Climate change and biodiversity loss are two
of the most pressing issues of the Anthropocene. While there is
recognition in both scientific and policy-making circles that the two
are interconnected, in practice they are largely addressed in their own
domains.
Each issue has its own international Convention (the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological
Diversity), and each has an intergovernmental body which assesses
available knowledge (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services (IPBES)). This functional separation creates a risk of
incompletely identifying, understanding and dealing with the connections
between the two.
Increasing energy consumption, overexploitation of natural resources
and unprecedented transformation of land-, freshwater- and seascapes
over the past 150 years have paralleled technological advances and
supported better living standards for many but have also led to changes
in climate and the accelerating decline of biological diversity
worldwide, both negatively impacting many aspects of good quality of
life.
To be holistically effective, renewable energy development will
benefit from consideration of a circular economy and, ultimately,
biodiversity
The mutual reinforcing of climate change and biodiversity
loss means that satisfactorily resolving either issue
requires consideration of the other.
These interactions can generate complex feedbacks between climate,
biodiversity and humans that may produce more
pronounced and less predictable outcomes. Ignoring the inseparable
nature of climate, biodiversity, and human quality of life will result
in non-optimal solutions to either crisis.
Previous policies have largely tackled the problems of climate change
and biodiversity loss independently. Policies
that simultaneously address synergies between mitigating
biodiversity loss and climate change, while
also considering their societal impacts, offer the opportunity to
maximize co-benefits and help meet development aspirations for all.
Cross-cutting issues, intersectoral policies and regulatory
frameworks are areas where strong synergies could contribute to the
transformative societal change that is needed to achieve ambitious goals
for biodiversity, climate mitigation and good quality of life.
In a world increasingly affected by climate change, maintaining
biodiversity relies on enhanced and
well-targeted conservation efforts, coordinated with and supported by
strong adaptation and innovation efforts.
A new conservation paradigm would address the simultaneous objectives
of a habitable climate, self-sustaining biodiversity, and a good quality
of life for all.
Nature-based solutions (NbS) can play an important role in climate
mitigation, but the extent is debated, and they can only be effective
with ambitious reductions in all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Nature-based solutions can be most effective when planned for longevity
and not narrowly focussed on rapid carbon sequestration.
Avoiding and reversing the loss and degradation of carbon- and
species-rich ecosystems on land and in the ocean is of highest
importance for combined biodiversity
protection and climate change mitigation actions with large adaptation
co-benefits.
Sustainable agricultural and forestry practices can improve adaptive
capacity, enhance biodiversity, increase carbon storage in farmland and
forest soils and vegetation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The creation of green infrastructure in cities is increasingly being
used for climate change adaptation and restoration of
biodiversity with climate mitigation
co-benefits.
In both land and marine systems, options exist to combine
nature-based and technology-based measures for climate change mitigation
and adaptation, while contributing to biodiversity.
It is important that the full climate consequences of land-based
climate mitigation actions, in both the short and long-term are
considered when evaluating their contribution.
Planting bioenergy crops (including trees, perennial grasses or
annual crops) in monocultures over a very large share of total land area
is detrimental to ecosystems, reduces supply of many other nature’s
contributions to people and impedes achievement of numerous Sustainable
Development Goals.
Afforestation, which involves planting trees in ecosystems that have
not historically been forests, and reforestation with monocultures,
especially with exotic tree species, can contribute to climate change
mitigation but are often detrimental to
biodiversity and do not have clear benefits
for adaptation.
Technology-based measures that are effective for climate change
mitigation can pose serious threats to biodiversity.
Measures intended to facilitate adaptation to one aspect of climate
change without considering other aspects of sustainability may in
practice be maladaptive and result in unforeseen detrimental
outcomes.
Measures narrowly focusing on protection and restoration of
biodiversity have generally important knock-on
benefits for climate change mitigation, but those benefits may be
sub-optimal compared to measures that account for both
biodiversity and climate.
Changes in per capita consumption, shift in diets, and progress
towards sustainable exploitation of natural resources, including reduced
post-harvest waste, could make substantial contributions to addressing
the biodiversity crisis, climate change
mitigation and adaptation.
Treating climate, biodiversity and human
society as coupled systems is key to successful outcomes from policy
interventions.
The explicit consideration of the interactions between biodiversity,
climate and society in policy decisions provides opportunities to
maximize co-benefits and to minimize trade-offs and co-detrimental
(mutually harmful) effects for people and nature.
When considering biodiversity-climate-society interactions, it is
important to examine how the linkages between policy decisions and
consequences unfold over time and how they act beyond the specific
spatial context.
Assessing the range of viable solutions (‘solution space’) to achieve
the intended climate mitigation, adaptation and
biodiversity conservation outcomes, while
positively contributing to people’s quality of life, requires
recognition of differences in social-ecological contexts.
Transformative change in governance of socio-ecological systems can
help create climate and biodiversity resilient
development pathways.
Existing governance systems often lack effective mechanisms to
improve integration between climate and biodiversity, and between
international and national to subnational scales.
Overall, mainstreaming of biodiversity into
climate policy and vice versa, and of both into initiatives to advance
human development and good quality of life, remains limited at many
scales and in many sectors, although there are some promising
initiatives emerging, such as jurisdictional approaches, experimental
policy mixes, and rights-based approaches.
A key outcome for successfully integrated governance of climate,
biodiversity and good quality of life will be
to help identify solutions for stewardship that deliver the highest
co-benefits while avoiding trade-offs.
Multi-actor and multi-scale governance are appropriate approaches to
the management of multifunctional ‘scapes’ at different scales.
The imperative for rapid action on both climate change and
biodiversity loss argues for governance models
to move beyond state-based approaches to embrace more collaborative
solutions.
Transformative change can occur using leverage points in
socio-ecological systems which alter future trajectories. Critical
leverage points include exploring alternative visions of good quality of
life, rethinking consumption and waste, shifting values related to the
human-nature relationship, reducing inequalities, and promoting
education and learning.
Better tools for multi-sectoral scenario planning and modelling can
help map pathways to simultaneously achieve the goals in the SDGs, the
Paris Agreement and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework in the
medium and long term.
Achieving the scale and scope of transformative change needed to meet
the goals of the UNFCCC and CBD and the Sustainable Development Goals
relies on rapid and far-reaching actions of a type never before
attempted.
It includes new integrative agendas aligning all actors, private to
public, in support of actions to protect biodiversity, reduce the
impacts of climate change, and achieve sustainable development.
Transformative change elements identified can include effective
incentives and capacity-building, improved cooperation across sectors
and jurisdictions, anticipatory and pre-emptive actions, inclusive and
adaptive decision-making, and strengthened environmental policy and
implementation.
Citation
Pörtner, H.O., Scholes, R.J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai,
X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W.L., Diamond, S.,
Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A.,
Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U.,
Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim,
M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G.,
Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A.
P. F., Popp, A., Reyes-García, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y.
J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar,
R., Trisos, C., Val, A.L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C.,
Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D.C., Rogers, A.D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M.,
Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., Ngo, H.T. 2021. IPBES-IPCC
co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES
and IPCC, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4782538