. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. . » oi CO. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.. Braat, L. ten Brink, P. (eds. ) Contributions from: Bolt, K. and Walpole, M. , Consortium led by Alterra, inc. UNEP-WCMC. European Commission

. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. . » oi CO. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.. Braat, L. ten Brink, P. (eds. ) Contributions from: Bolt, K. and Walpole, M. , Consortium led by Alterra, inc. UNEP-WCMC. European Commission Stock Photo

RMID:RE7826

Image details

Contributor:

The Book Worm / Alamy Stock Photo

Image ID:

RE7826

File size:

7.2 MB (273.8 KB Compressed download)

Releases:

Model - no | Property - noDo I need a release?

Dimensions:

1502 x 1664 px | 25.4 x 28.2 cm | 10 x 11.1 inches | 150dpi

More information:

This image is a public domain image, which means either that copyright has expired in the image or the copyright holder has waived their copyright. Alamy charges you a fee for access to the high resolution copy of the image.

This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage.

Search stock photos by tags

bhlconsortium bookcollectionbiodiversity bookcont bookyear2008

Similar stock images

RMRE7821–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. » oi CO. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.. Braat, L. ten Brink, P. (eds. ) Contributions from: Bolt, K. and Walpole, M. , Consortium led by Alterra, inc. UNEP-WCMC. European Commission

RMRE784P–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Ecosystem" (with associated biodiversity "B") is shown to provide an array of ecosystem services, some to the "Agricultural ecological-economic system", some to the consumers in the "Urban/Industrial system" and some exported (incorporating human services as well). Payments (€) for these services do, of course, not go to the ecosystems but to the production, harvesting and trade sectors of the Agricultural and Urban systems, respectively. Since the industrial age, an increasi

RMRE781N–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. . Alterra-rapport 1718 99. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhanced for readability - coloration and appearance of these illustrations may not perfectly resemble the original work.. Braat, L. ten Brink, P. (eds. ) Contributions from: Bolt, K. and Walpole, M. , Consortium led by Alterra, inc. UNEP-WCMC. European Commission

RMRE7850–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Overall, the analysis suggests that without halting biodiversity loss, the world in 2050 shall benefit much less from the flow of ecosystem services than in 2000. Annual Loss of economic value of ecosystem services that would have been available had biodiversity remained at 2000 levels Estimate for 2050 Services that would have been there, had biodiversity been halted Box 2: Different ways of presenting the scale of the COPI of biodiversity loss - example for the forestry biomes. There are several ways of repr

RMRE77WJ–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. economies, particularly those of small island developing states, 90% of which have reefs and 75% of which have mangroves. Degradation of mangroves and coral reefs is already causing reduced fish catches and tourism revenues and increased coastal erosion, and may reduce food security and increase malnutrition in coastal communities. Most of the estimated 30 million small-scale fishers in the developing world are dependent on coral reefs for food and livelihood. For example the productivity of the fisheries sect

RMRE77WM–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. tourists, and export markets; they support high diversity that in turn supports a thriving and valuable dive tourism industry; they contribute to the formation of beaches; they buffer land from waves and storms and prevent beach erosion; they provide pharmaceutical compounds and opportunities for bio-prospecting; they provide curios and ornamentals for the aquarium trade; and they provide coastal communities with materials for construction and so on (MA, 2005b). Box 5.7: Ecosystem services of Philippine Coral

RMRE7855–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. The scenarios analysed indicate that with current trends or increased effort whether for commercial or recreational fisheries all lead to collapses in stocks and ecosystems; they differed only in their rates of decline. Other related trends include: - Coastal ecosystems - There has been a substantial loss of estuaries and associated wetlands. In the United States, for example, over 50% of original estuarine and wetland areas have been substantially altered. - Mangroves - over the last 25 years, 3.6 million hec

RMRE7851–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Relation of Ecosystem Services, land use types and biodiversity (MSA indicator) Ecosystem Service Value Illustrative Sum of Ecosystem service values Regulating service (sum of components) Cultural service's, recreation & tourism Provisioning Service (max function). Light use Degraded Figure 9 The generalised relationships between land use / biodiversity and ecosystem services. • Provisioning services (P): There is no provisioning service, by definition, in a pristine ecosystem. With increasing intensity of

RMRE77W9–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. services provided. The analysis above assumes that the two vary proportionately or with a maximum function (see Chapter 5), and this helps to explain a large proportion of the overall COPI estimates. Empirical evidence of the relationships is plentiful, but quantitative causal substantiation is scarce yet. Similarly it will be important to do a careful analysis of where relationships between the loss of habitat/landuse area and ecosystem service provision are linear (eg provision of wood) - the core operationa

RMRE77X9–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. This would seem quite possible, but requires a convergence of methodologies which has only just started. In the COPI study we therefore have used a number of assumptions, which necessarily simplify the complexities in producing the ecosystem services, but nonetheless produce a logical and traceable set of data as an intermediate step in the assessment of the economics of biodiversity loss. So, ecosystem services are considered to stem from ecosystem functions within the natural environment, recognising that th

RMRE77W3–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Source: Ministere de L'Ecologie, du Developpement et de LAmenagement Durables (2008) La preservation des ecosystemes coralliens: aspects scientifiques, institutionnels et socio-economiques version provisoire du 20 mars 2008 The figures indicate how difficult it is to generalise about the value of services provided by coral reefs. The value of these sendees varies widely by location with respect to human population and tourism infrastructure. An illustrative, "back-of- the-envelope calculation" is how

RMRE77WB–. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. approach is that the gaps do not dominate the results. In the lower estimation scenario, this transfer was not done, and blanks were left. The value of this approach is that it can avoid concern that the transfer is a bit too pragmatic to be justifiable in a rigourous context. As there are competing principles - getting a full picture and having a robust approach - the two appoaches were taken and integrated into the scenarios. Note, ultimately the areas where gaps existed and techniques needed to fill the gap