Search

In anticipation of the COP26 Glasgow United Nations Summit on Climate Change, this position paper draws attention to a series of research themes and potential questions to ask on the role of climate obstruction in the Global South. These initial research themes and questions set the foundation for a body of research that could have direct implications for nation states in the Global South and their engagement in future action on climate change.

This report presents the main conclusions of the first-ever IPCC-IPBES co-sponsored workshop which took place in December 2020. The workshop explored diverse facets of the interaction between climate and biodiversity, from current trends to the role and implementation of nature-based solutions and the sustainable development of human society. This report is underpinned by the Scientific Outcome, which includes seven sections, the complete references and the report glossary. You can find the Scientific Outcome here https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158, Suggested citation: Pörtner, H.O., Scholes, R.J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W.L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A. P. F., Popp, A., Reyes-García, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y. J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A.L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D.C., Rogers, A.D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., Ngo, H.T. 2021. IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and IPCC, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4782538

The Scientific Outcome was produced by participants in the first-ever IPCC-IPBES co-sponsored workshop which took place in December 2020. This workshop is placed in the context of recent international agreements including the Paris Agreement, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and ongoing preparation for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that converge on solving the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss as essential to support human well-being. The Scientific Outcome further develops and substantiates the conclusions of the Synopsis, summarizes the emerging state of knowledge involving climate change and biodiversity with the objective to inform decision making and highlight options for action, and to identify knowledge gaps to be filled by scientific research. The Scientific Outcome includes seven sections, the references outlining the evidence reviewed within those sections and the report glossary., Suggested citation: Pörtner, H.O., Scholes, R.J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W.L., Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Ichii, K., Jacob, U., Insarov, G., Kiessling, W., Leadley, P., Leemans, R., Levin, L., Lim, M., Maharaj, S., Managi, S., Marquet, P. A., McElwee, P., Midgley, G., Oberdorff, T., Obura, D., Osman, E., Pandit, R., Pascual, U., Pires, A. P. F., Popp, A., Reyes-García, V., Sankaran, M., Settele, J., Shin, Y. J., Sintayehu, D. W., Smith, P., Steiner, N., Strassburg, B., Sukumar, R., Trisos, C., Val, A.L., Wu, J., Aldrian, E., Parmesan, C., Pichs-Madruga, R., Roberts, D.C., Rogers, A.D., Díaz, S., Fischer, M., Hashimoto, S., Lavorel, S., Wu, N., Ngo, H.T. 2021. Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, DOI:10.5281/zenodo.4659158.

The Synopsis presents the main conclusions of the first-ever IPCC-IPBES co-sponsored workshop which took place in December 2020. The workshopexplored diverse facets of the interaction between climate and biodiversity, from current trends to the role and implementation of nature-based solutions and the sustainable development of human society. This Synopsis is underpinned by theScientific Outcome, which includes seven sections, the complete references and the report glossary. You can find the Scientific Outcome herehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4659158

This chapter makes a strong case for greater inclusion of Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) in global environmental policy fora and in science-policy interfaces. The chapter specifically looks at the IPBES Global Assessment which has developed one of the first global-scale mechanisms for operationalizing ILK in sustainability decision-making. The types of knowledges that have been successfully integrated into this assessment include ways in which ILK can help (1) to assess ecosystem change and associated human vulnerability; (2) to inform the achievement of global goals like the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Targets; and (3) to inform policy-relevant options for decision-makers. It is argued that other global initiatives seeking to engage ILK in their endeavours can learn from the ILK approach of the IPBES Global Assessment.

The knowledge, values, and practices of Indigenous peoples and local communities offer ways to understand and better address social-environmental problems. The article reviews the state of the literature on this topic by focusing on six pathways by which Indigenous peoples and local communities engage with management of and relationships to nature. These are (a) undertaking territorial management practices and customary governance, (b) contributing to nature conservation and restoration efforts with regional to global implications, (c) co-constructing knowledge for assessments and monitoring, (d) countering the drivers of unsustainable resource use and resisting environmental injustices, (e) playing key roles in environmental governance across scales, and (f) offering alternative conceptualizations of the interrelations between people and nature. The review shows that through these pathways Indigenous peoples and local communities are making significant contributions to managing the health of local and regional ecosystems, to producing knowledge based in diverse values of nature, confronting societal pressures and environmental burdens, and leading and partnering in environmental governance. These contributions have local to global implications but have yet to be fully recognized in conservation and development polices, and by society at large.

18-1802-152800-CSD UIDB/04085/2020 The COVID-19 pandemic has caused dramatic and unprecedented impacts on both global health and economies. Many governments are now proposing recovery packages to get back to normal, but the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Global Assessment indicated that business as usual has created widespread ecosystem degradation. Therefore, a post-COVID world needs to tackle the economic drivers that create ecological disruptions. In this perspective, we discuss a number of tools across a range of actors for both short-term stimulus measures and longer-term revamping of global, national, and local economies that take biodiversity into account. These include measures to shift away from activities that damage biodiversity and toward those supporting ecosystem resilience, including through incentives, regulations, fiscal policy, and employment programs. By treating the crisis as an opportunity to reset the global economy, we have a chance to reverse decades of biodiversity and ecosystem losses. publishersversion published

Indigenous peoples (IPs) worldwide are confronted by the increasing threat of pollution. Based on a comprehensive review of the literature (n = 686 studies), we present the current state of knowledge on: 1) the exposure and vulnerability of IPs to pollution; 2) the environmental, health, and cultural impacts of pollution upon IPs; and 3) IPs' contributions to prevent, control, limit, and abate pollution from local to global scales. Indigenous peoples experience large burdens of environmental pollution linked to the expansion of commodity frontiers and industrial development, including agricultural, mining, and extractive industries, as well as urban growth, waste dumping, and infrastructure and energy development. Nevertheless, IPs are contributing to limit pollution in different ways, including through environmental monitoring and global policy advocacy, as well as through local resistance toward polluting activities. This work adds to growing evidence of the breadth and depth of environmental injustices faced by IPs worldwide, and we conclude by highlighting the need to increase IPs' engagement in environmental decision‐making regarding pollution control. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:324–341. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

First paragraph: The Sustainable Development Goals and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity cannot be achieved without transformative change, the conditions for which can be put in place now (well established) {6.2; chapters 2, 3, 5}. In the short term (before 2030), all decision makers can contribute to the sustainability transformation, including through the rapid and improved deployment of existing policy instruments and new initiatives that more effectively enlist individual and collective action for transformative change, and the reform and removal of harmful existing policies and subsidies (well established). Additional measures are necessary to enable transformative change in the long term (up to 2050) to address the indirect drivers that are the root causes of nature deterioration (well established), including changes in social, economic and technological structures within and across nations {6.2, 6.3, 6.4}.

This document containsChapter 6 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.&nbsp

In recognition of the importance of nature, its contributions to people and role in underpinning sustainable development, governments adopted a Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020 through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) containing 20 "Aichi Biodiversity Targets" and integrated many of these into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted through the United Nations in 2015. Additional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) target particular aspects of nature (e.g., Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Convention on Migratory Species), drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), or responses (e.g., World Heritage Convention). These various MEAs provide complementary fora in which governments strive to coordinate efforts to reduce the loss and degradation of nature, and to promote sustainable development. In this chapter, we assess, through a systematic review process and quantitative analysis of indicators, progress towards the 20 Aichi Targets under the Strategic Plan (and each of the 54 elements or components of these targets), targets under the SDGs that are relevant to nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP), and the goals and targets of six other MEAs. We consider the relationships between the SDGs, nature and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to achieving the various targets and goals, the impact of progress or lack of it on IPLCs, the reasons for variation in progress, implications for a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity beyond 2020, and key knowledge gaps.For the 44 SDG targets assessed, including targets for poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15), findings suggest that current negative trends in nature will substantially undermine progress to 22 SDG targets and result in insufficient progress to meet 13 additional targets (i.e. 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets) {3.3.2.1; 3.3.2.2}(established but incomplete). Across terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, current negative trends in nature and its contributions will hamper SDG progress, with especially poor progress expected towards targets on water security, water quality, ocean pollution and acidification. Trends in nature's contributions relevant to extreme event vulnerability, resource access, small-scale food production, and urban and agricultural sustainability are negative and insufficient for achieving relevant targets under SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 11. This has negative consequences for both the rural and urban poor who are also directly reliant on declining resources for consumption and income generation {3.3.2.2}. For a further 9 targets evaluated in SDGs 1, 3 and 11 a lack of knowledge on how nature contributes to targets (4 targets) or gaps in data with which to assess trends in nature (5 targets) prevented their assessment. Fil: Butchart, Stuart. London Metropolitan University; Reino Unido Fil: Miloslavich, Patricia. University of Western Australia; Australia Fil: Reyers, Belinda. No especifíca; Fil: Galetto, Leonardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M.. No especifíca; Fil: Adams, Cristina. No especifíca; Fil: Palomo, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; Argentina Fil: McElwee, Pamela. No especifíca; Fil: Meretsky, Vicky J.. No especifíca; Fil: Morsello, Carla. No especifíca; Fil: Nel, Jeanne. No especifíca; Fil: Lynn Newberry, Teresa. No especifíca; Fil: Pacheco, Diego. No especifíca; Fil: Pyhala, Aili. No especifíca; Fil: Rossi Heras, Sergio. No especifíca; Fil: Roy, Joyashree. No especifíca; Fil: Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel. No especifíca; Fil: Salpeteur, Matthieu. No especifíca; Fil: Santos-Martin, Fernando. No especifíca; Fil: Saylor. Kirk. No especifíca; Fil: Schaffartzik, Anke. No especifíca; Fil: Sitas, Nadia. No especifíca; Fil: Speranza, Ifejika. No especifíca; Fil: Suich, Helen. No especifíca; Fil: Tittensor, Derek. No especifíca; Fil: Carignano, Patricia. No especifíca; Fil: Tsioumani, Elsa. No especifíca; Fil: Whitmee, Sarah. No especifíca; Fil: Wilson, Sarah. No especifíca; Fil: Wyndham, Felice. No especifíca; Fil: Zorondo-Rodriguez, Francisco. No especifíca

Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) can play a key role in climate change adaptation (high confidence) (Mapfumo et al. 2017; Nyong et al. 2007; Green and Raygorodetsky 2010; Speranza et al. 2010; Alexander et al. 2011; Leonard et al. 2013; Nakashima et al. 2013; Tschakert 2007). The Summary for Policymakers of the Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2014b, p. 26) states that ‘Indigenous, local, and traditional knowledge systems and practices, including indigenous peoples’ holistic view of community and environment, are a major resource for adapting to climate change, but these have not been used consistently in existing adaptation efforts. Integrating such forms of knowledge with existing practices increases the effectiveness of adaptation’ (see also Ford et al. 2016). The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) (IPCC 2018a; de Coninck et al. 2018) confirms the effectiveness and potential feasibility of adaptation options based on ILK, but also raises concerns that such knowledge systems are being threatened by multiple socio-economic and environmental drivers (high confidence). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment (IPBES 2018) finds the same – that ILK can support adaptation to land degradation, but is threatened

Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) are affected by global environmental change because they directly rely on their immediate environment for meeting basic livelihood needs. Therefore, safeguarding and restoring ecosystem resilience is critical to support their wellbeing. Based on examples from the literature, we illustrate how IPLC participate in restoration activities maintaining traditional practices, restoring land degraded by outsiders, and joining outside groups seeking to restore ecosystems. Our review also provides examples of how Indigenous and local knowledge can be incorporated in the planning, execution, and monitoring of restoration activities. However, not all restoration initiatives engaging IPLC are beneficial or successful, and the factors that lead to success are not fully known. While local involvement in restoration projects is often mentioned as an element of success, this is primarily associated to projects that actively involve IPLC in co-designing restoration activities affecting their territories, ensure both short-term direct benefits to IPLC and long-term support of the maintenance of restored areas, and recognize IPLC local traditions and customary institutions. Based on these examples, we argue that IPLC should be a more important focus in any post-2020 CBD agenda on restoration.