Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.4.6.2 Conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) ====

<div id="section-7-4-6-2-conserving-biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services-es-block-1"></div>

There is ''limited evidence'' but ''high agreement'' that ecosystem-based adaptation (biodiversity, ecosystem services (ES), and Nature’s Contribution to People (see Chapter 6)) and incentives for ES – including payment for ecosystem services (PES) – play a critical part of an overall strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change on land (UNEP 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r661|661]]</sup> ; Bonan 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r662|662]]</sup> ; Millar et al. 2007 <sup>[[#fn:r663|663]]</sup> ; Thompson et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r664|664]]</sup> ).

Ecosystem-based adaptation can promote socio-ecological resilience by enabling people to adapt to the impacts of climate change on land and reduce their vulnerability (Ojea 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r665|665]]</sup> ). Ecosystem-based adaptation can promote nature conservation while alleviating poverty and even provide co-benefits by removing GHGs (Scarano 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r666|666]]</sup> ) and protecting livelihoods (Munang et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r667|667]]</sup> ). For example, mangroves provide diverse ES such as carbon storage, fisheries, non-timber forest products, erosion protection, water purification, shore-line stabilisation, and also regulate storm surge and flooding damages, thus enhancing resilience and reducing climate risk from extreme events such as cyclones (Rahman et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r668|668]]</sup> ; Donato et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r669|669]]</sup> ; Das and Vincent 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r670|670]]</sup> ; Ghosh et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r671|671]]</sup> ; Ewel et al. 1998 <sup>[[#fn:r672|672]]</sup> ).

There has been considerable increase in the last decade of PES, or programmes that exchange value for land management practices intended to ensure ES (Salzman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r673|673]]</sup> ; Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r674|674]]</sup> ; Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r675|675]]</sup> ). However, there is a deficiency in comprehensive and reliable data concerning the impact of PES on ecosystems, human well-being, their efficiency, and effectiveness (Pynegar et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r676|676]]</sup> ; Reed et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r677|677]]</sup> ; Salzman et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r678|678]]</sup> ; Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r679|679]]</sup> ; Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r680|680]]</sup> ). While some studies assess ecological effectiveness and social equity, fewer assess economic efficiency (Yang and Lu 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r681|681]]</sup> ). Part of the challenge surrounds the fact that the majority of ES are not marketed, so determining how changes in ecosystems structures, functions and processes influence the quantity and quality of ES flows to people is challenging (Barbier 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r682|682]]</sup> ). PES include agri-environmental targeted outcome-based payments, but challenges exist in relation to scientific uncertainty, pricing, timing of payments, increasing risk to land managers, World Trade Organization compliance, and barriers of land management and scale (Reed et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r683|683]]</sup> ).

PES is contested (Wang and Fu 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r684|684]]</sup> ; Czembrowski and Kronenberg 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r685|685]]</sup> ; Perry 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r686|686]]</sup> ) for four reasons: (i) understanding and resolving trade-offs between conflicting groups of stakeholders (Wam et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r687|687]]</sup> ; Matthies et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r688|688]]</sup> ); (ii) knowledge and technology capacity (Menz et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r689|689]]</sup> ); (iii) challenges integrating PES with economic and other policy instruments (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r690|690]]</sup> ; Tallis et al. 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r691|691]]</sup> ; Elmqvist et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r692|692]]</sup> ; Albert et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r693|693]]</sup> ); and (iv) top-down climate change mitigation initiatives which are still largely carbon-centric, with limited opportunities for decentralised ecological restoration at local and regional scales (Vijge and Gupta 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r694|694]]</sup> ).

These challenges and contestations can be resolved with the participation of people in establishing PES, thereby addressing trust issues, negative attitudes, and resolving trade-offs between issues (such as retaining forests that consume water versus the provision of run-off, or balancing payments to providers versus cost to society) (Sorice et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r695|695]]</sup> ; Matthies et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r696|696]]</sup> ). Similarly, a ‘co-constructive’ approach is used involving a diversity of stakeholders generating policy-relevant knowledge for sustainable management of biodiversity and ES at all relevant spatial scales, by the current Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) initiative (Díaz et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r697|697]]</sup> ). Invasive species are also best identified and managed with the participation of people through collective decisions, coordinated programmes, and extensive research and outreach to address their complex social-ecological impacts (Wittmann et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r698|698]]</sup> ; Epanchin-Niell et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r699|699]]</sup> ).

Ecosystem restoration with co-benefits for diverse ES can be achieved through passive restoration, passive restoration with protection, and active restoration with planting (Birch et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r700|700]]</sup> ; Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r701|701]]</sup> ). Taking into account the costs of restoration and co-benefits from bundles of ES (carbon, tourism, timber), the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of active restoration and passive restoration with protection was always less than 1, suggesting that financial incentives would be required. Passive restoration was the most cost-effective with a BCR generally between 1 and 100 for forest, grassland and shrubland restoration (TEEB 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r702|702]]</sup> ; Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r703|703]]</sup> ). Passive restoration is generally more cost-effective, but there is a danger that it could be confused with abandoned land in the absence of secure tenure and a long time period (Zahawi et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r704|704]]</sup> ). Net social benefits of degraded land restoration in dry regions range from about 200–700 USD per hectare (Cantarello et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r705|705]]</sup> ). Investments in active restoration could benefit from analyses of past land use, the natural resilience of the ecosystem, and the specific objectives of each project (Meli et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r706|706]]</sup> ). One successful example is the Working for Water Programme in South Africa that linked restoration through removal of invasive species and enhanced water security (Milton et al. 2003 <sup>[[#fn:r707|707]]</sup> ).

Forest, water and energy cycle interactions and teleconnections such as contribution to rainfall potentially (Aragão 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r708|708]]</sup> ; Ellison et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r709|709]]</sup> ; Paul et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r710|710]]</sup> ; Spracklen et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r711|711]]</sup> ) provide a foundation for achieving forest-based adaptation and mitigation goals. They are, however, poorly integrated in policy and decision-making, including PES (Section 2.5.4).

<div id="section-7-4-6-3-standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors"></div>

<span id="standards-and-certification-for-sustainability-of-biomass-and-land-use-sectors"></span>