IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change

Pörtner, Hans‐Otto; Scholes, R. J.; Agard, John; Archer, Emma Rm; Arneth, Almut; Bai, Xueying; Barnes, David K. A.; Burrows, Michael T.; Chan, Lena; Cheung, W.L.; Diamond, Sarah E.; Donatti, Camila I.; Duarte, CM; Eisenhauer, Nicolas; Foden, Wendy; Gasalla, Maria A.; Handa, Collins; Hickler, Thomas; Hoegh‐Guldberg, Ove; Ichii, Kazuhito; Jacob, Ute; Insarov, Gregory; Kiessling, Wolfgang; Leadley, Paul; Leemans, Rik; Levin, Lisa A.; Lim, Michelle; Maharaj, Shobha; Managi, Shunsuke; Marquet, Pascal; McElwee, Pamela; Midgley, Guy F.; Oberdorff, Thierry; Obura, David; Osman, Eslam O.; Pandit, Ram; Pascual, Unai; Pires, Aliny P. F.; Popp, Alexander; Reyes‐García, Victoria; Sankaran, Mahesh; Settele, Josef; Shin, Younglan; Sintayehu, Dejene W.; Smith, Pete; Steiner, Nadja; Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.; Sukumar, Raman; Trisos, Christopher H.; Val, Adalberto Luís; Wu, Jin‐Ming; Aldrian, Edvin; Parmesan, Camille; Pichs-Madruga, Ramón; Roberts, Debra; Rogers, Alex D.; Dı́az, Sandra; Fischer, M. L.; Hashimoto, Seiji; Wu, Nan; Ngo, Hien T.

doi:10.5281/zenodo.5101133

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Its overall effect on biodiversity mainstreaming was largely insignificant. Across the EU, do no harm did not reverse the trajectory of tackling biodiversity loss and climate change independently of each other (Pörtner et al 2021). Neither did it set off the intended life-cycle thinking (European Commission 2021a) or desired imagination or deliberation process (Milkoreit 2017;Miller and Wyborn 2020;Hammond 2020).…”

Section: Discussion: Do No Harm As a Viable Policy Innovation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, science has been drawing attention to the utmost need for synergies among different environmental goals and specifically to the paramount role of the biodiversity. Biodiversity loss, reflecting complex interactions between ecosystems and societal vulnerabilities, has been recognised as typifying the existence of a gap between existing and sustainable pathways (Palomo et al 2021;Pörtner et al 2021;Turnhout et al 2021;Rusch et al 2022). The efforts in biodiversity conservation are seen as the driver of profound shifts in society and sustainability transformations (Pascual et al 2022), particularly when they are related to embracing other global challenges and increasing conservation and restoration ambitions (Leclère et al 2020;Fastré et al 2021;Jung et al 2021;Leadley et al 2022).…”

Section: Integration Of Biodiversity In Support Of Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One important policy approach is the recommendation of integration of policies (Visseren-Hamakers 2015; Stafford-Smith et al 2017;Turney et al 2020;Pettorelli et al 2021;Pörtner et al 2021;Plank et al 2021), dubbed also as policy coherence (Nilsson et al 2012;European Commission, Joint Research Centre 2019;Pettorelli et al 2021), nexus approach (Boas et al 2016;Gupta et al 2017;Pascual et al 2022), or the idea of synergistic measures tackling simultaneously climate change and biodiversity (Hu, Chen, and Wu 2021). While widely commended as a cost-efficient option to jointly address the biodiversity and climate change crises, little is known about ways of improving it and scaling it up beyond what has evidently not worked so far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Public authorities for transformative change: integration principle in public funding

Penca¹

2023

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although science widely supports moving towards transformative change through integrating biodiversity into decision-making, and arguing for the essential role of public authorities, it falls short on suggesting specific means to that end. This article considers the EU’s approach to fostering the green transition as part of its post-pandemic recovery while exploring how the integration of biodiversity considerations could be integrated into decision-making. The rationale and implementation of the EU’s do no harm principle is examined, which functioned as a condition for public funds. The analysis shows the mentioned EU policy innovation has a very limited impact. The role of do no harm has been limited to validating, rather than initiating policy measures. It has failed to influence the design of measures such that they would benefit biodiversity and not encouraged synergies between the climate and biodiversity goals. Based on the experience with do no harm as well as the more focussed regulatory action directed at the goal of climate neutrality, the article lists key steps for fostering biodiversity integration in policy planning and policy implementation. These steps encompass substantive and procedural approaches and aim for deliberation, target-setting, tracking, verification and screening. There is considerable scope for robust regulation to play a role in support of the biodiversity goals alongside transformative bottom-up initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: Do No Harm As a Viable Policy Innovation?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Integration Of Biodiversity In Support Of Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public authorities for transformative change: integration principle in public funding

Penca¹

2023

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sustainable transition of agriculture is climbing political agendas worldwide, with targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, increase production and consumption of fruit and vegetables, and improve soil health (European Commission, 2020, 2021Masson-Delmotte et al, 2019;Pörtner et al, 2021). To this end, farmers and their communities are key stakeholders as they manage large areas of land and carry out necessary change at the local level (Allen et al, 2018;Blackstock et al, 2010;Dang et al, 2019;Woods et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From values to actions in agriculture: A web of actors shape Norwegian farmers' enactment of relational values

Byfuglien,

Hirons,

Milford

2024

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sustainable transition in the agri‐food system holds society‐wide implications. Farmers play central roles in responding to climate change, environmental degradation and sustainable food production. Still, factors underlying how farmers make decisions and manage their farms are often marginalised in efforts to develop policies to tackle these issues. The concept of relational values, defined as preferences, principles and virtues based on human–nature relationships, recently emerged to expand understandings of environmental decision‐making in general and that of farmers specifically. As agricultural landscapes are dynamic and characterised by the interaction of various actors with diverse values and interests, how these interactions influence farmers' decisions remains underexplored. This paper engages with these issues by using qualitative data on Norwegian horticultural farmers' motivations, opportunities and challenges in farming. We find that their relational values (a) are influential in shaping farmers' decisions about farm management and (b) are continually unfolding and embedded within a web of other actors, including grocers, retailers, consumers, farm advisors and policymakers, which shapes farmers' enactment of their relational values. In the context of agriculture, this research underlines the utility of an in‐depth understanding of relational values as embedded in wider social systems to enrich analyses of farmer decision‐making. How farmers' relational values are shaped and realised through interactions with other actors holds important implications for policy and programming to navigate tensions between different interests and actors for sustainable and long‐term change. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

“…Carbon storage refers to the stock of carbon trapped in ecosystems, particularly in their biomass and soil, while carbon sequestration represents the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, mainly driven by the primary production of plant communities (Egoh et al 2012, Estrada et al 2015, Burkhard and Maes 2017, Sil et al 2017, Quijas et al 2019. By removing and trapping CO2 from the atmosphere, these processes play a role in the attenuation of climate change (Pörtner et al 2021), and thus become extremely important considering the widespread adverse impacts that climate change has produced (and is projected to produce) on people and nature (IPCC 2022). Plant communities of other coastal habitats have been already shown to play a large and crucial role in the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions: significant contribution of the vegetation to biogeochemical cycles and to primary production has been highlighted for mangroves ecosystems (Sahu and Kathiresan 2019), while marine vegetation (e.g., seagrasses beds and saltmarshes) was recognized as excellent carbon sink (Duarte et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disturbance affects the contribution of coastal dune vegetation to carbon storage and carbon sequestration rate

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coastal dune vegetation has been proved to contribute to several crucial ecosystem services, as coastal protection, water purification, recreation; conversely, its capacity to regulate the concentration of greenhouse gases received less attention. To fill this gap, the present work focalized on the assessment of the contribution of coastal dune herbaceous vegetation to carbon storage and carbon sequestration rate, also in relation to possible effects of disturbance. To this aim, we measured the dry biomass and carbon sequestration rate in three different vegetation types (foredune, dry grasslands, humid grasslands), and habitat patch attributes as proxies of the disturbance regime. Relationships between disturbance, and carbon storage and sequestration rate have been analysed by GLMMs. The target vegetation types did not equally contribute to the medium-long term sequestration of carbon with a gradient that increased from the seashore inlands and related to both the growth form and the strategy of resource acquisition of dominant species, and plant community attributes. Disturbance in the form of trampling negatively affected carbon sequestration rate. Results suggest that, when different plant communities are spatially interconnected, the landscape scale results in a better understanding of ecosystem dynamics, functioning and resistance to perturbations and allows to plan coherent management strategies.

show abstract

IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Public authorities for transformative change: integration principle in public funding

Public authorities for transformative change: integration principle in public funding

From values to actions in agriculture: A web of actors shape Norwegian farmers' enactment of relational values

Disturbance affects the contribution of coastal dune vegetation to carbon storage and carbon sequestration rate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About