How to improve biodiversity, climate, and economic development outcomes all at once
This news release was adapted from the original published by the University of Minnesota.
National governments and multilateral institutions face difficult challenges reconciling environmental goals, such as biodiversity conservation and addressing climate change, with economic development goals.
In a first-of-its-kind analysis done for 146 countries around the world, an interdisciplinary research team including scientists from the Natural Capital Alliance (NatCap) found large potential gains in biodiversity, climate and economic development from improved land use and land management. The findings were recently published in Science.
“We know we're facing both a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis but, usually, the pushback against doing something about either is that it's going to cost too much,” said lead author Stephen Polasky, a Regents Professor and co-founder of NatCap TEEMs at the University of Minnesota, a core NatCap member. “One of the main reasons for doing this study was to show, in fact, that there are ways where we can be more efficient and address climate and biodiversity without bankrupting people.”
The researchers integrated spatial biophysical and economic data with optimization methods to develop sustainable landscape efficiency frontiers for each of 146 countries included in the analysis. The landscape efficiency frontier in each country shows the maximally feasible combinations of biodiversity conservation (including both species and ecosystem measures), land-based climate mitigation (net carbon sequestration and methane emissions reductions) and net economic value from agricultural crops, livestock and forestry production.
For example, the landscape efficiency frontier shows the highest economic value from agriculture and forestry for a given score for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation, or the maximum climate mitigation possible for a given biodiversity score and economic values from agriculture and forestry. In most countries, land use and land management generates outcomes well inside their landscape efficiency frontier showing that simultaneous gains in environment and economic development are possible.
The analysis found:
- Summing results across all 146 countries included in the analysis shows potential to increase climate mitigation by over 200 billion metric tons CO2 equivalents (>20% increase) or net economic value by over $350 billion (>80% increase) without loss in other objectives important for carbon sequestration and biodiversity and expansion of agriculture and forestry.
- These gains occur both from land reallocation, involving selective restoration of forestry areas in highly productive lands, and crop intensification, especially in lower-income countries with current low-yield agriculture.
According to Polasky, this information is useful for organizations involved in supporting and financing development, such as international finance institutions, to help them better direct their resources and support for countries in a way that helps them meet their national goals but, at the same time, meet international commitments for biodiversity, conservation, climate change, and adaptation.
“One of the advantages we find from doing this analysis is that we show people what's possible, and that tends to open their minds to thinking about a wider set of alternatives, when they can see the gain that could be had by making some of these changes. Then making some of the changes is not so scary, “said Polasky.
"This research proves that the supposed tradeoff between protecting nature and growing economies is false,” said Becky Chaplin-Kramer, global biodiversity lead scientist at World Wildlife Fund-US (WWF is another core member of NatCap). “By mapping what's truly possible country by country, we've given policymakers and investors a roadmap to pursue biodiversity gains, climate mitigation, and development goals together."
NatCap, including a recent spinoff consulting group Natural Capital Insights, have started working with other partners to apply this work, including working with the World Bank to conduct country-specific analyses.
The research team added that there are also many ecosystem services and economic activities that are not yet included in this analysis, so there is much additional work that can be done to deepen that analysis.
Funding for the analysis was provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the University of Minnesota Fesler-Lampert Endowment, the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, World Resources Institute, and the World Bank.
Related Project
