IPBES Global Assessment Chapter 6 – Supplementary materials Contents 6.1 TOWARDS TRANSFORMATIVE GOVERNANCE ................................................................ 2 6.1.1 Market-based instruments (MBI) ............................................................................................................ 2 6.1.2 Rights-based approaches ........................................................................................................................ 2 6.1.3 Governance recognizing the role of IPLCs and ILK ................................................................................... 3 6.1.4 Transformative governance in the Arctic ................................................................................................ 6 6.2 INTEGRATED APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES ................................ 8 6.2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 6.2.2 Feeding the world without consuming the planet ................................................................................... 9 6.2.3 Managing multifunctional forests ......................................................................................................... 14 6.2.4 Protecting nature .................................................................................................................................. 23 6.3 INTEGRATED APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE FRESHWATER ...................... 29 6.4 INTEGRATED APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES ........................................... 30 6.4.1 Urban planning for sustainability .......................................................................................................... 30 6.4.2 Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure .................................................................................. 32 6.4.3 Reducing the impacts of cities ............................................................................................................... 34 6.4.4 Enhancing access to urban services for GQL .......................................................................................... 36 6.5 INTEGRATED APPROACHES FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 39 6.5.1 Financial and environmental risks of biofuel production and potential solutions ................................. 39 6.5.2 Limitations of current Environmental Impact Assessment practice ....................................................... 40 6.5.3 Challenges of implementing compensation and offsetting policies ....................................................... 42 6.5.4 Ensuring access to energy for all by promoting community-led initiatives ............................................ 51 6.5.5 Obstacles related to inclusive governance for energy, mining and infrastructure ................................. 52 6.5.6 Trends and challenges of infrastructure development .......................................................................... 53 6.6 TRANSFORMATIONS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES ................................. 56 6.6.1 Addressing overconsumption ................................................................................................................ 56 6.6.2 Reducing unsustainable economic production ...................................................................................... 61 6.6.3 Reforming models of economic growth ................................................................................................ 64 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 66 1 6.1 Towards transformative governance 6.1.1 Market-based instruments (MBI) In the past two decades, there has been a notable shift towards economic, financial and/or market- based policies (often titled “market-based instruments” or MBI) for the conservation and provision of biodiversity and NCP. MBI generally refers to policy tools that involve either mechanisms for changing the price structure in a given market (with the intention to acknowledge and internalize environmental costs or benefits), for creating new commodities derived from environmental features (new markets and products) or for setting up monetary transfers aiming to improve the environmental performance of the targeted agents. These include a broad range of instruments and incentives (e.g. see http://oe.cd/pine ), such as tradable permits, eco-certification, biodiversity compensation, payments for ecosystem services, and according to some definitions, even taxes and subsidies (Froger et al., 2015; Pirard, 2012a). Stakeholders using these economic instruments often tend to assume that in one way or another, a monetary value can be established for biodiversity protection measures (either the cost of the action or policy itself, or a value for the underlying NCP being conserved), and that this valuation can be used to leverage positive conservation behavior in some form (Laurans, Rankovic, Billé, Pirard, & Mermet, 2013; Posner, McKenzie, & Ricketts, 2016). Relying solely on monetary value can raise controversy, including on the kind of valuation methods used and their assumptions, the data and accuracy requirements, and the areas of application (Costanza et al., 2017); IPLC groups in particular have noted that economic valuation is not always compatible with their worldviews. Other values, such as relational values (Chan, Satterfield, & Goldstein, 2012), associated with social coherence and other non-material values (i.e. spiritual and cognitive values), as well as those associated with the benefits to be enjoyed by future generations (e.g. bequest value) are examples. These arguments highlight the complexity of identifying suitable value indicators to evaluate whether economic instruments are effective or not as policy tools to motivate behavior and other change. MBI might induce changes not only in the economic performance and behavior of the targeted agents, but also in the social structures and conventions that frame the interaction among those agents, as well as in the type of cognitive framing shaping their relationship with the natural environment. Hence, both co-benefits and unexpected negative impacts have to be considered when designing and implementing MBI (R. Greiner & Stanley, 2013), as these instruments cannot be detached from their social dimensions (R. Greiner, 2013). The functioning or effectiveness of MBI should not be taken for granted, since their performance is very much conditioned by the regulatory framework in which they are inserted (Filoche, 2017). MBI normally are part of broader policy mixes, in which regulations play a very important role (Russi, Margue, Oppermann, & Keenleyside, 2016). 6.1.2 Rights-based approaches Human rights based approach: States have obligations to effectively protect against environmental harm that interferes with the enjoyment of human rights including a duty to protect against environmental harm from private actors (J. Knox, 2013, 2017; Jhon Knox, 2018). However, there has been a rise of persecution and killings of environmental defenders around the world (Global Witness, 2017). Decision makers at the national level are often unable to strike a balance between environmental protection and other legitimate societal goals, leading to inconsistent decisions and infringements of human rights (J. Knox, 2013, 2017). A human right based approach is well established within the work programme of the UN agencies (United Nations, 2003), and has recently been used to formulate a proposed Declaration on Human Rights and Climate Change, which would use legal arguments for the intrinsic rights of nature and future generations to motivate climate action now (K. Davies et al., 2017). While corporate actors are increasingly incorporating human rights considerations within their business commitments (GRI, 2001; United, 2011), the human rights performance of corporate actors varies based on their size, revenues and geographic location (CHRB, 2017). Land rights: Land rights include land ownership rights and land-use rights. Land ownership may be vested with the state or private landholders, and such ownership can create tensions where the allocation of land rights to commercial operators or powerful local actors impinges on IPLC rights. In 2 many countries, subsoil resources are owned by the government, which has the power to allocate such rights to extractive industries. National law may formally protect the local land rights, but they are often construed as conditional use rights, rather than ownership. Unclear land-use rights as well a lack of collaboration among stakeholders often result in unsustainable land uses and power asymmetries (Kashwan, 2016; Lawry et al., 2017; I. Ring et al., 2018; Robinson et al., 2017; Willemen et al., 2018). Collaborative arrangements, based on land use rights, between different stakeholders (e.g., community and forest industry) have played a crucial role in conflict management (Holden, Otsuka, & Deininger, 2013; Naughton‐Treves & Day, 2012; I. Ring et al., 2018). Customary rights: Customary rights promote adaptive governance including the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES Secretariat, 2015). Customary rights arise from ‘[l]aw consisting of commonly repeated customs, practices