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

=== 7.6.5 Linkages to Ecosystem Services, Human Well-being and Adaptation (including SDGs) ===

<div id="h2-32-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The linkage between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being and sustainable development is widely acknowledged (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment 2005; [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP 2019]] ). Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services will have an adverse impact on quality of life, human well-being and sustainable development (IPBES 2019a). Such losses will not only affect current economic growth but also impede the capacity for future economic growth.

Population growth, economic development, urbanisation, technology, climate change, global trade and consumption, policy and governance are key drivers of global environmental change over recent decades ( [[#Kram--2014|Kram et al. 2014]] ; [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP 2019]] ; [[#WWF--2020|WWF 2020]] ). Changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services are mainly driven by habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, over-exploitation of natural resources, and pollution (Millenium Ecosystem Assesment 2005). The relative importance of these drivers varies across biomes, regions, and countries. Climate change is expected to be a major driver of biodiversity loss in the coming decades, followed by commercial forestry and bioenergy production ( [[#OECD--2012|OECD 2012]] ; [[#UNEP--2019|UNEP 2019]] ). Population growth along with rising incomes and changes in consumption and dietary patterns, will exert immense pressure on land and other natural resources ( [[#IPCC--2019|IPCC 2019]] ). Current estimates suggest that 75% of the land surface has been significantly anthropogenically altered, with 66% of the ocean area experiencing increasing cumulative impacts and over 85% of wetland area lost (IPBES 2019a). As discussed, in [[#7.3|Section 7.3]] , land-use change is driven amongst others by agriculture, forestry (logging and fuelwood harvesting), infrastructural development and urbanisation, all of which may also generate localised air, water, and soil pollution (IPBES 2019a). Over a third of the world’s land surface and nearly three-quarters of available freshwater resources are devoted to crop or livestock production (IPBES 2019a). Despite a slight reduction in global agricultural area since 2000, regional agricultural area expansion has occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East ( [[#FAO--2019c|FAO 2019c]] ; OECD and FAO 2019). The degradation of tropical forests and biodiversity hotspots, endangers habitat for many threatened and endemic species, and reduces valuable ecosystem services. However, trends vary considerably by region. As noted in [[#7.3|Section 7.3]] , global forest area declined by roughly 178 Mha between 1990 and 2020 ( [[#FAO--2020a|FAO 2020a]] ), though the rate of net forest loss has decreased over the period, due to reduced deforestation in some countries and forest gains in others. Between 1990 to 2015, forest cover fell by almost 13% in South-East Asia, largely due to an increase in timber extraction, large-scale biofuel plantations and expansion of intensive agriculture and shrimp farms, whereas in North-East Asia and South Asia it increased by 23% and 6% respectively, through policy instruments such as joint forest management, payment for ecosystem services, and restoration of degraded forests (IPBES 2018b). It is lamenting that the area under natural forests which are rich in biodiversity and provide diverse ecosystem services decreased by 301 Mha between 1990 and 2020, decreasing in most regions except Europe and Oceania with largest losses reported in sub-Saharan Africa ( [[#FAO--2020a|FAO 2020a]] ). The increasing trend of mining in forest and coastal areas, and in river basins for extracting has had significant negative impacts on biodiversity, air and water quality, water distribution, and on human health ( [[#7.3|Section 7.3]] ). Freshwater ecosystems equally face a series of combined threats including from land-use change, water extraction, exploitation, pollution, climate change and invasive species (IPBES 2019a).

<div id="7.6.5.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="ecosystem-services"></span>
==== 7.6.5.1 Ecosystem Services ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

An evaluation of eighteen ecosystem services over the past five decades (1970–2019) found only four (agricultural production, fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of materials) to demonstrate increased performance, while the remaining fourteen, mostly concerning regulating and non-material contributions, were found to be in decline (IPBES 2019a). The value of global agricultural output (over USD3.54 trillion in 2018) had increased approximately threefold since 1970, and roundwood production (industrial roundwood and fuelwood) by 27%, between 1980 to 2018, reaching some 4 billion m 3 in 2018. However, the positive trends in these four ecosystem services does not indicate long-term sustainability. If increases in agricultural production are realised through forest clearance or through increasing energy-intensive inputs, gains are likely to be unsustainable in the long run. Similarly, an increase in fish production may involve overfishing, leading to local species declines which also impacts fish prices, fishing revenues, and the well-being of coastal and fishing communities ( [[#Sumaila--2020|Sumaila and Lam 2020]] ). Climate change and other drivers are likely to affect future fish catch potential, although impacts will differ across regions ( [[#Sumaila--2017|Sumaila et al. 2017]] ; [[#Domke--2019|Domke et al. 2019]] ).

The increasing trend in aquaculture production especially in South and South-East Asia through intensive methods affects existing food production and ecosystems by diverting rice fields or mangroves ( [[#Bhattacharya--2011|Bhattacharya and Ninan 2011]] ). Although extensive traditional fish farming of carp in central Europe can contribute to landscape management, enhance biodiversity and provide ecosystem services, there are several barriers to scale up production due to strict EU environmental regulations, vulnerability to extreme weather events, and to avian predators that are protected by EU laws, and disadvantages faced by small-scale enterprises that dominate the sector (European-Commission 2021). Bioenergy production may have high opportunity costs in land-scarce areas and compete with land used for food production which threatens food security and affects the poor and vulnerable. But these impacts will differ across scale, contexts and other factors.

Currently, land degradation is estimated to have reduced productivity in 23% of the global terrestrial area, and between USD235 billion and USD577 billion in annual global crop output is at risk because of pollinator loss (IPBES 2019a). The global trends reviewed above are based on data from 2000 studies. It is not clear whether the assessment included a quality control check of the studies evaluated and suffer from aggregation bias. For instance, a recent meta-analysis of global forest valuation studies noted that many studies reviewed had shortcomings such as failing to clearly mention the methodology and prices used to value the forest ecosystem services, double counting, data errors, and so on ( [[#Ninan--2013|Ninan and Inoue 2013]] ). Furthermore, the criticisms against the paper by ( [[#Costanza--1997|Costanza et al. 1997]] ), such as ignoring ecological feedbacks and non-linearities that are central to the processes that link all species to each other and their habitats, ignoring substitution effects may also apply to the global assessment ( [[#Smith--1997|Smith 1997]] ; [[#Bockstael--2000|Bockstael et al. 2000]] ; [[#Loomis--2000|Loomis et al. 2000]] ). Land degradation has had a pronounced impact on ecosystem functions worldwide (IPBES 2018e). Net primary productivity of ecosystem biomass and of agriculture is presently lower than it would have been under a natural state on 23% of the global terrestrial area, amounting to a 5% reduction in total global net primary productivity (IPBES 2018e). Over the past two centuries, soil organic carbon, an indicator of soil health, has seen an estimated 8% loss globally (176 GtC) from land conversion and unsustainable land management practices (IPBES 2018e). Projections to 2050 predict further losses of 36 GtC from soils, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. These losses are projected to come from the expansion of agricultural land into natural areas (16 GtC), degradation due to inappropriate land management (11 GtC) and the draining and burning of peatlands (9 GtC) and melting of permafrost (IPBES 2018e). Trends in biodiversity measured by the global living planet index between 1970 to 2016 indicate a 68% decline in monitored population of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish ( [[#WWF--2020|WWF 2020]] ). FAO’s recent report on the state of the world’s biodiversity for food and agriculture points to an alarming decline in biodiversity for food and agriculture including associated biodiversity such as pollination services, microorganisms which are essential for production systems ( [[#FAO--2019d|FAO 2019d]] ). These suggest that overall ecosystem health is consistently declining with adverse consequences for good quality of life, human well-being, and sustainable development.

Although numerous studies have estimated the value of ecosystem services for different sites, ecosystems, and regions, these studies mostly evaluate ecosystem services at a single point in time ( [[#Costanza--1997|Costanza et al. 1997]] ; [[#Xue--2001|Xue and Tisdell 2001]] ; [[#Nahuelhual--2007|Nahuelhual et al. 2007]] ; [[#de%20Groot--2012|de Groot et al. 2012]] ; [[#Ninan--2016|Ninan and Kontoleon 2016]] ). The few studies that have assessed the trends in the value of ecosystem services provided by different ecosystems across regions and countries indicate a declining trend ( [[#Costanza--2014|Costanza et al. 2014]] ; [[#Kubiszewski--2017|Kubiszewski et al. 2017]] ). Land-use change is a major driver behind loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in most regions (IPBES 2018b; IPBES 2018c, IPBES 2018d, [[#Rice--2018|Rice et al. 2018]] ). Projected impacts of land-use change and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (material and regulating services) between 2015 to 2050 were assessed to have relatively less negative impacts under global sustainability scenarios as compared to regional competition and economic optimism scenarios (IPBES 2019a). The projected impacts were based on a subset of Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) scenarios and GHG emissions trajectories (RCP) developed in support of IPCC assessments. There are synergies, trade-offs and co-benefits between ecosystem services and mitigation options with impacts on ecosystem services differing by scale and contexts ( ''high confidence'' ). Measures such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry, soil and water conservation, afforestation, adoption of silvopastoral systems, can help minimise trade-offs between mitigations options and ecosystem services ( [[#Duguma--2014|Duguma et al. 2014]] ). Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is being promoted to enable farmers to make agriculture more sustainable and adapt to climate change (Box 7.4). However, experience with CSA in Africa has not been encouraging. For instance, a study of climate-smart cocoa production in Ghana shows that due to lack of tenure (tree) rights, bureaucratic and legal hurdles in registering trees in cocoa farms, and other barriers small cocoa producers could not realise the project benefits (Box 7.13). Experience of CSA in some other sub-Saharan African countries and other countries such as Belize too has been constrained by weak extension systems and policy implementation, and other barriers ( [[#Arakelyan--2017|Arakelyan et al. 2017]] ; [[#Kongsager--2017|Kongsager 2017]] ).

<div id="7.6.5.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="human-well-being-and-sustainable-development-goals"></span>
==== 7.6.5.2 Human Well-being and Sustainable Development Goals ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is part of the larger objective of building climate resilience and promoting good quality of life, human well-being and sustainable development. While two of the 17 SDGs directly relate to nature (SDGs 14 and 15 covering marine and terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity), most other SDGs relating to poverty, hunger, inequality, health and well-being, clean sanitation and water, energy, and so on, are directly or indirectly linked to nature ( [[#Blicharska--2019|Blicharska et al. 2019]] ). A survey among experts to assess how 16 ecosystem services could help in achieving the SDGs relating to good environment and human well-being suggested that ecosystem services could contribute to achieving about 41 targets across 12 SDGs ( [[#Wood--2018|Wood et al. 2018]] ). They also indicated cross-target interactions and synergetic outcomes across many SDGs. Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is critical to sustaining the well-being and livelihoods of poor and marginalised people, and indigenous communities who depend on natural resources ( ''high confidence'' ). Nature provides a broad array of goods and services that are critical to good quality of life and human well-being. Healthy and diverse ecosystems can play an important role in reducing vulnerability and building resilience to disasters and extreme weather events ( [[#SCBD--2009|SCBD 2009]] ; [[#The%20Royal%20Society%20Science%20Policy%20Centre--2014|The Royal Society Science Policy Centre 2014]] ; [[#Ninan--2017|Ninan and Inoue 2017]] ).

Current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services will undermine progress towards achieving 80% (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets of SDGs related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (IPBES 2019a). However, [[#Reyers--2020|Reyers and Selig (2020)]] note that the assessment by (IPBES 2019a) could only assess the consequences of trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services for 35 out of the 169 SDG targets due to data and knowledge gaps, and lack of clarity about the relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services and SDGs.

Progress in achieving the 20 Aichi Biodiversity targets which are critical for realising the SDGs has been poor with most of the targets not being achieved or only partially realised ( [[#SCBD--2020|SCBD 2020]] ). There could be synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services and human well-being. For instance, a study notes that although policy interventions and incentives to enhance supply of provisioning services (e.g., agricultural production) have led to higher GDP, it may have an adverse effect on the regulatory services of ecosystems ( [[#Kirchner--2015|Kirchner et al. 2015]] ). However, we are aware of the inadequacies of traditional GDP as an indicator of well-being. In this context the Dasgupta Biodiversity Review argues for using the inclusive wealth approach to accurately measure social well-being by tracking the changes in produced, human and natural capital ( [[#Dasgupta--2021|Dasgupta 2021]] ). Targets for nature (biodiversity and ecosystem services) should be refined so as to fit in with the metrics tracked by the SDGs (IPBES 2016; [[#Rosa--2017|Rosa et al. 2017]] ).

<div id="7.6.5.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="land-based-mitigation-and-adaptation"></span>
==== 7.6.5.3 Land-based Mitigation and Adaptation ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Combined mitigation and adaptation approaches have been highlighted throughout [[#7.4|Section 7.4]] regarding specific measures. Land-based mitigation and adaptation to the risks posed by climate change and extreme weather events can have several co-benefits as well as help promote development and conservation goals. Land-based mitigation and adaptation will not only help reduce GHG emissions in the AFOLU sector, but measures are required to closely link up with adaptation. In the central 2°C scenario, improved management of land and more efficient forest practices, a reduction in deforestation and an increase in afforestation, would account for 10% of the total mitigation effort over 2015–2050 ( [[#Keramidas--2018|Keramidas et al. 2018]] ). If managed and regulated appropriately, the Land sector could become carbon-neutral as early as 2030–2035, being a key sector for emissions reductions beyond 2025 ( [[#Keramidas--2018|Keramidas et al. 2018]] ). Nature-based solutions (NBS) with safeguards has immense potential for cost-effective adaptation to climate change; but their impacts will vary by scale and contexts ( ''high confidence'' ). [[#Griscom--2017|Griscom et al. 2017]] estimate this potential to provide 37% of cost-effective CO 2 mitigation until 2030 needed to meet 2°C goals with likely co-benefits for biodiversity. However, due to the time lag for technology deployment and natural carbon gain this mitigation potential of NBS by 2030 or 2050 can be delayed or much lower than the estimated potential ( [[#Qin--2021|Qin et al. 2021]] ).

<div id="box-7.13" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-7.13-case-study-climate-smart-cocoa-prod-uction-in-ghana"></span>