Biophysical suitability, economic pressure and land-cover change: a global probabilistic approach and insights for REDD+

There has been a concerted effort by the international scientific community to understand the multiple causes and patterns of land-cover change to support sustainable land management. Here, we examined biophysical suitability, and a novel integrated index of “Economic Pressure on Land” (EPL) to explain land cover in the year 2000, and estimated the likelihood of future land-cover change through 2050, including protected area effectiveness. Biophysical suitability and EPL explained almost half of the global pattern of land cover (R 2 = 0.45), increasing to almost two-thirds in areas where a long-term equilibrium is likely to have been reached (e.g. R 2 = 0.64 in Europe). We identify a high likelihood of future land-cover change in vast areas with relatively lower current and past deforestation (e.g. the Congo Basin). Further, we simulated emissions arising from a “business as usual” and two reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) scenarios by incorporating data on biomass carbon. As our model incorporates all biome types, it highlights a crucial aspect of the ongoing REDD + debate: if restricted to forests, “cross-biome leakage” would severely reduce REDD + effectiveness for climate change mitigation. If forests were protected from deforestation yet without measures to tackle the drivers of land-cover change, REDD + would only reduce 30 % of total emissions from land-cover change. Fifty-five percent of emissions reductions from forests would be compensated by increased emissions in other biomes. These results suggest that, although REDD + remains a very promising mitigation tool, implementation of complementary measures to reduce land demand is necessary to prevent this leakage

Characterising the spatial distribution of opportunities and constraints for land sparing in Brazil

Abstract: Brazil is a megadiversity country with more tropical forest than any other, and is a leading agricultural producer. The technical potential to reconcile these roles by concentrating agriculture on existing farmland and sparing land for nature is well-established, but the spatial overlap of this potential with conservation priorities and institutional constraints remains poorly understood. We mapped conservation priorities, food production potential and socio-economic variables likely to influence the success of land sparing. Pasture occupies 70% of agricultural land but contributes ≤11% of the domestic food supply. Increasing yields on pasture would add little to Brazil’s food supply but – if combined with concerted conservation and restoration policies – provides the greatest opportunities for reducing land demand. Our study illustrates a method for identifying municipalities where land-sparing policies are most likely to succeed, and those where further effort is needed to overcome constraints such as land tenure insecurity, lack of access to technical advice, labour constraints, and non-compliance with environmental law

Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains

Over the last few decades rapid advances in processes to collect, monitor, disclose, and disseminate information have contributed towards the development of entirely new modes of sustainability governance for global commodity supply chains. However, there has been very little critical appraisal of the contribution made by different transparency initiatives to sustainability and the ways in which they can (and cannot) influence new governance arrangements. Here we seek to strengthen the theoretical underpinning of research and action on supply chain transparency by addressing four questions: (1) What is meant by supply chain transparency? (2) What is the relevance of supply chain transparency to supply chain sustainability governance? (3) What is the current status of supply chain transparency, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of existing initiatives? and (4) What propositions can be advanced for how transparency can have a positive transformative effect on the governance interventions that seek to strengthen sustainability outcomes? We use examples from agricultural supply chains and the zero-deforestation agenda as a focus of our analysis but draw insights that are relevant to the transparency and sustainability of supply chains in general. We propose a typology to distinguish among types of supply chain information that are needed to support improvements in sustainability governance, and illustrate a number of major shortfalls and systematic biases in existing information systems. We also propose a set of ten propositions that, taken together, serve to expose some of the potential pitfalls and undesirable outcomes that may result from (inevitably) limited or poorly designed transparency systems, whilst offering guidance on some of the ways in which greater transparency can make a more effective, lasting and positive contribution to sustainability

Quantifying and mapping species threat abatement opportunitiesto support national target setting

The successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020Global Biodiversity Framework will rely on effective translation of targets from global tonational level and increased engagement across diverse sectors of society. Species conserva-tion targets require policy support measures that can be applied to a diversity of taxonomicgroups, that link action targets to outcome goals, and that can be applied to both global andnational data sets to account for national context, which the species threat abatement andrestoration (STAR) metric does. To test the flexibility of STAR, we applied the metric to vascular plants listed on national red lists of Brazil, Norway, and South Africa. The STARmetric uses data on species’ extinction risk, distributions, and threats, which we obtainedfrom national red lists to quantify the contribution that threat abatement and habitatrestoration activities could make to reducing species’ extinction risk. Across all 3 coun-tries, the greatest opportunity for reducing plant species’ extinction risk was from abatingthreats from agricultural activities, which could reduce species’ extinction risk by 54% inNorway, 36% in South Africa, and 29% in Brazil. Species extinction risk could be reducedby a further 21% in South Africa by abating threats from invasive species and by 21% inBrazil by abating threats from urban expansion. Even with different approaches to red-listing among countries, the STAR metric yielded informative results that identified wherethe greatest conservation gains could be made for species through threat-abatement andrestoration activities. Quantifiably linking local taxonomic coverage and data collection toglobal processes with STAR would allow national target setting to align with global targetsand enable state and nonstate actors to measure and report on their potential contributionsto species conservation. habitat restoration, national red lists, species’ extinction risk, threat reduction, threatened species, vascular plantspublishedVersio

Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2—30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Iribarrem, Alvaro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Beyer, Hawthorne L.. The University of Queensland; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Cordeiro, Carlos Leandro. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Crouzeilles, Renato. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Jakovac, Catarina C.. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Braga Junqueira, André. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lacerda, Eduardo. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. Universidade Federal Fluminense; BrasilFil: Latawiec, Agnieszka E.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Balmford, Andrew. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Brooks, Thomas M.. University Of The Philippines Los Banos; Filipinas. Institute For Marine And Antarctic Studies; Australia. International Union For Conservation Of Nature And Natural Resources; SuizaFil: Butchart, Stuart H. M.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Chazdon, Robin L.. University Of The Sunshine Coast; Australia. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Erb, Karl-Heinz. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Brancalion, Pedro. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Buchanan, Graeme. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Reino UnidoFil: Cooper, David. Secretariat Of The Convention On Biological Diversity; CanadáFil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Donald, Paul F.. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Kapos, Valerie. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Leclère, David. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Miles, Lera. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino UnidoFil: Obersteiner, Michael. Oxford Social Sciences Division; Reino Unido. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; AustriaFil: Plutzar, Christoph. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; Austria. Universidad de Viena; AustriaFil: de M. Scaramuzza, Carlos Alberto. International Institute For Sustainability; BrasilFil: Scarano, Fabio R.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg; Austri

Evaluating impacts of development and conservation projects using sustainability indicators: Opportunities and challenges

There has been an increased interest in using sustainability indicators for evaluating the impacts of development and conservation projects. Past and recent experiences have shown that sustainability indicators can be powerful tools for measuring the outcomes of various interventions, when used appropriately and adequately. Currently, there is a range of methods for applying sustainability indicators for project impact evaluation at the environment–development interface. At the same time, a number of challenges persist which have implication for impact evaluation processes especially in developing countries. We highlight some key and recurrent challenges, using three cases from Kenya, Indonesia and Brazil. In this study, we have conducted a comparative analysis across multiple projects from the three countries, which aimed to conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods. The assessments of these projects were designed to evaluate their positive, negative, short-term, long term, direct and indirect impacts. We have identified a set of commonly used sustainability indicators to evaluate the projects and have discussed opportunities and challenges associated with their application. Our analysis shows that impact evaluation processes present good opportunities for applying sustainability indicators. On the other hand, we find that project proponents (e.g. managers, evaluators, donors/funders) face challenges with establishing full impacts of interventions and that these are rooted in monitoring and evaluation processes, lack of evidence-based impacts, difficulties of measuring certain outcomes and concerns over scale of a range of impacts. We outline key lessons learnt from the multiple cases and propose ways to overcome common problems. Results from our analysis demonstrate practical experiences of applying sustainability indicators in developing countries context where there are different prevailing socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions. The knowledge derived from this study may therefore be useful to a wider range of audience who are concerned with sustainable integration of development and environmental conservation

Set a global target for ecosystems

The conservation community must be able to track countries' progress in protecting wetlands, reefs, forests and more, argue James Watson and colleagues.The conservation community must be able to track countries' progress in protecting wetlands, reefs, forests and more, argue James Watson and colleagues

Data from: Ecological restoration success is higher for natural regeneration than for active restoration in tropical forests

Is active restoration the best approach to achieve ecological restoration success (the return to a reference condition, that is, old-growth forest) when compared to natural regeneration in tropical forests? Our meta-analysis of 133 studies demonstrated that natural regeneration surpasses active restoration in achieving tropical forest restoration success for all three biodiversity groups (plants, birds, and invertebrates) and five measures of vegetation structure (cover, density, litter, biomass, and height) tested. Restoration success for biodiversity and vegetation structure were 34 to 56% and 19 to 56% higher in natural regeneration than in active restoration systems, respectively, after controlling for key biotic and abiotic factors (forest amount, precipitation, time elapsed since restoration started, and past disturbance). Biodiversity responses were based primarily on ecological metrics of abundance and species richness (74%), both of which take far less time to achieve restoration success than similarity and composition. This finding challenges the widely held notion that natural forest regeneration has limited conservation value and that active restoration should be the default ecological restoration strategy. The proposition that active restoration achieves greater restoration success than natural regeneration may have arisen because of comparisons lacking controlled biotic and abiotic factors. We did not find any difference between active restoration and natural regeneration outcomes for vegetation structure when we did not control for these factors. Future policy priorities should align the identified patterns of biophysical and ecological conditions where each or both restoration approaches are more successful, cost-effective, and compatible with socioeconomic incentives for tropical forest restoration

Social and economic considerations relevant to REDD+

The chapter examines the evolution of REDD+ governance and identifies policy options to increase synergies among REDD+, the sustainable management of forests and biodiversity conservation. REDD+ emerged at the international level as a point of convergence across the ‘institutional complexes’ of forests, climate and biodiversity. This convergence attracted the engagement of a wide range of institutions in REDD+ activities, which together have drawn on three primary sources of authority to influence REDD+ rule-making: government sovereignty, contingent finance and voluntary carbon markets. Intergovernmental processes, which represent the primary articulation of governmental authority at the global level, have generated few binding commitments to the sustainable management of forests or biodiversity due to conflicting country interests. These efforts instead have favoured normative guidance, monitoring and reporting, and legality verification initiatives that reinforce sovereign authority. Bilateral and multi-lateral finance initiatives have exerted ‘fund-based’ authority through the application of operational safeguards protecting indigenous and local communities and biodiversity, but limited funding and low capacity of REDD+ countries to absorb those funds have constrained their influence. Finally, non-state actors have developed voluntary certification schemes for forest and carbon as a ’fast track’ approach to elaborating more substantive international standards for environmentally- and socially-responsible forest practices. While the small size and voluntary nature of markets for forest carbon have greatly constrained the impact of these approaches, this could change if a significant regulatory market for REDD+ develops. Furthermore, the governance of REDD+, forest management and biodiversity is pluralistic, involving multiple institutions and actors. Efforts to promote REDD+ safeguarding at the international level exist in tension with national sovereignty and local autonomy. This complexity is taken into consideration in the suite of policy options provided in this chapter, which suggest the need to draw on a range of institutions and approaches and to consider how together they influence the balance of power and incentives across actors and scales