 deliver bioenergy would be at approximately 190 Ej/y. Another study examined the 15 consequences of different conservation scenarios for the global potential of 16 bioenergy (Erb et al., 2012). Under a less restrictive scenario, wilderness areas with 17 two or more wilderness parameters were excluded for bioenergy production, areas 18 with 2 or more biodiversity hotspots were partially excluded, and the area 19 availability for protected areas was reduced by 80%. This resulted in a 9% reduction 20 of the global bioenergy potential. Under a more restrictive scenario, wilderness 21 areas were excluded for biooenergy production, all land areas suffer a decrease in 22 available energy crop area by 10%, areas with biodiversity hotspots were partially 23 excluded and protected areas excluded completely. This resulted in a 32% reduction 24 of the global bioenergy potential. 25 In water footprint (WF) projections for 2050, all scenarios show an increase in total 26 WF (Ercin and Hoekstra, 2014, Figure 4.15). The scenario with a lowest increase in 27 WF is based in IPCC’s storyline B1, a low population growth, change in dietary 28 patterns towards less meat, a biofuel expansion, technology and efficiency 29 improvements regarding water usage and trade liberalization. In this scenario the 30 green share of the WF decreases, whereas blue and grey shares increase. Under this 31 scenario the WF associated with agricultural products as the smallest increase when 32 compared to 2000 levels (18%). However, water footprints are very sensitive to each 33 driver and the projections associated with each scenario vary significantly. 34


30

1 Figure 4.15. Percentage change of the water footprint of consumption per capita relative to 2 2000. S1 is the highest increase scenario; inspired by IPCC’s A1 storyline it assumes low 3 population growth, diets with high meat content and high fossil fuels usage. S3 is the lowest 4 increase scenario; inspired by IPCC’s storyline B1 it assumes low population growth, diets 5 with low meat content, biofuel usage and technical and efficiency improvements. From Ercin 6 and Hoekstra (2014). 7 8 In the Sustainable Development Scenarios for Rio+20, the PBL (Netherlands 9 Environmental Agency) integrated assessment model is the one which best considers 10 the achievement of biodiversity goals together with other development and 11 environmental goals (Roehrl, 2012). In their approach three different scenarios 12 provide three different pathways to achieve the desired goal (PBL, 2012) (Figure 13 4.16). In the global technology pathway, averting the decline in mean species 14 abundance (MSA) will be achieved mainly by an increase in agricultural productivity 15 and climate change mitigation. In the decentralised solutions pathway, emphasis is 16 still given to the increase in the agricultural productivity, but in a lesser extent than in 17 the global technology pathway. Other important contributions for the protection of 18 biodiversity are the reduction of infrastructure expansion and expansion of protected 19 areas. The consumption change pathway is built upon several important assumptions 20 for biodiversity, namely dietary changes towards less meat, great reductions of food 21 wastes and lower rates of energy end-use increases due to changes in lifestyles. As a 22 result, this is a more balanced pathway. Important contributions for the protection of 23 biodiversity are reduction of consumption and waste, increases in agricultural 24 productivity are still important, but much less than any of the other pathways and 25 climate change mitigation. 26 27 28


31

1 Figure 4.16. Global biodiversity and options to prevent global biodiversity loss, by 2050. 2 From PBL (2012). 3 4 5 5. Uncertainties 6 7 Measuring sustainable consumption and production is multidisciplinary task that can 8 and should be tackled by different approaches. In this chapter, we opted to use a 9 suite of indicators that reflect anthropogenic pressures on terrestrial, freshwater and 10 marine ecosystems. Besides the indicators chosen several others could be used, 11 nevertheless associated with all indicators a level of uncertainty exists. 12 13 The EF calculations require extensive input data that have associated several sources 14 of uncertainty (Borucke et al., 2013). The quality, reliability and validity of EF 15 calculations depend on the level of accuracy and availability of this datasets. 16 However, many of them have incomplete coverage and do not specify confidence 17 limits (Borucke et al., 2013; Kitzes et al., 2009a). 18 The EF provides a systemic approach to combine information on pressures that are 19 usually assessed independently. To translate material extraction and waste 20 emissions into units of productive area key constants are used, these constants have 21 a high influence on the final result and introduce a source of uncertainty (Kitzes et al., 22 2009a). The EF and biocapacity are expressed in global hectares (gha), to convert 23 regular ha to gha equivalence factors are used. Currently, equivalence factors are 24 based on estimates of achievable crop yields as compared to maximum potential 25


32

crop yields from the Global Agro-Ecological Zones (GAEZ) assessment (Borucke et al., 1 2013). The choice of different equivalence factors would certainly have 2 consequences for EF results (Giljum et al., 2007). Yield factors normalize differing 3 levels of productivity for particular land use types. Haberl et al. (2001) showed that 4 different assumptions concerning yield factors could change results by a factor of 2. 5 The Carbon Footprint component of the Ecological Footprint is one of its major 6 sources of criticisms and also a source of uncertainty. Blomqvist et al. (2013) discuss 7 the uncertainty introduced by the carbon sequestration factor used in the 8 calculations of the carbon footprint. In order to address the major sources of 9 uncertainty in footprint calculations and understand their impact in the final results 10 sensitivity analysis should be performed (Giljum et al., 2007; Kitzes et al., 2009a). 11 12 Krausmann et al. (2013) identifies the major uncertainties related with calculations 13 of HANPP as uncertainties related with the underlying data, underlying assumptions 14 of the estimation procedure and uncertainties related with the global vegetation and 15 water balance models used. Their sensitivity analysis took into consideration 16 uncertainties of data on biomass harvest and uncertainties associated with the 17 assumptions underlying the calculation of HANPPluc, and proved the robustness of 18 their results. 19 20 Smil (2011) points out the fact that five different global quantifications of HANPP 21 show a mean value of 25%, with ranges from 4% to 55%, and highlights that there 22 has been no uniform approach for calculating HANPP. Smil (2011) also highlights the 23 choice of the denominator chosen to calculate the appropriation ratio, namely the 24 choice between above-ground and below-ground NPP and the uncertainties 25 associated with computing NPP. In a recent meta-analysis of NPP estimates a mean 26 of 56.4 GtC per year were estimated with uncertainty of about ± 15% (± 8-9 GtC) (Ito, 27 2011). This would represent differences in HANPP extreme shares of 26% less and 28 34% more of the mean 25% value (Smil, 2011). 29 30 The determination of the Water Footprint is a data intensive exercise (Hoekstra et 31 al., 2011), all the data sources carry their uncertainties, normally are not well 32 documented, that influence the results (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012; Hoekstra et 33 al., 2011). Hoekstra and Mekonnen (2012) identify basic sources of uncertainty on 34 the global precipitation, temperature, crop, and irrigation maps that they have used 35 and on the yield, production, consumption, trade, and wastewater treatment 36 statistics. The assumptions underlying the WF that also add uncertainty to its 37 calculations are, for example planting and harvesting dates per crop per region and 38 feed composition per farm animal type per country and production system and that 39 WFs of industrial production and domestic water supply are geographically spread 40 according to population densities (Hoekstra and Mekonnen, 2012). 41 42 Lastly, it is important to refer the uncertainties associated with defining a safe 43 ecological limit for natural resource use. In Rockström et al. (2009) three systems 44 had already exceeded their safe operating space, rate of biodiversity loss, climate 45 change and interference with nitrogen cycle. Global freshwater use was amongst the 46


33

systems with a higher margin. However, a recent reassessment of this limit has 1 placed current freshwater use near its limit (Gerten et al., 2013). Humanity is now 2 leaving the stable Holocene to enter a new geological period, the Anthropocene, 3 determined by our own impact on Earth systems and characterized by uncertain 4 conditions (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2011). Keeping the Earth system in a stable 5 Holocene-like state requires adopting the precautionary principle when addressing 6 planet boundaries. 7 8 9 6. Dashboard – Progress towards Target10 10 11 Element Current

Status Comments Confidence

Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve, or have implemented, plans for sustainable production and consumption…

Many plans for SPC in existence. Still limited.

high

… and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

All measures moving in wrong direction, although EF without carbon slowing down.

high

12 13 Compiled by: Alexandra Marques and Henrique Pereira, with contributions from 14 Marta Coll 15 NBSAPs and National Reports: Kieran Mooney / CBD Secretariat 16 Dashboard: Tim Hirsch 17 18 Version history: 10 Dec 2013 AM, 18 Dec 2013 CBK, 20 Feb 2014 AM 19 20 21 7. References 22 23 Anderson, S.C., Mills Flemming, J., Watson, R., and Lotze, H.K. (2011). Rapid Global Expansion of 24

Invertebrate Fisheries: Trends, Drivers, and Ecosystem Effects. PLoS ONE 6, e14735. 25 Arto, I., Genty, A., Rueda-Cantuche, J.M., Villanueva, A., and Andreoni, V. (2012). Global resources use 26

and pollution, Volume 1/Production, consumption and trade (1995-2008) (European Comission). 27 Baan, L. de, Alkemade, R., and Koellner, T. (2013). Land use impacts on biodiversity in LCA: a global 28

approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1216–1230. 29 Barnosky, A.D., Hadly, E.A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E.L., Brown, J.H., Fortelius, M., Getz, W.M., Harte, 30

J., Hastings, A., Marquet, P.A., et al. (2012). Approaching a state shift in Earth/’s biosphere. 31 Nature 486, 52–58. 32

BBOP (2009). Bussiness, biodiversity offsets and BBOP: an overview (Washington, DC: Business and 33 Biodiversity Offsets Programme). 34

10

This provides a current assessment of progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Target" based on the material

presented in this chapter and the expert judgement of the authors of the GBO-4 Technical Report. It is subject to change as additional material becomes available, including information from national reports, NBSAPs and the BIP partnership.


34

Van den Bergh, J.C.J.., and Grazi, F. (2014). Ecological Footprint Policy? Land Use as an Environmental 1 Indicator. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 10–19. 2

Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., and Verbruggen, H. (1999). Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an 3 evaluation of the “ecological footprint.”Ecol. Econ. 29, 61–72. 4

Bishop, J.D.K., Amaratunga, G.A.J., and Rodriguez, C. (2010). Quantifying the limits of HANPP and 5 carbon emissions which prolong total species well-being. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 12, 213–231. 6

Blomqvist, L., Brook, B.W., Ellis, E.C., Kareiva, P.M., Nordhaus, T., and Shellenberger, M. (2013). Does 7 the Shoe Fit? Real versus Imagined Ecological Footprints. PLoS Biol 11, e1001700. 8

Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J.C., 9 Wackernagel, M., and Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s 10 regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework. 11 Ecol. Indic. 24, 518–533. 12

Brack, D., and Buckrell, J. (2011). Controlling Illegal Logging: Consumer-Country Measures (London, 13 UK: Chatham House). 14

Brammer, S., and Walker, H. (2011). Sustainable procurement in the public sector: an international 15 comparative study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 31, 452–476. 16

Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A. van, Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, 17 J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent 18 Declines. Science 328, 1164–1168. 19

Canadell, J.G., Quéré, C.L., Raupach, M.R., Field, C.B., Buitenhuis, E.T., Ciais, P., Conway, T.J., Gillett, 20 N.P., Houghton, R.A., and Marland, G. (2007). Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 21 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc. Natl. Acad. 22 Sci. 104, 18866–18870. 23

Canfield, D.E., Glazer, A.N., and Falkowski, P.G. (2010). The Evolution and Future of Earth’s Nitrogen 24 Cycle. Science 330, 192–196. 25

Catton, W.R. (1982). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change (University of Illinois 26 Press). 27

CBD (2012). Quick Guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Sustainable Production and Consumption. 28 Chen, C.-Z., and Lin, Z.-S. (2008). Multiple timescale analysis and factor analysis of energy ecological 29

footprint growth in China 1953–2006. Energy Policy 36, 1666–1678. 30 Chen, B., Chen, G.Q., Yang, Z.F., and Jiang, M.M. (2007). Ecological footprint accounting for energy 31

and resource in China. Energy Policy 35, 1599–1609. 32 Christensen, V., and Maclean, J.L. (2011). Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries: A Global Perspective 33

(Cambridge University Press). 34 Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Heymans, J.J., Walters, C.J., Watson, R., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. (2003). 35

Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish Fish. 4, 1–24. 36 Coll, M., Libralato, S., Tudela, S., Palomera, I., and Pranovi, F. (2008). Ecosystem Overfishing in the 37

Ocean. PLoS ONE 3, e3881. 38 Coll, M., Libralato, S., Pitcher, T.J., Solidoro, C., and Tudela, S. (2013). Sustainability implications of 39

honouring the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 157–166. 40 Costello, M.J., Coll, M., Danovaro, R., Halpin, P., Ojaveer, H., and Miloslavich, P. (2010). A Census of 41

Marine Biodiversity Knowledge, Resources, and Future Challenges. PLoS ONE 5, e12110. 42 Crutzen, P.J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23–23. 43 Curran, M., de Baan, L., De Schryver, A.M., van Zelm, R., Hellweg, S., Koellner, T., Sonnemann, G., and 44

Huijbregts, M.A.J. (2011). Toward Meaningful End Points of Biodiversity in Life Cycle 45 Assessment†. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 70–79. 46

Dornburg, V., van Vuuren, D., van de Ven, G., Langeveld, H., Meeusen, M., Banse, M., van Oorschot, 47 M., Ros, J., Jan van den Born, G., Aiking, H., et al. (2010). Bioenergy revisited: Key factors in 48 global potentials of bioenergy. Energy Environ. Sci. 3, 258. 49

Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z.-I., Knowler, D.J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.J., 50 Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J., et al. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, 51 threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 81, 163–182. 52

Dullinger, S., Essl, F., Rabitsch, W., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Hülber, K., Jarošík, V., Krausmann, 53 F., Kühn, I., et al. (2013). Europe’s other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future 54 extinctions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 7342–7347. 55

EC (2010). Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 56


35

EC (2011). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 (Brussels: 1 European Comission). 2

EC/UNEP (2012). SWITCH Med Programme - Switching towards more sustainable consumption and 3 productio patterns in the Mediterranean. 4

Ehrlich, P.R., and Holdren, J.P. (1971). Impact of Population Growth. Science 171, 1212–1217. 5 Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Gingrich, S., Bondeau, A., Fischer-Kowalski, M., and Haberl, H. 6

(2009). Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production — processes, 7 trajectories, implications. An introduction. Ecol. Econ. 69, 250–259. 8

Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., and Plutzar, C. (2012). Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials 9 in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability. Energy Policy 47, 10 260–269. 11

Ercin, A.E., and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2014). Water footprint scenarios for 2050: A global analysis. Environ. 12 Int. 64, 71–82. 13

Fiala, N. (2008). Measuring sustainability: Why the ecological footprint is bad economics and bad 14 environmental science. Ecol. Econ. 67, 519–525. 15

Galli, A., Wackernagel, M., Iha, K., and Lazarus, E. (in press). Ecological Footprint: Implications for 16 biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 17

Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Niccolucci, V., Wackernagel, M., Wada, Y., and Marchettini, N. (2012). Assessing the 18 global environmental consequences of economic growth through the Ecological Footprint: A 19 focus on China and India. Ecol. Indic. 17, 99–107. 20

Gaodi, X., Shuyan, C., Qisen, Y., Lin, X., Zhiyong, F., Boping, C., Shuang, Z., Youde, C., Liqiang, G., Cook, 21 S., et al. (2012). China Ecological Footprint Report 2012. Cnsumption, Production and 22 Sustainable Development (WWF Beijing Office, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural 23 Resources Research, Global Footprint Network, Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of 24 London). 25

Gerten, D., Hoff, H., Rockström, J., Jägermeyr, J., Kummu, M., and Pastor, A.V. (2013). Towards a 26 revised planetary boundary for consumptive freshwater use: role of environmental flow 27 requirements. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 551–558. 28

Giampietro, M., and Saltelli, A. Footprints to nowhere. Ecol. Indic. 29 Gibbs, H.K., Johnston, M., Foley, J.A., Holloway, T., Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Zaks, D. (2008). 30

Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing 31 yield and technology. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 034001. 32

Giljum, S., Hammer, M., Stocker, A., Lackner, M., Best, A., Blobel, D., Ingwersen, W., Naumann, S., 33 Neubauer, A., Simmons, C., et al. (2007). Scientific Assessment and evaluation of the indicator 34 “Ecological Footprint” (Dessau, Germany: German Federal Environment Agency). 35

Global Footprint Network (2012). National Footprint Accounts, 2011 Edition. 36 Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, 37

S., Thomas, S.M., and Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion 38 People. Science 327, 812–818. 39

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., and Krausmann, F. (2001). How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints 40 for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926–1995. Ecol. Econ. 38, 25–45. 41

Haberl, H., Wackernagel, M., Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., and Monfreda, C. (2004a). Ecological 42 footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: a comparison. Land Use Policy 43 21, 279–288. 44

Haberl, H., Schulz, N.B., Plutzar, C., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Loibl, W., Moser, D., Sauberer, N., Weisz, 45 H., Zechmeister, H.G., et al. (2004b). Human appropriation of net primary production and 46 species diversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 102, 213–218. 47

Haberl, H., Plutzar, C., Erb, K.-H., Gaube, V., Pollheimer, M., and Schulz, N.B. (2005). Human 48 appropriation of net primary production as determinant of avifauna diversity in Austria. Agric. 49 Ecosyst. Environ. 110, 119–131. 50

Haberl, H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., and 51 Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2007a). Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary 52 production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104, 12942–12947. 53

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Plutzar, C., Fischer-Kowalski, M., and Krausmann, F. (2007b). Human 54 Appropriation of Net Primary Production (HANPP) as an Indicator for Pressures on Biodiversity. 55


36

In Sustainability Indicators. A Scientific Assessment, T. Hák, B. Moldan, and A.L. Dahl, eds. 1 (Washington DC: Island Press),. 2

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Running, S., Searchinger, T.D., and Smith, W.K. (2013). 3 Bioenergy: how much can we expect for 2050? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 031004. 4

Haines-Young, R. (2009). Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy 26, Supplement 1, 5 S178–S186. 6

Hertel, T.W., Golub, A.A., Jones, A.D., O’Hare, M., Plevin, R.J., and Kammen, D.M. (2010). Effects of US 7 Maize Ethanol on Global Land Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Estimating Market-mediated 8 Responses. BioScience 60, 223–231. 9

Hoekstra, A.Y., and Hung, P.Q. (2002). Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water flows 10 between nations in relation to international crop trade (Delft: UNESCO-IHE). 11

Hoekstra, A.Y., and Mekonnen, M.M. (2012). The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 12 109, 3232–3237. 13

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). The Water Footprint 14 Assessment Manual - Setting the Global Standard (London, UK: Earthscan). 15

Hoekstra, A.Y., Mekonnen, M.M., Chapagain, A.K., Mathews, R.E., and Richter, B.D. (2012). Global 16 Monthly Water Scarcity: Blue Water Footprints versus Blue Water Availability. PLoS ONE 7, 17 e32688. 18

Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., and Kennedy, C. (2013). Environment: Waste production must peak 19 this century. Nature 502, 615–617. 20

Hubacek, K., Guan, D., Barrett, J., and Wiedmann, T. (2009). Environmental implications of 21 urbanization and lifestyle change in China: Ecological and Water Footprints. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 22 1241–1248. 23

IISD (2012). Procurement, Innovation and Green Growth: the story continues... (Manitoba, Canada: 24 The International Institute for Sustainable Development). 25

Imhoff, M.L., Bounoua, L., Ricketts, T., Loucks, C., Harriss, R., and Lawrence, W.T. (2004). Global 26 patterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429, 870–873. 27

IPCC (2011). IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation 28 (Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK: Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). 29

Ito, A. (2011). A historical meta-analysis of global terrestrial net primary productivity: are estimates 30 converging? Glob. Change Biol. 17, 3161–3175. 31

IUCN (2014). Biodiversity for Business - A guide to using knowledge products delivered through IUCN 32 (Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 33

Janisch, C. (2007). Backgroung assessment and survey of existing initiatives related to ecolabelling in 34 the African region (United Nations Environment Programme). 35

Kitzes, J., and Wackernagel, M. (2009). Answers to common questions in Ecological Footprint 36 accounting. Ecol. Indic. 9, 812–817. 37

Kitzes, J., Galli, A., Bagliani, M., Barrett, J., Dige, G., Ede, S., Erb, K., Giljum, S., Haberl, H., Hails, C., et al. 38 (2009a). A research agenda for improving national Ecological Footprint accounts. Ecol. Econ. 68, 39 1991–2007. 40

Kitzes, J., Moran, D., Galli, A., Wada, Y., and Wackernagel, M. (2009b). Interpretation and application 41 of the Ecological Footprint: A reply to Fiala (2008). Ecol. Econ. 68, 929–930. 42

Koellner, T., Baan, L. de, Beck, T., Brandão, M., Civit, B., Margni, M., Canals, L.M. i, Saad, R., Souza, 43 D.M. de, and Müller-Wenk, R. (2013). UNEP-SETAC guideline on global land use impact 44 assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem services in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1188–45 1202. 46

Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., and 47 Searchinger, T.D. (2013). Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the 48 20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 49

Leadley, P., Pereira, H.M., Alkemade, R., Fernandez-Manjarrés, J.F., Proença, V., Scharlemann, J.P.W., 50 and Walpole, M. (2010). Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in 51 biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention 52 on Biological Diversity)). 53

Lebel, L., and Lorek, S. (2008). Enabling Sustainable Production-Consumption Systems. Annu. Rev. 54 Environ. Resour. 33, 241–275. 55


37

Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., and Geschke, A. (2012). International 1 trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112. 2

Link, J. (2011). Ecosystem-based fisheries Management: confronting tradeoffs (Cambridge University 3 Press). 4

Liu, C., Kroeze, C., Hoekstra, A.Y., and Gerbens-Leenes, W. (2012). Past and future trends in grey 5 water footprints of anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to major world rivers. Ecol. 6 Indic. 18, 42–49. 7

Lotze, H.K., and Worm, B. (2009). Historical baselines for large marine animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 8 254–262. 9

Madsen, B., Carroll, N., and Moore Brands, K. (2010). State of biodiversity markets report: offsets and 10 compensation programs worldwide. 11

Marty, F. (2012). Les clauses environnementales dans les marchés publics: perspectives économiques. 12 GREDEG Work. Pap. 13

Millenium Ecosystem Assesment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being (Island Press). 14 Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M., and Deumling, D. (2004). Establishing national natural capital 15

accounts based on detailed Ecological Footprint and biological capacity assessments. Land Use 16 Policy 21, 231–246. 17

Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A., and Galli, A. (2012). Projecting future human demand on the 18 Earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indic. 16, 3–10. 19

OECD (2008). Promoting sustainable consumption. Good practices in OECD countries. (Paris, France). 20 Ozone Secretariat (2012). Key Achievements of the Montreal Protocol to Date (United Nations 21

Environment Programme). 22 Pauly, D., and Christensen, V. (1995). Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 23

374, 255–257. 24 Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J., Watson, R., and Zeller, 25

D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689–695. 26 PBL (2012). Roads from Rio+20. Pathways to achieve global sustainability goals by 2050 (PBL 27

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). 28 Pikitch, E.K., Santora, C., Babcock, E.A., Bakun, A., Bonfil, R., Conover, D.O., Dayton, P., Doukakis, P., 29

Fluharty, D., Heneman, B., et al. (2004). Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management. Science 305, 30 346–347. 31

Plevin, R.J., Michael O’Hare, Jones, A.D., Torn, M.S., and Gibbs, H.K. (2010). Greenhouse Gas 32 Emissions from Biofuels’ Indirect Land Use Change Are Uncertain but May Be Much Greater than 33 Previously Estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 8015–8021. 34

Le Quéré, C., Raupach, M.R., Canadell, J.G., Al, G.M. et, Al, C.L.Q. et, Marland, G., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., 35 Conway, T.J., Doney, S.C., et al. (2009). Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nat. 36 Geosci. 2, 831–836. 37

Ray, D.K., Mueller, N.D., West, P.C., and Foley, J.A. (2013). Yield Trends Are Insufficient to Double 38 Global Crop Production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8, e66428. 39

Rees, W.E., and Wackernagel, M. (2013). The Shoe Fits, but the Footprint is Larger than Earth. PLoS 40 Biol 11, e1001701. 41

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., 42 Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–43 475. 44

Roehrl, R.A. (2012). Sustainable development scenarios for Rio+20. (United Nations Department of 45 Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development). 46

Running, S.W. (2012). A Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459. 47 SCBD (2011). COP-10 Further Infrmation related to the technical rationale for the Aichi Biodiversity 48

Targets, including potential indicators and milestones. 49 SCBD (2012). Resourcing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: A first assessment of the resources required 50

for implementing the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020 (Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of 51 the Convention on Biological Diversity)). 52

Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S.R., Lenton, T.M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W., Dakos, V., Koppel, J. van de, 53 Leemput, I.A. van de, Levin, S.A., Nes, E.H. van, et al. (2012). Anticipating Critical Transitions. 54 Science 338, 344–348. 55


38

Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., 1 and Yu, T.-H. (2008). Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through 2 Emissions from Land-Use Change. Science 319, 1238–1240. 3

Siebert, S., and Döll, P. (2010). Quantifying blue and green virtual water contents in global crop 4 production as well as potential production losses without irrigation. J. Hydrol. 384, 198–217. 5

Smakhtin, V., Revenga, C., and Döll, P. (2004). A Pilot Global Assessment of Environmental Water 6 Requirements and Scarcity. Water Int. 29, 307–317. 7

Smil, V. (2011). Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact. Popul. Dev. Rev. 37, 613–636. 8 Smith, W.K., Zhao, M., and Running, S.W. (2012). Global Bioenergy Capacity as Constrained by 9

Observed Biospheric Productivity Rates. BioScience 62, 911–922. 10 STA (2013). Sustainable Timber Action: Using the power of public procurement to support forests and 11

their communities. 12 Steffen, W., Persson, A., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., Crumley, C., Crutzen, 13

P., Folke, C., Gordon, L., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary 14 Stewardship. Ambio 40, 739–761. 15

Swartz, W., Sala, E., Tracey, S., Watson, R., and Pauly, D. (2010). The Spatial Expansion and Ecological 16 Footprint of Fisheries (1950 to Present). PLoS ONE 5, e15143. 17

UN (1992a). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations). 18 UN (1992b). Convention on Biological Diversity. 19 UN (2002). Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (United 20

Nations). 21 UN (2008). World Population Prospects: the 2008 revision. 22 UN (2012). A 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production 23

patterns (United Nations). 24 UN (2013a). World Population Prospects: the 2012 revision. DVD Edition. 25 UN (2013b). National accounts main aggregates database. 26 UNEP (2010). ABC of SCP - Clarifying concepts on sustainable consumption and production. (United 27

Nations Environment Programme). 28 UNEP (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty 29

Eradication (United Nations Environment Programme). 30 UNEP (2012a). Global Outlook on SCP Policies: taking action together (United Nations Environment 31

Programme). 32 UNEP (2012b). GEO5 Global Environmental Outlook: Environment for the future we want (Malta: 33

United Nations Environment Programme). 34 UNEP DTIE (2012). The impacts of sustainable procurement - eight illustrative case studies (Paris, 35

France: United Nations Environment Programme). 36 UNEP-WCMC (2013). CITES Trade - a global analysis of trade in Appendix I-listed species (Cambridge, 37

UK: UNEP-WCMC). 38 Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986). Human Appropriation of the 39

Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36, 368–373. 40 Vörösmarty, C.J., McIntyre, P.B., Gessner, M.O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., 41

Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Liermann, C.R., et al. (2010). Global threats to human water security 42 and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555–561. 43

Wackernagel, M. (2014). Comment on “Ecological Footprint Policy? Land Use as an Environmental 44 Indicator.”J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 20–23. 45

Wackernagel, M., and Rees, W.E. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the 46 Earth (New Society Publishers). 47

Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L., Bello, P., Callejas Linares, A., Susana L pez Falf n, I., M ndez Garc a, J., 48 Isabel Suárez Guerrero, A., and Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero, M. (1999). National natural capital 49 accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 29, 375–390. 50

Weinzettel, J., Hertwich, E.G., Peters, G.P., Steen-Olsen, K., and Galli, A. (2013). Affluence drives the 51 global displacement of land use. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 433–438. 52

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., 53 Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., et al. (2006). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. 54 Science 314, 787–790. 55


39

WWF (2008a). Illegal wood for the European market - An analysis of the EU import and export of 1 illegal wood and related products (Frankfurt am Main, Germany: World Wildlife Fund). 2

WWF (2008b). The 2008 Living Planet Report (World Wildlife Fund). 3 WWF (2012). Living Planet Report 2012. Biodiversity, biocapacity and better choices (World Wildlife 4

Fund). 5 6

Documents

Target 4: Sustainable consumption and production and use ... · SBSTTA Review Draft GBO4 – Technical Document – Chapter 4 DO NOT CITE 1 1 Target 4: Sustainable consumption and