Designer policy for carbon and biodiversity co-benefits under global change

Bryan, Brett A.; Runting, Rebecca K.; Capon, Tim; Perring, Michael P.; Cunningham, Shaun Cameron; Kragt, Marit; Nolan, Martin; Law, Elizabeth A.; Renwick, A.; Eber, Sue; Christian, Rochelle; Wilson, Kerrie A.

doi:10.1038/nclimate2874

Cited by 59 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others, however, suggest that simultaneously achieving both biodiversity and ES outcomes is possible (Balvanera et al, 2014;Dee et al, 2017;Mace, Norris, & Fitter, 2012;Polasky et al, 2012). For example, diverse carbon policy mechanisms have been evaluated to achieve carbon and biodiversity co-benefits (Bryan et al, 2016). Equally, studies focused on particular places or services suggest win-win outcomes are rare and trade-offs are more common (Chan, Shaw, Cameron, Underwood, & Daily, 2006;Howe, Suich, Vira, & Mace, 2014;Nelson et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Win‐wins for biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation depend on the trophic levels of the species providing services

Xiao

Dee

Chadès

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confronted by significant impacts to ecosystems world‐wide, decision makers face the challenge of maintaining both biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services (ES). However, the objectives of managing biodiversity and supplying ES may not always be in concert, resulting in the need for trade‐offs. Understanding these potential trade‐offs is crucial for identifying circumstances under which conservation strategies designed to maximise either biodiversity or ES will result in win‐win or win‐lose outcomes. One important factor that may influence these outcomes are species interactions and the structure of the networks in which they are embedded. We combine optimisation and network theory to investigate the difference in species prioritisation and management outcomes when targeting biodiversity or ES, by considering trophic interactions between species. We analyse 360 simulated ecosystem networks with different ecosystem structures, including the trophic level of the species providing the ES, the number of ES considered, and the food web connectivity. We then illustrate the framework on a saltmarsh case study. We find that trade‐offs between biodiversity and ES depend on the network structure of the ecosystem being managed. The trophic level of the species providing the ES is an important determinant of optimal species protection priorities and the biodiversity‐ES trade‐offs. A strategy targeting ES leads to similar levels of biodiversity conservation (a win‐win situation) only when basal species provide the services. In contrast, food web connectivity and the number of services considered have little impact on biodiversity‐ES trade‐offs. Synthesis and applications. Our research provides the first optimisation model to examine trade‐offs between a biodiversity‐ or ecosystem service‐based approach for managing a network of interacting species that provide services. Importantly, results from considering species‐services interactions in ecosystem network dynamics can provide managers with quantitative insights to identify opportunities for win‐wins and or to avoid win‐loss outcomes, by focusing on the trophic level of the species providing services. Future research could build on our model to add multiple interaction types among species, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services to analyse optimal ecosystem management for multiple conservation objectives.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Win‐wins for biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation depend on the trophic levels of the species providing services

Xiao

Dee

Chadès

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, targeting an individual conservation objective may not be a good surrogate for others where there is strong competition among species, ecosystem services or other objectives. For example, when incentivising terrestrial restoration actions for biodiversity and carbon sequestration objectives across Australia, targeting only carbon delivered poor outcomes for biodiversity (Bryan et al., ). In these cases, the level of risk aversion may also influence the extent of the trade‐offs among objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing risk in reserve selection using Modern Portfolio Theory: Coastal planning under sea‐level rise

Runting

Beyer

Dujardin

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is expected to impact many species and ecosystem services, although it is difficult to predict when and how these impacts may arise. Due to this uncertainty, it is difficult to plan management actions, such as designating protected areas, intended to adapt to climate change impacts. The danger of ignoring uncertainty is that resulting plans may fail to achieve conservation objectives, yet this is not usually incorporated in conservation planning. Recent studies have accounted for uncertainty by applying Modern Portfolio Theory—an approach for risk‐sensitive resource allocation used in the finance sector—to conservation planning. However, these approaches are not directly applicable to many conservation planning problems that typically include discrete site selection, multiple conservation objectives and a consideration of connectivity. We extend previous applications of Modern Portfolio Theory by incorporating these additional conservation planning requirements in the context of designing a reserve system and apply it to conserving coastal wetlands and associated ecosystem services under uncertain rates of sea‐level rise. This allows us to identify an optimal set of properties to preserve, while maintaining connectivity for landward migration of wetlands and accounting for risk. We compare spatial plans that resulted from our risk‐sensitive approach to reserve selection that ignored risk to determine whether, and how, explicitly accounting for risk alters planning outcomes. We demonstrate that incorporating sea‐level rise, but ignoring uncertainty, is a high‐risk strategy, even when planning for the worst‐case sea‐level rise scenario. In contrast, diversifying site selection through Modern Portfolio Theory can ensure the supply of ecosystem services by reducing the risk of failure across all sea‐level rise scenarios. Synthesis and applications. Climate change will continue to drive profound changes to socio‐ecological systems that are difficult to predict. In this context, risk reduction in spatial planning is a neglected but essential strategy for avoiding comprehensive failure and improving the long‐term effectiveness of conservation efforts. Modern Portfolio Theory, as presented here to account for the characteristics of real‐world conservation planning problems, provides a rigorous way forward in dealing explicitly with risk for many conservation planning exercises.

show abstract

“…62 The failure of appropriately recognizing the mutual co-benefits of climate change mitigation policies and biodiversity conservation and related fields (e.g., long-term food security) can be partly attributed to the design of relevant international institutions. Firstly, until recently, high-profile bodies that bridge the science-policy domains such as the UNFCCC and IPCC were not matched by similar institutions for biodiversity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change, carbon market instruments, and biodiversity: focusing on synergies and avoiding pitfalls

Essl¹,

Erb

Glatzel³

et al. 2017

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fundamental economic and societal transformations are necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. One broad policy approach that addresses the close relationship between conservation and climate change mitigation is based on correcting a market failure, that is, to establish a price signal for carbon, or more generally, greenhouse gas emissions. While many synergies between climate policy instruments and biodiversity conservation do exist, current policies often fall short of harvesting this potential. Here, we present six key challenges: (1) establishing a strong price signal for greenhouse gas emissions from all emission sources (including land-use and the terrestrial biosphere) that takes into account long-term societal and ecological costs; (2) expand carbon market instruments to cover the full range of greenhouse gases; (3) develop an ambitious, yet accountable architecture for rising emission prices; (4) develop guidelines and ensure enforcement to avoid greenhouse gas leakage; (5) improve greenhouse gas emission measurements from land-use and the biosphere; and (6) integrate emission reduction as a priority into relevant policies. Substantial synergies, but also trade-offs between climate policy and conservation exist, and we identify key risks and challenges. We call for (1) evidence-based evaluations of policy options; (2) avoiding too narrow framings of contested issues such as forest plantations, biofuels, or land-use decisions that exclude (or downplay) indirect effects (e.g., indirect land-use changes or creating carbon debts); and (3) strengthening integrated analyzes beyond sector policy goals. We conclude that avoiding bio-perverse impacts of climate policies on biodiversity will be crucial for the success of global climate change mitigation.

show abstract

Designer policy for carbon and biodiversity co-benefits under global change

Cited by 59 publications

References 49 publications

Win‐wins for biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation depend on the trophic levels of the species providing services

Win‐wins for biodiversity and ecosystem service conservation depend on the trophic levels of the species providing services

Reducing risk in reserve selection using Modern Portfolio Theory: Coastal planning under sea‐level rise

Climate change, carbon market instruments, and biodiversity: focusing on synergies and avoiding pitfalls

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About