Mapping vulnerability of tropical forest to conversion, and resulting potential CO2 emissions: A rapid assessment for the Eliasch Review

This report is a rapid assessment analysis undertaken to inform the UK's Eliasch Review on the role of international finance mechanisms to preserve global forests in tackling climate change. The results should be used with an understanding of the caveats specified at the end of the report

Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD

Forest loss and degradation in the tropics contribute 6-17% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Protected areas cover 217.2 million ha (19.6%) of the world's humid tropical forests and contain c. 70.3 petagrams of carbon (Pg C) in biomass and soil to 1 m depth. Between 2000 and 2005, we estimate that 1.75 million ha of forest were lost from protected areas in humid tropical forests, causing the emission of 0.25-0.33 Pg C. Protected areas lost about half as much carbon as the same area of unprotected forest. We estimate that the reduction of these carbon emissions from ongoing deforestation in protected sites in humid tropical forests could be valued at USD 6,200-7,400 million depending on the land use after clearance. This is >1.5 times the estimated spending on protected area management in these regions. Improving management of protected areas to retain forest cover better may be an important, although certainly not sufficient, component of an overall strategy for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD

Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages

Only 10 years remain to achieve all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) globally, so there is a growing need to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of action by targeting multiple SDGs. The SDGs were conceived as an ‘indivisible whole’, but interactions between SDGs need to be better understood. Several previous assessments have begun to explore interactions including synergies and possible conflicts between the SDGs, and differ widely in their conclusions. Although some highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused SDGs in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human linkages. Assessing interactions between SDGs, and the influence of environment on them, can make an important contribution to informing decisions in 2020 and beyond. Here, we review previous assessments of interactions among SDGs, apply an influence matrix to assess pairwise interactions between all SDGs, and show how viewing these from the perspective of environment-human linkages can influence the outcome. Environment, and environment-human linkages, influence most interactions between SDGs. Our action-focused assessment enables decision makers to focus environmental management to have the greatest impacts, and to identify opportunities to build on synergies and reduce trade-offs between particular SDGs. It may enable sectoral decision makers to seek support from environment managers for achieving their goals. We explore cross-cutting issues and the relevance and potential application of our approach in supporting decision making for progress to achieve the SDGs

Global Priority Conservation Areas in the Face of 21st Century Climate Change

In an era when global biodiversity is increasingly impacted by rapidly changing climate, efforts to conserve global biodiversity may be compromised if we do not consider the uneven distribution of climate-induced threats. Here, via a novel application of an aggregate Regional Climate Change Index (RCCI) that combines changes in mean annual temperature and precipitation with changes in their interannual variability, we assess multi-dimensional climate changes across the “Global 200” ecoregions – a set of priority ecoregions designed to “achieve the goal of saving a broad diversity of the Earth’s ecosystems” – over the 21st century. Using an ensemble of 62 climate scenarios, our analyses show that, between 1991–2010 and 2081–2100, 96% of the ecoregions considered will be likely (more than 66% probability) to face moderate-to-pronounced climate changes, when compared to the magnitudes of change during the past five decades. Ecoregions at high northern latitudes are projected to experience most pronounced climate change, followed by those in the Mediterranean Basin, Amazon Basin, East Africa, and South Asia. Relatively modest RCCI signals are expected over ecoregions in Northwest South America, West Africa, and Southeast Asia, yet with considerable uncertainties. Although not indicative of climate-change impacts per se, the RCCI-based assessment can help policy-makers gain a quantitative and comprehensive overview of the unevenly distributed climate risks across the G200 ecoregions. Whether due to significant climate change signals or large uncertainties, the ecoregions highlighted in the assessment deserve special attention in more detailed impact assessments to inform effective conservation strategies under future climate change.This study was supported by the Environmental Protection Public Service Project of China (201209031) (URL:http://kjs.mep.gov.cn/gyxhykyzx/)

Global impacts of energy demand on the freshwater resources of nations

The growing geographic disconnect between consumption of goods, the extraction and processing of resources, and the environmental impacts associated with production activities makes it crucial to factor global trade into sustainability assessments. Using an empirically validated environmentally extended global trade model, we examine the relationship between two key resources underpinning economies and human well-being—energy and freshwater. A comparison of three energy sectors (petroleum, gas, and electricity) reveals that freshwater consumption associated with gas and electricity production is largely confined within the territorial boundaries where demand originates. This finding contrasts with petroleum, which exhibits a varying ratio of territorial to international freshwater consumption, depending on the origin of demand. For example, although the United States and China have similar demand associated with the petroleum sector, international freshwater consumption is three times higher for the former than the latter. Based on mapping patterns of freshwater consumption associated with energy sectors at subnational scales, our analysis also reveals concordance between pressure on freshwater resources associated with energy production and freshwater scarcity in a number of river basins globally. These energy-driven pressures on freshwater resources in areas distant from the origin of energy demand complicate the design of policy to ensure security of fresh water and energy supply. Although much of the debate around energy is focused on greenhouse gas emissions, our findings highlight the need to consider the full range of consequences of energy production when designing policy

A global map of terrestrial habitat types

Funder: NatureMap (https://naturemap.earth/) through Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI)Abstract: We provide a global, spatially explicit characterization of 47 terrestrial habitat types, as defined in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) habitat classification scheme, which is widely used in ecological analyses, including for quantifying species’ Area of Habitat. We produced this novel habitat map for the year 2015 by creating a global decision tree that intersects the best currently available global data on land cover, climate and land use. We independently validated the map using occurrence data for 828 species of vertebrates (35152 point plus 8181 polygonal occurrences) and 6026 sampling sites. Across datasets and mapped classes we found on average a balanced accuracy of 0.77 (+¯0.14 SD) at Level 1 and 0.71 (+¯0.15 SD) at Level 2, while noting potential issues of using occurrence records for validation. The maps broaden our understanding of habitats globally, assist in constructing area of habitat refinements and are relevant for broad-scale ecological studies and future IUCN Red List assessments. Periodic updates are planned as better or more recent data becomes available

The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity.

The Living Planet Index was developed to measure the changing state of the world's biodiversity over time. It uses time-series data to calculate average rates of change in a large number of populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate species. The dataset contains about 3000 population time series for over 1100 species. Two methods of calculating the index are outlined: the chain method and a method based on linear modelling of log-transformed data. The dataset is analysed to compare the relative representation of biogeographic realms, ecoregional biomes, threat status and taxonomic groups among species contributing to the index. The two methods show very similar results: terrestrial species declined on average by 25% from 1970 to 2000. Birds and mammals are over-represented in comparison with other vertebrate classes, and temperate species are over-represented compared with tropical species, but there is little difference in representation between threatened and non-threatened species. Some of the problems arising from over-representation are reduced by the way in which the index is calculated. It may be possible to reduce this further by post-stratification and weighting, but new information would first need to be collected for data-poor classes, realms and biomes

Global goals mapping: the environment-human landscape

The UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), The Rockefeller Foundation (RF), and the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) recognise that the development challenges of the 21st century require both a shift in thinking and actions that prepare us for the future, while enabling more effective development interventions today. These organisations are establishing a new initiative: 'Towards a Sustainable Earth: Environment-human Systems and the UN Global Goals' (TaSE) as part of their commitment to seeing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (also known as Global Goals) become a reality. The core premise of the TaSE initiative is that environment-human interactions must be central to all development. The TaSE initiative is convening a meeting at The Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Centre (7-11 November 2016) to identify the major research and innovation questions relevant to the achievement of the overarching ambition of this initiative. To help focus discussions during this meeting, NERC commissioned the Sussex Sustainability Research Programme (SSRP) at the University of Sussex and the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) to produce a “synthesis of past and current research and innovation relating to the policy landscape surrounding the environment-human relationships and systems that interact across the UN Global Goals”. The commissioned work is encapsulated in this report, Global Goals mapping: the environment-human landscape. For each Goal, the first part of this report summarises the role of environment-human interactions and synthesises relevant research evidence, key innovations and policies, and knowledge and research gaps. The syntheses of research evidence, key innovations and policies presented for individual Global Goals show that environment-human interactions are important for the achievement of all of the Goals. However, the number of environment-human interactions, and the extent to which these interactions need to be considered for achieving each Goal, varies among Global Goals. Although research, innovation and policy have advanced substantially since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, knowledge and research gaps related to environment-human interactions remain for all Goals. The Global Goals were conceived as an 'indivisible whole'. The Goals relate to and depend on each other, but relationships between Goals need to be better understood. Previous analyses have begun to explore relationships including synergies and possible conflicts between the Goals from a number of different perspectives and differ widely in their conclusions. While many highlight the role of the more environmentally-focused Goals in underpinning sustainable development, none specifically focuses on environment-human interactions, which are the focus of the TaSE initiative and crucial to the achievement of the Goals. This report uses a new analysis to suggest which relationships between Global Goals may be most influenced by environment-human interactions. It is based on a pairwise view of relationships between Goals, assessing the influence that action (research, policy, innovation and/or management) towards one Goal may have on the potential for achieving others. It highlights 20 pairwise relationships between Goals where these influences may be especially strong, and illustrates for some of these how the knowledge and research gaps identified in Part 1 are relevant to the relationships between the Goals. In reality relationships among Goals are more complex and multidimensional than a pairwise analysis can illustrate, but visualising all connections among them is challenging. Further knowledge gaps and challenges related to the trade-offs, synergies and unintended consequences of the relationships among Goals will need to be addressed to achieve all 17 Goals. In order to understand relationships among Global Goals and prioritize action, including research, it is essential to consider multiple cross-cutting factors, including: temporal and spatial scales of action and impact; context for the action, whether local or other; the (multi) directionality of the relationships among Goals; thresholds and tipping points; number and types of people affected; human behaviour; governance, institutions and power; existence and accessibility of different types of knowledge; and the feasibility of obtaining and scaling-up research results and innovations by 2030. Several approaches have attempted to tackle interconnected challenges, including nexus thinking, pathways, leverage points, indigenous and local knowledge, integrated environmental assessments and integrated modelling. However, there is a need for more work and holistic approaches to achieve all 17 Goals. The syntheses of research evidence, innovations and policies regarding environment-human interactions relevant to each Global Goal and the analysis of the relationships among Goals provide a basis for identifying priority areas for new research, innovation and policy. The Bellagio Group has a vital role to play in building on this to help the TaSE initiative identify a research, innovation and research translation agenda in support of the Global Goals

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