Search

Next week, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) convenes in Kunming, China, to discuss a new global plan to conserve nature and improve the sharing of its benefits across humankind. If such a plan is successfully implemented, it will mark a turning point in the millennia-long decline of the natural world due to human activity. This prospect has been boosted by the United Nations General Assembly decision to declare 2021–2030 as the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (the “Decade”), which aims to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems across the planet.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

The Białowieża Forest World Heritage site is one of the last remaining primeval forests in lowland Europe and is a refuge for European Bison (Bison bonasus), the largest land mammal on the continent (Table 1).

Providing food and other products to a growing human population while safeguarding natural ecosystems and the provision of their services is a significant scientific, social and political challenge. With food demand likely to double over the next four decades, anthropization is already driving climate change and is the principal force behind species extinction, among other environmental impacts. The sustainable intensification of production on current agricultural lands has been suggested as a key solution to the competition for land between agriculture and natural ecosystems. However, few investigations have shown the extent to which these lands can meet projected demands while considering biophysical constraints. Here we investigate the improved use of existing agricultural lands and present insights into avoiding future competition for land. We focus on Brazil, a country projected to experience the largest increase in agricultural production over the next four decades and the richest nation in terrestrial carbon and biodiversity. Using various models and climatic datasets, we produced the first estimate of the carrying capacity of Brazil's 115 million hectares of cultivated pasturelands. We then investigated if the improved use of cultivated pasturelands would free enough land for the expansion of meat, crops, wood and biofuel, respecting biophysical constraints (i.e., terrain, climate) and including climate change impacts. We found that the current productivity of Brazilian cultivated pasturelands is 32–34% of its potential and that increasing productivity to 49–52% of the potential would suffice to meet demands for meat, crops, wood products and biofuels until at least 2040, without further conversion of natural ecosystems. As a result up to 14.3Gt CO2 Eq could be mitigated. The fact that the country poised to undergo the largest expansion of agricultural production over the coming decades can do so without further conversion of natural habitats provokes the question whether the same can be true in other regional contexts and, ultimately, at the global scale.

Governments and international organizations are promoting or drafting programs to undertake Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) of hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded tropical landscapes to support the provision of ecosystem goods and services. But the challenge to recover economic and ecological functionality could be far beyond their financial capacity. Here, we explore the potential of markets and their interaction with policies to leverage investment for FLR in the tropics. We first review the challenges and opportunities of exploiting market forces for FLR, which can be essential for kick-starting the implementation of programs globally. We identify four key opportunities for regulating markets to promote FLR: economic mechanisms; technological, educational or infrastructural investment; legal and enforcement mechanisms; and market-led standards and certification schemes. Finally, we present five pitfalls that may arise when relying on markets to promote FLR. Governments will need to play a critical role in establishing appropriate policy frameworks and institutional arrangements to leverage investments when market signals are not strong enough to initiate changes in traditional land use or farming practices, or to regulate reforestation activities when market signals become so strong that they overwhelm all other land-use activities, leading to a transformed and homogenized landscape.

Scenarios are important tools to facilitate the communication among scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers, and, thus to support policy and management decisions. The use of scenarios has an enormous potential to reduce ecosystem restoration costs and to optimize benefits, but this potential remains poorly explored. Here, we recommend and illustrate six best practices to guide the use of scenarios for planning native ecosystem restoration. We argue, first, for a participatory process to consider aspirations of multiple stakeholders along the whole scenario building process, from planning to implementation and review phases. Second, targeted restoration outcomes should be defined by key-actors (those who have direct interests in restoration) and directly involved stakeholders, within a clear socio-environmental context and under a well-defined problem statement, considering a broad range of nature and human benefits that can be derived from ecosystem restoration. Third, methodological choices, such as scenario types, spatial and temporal scales, drivers, restoration-related variables, and indicators, should be defined according to the multiple desired outcomes. Fourth, we encourage the consideration of the interactions among variables, within a spatially explicit, and temporally dynamic multi-criteria approach. Fifth, analysis and dissemination of scenario results should highlight the trade-offs and synergies among different restoration outcomes, identifying the scenarios that maximize benefits and minimize costs and resistance (i.e. the cost-effective and most feasible scenario) for multiple targets. Finally, promoting capacity building, through a wider consultation process including interaction with a broader group of stakeholders, is critical for the successful implementation and review of restoration interventions. Scenarios that support ecosystem restoration should follow an adaptive and iterative process, aiming to continuously improve restoration interventions and outcomes.

The low productivity of many tropical pasturelands is a major driver of deforestation and other negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. In Brazil, the second biggest meat producer in the world, 85% of cattle farms remain within extensive pasture systems, and cattle farming is by far the most important proximate driver of deforestation. It is possible to expand Brazilian agriculture with zero deforestation through improvements to rangeland productivity yet understanding of the challenges and motivations of the actual cattle farmers in the face of such a transition remains sparse. To better understand the importance of the underlying factors that lead to or inhibit improvements to land management, we used focus groups and semi-structured interviews (N = 250) with farmers from the state of Mato Grosso in the Brazilian Amazon. We found that the majority of the respondents (60%) claimed that the principal benefit of adopting good agricultural practices was increased productivity, followed by increased income (43%) and better farm administrative management (34%). The adoption of improved pasture management techniques was positively correlated with stocking rates (p

Understanding perception about nature is paramount to understanding human behavior and decision making on the environment. We performed a survey-based study in Brazil and Poland to better understand the perception of land sparing for nature and the perceived value of nature. The countries were selected by intentional sampling and given their importance for local and global biodiversity conservation, and complex socio-ecological context of conservation versus agroforestry business. We performed an online questionnaire (N = 1030) in Brazil and face-to-face interviews in Poland (N = 322). We found that Brazilian respondents demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes than Polish survey participants. Regarding the question: &ldquo, How much nature that is left should be spared?&rdquo, nearly 51% of Brazilians answered &ldquo, everything&rdquo, compared with 13% of Polish respondents. Just under half of the respondents from Poland (45.6%) indicated that half of the nature that is left should be spared. Brazilian respondents also perceived the intrinsic value of nature to a greater extent compared with Polish respondents, in total, 76% of Brazilians respondents entirely agreed that &ldquo, Nature, its plants and animals have a value on their own, independent of their usefulness for us&rdquo, versus 25% of Polish respondents. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the leverage points driving pro-environmental attitudes in both countries.

Blue carbon in mangroves represents one of highest values of carbon stocks per hectare, and could play an important role in climate change mitigation. In this study we estimated the carbon prices needed to promote mangrove conservation and restoration under mechanisms of payment for ecosystem services (PES). We mapped the remaining and deforested mangroves across the globe in 2017, and crossed this information with carbon stocks in the biomass and soil and with land opportunity and restoration costs. In accordance with previous studies we found that Southeast Asia holds the largest opportunities for blue carbon programs to support conservation and restoration. Conserving remaining mangroves would avoid the release of up to 15.51 PgCO2 to the atmosphere, and could be achieved at carbon prices between 3.0 and 13.0 US$ per tCO2 for 90% of remaining mangroves. Restoring mangroves can sequester up to 0.32 PgCO2 globally. Carbon prices between 4.5 and 18.0 US$ per tCO2 could support the restoration of 90% of deforested mangroves. Such prices, however, may not apply to contexts of high-profit alternative land-uses. In such contexts, the valuation of co-benefits and the combination of carbon-based mechanisms and sustainable management may be a viable pathway.

More, not less, international cooperation on conservation is in the interest of Brazilian farmers and wider Brazilian society, argues Bernardo B. N. Strassburg.

Poorly planned, large-scale ecological restoration projects may displace agricultural activities and potentially lead to the clearance of native vegetation elsewhere, with associated impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet few studies have considered these risks and the ways in which restoration can increase competition for land. Here, we address this issue by examining whether large-scale restoration of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest could displace cattle production, as a result of land shortages. Although the risks of displacement are indeed high when reforestation is planned in areas with high cattle productivity, we discuss how these risks can be minimized through a combination of productivity increases, a regional restoration planning framework, and the prioritization of marginal agricultural land for restoration. We also consider how restoration can, in some circumstances, be made more economically sustainable by incorporating income-generating activities such as exploitation of timber an...

Sustainable technologies are increasingly promoted in various production areas. Protection of natural resources, as well as rational waste management, may lead to better optimization of technologies. Biochar, a product of pyrolysis of organic residues has found wide applications in waste management, agriculture, energy and construction industry. In the present study biochar samples produced in Poland and in Brazil were analysed for microbial content using three substrates: Plate Count Agar, Malt Agar, and Potato Agar. Both qualitative and quantitative measurements were done. Microscopic analysis of the biochar structure was also performed. We found that microbial cultures in both biochars represented a wide range of biodiversity of microorganisms genera and species. We demonstrate that the biochar samples differ depending on the botanical origin as well as on the production technology. Structure of the tested samples also varied depending on the botanical origin. Sample 1-PL (pine) was characterised by a compact and regular structure, while sample 2-PL (oak) showed porous and irregular structure. Sample from Brazil (1-BR) showed a more delicate structure than Polish biochars. Obtained properties may suggest a range of implications for practice.

There has been an increased interest in using sustainability indicators for evaluating the impacts of development and conservation projects. Past and recent experiences have shown that sustainability indicators can be powerful tools for measuring the outcomes of various interventions, when used appropriately and adequately. Currently, there is a range of methods for applying sustainability indicators for project impact evaluation at the environment–development interface. At the same time, a number of challenges persist which have implication for impact evaluation processes especially in developing countries. We highlight some key and recurrent challenges, using three cases from Kenya, Indonesia and Brazil. In this study, we have conducted a comparative analysis across multiple projects from the three countries, which aimed to conserve biodiversity and improve livelihoods. The assessments of these projects were designed to evaluate their positive, negative, short-term, long term, direct and indirect impacts. We have identified a set of commonly used sustainability indicators to evaluate the projects and have discussed opportunities and challenges associated with their application. Our analysis shows that impact evaluation processes present good opportunities for applying sustainability indicators. On the other hand, we find that project proponents (e.g. managers, evaluators, donors/funders) face challenges with establishing full impacts of interventions and that these are rooted in monitoring and evaluation processes, lack of evidence-based impacts, difficulties of measuring certain outcomes and concerns over scale of a range of impacts. We outline key lessons learnt from the multiple cases and propose ways to overcome common problems. Results from our analysis demonstrate practical experiences of applying sustainability indicators in developing countries context where there are different prevailing socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions. The knowledge derived from this study may therefore be useful to a wider range of audience who are concerned with sustainable integration of development and environmental conservation.

National and transboundary adverse effects of competition for land are being increasingly recognized by researchers and decision-makers, however the consideration of these impacts within national planning strategies is not yet commonplace. To estimate how increasing agricultural production can be conciliated with protection of natural resources at the national scale, we analyzed current land use in Suriname, and investigated opportunities for, and constraints to developing a sustainable agricultural sector. Suriname is a remarkable case study. To date, Suriname has retained most of its natural resources with forest areas covering over 90% of the country. Surinamese forests combine extremely high levels of both biodiversity and carbon, making them top priority from a global ecosystem services perspective. Among other national and international pressures from increased demand for agricultural products, the country is also considering significant expansion of agricultural output to both diminish imports and become a ‘bread basket’ for the Caribbean region, which collectively may pose risks to natural resources. In this study, combining locally-obtained primary data, expert consultation and secondary data from the Food and Agriculture Organization we analyzed a range of scenarios, we show the complexities associated with current land management and we discuss alternatives for developing a sustainable agricultural sector in Suriname. We show that Suriname can increase the production of rice, which is the most important agricultural activity in the country, without expanding rice area. Rather, future increase in rice production could be promoted through an increase in rice productivity, and the employment of more environmentally-favorable management methods, in order to both diminish pollution and avoid encroachment of the agriculture into pristine areas. Further, we show a potential to both contribute to greening of the agricultural sector and to higher economic returns through expanding the production of ‘safe food’ and through possible development of organic agriculture in Suriname. If Suriname develops a ‘greener’ agricultural sector, it may both increase economic returns from the agricultural sector and benefit from continuing protection of natural resources. Because most of Suriname forests present top levels of carbon and biodiversity, the country could benefit from so-called ‘early-action’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) finance, which is already being paid mostly through bilateral agreements. Further, by adopting land-use planning that protects natural resources, Suriname may be in extraordinary position to benefit from both improved-quality agricultural production and from incentives to conserve forest carbon and biodiversity, such as payments for ecosystem services. Given the high stakes and the severe lack of both primary data and applied analyses in Suriname, further research focused on better informing land-use policies would be a valuable investment for the country. Although this analysis was performed for Suriname, conclusions drawn here are transferrable and may assist formulation of policy recommendations for land use elsewhere.

Most research on biochar has focused either on the mechanistic or the biophysical aspects, and there has been relatively little research into the social applicability and acceptance of biochar as a soil enhancer in agriculture. However, whether to adopt biochar in their practice is ultimately the farmers’ decision, and their willingness to do so is crucial. Here, we show the producer’s perspective on adopting biochar, using Polish farmers as a case study. Poland is an interesting case study because biochar has only recently attracted the attention of researchers, entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders there. We performed standardized, semi-structured interviews with 161 Polish farmers to evaluate the socioeconomic potential of biochar application in practice. We found that 27% of the respondents claimed to be familiar with biochar. The respondents with a technical, non-agricultural level of education were most familiar with the term ‘biochar’ (36%), followed by the group of respondents with a higher-level agricultural education (31%). It was surprising that among the latter respondents, the majority (69%) did not know the term ‘biochar’, either in the context used for this study or in any other context. Twenty percent of the respondents expressed an interest in using biochar, while 43% were not willing to adopt it in their agricultural practice (37% ‘did not know yet’). If a farmer was familiar with the concept of sustainable agriculture, the probability of familiarity with biochar increased by 16% (p < 0.05). In addition, farmers interested in using biochar indicated that sustainable agriculture might improve the financial situation of their farms (52%). The perceived benefits of biochar that drive the willingness to adopt it included improved soil quality and increased income due to increased yields, while the constraints on its adoption were associated mainly with high costs. Our results also point to the necessity of information flow as well as engaging farmers in participatory research to adjust the research to their needs. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of transparency with the farmers and appropriate dissemination and presentation of both the positive and the negative aspects of biochar adoption. We urge those studying biochar to engage in more interdisciplinary research and to go beyond laboratory and field research. Many innovations, even those that work, will not be adopted if socioeconomic considerations are not incorporated into the research.