Reducing Losses of Biodiversity Worldwide: Effective Policy Instruments for Sustainable Consumption

In an increasingly globalized word, environmental and socioeconomic systems are interconnected or ‘telecoupled’ over large distances (Liu et al. 2013). As a result, the consumption of goods and services in industrialized countries leads to big losses of biodiversity worldwide. Nearly 30% of global species threats can be attributed to the consumption of imported agricultural products, textiles and other raw materials in the global North (Lenzen et al. 2012). Similarly, ecosystem services are significantly impacted by non-sustainable consumer behavior (TEEB 2015). In countries like Germany this stands in contrast to a high consciousness towards sustainable and environmentally sound consumption (BMUB and UBA 2015). This disparity between attitude and behavior suggests that progress for the conservation of biodiversity cannot be achieved without active policy intervention in the field of consumption. This paper analyzes policy instruments that aim to shape sustainable consumption addressing negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the countries of origin of imported goods. It comparatively reviews literature on regulatory measures, market-based instruments, and informational and educational measures. On the examples of soy, lithium and cotton, various policy instruments are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness to sustainably influence consumption choices. For this purpose, the paper develops an evaluation scheme including costs of the instrument (implementation and opportunity costs), direction of the shift in consumption (substitution vs. renunciation), expected magnitude of impact on consumption behavior, appeal to majority and feasibility of instrument, as well as non-intended outcomes (e.g. transaction costs, rebound effects). Possible combinations of instruments are analyzed in terms of potential synergetic or conflictual interrelations. To conclude, the paper presents policy recommendation bundles aimed to influence consumption behavior towards reducing the losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Global South. Literature BMUB (Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit), and (Umweltbundesamt), UBA (Umweltbundesamt). 2015. ‘Naturbewusstsein 2013: Bevölkerungsumfrage Zu Natur Und Biologischer Vielfalt’. Berlin und Dessau. Lenzen, M., D. Moran, K. Kanemoto, B. Foran, L. Lobefaro, and A. Geschke. 2012. ‘International Trade Drives Biodiversity Threats in Developing Nations’. Nature 486 (7401): 109–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11145. Liu, J., V. Hull, M. Batistella, R. DeFries, T. Dietz, F. Fu, T. W. Hertel, et al. 2013. ‘Framing Sustainability in a Telecoupled World’. Ecology and Society 18 (2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05873-180226. TEEB. 2015. ‘TEEB for Agriculture & Food Interim Report’. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Programme.