A quantitative assessment of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands;2. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), London,United Kingdom;1. Curriculum for the Environment and Ecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Venable Hall, Campus Box #3275, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3275, United States;2. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, New East Building, Campus Box #3140, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3140, United States;1. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 6AR, UK;2. Crop Health, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Satower Straße 48, D-18051, Rostock, Germany;3. Land Management and Systems, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Lincoln, 7647, Christchurch, New Zealand;1. Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Bělidla 986/4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic;2. Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Humanities, U K?í?e 8, 158 00 Prague 5, Czech Republic;3. Charles University in Prague, Environment Center, José Martího 407/2, 160 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic;1. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK;2. Stockholm Environment Institute, Environment Department, Wentworth Way, University of York, York, YO10 5NG, UK;3. Environmental Program, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, 312G Aiken Center, 81 Carrigan Drive, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA;4. Conservation Science Department, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK;5. Forestry Training Institute, Arusha, Tanzania;6. Environment Department, Wentworth Way, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5NG, UK;7. College of African Wildlife Management –MWEKA, Department of Wildlife Management, P.O Box 3031, Moshi, Tanzania;8. Geography and Environment, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK;9. CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK;1. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands;2. Soil Physics and Land Management Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;3. Water Insight, Postbus 435, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands |
| |
| Abstract: | The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union includes a target to “ensure no-net-loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2020”. Many policy options can be envisioned to achieve such a no-net-loss target, mainly acting on land use and land management. To assess the effectiveness of such policies at a European Union (EU) scale, we simulated land use changes and their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services indicators. We analysed a Business–as-Usual scenario, and three no-net-loss scenarios. The no-net-loss scenarios included measures that aim to reduce negative impacts of land use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services, by better implementation of existing biodiversity conservation measures (Scenario 1); and enhancement of existing measures (Scenario 2); and offsetting residual impacts on areas of high biodiversity and ecosystem service value (Scenario 3).Results show that none of the scenarios achieved overall no-net-loss. Compared to a Business-as-Usual scenario, the no-net-loss scenarios reduced the overall degree of land cover change at EU level, hence reducing impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in large parts of the EU. The more comprehensive no-net-loss scenarios resulted in a gain of natural land cover. Moreover, natural areas became better connected, especially in peri-urban areas as a result of impact avoidance and offsetting. Richness of farmland bird species was projected to increase. Measures included in the no-net-loss scenarios had net positive effects on pollination and carbon sequestration, neutral effects on crop production, erosion prevention and flood regulation, and negative effects on nature-based recreation, compared to Business-as-Usual. In particular circumstances policy measures invoked displacement effects in land use allocation, reducing the effectiveness of the measures. This was primarily the case for flood regulation services throughout the EU.This study differentiates the potential effectiveness of a no-net-loss policy framework in three manners: (i) considering biodiversity and ecosystem services simultaneously; (ii) in the light of existing policies and land use pressures; and (iii) in different land use contexts across the EU. Taken together, we conclude that achieving no-net-loss for biodiversity and ecosystem services throughout the EU remains challenging given high land use demands. Nevertheless, in large parts of Europe there appears room for improvement for certain kinds of biodiversity and ecosystem services compared to Business-as-Usual, while still meeting other land use demands. |
| |
| Keywords: | Mitigation hierarchy Biodiversity conservation Land use modelling Indicators Biodiversity offsets Environmental policy European union Land use planning |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
