Aboveground forest biomass varies across continents, ecological zones and successional stages: refined IPCC default values for tropical and subtropical forests

For monitoring and reporting forest carbon stocks and fluxes, many countries in the tropics and subtropics rely on default values of forest aboveground biomass (AGB) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories. Default IPCC forest AGB values originated from 2006, and are relatively crude estimates of average values per continent and ecological zone. The 2006 default values were based on limited plot data available at the time, methods for their derivation were not fully clear, and no distinction between successional stages was made. As part of the 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for GHG Inventories, we updated the default AGB values for tropical and subtropical forests based on AGB data from >25 000 plots in natural forests and a global AGB map where no plot data were available. We calculated refined AGB default values per continent, ecological zone, and successional stage, and provided a measure of uncertainty. AGB in tropical and subtropical forests varies by an order of magnitude across continents, ecological zones, and successional stage. Our refined default values generally reflect the climatic gradients in the tropics, with more AGB in wetter areas. AGB is generally higher in old-growth than in secondary forests, and higher in older secondary (regrowth >20 years old and degraded/logged forests) than in young secondary forests (20 years old). While refined default values for tropical old-growth forest are largely similar to the previous 2006 default values, the new default values are 4.0-7.7-fold lower for young secondary forests. Thus, the refined values will strongly alter estimated carbon stocks and fluxes, and emphasize the critical importance of old-growth forest conservation. We provide a reproducible approach to facilitate future refinements and encourage targeted efforts to establish permanent plots in areas with data gaps

Comparing the Environmental Integrity of Emission Reductions from REDD Programs with Renewable Energy Projects

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation presents a climate-change mitigation opportunity that is critical to meeting the Paris Agreement goals, and to achieving reductions in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) provides developing countries with results-based financial incentives for reducing deforestation and forest degradation through either non-market payments (payments without generation of carbon credits), or market-based mechanisms (carbon credits). REDD credits have been recently accepted to be used in offsetting programs (e.g., CORSIA) and are being considered under Article 6. However, various publications have questioned whether carbon credits from REDD should be accepted under market-based mechanisms, and have identified issues regarding their environmental integrity and their ability to offset emissions from other sectors. In recent years, REDD implementation has moved from the project level to the national or subnational (jurisdictional) level, and is addressing some of the concerns that have been raised for project-level interventions regarding the robustness of baselines and leakage, for example. In this paper we compare the environmental integrity of credits from REDD programs with that from on-grid renewable energy projects by examining aspects related to permanence, additionality, baselines, uncertainty, and leakage. We show that the environmental integrity of emission reductions sourced from REDD programs has unique strengths, and that those sourced from renewable energy projects have weaknesses of their own. Probably due to a lack of understanding of the respective weaknesses and strengths of these two sources of credits, the emission reductions from REDD programs have been historically questioned and subjected to a level of scrutiny that has not been made with emission reductions from other sectors, such as renewable energy projects. Recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of emission reductions from both types should help decision makers and carbon standards recognize the high quality of emission reductions from REDD programs, and rationalize the current requirements or restrictions imposed

Improving uncertainty in forest carbon accounting for REDD+ mitigation efforts

Reductions in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are urgently needed to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation presents a climate change mitigation opportunity critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. One strategy for decreasing carbon emissions from forests is to provide developing countries with results-based financial incentives for reducing deforestation: nearly two billion dollars are currently committed to finance such programs, referred to as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). Countries participating in these programs must document the uncertainty in their estimates of emissions and emission reductions, and payments are reduced if uncertainties are high. Our examination of documentation submitted to date to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) reveals that uncertainties are commonly underestimated, both by omitting important sources of uncertainty and by incorrectly combining uncertainties. Here, we offer recommendations for addressing common problems in estimating uncertainty in emissions and emission reductions. Better uncertainty estimates will enable countries to improve forest carbon accounting, contribute to better informed forest management, and support efforts to track global greenhouse gas emissions. It will also strengthen confidence in markets for climate mitigation efforts. Demand by companies for nature-based carbon credits is growing and if such credits are used for offsets, in exchange for fossil fuel emissions, it is essential that they represent accurately quantified emissions reductions.ISSN:1748-9326ISSN:1748-931

Are hospitalized or ambulatory patients with heart failure treated in accordance with European Society of Cardiology guidelines? Evidence from 12 440 patients of the ESC Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: To evaluate how recommendations of European guidelines regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for heart failure (HF) are adopted in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ESC-HF Long-Term Registry is a prospective, observational study conducted in 211 Cardiology Centres of 21 European and Mediterranean countries, members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). From May 2011 to April 2013, a total of 12 440 patients were enrolled, 40.5% with acute HF and 59.5% with chronic HF. Intravenous treatments for acute HF were heterogeneously administered, irrespective of guideline recommendations. In chronic HF, with reduced EF, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) were used in 92.2, 92.7, and 67.0% of patients, respectively. When reasons for non-adherence were considered, the real rate of undertreatment accounted for 3.2, 2.3, and 5.4% of the cases, respectively. About 30% of patients received the target dosage of these drugs, but a documented reason for not achieving the target dosage was reported in almost two-thirds of them. The more relevant reasons for non-implantation of a device, when clinically indicated, were related to doctor uncertainties on the indication, patient refusal, or logistical/cost issues. CONCLUSION: This pan-European registry shows that, while in patients with acute HF, a large heterogeneity of treatments exists, drug treatment of chronic HF can be considered largely adherent to recommendations of current guidelines, when the reasons for non-adherence are taken into account. Observations regarding the real possibility to adhere fully to current guidelines in daily clinical practice should be seriously considered when clinical practice guidelines have to be written

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit