Search

The world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstan, QC 20231204

There are close links between solar UV radiation, climate change, and plastic pollution. UV-driven weathering is a key process leading to the degradation of plastics in the environment but also the formation of potentially harmful plastic fragments such as micro- and nanoplastic particles. Estimates of the environmental persistence of plastic pollution, and the formation of fragments, will need to take in account plastic dispersal around the globe, as well as projected UV radiation levels and climate change factors.image

There are close links between solar UV radiation, climate change, and plastic pollution. UV-driven weathering is a key process leading to the degradation of plastics in the environment but also the formation of potentially harmful plastic fragments such as micro- and nanoplastic particles. Estimates of the environmental persistence of plastic pollution, and the formation of fragments, will need to take in account plastic dispersal around the globe, as well as projected UV radiation levels and climate change factors.

This Assessment Update by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers the interactive effects of solar UV radiation, global warming, and other weathering factors on plastics. The Assessment illustrates the significance of solar UV radiation in decreasing the durability of plastic materials, degradation of plastic debris, formation of micro- and nanoplastic particles and accompanying leaching of potential toxic compounds. Micro- and nanoplastics have been found in all ecosystems, the atmosphere, and in humans. While the potential biological risks are not yet well-established, the widespread and increasing occurrence of plastic pollution is reason for continuing research and monitoring. Plastic debris persists after its intended life in soils, water bodies and the atmosphere as well as in living organisms. To counteract accumulation of plastics in the environment, the lifetime of novel plastics or plastic alternatives should better match the functional life of products, with eventual breakdown releasing harmless substances to the environment.

he world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstanc

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was established 35 years ago following the 1985 Vienna Convention for protection of the environment and human health against excessive amounts of harmful ultraviolet-B (UV-B, 280-315 nm) radiation reaching the Earth’s surface due to a reduced UV-B-absorbing ozone layer. The Montreal Protocol, ratified globally by all 198 Parties (countries), controls ca 100 ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These substances have been used in many applications, such as in refrigerants, air conditioners, aerosol propellants, fumigants against pests, fire extinguishers, and foam materials. The Montreal Protocol has phased out nearly 99% of ODS, including ODS with high global warming potentials such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), thus serving a dual purpose. However, some of the replacements for ODS also have high global warming potentials, for example, the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Several of these replacements have been added to the substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol. The HFCs are now being phased down under the Kigali Amendment. As of December 2022, 145 countries have signed the Kigali Amendment, exemplifying key additional outcomes of the Montreal Protocol, namely, that of also curbing climate warming and stimulating innovations to increase energy efficiency of cooling equipment used industrially as well as domestically. As the concentrations of ODS decline in the upper atmosphere, the stratospheric ozone layer is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by the middle of the 21st century, assuming full compliance with the control measures of the Montreal Protocol. However, in the coming decades, the ozone layer will be increasingly influenced by emissions of greenhouse gases and ensuing global warming. These trends are highly likely to modify the amount of UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface with implications for the effects on ecosystems and human health. Against this background, four Panels of expert

This collection of Questions & Answers (Q&As) was prepared by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the Montreal Protocol under the umbrella of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The document complements EEAP’s Quadrennial Assessment 2022 (https://ozone. unep.org/science/assessment/eeap) and provides interesting and useful information for policymakers, the general public, teachers, and scientists, written in an easy-to-understand language.

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods f

This Assessment Update by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) considers the interactive effects of solar UV radiation, global warming, and other weathering factors on plastics. The Assessment illustrates the significance of solar UV radiation in decreasing the durability of plastic materials, degradation of plastic debris, formation of micro- and nanoplastic particles and accompanying leaching of potential toxic compounds. Micro- and nanoplastics have been found in all ecosystems, the atmosphere, and in humans. While the potential biological risks are not yet well-established, the widespread and increasing occurrence of plastic pollution is reason for continuing research and monitoring. Plastic debris persists after its intended life in soils, water bodies and the atmosphere as well as in living organisms. To counteract accumulation of plastics in the environment, the lifetime of novel plastics or plastic alternatives should better match the functional life of products, with eventual breakdown releasing harmless substances to the environment.

Esta colección de preguntas y respuestas fue preparada por el Panel de Evaluación de los Efectos en el Medio Ambiente (EEAP por sus siglas en inglés) del Protocolo de Montreal bajo el amparo del Programa para el Medio Ambiente de las Naciones Unidas (PNUM). Este documento es un complemento de la Evaluación Cuatrienal 2022 realizada por el EEAP (https://ozone. unep.org/science/assessment/eeap), y provee de información interesante y útil para redactores de políticas públicas, maestros y científicos. Este P&Rs está escrito en un lenguaje de fácil comprensión para el público en general.