Despite the scientific consensus on the extinction crisis and its anthropogenic origin, the quantification of historical trends and of future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been limited, due to the lack of inter-model comparisons and harmonized scenarios. Here, we present a multi-model analysis to assess the impacts of landuse and climate change from 1900 to 2050. During the 20th century provisioning services increased, but biodiversity and regulating services decreased. Similar trade-offs are projected for the coming decades, but they may be attenuated in a sustainability scenario. Future biodiversity loss from land-use change is projected to keep up with historical rates or reduce slightly, whereas losses due to climate change are projected to increase greatly. Renewed efforts are needed by governments to meet the 2050 vision of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
World agriculture needs to find the right balance to cope with the trilemma between feeding a growing population, reducing its impact on biodiversity and minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this paper, we evaluate a broad range of scenarios that achieve 4.3 GtCO2,eq /year GHG mitigation in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Use (AFOLU) sector by 2100. Scenarios include varying mixes of three GHG mitigation policies: second-generation biofuel production, dietary change and reforestation of pasture. We find that focusing mitigation on a single policy can lead to positive results for a single indicator of food security or biodiversity conservation, but with significant negative side effects on others. A balanced portfolio of all three mitigation policies, while not optimal for any single criterion, minimizes trade-offs by avoiding large negative effects on food security and biodiversity conservation. At the regional scale, the trade-off seen globally between biodiversity and food security is nuanced by different regional contexts.
This document contains the draft Chapter 4 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters.IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copyediting.
This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science 359(6373) on 19/01/2018, DOI:10.1126/science.aap8826 ; A major challenge today and into the future is to maintain or enhance beneficial contributions of nature to a good quality of life for all people. This is among the key motivations of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a joint global effort by governments, academia, and civil society to assess and promote knowledge of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystems and their contribution to human societies in order to inform policy formulation. One of the more recent key elements of the IPBES conceptual framework (1) is the notion of nature's contributions to people (NCP), which builds on the ecosystem service concept popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2). But as we detail below, NCP as defined and put into practice in IPBES differs from earlier work in several important ways. First, the NCP approach recognizes the central and pervasive role that culture plays in defining all links between people and nature. Second, use of NCP elevates, emphasizes, and operationalizes the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature's contribution to people. ; PLEASE READ BEFORE VALIDATING: Licence unknown. Brighton University Repository on their webpage for this output https://research.brighton.ac.uk/en/publications/assessing-natures-contributions-to-people they have the author's accepted manuscript with the following bibliographical note "This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of the AAAS for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Science 359(6373) on 19/01/2018, DOI:10.1126/science.aap8826". Contacted Brighton repository for informatio about the licence and if it was specifically for their repository and they replied "I don't think it specifically said - I think the risk is very low of including it in your IR. From memory I think it was a generic statement and permission was not directly sought as their policy covered self-archiving in IRs as long as the statement was included.". Also, accoridng to Sherpa Romeo https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/11114, the accepted manuscript can be deposited without embargo. Should we also upload it in ours with this disclaimer? CBoula, 10/11/2021 OK, will do so, will add disclaimer to a note field in repositoroy RVO
