IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORKSHOP

BIODIVERSITY AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
WORKSHOP REPORT
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORKSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE

CHANGE
Copyright © 2021, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The IPBES and IPCC secretariats would
appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for
resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the IPBES secretariat, in consultation
with the IPCC secretariat. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction,
should be addressed to the IPBES secretariat ([email protected]). The use of information from this publication concerning
proprietary products for publicity or advertising is not permitted.

For further information, please contact:

IPBES secretariat, UN Campus IPCC Working Group II IPCC secretariat

Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, Technical Support Unit c/o World Meteorological Organization
D-53113 Bonn, Germany c/o Alfred-Wegener-Institute 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, C.P. 2300
Phone: 49 (0) 228 815 0570 Marktstrasse 3 CH- 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Email: [email protected] 28195 Bremen, Germany Phone: +41 22 730 8208/54/84
Web site: www.ipbes.net Phone: +49 471 4831 2442 Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] Web site: https://www.ipcc.ch/
Web site: https://www.ipcc.ch/working-
group/wg2/

Photo credits
Cover: iStock_Tunart / iStock_Dora Dalton / Conor Ryan / Mattias Tschumi.
P. 2-3: iStock_Espiegle
P.4: Pexels_Jeremy Bishop
P. 12-13: Conor Ryan
P. 25: Andrew Hendry

Graphic Design
Maro Haas, Art direction and layout

THIS WORKSHOP REPORT SHOULD BE CITED AS:

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.

IPBES and IPCC thank the Governments of the United Kingdom and Norway for the provision of financial support for the
organization of the co-sponsored workshop and the production of this report.

2
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORKSHOP

BIODIVERSITY AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
WORKSHOP REPORT

Disclaimer
IPCC co-sponsorship does not imply IPCC endorsement or approval of these proceedings
or any recommendations or conclusions contained herein. Neither the papers presented
at the Workshop/Expert Meeting nor the report of its proceedings have been subjected to
IPCC review.

IPBES co-sponsorship does not imply IPBES endorsement or approval of the proceedings
or any recommendations or conclusions contained therein, and that neither the papers
presented at the workshop nor the report of its proceedings have been subjected to
IPBES review.
 In memoriam:
Prof. Bob Scholes

This report is dedicated to

the memory of Prof. Bob
Scholes who passed
away a few weeks before
the finalisation of this
meeting report. Bob co-
chaired the scientific
steering committee for the
co-sponsored workshop, the
workshop itself, and the overall
production of this workshop report.

When contacted as a potential Co-Chair, Bob enthusiastically

accepted. He immediately saw the importance of further bringing
together the scientific community around biodiversity and
climate change, to inspire policymakers in addressing these two
issues together.

Bob’s contributions and passions on ecosystem dynamics and

global change sat squarely at the intersection of the IPBES and
IPCC communities. Bob made major contributions to both,
serving, for example, as Co-Chair of the IPBES Land degradation
and Restoration Assessment (2018), and as an Author in the Third,
Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports of IPCC.

Bob was a colleague and a friend to many of the authors of this

report. They all feel privileged for having been part, one last time,
of the enormous legacy that Bob leaves behind, and will keep the
memory of a world class scientist, and of a passionate admirer
and lover of Nature.

2
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

PREFACE_____4

INTRODUCTION_____6

AGENDA_____8

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS_____10

Synopsis 12 _____

APPENDIX 1:
LIST OF PEER REVIEWERS_____24

NB: The Synopsis presents the main

conclusions of the workshop. In addition,
a longer Scientific Outcome was prepared
by participants including seven sections, a list
of references and a glossary, and is posted
here: https://ipbes.net/events/ipbes-ipcc-
workshop

3
 Preface

C
limate change and biodiversity loss are
two of the most pressing issues of the
Anthropocene. While there is recognition
in both scientific and policy-making circles
that the two are interconnected, in practice
they are largely addressed in their own
domains. The research community dedicated to investigating
the climate system is somewhat, but not completely, distinct
from that which studies biodiversity. Each issue has its own
international Convention (the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological
Diversity), and each has an intergovernmental body which
assesses available knowledge (the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)).
This functional separation creates a risk of incompletely
identifying, understanding and dealing with the connections
between the two. In the worst case it may lead to taking
actions that inadvertently prevent the solution of one or the
other, or both issues. It is the nature of complex systems
that they have unexpected outcomes and thresholds, but
also that the individual parts cannot be managed in isolation
from one another. The joint IPBES-IPCC workshop set out
to explore these complex and multiple connections between
climate and biodiversity. This workshop and its report
represent the first ever joint collaboration between the two
intergovernmental bodies and therefore a landmark activity in
both of their histories.

The scientific community has been working for some time on

the synergies and trade-offs between climate and biodiversity.
Examples of a synergy include an action taken to protect
biodiversity that simultaneously contributes to the mitigation
of climate change; or an action increasing the capacity of
species or ecosystems to adapt to those climate changes
that cannot be avoided. In contrast, negative trade-offs can
result, for instance, if an action taken to mitigate climate

4
 IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

change by using the land or ocean to absorb greenhouse an objective representation, synthesis and explanation of
gases results in loss of biodiversity or the supply of the published body of work. While being a workshop report
other nature-linked benefits that flow from the affected and as such not fully comprehensive, the report summarizes
ecosystems. Only by considering climate and biodiversity the emerging state of knowledge to inform decision-making
as parts of the same complex problem, which also includes and helps to point the way towards solutions for society and
the actions and motivations and aspirations of people, also for scientific research by identifying knowledge gaps to
can solutions be developed that avoid maladaptation and be filled.
maximize the beneficial outcomes. Seeking such solutions is
important if society wants to protect development gains and Our hope is that this co-sponsored workshop report and
expedite the move towards a more sustainable, healthy and the associated scientific outcome will provide an important
equitable world for all. The role of science in addressing the input into ongoing and future assessments by both IPCC
current pandemic illustrates how science can inform policy and IPBES, and be of relevance to discussions held in
and society for identifying possible solutions. the context of COP 15 of CBD and COP 26 of UNFCCC
both, in principle, held in 2021. Connecting the climate and
As members of the scientific steering committee, we are biodiversity spheres is especially crucial at this moment
proud to have contributed to this first ever collaboration when the world seems to be gearing up for stronger actions
between IPCC and IPBES. Our first task was to select on both. Urgent, timely and targeted actions can minimize
from our respective communities a diverse and world-class detrimental trends and counteract escalating risks while
set of leading experts from around the world, and to then avoiding costly and effort-sapping errors. Humankind has
guide their work. It has been challenging to complete this no time to lose and we hope that this report will inform such
process during the COVID-19 pandemic, and timelines urgent actions toward “The Future We Want”.
were moved and revisited many times. What was originally
going to be a physical workshop in May 2020 hosted by the ___________
United Kingdom with co-sponsorship from Norway, ended
up being a workshop held on-line in December 2020. The
experts have adjusted remarkably well to these changes Scientific steering committee for the IPCC-IPBES
and, to compensate for the inability to meet in person, co-sponsored workshop:
have dedicated much time and effort to this project, and
held vigorous and challenging remote discussions with one Hans-Otto Pörtner and Robert Scholes, Co-Chairs
another, ahead and during the workshop and to prepare the
workshop report and associated scientific outcome. Edvin Aldrian, Sandra Díaz, Markus Fischer, Shizuka
Hashimoto, Sandra Lavorel, Camille Parmesan,
As explained in the disclaimer on the first page of this Ramon Pichs-Madruga, Debra Roberts, Alex Rogers,
document, this is a workshop report, not an assessment. Ning Wu
It is nevertheless a scientific document, which has been
subject to peer-review by 24 external experts selected by
the scientific steering committee of the workshop, providing

5
Introduction

T
he Plenary of the Intergovernmental Objectives
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), at its The objectives of the workshop, in accordance with the
7th session held in April/May 2019, adopted concept note for this workshop, are as follows:
a new work programme up to 2030 and
agreed to the preparation of a technical In the light of the urgency of bringing biodiversity to the
paper on biodiversity and climate change, based on the forefront of discussions regarding land- and ocean-based
material referred to or contained in the assessment reports climate mitigation and adaptation strategies, this IPCC
of IPBES and, on an exceptional basis, the assessment and IPBES co-sponsored workshop addresses synergies
reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and trade-offs between biodiversity protection and climate
(IPCC), with a view to informing, inter alia, the Conference change mitigation and adaptation. This includes exploring
of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its the impact of climate change on biodiversity, the capacity
fifteenth meeting and the Conference of the Parties to the and limits to the capacity of species to adapt to climate
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change change, the resilience of ecosystems under climate change
at its twenty-sixth session. considering thresholds to irreversible change, and the
contribution of ecosystems to climate feedbacks and
To that end, the Plenary of IPBES requested the Executive mitigation, against the background of an ongoing loss in
Secretary of IPBES to explore, with the secretariat of IPCC, the biomass of biota and associated risks to key species
possible joint activities relating to biodiversity and climate and biodiversity as well as ecosystem services (nature’s
change, including the possibility of jointly preparing the contribution to people). The workshop report will provide
technical paper mentioned above. information relevant to the implementation of the Paris
Agreement, the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Following informal consultations, the option of a co- and the Sustainable Development Goals.
sponsored workshop with the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) emerged as a possible option. Focus of the workshop
The Bureau agreed to task Working Group II to engage The workshop aimed to provide an overview of the
with the IPBES secretariat to investigate the proposal relationships between biodiversity and climate change
further in terms of time and the type of scientific including:
emphasis. Working Group II Co-Chairs in consultation
with other Working Groups were requested to proceed (a) The impacts and risks of plausible future changes
with the preparations and present a plan to the IPCC in climate (e.g., on different time horizons and for
Executive Committee. The concept note which sets different warming levels such as 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C and
out, among others, the objectives, outcomes, focus, 4°C compared to pre-industrial, considering non-
timeline, and information about the scientific steering linearities and associated thresholds for irreversible
committee of the co-sponsored workshop was presented changes in the climate system and in ecosystems) for
to the 52nd Session of IPCC for its information as terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity, nature’s
document IPCC-LII/INF.7. contributions to people and quality of life;

The workshop report will contribute to the scoping of and (b) The feedbacks of plausible changes in biodiversity on
feed into the IPBES assessment of the interlinkages among climate characteristics and change;
biodiversity, water, food, health, in the context of climate
change, and feed into the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (c) Building on scientific as well as indigenous and
(AR6) and Synthesis Reports. local knowledge, the workshop then focused on

6
 IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

opportunities to meet both climate change and normal workshop, the Co-Chairs of the SSC oversaw a
biodiversity related objectives, and on the risks of preparatory process, ahead of the workshop consisting
considering these two issues separately, including: of a series of teleconferences to start discussing the
content of each section of the scientific outcome,
(d) The opportunities, challenges and risks of climate drafting bullet points and some text for these bullet
change mitigation and adaptation options (e.g., points. All selected participants took place in this
bioenergy and carbon capture and storage and preparatory process.
large-scale afforestation, reforestation and ecosystem
restoration) for biodiversity, nature’s contributions to The workshop, initially planned to take place in May
people, and the quality of life; 2020, hosted by the UK, with co-sponsorship from
Norway, took place virtually 14-17 December 2020.
(e) The impact of biodiversity conservation and sustainable- The agenda is reproduced below. The workshop was
use practices on greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., climate opened by officials representing these two countries,
feedbacks); followed by the Chairs of IPCC and of IPBES.

(f) An evaluation of the synergies, trade-offs and Following the virtual workshop, experts worked virtually
effectiveness of policies and governance structures that to finalize the texts of the respective sections of the
simultaneously address climate change and biodiversity associated scientific outcome and conducted an
loss at all scales, including in urban areas; internal review across sections.

(g) Key scientific uncertainties. The workshop report was peer reviewed during a
three-week period, between 9 and 30 April 2021, by
Process a group of 24 reviewers selected by the SSC, with
half coming from the IPBES community and half from
In light of the procedures for co-sponsored workshops the IPCC community, and taking into account gender,
(similar for both IPCC and IPBES), and taking into account geographical and disciplinary balances. The list of peer
delays due to the pandemic, the following steps were taken: reviewers is reproduced in appendix 1 to this report.

A twelve-people scientific steering committee (SSC) The workshop report was revised and finalized by the
was assembled, with six selected by IPBES, and six experts, under the guidance of the SSC, and released.
by IPCC.
Technical support to the co-sponsored workshop was
The SSC proposed an outline for an associated provided by the IPBES secretariat, in collaboration with
scientific outcome, consisting of seven sections, the technical support unit of IPCC Working Group II,
selected a group of 50 experts, taking into account and with the IPCC secretariat.
gender, geographical and disciplinary balances, with
25 selected by IPCC, and 25 from IPBES. The SSC
allocated these experts to the 7 sections, with each
section having half of its experts from IPBES, and half
from IPCC.

To address the challenges posed by the pandemic,

and in order to fully exploit the reduced number of
hours available for a virtual workshop compared to a

7
Agenda
14 DECEMBER 2020
12:30–13:00 OPENING SEGMENT
OPENING REMARKS BY CO-HOSTS OF THE WORKSHOP:
– Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith, Minister of State for Pacific and the Environment, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, UK
– State Secretary Holsen, Ministry for Climate and Environment, Norway
WELCOME BY CO-SPONSORS OF THE WORKSHOP:
– Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary IPBES, on behalf of Ana María Hernández Salgar, Chair
of IPBES
– Hoesung Lee, Chair of IPCC
INTRODUCTION BY CO-CHAIRS OF THE WORKSHOP:
– Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair IPCC Working Group II, Alfred-Wegener-Institute, Germany
– Robert Scholes, Co-Chair IPBES Assessment of Land Degradation and Restoration, University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

13:00–16:00 PLENARY MEETING

– Presentation of draft outline for the workshop report
– Discussion
– Presentation of bullet points for the sections of the workshop report
– Discussion
– Plans for the week

15 DECEMBER 2020
12:30–14:30 SECTION 2 (with Section 1 experts)
Section 2: Biodiversity conservation in light of a changing climate.
This section focuses on how anthropogenic climate change has impacted biodiversity and is
changing the goal posts for successful conservation into the future.
– Discussion on content
– Plans to complete section 2 draft
– Figures options for section 2
14:30–15:30 SECTION 1
Section 1: Climate and biodiversity are inextricably connected with each other and with
human futures.
This section explores the fundamental intertwining of biodiversity and climate and its impacts on
people’s quality of life, and makes a case for why considering climate and biodiversity policies jointly
would help meet the challenge of achieving a good quality of life for all.
– Discussion on content including alignment with other sections
– Plans to complete section 1 draft
– Figure options for section 1
18:00–20:00 SECTION 6 (with Section 1 experts)
Section 6: Interactions, limits, and thresholds at the interface of biodiversity, climate,
and society.
This section aims to help policy makers identify and analyze the interactions among actions
implemented to address biodiversity, climate mitigation and adaptation, and good quality of life.
– Discussion on content
– Plans to complete section 6 draft
– Figure options for section 6

20:00–22:00 SECTION 6 AND 7 (with Section 1, 3 and 5 experts)

– Discussion on possible overlaps in content between sections
– Plans to complete drafts of sections 6 and 7
– Figure options including any joint figures or tables

8
 IPBES-IPCC WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

16 DECEMBER 2020
9:30–11:30 SECTION 5 (with Section 1 and 3 experts)
Section 5: The effects of biodiversity conservation actions on climate change.
This section focuses on the effects of actions to halt or reverse biodiversity loss on the climate system
and, in particular, the relationships between conservation actions and climate change mitigation.
– Discussion on content
– Plans to complete section 5 draft
– Figure options for section 5

12:30–14:30 SECTION 3 (with Section 1 and 5 experts)

Section 3: The effects of climate mitigation actions on biodiversity.
This section examines climate change mitigation actions harmful to biodiversity outcomes as well as
actions that benefit both climate and biodiversity, and then explores these in the context of the Paris
Agreement and the CBD Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
– Discussion on content
– Plans to complete section 5 draft
– Figure options for section 5

14:30–15:30 SECTION 3, 4, 5 (with Section 1 and 7 experts)

– Discussion on overlaps and content between sections
– Plans to complete drafts of sections 3, 4 and 5
– Figure options including any joint figures or tables
18:00–20:00 SECTION 4 (with Section 1 experts)
Section 4: Biodiversity and adaptation to climate change.
This section highlights the capacity and limits of socio-ecological systems to adapt to climate change,
examines the role of biodiversity in contributing to adaptation, and evaluates the impacts of a wide
range of climate change adaptation measures on biodiversity.
– Discussion on content
– Plans to complete the first draft of the workshop report
– Figure options for section 4

17 DECEMBER 2020
9:30–11:30 SECTION 7 (with Section 1 and 6 experts)
Section 7: Solutions at the climate-biodiversity-society nexus.
This closing section examines the possibilities for integrated solutions that tackle multiple crises and
delineates what these solutions might look like for the future of governance and policy options required
at the climate-biodiversity nexus.
– Discussion on content for section 7, and links with sections 1 and 6
– Plans to complete section 7 draft
– Figure options for section 7

13:00–16:00 PLENARY MEETING

– Presentation by sections (sections experts)
– Draft synopsis of the workshop report: presentation of suggestions by Co-Chairs and scientific
steering committee
– Discussion
– Wrap up, timelines and milestones

9
List of
participants

Opening segment participants:

Rt Hon Lord Zac Goldsmith Maren Holsen Ana María Hernández Salgar
Minister of State for Pacific and the State Secretary, Chair of IPBES
Environment at the Department for Ministry for Climate and Environment,
Hoesung Lee
Environment, Norway
Chair of IPCC
Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office,
United Kingdom

Scientific steering committee:

Hans-Otto Pörtner Ramón Pichs-Madruga Markus Fischer
Co-Chair of the workshop Vice-Chair IPCC, Member of the IPBES MEP,
Co-Chair IPCC Working Group II, IPCC Working Group III; member of the co-Chair of the IPBES Regional Assessment
Alfred-Wegener-Institute, IPBES task force on scenarios and models, of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for
Germany Centre for World Economy Studies, Europe and Central Asia,
Cuba University of Bern,
Robert Scholes
Switzerland
Co-Chair of the workshop Debra Roberts
Co-Chair IPBES Assessment of Land Co-Chair IPCC Working Group II, Shizuka Hashimoto
Degradation and Restoration, Sustainable and Resilient City Initiatives Unit Member of the IPBES MEP,
University of the Witwatersrand, in eThekwini Municipality, University of Tokyo,
Johannesburg, South Africa Durban, South Africa Japan

Edvin Aldrian Alex Rogers Sandra Lavorel

Vice-Chair IPCC Working Group I, REV Ocean Member of the IPBES MEP, French National
Agency for Assessment and Application of Lysaker, Norway Centre for Scientific Research, France, and
Technology, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, New
Sandra Díaz
Indonesia Zealand
Co-Chair of the IPBES Global Assessment
Camille Parmesan of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Ning Wu
CCoordinating lead author, AR6 National University of Córdoba, Member of the IPBES MEP,
IPCC Working Group II Argentina Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Theoretical and Experimental Ecology China
(SETE), CNRS, France
University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
University of Texas at Austin, USA

Selected workshop participants:

John Agard David Barnes Sarah Diamond
University of the West Indies British Antarctic Survey Case Western Reserve University

Emma Archer Michael Burrows Camila Donatti

University of Pretoria Scottish Association for Marine Science Conservation International

Almut Arneth Lena Chan Carlos Duarte

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, National Parks Board of Singapore King Abdullah University of Science and
Atmospheric Environmental Research Technology
Wai Lung Cheung (William)
Xuemei Bai University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Australian National University

10
 IPBES-IPCC WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Nico Eisenhauer Michelle Lim Victoria Reyes-García

German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Centre for Environmental Law, Macquarie Universitat Autònoma
Research (iDiv) and Institute of Biology, Law School, Macquarie University de Barcelona
Leipzig University
Shobha Maharaj Mahesh Sankaran
Wendy Foden Caribbean Environmental Science and National Centre for Biological Sciences,
Stellenbosch University Renewable Energy Journal, India
Trinidad and Tobago
Maria A. Gasalla Josef Settele
University of São Paulo Shunsuke Managi Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung
Kyushu University
Collins Handa Yunne-Jai Shin
Technical University of Kenya Pablo A. Marquet Institut de Recherche pour le Développement
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Thomas Hickler Dejene W. Sintayehu
Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Pamela McElwee Haramaya University
Research Centre Rutgers University
Peter Smith
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Guy Midgley University of Aberdeen
University of Queensland University of Stellenbosch
Nadja Steiner
Kazuhito Ichii Thierry Oberdorff Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Chiba University Institut de Recherche pour le Développement Environment and Climate Change Canada

Ute Jacob David Obura Bernardo Strassburg

Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Coastal Oceans Research and Development Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de
Biodiversity – Indian Ocean East Africa Janeiro

Gregory Insarov Elasha Osman Balgis Raman Sukumar

Institute of Geography of the Russian African Development Bank Centre for Ecological Sciences and Divecha
Academy for Sciences Centre for Climate Change,
Ram Pandit
Indian Institute of Science
Wolfgang Kiessling University of Western Australia
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Christopher Trisos
Unai Pascual
African Climate and Development Initiative,
Paul Leadley Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)
University of Cape Town
University Paris-Saclay and Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for
Science, Spain Adalberto Luis Val
Rik Leemans
Brazilian National Institute for Research of
Wageningen University Aliny P F Pires
the Amazon
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Lisa Levin
Jianguo Wu
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Alexander Popp
Chinese Research Academy of
University of California San Diego Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Environmental Sciences
Research

Members of IPBES and IPCC Bureaux (observers):

Ana María Hernández Salgar Valerie Masson-Delmotte
IPBES Bureau (Chair) IPCC Bureau (Co-Chair Working Group I)

Douglas Beard Thelma Krug

IPBES Bureau (Vice Chair, Western Europe IPCC Bureau (Vice Chair, South America)
and Others Group)

Technical support:
IPBES secretariat
Anne Larigauderie Simone Schiele Aidin Niamir
Executive Secretary Head of Work Programme Head, technical support unit for Knowledge
and Data
Hien Ngo Satomi Yoshino
Food and Agriculture Organization of the Associate Programme Officer
United Nations

IPCC technical support unit for Working Group II

Melinda Tignor Elvira Poloczanska Katja Mintenbeck
Head of technical support unit Science Advisor to the Working Group II Director of Science, technical support unit 
Co-Chairs and technical support unit

11
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

SY

12
 /// SYNOPSIS

YNOPSIS

13
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORKSHOP

BIODIVERSITY AND
CLIMATE CHANGE
SYNOPSIS

T
his workshop report is placed in the fossil fuels and land use change. In this broad context,
context of recent international agreements the workshop explored diverse facets of the interaction
including the Paris Agreement, the between climate and biodiversity, from current trends to the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 role and implementation of nature-based solutions and the
and on-going preparation for the Post- sustainable development of human society. A synopsis of
2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, the conclusions of the workshop is presented below:
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that
converge on solving the dual crises of climate change Limiting global warming to ensure
and biodiversity loss as essential to support human well- a habitable climate and protecting
being. Simultaneously meeting these agreements relies
biodiversity are mutually supporting
on immediate and sustained efforts for transformative
change which encompass technological and environmental
goals, and their achievement is essential
policies as well as changes to economic structures and for sustainably and equitably providing
profound shifts in society. Climate change impacts and benefits to people.
biodiversity loss are two of the most important challenges
and risks for human societies; at the same time climate
and biodiversity are intertwined through mechanistic
links and feedbacks. Climate change exacerbates risks 1 Increasing energy consumption, overexploitation
to biodiversity and natural and managed habitats; at the of natural resources and unprecedented transformation
same time, natural and managed ecosystems and their of land-, freshwater- and seascapes1 over the past
biodiversity play a key role in the fluxes of greenhouse 150 years have paralleled technological advances and
gases, as well as in supporting climate adaptation. The supported better living standards for many but have
absorption of more than 50% of anthropogenic CO2 also led to changes in climate and the accelerating
emissions through photosynthesis and consequent carbon decline of biological diversity worldwide, both
storage in biomass and organic material, as well as through negatively impacting many aspects of good quality of
CO2 dissolution in ocean water, already reduces global life. A sustainable society requires both a stabilized climate
climate change naturally (but causes ocean acidification). and healthy ecosystems. However, 77% of land (excluding
However, nature’s contributions to attenuating climate Antarctica) and 87% of the area of the ocean have been
change, partly provided by the underpinning biodiversity, modified by the direct effects of human activities. These
are at risk from ecosystem degradation resulting from changes are associated with the loss of 83% of wild
progressive climate change and human activities. In fact, mammal biomass, and half that of plants. Livestock and
ecosystem degradation through land-use changes and humans now account for nearly 96% of all mammal biomass
other impacts on natural carbon stocks and sequestration on Earth, and more species are threatened with extinction
is a major contributor to cumulative CO2 emissions, and, than ever before in human history. Climate change
therefore, an additional driver of climate change. The increasingly interacts with these processes. Anthropogenic
ambitious implementation of land- and ocean-based release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion,
actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore industry, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU),
ecosystems have co-benefits for climate mitigation, climate now overall exceeding 55 GtCO2e yr−1, continues to rise and
adaptation and biodiversity objectives and can help to
contain temperature rise within the limits envisaged by the 1. Extrapolating from the term landscape the term ‘scape’ is used in this
report to represent the area and structural characteristics of terrestrial,
Paris Agreement, provided that such actions support, and marine and freshwater environments (land-, sea-, freshwaterscape),
are not in lieu of, ambitious reductions of emissions from see glossary.

14
 /// SYNOPSIS

has already led to global warming above 1°C relative to 4 As climate change progresses, the distribution,
pre-industrial times2. Climate change and biodiversity loss functioning and interactions of organisms, and thus
pose significant threats for human livelihoods, food security ecosystems, are increasingly altered. Ecosystems and
and public health, and such negative impacts are species with restricted distributions, those close to their
disproportionately felt by communities that are socially, tolerance limits, or with limited ability to disperse and
politically, geographically and/or economically marginalized. establish themselves in new habitats, are especially
vulnerable to climate change. Extinction risks are highest on
2 The mutual reinforcing of climate change and island-like biodiversity hotspots such as mountains, islands,
biodiversity loss means that satisfactorily resolving coral reefs and coastal embayments, or fragments of
either issue requires consideration of the other. formerly more extensive habitats, now separated by altered
Climate change and biodiversity loss are closely land-, freshwater- and seascapes less supportive of
interconnected and share common drivers through human biodiversity. Human-caused climate change is becoming
activities. Both have predominantly negative impacts on increasingly dominant as a direct threat to nature, and its
human well-being and quality of life. Increased atmospheric contributions to people. Biodiversity loss disproportionately
greenhouse gas concentrations lead to increased mean impacts those communities and societal groups that are
temperatures, altered precipitation regimes, increased most directly dependent on nature.
frequency of extreme weather events, and oxygen depletion
and acidification of aquatic environments, most of which 5 The adaptive capacity of most ecosystems and
adversely affect biodiversity. Reciprocally, changes in social-ecological systems will be exceeded by
biodiversity affect the climate system, especially through unabated anthropogenic climate change, and
their impacts on the nitrogen, carbon and water cycles. significant adaptive capacity will be required to cope
These interactions can generate complex feedbacks with residual climate change even under ambitious
between climate, biodiversity and humans that may produce emissions reduction. Tropical coral reefs (high sensitivity
more pronounced and less predictable outcomes. Ignoring to present warming and ocean acidification), savannas
the inseparable nature of climate, biodiversity, and human (vegetation shifts due to increasing atmospheric CO2),
quality of life will result in non-optimal solutions to tropical forests (vegetation shifts due mainly to drying), high
either crisis. latitude and altitude ecosystems and Mediterranean-climate
ecosystems (high vulnerability to the high levels of ongoing
3 Previous policies have largely tackled the and projected climate warming), and coastal ecosystems
problems of climate change and biodiversity loss (exposed to multiple factors) are among the most vulnerable
independently. Policies that simultaneously address ecosystems of the world, are already highly impacted, and
synergies between mitigating biodiversity loss and require robust intervention to maintain and enhance their
climate change, while also considering their societal adaptive capacity. Actions to enhance the adaptive capacity
impacts, offer the opportunity to maximize co-benefits of ecosystems are placed at risk by unabated climate
and help meet development aspirations for all. At the change exceeding adaptation limits – highlighting the
international level, greater synergies across multilateral importance of keeping climate warming well below 2°C –
environmental agreements such as the UN Framework and by high levels of other pressures, such as land use
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the change, overexploitation or pollution.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as with the
Sustainable Development Goals could facilitate 6 In a world increasingly affected by climate
simultaneously halting global biodiversity loss and mitigating change, maintaining biodiversity relies on enhanced
climate change. Cross-cutting issues, intersectoral policies and well-targeted conservation efforts, coordinated
and regulatory frameworks are areas where strong synergies with and supported by strong adaptation and
could contribute to the transformative societal change that innovation efforts. Pressure on biodiversity is increasing as
is needed to achieve ambitious goals for biodiversity, climate a result of multiplying, diversifying and interacting threats.
mitigation and good quality of life. These ultimately derive from the growing societal and
economic demands on nature, driven by high levels of
2. Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e): A way to place emissions of various energy and material consumption, especially in wealthy
radiative forcing agents on a common footing by accounting for their
effect on climate. It describes, for a given mixture and amount of countries, and will therefore continue to accelerate unless
greenhouse gases, the amount of CO2 that would have the same global explicitly addressed, while allowing for more equitable
warming ability, when measured over a specified time period. (UNEP,
2020, see glossary). According to IPCC (2019) Agriculture, Forestry and outcomes in terms of a good quality of life. Global
Other Land Use (AFOLU) activities accounted for around 13% of CO2, biodiversity targets set for 2020 (the Aichi Biodiversity
44% of methane (CH4), and 81% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from
human activities globally during 2007-2016, representing 23% (12.0 ±
Targets) were not met, increasing the urgency for
2.9 GtCO2e yr-1) of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse biodiversity conservation to rapidly expand in ambition
gases during this period. The natural response of land to human-
induced environmental change caused a net sink of around 11.2 GtCO2
and scope.
yr-1 during 2007–2016 (equivalent to 29% of total CO2 emissions).

15
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

7 Biodiversity conservation approaches such as carbon-rich ecosystems would provide substantial benefits
Protected Areas have been essential for successes to for climate mitigation, but novel and inclusive approaches
date, but, on aggregate, have been insufficient to will be necessary to avoid potential risks to food security
stem the loss of biodiversity at a global scale. The and to assure other benefit flows from nature. Maintaining or
insufficiency is partly due to the inadequate fraction of the restoring 20% of native habitat in ‘scapes inhabited/altered
globe under protection, currently at about 15% of land and by humans may provide such opportunities, thus
7.5% of the ocean, but also because protective measures contributing to global climate and biodiversity targets, while
have been, in certain cases, poorly designed and/or also generating multiple benefits, through nature-based
insufficiently applied and enforced. Not only are protected solutions and other ecosystem-based approaches.
areas too small on aggregate (and often individually), but
they are also frequently sub-optimally distributed and
interconnected, inadequately resourced and managed, and Several land- and ocean-based actions to
at risk of downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement. protect, sustainably manage and restore
Ecological functionality outside of protected areas is also
ecosystems have co-benefits for climate
currently insufficient to adequately support either humans or
nature in the future. Climate refugia, migration corridors,
mitigation, climate adaptation and
mobile conservation actions, adoption of Other Effective biodiversity objectives.
Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) outside of
protected areas, and planning for shifting climate belts will
be essential components of future conservation approaches.
Substantial upscaling of the strength of commitment and of 10 Actions to protect, sustainably manage and
resources, both technical and financial, is essential when restore natural and modified ecosystems that address
developing, enabling and implementing conservation societal challenges such as climate mitigation and
strategies to meet the challenges of the 21st century. adaptation are often referred to as nature-based
solutions. Nature-based solutions (NbS)3 can play an
8 A new conservation paradigm would address the important role in climate mitigation, but the extent is
simultaneous objectives of a habitable climate, debated, and they can only be effective with ambitious
self-sustaining biodiversity, and a good quality of life reductions in all human-caused greenhouse gas
for all. New approaches would include both innovation, as emissions. Nature-based solutions can be most
well as the adaptation and upscaling of existing approaches. effective when planned for longevity and not narrowly
For example, the search for viable multiple-benefit focussed on rapid carbon sequestration. Estimates of
interventions focuses conservation on multifunctional potential contributions of nature-based solutions to climate
‘scapes (which include land, freshwater and ocean scapes), mitigation vary widely and some proposed actions such as
rather than solely on a few of nature’s component elements large-scale afforestation or bioenergy plantations may violate
independently, such as critical or intact habitats or iconic an important tenet of nature-based solutions – namely that
species. The ‘scape approach integrates functionally intact they should simultaneously provide human well-being and
biodiversity with provisioning of material, non-material and biodiversity benefits. Ecosystems can aid climate change
regulatory benefits, from local to larger scales, linking mitigation over time, but only when complementing rapid
‘sharing’ and ‘sparing’ concepts. It includes networks of emissions reductions in energy production, transportation,
protected areas and corridors, ‘working’ or ‘managed’ agriculture, building and industrial sectors to meet the Paris
‘scapes modified for human use, and profoundly Agreement’s commitment to keeping climate change well
transformed ecosystems, such as urban and intensively below 2°C. In addition, failing to substantially reduce
farmed areas. For these new approaches to be successful emissions from these sectors is projected to increase the
and sustainable, equitably planned and iterative participation climate-related risks for natural systems and reduce or limit
of affected local communities and residents in their design
and implementation will be essential in order to root 3. There is a variety of definitions of “nature-based solutions”. This
workshop report uses the IUCN (2016) definition: “Nature-based
solutions in local economies, needs, livelihoods and politics. solutions are actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore
natural and modified ecosystems that address societal challenges
effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being
9 The area of intact and effectively protected land and biodiversity benefits.” www.iucn.org/theme/nature-based-solutions.
and ocean required to meet the three objectives of a The definition encompasses the definition of ecosystem-based
adaptation, “the use of ecosystem management activities to increase
habitable climate, self-sustaining biodiversity, and a the resilience and reduce the vulnerability of people and ecosystems
good quality of life is as yet not well established. This to climate change”. It should be noted that the term “nature-based
solutions” is not universally accepted in international policy (for example
area likely varies spatially, among biomes and with local “ecosystem-based approaches” is the agreed upon term for these
contexts, but is substantially larger than at present, with types of measures in the Convention on Biological Diversity), and that
scientists have expressed concern about its use, among other reasons,
global estimates ranging from 30% to 50% of both land and because the term is sometimes used to refer to measures that have
ocean surface areas. Sufficient intact habitat in critical negative impacts on biodiversity and good quality of life.

16
 /// SYNOPSIS

their ability to contribute to climate change mitigation via goals. Restoration is among the cheapest and rapidly
nature-based solutions. implemented nature-based climate mitigation measures.
Ecosystem restoration also enhances resilience of
11 Implementing nature-based solutions also biodiversity in the face of climate change and provides
creates co-benefits for adaptation to climate change, multiple nature´s contributions to people such as regulating
for nature and its contributions to people. By enhancing floods, enhancing water quality, reducing soil erosion and
ecosystem adaptive capacity nature-based solutions can ensuring pollination. Ecosystem restoration can also provide
also reduce exacerbation of climate change driven by multiple social benefits such as creation of jobs and income,
ecosystem changes. In this context, protecting and restoring especially if implemented taking into consideration the
biodiversity plays an important role because higher genetic, needs and access rights of indigenous peoples and local
species and ecosystem diversities help to reduce risk in the communities. Restoration with a variety of native species
face of uncertain changes in climate and keep adaptation ensures ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change
options open. Cost effectiveness and societal desirability of and has benefits for biodiversity, but also relies on novel
actions to increase adaptive capacity by implementing species assemblages to match future climatic conditions.
nature-based solutions vary in time and space, and there
are examples of both lose-lose and win-win outcomes for 14 Sustainable agricultural and forestry practices
biodiversity and climate. can improve adaptive capacity, enhance biodiversity,
increase carbon storage in farmland and forest soils
12 Avoiding and reversing the loss and degradation and vegetation, and reduce greenhouse gas
of carbon- and species-rich ecosystems on land and emissions. Globally, it has been estimated that the food
in the ocean is of highest importance for combined system is responsible for 21-37% of total net anthropogenic
biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation greenhouse gas emissions when including pre- and
actions with large adaptation co-benefits. Significant post-production activities. Measures such as the
reductions in the destruction and degradation of forest diversification of planted crop and forest species,
ecosystems; non-forest terrestrial ecosystems such as agroforestry and agroecology enhance biodiversity and
wetlands and peatlands, grasslands and savannas; and nature’s contributions to people in landscapes focused on
coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes, kelp the production of food, feed, fibre, or energy. These
forests, seagrass meadows and deep water and polar blue measures can also reduce climate-induced losses of food or
carbon habitats can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from timber production by increasing adaptive capacity. This
land- and sea-use change and maintain large carbon sinks if increased adaptive capacity is especially important in view
properly managed. For instance, reducing deforestation and of extreme events such as heatwaves, droughts, fires,
forest degradation can contribute to lowering annual insect, pest and disease outbreaks, which are expected to
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, with emission- become more frequent and severe under climate change.
saving estimates ranging from 0.4–5.8 GtCO2e yr-1. On a per Improved management of cropland and grazing systems
area basis some ecosystems are even more important such as soil conservation and reduction of fertilizer input is
carbon sinks than forests; for example, mangroves may estimated to provide climate change mitigation potential of
sequester four times more carbon than rainforest per unit >3 to >6 GtCO2e yr-1. In forests, a potential to mitigate
area. Destruction and degradation are also the most 0.4–2.1 GtCO2e yr–1 has been estimated through preserving
important drivers of biodiversity loss in terrestrial and and enhancing carbon stocks via sustainable management.
freshwater ecosystems and the second most important Agricultural intensification can free land for biodiversity
drivers of biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems. Substantial conservation by increasing productivity per unit of
co-benefits with biodiversity are realizable by reversing agricultural area (i.e., land sparing), but if not done
destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems – sustainably the detrimental effects of intensification on the
building on ambitious reductions in fossil fuel emissions as a environment can outweigh the benefits of land sparing. The
precondition – with adaptive co-benefits to people. For climate and biodiversity co-benefits of measures targeting
example, coastal wetlands and coral reefs provide coastal production of food, feed, fibre or energy can be greatly
protection from storm surges and rising sea level, while enhanced by demand-side measures such as reduced loss
wetlands help reduce flooding. and waste and dietary shifts, especially in rich countries,
toward more plant-based diets.
13 Restoring carbon- and species-rich ecosystems
on land and in the ocean is also highly effective for 15 The creation of green infrastructure in cities is
both climate change mitigation and biodiversity, with increasingly being used for climate change adaptation
large adaptation co-benefits. Ecosystem restoration and restoration of biodiversity with climate mitigation
provides opportunities for co-benefits for climate change co-benefits. Urban greening, including the creation of
mitigation and biodiversity conservation, which are urban parks, green roofs and urban gardens, reduces urban
maximized if restoration occurs in priority areas for both heat island effects, enhances urban biodiversity and

17
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

improves quality of life including physical and mental on the details of the action taken, its geographic location
well-being. Carbon sequestration and storage in urban trees and period over which it is implemented. There is currently a
and gardens vary considerably between cities and location. lack of formal recognition of many of these effects in
Urban gardens can provide important supplements to urban UNFCCC mitigation project guidelines, compromising the full
dweller’s food supply. These measures are particularly quantification of mitigation effectiveness.
important in light of the rapidly growing urban population.
18 Planting bioenergy crops (including trees,
16 In both land and marine systems, options exist to perennial grasses or annual crops) in monocultures
combine nature-based and technology-based over a very large share of total land area is detrimental
measures for climate change mitigation and to ecosystems, reduces supply of many other nature’s
adaptation, while contributing to biodiversity. The contributions to people and impedes achievement of
combination of nature-based and technology-based climate numerous Sustainable Development Goals. Negative
change solutions on land and at sea is in its infancy but may impacts typically arise from competition for space —
provide co-benefits for climate mitigation, adaptation and including displacement of other land uses locally or through
biodiversity co-benefits. For example, grazing underneath indirect land-use change elsewhere, with associated carbon
solar panels can enhance soil carbon stocks, and grazing as and biodiversity losses. Given the need to combat hunger
well as cropping associated with solar farms could provide and to feed a growing human population, scenarios that
food. Studies also indicate that vegetation underneath the project annual bioenergy CO2 uptake rates by 2050
solar panels can provide pollinator habitat thereby benefiting (including carbon capture and storage) equivalent in
nearby agricultural land. Solar photovoltaic cells supported magnitude to today’s existing carbon sink in all land
on the surface of water bodies might reduce evaporation ecosystems exceed limits to the sustainable deployment of
from the water bodies which could be beneficial to land-based mitigation measures, given the land area (which
hydroelectric reservoirs in arid regions, but floating may exceed 1.5 times the size of India) required to do so.
photovoltaics will also impact the water body’s physical, Intensive bioenergy crop production can negatively affect
chemical and biological properties, which should be biodiversity and ecosystem services, including in adjacent
considered when assessing their sustainability. Offshore land, freshwater and marine ecosystems through fertilizer
wind in combination with hydrogen generation can be and pesticide use or by increasing agricultural water
powerful for mitigation if negative impacts on migrating (e.g., withdrawals, thus also impacting on human capacity to
bird) species can be minimized. Offshore turbines have also adapt to climate change. When considering a range of
been found to create artificial reefs, with beneficial effects on sustainability criteria (including restricting bioenergy crops to
marine biodiversity. ‘marginal’ land and/or excluding expansion into currently
protected areas), studies suggest bioenergy deployment
potentials between ca. 50 and 90 EJ yr-1 (compared to
Measures narrowly focused on climate today’s total global primary energy production of ca. 600 EJ
mitigation and adaptation can have direct yr-1), equivalent to approximately 1-2.5 Gt CO2 yr-1 in terms
of mitigation potential. As part of a climate change mitigation
and indirect negative impacts on nature
portfolio, alongside pronounced and rapid reductions in
and nature’s contributions to people. fossil-fuel emissions, these levels of deployment of
dedicated bioenergy crops for electricity production or fuels
may provide co-benefits for adaptation and biodiversity.

17 Actions undertaken for climate change mitigation 19 Afforestation, which involves planting trees in
by enhancing ecosystem carbon sinks through ecosystems that have not historically been forests,
biomass, planting large areas of forests or crops for and reforestation with monocultures, especially with
biomass energy, may have other important exotic tree species, can contribute to climate change
consequences for the climate system. It is important mitigation but are often detrimental to biodiversity and
that the full climate consequences of land-based climate do not have clear benefits for adaptation. Large-scale
mitigation actions, in both the short and long-term are tree planting can be harmful to biodiversity and food
considered when evaluating their contribution. These production due to competition for land. This can lead to
consequences include effects mediated by changes in displacement effects (indirect land use change) either within
non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, reflectivity of the a region, or the land use forests replace is moved to other
surface to solar radiation (albedo), evapotranspiration, and areas. Afforestation in particular may even reduce existing
the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere, as well as ecosystem carbon storage, cause further biodiversity loss
indirect land-use change arising from large forest-area or and displace local people or curtail their access to land and
bioenergy cropland expansion. These effects may either its use. Single species plantations can increase pests and
reinforce or counteract climate change mitigation depending disease. Plantations of exotic species often have negative

18
 /// SYNOPSIS

impacts on biodiversity, on adaptive capacity and on many management techniques can enhance the capacity of
nature’s contributions to people not related to timber agricultural systems to adapt to increased water stress,
production or carbon sequestration, especially if the planted complement adaptive measures based on improving soil
species becomes invasive. Further, their climate benefits health and reduce demand for water abstraction from rivers
may be offset by local warming, especially in boreal and and streams. There is an urgent need to better understand
temperate regions, which is induced by different exchanges and account for the impacts of technical and technological
of water and energy compared to the land cover which it measures and also for complementarities between nature-
replaces. Recent claims of massive areas available for forest based solutions. Spatial shifts in human populations and
area expansion and associated large carbon uptake activities such as agriculture and fishing as an adaptive
potentials are likely incorrect, and greatly exaggerate what is response to climate change are also projected to have very
ecologically and socially achievable. Current scenarios used large impacts on nature and nature’s contributions to people
by the IPCC do not differentiate between natural forest that should be taken into account when developing
regrowth, reforestation with plantations, and afforestation of adaptation strategies.
land not previously tree-covered, which makes assessment
of biodiversity impacts difficult and is a knowledge gap that 22 Measures intended to facilitate adaptation to one
needs to be addressed. aspect of climate change without considering other
aspects of sustainability may in practice be
20 Technology-based measures that are effective maladaptive and result in unforeseen detrimental
for climate change mitigation can pose serious outcomes. For example, increasing irrigation capacity is a
threats to biodiversity. They should be evaluated in terms common adaptive response for agricultural systems
of their overall benefits and risks. Renewable energies in the exposed to recent or projected increases in drought
transport and energy sector are important options for frequency and intensity. However, increased irrigation often
mitigating climate change but currently rely on mining for leads to water use conflicts, dam building and long-term soil
minerals on land and in the ocean, for example rare-earth degradation from salinization. To avoid maladaptive
metals used in wind turbines, electric car motors and responses, it is important to account for these unintended
batteries, and may not have clean mechanisms for disposal outcomes including when implementing nature-based
and reuse. The large negative environmental and social solutions. It is also essential to take into account large
impacts of land and seafloor mining could be mitigated by uncertainties in projected future climate change and
the development of alternative batteries and long-lived dynamics of socio-ecological systems. The need to address
products, an efficient recycling system for mineral resources, uncertainty argues in favour of approaches to climate
together with mining approaches that include strong adaptation that put a strong emphasis on risk management
considerations for environmental as well as social and strategies that can evolve over time. For example, there
sustainability. Renewable energy infrastructures such as is high uncertainty in projections of future water stress for
onshore wind farms, offshore wind farms, and dams are trees in many places due to uncertainties in precipitation,
often detrimental to biodiversity by interfering with migrating effects of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations on
species, although much less so with modern wind turbines. evapotranspiration and other factors, so promoting mixed
Solar plants that require large land areas may lead to species forests provides more flexibility than does planting
clearing or conversion of otherwise managed land, which monocultures of drought resistant tree species. Climate
can directly destroy natural habitats or increase pressure for adaptation strategies too often focus on actions that lack
agricultural intensification. To be holistically effective, flexibility if the climate projection or the projected response
renewable energy development will benefit from of the system to climate change turns out to be wrong.
consideration of a circular economy and, ultimately,
biodiversity (see also key finding 29). 23 Where nature-based solutions are used as
carbon offsets, they are most effective when applied
21 Technical and technological measures that are subject to strict conditions and exclusions, and not
narrowly focused on climate adaptation can have used to delay mitigation actions in other sectors. The
large negative impacts on nature and nature’s concept of ‘offsets’ using natural climate solutions has been
contributions to people but can also be proposed to achieve early emissions reductions (particularly
complementary to nature-based solutions. For at lower cost) or to compensate for continued emissions
example, technical measures for managing floods and from hard-to-decarbonize sectors; such offsets are
droughts, such as building dams, or for protecting coasts increasingly part of ‘net-zero’ emissions pledges. However,
from sea level rise, such as building sea walls, are of the use of carbon offsets has come under increasing
particular concern because they frequently have large scrutiny because of the challenges of additionality, problems
impacts on biodiversity. Some technological measures can with overstated emissions reductions and double-counting,
be of considerable benefit for biodiversity; for example, difficulty in monitoring and verification, and the unclear
improvements in irrigation technology and water permanence of such actions, as well as potential social

19
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

equity impacts of actions like large-scale tree planting. synergistic benefits than antagonistic trade-offs with respect
Ideally, the appropriate use of offsets would raise ambitions, to climate mitigation, but there are important exceptions. For
enhance financing for nature, and provide for the possibility example, reversal of anthropogenic bush encroachment to
of tackling residual emissions mid-century, but not create maintain fire-dependent species in subtropical and tropical
the conditions for a lack of urgency on greenhouse gas latitudes can have negative short-term impacts on
emissions reductions currently. This is particularly important carbon storage.
given that nature-based solutions are likely less effective
under increasing climate change and its impacts. Clear 26 Achieving synergistic benefits and trade-offs
accounting standards applied consistently to verify any between biodiversity conservation, ecosystem service
carbon offsets, as well as limits on their use, require enhancement and climate change mitigation is
international agreement. The inclusion of biodiversity strongly dependent on which biomes, ecosystem
requirements or safeguards, rather than climate mitigation uses, and sectoral interactions are under
targets alone, could help in defining those standards (for consideration. It may be impossible to achieve win-win
biodiversity ‘offsets’ see key finding 29). synergies, or even manage the trade-offs between climate
and biodiversity in every patch of a ’scape, but achieving
multiple sustainable outcomes becomes progressively more
Measures narrowly focusing on feasible at the larger scale of a ‘scape. This can be achieved
protection and restoration of biodiversity through the use of spatial planning approaches that
integrate multiple objectives with measures of spatial
have generally important knock-on
heterogeneity. On balance, the evidence suggests more
benefits for climate change mitigation, mutually synergistic benefits than antagonistic trade-offs
but those benefits may be sub-optimal between conservation actions and mitigation objectives.
compared to measures that account for National level reporting under UNFCCC and CBD
both biodiversity and climate. frameworks provides a significant opportunity to align
national mitigation and biodiversity goals.

27 Locally motivated biodiversity conservation

24 Protected areas are an important instrument to actions can be incentivized, guided and prioritized by
address biodiversity loss, with climate mitigation and global objectives and targets, such as climate
adaptation co-benefits. The trend in conservation benefits. Every local initiative matters, since the
management is towards considering a continuum from benefits of many small, local biodiversity measures
areas with high levels of protection, through shared ‘scapes, accumulate at the global level. For example, nature-
to highly human-dominated scapes. The implementation of based solutions in urban contexts can individually only make
appropriate mixed-use land- and seascapes through a a small contribution to global mitigation and biodiversity
holistic, integrated, consultative, and adaptive approach can protection but provide great benefits for local quality of life.
maximize co-benefits in conserving biodiversity, mitigating Together, the seemingly small efforts made by cities and
climate change, and enhancing good quality of life. Optimal subnational governments to enhance biodiversity
locations for protecting biodiversity are not necessarily fully conservation and climate change mitigation can make a
coincident with optimal placement for land-based carbon significant contribution. The restoration of mangroves in
capture, storage and sequestration, even though there is coastal urbanized areas is an example that fulfils multiple
frequently a high correlation. For example, tropical rainforest global biodiversity and climate objectives and enhances
and mangrove forests are two biologically diverse ecosystems local nature’s contributions to people. Overly simplified
that are typified by high rates of carbon sequestration. messages about large-scale nature-based solutions such as
tree planting may risk adverse effects for biodiversity and
25 Active management in conservation, such as human livelihoods when local context is not adequately
through altering wildfire frequency or reintroducing considered. Eliminating subsidies that support local and
key species can be beneficial for both biodiversity and national activities harmful to biodiversity can also add up to
climate mitigation and adaptation but can be support climate change mitigation, e.g., halting
antagonistic in some contexts. Reducing fuel loads with deforestation, overfertilization or overfishing.
regular prescribed burning or increased thinning can reduce
fire severity and maintain biodiversity in fire-dependent 28 Changes in per capita consumption, shift in
ecosystems, but fire suppression can strongly reduce diets, and progress towards sustainable exploitation
endemic biodiversity. Reintroduction of keystone mammal of natural resources, including reduced post-harvest
species has been shown to be critical in reinstating waste, could make substantial contributions to
ecosystem processes and biodiversity. Conservation addressing the biodiversity crisis, climate change
management actions generally have more mutually mitigation and adaptation. Such demand-side measures

20
 /// SYNOPSIS

free up land and ocean surface that can be used to protect 10). Substitution of one action for another in the biodiversity
biodiversity (e.g., reforestation, restoration of coastal domain is more likely to be synergistic (rather than a pure
habitats, protected areas) or provide climate mitigation compromise) if it is guided by complementarity principles.
benefits (e.g., re- and afforestation, bioenergy crops, wind
farms). Large environmental and human well-being co-
benefits arise, if dietary shifts have a strong focus on Treating climate, biodiversity and
achieving globally larger equity in health, leading to a human society as coupled systems is
redistribution in consumption that reduces undernutrition as
key to successful outcomes from policy
well as wasteful consumption, overweight and obesity.
Demand-side choices can reduce grennhouse gas
interventions.
emissions globally for example through diminished demand
for ruminant meat and dairy products. Changes in demand
could also help to limit negative impacts of fishing on
carbon-rich sea bottom vegetated habitats and sediments 30 The explicit consideration of the interactions
(trawling) and on the downward passive and active transport between biodiversity, climate and society in policy
of carbon to the deep ocean (fish and krill biomass decisions provides opportunities to maximize co-
extraction). Globally, disturbance of previously undisturbed benefits and to minimize trade-offs and co-
marine sediment carbon through trawling was estimated to detrimental (mutually harmful) effects for people and
release the equivalent of 15 to 20% of atmospheric CO2 nature. The climate-biodiversity-social system is a ‘nexus’
absorbed annually by the ocean. Such order of magnitude most appropriately dealt with from a social-ecological
indicates a knowledge gap on ocean carbon storage systems perspective. Such an approach accounts for
capacity to be closed by further research. trade-offs, feedbacks, threshold effects and nonlinear
relationships between biophysical and social variables
29 For biodiversity, the concept of offsets, the across spatio-temporal scales. Social considerations feed
substitutability among a slate of possible actions, can into, and flow out of, the climate-biodiversity interactions.
introduce the flexibility required to achieve multiple Additionally, all interventions to manage climate-biodiversity
competing objectives at regional scale, if applied interactions pose differential effects on people’s good quality
subject to strict conditions and exclusions. The of life, and these interactions have important implications for
concept of offsets is already widely applied to CO2 removal both intra- and intergenerational equity. The status quo has
measures (key finding 23), but less so for biodiversity been for policy to show little cross-sectoral integration.
protection. Biodiversity offsetting is the practice of mitigating However, progress in understanding the context-specific
the negative impacts of developments on biodiversity (e.g., magnitude and direction of climate-biodiversity interactions,
mining, urban/housing development, agricultural expansion) as well as their social determinants and implications,
by restoring the biodiversity, or setting aside areas for provides opportunities to consider these interactions
protection, elsewhere in remote sites. There are routinely, rather than exceptionally, when making
12,983 listed biodiversity offsets implemented across policy decisions.
37 countries, however only one-third of biodiversity offsets
demonstrably meet the “no net loss” (NNL) principle.4 31 Under the effects of biodiversity loss and climate
Furthermore, the trade-offs between biodiversity offsets, change, crucial (hard to reverse or irreversible)
climate change mitigation and other nature’s contributions to thresholds (tipping points) can be exceeded with dire
people have rarely been assessed. Unintended negative consequences for people and nature, but positive
consequences of offsetting are likely to be avoided if the social tipping interventions can help attain desirable
disconnects between local benefits from biodiversity, biodiversity-climate interactions. Surpassing thresholds
including capacities of adaptation to climate change, and can lead to changes in ecosystem function. For example,
nature’s contributions with remote or global benefits are climate change can cause biophysical limits of corals to be
considered in the offsetting process along with the NNL exceeded or sea-ice ecosystems to disappear, leading to
objective. The conditions for effectiveness for biodiversity regime changes to algal-dominated communities with
include no replaceability in biodiversity facets and action markedly different function. Biodiversity change and climate
targets. Biodiversity conservation measures are specific, change can feedback on one another to alter the location of
local, and regional, even when they contribute to global tipping points. For example, negative climate impacts on
objectives such as mitigation of climate change (key finding biodiversity, particularly in ecosystems that are already close
to their tipping points, can diminish ecosystem function and
4. No Net Loss: The objective of “no net loss” policies for biodiversity are
carbon storage potential that contributes importantly to
based on the aspiration to compensate for unavoidable biodiversity climate mitigation. Ignoring the potential for strong trade-offs
loss, most commonly due to impacts of infrastructure and land-use
change, with balanced gains in biodiversity elsewhere, for example
between biodiversity and climate change resulting from a
through ecosystem restoration or improved management practices. specific policy action further risks the surpassing of tipping

21
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

points. For example, afforestation that focuses solely on sustainability transitions can minimize the negative effects of
replanting species with large carbon sequestration and policy actions, by including fair compensation mechanisms
storage potential can harm biodiversity and increase the to promote the equitable distribution of the benefits and
likelihood of a change in ecosystem function. Exceeding costs that may result from policy action. This, in turn, calls for
biodiversity-climate tipping points can lead to the breaching robust and transparent deliberative and negotiation
of socially acceptable limits and thresholds, e.g., through mechanisms including all relevant stakeholders that can
reduced stability of crop yields that trigger food crises. address unequal power relations among stakeholders.
However, social tipping points are not all detrimental.
Positive social tipping interventions involve the rapid 34 In the presence of strong and apparently
spreading of technologies, behaviours, social norms, and unavoidable trade-offs within the biodiversity-climate-
structural reorganization. Interventions with positive impacts society nexus, promoting social tipping interventions
on climate and biodiversity include the development of to modify the ways society and nature interact can be
carbon-neutrality in cities, removal of fossil fuel subsidies, or a viable joint solution. This may involve the redistribution
the strengthening of climate and biodiversity education and of benefits and costs of actions and even more profoundly, a
civil society engagement in co-designing and implementing collective shift of individual and shared values concerning
plans and strategies across sectors aiming at social- nature. An example is moving away from a conception of
ecological resilience. Social tipping interventions can help economic progress based solely on GDP growth, to one of
transform social responses towards desirable biodiversity- human development based on inclusive wealth and which
climate interactions. The scaling up of positive social considers the multiple values of nature for a good quality of
responses involves the consideration of power relations and life while not overshooting biophysical and social limits.
rigidities typically inherent in political and economic Another example is the external recognition of indigenous
decision-making contexts. The locations of tipping points peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas
are moving targets, owing partly to the interconnectedness (ICCA), initiated, designed, and governed by indigenous
of the climate-biodiversity-social system. communities. While ICCA might be designed to support
livelihoods, well-being, and cultural and spiritual values, they
32 When considering biodiversity-climate-society can lead to the conservation of natural and modified
interactions, it is important to examine how the ecosystems and its biodiversity and associated benefits,
linkages between policy decisions and consequences including climate benefits.
unfold over time and how they act beyond the specific
spatial context. For example, the restoration of diverse
ecosystems with high-carbon storage potential might Transformative change in governance
improve biodiversity relatively quickly, while the carbon of socio-ecological systems can help
sequestration benefits might only be realized over longer
create climate and biodiversity resilient
time scales. Further, telecoupling properties, i.e., off-stage
(distant, diffuse and delayed) effects that manifest away from
development pathways.
the location of the intervention, are also common in
intertwined biodiversity, climate and social contexts, and can
result in unintended outcomes. For example, increasing
demand for bioenergy under climate mitigation policies of 35 While integrated solutions for the biodiversity-
one region, can drive significant changes in land use in other climate nexus exist that also have co-benefits in terms
regions. Consequences may include expansion of the of sustainable development and meeting basic needs
agricultural frontier with negative implications for biodiversity of the poor and vulnerable, governing and financing
and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. these nexus approaches is challenging. Nature-based
and other solutions are most likely to be effective when
33 Assessing the range of viable solutions (‘solution implemented in an integrated and socially equitable way but
space’) to achieve the intended climate mitigation, can present problems in terms of design and
adaptation and biodiversity conservation outcomes, implementation. Existing governance systems often lack
while positively contributing to people’s quality of life, effective mechanisms to improve integration between
requires recognition of differences in social-ecological climate and biodiversity, and between international and
contexts. As environmental characteristics differ from place national to subnational scales. Overall, mainstreaming of
to place, also motivations, interests, preferences and values biodiversity into climate policy and vice versa, and of both
differ across societies and cultures. It is crucial to identify into initiatives to advance human development and good
interventions which are universal in terms of intent, but quality of life, remains limited at many scales and in many
sufficiently flexible and adaptive to fit different social- sectors, although there are some promising initiatives
ecological contexts, including governance structures. Policy emerging, such as jurisdictional approaches, experimental
interventions designed in the framework of equitable and just policy mixes, and rights-based approaches.

22
 /// SYNOPSIS

36 A key outcome for successfully integrated Paris Agreement and the post-2020 Global
governance of climate, biodiversity and good quality Biodiversity Framework in the medium and long term.
of life will be to help identify solutions for stewardship In order to be robust, and for their identified pathways to be
that deliver the highest co-benefits while avoiding implementable, decision tools should acknowledge different
trade-offs. Identifying how integrated approaches across visions of a good life and alternative positive futures for
actions to protect, restore, manage, create, adapt and nature and climate. In light of the complexity of ecosystems
transform can be fostered and supported is a primary and their responses and dynamics the scenarios that
concern. Many synergies and co-benefits exist across describe the future of nature and people are not as
biodiversity and climate policies and actions, but potential advanced as those developed for climate futures, and
negative trade-offs for nature, climate or human well-being climate policies are not usually assessed in relation to
and good quality of life are also possible. Governance biodiversity scenarios. This limits the confidence associated
systems that make use of a systems perspective can help to with the efficacy of conservation measures and adaptation
manage trade-offs and adapt to risk, through mechanisms possibilities, and the quantification of vulnerabilities, risks,
such as adaptive management, reflexive evaluation, and trade-offs and synergies among different policies.
social learning.
41 Achieving the scale and scope of transformative
37 Goal-based governance is now the norm for change needed to meet the goals of the UNFCCC and
climate, biodiversity and sustainable development, but CBD and the Sustainable Development Goals relies on
can create challenges in implementation. For example, rapid and far-reaching actions of a type never before
in the biodiversity domain, goal-setting that relies on attempted. This builds on a commitment not only from
achieving area-based protected area targets alone is unlikely countries through actions in their national territories, but also
to be successful, given climate change pressures. Flexible emergent coalitions and governance models at all levels. It
and adaptive mechanisms would work more successfully includes new integrative agendas aligning all actors, private
within goal-based approaches, such as the Sustainable to public, in support of actions to protect biodiversity,
Development Goals (SDGs) or the Paris Agreement. Global reduce the impacts of climate change, and achieve
targets aligned with local contexts, values and abilities, and sustainable development. Transformative change elements
progressively adjusting the ambition of targets over time, identified can include effective incentives and capacity-
can help strengthen governance. building, improved cooperation across sectors and
jurisdictions, anticipatory and pre-emptive actions, inclusive
38 Multi-actor and multi-scale governance are and adaptive decision-making, and strengthened
appropriate approaches to the management of environmental policy and implementation. Climate and
multifunctional ‘scapes’ at different scales. The biodiversity resilient pathways that allow for directed,
imperative for rapid action on both climate change and anticipatory, and iterative decision-making provide one such
biodiversity loss argues for governance models to move approach to achieve the long-term goals of the SDGs, the
beyond state-based approaches to embrace more Paris Agreement and the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
collaborative solutions. For such constraints, the Framework and to put society on the pathway to a positive
engagement of a broad range of actors, respect for multiple vision of good quality of life in harmony with nature.
values, drawing on different knowledge systems, polycentric
governance, and overcoming power imbalances across
actors are all elements of a solution to the governance
challenge and the need for transformative change.

39 Transformative change can occur using leverage

points in socio-ecological systems which alter future
trajectories. Critical leverage points include exploring
alternative visions of good quality of life, rethinking
consumption and waste, shifting values related to the
human-nature relationship, reducing inequalities, and
promoting education and learning. The global societal
disturbances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic crisis have
highlighted the importance of a more resilient, sustainable
and transformative path forward, leaving no one behind.

40 Better tools for multi-sectoral scenario planning

and modelling can help map pathways to
simultaneously achieve the goals in the SDGs, the

23
IPBES-IPCC CO-SPONSORED WORSHOP REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

APPENDIX 1
List of peer reviewers
This appendix sets out a list of external scientists selected by the co-sponsored
workshop scientific steering committee who reviewed both the Workshop
Report and the Scientific Outcome.

Lilibeth Acosta-Michlik Valerie Kapos Ignacio Palomo

Global Green Growth Institute UN Environment Programme World Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine
Conservation Monitoring Centre
Ana Paula de Aguiar Benjamin Raphael Quesada
Stockholm Resilience Centre Olaotswe Kgosikoma Universidad del Rosario
Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana
Sally Archibald Mark Rounsevell
University of Witwatersrand Mahendra Kumar Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Independent Consultant/ Australian National
Pam Berry University David Schoeman
University of Oxford University of the Sunshine Coast
Debora Ley
Betsy Beymer-Farris United Nations Economic Commission for Odirilwe Selomane
University of Kentucky Latin America and the Caribbean Stellenbosch University

Wolfgang Cramer Hsing-Juh Lin Polina Shulbaeva

Institut Méditerranéen de National Chung Hsing University Center for support of indigenous peoples
Biodiversité et d’Ecologie of the North
Brendan Mackey
Kirsten Davies Griffith University Boris Worm
University of New England Dalhousie University
Bernabé Moreno
Julian Gutt Universidad Científica del Sur Ming Xu
Alfred Wegener Institute Rutgers University
Kwabena Owusu
Paula Harrison University of Amsterdam
UK Centre of Ecology
and Hydrology

24
/// APPENDIX 2

25