TC4BE Finance instruments and related regulations Deliverable 3.1
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Biodiversity loss ranks among the foremost global risks, threatening the very foundation of life on Earth. This report, Deliverable 3.1 of Work Package 3 of the EU’s Horizon Research Program’s funded TCforBE project, addresses the identification, assessment and development of global transformative investment and finance levers for biodiversity and equity, and the urgent need for robust financial instruments to help stem this loss and foster recovery in an equitable way.The report opens by highlighting the gravity of the issue, noting a devastating reduction in global wildlife populations and a significant degradation of natural habitats. It sets the stage by outlining pivotal global and EU initiatives, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the European Green Deal. These initiatives underscore the financial sector’s potential to drive change through strategic investments in biodiversity conservation.Diverse financial instruments are available to support biodiversity. A dedicated section assesses their effectiveness in leveraging economic incentives for nature conservation (comprises both nature restoration and protection) and social equity. Despite growing funds, current financial contributions fall short of the annual US$824 billion needed for nature restoration. This gap highlights the pressing need for innovative solutions to effectively deploy existing financial instruments.Further this report reviews strategic actions by the EU and its Member States aimed at addressing biodiversity loss. These actions are evaluated for their alignment with the EU’s biodiversity strategy goals, focusing on minimizing drivers of biodiversity loss, enhancing governance, and protecting and restoring nature. This section provides a critical examination of the effectiveness of these strategies in achieving the EU’s biodiversity objectives.The final section delves into the strengths and weaknesses of policy levers within the EU impacting biodiversity finance. It identifies significant gaps, such as the need for clearer regulatory frameworks and the alignment of financial incentives. The report suggests that more robust regulatory mandates and a deeper integration of biodiversity goals could significantly enhance the impact of EU biodiversity policies.The report concludes by synthesizing findings and underscoring the substantial gaps in biodiversity financing and policy implementation. It calls for an intensified commitment from both public and private sectors to bridge the funding gap. Recommendations are offered to policymakers and industry stakeholders to improve the efficacy of biodiversity finance instruments and ensure sustainable and equitable conservation efforts.At a glance: This report captures the essence of the challenges and opportunities within the biodiversity finance sector. It serves as a guide for stakeholders, outlining a range of financial instruments and strategic actions that can contribute to more effective biodiversity conservation. The report highlights the urgent need for action using finance as an entry point in all sectors—government, private, and civil society—and recommends focusing efforts on scaling up biodiversity finance to meet this global challenge.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».