sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga
sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga sustainable development 20 years on from the ... - José Eli da Veiga
117 A major factor underlying this trend is that investment decisions are based on traditional economic criteria that do not take into account the importance of protecting biodiversity. In addition, short-term benefits of economic activities that damage biodiversity are reaped by specific agents —often private ones— whereas the benefits of protection are less concrete and only materialize in the long term. The absence of effective mechanisms enabling civil society to participate in decision-making and the dissemination of information on the benefits of protecting biodiversity (and the costs of degradation) perpetuates the bias towards activities that yield short-term private profits to the detriment of the environment. This issue is addressed further in chapter III. With regard to biodiversity, the economic valuation of ecosystem services —which is not necessarily associated with payment systems— can be useful for translating the loss of benefits arising from the loss of ecosystems into a material language and can complement decision-making (TEEB,
118 Box II.4 CENTRAL AMERICA: BIODIVERSITY REDUCTION SCENARIOS WITH AND WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE Central America contains 7% of the world’s biodiversity and great geological, geographical, climatic and biotic diversity. A recent study (ECLAC,
- Page 67 and 68: 66 2009). In addit
- Page 69 and 70: 68 production will, however, height
- Page 71 and 72: 70 Lastly, climate factors are also
- Page 73 and 74: 72 C. ENERGY: ENERGY INTENSITY, EFF
- Page 75 and 76: 74 Fuel subsidies for private vehic
- Page 77 and 78: 76 Table I.9 LAWS FOR THE PROMOTION
- Page 79 and 80: 78 reduction must also be mainstrea
- Page 81 and 82: 80 Box I.7 URBAN SUSTAINABILITY IN
- Page 83 and 84: 82 Box I.8 THE ECO-EFFICIENCY OF UR
- Page 85 and 86: 84 Figure I.21 SELECTED COUNTRIES:
- Page 87 and 88: 86 E. STRENGTHENING THE STATE AND A
- Page 89 and 90: 88 Bibliography Acquatella, Jean (<
- Page 91 and 92: 90 Fresco, Louise (20</stro
- Page 93 and 94: 92 Perroti, D.E. and R. Sánchez (<
- Page 95 and 96: 94 (2010b), Achiev
- Page 97 and 98: 96 Table II.1 RATIFICATION OF MULTI
- Page 99 and 100: 98 Box II.1 (concluded) Union of So
- Page 101 and 102: 100 Table II.3 LATIN AMERICA AND TH
- Page 103 and 104: 102 The same applies to the incenti
- Page 105 and 106: 104 Figure II.1 LATIN AMERICA AND T
- Page 107 and 108: 106 Box II.2 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
- Page 109 and 110: 108 Figure II.3 SHARE OF GLOBAL GRE
- Page 111 and 112: 110 Figure II.7 PER CAPITA CO 2 EMI
- Page 113 and 114: 112 Figure II.10 CARBON INTENSITY O
- Page 115 and 116: 114 Table II.4 LATIN AMERICA AND TH
- Page 117: 116 coast and in marine areas, the
- Page 121 and 122: 120 25 Figure II.1
- Page 123 and 124: 122 The valuable assets related to
- Page 125 and 126: 124 monitoring have been instrument
- Page 127 and 128: 126 Box II.7 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
- Page 129 and 130: 128 technology transfer is successf
- Page 131 and 132: 130 Table II.6 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT
- Page 133 and 134: 132 (a) Integrated water resources
- Page 135 and 136: 134 concessions, authorizations and
- Page 137 and 138: 136 water flows caused by land-use
- Page 139 and 140: 138 Climate change will exacerbate
- Page 141 and 142: 140 With regard to the safe recover
- Page 143 and 144: 142 MERCOSUR countries are implemen
- Page 145 and 146: 144 Unlike in the early 1990s, all
- Page 147 and 148: 146 Bibliography Acquatella, J. (<s
- Page 149 and 150: 148 Li, J. and M. Colombier (<stron
- Page 151 and 152: 150 WHO (World Health Organization)
- Page 153 and 154: 152 1. Statistics and indicators Si
- Page 155 and 156: 154 3. Technology and environmental
- Page 157 and 158: 156 2. Citizen participation in env
- Page 159 and 160: 158 Reforms that would improve acce
- Page 161 and 162: 160 (b) Land ownership Land rights
- Page 163 and 164: 162 Box III.3 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
- Page 165 and 166: 164 Box III.4 LATIN AMERICA AND THE
- Page 167 and 168: 166 Many countries have created ins
118<br />
Box II.4<br />
CENTRAL AMERICA: BIODIVERSITY REDUCTION SCENARIOS WITH<br />
AND WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE<br />
Central America c<strong>on</strong>tains 7% of <strong>the</strong> world’s biodiversity and great geological, geographical, climatic and biotic<br />
diversity. A recent study (ECLAC, <str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>10b) estimated biodiversity by means of <strong>the</strong> biodiversity potential index (BPI),<br />
which includes species and ecosystems and makes inferences about <strong>the</strong> probability of finding greater diversity based<br />
<strong>on</strong> a set of variables that c<strong>on</strong>tribute to biodiversity. Under a trend scenario of land-use change (without climate<br />
change), <strong>the</strong> BPI will fall by approximately 13% during <strong>the</strong> course of this century, especially in <strong>the</strong> period up to<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>50. With climate change, under <strong>the</strong> lowest-trajectory scenario for GHG emissi<strong>on</strong>s (IPCC scenario B2) and <strong>the</strong><br />
trend scenario (IPCC scenario A2), <strong>the</strong> BPI is estimated to fall by 33% and 58% respectively by <strong>the</strong> year 2100. The<br />
countries with <strong>the</strong> worst BPI outcomes are Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and H<strong>on</strong>duras, with expected<br />
declines of between 75% and 70% under <strong>the</strong> trend scenario for GHG emissi<strong>on</strong>s (scenario A2).<br />
CENTRAL AMERICA: BIODIVERSITY POTENTIAL INDEX IN <str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>05 AND EVOLUTION BY 2100<br />
UNDER THE BASELINE SCENARIO (WITHOUT CLIMATE CHANGE)<br />
AND THE B2 AND A2 CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS<br />
(On a five-level scale, with black representing <strong>the</strong> highest biodiversity potential index)<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>05<br />
Baseline scenario, 2100<br />
Scenario B2, 2100<br />
Scenario A2, 2100<br />
Biodiversity potential index<br />
Source: Ec<strong>on</strong>omic Commissi<strong>on</strong> for Latin America and <strong>the</strong> Caribbean (ECLAC), The Ec<strong>on</strong>omics of Climate Change in Central<br />
America. Summary <str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>10 (LC/MEX/L.978), Mexico City, ECLAC subregi<strong>on</strong>al headquarters in Mexico.<br />
Note:<br />
0.000-0.<str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>0 0.<str<strong>on</strong>g>20</str<strong>on</strong>g>1-0.400 0.401-0.600 0.601-0.800 0.801-1.000<br />
Territorial divisi<strong>on</strong>s corresp<strong>on</strong>d to departments, provinces or districts depending <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> country. The boun<strong>da</strong>ries and<br />
names shown <strong>on</strong> this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by <strong>the</strong> United Nati<strong>on</strong>s.
Change language