Contrary to the "letter" (although, I think, not to the "spirit") of Dmitry's formulation, the question is very simple and answer very short: any pro-nature policy, to be effective, must start with all conceivable efforts to reduce (as quickly and as radically as possible) human population, i.e. to develop a "2+1" (1 - or less - child per pair of parents) model of a family: with 8 or 10 billion (but even with 5 or 3 billion!) people on this Earth the effective protection of more or less natural environment and organisms in it is not "very complex" but quite simply and absolutely impossible! Of course I am aware that, unfortunately, everybody from leading politicians through businessmen to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people support rather the "pro-family" (where "family" means many children) policies, what makes the divagations on real nature protection no more than a kind of science-fiction (with emphasis on fiction)!

@ Dariusz, the attached file may give you some insight.

This question is very complex and a short answer is not possible. However, I would like to mention two words - improve control. Perhaps legal acts are in order, but lack of control is what is leading us to the global biodiversity collapse?!

The recent IPBES summit (29 april – 4th may 2019, Paris, France), in its “summary for policymakers” (https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf) provides very interesting leads for the implementation of effective policies for the protection of nature and biodiversity: Aiming to address the indirect effects of different policies (on land use, oceans, the exploitation of certain organisms, or on combating pollution and global warming, as well as on fighting against invasive species), while also taking the long-term into account when assessing the impacts of decisions. The causes of the destruction of natural areas and biodiversity are multiple (production and consumption processes, demographic dynamics, trade, technological innovations, local governance…). Policies, if well studied and calibrated, can be an important element for the preservation of nature and biodiversity; otherwise, they can be destructive. That's why your question is very interesting.

Contrary to the "letter" (although, I think, not to the "spirit") of Dmitry's formulation, the question is very simple and answer very short: any pro-nature policy, to be effective, must start with all conceivable efforts to reduce (as quickly and as radically as possible) human population, i.e. to develop a "2+1" (1 - or less - child per pair of parents) model of a family: with 8 or 10 billion (but even with 5 or 3 billion!) people on this Earth the effective protection of more or less natural environment and organisms in it is not "very complex" but quite simply and absolutely impossible! Of course I am aware that, unfortunately, everybody from leading politicians through businessmen to the overwhelming majority of ordinary people support rather the "pro-family" (where "family" means many children) policies, what makes the divagations on real nature protection no more than a kind of science-fiction (with emphasis on fiction)!

This 2019 FAO report entitled "State of the World’s biodiversity for Food and Agriculture" (http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf) addresses several issues including global policy agendas

The rules and legislation of natural protecton of areas and species normally are good, but the enforcement is the problem in reality...

Find the way to combat the three main problems: selfishness, greed and apathy I wish I knew.

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/5/16/the_world_just_took_a_major The World Just Took a Major Step To Curb Plastic Pollution, But the U.S. Refused to Join Effort

Thank you for the great resources and links! In my experience with industry, implementation and regulation of policies are the major challenges and obstacles; money talks....If we can somehow strike a balance between healthy ecosystems and profits, we would be well on our way... Increased human populations and strain on resources are definitely a challenge.

I have already written on the successes and failures of the int. environmental protection laws, see

Working Paper International Environmental Law

Interesting. The problem is that humans tend to be reactive rather than proactive...

Dear Friends and Colleagues of RG,

Should the majority of environmental policy measures, nature protection, be allocated to the systemic protection of biodiversity of whole ecosystems or their recreation, rebuilding into areas degraded by industrial development?

Please reply

I invite you to the discussion

Thank you very much

Best wishes

Dariusz: Nice dream, but remaining within the realm of science-fiction (or, rather, only fiction, without significant scientific component...) as long as there are many billions of us, as long as we need enormous quantities of energy, food, houses, roads, &c. and thundering commercial advertissements hammer into people's heads that they need even much more of what in fact is perfectly superfluous, as long as we - in the unavoidable consequence - produce untractable amount of rubbish, &c., &c., &c.! All that demands space, and the Earth is not infinitely extendible... A proverb says "the Man follows the forest and is followed by desert" (unfortunately, neither Sahara nor Gobi, but concrete-and-plastic desert...). To sum up: the more people, the less nature! Unfortunately, within 30 or 50 years children will learn not only of tigers or condors but even of foxes, herons or snakes as we have learned of trilobites, dinosaurs or archaeopteryxes...