Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
While certification systems can signal values important<br />
to some groups of people, they do not always capture<br />
aspects important to other groups e.g. the cultural values<br />
of biodiversity. Although nature tourism depends on a healthy<br />
environment, there is no guarantee that the tourism<br />
industry will take steps to protect it. There is often a time<br />
lag between profit-generating activities and the appearance<br />
of environmental degradation, which can make it<br />
difficult to develop a coordinated approach involving all<br />
relevant stakeholders (Bishop et al. 2008). For example,<br />
in 90 of the 109 countries where coral reefs occur, they<br />
are damaged by cruise ship anchors and sewage, by<br />
tourists breaking off chunks and by commercial harvesting<br />
for sale to tourists 48 .<br />
LACK OF BIODIVERSITY FOCUS BY<br />
CERTIFIED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES<br />
Many certification systems do not make their relationship<br />
to biodiversity explicit. Organic farming labels, for example,<br />
have been reported to be generally beneficial but the<br />
certification does not set out to ensure biodiversity and,<br />
depending on local circumstances, could actually reduce<br />
species richness (Bengtsson et al. 2005). To further confuse<br />
matters, there are substantial differences between<br />
standards in terms of how they treat biodiversity.<br />
Certification systems are based on the assumption that<br />
adopting certain specified production and processing<br />
practices will have positive biodiversity and ecosystem<br />
benefits, regardless of the producer’s location in the<br />
landscape/watershed. In practice, as mentioned above,<br />
most certified forests are not very biodiverse 49 and an organic<br />
farm located in the midst of a large agro-industrial<br />
landscape may not provide much biodiversity benefit for<br />
reasons beyond its control. Greater attention to landscape/watershed<br />
criteria in certification systems could<br />
help ensure better biodiversity outcomes although, as<br />
seen in the case of MSC, a broad ecosystem-based approach<br />
can weaken incentives for individual producers.<br />
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF NEW<br />
LEGISLATION<br />
REWARDING BENEFITS THROUGH PAYMENTS AND MARKETS<br />
New regulations can sometimes limit market opportunities<br />
for natural products. For example, a potential barrier<br />
to growth in natural cosmetics comes from tighter legislation<br />
in the US and the EU (REACH) on the safety of<br />
chemicals in cosmetics. This could reduce research investment<br />
into potential new ingredients, making it<br />
harder for new products to meet the new criteria. The<br />
end result could be continued reliance on existing species/products<br />
already approved under the legislation,<br />
at the expense of lesser-known biodiversity-friendly<br />
options.<br />
5.5.3 EXPANDING THE REACH OF<br />
BIODIVERSITY-FRIENDLY<br />
PRODUCTS<br />
Practical steps to expand the reach of biodiversityfriendly<br />
products could be taken to:<br />
• review and strengthen the biodiversity element<br />
of existing and new certification systems to<br />
ensure they monitor biodiversity use and impacts.<br />
Implementation methods currently in place require<br />
streamlining as customers (and sometimes user<br />
industries) are often unclear what a particular label<br />
means;<br />
<strong>TEEB</strong> FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 5: PAGE 52<br />
Copyright: Cavalier92. URL: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cavalier92/536638057/sizes/o/<br />
licensed under: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/