CBD Technical Series No. 10 - Interlinkages between ... · 1 A. Biodiversity and linkages to climate change Biological diversity includes all plants, animals, microorganisms,the ecosystems

Interlin

kages between

biological diversity and clim

ate change

CB

D Tech

nical Series N

o.10

10INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGEAdvice on the integration of biodiversity considerationsinto the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and

its Kyoto Protocol

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity

Also available

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that ThreatenEcosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 2: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal InstrumentsApplicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 3: Assessment, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity andEcosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperateand Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, the ForestBiological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and trends of, and threats to, mountain biodiversity, marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems: Abstracts of poster presentations at the eightmeeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, Abstracts ofposter presentations on protected areas and technology transfer and cooperation at the ninth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice

53599_Couvert_no10 11/20/03 12:42 PM Page 1

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Advice on the integration of biodiversity considerations into theimplementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol

Ad hoc Technical Expert Group on Biological Diversity and Climate Change

October 2003

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 2

Interlinkages between biological diversity and climate change

ii

Published by the Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-807-2389-8

Copyright © 2003, Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity

The designations employed and the presentationof material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on thepart of the Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity concerning the legal statusof any country, territory, city or area or of itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries.

The views reported in this publication do notnecessarily represent those of the Convention onBiological Diversity nor those of the reviewers.

This publication may be reproduced for educa-tional or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holders, providedacknowledgement of the source is made. TheSecretariat of the Convention would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publications that usesthis document as a source.

CitationSecretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (2003). Interlinkages between biologi-cal diversity and climate change. Advice on theintegration of biodiversity considerations intothe implementation of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change andits Kyoto protocol. Montreal, SCBD, 154p. (CBDTechnical Series no. 10).

For further information, please contact:Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological DiversityWorld Trade Centre393 St. Jacques Street, suite 300Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.biodiv.org

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 3


iii

The human pressure on our planet’s natural systemsis unprecedented. Loss of biological diversity threat-ens to unravel the intricate ecosystems that life ofEarth depends. Climate change is having profoundand long-term impacts on human welfare and addsyet another pressure on terrestrial and marine ecosys-tems that are already under threat from land-usechange, pollution, over-harvesting, and the introduc-tion of alien species.At the 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (WSSD), the world’s leaders reaffirmedthe need to tackle these issues and endorsed the targetset by the Convention on Biological Diversity’sConference of the Parties to achieve, by 2010, a signif-icant reduction in the rate of loss of biological diver-sity. The World Summit also reaffirmed the centralimportance of the Convention on Biological Diversityand the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change—the conventions adopted at the RioEarth Summit 10 years earlier—in addressing theseissues.

The objectives of these two conventions are closely inter-related:• Climate change is a major cause of biodiversity

loss and one of the obligations under theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is toidentify and address such threats.At the sametime, the ultimate objective of United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) includes the stabilization of green-house gas concentrations within a timeframe suf-ficient to allow ecosystems to adapt to climatechange;

• Biodiversity management can contribute to cli-mate change mitigation and adaptation and tocombating desertification. Indeed, the UNFC-CC calls for the conservation and enhancementof terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems assinks for greenhouse gases;

• Both conventions, as well as the UnitedNations Convention to CombatDesertification, are intended to contribute tosustainable development.

The impacts of climate change on biodiversity are ofmajor concern to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. The Conference of the Parties has high-lighted the risks, in particular, to coral reefs and to for-est ecosystems,and has drawn attention to the seriousimpacts of loss of biodiversity of these systems onpeople’s livelihoods. More recently, the Conference ofthe Parties has also turned its attention to the poten-tial impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems of the var-ious options for mitigating or adapting to climatechange and requested the Convention’s SubsidiaryBody on Scientific, Technical and TechnologicalAdvice (SBSTTA) to develop scientific advice on theseissues.SBSTTA established an ad hoc technical expert groupto carry out an assessment of the inter-linkagesbetween biodiversity and climate change. The resultsare contained in the present report, which drawsupon best available scientific knowledge, includingthat provided by the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change.The report concludes that there are significant oppor-tunities for mitigating climate change, and for adapt-ing to climate change while enhancing the conserva-tion of biodiversity. However, these synergies will nothappen without a conscious attention to biodiversityconcerns. The report identifies a wide range of toolsthat can help decision makers assess the likely impactsand make informed choices.The report provides the scientific basis for the devel-opment of recommendations, as appropriate, undereach Convention, for setting priorities for futureresearch. I hope that it will also be used widely bycountries as they seek to implement policies, pro-grammes and activities under the Convention onBiological Diversity and the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change.This report is a tangible product of cooperationamong the Rio conventions. I trust that it will proveto be a useful step in promoting implementation ofthe three Rio Conventions in a mutually supportivemanner.

Hamdallah ZedanExecutive Secretary

FOREWORD BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 4

iv

First of all, I wish to thank all members of the AdHoc Technical Expert Group on BiologicalDiversity and Climate Change whose expertisecontributed to the preparation of this report, aswell as those persons from major agencies andinstitutes, intergovernmental and non-governmen-tal organizations who also provided with substan-tial inputs in various chapters. I also want to thankthe Group co-chairs, Ms. Outi Berghäll and Mr.Robert Watson for their valuable efforts, as well asto the coordinators of the substantive chapters: Mr.Braulio Dias, Ms. Habiba Gitay, Mr. Horst Korn,Mr. Phocus Ntayombya, Mr. Robert Watson, andMs. Kanta Kumari. The Secretariat also wishes tothank the Government of Finland for its financialsupport to carry out the first and third meetings ofthe Group, which also benefited from the graciouscooperation of the staff of the FinnishEnvironment Institute in Helsinki.

I also express my gratitude to those Governments,intergovernmental and non-governmental institu-tions, and scientists who contributed their time tothe review of a draft version of this report. The fol-lowing experts provided comments on the draftreport: Rosemarie Benndorf, Pam Berry,Lenny Bernstein, David Cooper, John Dixon,

Peter C. Frumhoff, Sandy Gauntlett, Mike Harley,Lee Hannah, Mikael Hildén, Floyd Homer, LesleyHughes, Bryan Huntley, Joy Kim, Jyrki Luukkanen,J. Piers Maclaren, Anita Mäkinen, PetraMahrenholz, John Parrotta, Lucio Pedroni, HannahReid, M. J. Sanz, Ernst-Detlef Schulze, John Stone,Gijs van Tol, Jussi Uusivuori, Liette Vasseur, HenryVenema, Markus Vinnari, Clive Wilkinson, EdgardYerena, Lewis Ziska. Also, the Governments ofArgentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Finland,Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands,United Kingdom, United States of America, andUzbekistan reviewed the draft report. Finally, valu-able observations were provided by the followingorganizations: FAO, Forests and the EuropeanUnion Resource Network (FERN)-U.K. andBelgium, Friends of the Siberian Forests,Greenpeace, SOLJUSPAZ, Pacific IndigenousPeoples Environment Network, Center forEnvironmental Law and Community Rights, FOAPAC, Friends of the Earth Japan, and Friends of theEarth International.

Hamdallah ZedanExecutive Secretary

Acknowledgements


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 5


v

Lead and Contributing Authors

Lead AuthorsOuti Berghäll Inhee ChungJanet CotterBraulio DiasSandra DíazHabiba GitayAnke HeroldSteven KelleherHorst KornKanta KumariRobert LambFabrice LantheaumeMiguel LoveraMatthew McGloneKalemani J. MulongoyPhocus Ntayombya Christiane PloetzGregory RuarkM.V.K. SivakumarAvelino Suarez Ian ThompsonYoshitaka TsubakiRobert WatsonAllan Watt

Contributing AuthorsAsa AradottirKathrin AmmermanYasemin E. K. Biro Peter BridgewaterBenoit BosquetVaclav BurianekDavid CoatesDavid CooperSamuel Dieme Muna FarajClaudio FornerAndy GillisonManuel R. GuariguataMike HarleyAndy HectorMikael Hilden Hans JoostenMirna MarinPatrick McCullyBeverly McIntyreNdegwa Ndiang’uiBernd Neukirchen Ian Noble Peter Straka Angelika Thuille Marjo VierrosAndreas Volentras David A.WardleClive R.Wilkinson

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 1:59 PM Page 6


vi

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 7


1

A. Biodiversity and linkages to climate change

Biological diversity includes all plants, animals,microorganisms, the ecosystems of which they arepart, and the diversity within species, betweenspecies, and of ecosystems 1. No single componentof biodiversity (i.e., genes, species or ecosystems) isconsistently a good indicator of the overall biodi-versity as these components can vary independent-ly. Functional diversity describes the variety of eco-logical functions of species or groups of species inan ecosystem. It is a biodiversity descriptor thatprovides an alternative way of understanding bio-logical diversity, and the effects of disturbancescaused by human activities, including climatechange, on ecosystems.

Biodiversity is determined by the interaction ofmany factors that differ spatially and temporally.Biodiversity is determined for example, by a) themean climate and climate variability; b) the avail-ability of resources and overall productivity of asite; c) the disturbance regime and occurrence ofperturbations of cosmic (e.g. meteorites), tectonic,climatic, biological or anthropic origin; d) the orig-inal stock of biodiversity and dispersal opportuni-ties or barriers; e) spatial heterogeneity of habitats;f) the intensity and interdependency of biotic inter-actions such as competition, predation, mutualismand symbiosis; and g) the intensity and kind of sex-ual reproduction and genetic recombination.Biodiversity at all levels is not static, as the dynam-ics of natural evolutionary and ecological processesinduces a background rate of change.

Biodiversity underlies the goods and services pro-vided by ecosystems that are crucial for humansurvival and well being. These can be classifiedalong several lines. Supporting services maintain theconditions for life on Earth including, soil forma-tion and retention, nutrient cycling, primary pro-duction; regulating services include regulation of airquality, climate, floods, soil erosion, water purifica-

tion, waste treatment, pollination, and biological control of human, livestock and agriculturepests and diseases; provisioning services include providing food, fuelwood, fibre, biochemicals,natural medicines, pharmaceuticals, genetic resources,and fresh water; and cultural services provide non-material benefits including cultural diversity andidentity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic val-ues, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage,recreation, communal, and symbolic values.

Ecosystem goods and services have significanteconomic value, even if some of these goods andmost of the services are not traded by the marketand carry no price tags to alert society to changesin their supply or in the condition of the ecosys-tems that generate them. Many ecosystem servicesare largely unrecognized in their global importanceor in the crucial role that they play in meeting needsin particular regions. For example, to date therehave been no markets that recognize the importantcontribution of terrestrial and oceanic ecosystemsand their biodiversity in absorbing at least half ofthe carbon that is currently emitted to the atmos-phere from human activities, thereby slowing therate of global climate change.

Past changes in the global climate resulted inmajor shifts in species ranges and marked reor-ganization of biological communities, land-scapes, and biomes. The present global biota wasaffected by fluctuating Pleistocene (last 1.8 millionyears) concentrations of atmospheric carbon diox-ide, temperature, and precipitation, and copedthrough evolutionary changes, species plasticity,range movements, and/or the ability to survive insmall patches of favourable habitat (refugia). Thesechanges, which resulted in major shifts in speciesranges and marked reorganization of biologicalcommunities, landscapes, and biomes, occurred ina landscape that was not as fragmented as it istoday, and with little or no pressures from humanactivities. Anthropogenic habitat fragmentation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This is a contraction of the definition in the Convention on Biological Diversity.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 8

2

has confined many species to relatively small areaswithin their previous ranges, with reduced geneticvariability. Warming beyond the ceiling of temper-atures reached during the Pleistocene will stressecosystems and their biodiversity far beyond thelevels imposed by the global climatic change thatoccurred in the recent evolutionary past.

The current levels of human impact on biodiver-sity are unprecedented, affecting the planet as awhole, and causing large-scale loss of biodiversi-ty. Current rates and magnitude of species extinc-tion, related to human activities, far exceed normalbackground rates. Human activities have alreadyresulted in loss of biodiversity and thus may haveaffected goods and services crucial for human wellbeing. The main indirect human drivers (underly-ing causes) include: demographic; economic;sociopolitical; scientific and technological; and cul-tural and religious factors. The main direct humandrivers (proximate causes or pressures) include:changes in local land use and land cover (the majorhistorical change in land use has been the globalincrease in lands dedicated to agriculture and graz-ing); species introductions or removals; externalinputs (e.g., fertilizers and pesticides); harvesting;air and water pollution; and climate change. Therate and magnitude of climate change induced byincreased greenhouse gases emissions has and willcontinue to affect biodiversity either directly or incombination with the drivers mentioned above,and might outweigh them in the future.

For a given ecosystem, functionally diverse com-munities are more likely to adapt to climatechange and climate variability than impoverishedones. In addition, high genetic diversity withinspecies appears to increase their long-term persist-ence. It must be stressed, however, that the effect ofthe nature and magnitude of genetic and speciesdiversity on certain ecosystem processes is stillpoorly known. The ability of ecosystems to eitherresist or return to their former state following dis-turbance may also depend on given levels of func-tional diversity. This can have important implica-

tions for the design of activities aimed at mitigatingand adapting to climate change. Therefore, conser-vation of genotypes, species and functional types,along with the reduction of habitat loss, fragmen-tation and degradation, may promote the long-term persistence of ecosystems and the provision ofecosystem goods and services.

B. Climate change and biodiversity:observed and projected impacts

Changes in climate over the last few decades ofthe 20th century have already affected biodiversi-ty. The observed changes in the climate system(e.g., increased atmospheric concentrations of car-bon dioxide, increased land and ocean tempera-tures, changes in precipitation and sea level rise),particularly the warmer regional temperatures,have affected the timing of reproduction of animalsand plants and/or migration of animals, the lengthof the growing season, species distributions andpopulation sizes, and the frequency of pest and dis-ease outbreaks.

Projected changes in climate during the 21st centu-ry will occur faster than in at least the past 10,000years and combined with land use change and exot-ic/alien species spread, are likely to limit both thecapability of species to migrate and the ability ofspecies to persist in fragmented habitats. The pro-jected impacts due to changes in mean climate,extreme climatic events and climate variabilityinclude:(a) The climatic range of many species willmove poleward or upward in elevation from theircurrent locations. Species will be affected differ-ently by climate change; some will migrate throughfragmented landscapes whilst others may not beable to do so.(b) Many species that are already vulnerableare likely to become extinct. Species with limitedclimatic ranges and/or with limited geographicalopportunities (e.g., mountain top species, specieson islands, peninsulas (Cape Flora)), species withrestricted habitat requirements and/or small popu-


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 9


3

lations are typically the most vulnerable.(c) Changes in the frequency, intensity,extent, and locations of climatically and non-cli-matically induced disturbances will affect howand at what rate the existing ecosystems will bereplaced by new plant and animal assemblages.Species in an ecosystem are unlikely to all migrateat the same rates; long-lived species will persistlonger in their original habitats leading to newplant and animal assemblages. Many ecosystemswill be dominated by opportunistic, ‘weedy’species, i.e., species well adapted to dispersal andrapid establishment, especially if the frequency andintensity of disturbance is high.(d) Some ecosystems are particularly vul-nerable to climate change, such as coral reefs,mangroves, high mountain ecosystems, remnantnative grasslands and ecosystems overlying per-mafrost. Some ecosystems will often be slow toshow evidence of change, e.g., those dominated bylong-lived species (e.g., long-lived trees), whilstothers, e.g. coral reefs, will show rapid response.

Net primary productivity of many species(including crop species) will increase due to theelevated concentrations of atmospheric carbondioxide, however, there may be losses in netecosystem and biome productivity. The changesin the net primary productivity will result inchanges in the composition and functioning ofecosystems. Losses in net ecosystem and biomeproductivity can occur e.g., in some forests, at leastwhen significant ecosystem disruption occurs (e.g.,loss of dominant species or a high proportion ofspecies due to changes in the disturbances, such aswildfires, pest and disease outbreaks).

The livelihood of many indigenous and localcommunities, in particular, will be adverselyaffected if climate and land-use change lead tolosses in biodiversity. These communities aredirectly dependent on the products and servicesprovided by the terrestrial, coastal and marineecosystems, which they inhabit.

Changes in biodiversity at ecosystem and land-scape scale, in response to climate change andother pressures (e.g., deforestation and changesin forest fires, introduction of invasive species),would further affect global and regional climatethrough changes in the uptake and release of green-house gases and changes in albedo and evapotran-spiration. Similarly, changes in biological commu-nities in the upper ocean could alter the uptake ofcarbon dioxide by the ocean or the release of pre-cursors for cloud condensation nuclei causingeither positive or negative feedbacks on climatechange.

C. Climate change mitigation and adaptation options: links to, and impacts

on, biodiversity

Terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems play a signifi-cant role in the global carbon cycle and theirproper management can make a significant con-tribution to reducing the build up of greenhousegases in the atmosphere. Each year about 60 giga-tons2 (Gt) of carbon (C) are taken up and releasedby terrestrial ecosystems and about another 90 Gt Care taken up and released by ocean systems. Thesenatural fluxes are large compared to the approxi-mately 6.3 Gt C currently being emitted from fossilfuels and industrial processes, and about 1.6 Gt Cper year from deforestation, predominantly in thetropics. Terrestrial ecosystems appear to be storingabout 3 Gt C each year and the oceans anotherabout 1.7 Gt. The result is a net build up of 3.2 Gtof atmospheric C per year.

There are significant opportunities for mitigatingclimate change, and for adapting to climatechange, while enhancing the conservation of bio-diversity. Mitigation involves reducing the green-house gas emissions from energy and biologicalsources or enhancing the sinks of greenhouse gases.Adaptation is comprised of activities that reduce asystem’s (human and natural) vulnerability to cli-mate change. Carbon mitigation and adaptationoptions that take into account environmental

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 10

4

(including biodiversity), social and economic con-siderations, offer the greatest potential for positivesynergistic impacts.

The ecosystem approach of the Convention onBiological Diversity provides a flexible manage-ment framework to address climate change miti-gation and adaptation activities in a broad per-spective. This holistic framework considers multi-ple temporal and spatial scales and can help to bal-ance ecological, economic, and social considera-tions in projects, programmes, and policies relatedto climate change mitigation and adaptation."Adaptive management", which allows for the re-evaluation of results through time and alterationsin management strategies and regulations toachieve goals, is an integral part of the ecosystemapproach.

Land-use, land-use change and forestry activitiescan play an important role in reducing net green-house gas emissions to the atmosphere.Biological mitigation of greenhouse gases throughland use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)activities can occur by three strategies: (a) conser-vation of existing carbon pools, i.e., avoiding defor-estation (b) sequestration by increasing the size ofcarbon pools, e.g., through afforestation and refor-estation, and (c) substitution of fossil fuel energyby use of modern biomass. The estimated upperlimit of the global potential of biological mitigationoptions (a and b) through afforestation, reforesta-tion, avoided deforestation, and agriculture, graz-ing land, and forest management is on the order of100 Gt C (cumulative) by the year 2050, equivalentto about 10–20% of projected fossil-fuel emissionsduring that period,3 although there are substantialuncertainties associated with this estimate. Thelargest biological potential is projected to be in sub-tropical and tropical regions. When LULUCFactivities are used to offset emissions from fossil

fuels, there is a net shift of carbon from fossil stor-age to more labile storage—but potentially longterm—in terrestrial ecosystems.

Within the context of the Kyoto Protocol, addi-tionality, leakage, permanence, and uncertainties,are important concepts for carbon storage in rela-tion with the implementation of mitigation activ-ities. A project credited under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism is additional only if itwould not have occurred without the stimulus ofthe Mechanism and if it removes more greenhousegases from the atmosphere than would haveoccurred without the project. Leakage refers to thesituation where activities related to carbon seques-tration or conservation of existing carbon poolstriggers an activity in another location, which leadsin turn, to carbon emissions. Permanence refers tothe longevity and stability of soil and vegetationcarbon pools, given that they will undergo variousmanagement regimes and be subjected to an arrayof natural disturbances. Uncertainties result fromlack of information or disagreement about what isknown or even knowable.

Afforestation4 and reforestation 5 can have posi-tive, neutral, or negative impacts on biodiversitydepending on the ecosystem being replaced, man-agement options applied, and the spatial and tem-poral scales. The value of a planted forest to bio-diversity will depend to a large degree on what waspreviously on the site and also on the landscapecontext in which it occurs. The reforestation ofdegraded lands will often produce the greatest ben-efits to biodiversity but can also provide the great-est challenges to forest management. Afforestationand reforestation activities that pay attention tospecies selection and site location, can promote thereturn, survival, and expansion of native plant andanimal populations. In contrast, clearing nativeforests and replacing them with a monoculture

2 1 gigaton equals 109 tons2 The emission of carbon from the combustion of fossil fuels is projected to increase from the current level of

6.3Gt C per year to between 10 and 25 Gt C per year4 Afforestation requires planting trees on land that has not contained a forest for over 50 years5 Reforestation requires planting trees on land that was not forested in 1990


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 11


5

forest of exotics would clearly have a negativeeffect on biodiversity. Afforestation of other natu-ral grasslands and other native habitat typeswould also entail significant loss of biodiversity.

Short rotation plantations will not sequester andmaintain carbon as much as long rotation planta-tions in which vegetation and soil carbon isallowed to accumulate. Loss of soil carbon occursfor several years following harvesting and replanti-ng due to the exposure of soil, increased leachingand runoff and reduced inputs from litter. Shortrotation forests, with their simpler structure, fosterlower species richness than longer-lived forests.However, products from short rotation plantationsmay alleviate the pressure to harvest or deforestlonger-lived or primary forests.

Plantations of native tree species will supportmore biodiversity than exotic species and planta-tions of mixed tree species will usually supportmore biodiversity than monocultures.Plantations of exotic species support only some ofthe local biodiversity but may contribute to biodi-versity conservation if appropriately situated in thelandscape. Planting of invasive exotic species, how-ever, could have major and widespread negativeconsequences for biodiversity. Tree plantations maybe designed to allow for the colonization and estab-lishment of diverse under-storey plant communi-ties by providing shade and by ameliorating micro-climates. Specific sites may make better candidatesfor implementing such activities than others, basedon past and present uses, and the local or regionalimportance of their associated biodiversity, andproximity to other forests across a landscape.Involvement of local and indigenous communitiesin the design and the benefits to be achieved from aplantation may contribute to local support for aproject and hence contribute to its longevity.Plantations may contribute to the dispersal capa-bility of some species among habitat patches on aformerly fragmented landscape. Even plantationsof a single species can confer some benefits to localbiodiversity, especially if they incorporate features

such as allowing canopy gaps, retaining some deadwood components, and providing landscape con-nectivity.

Slowing deforestation and forest degradation canprovide substantial biodiversity benefits in addi-tion to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions andpreserving ecological services. In temperateregions, deforestation mainly occurred, when itdid, several decades to centuries ago. In recentdecades, deforestation has been most prevalent inthe tropics. Since the remaining primary tropicalforests are estimated to contain 50–70 percent of allterrestrial plant and animal species, they are ofgreat importance in the conservation of biodiversi-ty. Tropical deforestation and degradation of alltypes of forests remain major causes of global bio-diversity loss. Any project that slows deforestationor forest degradation will help to conserve biodi-versity. Projects in threatened/vulnerable foreststhat are unusually species-rich, globally rare, orunique to that region can provide the greatestimmediate biodiversity benefits. Projects that pro-tect forests from land conversion or degradation inkey watersheds have potential to substantially slowsoil erosion, protect water resources, and conservebiodiversity.

Forest protection through avoided deforestationmay have either positive or negative socialimpacts. The possible conflicts between the pro-tection of forested ecosystems and ancillary nega-tive effects, restrictions on the activities of localpopulations, reduced income, and/or reducedproducts from these forests, can be minimized byappropriate stand and landscape management, aswell as using environmental and social assessments.

Most of the world’s forests are managed, henceimproved management can enhance carbonuptake or minimize carbon losses and conservebiodiversity. Humans manage most forests forconservation purposes and to produce goods andservices. Forest ecosystems are extremely variedand the positive or negative impact of any forest

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 12

6

management operation will differ according to soil,climate, and site history, including disturbanceregimes (such as fire). Because forests are enor-mous repositories of terrestrial biodiversity at alllevels of organization (genetic, species, population,and ecosystem), improved management activitieshave the potential to positively affect biodiversity.Forestry practices that enhance biodiversity inmanaged stands and have a positive influence oncarbon retention within forests include: increasingrotation length, low intensity harvesting, leavingwoody debris, post-harvest silviculture to restorethe local forest types, paying attention to landscapestructure, and harvesting that emulates natural dis-turbance regimes. Management that maintains nat-ural fire regime will usually maintain biodiversityand carbon storage.

Agroforestry systems have substantial potentialto sequester carbon and can reduce soil erosion,moderate climate extremes on crops, improvewater quality, and provide goods and services tolocal people. Agroforestry incorporates trees andshrubs into agricultural lands to achieve conserva-tion and economic goals, while keeping the land inproduction agriculture. The potential to sequestercarbon globally is very high due to the extensiveagricultural land base in many countries.Agroforestry can greatly increase biodiversity, espe-cially in landscapes dominated by annual crops oron lands that have been degraded. Agroforestryplantings can be used to functionally link forestfragments and other critical habitat as part of abroad landscape management strategy.

There are a large number of agricultural manage-ment activities (e.g., conservation tillage, erosioncontrol practices, and irrigation) that willsequester carbon in soils, and which may havepositive or negative effects on biodiversity,depending on the practice and the context inwhich they are applied. Conservation tillagedenotes a wide range of tillage practices, includingchisel-plow, ridge-till, strip-till, mulch-till, and no-till that can allow for the accumulation of soil

organic carbon and provide beneficial conditionsfor soil fauna. The use of erosion control practices,which include water conservation structures, vege-tative strips used as filters for riparian zone man-agement, and agroforestry shelterbelts for winderosion control can reduce the displacement of soilorganic carbon and provide opportunities toincrease biodiversity. The use of irrigation canincrease crop production, but has the potential todegrade water resources and aquatic ecosystems.Where feasible, it is important to include farmer-centred participatory approaches and considera-tion of local or indigenous knowledge and tech-nologies, promote cycling and use of organic mate-rials in low-input farming systems, and use adiverse array of locally adapted crop varieties.

Improved management of grasslands (e.g., graz-ing management, protected grasslands and areasset-aside, grassland productivity improvements,and fire management) can enhance carbon stor-age in soils and vegetation, while conserving bio-diversity. The productivity, and thus the potentialfor carbon sequestration of many pastoral lands isrestricted mainly by availability of water, nitrogenand other nutrients, and the unsuitability of somenative species to high-intensity grazing by live-stock. Introduction of nitrogen-fixing legumes andhigh-productivity grasses or additions of fertilizercan increase biomass production and soil carbonpools, but can decrease biodiversity. Introductionof exotic nitrogen fixers poses the risk of thembecoming invasive. Irrespective of whether a graz-ing land is intensively managed or strictly protect-ed, carbon accumulation can be enhanced throughimprovement practices, especially if native speciesare properly managed to enhance the biodiversityassociated with the system.

Avoiding degradation of peatlands and mires is abeneficial mitigation option. Peatlands and mirescontain large stores of carbon, however, in recentdecades, anthropogenic drainage and climatechange has changed peatlands from a global carbonsink to a global carbon source. Draining peatlands


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 13


7

for afforestation and reforestation activities maynot lead to a net carbon uptake and in the shortterm would lead to carbon emissions.

Revegetation activities that increase plant coveron eroded, severely degraded, or otherwise dis-turbed lands have a high potential to increase car-bon sequestration and enhance biodiversity.Sequestration rates will depend on various factors,including revegetation method, plant selection, soilcharacteristics and site preparation, and climate.Soils of eroded or degraded sites generally have lowcarbon levels and therefore a high potential toaccumulate carbon; however, revegetation of thesetypes of such sites will pose technical challenges.An important consideration is to match the plantspecies to the site conditions and to consider whichkey ecological functions need to be restored.Biodiversity can be improved if revegetation aidsrecruitment of native species over time or if it pre-vents further degradation and protects neighboringecosystems. In certain instances, where nativespecies may now be impossible to grow on somedegraded sites, the use of exotic species and fertiliz-ers may provide the best (and only) opportunityfor reestablishing vegetation. However, care shouldbe exercised to avoid situations where exotics thathave invasive characteristics end up colonizingneighboring native habitats, thereby altering plantcommunities and ecosystem processes.

Marine ecosystems may offer mitigation oppor-tunities, but the potential implications for ecosys-tem function and biodiversity are not well under-stood. Oceans are substantial reservoirs of carbonwith approximately 50 times more carbon than ispresently in the atmosphere. There have been sug-gestions to fertilize the ocean to promote greaterbiomass production and thereby sequester carbonand to mechanically store carbon deep in theocean. However, the potential for either of theseapproaches to be effective for carbon storage ispoorly understood and their impacts on ocean andmarine ecosystems and their associated biodiversi-ty are unknown.

Bio-energy plantations provide the potential tosubstitute fossil fuel energy with biomass fuelsbut may have adverse impacts on biodiversity ifthey replace ecosystems with higher biodiversity.However, bio-energy plantations on degradedlands or abandoned agricultural sites could benefitbiodiversity.

Renewable energy sources (crop waste, solar- andwind-power) may have positive or negative effectson biodiversity depending upon site selection andmanagement practices. Replacement of fuelwoodby crop waste, the use of more efficient wood stovesand solar energy and improved techniques to pro-duce charcoal can also reduce the pressure onforests, woodlots, and hedgerows. Most studieshave demonstrated low rates of bird collision withwindmills, but the mortality may be significant forrare species. Proper site selection and a case-by-case evaluation of the implications of windmills onwildlife and ecosystem goods and services canavoid or minimize negative impacts.

Hydropower has significant potential to mitigateclimate change by reducing the greenhouse gasintensity of energy production but also can havepotential adverse effects on biodiversity. In a fewcases, emissions of carbon dioxide and methanecaused by dams and reservoirs may be a limitingfactor on the use of hydropower to mitigate climatechange. Large-scale hydropower development canalso have other high environmental and social costssuch as loss of biodiversity and land, disruption ofmigratory pathways and displacement of localcommunities. The ecosystem impacts of specifichydropower projects vary widely and may be min-imized depending on factors including type andcondition of pre-dam ecosystems, type and opera-tion of the dam (e.g., water-flow management),and the depth, area, and length of the reservoir.Run of the river hydropower and small dams havegenerally less impact on biodiversity than largedams, but the cumulative effects of many smallunits should be taken into account.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 14

8

Adaptation is necessary not only for the projectedchanges in climate but also because climatechange is already affecting many ecosystems.Adaptation activities can have negative or positiveimpacts on biodiversity, but positive effects maygenerally be achieved through: maintaining andrestoring native ecosystems; protecting andenhancing ecosystem services; actively preventingand controlling invasive alien species; managinghabitats for rare, threatened, and endangeredspecies; developing agroforestry systems at transi-tion zones; paying attention to traditional knowl-edge; and monitoring results and changing man-agement regimes accordingly.. Adaptation activitiescan threaten biodiversity either directly—throughthe destruction of habitats, e.g., building sea walls,thus affecting coastal ecosystems, or indirectly—through the introduction of new species orchanged management practices, e.g., maricultureor aquaculture.

Reduction of other pressures on biodiversity aris-ing from habitat conversion, over-harvesting,pollution, and alien species invasions, constituteimportant climate change adaptation measures.Since mitigation of climate change itself is a long-term endeavour, reduction of other pressures maybe among the most practical options. For example,increasing the health of coral reefs, by reducing thepressures from coastal pollution and practices suchas fishing with explosives and poisons, may allowthem to be more resilient to increased water tem-perature and reduce bleaching. A major adaptationmeasure is to counter habitat fragmentationthrough the establishment of biological corridorsbetween protected areas, particularly in forests.More generally, the establishment of a mosaic ofinterconnected terrestrial, freshwater and marinemultiple-use reserve protected areas designed totake into account projected changes in climate, canbe beneficial to biodiversity.

Conservation of biodiversity and maintenance ofecosystem structure and function are importantclimate change adaptation strategies because

genetically-diverse populations and species-richecosystems have a greater potential to adapt toclimate change. While some natural pest-control,pollination, soil-stabilization, flood-control, water-purification and seed-dispersal services can bereplaced when damaged or destroyed by climatechange, technical alternatives may be costly andtherefore not feasible to apply in many situations.Therefore, conserving biodiversity (e.g., geneticdiversity of food crops, trees, and livestock races)means that options are kept open to adapt humansocieties better to climate change. Conservation ofecotones is also an important adaptation measure.Ecotones serve as repositories of genetic diversitythat may be drawn upon to rehabilitate adjacentecoclimatic regions. As an insurance measure suchapproaches can be completed by ex situ conserva-tion. This might include conventional collectionand storage in gene banks as well as dynamic man-agement of populations allowing continued adap-tation through evolution to changing conditions.Promotion of on-farm conservation of crop diver-sity may serve a similar function.

The protection, restoration or establishment ofbiologically diverse ecosystems that provideimportant goods and services may constituteimportant adaptation measures to supplementexisting goods and services, in anticipation ofincreased pressures or demand, or to compensatefor likely losses.

For example:The protection or restoration of mangroves canoffer increased protection of coastal areas to sealevel rise and extreme weather events;

The rehabilitation of upland forests and of wet-lands can help regulate flow in watersheds, therebymoderating floods from heavy rain and ameliorat-ing water quality;

Conservation of natural habitats such as primaryforests, with high ecosystem resilience, maydecrease losses of biodiversity from climate change


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 15


9

and compensate for losses in other, less resilient,areas.

D. Approaches for supporting planning,decision making and public discussions

There is a clear opportunity to implement mutu-ally beneficial activities (policies and projects)that take advantage of the synergies between theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change and its Kyoto Protocol, theConvention on Biological Diversity and broadernational development objectives. These opportu-nities are rarely being realized due to a lack ofnational coordination among sectoral agencies todesign policy measures that exploit potential syner-gies between national economic developmentobjectives and environmentally focused projectsand policies. In addition, there is a lack of coordi-nation among the multilateral environmentalagreements, specifically among the mitigation andadaptation activities undertaken by Parties to theUNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, and activities toconserve and sustainably manage ecosystemsundertaken by Parties to the Convention onBiological Diversity.

Experience shows that transparent and participa-tory decision-making processes involving all rele-vant stakeholders, integrated into project or poli-cy design from the beginning, can enhance theprobability of long-term success. Decisions arevalue-laden and combine political and technocrat-ic elements. Ideally, they should combine problemidentification and analysis, policy-option identifi-cation, policy choice, policy implementation, andmonitoring and evaluation in an iterative fashion.Decision-making processes and institutions oper-ate at a range of spatial scales from the village com-munity to the global level.

A range of tools and processes are available toassess the economic, environmental and socialimplications of different climate-change-mitiga-tion and adaptation activities (projects and poli-

cies) within the broader context of sustainabledevelopment. Environmental impact assessments(EIAs) and strategic environmental assessments(SEAs) are processes that can incorporate a rangeof tools and methods including decision analyticalframeworks, valuation techniques, and criteria andindicators. Simple checklists, including indicativepositive and negative lists of activities, can helpguide consideration of when use of EIA or SEA iswarranted.

Environmental impact assessments and strategicenvironmental assessments can be integratedinto the design of climate change mitigation andadaptation projects and policies to assist plan-ners, decision-makers and all stakeholders toidentify and mitigate potentially harmful envi-ronmental and social impacts and enhance thelikelihood of positive benefits such as carbonstorage, biodiversity conservation and improvedlivelihoods. EIAs and SEAs can be used to assessthe environmental and social implications of dif-ferent energy and land-use, land-use change andforestry (LULUCF) projects and policies undertak-en by Parties to the UNFCCC and the Conventionon Biological Diversity and to choose among them.While the Convention on Biological Diversityexplicitly encourages the use of EIA and SEA toolsas a means to achieve its objectives there is norespective reference to them in the UNFCCC or itsKyoto Protocol. The operational rules for theKyoto Protocol included in the Marrakesh Accordsonly stipulate that participants in the clean devel-opment mechanism (CDM) and in some casesjoint implementation (JI) projects have to carryout an EIA in accordance with the requirements ofthe host Party if, after a preliminary analysis, theyor host countries consider the environmentalimpacts of the project activities significant.

Decision-analytic frameworks are tools that canbe used to evaluate the economic, social and envi-ronmental impacts of climate change mitigationand adaptation activities and those of biodiversi-ty conservation activities. Decision-analytic

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 16

10

frameworks can be divided into four broad cate-gories, i.e., normative, descriptive, deliberative, andethically and culturally based. These include deci-sion analysis, cost-benefit analysis, cost-effective-ness analysis, the policy exercise approach and cul-tural prescriptive rules. The diverse characteristicsof possible climate change mitigation and adapta-tion activities and biodiversity conservation activi-ties imply the need for a diverse set of decision-analytic frameworks and tools so those most rele-vant to the decision-making can be selected andapplied, e.g., if cost-effectiveness is the most impor-tant decision criteria this would suggest conductinga cost effectiveness analysis. Use of decision-analyt-ic frameworks prior to implementing a project or apolicy, can help address a series of questions thatshould be part of the project or policy design.

Methods are available to determine changes inthe use and non-use values of ecosystem goodsand services from climate-change-mitigation andadaptation activities. The concept of total eco-nomic value is a useful framework for assessing theutilitarian value of both the use and non-use valuesof ecosystem goods and services now and in thefuture. The use values arise from direct use (e.g.,provisioning of food), indirect use (e.g., climateregulation) or option values (e.g., conservation ofgenetic diversity), whereas the non-use valuesinclude existence values. 6 Valuation techniques canbe used to assess the "economic" implications ofchanges in ecological goods and services resultingfrom climate change mitigation and adaptation, aswell as biodiversity conservation and sustainableuse, activities. In contrast, the non-utilitarian(intrinsic) value of ecosystems arising from a vari-ety of ethical, cultural, religious and philosophicalperspectives cannot be measured in monetaryterms. Hence, when a decision-maker assesses theimplications of the possible alteration of an ecosys-tem, it is important that they are aware of the util-itarian and non-utilitarian values of the ecosystem.Without a set of minimum common internation-

al environmental and social standards, climate-change-mitigation projects could flow to coun-tries with minimal or non-existent standards,adversely affecting biodiversity and human soci-eties. If agreed internationally, such standardscould be incorporated into national planningefforts. Furthermore, the Marrakesh Accordsaffirm that it is the host Party's prerogative to con-firm whether a CDM project assists in achievingsustainable development.

National, regional and possibly international sys-tems of criteria and indicators could be useful inmonitoring and evaluating the impact of climatechange and to assess the impacts of climatechange mitigation and adaptation activities onbiodiversity and other aspects of sustainabledevelopment. An important aspect of monitoringand evaluation is the choice of suitable criteria andindicators, which should be, whenever possible,meaningful at the site, national and possibly inter-national level, as well as consistent with the mainobjectives of the project or policy intervention.Criteria and indicators consistent with nationalsustainable development objectives are to somedegree available. For example, many internationalprocesses have developed or are currently develop-ing specific biodiversity and sustainable develop-ment criteria and indicators in management guide-lines for forestry that could be useful for afforesta-tion, reforestation and conservation (avoideddeforestation) projects and policies.

A critical evaluation of the current criteria andindicators developed under the Convention onBiological Diversity, and the many other nationaland international initiatives could assist inassessing their utility to evaluate the impact ofactivities undertaken by Parties to the UNFCCCand its Kyoto Protocol. Such an evaluation wouldallow the presentation of an array of eligible stan-dards and procedures for validation and certifica-tion that could enable national and international

6 Where individuals are willing to pay to for the conservation of biodiversity


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 17


11

initiatives to select a scheme that best serves theirproject circumstances.

Monitoring and evaluation processes that involvethe communities and institutions most affectedby climate change mitigation and adaptationactivities and recognize that different spatial andtemporal scales will be required to assess theimplications of these activities, are likely to be themost sustainable. Methods are available to moni-tor components of biodiversity at the local andregional scale, but few countries have an opera-tional system in place. Determining the impact ofclimate-change projects and policies on biodiversi-ty is, in some instances, likely to remain problemat-ical given the long lag-time between the interven-tion and the response of the system.

E. Lessons learned from case-studies:harmonization of climate-change-mitiga-

tion and adaptation activities with biodiver-sity considerations

The individual and collective experience fromseveral case-studies provides insights on keypractical challenges and opportunities forimproving the design of projects. There are somelessons learned for the harmonization of climate-change-mitigation and adaptation activities withbiodiversity considerations, based on analyses of 10case-studies being implemented at various scales(site, regional, national). Some of these case-studieswere pilot projects launched in anticipation of theKyoto Protocol; others preceded the Kyoto discus-sion.

Lesson 1: There is scope for afforestation, refor-estation, improved forest management and avoid-ed deforestation activities to be harmonized withbiodiversity conservation benefits. It has to benoted that improved forest management andavoided deforestation are not eligible under theCDM. Improved conservation of biodiversity canoccur through reforestation [case studies 1 and 10];afforestation [case studies 6 and 10], avoided defor-

estation [case studies 2 and 5] and improved forestmanagement [case study 5]. These projects includ-ed specific design features to optimize conservationbenefits, including the use of native species forplanting, reduced impact logging to ensure mini-mal disturbance; and establishment of biologicalcorridors. In addition, sustainable use of forestproducts and services was also secured throughvarious incentive measures, particularly in the casesof Uganda/Netherlands, Costa Rica and Sudan[case studies 1, 2 and 6]. Nevertheless, there isroom for improvement in existing projects to fur-ther explore synergies between climate mitigationactivities and biodiversity conservation; for exam-ple, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project[case study 8], originally conceived as a regionalstrategy for biodiversity conservation, and not toaddress climate change, clearly has significantpotential and scope for mitigation and adaptationoptions to be designed into the particular national-level implementation of projects.

Lesson 2: The linkages between conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity with communitylivelihood options provides a good basis for proj-ects supported under the Clean DevelopmentMechanism to advance sustainable development.In some cases, project "success" [case studies 2 and6] stemmed from combining key local develop-ment and livelihood concerns with those relating tocarbon sequestration and biodiversity conserva-tion, where-as in one case [case study 1] the restric-tions imposed on the livelihoods of the local com-munities almost led to project failure.

Lesson 3: The neglect and/or omission of social,environmental and economic considerations canlead to conflicts which could undermine the over-all success of carbon mitigation projects, andlong-term biodiversity conservation. For exam-ple, omission of social and environmental issues inthe Uganda-Norway/private investor project [casestudy 9] during planning and negotiation of agree-ments resulted in losses to key stakeholders; landconflicts which undermined the security of carbon

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 18

12

credits for the investor, livelihood loss for localcommunities, and unsustainable forest manage-ment for the Ugandan forest authorities. This wasalso initially the case in the Uganda-Netherlands/private investor project [case study 1],although later the project took a proactiveapproach to address these issues. Continued atten-tion to economic and environmental considera-tions in Costa Rica [case study 2] has proved to beuseful for balancing the carbon and biodiversityobjectives; after an initial period reforestation con-tracts were excluded because the higher financialrewards for these contracts over those for forestconservation were serving as a disincentive for con-servation.

Lesson 4: Countries and key stakeholders need tohave the necessary information, tools and capaci-ty to understand, negotiate, and reach agreementsunder the Kyoto Protocol to ensure that theresulting projects are balanced with respect toenvironment, social and development goals. Thetensions between key stakeholders and waveringcommitment to the agreement in the Uganda-Norway/private investor project [case study 9] canbe partly attributed to the asymmetry of informa-tion and understandings of their roles and respon-sibilities at the time of finalizing the deal. It is crit-ical that all stakeholders understand the benefitsand the costs of proposed interventions to eachpartner, including the opportunities and synergiesto be achieved with conservation. In this regard,Costa Rica’s experience [case study 2] has beenmore positive in part due to the country’s soundinstitutional and policy environment, and itscapacity to deal with key project issues and keystakeholders as equal partners.

Lesson 5: Some minimum environmental andsocial norms (or guiding frameworks) when pur-chasing carbon credits through CDM projectscould avoid perverse outcomes. Without suchminimum norms, e.g., between ‘privateinvestors/parent countries’, projects could still beable to claim carbon credits even when they have

detrimental environmental and/or social impacts,as indicated by the Uganda-Norway/privateinvestor project [case study 9].

Lesson 6: The application of appropriate analyti-cal tools and instruments can provide construc-tive frameworks for ex ante analysis to guide deci-sion making; provide adaptive managementoptions during implementation; and provide abasis for learning and replication through ex postevaluations. In most cases, only a sub-set of theavailable tools was used in designing the projects.However, several of the case-studies reviewed illus-trated the application of at least one of the variousanalytical tools and instruments, which in turninfluenced processes at key stages of theproject/programme. The application of cost-bene-fit analysis at a specific site in Madagascar [casestudy 4] provided the rationale for retaining theMasaola forest as a national park instead of con-verting it to a logging concession, but concludedthat conservation would only succeed in the longterm if the benefits outweigh costs at all scales. Theapplication of the strategic environmental assess-ment at a national level in Finland [case study 3]revealed that the scenarios initially chosen for theclimate change strategy had been too narrowlydefined, and the Parliament has since requestedmore scenarios and longer-term analyses be under-taken. Similarly a strategic modelling approach toinform the adaptation of nature conservation poli-cy and management practice to climate changeimpacts was undertaken in Britain and Ireland[case study 7]. The comprehensive approach takenby Costa Rica [case study 2] is also exemplary inthat it combined various tools (valuation, strategicsector-level analysis, and decision analytical frame-works) to unleash the power of the market to meetmultiple objectives of conservation, climate changemitigation, and hydrological services.

Lesson 7: Measuring the impact of CDM and jointimplementation projects on biodiversity requiresbaseline data, inventories and monitoring sys-tems. The Belize and Costa Rica projects [case


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 19


13

studies 2 and 5] are simultaneously monitoring andmeasuring carbon and certain aspects ofbiodiversity, whereas the Sudan project [case study6] discontinued the biodiversity inventory andmonitoring component due to resource constraints.

Lesson 8: The ecosystem approach provides a goodbasis to guide the formulation of climate changemitigation policies/projects and conservation ofbiodiversity. Most of the case-studies analysedhave not used the ecosystem approach as a guidingframework, but the overall analyses of the case-studies suggests that several projects benefited fromthe consideration of the intent of the various prin-ciples of the approach.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 20

Table of Contents

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................................... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... iv

LEAD AND CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS ........................................................................................ v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2. BIODIVERSITY AND LINKAGES TO CLIMATE CHANGEIntroduction ............................................................................................................................ 192.1 Biodiversity: definitions and importance .................................................................... 192.2 Past and current impacts on biodiversity...................................................................... 21

2.2.1Past environmental impacts .................................................................................. 212.2.2Current human impacts ........................................................................................ 23

2.3 Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning: links to climate change 262.4 Research needs and information gaps .......................................................................... 282.5 References ....................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 3. CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY: OBSERVED AND PROJECTED IMPACTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 303.1 Observed changes in the climate .................................................................................. 313.2 Projected changes in the climate ................................................................................... 323.3 Observed changes in terrestrial and marine ecosystems

associated with climate change ...................................................................................... 343.4 Projected impacts of changes in mean climate and extreme climatic events

on terrestrial (including rivers, lakes and wetlands) and marine ecosystems ........... 363.4.1 Projected impacts on individuals, populations, species, and ecosystems 373.4.2 Projected changes in biodiversity and changes in productivity ......................... 39

3.4.2.1 Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations on vegetation. ............ 393.4.2.2 Summary findings of projected changes in biodiversity

and changes in productivity ...................................................................... 413.5. Projected impacts on biodiversity of coastal and marine ecosystems ......................... 41

3.5.1 Projected impacts on ecosystems in coastal regions ............................................ 413.5.2 Projected impacts on marine ecosystems ............................................................. 42

3.6 Projected impacts on traditional and indigenous peoples ........................................... 433.7 Populations, species and ecosystems vulnerable to climate change ............................ 443.8 Impacts of changes in terrestrial and marine biodiversity

on regional and global climate ...................................................................................... 453.9 Research needs and information gaps .......................................................................... 463.10 References ....................................................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION OPTIONS:LINKS TO, AND IMPACTS ON, BIODIVERSITY

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 484.1 The Carbon Cycle ........................................................................................................... 484.2 The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol ......................................................................... 504.3 The Ecosystem Approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity ....................... 524.4 Mitigation options ......................................................................................................... 54

4.4.1 General concepts related to mitigation ................................................................ 544.4.2 Carbon sequestration potential of mitigation activities ..................................... 54

14


CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 21


15

4.4.3 Key concerns ........................................................................................................... 554.4.4 Monitoring of mitigation activities ...................................................................... 56

4.5 Afforestation, reforestation and deforestation .............................................................. 574.5.1 Afforestation, reforestation and deforestation in the Kyoto Protocol ................ 574.5.2 Biodiversity and afforestation and reforestation activities ................................. 574.5.3 Impact of afforestation and reforestation on biodiversity .................................. 584.5.4 Afforestation and reforestation of mires and peatlands as a special case........... 604.5.5 Agroforestry as a special case of afforestation and reforestation ....................... 61

4.6 Deforestation ................................................................................................................... 624.7 Revegetation .................................................................................................................... 634.8 Land management ........................................................................................................... 64

4.8.1 Forest management ................................................................................................ 644.8.2Management of cropland ....................................................................................... 664.8.3Grazing lands and grasslands ................................................................................ 68

4.9 Carbon sequestration in ocean systems, wetlands and geologic formations .......................................................................................... 69

4.10 Energy activities .............................................................................................................. 704.10.1 Use of biomass / Bioenergy ................................................................................. 704.10.2 Fuel wood as a special case of bioenergy ........................................................... 724.10.3 Hydropower and dams ........................................................................................ 734.10.4 Wind energy ......................................................................................................... 74

4.11 Options for adaptation to climate change ..................................................................... 754.11.1 Adaptation options to reduce the negative impacts

of climate change on biodiversity ..................................................................... 764.11.2 Consequences of adaptation activities on ecosystems and biodiversity .......... 784.11.3 The contribution of biodiversity to adaptation options ................................... 784.11.4 Adaptation options in various ecosystems ......................................................... 79

4.11.4.1 Marine and coastal ecosystems ................................................................. 794.11.4.2 Inland water ecosystems ............................................................................ 814.11.4.3 Forest ecosystems ....................................................................................... 814.11.4.4 Agricultural ecosystems and grasslands ................................................... 824.11.4.5 Mountain Ecosystems and Arctic ecosystems .......................................... 83

4.12 Research needs and information gaps ............................................................................ 834.13 References ......................................................................................................................... 84

CHAPTER 5. APPROACHES FOR SUPPORTING PLANNING, DECISION MAKING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 885.1 Institutional arrangements ............................................................................................. 895.2 Impact assessments ......................................................................................................... 90

5.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) ......................................................... 905.2.1.1 Experience with EIAs and their application to climate change

mitigation and adaptation projects ........................................................... 935.2.2 Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) .................................................... 94

5.2.2.1 Key elements of a SEA process .................................................................. 945.3 Environmental and social standards .............................................................................. 945.4 Decision processes and decision analytical frameworks and tools ............................... 945.5 Value and valuation techniques ...................................................................................... 985.6 Criteria and indicators for project design, baseline description,

monitoring and evaluation ............................................................................................. 100

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 22


16

5.7 Research needs and information gaps ............................................................................ 1085.8 References ......................................................................................................................... 110

CHAPTER 6. SELECTED CASE STUDIES: HARMONIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES, WITH BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1116.1 Overview of key issues and lessons learned from the case studies ..................... 111

6.1.1 Potential benefits for biodiversity conservation through the application of different flexibility mechanisms allowed for under the Kyoto Protocol ....................................................................................... 112

6.1.2 Use of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a tool to advance sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in developing countries .................................................................................... 112

6.1.3 Adequate attention to the social, environmental and economic aspects for effective and sustained benefits for climate change and biodiversity conservation ..................................................................... 113

6.1.4 Balanced partnerships through capacity building and transparency ....... 1136.1.5 Application of tools and instruments for informed decision

making and adaptive management ............................................................. 1146.1.6 Monitoring and verification processes for carbon and biodiversity

related management ..................................................................................... 1146.1.7 The Ecosystem Approach of the CBD as a holistic management

strategy .......................................................................................................... 1156.2 Research needs and information gaps .................................................................... 1156.3 Annex: Description of the case studies ................................................................... 121

6.3.1 Case study 1. Uganda and The Netherlands/Private investor:Mount Elgon National Park ......................................................................... 121

6.3.2 Case study 2. Costa Rica: Ecomarkets ........................................................ 1226.3.3 Case study 3. Finland: Environmental Assessment of the national

climate startegy ............................................................................................ 1236.3.4 Case study 4. Madagascar: Masaola National Park Integrated

Conservation and Development Program .................................................. 1256.3.5 Case study 5. Belize and the United States: Rio Bravo

Climate Action Project ................................................................................. 1266.3.6 Case study 6. Sudan: Community Based Rangeland Rehabilitation

for Carbon Sequestration ............................................................................ 1276.3.7 Case study 7. Britain and Ireland: Climate Change

and Nature Conservation ............................................................................. 1286.3.8 Case study 8. Central America and Mexico: Mesoamerican

Biological Corridor ...................................................................................... 1306.3.9 Case study 9. Uganda and Norway/Private investor:

Tree plantations for carbon credits ............................................................ 1316.3.10 Case study 10: Romania and Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF):

Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land Project .............................. 133

APPENDIX I. MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................. 135

APPENDIX II. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................................. 136

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 1:59 PM Page 23


17

Outi Berghäll, Kalemani J. Mulongoy

At its fifth meeting in 2000, the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) noted that there was a significant evidencethat climate change7 was a primary cause of the 1998extensive coral bleaching8 and made references to thepossible interactions between climate change and theconservation and sustainable use of biological diver-sity in forests9. In order to draw to the attention ofthe Parties to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) theneed for reducing and mitigating the impacts of cli-mate change on coral reefs and forest biological diver-sity, the Conference of the Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity requested its Subsidiary Bodyon Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice(SBSTTA) to review the impacts of climatic change onforest biological diversity10 and prepare scientificadvice for the integration of biodiversity considera-tions into the implementation of the UNFCCC and itsKyoto Protocol11.

The Conference of Parties to the CBD called forthis work to be carried out in collaboration with theappropriate bodies of the UNFCCC and theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),bearing in mind that the objectives of both conven-

tions are, to a large extent, mutually supportive: cli-mate change is one of the threats to biodiversity, andthe need for its rate to be reduced to allow ecosystemsto adjust to climate change is recognized in the objec-tive of the UNFCCC12. Strengthened collaborationbetween the two conventions has been called for bythe CBD Conference of the Parties at its third, fourthand fifth meetings. At the latter meeting, theConference of the Parties called for collaboration notonly concerning forest biodiversity but also incentivemeasures13 and the impact of climate change on coralbleaching and on dry and subhumid lands.

In response to the request of the Conference ofthe Parties to the CBD14, the Subsidiary Body onScientific, Technical and Technological Advice decidedto carry out a wider assessment of the interlinkagesbetween climate change and biodiversity and, as a firststep, it established15 in March 2001 an ad hoc technicalexpert group on biological diversity and climatechange with the following mandate:

(a) Analyse possible adverse effects on biologicaldiversity of measures that might be taken or are beingconsidered under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and its KyotoProtocol;

(b) Identify factors that influence biodiversity'scapacity to mitigate climate change and

1. INTRODUCTION

7 As defined in the reports of Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, climate change is described as the variation in either the mean stateof the climate or in its variability, persisting for an extended period, typically decades or longer, encompassing temperature increases ("globalwarming"), sea-level rise, changes in precipitation patterns, and increased frequencies of extreme events. Article 1 of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) describes "adverse effects of climate change" as changes in the physical environment orbiota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and man-aged ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

8 Decision V/3, paras. 3, 5 and annex9 Decision V/4, para. 11 and paras. 16-20.10 Decision V/4, para. 1111 Decision V/4, para. 1812 The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations "within a time-frame sufficient [inter alia] to allow

ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change" (art. 2). Thus, although the UNFCCC makes no specific reference to biological diversity, its objec-tive contributes to the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Further, among their Commitments under the UNFCCC (art. 4), Partiesshall "promote sustainable management, and promote and cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as appropriate, of sinks and reservoirsof all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial, coastal and marineecosystems" (art. 4.1(d)) and "cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change (…)" (art. 4.1(e)). Particular attention is givento, inter alia, "fragile ecosystems" (art. 4.8(g)). Additionally, the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol makes provision for a shareof the proceeds from certified project activities to be used to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effectsof climate change to meet the costs of adaptation (art. 12.8). The operational rules for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, included in theMarrakesh accords, recognize the requirement to contribute to the conservation of biological diversity.

13 Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, "incentive measures" refer to any "economically and socially sound measures that act as incen-tives for the conservation and sustainable use of components of biological diversity" (Article 11).

14 CBD COP Decision V/4, para. 1115 Paragraph 5 of SBSTTA recommendation VI/7

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 24

contribute to adaptation and the likely effects ofclimate change on that capacity;

(c) Identify options for future work on climatechange that also contribute to the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity.

In addition, the expert group was requested todevelop recommendations based upon a review ofpossible approaches and tools such as criteria andindicators, to facilitate application of scientific advicefor the integration of biodiversity considerations intothe implementation of measures that might be takenunder the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change and its Kyoto Protocol to mitigate oradapt to climate change.

For the purpose of ensuring synergy and avoid-ing unnecessary duplication, SBSTTA invited theUnited Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange, as well as the Convention on MigratorySpecies, the Convention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat(Ramsar), the United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification, the Scientific and Technical AdvisoryPanel of the Global Environment Facility, the UnitedNations Forum on Forests, the Millennium EcosystemAssessment and other relevant organizations to con-tribute to this work. Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) was also invited to contributeto this assessment process inter alia by preparing atechnical paper on climate change and biodiversity.The IPCC prepared the requested technical paper,which was approved in April 2002.

The ad hoc technical expert group comprisedexperts in the fields of biological diversity and climatechange from all the United Nations regions, includingscientists involved in the IPCC processes, and expertsfrom indigenous and local communities. The groupmet three times; in Helsinki, Finland, in January 2002;in Montreal, Canada, at the seat of the Secretariat ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity in September2002; and after a meeting of the lead authors organ-ized in Washington in January 2003, again in Helsinkiin May 2003. During these meetings and in the inter-sessional period, the expert group reviewed existingliterature including the IPCC Third AssessmentReview, the Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use

Change and Forestry (LULUCF), the IPCC TechnicalPaper on Climate Change and Biodiversity and otheravailable literature not covered by previous IPCCassessments. The experts compiled that informationin a draft report that was then submitted betweenFebruary and May 2003 for peer-review toGovernments using the channels of both theConvention on Biological Diversity and the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change,and to the wider scientific community. At its thirdmeeting, the expert group considered and took intoaccount the comments of the reviewers to finalise itsreport.

Referring to the description of biodiversity in theConvention on Biological Diversity, chapter 2 intro-duces the concepts needed to understand the inter-linkages between biodiversity and climate change,with a particular emphasis on ecosystem functioning.Building on the work of IPCC, chapter 3 summarisesobserved and projected changes in climate and theirobserved and projected impacts on biodiversity.Chapter 4 begins by presenting the key provisions ofthe UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol as well as theecosystem approach which provides the CBD frame-work for the subsequent analysis. The chapter there-after discusses climate change mitigation options,focusing on the Land Use, Land Use Change andForestry (LULUCF) activities because of their particu-lar relevance to biodiversity. The last section of thechapter considers adaptation options to reduce theimpact of climate change on biodiversity. Chapter 5introduces planning and analytical tools that can sup-port decision-making as well as monitoring and eval-uation of actions including methodologies that can beused for ex-ante impact assessments at various levels.Criteria and indicators to be used for monitoring andevaluation processes and decision analytical frame-works and tools are presented, as well as value and val-uation techniques. Chapter 6 assesses how some ofthe methodologies and tools have been applied inselected case studies. The report provides informationon biodiversity considerations in the ongoing discus-sions on afforestation and reforestation activities inthe context of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.


18

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 25


19

Main authors: Braulio Dias, Sandra Díaz,Matthew McGlone

Contributing authors: Andy Hector,David A. Wardle, Greg Ruark, Habiba Gitay,Heikki Toivonen, Ian Thompson,Kalemani J. Mulongoy, Manuel R. Guariguata,Peter Straka, Vaclav Burianek

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this chapter is to provide a con-ceptual and empirical base on the links betweenbiological diversity (from now on referred to asbiodiversity) and climate change. More specifical-ly, the chapter addresses the following questions:

(a) How is biodiversity defined?(b) How has biodiversity been affected bychanges in past climate and what are theimplications for both current and projectedclimate change, and climate variability?(c) What are the main contemporaryhuman impacts on biodiversity?(d) How could biodiversity affect ecosystemfunctioning and what are the implicationsfor climate-related management actions?This chapter also summarises the complexi-

ty of biodiversity at all scales and how this affectsour ability to forecast changes that may occur inany components of biodiversity. Biodiversity isnot only affected by climate and climate change,but also many of the past and present humanactivities. These interacting pressures will beaddressed in the chapter and put into the contextof changes in biodiversity over longer (i.e., geo-logical) time frames.

2.1 BIODIVERSITY: DEFINITIONS ANDIMPORTANCE

The Convention on Biological Diversitydefines biological diversity as the variabilityamong living organisms from all sourcesincluding, inter alia, terrestrial, marine andother aquatic ecosystems and the ecologicalcomplexes of which they are part; this includes

diversity within species, between species and ofecosystems. This report adopts this definition,but refers to particular aspects of biodiversity asappropriate. Biodiversity, which includes allplants, animals and microorganisms, can bemeasured and expressed in different units suchas genes, individuals, populations, species,ecosystems, communities and landscapes (Boyleand Boontawee 1995, Garay and Dias 2001,Gaston 1996, UNEP 1995). Functional diversity,which describes the ecological functions ofspecies or groups of species in an ecosystem(e.g., relative abundance of shrub, tree, and grassspecies; annual species vs. perennial species),provides an additional way of measuring biodi-versity. Differing levels of functional diversitymay impact ecosystem functioning; using func-tional diversity as biodiversity descriptor pro-vides an alternative way of understanding theeffects of disturbances, including climatechange, on the provision of ecosystem goods andservices (Chapin et al. 1996, Hawksworth 1991,Mooney et al. 1996, Schulze and Mooney 1993,UNEP 1995; but see Schwartz et al. 2000).

Many factors determine the biodiversitypresent in a given area at a given time. The deter-minants of biodiversity include: a) the mean cli-mate and its variability; b) the availability ofresources and overall productivity of the site (meas-ured in terms of the primary productivity and soilcharacteristics), including availability of adequatesubstrate, energy, water and nutrients; c) the distur-bance regime and occurrence of perturbations ofcosmic, tectonic, climatic, biological or anthro-pogenic origin; d) the original stock of biodiversityand dispersal opportunities or barriers; e) the levelof spatial heterogeneity; f) the intensity and inter-dependency of biotic interactions such as competi-tion, predation, mutualism and symbiosis and; g)the intensity and kind of sexual reproduction andgenetic recombination (Huston 1994, Kunin andGaston 1997, Ricklefs and Schluter 1993,Rosenzweig 1995, UNEP 1995). Biodiversity istherefore not a static concept, as the dynamics ofevolutionary and ecological processes induces a

2. BIODIVERSITY AND LINKAGES TO CLIMATE CHANGE

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 26


20

background rate of change. Human induced cli-mate change caused by increased greenhouse gasesemissions is a new perturbation, introduced in thelast century, that will impact biodiversity eitherdirectly or in synergy with the above determinants.

Ecosystems provide many goods and servicesessential for human survival and well being.Ecosystem services can be classified along function-al lines, using categories of supporting, regulating,provisioning, and cultural services, as adopted bythe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Box 2.1).

Box 2.1. Ecosystem services

The most crucial ecosystem services providedthrough biodiversity are:

Supporting Services (services that maintain the condi-tions for life on earth):Soil formation and retention; nutrient cycling; pri-mary production; pollination and seed dispersal;production of oxygen; provision of habitat;

Regulating Services (benefits obtained from regula-tion of ecosystem processes):Air quality maintenance; climate regulation; waterregulation; flood control; erosion control; waterpurification; waste treatment; detoxification; humandisease control; biological control of agriculture andlivestock pest and disease; storm protection;

Provisioning Services (products obtained from ecosys-tems):Food; wood fuel; fiber; biochemicals; natural medi-cines; pharmaceuticals; genetic resources; ornamen-tal resources; fresh water; minerals, sand and othernon-living resources;

Cultural Services (non-material benefits obtainedfrom ecosystems):Cultural diversity and identity; spiritual and religiousvalues; knowledge systems; educational values; inspi-ration; aesthetic values; social relations; sense ofplace; cultural heritage; recreation and ecotourism;communal; symbolic.

Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003 Report

"People and Ecosystems: A Framework for Assessment"

The provision of goods and services byecosystems is underpinned by various aspectsof biodiversity, although the relationship is a

complex one. "Biodiversity" is a composite, mul-tidimensional term and there is no simple rela-tionship between biodiversity and ecosystemservices. Ecosystem functioning may be sensitiveto biodiversity at some levels and scales whilebeing insensitive at other levels and scales. Therelationship between species diversity per se andparticular aspects of ecosystem productivity isdebated. Most experiments show a positive rela-tionship, but the interpretation of these experi-ments and their applicability to natural ecosys-tems is questioned (Loreau et al. 2001). Besidesspecies diversity, genetic diversity within popula-tions is important to allow continued adaptationto changing conditions through evolution, andultimately, for the continued provision ofecosystem goods and services. Likewise, diversi-ty among and between habitats, and at the land-scape level, is also important in multiple ways forallowing adaptive processes to occur.

Goods and services provided by biodiver-sity have significant economic value, even ifsome of these goods and most of the servicesare not traded by the market. The value of bio-diversity-dependent goods and services is diffi-cult to quantify and may depend on the interestsof stakeholder groups. Ecosystem services maybe worth trillions of dollars annually (Costanzaet al.1997), but most of these services are nottraded in markets and carry no price tags to alertsociety to changes in their supply, or even theirloss. The sustained of biodiversity-derivedgoods is a service provided to society at low costby non-intensively managed ecosystems. Anestimated 40 percent of the global economy isdirectly based on biological products andprocesses, and the goods provided by biodiversi-ty represent an important part of many nationaleconomies. Ecosystems also provide essentialservices for many local and indigenous commu-nities. For example, some 20 000 species are usedin traditional medicine, which forms the basis ofprimary health care for about 80 per cent of the3 billion people living in developing countries.Recent valuations by Balmford et al. (2002) have

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 27


21

demonstrated the value of ecosystem services.Many ecosystem services are largely unrecog-nized in their global importance or in the pivotalrole that they play in meeting needs in particularregions. For example, biodiversity contributes tothe absorption by terrestrial and ocean ecosys-tems of nearly 60 percent of the carbon that isnow emitted to the atmosphere from humanactivities, thereby slowing the rate of global cli-mate change.

2.2 PAST AND CURRENT IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY

This section reviews how biodiversity has beenaffected by changes in past global climate.Observed and projected impacts of current andfuture climate change effects on biodiversity arediscussed in Chapter 3. Nevertheless, by examin-ing past trends here, the reader may be assisted inunderstanding likely future effects global climatechange on biodiversity. It is important to note thatpast climate-driven changes in biodiversity werevirtually uninfluenced by human activities. ThePleistocene record (last 1.8 million years) is mostrelevant to put into perspective future concerns fortwo main reasons: (1) the species that flourishedduring the Pleistocene are either identical or close-ly related to those of the present; and (2) there is awealth of independent climate variation data forthis period.

2.2.1 Past environmental impacts

While most discussion in this section refer totemperature changes as an indicator of past cli-mate events, precipitation, changes in sea level,and extreme climate events also influenced thePleistocene period. The Pleistocene was charac-terized by long (usually 100 000 year long) glacialperiods with cool fluctuating climates interruptedby relatively brief (10 000 to 20 000 years) inter-glacial periods during which climates approximat-ed those of the present (Lowe and Walker 1997).These glacial-interglacial cycles are understood to

be ultimately caused by cyclical changes in the sea-sonal distribution of solar radiation (due tochanges in the Earth’s orbit), amplified by snow,ice, vegetation and naturally produced greenhousegas feedbacks. Climate variation has not been uni-form across the globe: high latitudes and the cen-ters of continents tended to have the largestchanges. The coolest glacial intervals had loweredglobal temperatures by around 5oC, while inter-glacials at their peak were as much as 3oC warmerthan now (Kukla et al. 2002). Major alterations ofprecipitation occurred with most (but not all)areas being drier during glacials. Transitionsbetween the coolest glacial intervals and inter-glacials tended to be rapid (Stocker 2000).

Global past climate change resulted inmarked reorganizations of biological communi-ties, landscapes, and biomes, and major shifts inspecies geographical ranges. During Pleistoceneglacials, biomes, such as tundra, desert, steppe,grasslands, open boreal forest-parkland andsavannas, expanded while closed temperate andmoist tropical forest retreated towards the equatorand became fragmented (Kohfeld and Harrison2000). Many moist tropical forests in southeastAsia and the Amazon basin persisted intactthrough glacial-interglacial transitions, althoughdry, seasonal savannas were greatly expanded(Flenley 1979, Colinvaux et al. 2000). The negativeeffects on vegetation of low levels (ca. 180 ppm;parts per million) of atmospheric CO2 on vegeta-tion cover may have promoted these widespreadbiome changes (Levis et al. 1999). Rapid globalexpansion of woody vegetation and closed forestoccurred during the glacial-interglacial transi-tions, and during interglacial peaks moist foresttypes reached their maximum abundance.Expansion and contraction of the northern icesheets, and alternations of cooler and more aridglacial climates with warmer, wetter interglacialsforced major changes in species geographic distri-butions, especially at high northern latitudes. Alsothe sea level and sea surface temperature have fluc-tuated greatly according to the glacial-interglacialcycles and caused rearrangements in the marine

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 28


22

biota. However, over most of the globe, especiallyin the tropics and subtropics, southern latitudesand mountainous and desert regions, habitatreduction was the most common response(Colinvaux et al. 2000, Markgraf et al. 1995,Thompson et al. 1993).

After examination of past biological changesdue to climate change, it is clear that presentplant and animal communities do not resembleancient ones. Repeated assembling and disaggre-gation of plant and animal communities and bio-mes has occurred in the past at all spatial and tem-poral scales (Andriessen et al. 1993, Marchant et al.2002). Past biotic records indicate many alter-ations in community structure, even during peri-ods of relatively stable climates. Non-analoguecommunities (past communities in which thedominant species do not presently occur together,or whose relative abundance is inconsistent withany known for present day communities) haveformed frequently, most often during glacial peri-ods, as species responded individualistically toenvironmental change. For example, during thelate Pleistocene in North America, many mam-mals with currently non-overlapping ranges werein close proximity, while present day ranges showlittle resemblance to past ones (FAUNMAPWorking Group 1996). An extensive northeasternUnited States pollen data network has demon-strated widespread, non-analogue plant commu-nities, especially during the late Pleistocene (Webbet al. 1993). Similar changes have been document-ed in many tropical regions (Colinvaux et al.2000).

Repeated movements of species due to cli-matic fluctuations have affected their geneticstructures. Genetic studies have demonstratedhow diverse the distributional pathways and ori-gins of the genomes of current taxa are (Petit et al.2002). In some cases these genetic studies haveconfirmed the inference--based on fossil records--that populations of some species have survivedmultiple glaciations in refugia which are thus cen-tres of genetic diversity, while repeated expansionand contraction of populations in response to cli-

mate outside of these refugia have led to stochasticchange of genetic diversity (Hewitt 1999). Glacialrefugia and repeated expansions and contractionsboth north-south and east-west in relation to cli-mate change have created complexly structuredpatterns of genetic diversity across the entire con-tinent of Europe (Hewitt 1999).

During periods of rapid climate warmingduring the Pleistocene, many tree and shrubspecies excluded by ice or cold, and/or dry cli-mates, migrated to more favourable site. Physicalbarriers seemed to have only a limited effect, insome regions, on migration (Davis 1989, Huntleyand Birks, 1983, Webb et al. 1993, Pitelka et al.1997). Whether tree species will presently be ableto migrate the way the did in the past throughpresently fragmented landscapes is debatable (par-ticularly when the species has a low abundance ofindividuals).

Species extinctions have occurred especially atthe start of major climatic change episodes.Extinctions may be more likely to occur duringperiods of rapidly changing climates and vegeta-tion cover (Webb and Barnosky 1989, Alroy 2001).Long-lived alterations in climate, either to awarmer or cooler state, have invariably resulted inadjustments in species numbers and types(Crowley and North 1988). The last great globalreadjustment of species numbers occurred duringthe initiation of the Pleistocene cooling; e.g., amajor pulse of extinctions of marine organismsoccurred in many ocean basins 1-2 million yearsago (Jackson and Johnson 2000), and both north-ern and southern temperate floras suffered diver-sity loss (Lee et al. 2001, Huntley 1993, van derHammen and Hooghiemstra 2000). Plantextinctions during the Pleistocene appear tohave been low. To take trees as an example, onlyone species is documented to have gone extinctduring the last glacial-interglacial transition inNorth America (Jackson and Weng 1999) despitemassive readjustments of forest ecosystems overthat period.

Widespread extinctions of large verte-brates over the last 50 000 years have often

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 29


23

occurred during periods of major climate andhabitat alteration, but human hunting orintroduced predators have also always been afactor. Widespread extinctions of large verte-brates have occurred throughout the globe dur-ing the last 50 000 years. In some areas, in par-ticular on islands, humans and human-intro-duced predators have clearly been responsible(Steadman 1995, Millien-Parra and Jaeger 1999).In continental regions disruption of habitatthrough rapid changes at the end of the last gla-cial period have been often invoked as the pri-mary agent, but even here, recent evidence at thevery least implicates human hunting as a con-tributory agent (Cardillo and Lister 2002).

Implications for the present

The present global biota is adapted to changesin climate within the Pleistocene ranges ofatmospheric concentrations of CO2 tempera-ture, and precipitation. Changes in climate perse are not necessarily damaging to biodiversity asmost biotic communities have never been stablefor any length of time in the past. Species haveconstantly adjusted their distributions andabundance in response to a number of factors,including atmospheric concentrations of CO2,temperature, and precipitation. The presentglobal biota therefore appears well adapted tofluctuating Pleistocene levels of atmosphericCO2, temperature, and precipitation, and hascoped in the past through species plasticity,range movements or ability to survive in smallpatches of favourable habitat (refugia). In theabsence of other human disturbances (such asland use and land cover change, habitat frag-mentation), even rapid warming over the nextcentury, within the Pleistocene range, would beunlikely to cause major species extinctions.

Projected rate and magnitude of changesin climate during the 21st century are unprece-dented compared to those in the last 1.8 mil-lion years and the ability of species to adjustgiven present human-dominated landscapes is

questionable. While shifts in the average tem-peratures, for a given locality, in the range of 1-3oC above those of the pre-industrial presenthave been experienced from time to time duringPleistocene inter-glacials, increases beyond thatrange will create climates not encountered formillions of years. During the Pleistocene, atmos-pheric CO2 levels have not reached those of thepresent day, let alone those of the near future.The rate of warming induced by greenhouse gasemission seems historically unprecedented(chapter 3), and there must be questions as tothe ability of species to adjust to existing human-dominated landscapes, as many species exist infragmented, weed and pest infested localities,confined to small areas within their previousranges, reduced to small populations withreduced genetic diversity, and therefore con-strained to any adjustment to climate changethrough migration. There is therefore no reli-able model in the recent past of what to expectwith sustained greenhouse driven global climatechange. Warming beyond the Pleistocene tem-perature range can be expected to lead to largebiotic turnover and extinctions, besides theexpected substitution of present biotic commu-nities by non-analogue communities. Species atthe northern or southern limit of their distribu-tion might be affected differently by climatechange, and some could become extinct whileothers could become pests.

2.2.2 Current human impacts

The Earth is subjected to many human-inducedand natural pressures that have significantlyaltered, degraded, displaced and fragmented ter-restrial ecosystems, often leaving biologicallyimpoverished landscapes. The pressures includethose from increased demand for resources;selective exploitation or destruction of species;land-use and land-cover change; the acceleratedrate of anthropogenic nitrogen deposition; soil,water, and air pollution; introduction of non-native species; diversion of water to intensively

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 30

managed ecosystems and urban systems; frag-mentation; and urbanization and industrializa-tion (see Box 2.2). Among the most serious ofland transformations is that of primary forestinto degraded forest and outright deforestedlands, because forests maintain the majority ofterrestrial species. Where partial forest coverremains, fragmentation effects result in the lossof many species that would be associated withmore continuous habitat (Bierregaard et al.1992, Andren 1994). In drylands, more than50% of the land has been converted to croplandin the past 90 years (Houghton 1994). As aresult, a high proportion of grassland species areendangered and many are extinct. Worldwide,about 70% of the agriculturally-used drylandshave been degraded, including through desertifi-cation (UNEP 1995) and some 40 percent ofagricultural land has been strongly or verystrongly degraded in the past 50 years by ero-sion, salinization, compaction, nutrient deple-tion, biological degradation, or chemical pollu-tion. Even more significantly, we are increasing-ly undermining the productive capability ofecosystems to provide the services that we desire.Climate change constitutes an additional pres-sure on ecosystems and the goods and servicesthey provide (IPCC 2002, UNEP 1995, Vitouseket al. 1997, Sala et al. 2000).

Current rates of species extinction, relatedto human activities, far exceed normal back-ground rates and would tend to increase as cli-mate change may add further stress on endan-gered species. The main causes of speciesextinctions as a result of human activities areintroduction and competition from invasiveexotic species, habitat destruction and conver-sion, over-exploitation, agricultural and urbanexpansion, over-grazing, and burning. Currentrates of species extinction, related to humanactivities, far exceed normal background rates(Pimm et al. 1995, Lawton and May 1995).Current estimates suggest that 400-500 verte-brates, about 400 invertebrates, and approxi-mately 650 plants have become extinct in the

past 400 years (UNEP 1995). Currently, 12% ofbirds, 24% of mammals, 30% of fish, and 8% ofplants are already threatened with extinction(UNEP 1995, SCBD 2001). Generally, rates ofspecies extinction have been greatest on islandsand lakes, largely owing to their biologicaluniqueness and endemic character. Althoughspecies have a certain level of resistance tochange, and may continue to persist in isolatedpopulations, many species have a high probabil-ity of eventually becoming extinct.

Box 2.2. Main drivers of biodiversity change

Major indirect drivers (underlying causes):

Demographic (such as population size, age andgender structure, and spatial distribution);Economic (such as national and per capitaincome, macroeconomic policies, internationaltrade, and capital flows);Socio-political (such as democratisation, the roleof women, of civil society, and of the private sec-tor, and international dispute mechanisms);Scientific and technological (such as rates ofinvestments in research and development and therates of adoption of new technologies, includinginformation technologies); andCultural and religious (non-utilitarian values).

Major direct drivers (proximate causes or pres-sures):Changes in local land use and land cover;Species introductions or removals;Technology adaptation and use;External inputs (e.g., fertilizer use, pest control,irrigation);Harvesting;Natural physical and biological drivers (e.g., volcanoes, landslides, floods, hurricanes);Air and water pollution; andClimate and climate change.

Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003 Report

"People and Ecosystems: A Framework for Assessment"

Human impacts have significantly altered,degraded, and displaced aquatic ecosystemsleaving a mosaic of biologically impoverishedwaterbodies. There is no major commercialfishery in the world that has been managed sus-tainably and most world fisheries are now


24

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 31


25

declining due to overfishing (FAO 1994, UNEP1995). Other than through direct exploitation,humans have affected ocean and freshwater sys-tems through agricultural runoff and sedimen-tation that has resulted in major impacts oncoastal and shoreline ecosystems. Other impactsinclude pollution from waste disposal includingradioactive residues, global climate change, andhabitat (sea-floor) alteration. Pollution, warmertemperatures and human impacts seem to becausing extensive loss of coral reef ecosystemsthat in turn eliminates habitat for numerousother aquatic organisms (UNEP 1995, SCBD2001). Damage to many freshwater systems hasoccurred as a result of pollution, acidification,invasion by exotic species, over-exploitation, andaltered water flows from damming.Groundwater systems are also affected throughthe accumulation of nitrogen from fertilizersand unsustainable use, especially in arid areas.Humans now withdraw about 20 percent of theworld’s rivers’ base flow and during the past cen-tury the rate of increase in withdrawals was morethan twice the rate of population growth.

Human activities have affected the concen-tration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.During the period 1750 to 2000, the atmospher-

ic concentration of CO2 increased by 31±4%,primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels,land use, and land-use change, most of it since1900. Fossil-fuel burning released on average 5.4Gt C yr-1 during the 1980s, increasing to 6.3 GtC yr-1 during the 1990s. About three-quarters ofthe increase in atmospheric CO2 during the1990s were caused by fossil-fuel burning, withland-use change, including deforestation,responsible for the rest (Table 2.1). The atmos-pheric concentration of CH4 increased by151±25% from 1750 to 2000, primarily due toemissions from fossil-fuel use, livestock, riceagriculture, and landfills. Increases in the con-centrations of tropospheric ozone, the thirdmost important greenhouse gas, are directlyattributable to fossil-fuel combustion as well asother industrial and agricultural emissions. CO2

enrichment in the atmosphere has been shownto exert significant direct effects on biodiversity(the so called CO2 fertilization effect), impactinggrowth rate, foliage quality and species abun-dance (Malhi and Grace 2000, Körner 2000,Niklaus et al. 2001, Shaw et al. 2002).

Human activities have also affected hydro-logical and biogeochemical cycles. Dams,impoundments, deforestation, and excessive

Concentration indicators

Atmospheric concentration of CO2

Terrestrial biospheric CO2 exchange

Atmospheric concentration of CH4

Atmospheric concentration of N2O

Tropospheric concentration of O3

Stratospheric concentration of O3

Atmospheric concentrations ofHFCs, PFCs, and SF6

Concentration indicators

280 ppm (parts per million) for the period 1000–1750 to 368 ppm in year2000 (31±4% increase).

Cumulative source of about 30 Gt C between the years 1800 and 2000; butduring the 1990s, a net sink of about 14±7 Gt C.

700 ppb (parts per billion) for the period 1000–1750 to 1,750 ppb in year2000 (151±25% increase).

270 ppb for the period 1000–1750 to 316 ppb in year 2000 (17±5% increase).

Increased by 35±15% from the years 1750 to 2000, varies with region.

Decreased over the years 1970 to 2000, varies with altitude and latitude.

Increased globally over the last 50 years.

Table 2.1: Changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases due tohuman activities (From IPCC 2001 – Synthesis Report and IPCC 2002)

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 32


26

water use have altered the hydrological cycle.The nitrogen cycle has also been altered byincreasing human fixing of N, up by a factor of 8since 1950 and expected to rise by an additional40% before 2030 (Galloway et al. 1994). All ofthese changes are having an effect on global,regional, and local climates, on the air quality,and on rainwater quality and quantity (UNEP1995, Vitousek et al. 1997). Acidic precipitationcontinues to affect ecosystems especially inEurope, China, and eastern North America.

Climate change is likely to interact withland use change and other human impacts as amajor factor impacting biodiversity. Themajor historical change in land use has been theglobal increase in lands dedicated to agricultureand grazing lands (Houghton 1994, WWF 2002).The majority of land use change in the past hasbeen located in Europe, Asia and North America,where native forests have been deforested in alarge scale. In the past few decades a high rate ofdeforestation and conversion of lands to eitheragriculture and/or degraded lands with low pro-ductivity has occurred in the tropics (Houghton1994). Sala et al. (2000) developed scenarios ofbiodiversity change for the year 2100 based onchanging scenarios of atmospheric carbon diox-ide, climate, vegetation, land use, and the knownsensitivity of biodiversity to these changes. Theyproposed that for terrestrial ecosystems, land-use change followed by climate change wouldprobably have the largest effect on biodiversitywhile for freshwater ecosystems, biotic exchange(i.e., both unintentional and intentional intro-duction of organisms) will have the largesteffect. The authors stressed that the level ofchange in biodiversity will depend on interac-tions among the different drivers of biodiversitychange and that in turn, discerning these inter-actions represent one of the largest uncertaintiesfor projecting the future of biodiversity (see alsochapter 3).

2.3 BIODIVERSITY EFFECTS ONECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING:LINKS TO CLIMATE CHANGE

For a given ecosystem, high-diverse and/orfunctionally diverse ecosystems may be betterable to adapt to climate change and climatevariability than functionally impoverishedecosystems. As biodiversity is degraded or lost,communities and human society itself becomemore vulnerable because options for change maybe diminished. Biodiversity is responsive to arange of external factors, but of interest here isthat levels of biodiversity influence ecosystemfunctioning (Chapin et al. 2000, Purvis andHector 2000). Experimental studies have indi-cated that intact, non-intensively managedecosystems, as well as high-diversity agriculturaland forestry systems, may cope better with long-term climatic variability than biologicallyimpoverished and man-made low-diversityecosystems. It must be stressed, however, thatthe nature and magnitude of the effect of biodi-versity on many ecosystem processes is stillpoorly known. Although there is consensus thatat least some minimum number of species isessential for ecosystem functioning and that alarger number of species is likewise essential formaintaining the stability of ecosystem processesin changing environments (Loreau et al. 2001),there is also growing evidence that the effects ofbiodiversity on ecosystem processes are heavilydependent on given levels of functional diversityrather than to total number of species (Chapin etal. 2000). This is because both the number andtype of functional types present in a communitylargely affects ecosystem processes (reviewed inDíaz and Cabido 2001). In addition, the largerthe number of functionally similar species with-in the ecosystem (e.g., several species of trees),the greater the probability that at least some ofthese species will survive changes in the environ-ment and maintain its vital properties (Chapinet al. 1996). Nevertheless, ecosystem functioningmay sometimes be determined by a few domi-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 33


27

nant species. So-called keystone species areexamples of species whose ecosystem role is dis-proportionately high in relation to their relativebiomass. Examples are some "ecosystem engi-neer" species (Jones et al. 1994), and plantspecies that form mutualisms with nitrogen fix-ing bacteria (Vitousek and Walker 1989).

Two essential elements of ecosystem func-tioning: resistance and resilience, are stronglyinfluenced by key attributes of its dominantspecies. However, both elements cannot be con-currently maximized (Leps et al. 1982).Resistance is the ability of a system to avoidchange, or its capacity to stay in the same state inthe face of perturbation. Resilience is the rate atwhich a system returns to its former state afterbeing displaced by perturbation (Leps et al.1982). The ability of ecosystems to persistdepends on their resilience, resistance to change,their capacity to ‘migrate’ due to changing envi-ronmental conditions (see chapter 3), and on theseverity of the environmental variation (Pimm1991). Functional diversity may also play a role;e.g., the dominance of short lived, fast growingplants (e.g., annual grasses) leads to highresilience and low resistance, whereas the domi-nance of long lived (e.g., trees) slow growing,stress-tolerant plants favors resistance. This canhave important consequences for long-term car-bon storage in ecosystems. Thus species attrib-utes and types of species (e.g., trees, shrubs,grasses) may have important implications in cli-mate change mitigation projects as it may deter-mine the longevity, rate and direction of desiredecosystem processes (e.g., rate of atmosphericcarbon uptake).

The degree of genetic variability withinspecies can be important for maintainingecosystem performance and for allowing con-tinued adaptation to changing conditions.Therefore, the possibility exists that the loss ofwithin-species genetic variation could also leadto instability in the face of a changing environ-ment (Joshi et al. 2001). Grime et al. (2000)reported that in herbaceous communities, those

composed of genetically uniform populationsappear to lose more species over time, than thosewith more genetically heterogeneous popula-tions. Evidence of this also comes from the fieldof agriculture, in particular subsistence agricul-ture practiced by traditional peoples. Geneticerosion often occurs during the process of selec-tion to produce high-yielding crop varieties(Pretty 1995, Altieri 1995, Shiva 2000). Cropswith high genetic diversity tend to be moreresistant to pests (Zhu et al. 2000).

Mixed cropping systems can producehigher combined yields than those based onmonocultures, especially if there are strongfunctional and morphological differencesbetween crop species (Trenbath 1974,Vandermeer 1989). The ground cover of mix-tures can be higher than that of monocultures,reducing water runoff (Pretty 1995). However, itis debatable whether a mixture necessarilyresults in better yields than the monoculturealternatives, except for legume + non-legumemixtures (Vandermeer 1989), and many produc-tion systems based on monoculture appear to bestable. Tropical rice systems for example, appearto be stable even though they are often genetical-ly uniform monocultures. Stability may be dueto high levels of diversity in crop-associated bio-diversity including arthropods that providehomeostasis in terms of pest-predator dynamics(Settle et al. 1996). Pretty (1995) highlights thatin traditional peasant societies (where moststudy cases come from), intercropping is prac-ticed not as a way to maximize yield, but ratherto spread risk in coping with a spatially and tem-porally variable environment. Ad-hoc experi-ments on the role of plant biodiversity in thefunctioning of forest ecosystems are much morerare, due to obvious operational difficulties.However, there are some experiments with low-diversity mixtures and reviews based on forestinventory data (Cannell et al. 1992) suggestingthat multiple tree species mixtures can be moreproductive than monoculture stands, althoughthis pattern is far from universal (Cannell et al.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 34


28

1992, Wormald 1992, Caspersen and Pacala2001). There is little consistent evidence of ben-efits of tree intercropping for belowgroundprocesses (Rothe and Binkley 2001).

2.4 RESEARCH NEEDS AND INFORMATION GAPS

Our knowledge is still insufficient to givedetailed scientific advice on many aspects ofinterlinkages between biodiversity, human-induced climate change, and ecosystem func-tion. Future research may want to assess:

(1) which ecosystem functions are most vulner-able to species loss; and (2) the relationshipbetween biodiversity and ecosystem structure, itsfunctioning and productivity, and the delivery ofecosystem goods and services.

Further research is also needed on theinteraction between climate change and land-use change impacts on biodiversity and on theeffects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on theproductivity, species composition and carbondynamics in different ecosystems, and on ecosys-tem resistance and resilience.

2.5 REFERENCES Alroy, J. (2001). A multispecies overkill simulation of the end-Pleistocenemegafaunal mass extinction. Science 292: 1893-1896.Altieri, M.A. (1995). Agroecology – The Science of Sustainable Agriculture.Westview Press, London.Andren, H. (1994). Effects of fragmentation birds and mammals in landscapeswith different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71:355-366.Andriessen P. A. M.; Helmens, K. F.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Riezebos, P. A.; Van derHammen, T. (1993). Absolute chronology of the Pliocene-Quaternary sedimentsequence of the Bogota area,Colombia. Quaternary Science Reviews 12:483-501.Balmford A.,Bruner A.,Cooper P.,Costanza R.,Farber S.,Green R.E., Jenkins M.,Jefferiss P., Jessamy V., Madden J., Munro K., Myers N., Naeem S., Paavola J.,Rayment M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden J., Trumper K., and Turner R.K. (2002).Economic Reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953.Bierregaard, R.O., T.E. Lovejoy, V. Kapos, A.A. dos Santos, and R.W. Hutchings(1992). The biological dynamics of tropical rain forest fragments. Bioscience42:859-866.Boyle,T.J.B and Boontawee,B.(eds.). (1995).Measuring and monitoring biodiversi-ty in tropical and temperate forests.Bogor,Center for International Forestry Research,395p.Cannell,M.G.R.,D.C.Malcolm,and P.A.Robertson (1992).The ecology of mixedspecies stands. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Cardillo, M. and Lister,A. (2002). Death in the slow lane. Nature 419: 440-441.Caspersen,J.P.,and S.W.Pacala (2001).Successional diversity and forest ecosystemfunction. Ecological Research, 16, 895-904.Chapin III, F.S. et al. (2000). Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405:234-242.Chapin III,F.S.et al. (1996).The functional role of species in terrestrial systems. InGlobal Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems [Walker, B. and W. Steffen, (eds.)],Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 403-428.Colinvaux, P. A.; de Oliveira, P. E.; Bush, M. B. (2000). Amazonian and neotropi-cal plant communities on glacial time-scales: the failure of the aridity and refugehypotheses. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 141-169.Costanza,R.,R.d'Arge,R.de Groot,S.Farber,M.Grasso,B.Hannon,K.Limburg,S. Naeem, R.V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton and M. van den Belt(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature387: 253-260.Crowley,T.J.; North,G.R.(1988).Abrupt climate change and extinction events inEarth history. Science 240: 996-1002.Davis, M.B. (1989). Lags in vegetation response to greenhouse warming. ClimateChange 15:75-82.Díaz,S.and Cabido,M.(2001).Vive la differénce:plant functional diversity matters toecosystem functioning (review article).Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16:646-655.FAO. (1994). Fisheries technical paper 335. Rome, Italy.FAUNMAP Working Group (Graham, R. W. et al.) (1996). Spatial response ofmammals to late Quaternary environmental fluctuations.Science 272:1601-1606.Flenley, J. (1979). The Equatorial Rain Forest: a geological history. Butterworths,

London.Galloway, J.N., H. Levy, and P.S. Kasibhatla (1994). Year 2020: consequences ofpopulation growth and development on deposition of oxidized nitrogen. Ambio23: 120–123Garay I. and B. Dias (editors). (2001). Conservação da Biodiversidade emEcossistemas Tropicais: Avanços conceituais e revisão de novas metodologias deavaliação e monitoramento. Petrópolis, Editora Vozes, 430p.Gaston, K. J. (editor). (1996). Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference.Oxford, Blackwell Scientific.Grime, J. P. et al. (2000). The response of two contrasting limestone grasslands tosimulated climate change. Science 289: 762-765.Hawksworth, D.L. (editor). (1991). The Role of Biodiversity in AgriculturalSystems. Wallingford, UK, Commonwealth Agriculture Bureau – CABInternational.Hewitt, G. M. (1999). Post-glacial re-colonization of European biota. BiologicalJournal of the Linnean Society 68: 87-112.Houghton, R.A. (1994). The worldwide extent of land-use change. Bioscience44:305-313.Huntley, B. (1993). Species-richness in north-temperate zone forests. Journal ofBiogeography 20: 163-180.Huntley, B.; Birks, H. J. B. (1983). An Atlas of past and present pollen maps forEurope 0-13, 000 years ago. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Huston, M.A. (1994). Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species onChanging Landscapes. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.IPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core WritingTeam (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, andNew York, NY, USA, 398 pp.IPCC. (2002). Climate change and Biodiversity. WMO and UNEP,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Paper 5, 86p.Jackson, J. B. C.; Johnson, K. G. (2000). Life in the last few million years.Paleobiology 276: 221-235.Jackson,S.T.;Weng,C.(1999). Late Quaternary extinction of a tree species in east-ern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96: 13847-13852.Jones, C. G. et al. (1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69: 373-386.Joshi, J. et al. (2001). Local adaptation enhances performance of common plantspecies. Ecology Letters 4: 536-544.Kohfeld, K. E., Harrison, S. P. (2000). How well can we simulate past climates?Evaluating the models using global palaeoenvironmental datasets. QuaternaryScience Reviews 19: 321-346.Körner, C. (2000). Biosphere responses to CO2 enrichment. Ecol. Appl. 10:1590-1619.Kukla, G. J. et al. (2002). Last interglacial climates. Quaternary Research 58: 2-13.Kunin, W.E. and K.J. Gaston (1997). The Biology of Rarity: Causes and conse-quences of Rare-Common differences. London, Chapman and Hall, 280p.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 35


29

Lawton, J.H., and R.M. May (eds.). (1995). Extinction rates. Oxford Univ. Press,Oxford, UK.Lee, D. E.; Lee, W. G.; Mortimer, N. (2001). Where and why have all the flowersgone? Depletion and turnover in the New Zealand Cenozoic angiosperm flora inrelation to palaeogeography and climate. Australian Journal of Botany 49: 341-356Leps J., Osbornova Kosinova, J. and Rejmanek, M. (1982). Community stability,complexity and species life-history strategies.Vegetatio 50, 53-63.Levis, S.; Foley, J. A.; Pollard, D. (1999). CO2, climate, and vegetation feebacks atthe Last Glacial Maximum. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres 104:31191-31198.Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U.Hooper, M. A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schimd, D. Tilman, and D. A. Wardle(2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and futurechallenges. Science 294: 804-808.Lowe, J. J., and Walker,M. J.C. (1997). Reconstructing Quaternary Climates.2ndEdition. Longman, London. Magurran , A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and itsMeasurement. London, Croom Helm.Malhi, Y. and Grace, J. (2000). Tropical forests and atmospheric carbon dioxide.Trends Ecol. Evol. 15:332-337.Marchant, R., Boom, A., Hooghiemstra, H. (2002). Pollen-based biome recon-structions for the past 450 000 yr from the Funza-2 core,Colombia: comparisonswith model-based reconstructions. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,Palaeoecology 171 (1-2): 29-45.Markgraf, V.; McGlone, M.S.; Hope, G.S. (1995). Neogene paleoenvironmentaland paleoclimatic change in southern temperate ecosystems - a southern per-spective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:143-147.Millien-Parra, V. and Jaeger, J-J. (1999). Island biogeography of the Japanese ter-restrial mammal assemblages: an example of a relict fauna. Journal ofBiogeography 26: 959-972.Mooney, H.A., J.H. Cushman, E.Medina, O.E. Sala and E.-D.Schulze (editors).(1996). Functional Roles of Biodiversity: A Global Perspective. Chichester, UK,John Wiley and Sons.Niklaus,P.A.; Leadley,P.W.; Schmid,B.; Körner,C.(2001).A long-term field studyon biodiversity x elevated CO2 interactions in grassland. Ecol. Monogr. 71:341-356.Petit, R. J. et al. (2002). Identification of refugia and post-glacial colonisationroutes of European white oaks based on chloroplast DNA and fossil pollen evi-dence. Forest Ecology and Management 156: 49-74.Pimm,S.L. (1991).The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservationof Species and Communities. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 434p.Pimm, S.L., G.J. Russell, J.L. Gittleman, and T. Brooks. (1995). The future of bio-diversity. Science 269:347-350.Pitelka, L. F. and the Plant Migration Workshop Group. (1997). Plant migrationand climate change.American Scientist 85: 464-473.Pretty, J.A. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture – Policies and Practice for sustain-ability and Self-Reliance. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.Purvis,A. and Hector,A. (2000). Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212-219.Ricklefs, R.E. and D. Schluter (editors). (1993). Species Diversity in EcologicalCommunities: Historical and Geographical Perspectives.Chicago,The Universityof Chicago Press, 414p.Rosenszweig, M.L. (1995). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 436p.Rothe,A.and D.Binkley (2001).Nutritional interactions in mixed species forests:a synthesis. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1855-1870.Sala,O.E.,Chapin III,F.S.,Armesto,J.J.,Berlow,E.,Bloomfield,J.,Dirzo,R.,Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M.,Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T.,Walker, B.H.,Walker, M. andWall,D.H.(2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770-1774.Settle WH, Ariawan H, Astuti ET, Cahyana W, Hakim AL, Hindayana D, LestariA,Pajarningsih and Sartanto (1996).Managing tropical rice pest through conser-vation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77:1975-1988.Schulze, E.-D. and H.A.Mooney (editors) (1993). Biodiversity and EcosystemFunction. Berlin, Springer Verlag (Ecological Studies 99).Schwartz,M.W.,C.A.Brigham,J.D.Hoeksema,K.G.Lyons,M.H.Mills and P.J.vanMantgem (2000). Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications forconservation ecology. Oecologia 122: 297-305

SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.(2001). Global Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP, 282p.Shaw, R., Zavaleta, E.S., Chiariello, N.R., Cleland, E.E., Mooney, H.A., Field, C.B.(2002). Grassland responses to global enrivonmental changes supressed by ele-vated CO2. Science 298:1987-1990.Shiva,V.(2000).Stolen Harvest – The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply.SouthEnd Press, Cambridge.Steadman, D.W. (1995). Prehistoric extinctions of Pacific island birds – biodiver-sity meets zooarchaeology. Science 267: 1123-1131.Stocker, T. (2000). Past and future reorganisations in the climate system.Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 301-319.Thompson, R. S.; Whitlock, C.; Bartlein, P. J.; Harrison, S. P.; Spauling, W. G.(1993). Climatic changes in the Western United States since 18, 000 yr B.P. In:Global Climates since the Last Glacial Maximum. Eds Wright, H. E. et al.University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Pp 468-513.Trenbath, B.R. (1974). Biomass productivity of mixtures.Advances in Agronomy26: 177-210.UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME--UNEP--(1995).Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press.Vandermeer, J. (1989). The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.Vitousek, P. M., and L.R Walker (1989). Biological invasion by Myrica faya inHawai’i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. EcologicalMonographs 59: 247-265.Van der Hammen, T. and Hooghiemstra, H. (2000). Neogene and Quaternaryhistory of vegetation, climate and plant diversity in Amazonia. QuaternaryScience Reviews 19: 725-742.Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.M. Melillo (1997). Humandomination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.Webb, S. D.; Barnosky, A. D. (1989). Faunal dynamics of Pleistocene mammals.Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 17: 413-438.Webb,T. III; Bartlein,P. J.; Harrison,S.P.;Andersen,K.H.(1993).Vegetation, lakelevels, and climate in eastern North America for the past 18,000 years. In: GlobalClimates since the Last Glacial Maximum. Eds. Wright, H. E. et al. University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis. Pp 415-467.Wormald, T.J. (1992). Mixed and pure forest plantations in the tropics and sub-tropics. FAO, Rome, Italy.WWF (Worldwide Fund for Nature), (2002). Living Planet Report 2002. WWFInternational. Mont Blanc, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.panda.org/liv-ingplanet/lpr02/downloads.cfmZhu,Y.,et al.(2000).Genetic diversity and disease control in rice.Nature 406:718-722.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 36


30

Main authors: Habiba Gitay, Miguel Lovera,Avelino Suarez, Yoshitaka Tsubaki,Robert Watson.

Contributing authors: Muna Faraj,Mirna Marin, Peter Straka, Andreas Volentras,Clive R. Wilkinson.

INTRODUCTION

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)has organized its work under the following the-matic programs: agricultural biodiversity, dryand sub-humid lands biodiversity, forest biodi-versity, inland waters biodiversity, mountainbiodiversity, and marine and coastal biodiversity.This chapter summarizes the observed and pro-jected changes in the climate system and theimpacts of these changes on the above ecosystemtypes, and the potential impacts of large-scalechanges in biodiversity on regional and globalclimates.

The majority of the material for this chapteris drawn from Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC)16 reports; in particular,the Technical Paper V on climate change andbiodiversity that summarized the material inIPCC reports of relevance to this chapter.Appendix A of the IPCC Technical Paper V pro-vided a set of additional literature of some rele-vance to this chapter; in addition, a thorough lit-erature search was conducted from 1999 to late2002. Thus, there have been a number of publi-cations of relevance to this chapter publishedpost-IPCC Third Assessment Report and thesehave been assessed and are cited. Overall, theadditional publications have supported theIPCC findings, often with specific examples of aparticular taxa, ecosystem or region.

IPCC in its Working Group II (impacts,adaptation and vulnerability – IPCC 2001, IPCC2002- section 1) provides definitions of conceptsof importance to this chapter. The major con-

cepts are impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilityand their accepted definitions are as follows:(a) The magnitude of the impact is a function

of the extent of change in a climatic param-eter (e.g., a mean climate characteristic, cli-mate variability and/or the frequency andmagnitude of extremes) and the sensitivityof the system to that climate-related stimuli.The impacts of the projected changes in cli-mate include direct changes in many aspectsof biodiversity and disturbance regimes(e.g., changes in the frequency and intensityof fires, pests, and diseases).

(b) Adaptation measures could reduce some ofthe impacts. Human and natural systemswill to some degree adapt autonomously toclimate change. Planned adaptation (seesection 4.11) can supplement autonomousadaptation, though options and incentivesare greater for adaptation of human systemsthan for adaptation for natural systems.Natural and human systems are consideredto be vulnerable if they are exposed and/orsensitive to climate change and/or adapta-tion options are limited.

(a) Vulnerability is the degree to which a systemis susceptible to, or unable to cope with,adverse effects of climate change, includingclimate variability and extremes.Vulnerability is a function of the character,magnitude, and rate of climate variation towhich a system is exposed, its sensitivity,and its adaptive capacity.

(b) Adaptive capacity is the ability of a systemto adjust to climate change (including cli-mate variability and extremes), to moderatepotential damages, to take advantage ofopportunities, or to cope with the conse-quences.Chapter 2 has discussed the links between

climatic factors and biodiversity. In this chapter,drawing on findings of the IPCC, the observedand the projected changes in the climate system

3. CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY: OBSERVED AND PROJECTED IMPACTS

16 IPCC publications are based on extensive assessment of literature, both peer reviewed and some grey literature, from all over the world.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 37


31

of relevance to biodiversity are summarised insections 3.1 and 3.2. These include changes inthe composition of the atmosphere (e.g., theatmospheric concentrations of CO2), the Earth’sclimate (e.g., surface temperature, includingday-night and seasonal, intensity and frequencyof precipitation, snow cover, sea, river and lakeice, glaciers, sea level, and climate variability) aswell as El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)events. ENSO events consistently affect regionalvariations of precipitation and temperature overmuch of the tropics, subtropics, and some mid-latitude areas), and in some regions extreme cli-matic events (e.g., heat waves, heavy precipita-tion events).

As stated in chapter 2, ecosystems providemany goods and services crucial to human wellbeing, including those for indigenous and localcommunities. These include food, fibre, fuel,energy, fodder, medicines, clean water, clean air,flood/storm control, pollination, seed dispersal,pest and disease control, soil formation andmaintenance, cultural, spiritual, aesthetic andrecreational values. Human activities createmany pressures on ecosystems such as land usechange, soil and water and air pollution. Inmany cases, climate change is an added stress.Climate and climate change can affect ecosys-tems and biodiversity in many ways: the impactsof observed and projected changes on terrestrialand inland wetlands (including freshwater sys-tems), marine and coastal systems and the goodsand services they provide is summarized in sec-tions 3.3 to 3.5. Climate change is particularlylikely to impact traditional and indigenous peo-ples and the projected impacts are summarisedin section 3.6. Some ecosystems are sensitive toclimatic factors and have limited adaptationoptions thus making them vulnerable to climatechange; these are summarised in section 3.7.Some changes in terrestrial and marine biodiver-sity could affect the regional and global climateand these interactions are summarised in section3.8. The chapter ends with summarising theinformation gaps and research needs that have to

be considered to increase the understanding ofthe impacts of climate change on ecosystems andto reduce some uncertainties in projecting theimpacts.

3.1 OBSERVED CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE

Changes in climate occur as a result of internalvariability of the climate system and externalfactors (both natural and as a result of humanactivities). Emissions of greenhouse gases andaerosols due to human activities change thecomposition of the atmosphere. Increasinggreenhouse gases tend to warm the Earth’s cli-mate, while increasing aerosols can either cool orwarm the Earth’s climate.

The IPCC findings of the observed changesover the 20th century in the composition of theatmosphere (e.g., the increasing atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2

and methane (CH4), the Earth’s climate (e.g.,temperature, precipitation, sea level, sea ice, andin some regions extreme climatic events includ-ing heat waves, heavy precipitation events anddroughts) are summarized in this section (IPCC2001, [questions 2, 4, 5] and the IPCC WorkingGroup 1, SPM).a) Concentrations of atmospheric green-

house gases have generally increased.During the period 1750 to 2000, the atmos-pheric concentration of CO2 increased by31±4%, primarily due to the combustion offossil fuels, land use, and land-use change(see also chapter 4 on carbon cycle explana-tion). The atmospheric concentration ofCH4 increased by 151±25% from the years1750 to 2000, primarily due to emissionsfrom fossil-fuel use, livestock, rice agricul-ture, and landfills. Stratospheric aerosolsfrom large volcanic eruptions have led toimportant, but brief-lived, negative forcings,particularly the periods about 1880 to 1920and 1963 to 1994.

b) Over the 20th century there has been a con-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 38


32

sistent, large-scale warming of both theland and ocean surface. Most of theobserved warming over the last 50 years hasbeen due to the increase in greenhouse gasconcentrations. The global mean surfacetemperature has increased by 0.6°C (rangeof 0.4–0.8°C) over the last 100 years. Thewarming has been greatest in the mid-highlatitudes. Since the year 1950, the increasein sea surface temperature is about half thatof the increase in mean land surface air tem-perature and night-time daily minimumtemperatures over land have increased onaverage by about 0.2°C per decade, abouttwice the corresponding rate of increase indaytime maximum air temperatures.

c) Precipitation has very likely17 increasedduring the 20th century by 5 to 10% overmost mid- and high latitudes of theNorthern Hemisphere continents, but incontrast precipitation has likely decreasedby 3% on average over much of the sub-tropical land areas. There has likely been a 2to 4% increase in the frequency of heavyprecipitation (50 mm in 24 hours) events inthe mid- and high latitudes of the NorthernHemisphere over the latter half of the 20thcentury. There were relatively small increas-es over the 20th century in land areas expe-riencing severe drought or severe wetness: inmany regions these changes are dominatedby inter-decadal and multi-decadal climatevariability with no significant trends evi-dent.

d) Snow cover and ice extent have decreased.It is very likely that the snow cover hasdecreased by about 10% on average in theNorthern Hemisphere since the late 1960s(mainly through springtime changes overAmerica and Eurasia) and the annual dura-tion of lake- and river-ice cover in the mid-

and high latitudes of the NorthernHemisphere has been reduced by about 2weeks over the 20th century. There was alsowidespread retreat of mountain glaciers innon-polar regions during the 20th century.Northern Hemisphere spring and summersea-ice extent decreased by about 10 to 15%from the 1950s to the year 2000.

e) The average annual rise in sea level wasbetween 1 and 2 mm during the 20th cen-tury. This is based on the few, very long,tide gauge records from the northern hemi-sphere and after correcting for vertical landmovements. It is very likely that the 20thcentury warming contributed significantlyto the observed sea level rise through ther-mal expansion of seawater and widespreadloss of land ice.

f) Warm episodes of the ENSO phenomenonhave been more frequent, persistent, andintense since the mid-1970s, comparedwith the previous 100 years.

g) There have been observed changes in someextreme weather and climate events. It islikely that there have been higher maximumtemperatures, more hot days and an increasein heat index, and very likely that there havebeen higher minimum temperatures andfewer cold days and frost days over nearly allland areas. In addition, it is likely that therehas been an increase in summer continentaldrying and associated risk of drought in afew areas.

3.2 PROJECTED CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE

The Working Group I contribution to the IPCCThird Assessment Report (IPCC 2001) providedrevised global and, to some extent, regional cli-mate change projections based on a new series

17 Based on the IPCC Working Group I lexicon use, the following words have been used where appropriate to indicate judgemental estimates ofconfidence: very likely (90–99% chance) and likely (66–90% chance). When the words likely and very likely appear in italics, these definitions areapplied; otherwise, they reflect normal usage.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 39


33

of emission scenarios from the IPCC SpecialReport on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). TheSRES scenarios consist of six scenario groups,based on narrative storylines. They are all plau-sible and internally consistent, and no probabili-ties of occurrence are assigned. They encompassfour combinations of demographic, social, eco-nomic, and broad technological developmentassumptions. Each of these scenarios results in aset of atmospheric concentrations of greenhousegases and aerosols from which the changes in theclimate can be projected. CO2 concentrations,globally averaged surface temperature, and sealevel are projected to increase during the 21stcentury. Substantial differences are projected inregional changes in climate and sea level as com-pared to the global mean change. An increase inclimate variability and some extreme events isalso projected. The projected changes, extractedfrom section 4 of IPCC (2002), and that have rel-evance to biodiversity--supplemented with anyrecent literature--are summarized below.(a) The concentrations of greenhouse gases

are projected to increase in the 21st centuryand sulphate aerosol are projected todecrease. The projected concentrations ofCO2, in the year 2100 range from 540 to 970parts per million (ppm), compared to about280 ppm in the pre-industrial era and about368 ppm in the year 2000. Sulfate aerosolconcentrations are projected to fall belowpresent levels by 2100 in all six illustrativeSRES scenarios, whereas natural aerosols(e.g., sea salt, dust) and emissions leading tosulfate and carbon aerosols (e.g. dimethylsulphide – DMS – emitted by some speciesof phytoplankton) are projected to increaseas a result of changes in climate.

(b) The projected global average increases intemperature are about two to ten timeslarger than the central value of observedwarming over the 20th century and theprojected rate of warming of 1.4 to 5.8ºCover the period 1990 to 2100 is very likely tobe without precedent during at least the last

10,000 years. The most notable areas ofwarming are in the landmasses of northernregions (e.g., North America, and northernand central Asia), which exceed global meanwarming in each climate model by morethan 40%. In contrast, the warming is lessthan the global mean change in south andsoutheast Asia in summer and in southernSouth America in winter.

(c) Globally averaged annual precipitation isprojected to increase during the 21st cen-tury, with both increases and decreases inprecipitation of typically 5 to 20% project-ed at the regional scale. Precipitation is like-ly to increase over high-latitude regions inboth summer and winter. Increases are alsoprojected over northern mid-latitudes,tropical Africa and Antarctica in winter, andin southern and eastern Asia in summer.Australia, Central America, and southernAfrica show consistent decreases in winterrainfall. Larger year-to-year variations inprecipitation are very likely to occur overmost areas where an increase in mean pre-cipitation is projected.

(d) Models project that increasing atmospher-ic concentrations of greenhouse gases willresult in changes in daily, seasonal, inter-annual, and decadal variability in temper-ature. There is projected to be a decrease indiurnal temperature range in many areas,with nighttime lows increasing more thandaytime highs. The majority of modelsshow a general decrease in daily variabilityof surface air temperature in winter andincreased daily variability in summer in theNorthern Hemisphere land areas. Althoughfuture changes in El Niño variability differfrom model to model, current projectionsshow little change or a small increase inamplitude for El Niño events over the next100 years. Many models show a more ElNiño-like mean response in the tropicalPacific, with the central and eastern equato-rial Pacific sea surface temperatures project-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 40


34

ed to warm more than the western equato-rial Pacific and with a corresponding meaneastward shift of precipitation. Even withlittle or no change in El Niño strength,global warming is likely to lead to greaterextremes of drying and heavy rainfall andincrease the risk of droughts and floods thatoccur with El Niño events in many differentregions. There is no clear agreementbetween models concerning the changes infrequency or structure of other naturallyoccurring atmosphere-ocean circulationpatterns such as the North AtlanticOscillation (NAO).

(e) The amplitude and frequency of extremeprecipitation events are very likely to increaseover many areas and the return periods forextreme precipitation events are projected todecrease. This would lead to more frequentfloods even in areas of decreasing overall pre-cipitation (Christensen and Christensen2003). A general drying of the mid-continen-tal areas during summer is likely to lead toincreases in summer droughts and couldincrease the risk of wild fires.

(f) More hot days and heat waves and fewercold and frost days are very likely over nearlyall land areas.

(g) High-resolution modelling studies suggestthat over some areas the peak wind intensi-ty of tropical cyclones is likely to increaseover the 21st century by 5 to 10% and pre-cipitation rates may increase by 20 to 30%,but none of the studies suggest that the loca-tions of the tropical cyclones will change.There is little consistent modelling evidencefor changes in the frequency of tropicalcyclones

(h) There is insufficient information on howvery small-scale phenomena may change.Very small-scale phenomena such as thun-derstorms, tornadoes, hail, hailstorms, andlightning are not simulated in global climatemodels.

(i) Glaciers and ice caps are projected to con-tinue their widespread retreat during the21st century. The Antarctic ice sheet is like-ly to gain mass because of greater precipita-tion, while the Greenland ice sheet is likelyto lose mass because the increase in runoffwill exceed the precipitation increase.

(j) Global mean sea level is projected to riseby 0.09 to 0.88 m between the years 1990and 2100, with substantial regional varia-tions. Projected rise in sea-level is due pri-marily to thermal expansion and loss ofmass from glaciers and ice caps. The pro-jected range of regional variation in sea-level change is substantial compared to pro-jected global average sea-level rise, becausethe level of the sea at the shoreline is deter-mined by many additional factors (e.g.,atmospheric pressure, wind stress and ther-mocline depth). Confidence in the regionaldistribution of sea-level change from com-plex models is low because there is littlesimilarity between model results, althoughnearly all models project greater than aver-age rise in the Arctic Ocean and less thanaverage rise in the Southern Ocean.

(k) Most models project a weakening of theocean thermohaline circulation, whichleads to a reduction of the heat transportinto high latitudes of Europe. The currentprojections do not exhibit a complete shut-down of the thermohaline circulation by2100. Beyond 2100, there is some evidenceto suggest that the thermohaline circulationcould completely, and possibly irreversibly,shut down in either hemisphere if thechange in radiative forcing is large enoughand applied long enough. The impact ofthis on biodiversity is unknown.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 41


35

3.3 OBSERVED CHANGES IN TERRESTRIAL AND

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS ASSOCIATEDWITH CLIMATE CHANGE

IPCC evaluated the effect of climate change onbiological systems by assessing 2 500 publishedstudies. Of these, 44 studies, which includedabout 500 taxa, met the following criteria: 20 ormore years of data; measuring temperature asone of the variables; the authors of the studyfinding a statistically significant change in both abiological/physical parameter and the measuredtemperature; and a statistically significant corre-lation between the temperature and the changein the biological/physical parameter. Some ofthese studies investigated different taxa (e.g., birdand insect) in the same paper. Thus, a total of 59plants, 47 invertebrates, 29 amphibians and rep-tiles, 388 birds, and 10 mammal species.Approximately 80% showed change in the bio-logical parameter measured (e.g., start and end ofbreeding season, shifts in migration patterns,shifts in animal and plant distributions, andchanges in body size) in the manner expectedwith global warming, while 20% showed changein the opposite direction. Most of these studieshave been carried out (due to long-term researchfunding decisions) in the temperate and high-lat-itude areas and in some high-altitude areas. Themain findings of the IPCC are that some ecosys-tems that are particularly sensitive to changes inregional climate (e.g., high-altitude and high-lat-itude ecosystems) have already been affected bychanges in climate (IPCC 2002– section 5.1, Rootet al. 2003, Parmesan and Yohe 2003).Specifically, there has been a discernible impactof regional climate change, particularly increasesin temperature, on biological systems in the 20thcentury. Specific changes highlighted in theIPCC paper, supplemented by recent material,include changes in terrestrial (including freshwa-ter) species distributions, population sizes, com-munity composition and plant productivity:declines in frog and some bird species have been

assessed in the IPCC Third assessment Report,but it is not clear that climate change is the causalfactor, with pressures from other human activi-ties being implicated. The main findings of theIPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC 2002) are:(a) Changes in the timing of biological events

(phenology) have been observed. Theseinclude changes the timing of growth, flow-ering and reproduction. Such changes havebeen recorded in some insects, amphibians,reptiles, birds, and plant species.

(b) Changes in species distribution linked tochanges in climatic factors have beenobserved. These include extension of rangelimit of some species polewards, especiallyin the northern hemisphere. Drought asso-ciated shifts in animal’s ranges and densitieshave been observed in many parts of theworld.

(c) Many taxa (birds, insects, plants) haveshown changes in morphology, physiolo-gy, and behavior associated with changes inclimatic variables.

(d) Changes in climatic variables has led toincreased frequency and intensity of out-breaks of pests and diseases accompaniedby range shifts poleward or to higher alti-tudes of the pests/disease organisms.

(e) Changes in streamflow, floods, droughts,water temperature, and water quality havebeen observed and they have affected biodi-versity and the goods and services ecosys-tems provide.

(f) In high-latitude ecosystems in theNorthern Hemisphere, the warmer climatehas lead to increased growing degree-daysfor agriculture and forestry. However, theamount of sunlight and perhaps the pro-portion of direct and diffuse sunlight alsoinfluence plant productivity. There has beenaltered plant species composition, especiallyforbs and lichens in the tundra, due tothermokarst, some boreal forests in centralAlaska have been transformed into extensivewetlands during the last few decades of the

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 42


36

20th century. The area of boreal forestburned annually in western North Americahas doubled in the last 20 years, in parallelwith the warming trend in the region.

(g) There has been observed decrease in sur-vivorship of adult penguins. Over the past50 years, the population of emperor pen-guins in Terre Adelie has declined by 50%because of a decrease in adult survival dur-ing the late 1970s when there was a pro-longed abnormally warm period withreduced sea-ice extent (Barbraud andWeimersckirch 2001).

(h) Extreme climatic events, and variability(e.g., floods, hail, freezing temperatures,tropical cyclones, droughts), and the con-sequences of some of these (e.g., landslidesand wildfire) have affected ecosystems inmany continents. Climatic events such asthe El Niño event of the years 1997–1998had major impacts on many terrestrialecosystems.The coastal and marine ecosystems are sen-

sitive to changes in water temperature andextreme climatic events. Specific findings of theIPCC (2002 – section 5.2, IPCC 2001, SYR,Question 2) include:(a) Tropical and subtropical coral reefs have

been adversely affected by rising sea surfacetemperatures, especially during El-Ninoevents during which the temperaturesincrease beyond the normal seasonal range.These bleaching events are often associatedwith other stresses such as, sediment loadingand pollution. The repercussions of the 1998mass bleaching and mortality events will befar-reaching (Reaser et al. 2000).

(b) Diseases and toxicity have affected coastalecosystems related to increased seasonal orannual water temperatures.

(c) Changes in marine systems, particularlyfish populations, have been linked to large-scale climate oscillations.

(d) Large fluctuations in the abundance of

marine birds and mammals across parts ofthe Pacific and western Arctic have beendetected and may be related to changingregimes of disturbances, climate variability,and extreme events.

3.4 PROJECTED IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN MEAN CLIMATE ANDEXTREME CLIMATIC EVENTS ON

TERRESTRIAL (INCLUDING RIVERS,LAKES AND WETLANDS)

AND MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Climate change and elevated atmospheric concen-trations of CO2 is projected to affect individuals,populations, species and ecosystem compositionand function both directly (e.g., through increasesin temperature and changes in precipitation,changes in extreme climatic events and in the caseof aquatic systems changes in water temperature,sea level, etc.) and indirectly (e.g., through climatechanging the intensity and frequency of distur-bances such as wildfires). The impacts of climatechange will depend on other significant anthro-pogenic pressures. The most significant pressuresare increased land-use intensity and the associateddestruction of natural or semi-natural habitats, lossand fragmentation (or habitat unification, especial-ly in the case of freshwater bodies), the introduc-tion of invasive species, and direct effects on repro-duction, dominance, and survival through chemi-cal and mechanical treatments. No realistic projec-tion of the future state of the Earth’s ecosystems canbe made without taking into account human land-and water-use patterns—past, present, and future.Human use will endanger some terrestrial andaquatic ecosystems, enhance the survival of others,and greatly affect the ability of organisms to adaptto climate change via migration (chapter 2).Independent of climate change, biodiversity is fore-cast to decrease in the future due to the multiplepressures from human activities—climate changeconstitutes an additional pressure. Quantificationof the impacts of climate change alone, given themultiple and interactive pressures acting on the

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 43


37

Earth’s ecosystems, is difficult and likely to varyregionally. Losses of species can lead to changes inthe structure and function of the affected ecosys-tems, and loss of revenue and aesthetics (IPCC2002 – section 6 introduction and 6.1).

IPCC (2002 – section 6.1, 6.2) stated thatprojecting changes in biodiversity in response toclimate change presents some significant chal-lenges, especially at the fine scale. Modellingrequires projections of climate change at highspatial and temporal resolution and oftendepends on the balance between variables thatare poorly projected by climate models (e.g.,local precipitation and evaporative demand). Italso requires an understanding of how speciesinteract with each other and how these interac-tions affect the communities and ecosystems ofwhich they are a part. The data and models need-ed to project the extent and nature of futureecosystem changes and changes in the geograph-ical distribution of species are incomplete, mean-ing that these effects can only be partially quan-tified. Models of changes in the global distribu-tion of vegetation are often most sensitive tovariables for which we have only poor projec-tions (e.g., water balance) and inadequate initialdata.

Biodiversity is recognized to be an impor-tant issue for many regions of the world. It alsoprovides goods and services for human wellbeing(Box 2.1). Different regions have varied amountsof biodiversity with varying levels of endemicspecies. The projected impacts of climate changeat the regional level are summarised in Boxes no.5 to 15 of the IPCC (2002) and will not be sum-marised here. It is worth noting that there is alimitation of region- and country-specific stud-ies on the impacts of climate change on biodi-versity particularly at the genetic level.

3.4.1 Projected impacts on individuals,populations, species, and ecosystems

Based on IPCC Reports (2001; 2002), andadditional material (as listed), some examples of

how individuals, populations, and species,ecosystems and some ecological processes thatmay be affected by climate change (directly orindirectly) include:(a) While there is little evidence to suggest that

climate change will slow species losses, thereis evidence that it may increase species losses.

(b) Extinction of wildlife populations may behastened by increasing temporal variabili-ty in precipitation. Models of checkerspotbutterfly (a common species found in NorthAmerica) populations showed that changesin precipitation amplified population fluc-tuations, leading to rapid extinctions(McLaughlin et al. 2002). This process willbe particularly pronounced when a popula-tion is isolated by habitat loss.

(c) Changes in phenology, such as the date ofbud break of plants, hatching, and migra-tion of insects, birds and mammals, havealready been observed and are expected tocontinue. This can be beneficial or detri-mental, e.g., the changes in phenology ofplants can lead to higher productivity, butcan make the plants more vulnerable toearly or late onset of frost and pest/diseaseoutbreak. There could be further interac-tion between the phenology and changes inextreme climatic events, e.g., the lack of frostin some regions can stop the onset of flow-ering and thus fruit formation (e.g., insouthern Australia- Pittock et al. 2001).

(d) Ecosystems dominated by long-livedspecies (e.g., long-lived trees) will often beslow to show evidence of change and slowto recover from climate-related stresses asthe changes in the climate may not be suffi-cient to cause increased mortality amongmature individuals. Changes in climateoften also affect vulnerable life stages such asseedling establishment and are expected tocontinue to do so.

(e) Plant communities are expected to be dis-rupted, as species that make up a communityare unlikely to shift together. In lakes and

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 44


38

river systems, changes in water quality due toclimate change could cause eutrophicationand thus change the species composition.

(f) Most soil biota have relatively wide tem-perature optima, so are unlikely to beadversely affected directly by changes intemperatures, although there is lack ofinformation on the effect of changes in soilmoisture. Some evidence exists to supportchanges in the balance between soil func-tional types (see section 2.3 for discussionon functional types).

(g) For inland wetlands, changes in rainfalland flooding patterns across large areas ofarid land will adversely affect bird speciesthat rely on a network of wetlands and lakesthat are alternately or even episodically wetand fresh and drier and saline (Roshier et al.2001), or even a small number of wetlands,such as those used by the banded stilt(Cladorhynchus leucocephalus) whichbreeds opportunistically in Australia’s aridinterior (Williams 1998). Responses to theseclimate induced changes may also be affect-ed by fragmentation of habitats or disrup-tion or loss of migration corridors, or even,changes to other biota, such as increasedexposure to predators by wading birds(Butler and Vennesland 2000, van Dam et al.2002).

(h) The lack of thermal refugia and migratoryroutes in lakes, streams and rivers, maycause contraction of the distributions ofmany fish species. For example, warmer lakewater temperature will reduce dissolved oxy-gen concentration and lower the level of thethermocline, most likely resulting in a loss ofhabitat for coldwater fish species in areassuch as Wisconsin and Minnesota (westernGreat Lakes). In addition, reduced summerflows and increased temperatures will cause aloss of suitable habitat for cool water fishspecies in riverine environments in the RockyMountain region (British Columbia, westernCanada; Gitay et al. 2001)

(i) Species and ecosystems are projected to beimpacted by extreme climatic events, e.g.,higher maximum temperatures, more hotdays, and heat waves are projected toincrease heat stress in plants and animalsand reduce plant productivity; higher mini-mum temperatures, fewer cold days, frostdays and cold waves could result in extend-ed range and activity of some pest and dis-ease vectors, increased productivity in someplant species and ecosystems; more intenseprecipitation events are projected to resultin increased soil erosion, increased floodrunoff; increased summer drying over mostmid-latitude continental interiors and asso-ciated risk of drought are projected to resultin decreased plant productivity, increasedrisk of wild fires and diseases and pest out-breaks; increased Asian summer monsoonprecipitation variability and increasedintensity of mid-latitude storms could leadto increased frequency and intensity offloods and damage to coastal areas.

(j) The general impact of climate change isthat the habitats of many species will movepoleward or upward from their currentlocations with most rapid changes beingwhere they are accelerated by changes innatural and anthropogenic disturbance pat-terns. Weedy (i.e., those that are highlymobile and can establish quickly) and inva-sive species will have advantage over others.

(k) Drought and desertification processes willresult in movements of habitats of manyspecies towards areas of higher rainfallfrom their current locations.

(l) The climatic zones suitable for temperateand boreal plant species may be displacedby 200–1,200 km poleward (compared tothe 1990s distribution) by the year 2100.The species composition of forests is likelyto change and new assemblages of speciesmay replace existing forest types that may beof lower species diversity due to the inabili-ty of some species to migrate fast enough

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 45


39

and or due to habitat fragmentation.Increased frequency and intensity of firesand changes caused by thawing of per-mafrost will also affect some of these ecosys-tems.

(m) For lakes and streams, the effects of tem-perature-dependent changes would beleast in the tropics, moderate at mid-lati-tudes, and pronounced in high latitudeswhere the largest changes in temperature areprojected. Increased temperatures will alterthermal cycles of lakes and solubility of oxy-gen and other materials, and thus affectecosystem structure and function. Changesin rainfall frequency and intensity com-bined with land-use change in watershedareas has led to increased soil erosion andsiltation in rivers. This along with increaseduse of manure, chemical fertilizers, pesti-cides, and herbicides as well as atmosphericnitrogen deposition affects river chemistryand has led to eutrophication, with majorimplications for water quality, species com-position, and fisheries. The extent and theduration of the ice cover is projected todecrease in some high latitude lakes andthus the biodiversity may be affected by theshorter ice cover season (Christensen andChristensen 2003)

(n) Climate change will have most pro-nounced effects on wetlands through alter-ing the hydrological regime as most inlandwetland processes are intricately dependenton the hydrology of the catchments (riverbasin) or coastal waters. This is expected toaffect biodiversity and the phenology ofwetland species (van Dam et al. 2002)

(o) Land degradation arises both from humanactivities and from adverse climate condi-tions as to the exact quantitative attribu-tion is difficult and controversial. Climate-related factors such as increased droughtcan lead to increased risk of land degrada-tion and desertification (Bullock et al. 1996,Le Houerou 2002, Nicholson 2001).

(p) Disturbance can both increase the rate ofloss of species and create opportunities forthe establishment of new (including inva-sive alien) species. Changes in the frequen-cy, intensity, extent and locations of distur-bances such as fires, outbreaks of pests anddiseases, will affect whether and how existingecosystems reorganize and the rate at whichthey are replaced by new plant and animalassemblages (see section 2.2.1).

(q) The effect of interactions between climatechange and changes in disturbance regimeand their effect on biotic interactions maylead to rapid changes in vegetation composi-tion and structure. However, the quantitativeextent of these changes is hard to project dueto the complexity of the interactions.

3.4.2. Projected changes in biodiversity andchanges in productivity

IPCC 2002 (section 6.2.2) stated that changes inbiodiversity and the changes in ecosystem func-tioning associated with them might affect biologi-cal productivity. These changes may affect criticalgoods and services (see Chapter 2) and the totalsequestration of carbon in ocean and terrestrialecosystems, which can affect the global carboncycle and the concentration of greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere. Productivity can be measured asnet primary productivity (NPP), net ecosystemproductivity (NEP) or net biome productivity(NEB – see Box 4 of IPCC 2002).

3.4.2.1.Effects of elevated atmosphericCO2 concentrations on vegetation

Climate change may either augment or reducethe direct effects of CO2 on productivity,depending on the type of vegetation, the region,and the scenario of climate change. In most veg-etation systems, increasing CO2 concentrationswould increase net primary productivity (oftenreferred to as CO2 fertilization effect) and netecosystem productivity, causing carbon to accu-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 46


40

mulate in vegetation and soils over time assum-ing that the temperature increase is about 2-3 °Cand there is little or no moisture limitation(Gitay et al. 2001).

The IPCC assessment was that over the 19thand for much of the 20th century the global ter-restrial biosphere was a net source of atmos-pheric CO2, but before the end of the 20th cen-tury it became a net sink, because of a combina-tion of factors, e.g., changes in land-use and landmanagement practices (e.g., reforestation andre-growth on abandoned land), increasinganthropogenic deposition of nitrogen, increasedatmospheric concentrations of CO2, and possi-bly climate warming (IPCC 2001, SYR, Question2, IPCC 2001, section 6.2.2 --see also chapter 4).54. During recent decades, the peak-to-troughamplitude in the seasonal cycle of atmosphericCO2 concentrations has increased, and the phasehas advanced at Arctic and sub-Arctic CO2

observation stations north of 55° N. This changein carbon dynamics in the atmosphere probablyreflects some combination of increased uptakeduring the first half of the growing season whichcould explain the observed increase in biomassof some shrubs, increased winter efflux andincreased seasonality of carbon exchange associ-ated with disturbance. This "inverse" approachhas generally concluded that mid-northern lati-tudes were a net carbon sink during the 1980sand early 1990s. At high northern latitudes, thesemodels give a wider range of estimates, withsome analyses pointing to a net and others to asink.

Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experi-ments suggest that tree growth rates mayincrease, litterfall and fine root increment mayincrease, and total net primary production mayincrease in forested systems, but these effects areexpected to saturate because forest stands tendtowards maximum carrying capacity, and plantsmay become acclimated to increased CO2 levels.Longer-term experiments on tree species grownunder elevated CO2 in open-top chambers underfield conditions over several growing seasons

show a continued and consistent stimulation ofphotosynthesis, little evidence of long-term lossof sensitivity to CO2, the relative effect on above-ground dry mass highly variable and greaterthan indicated by seedling studies, and the annu-al increase in wood mass per unit of leaf area.These results contradict some of the FACEexperiment results.

On a global scale, terrestrial models projectthat climate change would reduce the rate ofuptake of carbon by terrestrial ecosystems, butthat they would continue to be a net, butdecreasing, sink for carbon through 2100 (IPCC,2001, Question 3).

The interaction between atmospheric CO2

concentrations, air temperature and moisture isparticularly noticeable in the context of plant-plant interactions (including shifts in competi-tiveness of some groups of plants, e.g. C3 and C4

species and lianas). Photosynthesis in C3 plantsis expected to respond more strongly to CO2

enrichment than in C4 plants. If this is the case, itis likely to lead to an increase in geographic dis-tribution of C3 (many of which are woodyplants) at the expense of the C4 grasses. However,the impacts are not that simple. In pot experi-ments, elevated CO2 is reported to improve waterrelations and enhance productivity in the C4

shortgrass Bouteloua gracilis. In modelling andexperimental studies, NPP of both C3 and C4

grasses increased under elevated CO2 for a rangeof temperatures and precipitation but couldresult in relatively small changes in their geo-graphical distributions. There are additionalinteractions with soil characteristics and climat-ic factors. The rate and duration of any change islikely to be affected by the human activity wherea high grazing pressure may mean more estab-lishment sites for the C4 grasses (Gitay et al.2001). Phillips et al. (2002) have found increasedcompetitiveness and dominance of lianas inBrazilian Amazon under higher CO2 situations.There could be a resultant degradation of foreststructure with increased liana biomass pullingdown trees.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 47


41

3.4.2.2. Summary findings of projectedchanges in biodiversity and changes in

productivity

The main findings of IPCC (2002 – section6.2.2) are:(a) Where significant ecosystem disruption

occurs (e.g., loss of dominant species orlosses of a high proportion of species, thusmuch of the redundancy), there may belosses in NEP during the transition.

(b) The role of biodiversity in maintainingecosystem structure, functioning, and pro-ductivity is still poorly understood (seealso section 2.3).

3.5. PROJECTED IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY OF COASTAL AND

MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Climate change will affect the physical, biologi-cal, and biogeochemical characteristics of theoceans and their coasts at different time andspace scales, modifying their ecosystem structureand functioning. This in turn could exert feed-backs on the climate system (IPCC 2002 - sec-tion 6.3).

Human populations dependent on reef andcoastal systems face losses of marine biodiversi-ty, fisheries, and shoreline protection. Even thosereefs with well-enforced legal protection asmarine sanctuaries, or those managed for sus-tainable use, are threatened by global climatechange and thus would have repercussions forthe human populations that depend on them forvarious goods and services (Reaser et al. 2000).61. Wetlands, including reefs, atolls, mangroves,and those in prairies, tropical and boreal forestsand polar and alpine ecosystems, are consideredto be amongst those natural systems especiallyvulnerable to climate change because of theirlimited adaptive capacity, and are likely toundergo significant and irreversible change(IPCC 2001 – WG2 SPM).

Other wetlands that could be impacted by

climate change are those in regions that experi-ence El Niño-like phenomena, which are pro-jected to increase, and/or are located in the con-tinental interiors, and thus are likely to experi-ence changes in the catchment hydrology (vanDam et al. 2002).

3.5.1 Projected impacts on ecosystems incoastal regions

Some of the findings of IPCC (2002- section6.3.1) and supplemented by recent materialinclude:(a) Coral reefs will be impacted detrimentally

if sea surface temperatures increase bymore than 1°C above the seasonal maxi-mum temperature. In addition, an increasein atmospheric CO2 concentration andhence oceanic CO2 affects the ability of thereef plants and animals to make limestoneskeletons (reef calcification); a doubling ofatmospheric CO2 concentrations couldreduce reef calcification and reduce the abil-ity of the coral to grow vertically and keeppace with rising sea level (see also section3.7).

(b) In the near-shore marine and coastal sys-tems, many wetlands could be impactedindirectly as a result of climate change dueto changes in storm surges. As a result,there will be saltwater intrusion into thefreshwater systems. This may result in large-scale translocation of populations in lowlying coral reef countries when tropicalstorm surges pollute water supplies andagricultural land with saltwater (Wilkinsonand Buddemeier 1994). Mangroves andcoastal lagoons are expected to undergorapid change and perhaps be lost as reloca-tion may be impeded by physical factors,including infrastructure and physical geo-graphical features (van Dam et al. 2002).Some examples are the United States ofAmerica coastal ecosystems where theincreasing rates of sea-level rise and intensi-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 48


42

ty and frequency of coastal storms and hur-ricanes over the next decades will increasethreats to shorelines, wetlands, and coastaldevelopment (Scavia et al. 2002, Burkett andKusler 2000).

(c) Sea-level rise and changes in other climat-ic factors (e.g., more intense monsoonalrains, and larger tidal or storm surges)may affect a range of freshwater wetlandsin low-lying regions. For example, in tropi-cal regions, low lying floodplains and asso-ciated swamps could be displaced by saltwater habitats due to the combined actionsof sea level rise, more intense monsoonalrains, and larger tidal/storm surges. Suchchanges are likely to result in dislocation ifnot displacement of many wetland species,both plants and animals. Plants, turtles,some frogs and snakes, a range of inverte-brate species, bird and fish populations andspecies not tolerant to increased salinity orinundation, have and could continue to beeliminated or restricted in their distribu-tion, whilst salt-tolerant mangrove speciescould expand from nearby coastal habitats.

(d) The combined pressures of sea level riseand coastal development (resulting incoastal squeeze) could reduce the avail-ability of intertidal areas, resulting in lossof feeding habitat and leading to populationdeclines in wintering shorebirds (Lindströmand Agrell 1999). For a number of trans-African-Arctic migratory bird species, thewintering grounds in Africa and breedinggrounds in the Arctic will be threatened bysea level rise, especially due to loss of mud-flats (Bayliss et al. 1997, Lindström andAgrell 1999, van Dam et al. 2002).Migratory and resident animals, such asbirds and fish, may lose important staging,feeding and breeding grounds (Bayliss et al.1997, Eliot et al. 1999, Finlayson et al. 1993,Lal et al. 2001, Li et al. 1999, van Dam et al.2002).

(e) Currently eroding beaches and barriers

are expected to erode further as the climatechanges and sea level rises.

(f) Globally, about 20% of coastal wetlandscould be lost by the year 2080 due to sea-level rise, with significant regional varia-tions.

(g) The impact of sea-level rise on coastalecosystems (e.g., mangroves, marshes, sea-grasses) will vary regionally and willdepend on the interactions between erosionprocesses from the sea depositional process-es from land and sea-level rise. The ability offringing and barrier reefs to reduce impactsof storms and supply sediments can beadversely affected by sea-level rise.

3.5.2 Projected impacts on marine ecosystems

Marine ecosystems include various functionallydifferent seas and oceans. Changes in the physi-cal and chemical characteristics of the ocean andseas (e.g. currents or circulation patterns, nutri-ent availability, pH, salinity, and the temperatureof the ocean waters) will affect marine ecosys-tems. Climate change impacts on the marine sys-tem include sea surface temperature-inducedshifts in the geographic distribution of the biotaand compositional changes in biodiversity, par-ticularly in high latitudes. The literature in thisarea is not as extensive as in the terrestrial andcoastal ecosystems. In addition, the presentknowledge of the impacts of potential changes inentire ecosystems due to climate change is stillpoor.

Current scenarios of global climate changeinclude projections of increased upwelling andconsequent cooling in temperate and subtropicalupwelling zones. Ecological evidence, despitebeing limited, suggests that such cooling coulddisrupt trophic relationships and favour retro-grade community structures in those local areas(Aronson and Blake 2001, Barret 2003).

The response of marine productivity to cli-mate change, using two different ocean biogeo-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 49


43

chemical schemes and two different atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models (GCM),suggest a reduction in marine export production(-6%) although regional changes can be both neg-ative and positive (from -15% zonal average in thetropics to +10% in the Southern Ocean; Bopp etal. 2001).

The main findings of the IPCC (2002- section6.3.2) supplemented by recent literature include:(a) The mean distribution of plankton and

marine productivity in the oceans in manyregions could change during the 21st centurywith projected changes in the sea surfacetemperature, wind speed, nutrient supply,and sunlight.

(b) Climate change will have both positive andnegative impacts on the abundance and dis-tribution of marine biota. Recent findingsshow that warming will cause a northernshift of distribution limits for the cod (Gadusmorhua) and common eelpout (Zoarcesviviparus) with a rise in growth performanceand fecundity larger than expected in thenorth and lower growth or even extinction ofthe species in the south. Such a shift mayheavily affect fishing activities in the NorthSea (Portner et al. 2001).

(c) Productivity of commercially importantfish species could be affected. There are clearlinkages with the intensity and position ofthe Aleutian Low Pressure system in thePacific Ocean and the production trends ofmany of the commercially important fishspecies (see also Napp and Hunt 2001).

(d) There is likely to be a poleward shift ofmarine production due mainly to a longergrowing season at high latitudes. At low lati-tudes the effect of reduced upwelling wouldprevail. Ocean warming is expected to causepoleward shifts in the ranges of many otherorganisms, including commercial species,

and these shifts may have secondary effectson their predators and prey (Bopp et al.2001).

(e) Climate change could affect food chains,particularly those that include marinemammals. Reductions in sea ice in Arcticand Antarctic could alter the seasonal dis-tributions, geographic ranges, migrationpatterns, nutritional status, reproductivesuccess, and ultimately the abundance ofmarine mammals.

3.6 PROJECTED IMPACTS ON TRADITIONAL AND INDIGENOUS

PEOPLES

Traditional18 and indigenous peoples dependdirectly on diverse resources from ecosystemsand biodiversity for many goods and services(e.g., food and medicines from forests, coastalwetlands, and rangelands – see also chapter 2).These ecosystems are already under stress frommany current human activities and projected tobe adversely affected by climate change (IPCC2002 – section 6.6). The main findings of IPCC(2002 –section 6.6, Box 5-12) supplementedwith additional material include:(a) The effects of climate change on indige-

nous and local peoples are likely to be feltearlier than the general impacts. The liveli-hood of indigenous peoples will be adverse-ly affected if climate and land-use changelead to losses in biodiversity, especiallymammals, birds medicinal plants and plantsor animals with restricted distribution (buthave importance in terms of food, fibre orother uses for these peoples) and losses ofterrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystemsthat these peoples depend on. In some ter-restrial ecosystems, adaptation options(such as efficient small-scale or garden

18. Following IPCC (2002) “Traditional peoples” here refers to local populations who practice traditional lifestyles that are often rural. Traditionalpeople may, or may not, be indigenous to the location.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 50


44

irrigation, more effective rain-fed farming,changing cropping patterns, intercroppingand/or using crops with lower waterdemand, conservation tillage and coppicingof trees for fuelwood) could reduce some ofthe impacts and reduce land degradation(see section 4.10).

(b) Climate change will affect traditionalpractices of indigenous peoples in theArctic, particularly fisheries, hunting, andreindeer husbandry. The on-going interestamong indigenous groups relating to thecollection of traditional knowledge andtheir observations of climate change and itsimpact on their communities could providefuture adaptation options.

(c) Cultural and spiritual sites and practicescould be affected by sea level rise and cli-mate change. Shifts in the timing or theranges of wildlife species due to climatechange could impact the cultural and reli-gious lives of some indigenous peoples. Sea-level rise and climate change, coupled withother environmental changes, will affectsome, but not all, unique cultural and spiri-tual sites in coastal areas and thus the peoplethat reside there.

(d) The projected climate change impacts onthe biodiversity, including disease vectors,at ecosystem and species level couldimpact human health. Many indigenousand local peoples live in isolated rural livingconditions and are more likely to beexposed to vector- and water-borne diseasesand climatic extremes and would thereforebe adversely affected by climate change. Theloss of staple food and medicinal speciescould have an indirect impact and can alsomean potential loss of future discoveries ofpharmacological products and sources offood, fibre and medicinal plants for thesepeoples (Gitay et al. 2001, McMichael et al.1996, 2001)

(e) Loss of food sources and revenues fromkey sectors such as tourism and fisheries

could occur As summarised in Section3.5.1, coral reefs will be negatively affectedby bleaching; Fishing, although largely arti-sanal or small-scale commercial, is animportant activity on most small islands,and makes a significant contribution to theprotein intake of island inhabitants and thuscould lead to loss of food source and rev-enue.

(f) Change in food production and waterflows in mountainous areas could affectthe indigenous and local people of thoseareas. For indigenous and local people liv-ing in mountainous regions, the impacts ofclimate change are projected to result inaltering the already marginal food produc-tion, change the seasonality of water flowsand thus the habitats of many species thatthese people depend on.

(g) The potential expansion of tree monocul-ture used as "carbon sinks" can competewith traditional land use practices byindigenous and local communities, e.g., inSouth Africa (see also chapter 4). However,community involvement and knowledgecould help towards win-win situations.

3.7 POPULATIONS, SPECIES ANDECOSYSTEMS VULNERABLE TO

CLIMATE CHANGE

Many of the Earth’s species are already at risk ofextinction due to pressures arising from naturalprocesses and human activities. Climate changewill add to these pressures for many threatenedand vulnerable species. For a few, climate changemay relieve some of the existing pressures (IPCC2002- section 6.4). Regional variation in theimpacts of climate change on biodiversity isexpected because of multiple interactionsbetween drivers of biodiversity loss. The mainfindings of IPCC (2002) are:(a) Species with limited climatic ranges

and/or restricted habitat requirements aretypically the most vulnerable to extinc-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 51


45

tion. These include species on mountainousareas (as they cannot move up in elevation),and species restricted to islands or peninsu-las (e.g., the Cape Floral Kingdom includingthe fynbos region at the southern tip ofSouth Africa). Additionally, biota with par-ticular physiological or phenological traits(e.g., biota with temperature-dependent sexdetermination like sea turtles and croco-diles, amphibians with a permeable skin andeggs) could be especially vulnerable. Forsome threatened species, habitat availabilitywill increase (e.g., warm-water fish are pro-jected to benefit in shallow lakes in cooltemperate regions), possibly reducing vul-nerability.

(b) The risk of extinction will increase formany species, especially those that arealready at risk due to factors such as lowpopulation numbers, restricted or patchyhabitats, limited climatic ranges, or occur-rence on low-lying islands or near the top ofmountains.

(c) Geographically restricted ecosystems,especially in regions where there is addedpressure from other human activities, arepotentially vulnerable to climate change.Examples of geographically restricted, vul-nerable ecosystems include coral reefs, man-grove forests and other coastal wetlands,high mountain ecosystems (upper 2000 to3000 m), prairie wetlands, remnant nativegrasslands, ecosystems overlying per-mafrost, and ice-edge ecosystems.

(d) Many important reserve systems may needto be extended in area or linked to otherreserves, but for some such extensions arenot possible as there is simply no place toextend them.

3.8 IMPACTS OF CHANGES IN TERRESTRIAL AND MARINE

BIODIVERSITY ON REGIONAL AND GLOBAL CLIMATE

70. Changes in genetic or species biodiversity canlead to changes in the structure and functioningof ecosystems and their interaction with thewater, carbon, nitrogen, and other major biogeo-chemical cycles and so affect climate. Changes indiversity at ecosystem and landscape scales inresponse to climate change and other pressurescould further affect regional and global climate.Changes in trace gas fluxes are most likely toexert their effect at the global scale due to rapidatmospheric mixing of greenhouse gases, where-as the climate feedbacks from changes in waterand energy exchange occur locally and regional-ly (IPCC 2002 – section 6.5). The IPCC (2002 –section 6.5) findings were as follows:

Changes in community composition andecosystem distribution due to climate changeand human disturbances may lead to feedbacksthat affect regional and global climate. Forexample, in high-latitude regions, changes incommunity composition and land cover associ-ated with warming are likely to alter feedbacks toclimate. If regional surface warming continues inthe tundra, reductions in albedo are likely toenhance energy absorption during winter, actingas a positive feedback to regional warming dueto earlier melting of snow and over the long termthe poleward movement of treeline. Surface dry-ing and a change in dominance from mosses tovascular plants would also enhance sensible heatflux and regional warming in tundra during theactive growing season. Boreal forest fires, howev-er, may promote cooling because post-fireherbaceous and deciduous forest ecosystemshave higher albedo and lower sensible heat fluxthan does late successional pre-fire vegetation.Northern wetlands contribute 5 to 10% of glob-al CH4 emissions to the atmosphere. As temper-ature, hydrology, and community compositionchange and as permafrost melts, there is a poten-tial for release of large quantities of greenhousegases from northern wetlands, which may pro-vide a further positive feedback to climatewarming.(a) Human actions leading to the long-term

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 52

clearing and loss of woody vegetation haveand continue to contribute significantly togreenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Inmany cases the loss of species diversity asso-ciated with forest clearing leads to a long-term transition from a forest to a fire and/orgrazing-maintained, relatively low diversitygrassland with significantly lower carboncontent than the original forest.Deforestation and land-clearing activitiescontributed about a fifth of the greenhousegas emissions (1.7±0.8 Gt C yr-1) duringthe 1990s with most being from deforesta-tion of tropical regions. A total of 136±55Gt C have been released to the atmospheredue to land clearing since the year 1850.

(b) Changes in land surface characteristics—such as those created by land-coverchange—can modify energy, water, and gasfluxes and affect atmospheric compositioncreating changes in local, regional, andglobal climate. Evapotranspiration andalbedo affect the local hydrologic cycle, thusa reduction in vegetative cover may lead toreduced precipitation at local and regionalscales and change the frequency and persist-ence of droughts. For example, in theAmazon basin, at least 50% of precipitationoriginates from evapotranspiration fromwithin the basin. Deforestation reducesevapotranspiration, which could reduceprecipitation by about 20%, producing aseasonal dry period and increasing localsurface temperatures by 2°C. This could, inturn, result in a decline in the area of wettropical rainforests and their permanentreplacement by less diverse drought-decidu-ous or dry tropical forests or woodlands.

(c) Marine ecosystems can be affected by cli-mate-related factors, and these changes inturn could act as additional feedbacks onthe climate system. Some phytoplanktonspecies cause emission of dimethylsulfide tothe atmosphere that has been linked to theformation of cloud condensation nuclei.

Changes in the abundance or distribution ofsuch phytoplankton species may cause addi-tional feedbacks on climate change.


Further research of present and projected cli-mate change impacts on soils and on coastal andmarine ecosystems is warranted. There are alsosome information gaps that affect the ability ofmaking reliable projections of impacts. Themain ones relate to development of data andmodels for:(a) the geographical distribution of terrestrial,

freshwater, coastal and marine species, espe-cially those based on quantitative informa-tion and at high resolution Special attentionshould be given to invertebrates, lowerplants and key species in ecosystems.

(b) the inclusion of human land and water usepatterns, as they will greatly affect the abili-ty of organisms to respond to climatechange via migration, to provide a realisticprojection of the future state of the Earth’secosystems.

(c) enabling the elucidation of the impacts ofclimate change compared with pressuresfrom other human activities.

(d) projections on changes in biodiversity inresponse to climate change especially at theregional and local level.

(e) assessing impacts and adaptations to cli-mate change at genetic, population andecosystem level.


46

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 53


47

3.10 REFERENCES Aronson, R.B. and Blake, D.B. (2001). Global climate change and the origin ofmodern benthic communities in Antarctica.American Zoologist 41: 27 – 39.Barbraud, C. and H. Weimerskirch. (2001). Emperor penguins and climatechange. Nature 411: 183-186.Barret, P. (2003). Cooling a continent. Nature 421: 221-223.Bayliss B, Brenman K, Elliot I, Finlayson M, Hall R, House T, Pidgeon B, WaldenD and Waterman, P. (1997). Vulnerability Assessment of Predicted ClimateChange and Sea Level Rise in the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern TerritoryAustralia. Supervising Scientist Report 123, Supervising Scientist, Canberra, 134pp.Bopp, L., P. Monfray, O. Aumont, J.L. Dufresne, H. Le Treut, G. Madec, L. Terray,and J.C. Orr. (2001). Potential impact of climate change on marine export pro-duction. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15: 81-99.Bullock, P., Le Houreou, H., Hoffmann, M.T., Rousevelle, M., Seghal, J. andVárallyay,G.(1996).Chapter 4.Land Degradation and Desertification.IN ClimateChange 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigations of Climate Change:Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the SecondAssessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change. Watson, R.T.,Zinyowera,M.C.and Moss,R.H.(eds). pp.170-200. IPCC/Cambridge UniversityPressBurkett,V.and J.Kusler (2000).Climate change:Potential impacts and interactionsin wetlands of the United States. Journal of the American Water ResourcesAssociation 36: 313-320.Butler, R.W. and Vennesland R.G. (2000). Integrating climate change and preda-tion risk with wading bird conservation research in North America. Waterbirds23(3): 535-540.Christensen J.H. and Christensen O.B. (2003). Climate Modelling: Severe sum-mertime flooding in Europe. Nature 421: 805-806.Eliot I., Waterman P. and Finlayson C.M. (1999). Monitoring and assessment ofcoastal change in Australia’s wet-dry tropics. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7:63-81.Finlayson C.M.,Volz, J.and Chuikow,Y.(1993).Ecological change in the wetlandsof the Lower Volga, Russia. In ME Moser, RC Prentice and J van Vessem (eds)Waterfowl and Wetland Conservation in the 1990s - A Global Perspective, IWRBSpecial Publication No 26, Slimbridge, UK. pp 61-66.Gitay, H., Brown, S., Easterling, W., Jallow, B. et al. (2001). Chapter 5. Ecosystemsand Their Goods and Services. IN Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptations,and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Thirds AssessmentReport of the International Panel on Climate Change. McCarthy, J.J., Canziani,O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J.,White, K.S. (eds). pp. 235-342. IPCC/CambridgeUniversity PressIPCC. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core WritingTeam (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, andNew York, NY, USA, 398 pp.IPCC. (2002). Climate Change and Biodiversity. A Technical Paper of the IPCC.Edited by Gitay,H.Suarez,A.Watson,R.T and Dokken,D.WMO/IPCC publica-tion.Lal M.,Harasawa,H.,Murdiyarso,D (2001).Chapter 11.Asia.In:Climate Change2001: Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working GroupII to the Third Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change.McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J.,White, K.S. (eds). pp533-590. Cambridge University Press.Le Houerou,H.N.(2002.) Man-made deserts:Desertization processes and threats.Arid Land Research and Management 16: 1-36.Li.,P.,Jun Y,Lejun L and Mingzuo,F.(1999).Vulnerability assessment of the YellowRiver Delta to predicted climate change and sea level rise. In Vulnerability assess-ment of two major wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region to climate change and sealevel rise, eds RA van Dam, CM Finlayson and D Watkins. Supervising ScientistReport 149, Supervising Scientist, Darwin,Australia, pp. 7-73.Lindström, A. and Agrell, J. (1999). Global changes and possible effects on themigration and reproduction of arctic-breeding waders. Ecological Bulletins 47:145-159.McLaughlin, J.F., J.J. Hellmann, C.L. Boggs, and P.R. Ehrlich. (2002). Climatechange hastens population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America 99: 6070-6074.McMichael, A.J. M. Ando, R. Carcavallo, P. Epstein, A. Haines; G. Jendritzky, L.

Kalkstein, R. Odongo, J. Patz, W. Piver, et al. (1996). Chapter 18. HumanPopulation Health. IN Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations andMitigations of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the International Panel onClimate Change. Watson, R.T., Zinyowera, M.C. and Moss, R.H. (eds). pp. 350-380. IPCC/Cambridge University PressMcMichael, et al. Chapter 9: Human health. (2001). IN Climate Change 2001:Impacts,Adaptations,and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to theThirds Assessment Report ofthe International Panel on Climate Change.McCarthy,J.J.,Canziani,O.F.,Leary,N.A.,Dokken,D.J.,White,K.S.(eds). IPCC/Cambridge UniversityPressNapp, J.M. and G.L. Hunt (2001). Anomalous conditions in the south-easternBering Sea 1997: linkages among climate, weather, ocean, and Biology. FisheriesOceanography 10: 61-68.Nicholson, S.E. (2001.) Climatic and environmental change in Africa during thelast two centuries [Review]. Climate Research 17: 123-144.Parmesan, C. and Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climatechange impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37– 42Phillips, O.L. et al. (2002). Increasing dominance of large lianas in Amazonianforests. Nature 418: 770–774.Pittock, B., Wratt, D. (with Basher, R., Bates, B., Finlayson, M., Gitay, H. andWoodward, A.). (2001). Chapter 12. Australia and New Zealand. In: ClimateChange 2001: Impacts,Adaptations, and Vulnerability. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Thirds Assessment Report of the International Panel on ClimateChange.McCarthy,J.J.,Canziani,O.F.,Leary,N.A.,Dokken,D.J.,White,K.S.(eds).Pp. 591-640. Cambridge University Press.Portner,H.O.,B.Berdal,R.Blust,O.Brix,A.Colosimo,B.De Wachter,A.Giuliani,T. Johansen, T. Fischer, R. Knust, G. Lannig, G. Naevdal, A. Nedenes, G.Nyhammer, F.J. Sartoris, I. Serendero, P. Sirabella, S. Thorkildsen, and M.Zakhartsev.(2001).Climate induced temperature effects on growth performance,fecundity and recruitment in marine fish: developing a hypothesis for cause andeffect relationships in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) and common eelpout (Zoarcesviviparus) [Review]. Continental Shelf Research 21: 1975-1997.Reaser, J.K., R. Pomerance, and P.O. Thomas. (2000). Coral bleaching and globalclimate change: Scientific findings and policy recommendations. ConservationBiology 14: 1500-1511.Root, T. L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J. A. Pounds.(2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421:57 - 60 Roshier, D.A., P.H. Whetton, R.J. Allan, and A.I. Robertson (2001). Distributionand persistence of temporary wetland habitats in arid Australia in relation to cli-mate.Austral Ecology 26: 371-384.Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M.Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H.Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. (2002). Climate change impacts on US coastal andmarine ecosystems [Review]. Estuaries 25: 149-164.van Dam, R., Gitay, H. and Finlayson, M. (2002). Climate Change and Wetlands:Impacts and Mitigation. Ramsar Draft COP8 paper.Wilkinson,C.R.and Buddemeier,R.W.(1994). Global Climate Change and CoralReefs: Implications for People and Reefs. Report of the UNEP-IOC-ASPEI-IUCNGlobal Task Team on Coral Reefs. IUCN, Gland Switzerland, pp.124Williams,W.D. (1998). Dryland wetlands. In: McComb,A.J. and Davis, J.A. (eds).Wetlands for the Future. Gleneagles Publishing, Glen Osmond, Australia. pp 33-47.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 54

4. CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION OPTIONS: LINKS TO,AND IMPACTS ON, BIODIVERSITY

Main authors: Horst Korn, Phocus Ntayombya,Outi Berghäll, Janet Cotter, Robert Lamb,Gregory Ruark, Ian Thompson.

Contributing authors: Kathrin Ammerman, AsaAradottir, Yasemin E. K. Biro, Peter Bridgewater,Vaclav Burianek, Samuel Dieme, David Coates,David Cooper, Claudio Forner, Andy Gillison,Manuel R. Guariguata, Hans Joosten, PatrickMcCully, Beverly McIntyre, Ndegwa Ndiang’ui,Bernd Neukirchen, Ian Noble, Angelika Thuille,Heikki Toivonen, Marjo Vierros.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to review the pos-sible biodiversity implications of climate changemitigation and adaptation activities, andapproaches to integrate biodiversity concernsinto these activities, in order to generate mutual-ly beneficial outcomes—or at least to minimizeconflicting ones. The first section brieflydescribes the current status of the Earth’s carboncycle. Section 4.2 discusses articles and provi-sions of the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change and its KyotoProtocol that are pertinent to the present assess-ment. Biodiversity concerns relevant for mitiga-tion and adaptation actions are discussed in lightof the underlying philosophy of the EcosystemApproach of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (section 4.3). Sections 4.4 to 4.8 gener-ally follow the Kyoto Protocol activities (i.e.,land-use, land-use change and forestry and low-or zero-greenhouse gas emission energy tech-nologies). Considerable attention is given to mit-igation options related to forests and land man-agement, as biodiversity relationships arepresently best understood in these situations.Section 4.9 discusses some mitigation optionsthat may be relevant to national climate changeand/or biodiversity policies, although not credit-ed under the Kyoto Protocol (e.g., carbonsequestration in ocean systems, wetlands, andgeologic formations). Mitigation options aimed

at reducing emissions from energy generationare also considered because some of them mayhave impacts on biodiversity (section 4.10). Thefocus of the discussion in section 4.11 is on iden-tifying the key issues for biodiversity conserva-tion in adaptation activities aimed at assistingecosystems to adjust to climate change (althoughit should be noted that certain activities can beconsidered as both mitigation and adaptationoptions).

4.1 THE CARBON CYCLE

When a forest is planted (or when is naturallyyoung as during early secondary succession) itacts as a carbon "sink" by absorbing atmospher-ic carbon dioxide and storing it in living plantbiomass and in materials that accumulate on theforest floor and in the soil. In old-growth, pri-mary forests, carbon stocks remain approxi-mately constant or increase over time and theforest is referred to as a carbon "sink" at least intemperate and tropical systems (Carey et al.2001), although they can be subject to reversal,e.g. during El Niño type conditions in Amazonia(Tian et al. 1998). However, when a forest orwood products are burned, much of the storedcarbon is rapidly converted to carbon dioxideand the forest then acts as a "source" of carbondioxide to the atmosphere. Harvested wood thatis stored in products that are not burned serve asa carbon reservoir for various periods of timedepending on use and degree of preservation.

The atmospheric concentration of carbondioxide has historically oscillated between about180 ppm (parts per million) during glacial peri-ods and 280 ppm during interglacial periods.However, since the industrial revolution beganin the mid 1800’s, human activities, primarilythrough the combustion of fossil fuels and land-use changes, have and are continuing to perturbthe carbon cycle, increasing the atmosphericconcentration of carbon dioxide to the currentlevel of about 368 ppm.

While the terrestrial biosphere has histori-


48

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 55


49

cally (from the year 1800 until about 1930) beena net source of carbon to the atmosphere, in thelast several decades or so it has become a netsink. Since 1930 there has been an ever-increas-ing uptake by terrestrial biosphere, with thegross terrestrial uptake exceeding emissionsfrom land-use changes.

Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 (both based onWatson and Noble 2002) show that during the1990s the net global uptake of carbon by theterrestrial biosphere was about 1.4 Gigatons Cper year. Assuming emissions from tropicaldeforestation in the 1990s were about 1.6 Gt Cper year (the same as in the 1980s), then thegross global uptake of carbon by the terrestrialbiosphere was about 3 Gt C per year. Inversemodeling suggests that about half of the globaluptake is occurring in the tropics and the otherhalf in the mid- and high-latitudes of thenorthern hemisphere, hence the net emissionsfrom the tropics are close to zero, while the netemissions in mid- and high latitudes are about1.5 Gt C per year. The primary cause of thecurrent uptake of about 1.5 Gt C per year inNorth America, Europe and Asia is thought tobe re-growth due to management practices onabandoned agricultural land, with carbon diox-ide and nitrogen fertilization and climatechange contributing, but possibly to a smallerextent.

One important feature of the carbon cycleis the considerable year-to-year variability inthe growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide, withthe annual rate of increase varying by ±2 Gt C.This variability is largely caused by changes inthe uptake and release of carbon dioxide in theterrestrial biosphere, with smaller changes inthe uptake and release of carbon dioxide in theoceans. The most likely cause of the temporalvariability is caused by the effect of climate oncarbon pools with short lifetimes through vari-ations in photosynthesis, respiration and fires.Evidence suggests that variations in respiration,rather than photosynthesis, are the primarycause. A key question is: how will compliancewith the Kyoto Protocol be measured againstthis year-to-year background variability ofabout ±2 Gt C around the mean?

Based on plausible future demographic,economic, socio-political, technological andbehavioral changes, and in the absence of coor-dinated international actions to protect the cli-mate system by reducing greenhouse gas emis-sions, the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange projected that the atmospheric concen-tration of carbon dioxide would increase fromthe current level of about 368 ppm, to between540 and 970 ppm by 2100, without taking intoaccount possible climate-induced additionalreleases from the biosphere in a warmer world.

Flux type 1980s 1990s

Atmospheric increase 3.3 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.1

Fossil emissions 5.4 ± 0.3 6.3 ± 0.4

Ocean - Atmosphere flux -1.9 ± 0.6 -1.7 ± 0.5

Net Land – Atmosphere flux -0.2 ± 0.7 -1.4 ± 0.7

Land-use Change 1.7 ± ? 1.6 ± 0.8

Residual terrestrial sink -1.9 ± ? - 3.0 ±?

Table 4.1: Estimated carbon fluxes for two contrasting time periods (in Gigatons).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 56


50

4.2 THE UNFCCC AND THE KYOTOPROTOCOL

Article 4.1(b) of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) states that all Parties shall formu-late and implement national programs con-taining measures to mitigate climate change byaddressing anthropogenic emissions bysources and removals by sinks of all green-house gases and to facilitate adequate adapta-tion to climate change. Acknowledging thatParties have "common but differentiated respon-sibilities" the UNFCCC divides countries intotwo main groups: Annex I includes most coun-tries from the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), andcountries with economies in transition (EIT); allother countries are designated as non-Annex I.The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is thestabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas con-centrations at levels that would prevent danger-ous anthropogenic interference with the climatesystem. Such a level should be achieved within atimeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems toadapt naturally to climate change, to ensure thatfood production is not threatened and to enableeconomic development to proceed in a sustain-able manner (Article 2).

Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC recognizes that

Annex I Parties should take the lead in combat-ing climate change and the adverse effects there-of. To this end, these Parties have agreed, underArticle 4.2(a), to adopt national policies and totake corresponding measures for climate changemitigation through two main avenues including:(a) actions aimed at reducing or limiting green-house gas emissions (for example, fuel switch-ing, the use of renewable energies and others);and (b) the protection and enhancement of sinksand reservoirs (mainly forestry-related activi-ties).

With the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol,Annex I Parties agreed to reduce their aggre-gate anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissionsby at least 5% below the 1990 levels during2008-2012. In order to meet this target, Annex IParties can make use of two basic alternatives:83. First, Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol identi-fies policies and measures to be implementeddomestically that may include, among others:(a) Energy-related activities, including the

enhancement of energy efficiency and theuse of renewable sources.

(b) Land-use related activities including theprotection and enhancement of sinks (alsoknown as LULUCF19) and the promotion ofsustainable forms of agriculture. Article 3.3specifies that Parties can execute activities ofafforestation, reforestation, and deforesta-

Figure 4.1: The carbon cycle during the 1990s

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 3:00 PM Page 57


51

tion, and shall account for the emissionsand removals from these activities that haveoccurred since 1990. Article 3.4 of theKyoto Protocol allows Annex I Parties toimplement additional land-use relatedactivities. These additional activities weredefined by the Marrakesh Accords20 andinclude forest management, revegetation,grazing land management and/or croplandmanagement. An Annex I Party can choosewithin this list which activities to imple-ment.Second, domestic actions may be supple-

mented with three flexibility mechanisms, whichinclude:(a) Joint Implementation (JI) - (Article 6 of the

Kyoto Protocol), comprising projectsdesigned between two or more Annex IParties and which are implemented in one ofthem. These projects may include any of theactivities cited above. Through JI, investorscan benefit by earning units resulting fromthese projects.

(b) Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) -(Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol), compris-ing projects that take place in a non-Annex IParty. The purpose of the CDM is both toassist Annex I Parties in meeting their com-mitments, and to assist non-Annex I Partiesin achieving sustainable development.CDM projects may include activities thatreduce emissions of greenhouse gases, butfor land-use change related activities, eligi-bility has been restricted to afforestation andreforestation.

(c) Emissions Trading (ET) - (Article 17 of theKyoto Protocol), comprising trading of car-bon units among Annex I Parties. ET pri-marily takes place when an Annex I Partyhas reduced emissions below its target, thusresulting in a surplus that could be traded.

Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol obligatesall Annex I Parties to account for the changes incarbon stocks and non-carbon dioxide green-house gas emissions attributable to afforesta-tion, reforestation, and deforestation (ARD). Ifthe ensamble of ARD activities result in a netsink of greenhouse gases, the Party will be givencredit towards meeting its emissions target. Onthe other hand, net emissions resulting fromhigher deforestation will represent a debittowards meeting commitments.

The Marrakesh Accords allow Annex IParties to account for changes in carbon stocksand non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emis-sions resulting from forest management, reveg-etation, cropland and grazing land manage-ment (Article 3.4). A Party may choose toinclude any or all of these in meeting its com-mitments. Once taken, the decision cannot bechanged. For forest management there is a quan-tified "cap" specified for each Party. Credits forrevegetation, cropland, and grazing land man-agement are calculated on a "net-net" basis21. If asink becomes a source, the net emissions origi-nating from this source will add to the compli-ance burden of the Party concerned.

The Marrakesh accords state that emis-sions and removals resulting from LULUCFactivities shall be measured as verifiablechanges in carbon stocks and non-carbondioxide greenhouse gas emissions during theperiod from 1 January 2008 to 31 December2012. The Accords also state that these changesmust be measured for five different pools: above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter,dead wood and soil organic carbon. However, aparty may choose not to account for a given poolif this Party can demonstrate that the pool is nota source of greenhouse gas.

The Marrakesh Accords affirm the inclu-sion of Land Use, Land Use Change and

19 LULUCF stands for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry.20 The term “Marrakesh Accords” is used in this document to refer to the group of decisions adopted in 2001 during the seventh session of the COP

of the UNFCCC. These decisions define the operational rules for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.21 “Net-net” accounting for specific activities under Article 3.4 is performed by subtracting the net changes in carbon stocks resulting from these

activities in 1990 multiplied by five from the net changes in carbon stocks resulting from these activities during the commitment period.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 58


52

Forestry (LULUCF) project activities under theCDM, limiting eligibility to afforestation andreforestation. For the first commitment period(2008 - 2012), credits resulting from afforesta-tion and reforestation under the CDM are limit-ed to one percent of the Party’s base year emis-sions times five.

The Marrakesh Accords require CDMprojects and JI Track II22 projects to submitdocumentation on the analysis of the environ-mental impacts of the project activities. Ifproject participants or the host Party considerthese impacts significant, an environmentalimpact assessment (EIA) must be undertaken inaccordance with the requirements of the hostParty. These assessments can assist project par-ticipants in modifying projects to protect, con-serve and enhance biodiversity (see chapter 5).

Climate change mitigation activities thatthe Parties could implement may impact biodi-versity in positive or negative ways (IPCC2002). The major focus of domestic mitigationpolicies and measures, as well as JI and CDMactivities, will be on the reduction of emissionsfrom the production and use of fossil fuelsthrough the use of alternative energy technolo-gies (e.g., renewable energy), but there will alsobe activities in the fields of forestry, agriculture,and waste disposal. An activity may or may nothave implications to biodiversity conservation,depending on its nature and the location of theactivity. However, activities can often be opti-mized to help conserve or even enhance biodi-versity, while at the same time sequestering car-bon, resulting in ‘win-win’ solutions for society.Mitigation actions, such as forest conservationand forest management, are particularly relevantfor biodiversity concerns, as they have the poten-tial to contribute to the conservation of biologi-cal diversity.

Implementation of climate change adapta-tion activities will depend on the expected cli-

mate change impacts in the country concerned:for example, sea level rise, increased risk offlooding, and occurrence of extreme weatherevents. Article 4.8 of the UNFCCC lists cate-gories of countries (e.g., small island countries;countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forestedareas, and areas liable to forest decay; countrieswith fragile ecosystems, including mountainousregions) with environments that are particularlyvulnerable to climate change and where adapta-tion actions may be necessary. The decisionsrelated to developing country funding in theMarrakesh Accords state that adaptation activi-ties are to be implemented, inter alia, in the areasof water resource management, land manage-ment, fragile ecosystems, and integrated coastalmanagement (FCCC/2001/13/Add.1 Decision5/CP7). From this list, it can be inferred thatconservation of biodiversity may be a key objec-tive of many adaptation activities.

4.3 THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH OF THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

The ecosystem approach, which acknowledgesthe three objectives of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), is a strategy for theintegrated management of land, water and liv-ing resources that promotes conservation andsustainable use in an equitable way (decisionV/6 of the Conference of the Parties to theCBD). An ecosystem is defined as a dynamiccomplex of plant, animal, and micro-organismcommunities and their non-living environmentinteracting as a functional unit (CBD, Article 2).The ecosystem approach encompasses the essen-tial processes, functions, and interactions amongorganisms and their environment, and recog-nizes that humans are an integral component ofmost ecosystems.

The ecosystem approach does not preclude

22 JI track II projects follow stringent validation and verification procedures. This track has to be followed when the Party where the project willbe implemented does not meet all the criteria specified in the Annex to UNFCCC COP draft decision -/CMP.1 (Article 6), paragraph 21.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 59


53

other management and conservationapproaches, such as protected areas or singlespecies conservation programs, but rather canbe used to integrate all these approaches inorder to achieve better management of com-plex situations. The strength of the ecosystemapproach lies in the participation of stakehold-ers; the consideration of all knowledge, includ-ing traditional knowledge; and in the balance itstrikes among ecological, economical, and socialinterests. Adaptive management is an integralpart of the ecosystem approach, allowing foradjustments to changing situations and newknowledge. The ecosystem approach is based ontwelve inter-related guiding principles, whichfacilitate decision-making concerning the con-servation and sustainable use of biological diver-sity (Box 4.1)23.

Two requirements specified by theMarrakesh accords make the ecosystemapproach relevant for the design and imple-mentation of mitigation and adaptation activi-ties. The first one refers to the fact that LULUCFactivities shall contribute to the conservation ofbiodiversity and sustainable use of naturalresources. The second is the objective of theCDM to assist non-Annex I parties in achievingsustainable development. As stated above, theecosystem approach is an integrated strategy thatpromotes conservation and sustainable use ofnatural resources and does not preclude othermanagement and conservation approaches (forexample, carbon management). Thus, thebroader perspective of the ecosystem approachsynergistically addresses sustainable develop-ment, biodiversity conservation and carbonsequestration objectives, potentially resulting inwin-win situations.

23 Further elaboration on the ecosystem approach and proposed guidelines for its implementation are contained in UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/8, and dis-cussed at the ninth meeting of the Subisdiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the CBD during November 2003.

Box 4.1. The 12 Principles of the Ecosystem Approach of the Convention on Biological Diversity

1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choice.2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual and potential) of their activities on adjacent and

other ecosystems.4. Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the

ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programs should:• Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity (i.e., eliminate perverse

subsidies, etc.);• Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;• Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible (including full accounting

for ecosystem goods and services).5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be

a priority target of the ecosystem approach.6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.7. The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives

for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.9. Management must recognize that change is inevitable.10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation

and use of biological diversity.11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and

indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 60


54

4.4 MITIGATION OPTIONS

4.4.1 General concepts related to mitigation

Mitigation is defined as an anthropogenicintervention to reduce the sources or enhancethe sinks of greenhouse gases (IPCC 2001a).Activities that reduce net greenhouse gas emis-sions diminish the projected magnitude and rateof climate change and thereby lessen the pressureon natural and human systems from climatechange. Thus, mitigation activities are expectedto delay and reduce environmental damagecaused by climate change, providing environ-mental and socio-economic benefits, includingbiodiversity conservation. Mitigation activitiesmay have positive or negative impacts on biodi-versity, independent of their effect on the climatesystem. Nevertheless, it is important to note thatminimal gains can be achieved by land usechange, relative to the major gains that can beachieved through reductions in the use of fossilfuels (House et al. 2002).

Mitigation activities include emissionavoidance activities and carbon sequestrationactivities. According to the IPCC (2000) about80 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted into theatmosphere between 1989 and 1998 resultedfrom fossil fuel burning and cement productionwith about 20 percent from land use changes,predominantly from deforestation. Emissionavoidance activities include, among others,increased energy efficiency or generation effi-ciency, increased use of low-carbon or carbon-free energy systems (including biomass energy),and solar-, wind-, and hydropower.

4.4.2 Carbon sequestration potential ofmitigation activities

In terrestrial systems, mitigation activitiesaccumulate carbon both above- and below-ground. The estimated global potential of bio-logical mitigation options in forested systems

from afforestation, reforestation and avoideddeforestation, is on the order of 60-87 Gt C(cumulative) by the year 2050, with 70 percent intropical forests, 25 percent in temperate and 5percent in boreal forests (IPCC 2002). In addi-tion, improved forests, agricultural lands, grass-lands, and other terrestrial ecosystems offer sig-nificant carbon mitigation potential (IPCC2000). House et al. (2002) indicate that the like-ly maximum reduction of atmospheric carbonachievable through afforestation and reforesta-tion is between 17 and 31 ppm after accountingfor ocean response.

Ecosystem management strategies maydepend on whether the goal is to enhanceshort-term carbon accumulation or to main-tain carbon reservoirs over time. Carbon reser-voirs in most ecosystems eventually approachmaximum levels in the various compartments(e.g., Carey et al. 2001), with the rate of carbonsequestering diminishing over time (Paul et al.2003). Nevertheless, in old-growth forests car-bon continues to accumulate in the soil and veg-etation, and especially where decomposition isslow, carbon stores can be maintained for longperiods (Kimmins 1997, Carey et al. 2001,Schultze et al. 2000, Paul et al. 2003). Thornleyand Cannell (2000) reported that more carbonwas stored in undisturbed forests than in anymanaged forest regime where wood was harvest-ed. Although both the sequestration rate and theamount of sequestered carbon may be concur-rently high at some stages, they cannot be maxi-mized simultaneously (Turner and Lambert2000, Carey et al. 2001, Paul et al. 2003, Law et al.2001, Klopatek 2002). The ecologically achiev-able balance between the two goals is con-strained by degree of site degradation, site pro-ductivity, time frame considered, type of man-agement intervention, stand origin, amount ofwoody debris, and species attributes (e.g. Amiro2001, Knohl et al. 2002, Vesterdal et al. 2002).Different species grow at different rates andhence sequester carbon at different rates. Thereare often interactions among tree species in

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 61


55

mixed species forests that influence growth andsoil carbon condition (e.g., Kimmins 1997, Paulet al. 2002, Vesterdal et al. 2002). Further, there isno universally applicable biological growthresponse to increasing temperature and CO2, asthese factors interact in complex ways with anumber of other limiting factors such as wildfireand moisture regimes (Kirschbaum 1999—andsee section 3.4.2.1). There is a need for standlevel modeling (as opposed to tree-based mod-els) to understand the true potential of forests tosequester carbon over time. Such models needto be built to allow scenario-testing of exogenousfactors such as harvesting and fire on carbonaccumulation over time. This is especially truein light of recent research that suggests an inter-action between increased temperature and ele-vated CO2 that has depressed tree growth in atropical forest (Clark et al. 2003).

4.4.3 Key concerns

In addition to the effectiveness of carbon miti-gation options, environmental, social, and eco-nomic considerations should be taken intoaccount. Land is a finite resource and the rela-tionship of climate mitigation activities withother land use activities may be competitive,neutral, or complementary. Measures adoptedwithin different sectors (e.g., forestry, agricul-ture, or other land uses) to provide carbonsequestration should strive to achieve social, eco-nomic, and environmental goals (IPCC 2000;2001a,b,c) and could be assisted by considera-tion of the ecosystem approach (Box 4.1). Socialacceptance can influence how effectively mitiga-tion options are implemented (see section 6.3.1).

For land-use changes, such as afforestationor reforestation, there are concerns regardingthe permanence of biological sinks. The pri-mary concern is that the carbon stored will belabile, unlike carbon stored in fossil material thatremains in underground. The stored carboncould be released back into the atmosphere bynatural (e.g. fires) or anthropogenic occurrences

(Brown et al. 2002). Fire is of particular concernbecause of its capacity to emit carbon fixed overa period of 50 to 300 years in a matter of hours(Körner 2003) and because of the recent increas-es in the number and severity of fires in moisttropical forests, where fires are historically rare(Cochrane 2003). There is concern that climatechange itself will reduce a forest’s capacity to actas a sink by increased soil respiration (RoyalSociety 2001). Hence, biological sinks can, realis-tically, only be regarded as a temporary mitiga-tion option. Critical concepts for carbon storageand biodiversity conservation in connectionwith climate change mitigation activities are list-ed and discussed in Box 4.2 and paragraphsbelow.

Carbon activities that offer multiple bene-fits, including socio-economic benefits, aremore likely to be retained by society. For exam-ple, greater permanence may be associated withafforestation and reforestation activities that aredesigned to restore key watershed functions,establish biological corridors, and afford recre-ational and amenity values. Similarly, the reveg-etation of grasslands or wetland systems can alsobe viewed by society as having long-term conser-vation benefits.

Leakage problems can be minimized whencarbon mitigation activities are incorporatedinto existing land uses. For example, agro-forestry projects integrate planted trees andshrubs into ongoing farm activities to achieveconservation and economic goals rather thanconvert agricultural lands to forest. Thus, thepressure to convert other forested lands to agri-culture can be reduced.

Mitigation activities that use the ecosys-tem approach to incorporate biodiversity con-siderations can potentially have lower risk offailure. For example, planting a variety of nativetree species, or mixtures of single-species standsrather than a monoculture of trees, can reducethe probabilities of insect and disease attack andhelp to achieve levels of ecosystem structure andfunction that are greater than those of single

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 62


56

tree species systems (Carnus et al. 2003,Thompson et al. 2003).

4.4.4 Monitoring of mitigation activities

All UNFCCC Parties are required to reportgreenhouse gas emissions and activities toaddress climate change. Annex I Parties havestrict obligations: they have to submit green-house gas inventories annually and submitnational communications, which provide exten-sive detail on current and planned activities to

address climate change, every three to four years.Both reports are subject to international expertreviews. Non-Annex I Parties also preparenational communications, but the requirementsare less strict. Annex I Parties must meet mon-itoring and reporting requirements to be eligiblefor participation in the market-based KyotoMechanisms (JI, CDM, ET). The rules for mon-itoring CDM projects include a requirement tocollect and archive information relevant to envi-ronmental impacts (FCCC/2001/13/Add.2).

Box 4.2. Concepts and definitions on carbon storage in connection to mitigation activities

Permanence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2000) defines permanence as thelongevity of a carbon pool and the stability of its stocks, given the management and disturbance environmentin which it occurs. The concept of permanence is frequently used in connection with carbon uptake activitiesbecause of the exposure of terrestrial carbon reservoirs to natural and anthropogenic factors, e.g., harvesting,fires, and pests. The principles that govern the concept of permanence in the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that thereversal of any removal resulting from these activities should be accounted for at the appropriate point in time(FCCC/CP/2003/13/Add.1). In addition, the ongoing process to develop definitions and modalities forafforestation and reforestation for CDM projects will take into account the issue of non-permanence.

Leakage. Leakage refers to the situation where a carbon sequestration activity (e.g., tree planting) in one loca-tion, either directly or indirectly, triggers another activity in a different location, which in whole or part, leadsto carbon emissions (IPCC 2001a,b,c). Leakage caused by activities within Annex I Parties is accountedthrough a comprehensive emission reporting system. In the Marrakesh Accords, the concept of leakage is con-sidered only in connection with CDM projects and is defined as the net change in anthropogenic emissionsby sources of greenhouse gases that occur outside the project boundary and that are measurable and attribut-able to the project activity (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.2).

Risk and Uncertainty. The IPCC defines "uncertainties" as an expression of the degree to which a value isunknown. Uncertainty can result from lack of information or from disagreement about what is known orknowable. The UNFCC states that Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or min-imize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of irreversible dam-age, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures (Article 3).Regarding the elaboration of greenhouse gas inventories, uncertainties relating to the estimation and meas-urement of greenhouse gases emissions and removals are addressed through the application of the so-called"Good Practice Guidance", which complements the revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouseinventories. Uncertainties are to be addressed also in the context of definitions and modalities for afforesta-tion and reforestation CDM activities.

Additionality. The Marrakesh Accords stipulate that JI and CDM projects must result in anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions reductions or removals that are additional to any that would have occurred in theirabsence, prior to 1990.

Baseline. In the Marrakesh Accords, a baseline for an activity must reflect the expected changes in carbonstorage and greenhouse gas emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the proposed project.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 63


57

4.5 AFFORESTATION, REFORESTATIONAND DEFORESTATION

4.5.1 Afforestation, reforestation anddeforestation in the Kyoto Protocol

As part of the commitments under the UNFC-CC, Parties shall protect and enhance sinks andreservoirs (Article 4.1(d)). Under the KyotoProtocol Article 3.3, all Annex I Parties have toaccount for greenhouse gas sequestration andemissions attributable to afforestation, reforesta-tion, and deforestation. The Protocol specifiesthat accounting under Article 3.3 be restricted todirect human-induced land-use changes thathave taken place since 199024 .

In the context of Article 3.3 of the KyotoProtocol, both afforestation and reforestationrefer to the conversion of land under other usesto forest. Afforestation is defined as the directhuman-induced conversion of land that has notbeen forested for a period of at least 50 years toforested land through planting, seeding, and/orthe human-induced promotion of natural seedsources. Reforestation is defined as the directhuman-induced conversion of non-forestedland to forested land through planting, seeding,and/or the human-induced promotion of natu-ral seed sources on land that was forested butthat has been converted to non-forested land(note that these definitions are different thanthose generally used by foresters). For the KyotoProtocol’s first commitment period(2008–2012), reforestation activities will be lim-ited to reforestation occurring on those landsthat, had been forested once, but that did notcontain forest on 31 December 1989 (MarrakeshAccords FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1; page 58).

The time limit included in the definitions isimportant; since only reforestation activities inareas that were non-forested prior to 1990 can beaccounted for, it is thought that activities underthe Kyoto Protocol do not generally create a per-verse incentive for conversion of natural forestsinto plantation forests. However, this incentivehas not been totally removed as lands that didnot contain forest as of 1990 but may have sincebeen reforested, e.g. through natural forest suc-cession, will be eligible for reforestation activi-ties.

These two activities are the only carbon uptake activities that are also eligible under the CDM (Marrakesh AccordsFCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 and Add.2). However,at this time, it is unclear whether the same defi-nitions of reforestation and afforestation underthe CDM will apply.

4.5.2 Biodiversity and afforestation andreforestation activities

In planted forests, species selection oftenresults in a trade-off between fast carbonassimilation and subsequent release vs. slowercarbon assimilation and longer retention time.How these tradeoffs are made will affect biodi-versity. This implies that fast rate of carbonuptake from the atmosphere and long retentiontime of the sequestered carbon cannot be maxi-mized at the same time (e.g., Carey et al. 2001).In many types of tree plantations, soil carboncontinues to be lost during the first 10-20 yearsdue to continued leaching (e.g., Turner andLambert 2000), and net accumulation onlybecomes positive with increased time the lengthof which is likely ecosystem-dependent. The

24 The Marrakesh Accords include the following definition for a forest:"Forest" is a minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectares with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent withtrees with the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 m at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed forest formations wheretrees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations whichhave yet to reach a crown density of 10-30% or tree height of 2-5 m are included under forest, as are areas normally forming part of the forestarea which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human intervention such as harvesting, or natural causes, but which are expected to revertto forest. (Source: Marrakesh Accord – FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, page 58). Reforested and afforested sites are considered as forest (FAOForestry Paper no. 140: Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 64


58

total carbon pool of a carbon-sequestering activ-ity, the rate of positive change of the pool, andthe time that carbon will remain sequestered inthe system, strongly depend not only on climate,soil nutrients, and rotation length, but also onthe dominant tree species (Paul et al. 2002,Vestedal et al. 2002). For example in temperateforests, poplars (Populus) are fast-growing, maybecome very large, but are short-lived, whileoaks (Quercus) and beeches (Fagus) are slow-growing, also become very large, but are verylong-lived. Forests of the latter species are lessephemeral than poplar forests where in turn,dead wood is more rapidly decomposed. From abiodiversity perspective, the choice of treespecies can greatly affect the types of animalsand associated understory plant species that canbe supported. The use of either short- or long-lived species depends on the goals. Long-livedforest ecosystems, support more complex (plant-animal; plant-plant) relationships than do sim-ple and hence shorter-lived forests; therefore, theformer support greater levels of biodiversity(e.g., Thompson et al. 2002). A decision on howto balance the alternative goals for carbon andbiodiversity (rapid accumulation vs. long-termsequestration) will have to be made in any forestcarbon-uptake activity (Aerts 1995, Caspersenand Pacala 2001).

4.5.3. Impact of afforestation and refor-estation on biodiversity

Afforestation and reforestation projects canhave positive, neutral or negative impacts onbiodiversity. The impact depends on the leveland nature of biodiversity of the ecosystembeing replaced, the spatial scale being considered(e.g., stand vs. landscape), and other spatialdesign and implementation issues (e.g., non-native versus native species, native single versusnative mixed-species, and location).Afforestation and reforestation activities mayhelp to promote the return, survival, and expan-sion of native plant and animal populations.

Degraded lands may offer the best opportunitiesfor such activities, as these lands have alreadylost much of their original biodiversity.Plantations may allow the colonization andestablishment of diverse understory communi-ties by providing shade and ameliorating harshmicroclimates. Specific sites may be better can-didates for implementing such activities thanothers, based on past and present uses, the localor regional importance of their associated bio-logical diversity and proximity to nearby, naturalforests. In particular, the reduction of forest frag-mentation, e.g. by careful design of native plan-tation establishment and/or forest regenerationstrategies sites to give the most functionally con-nected forest landscape possible would have pos-itive impacts on biodiversity, improving ecosys-tem resilience and allowing species migration inresponse to climate change (see also section4.11.4.3). Plantations of exotic species may onlybe capable of supporting low levels of local bio-diversity at the stand level (e.g., Healey and Gara2002), but they could contribute to biodiversityconservation if appropriately situated within thebroader landscape context; e.g. connecting areasof natural forest enabling for species migrationand gene exchange (CIFOR 2003).

Activities that maintain a high ecosystem-service value contribute to both carbon-uptakeand forest biodiversity conservation. An impor-tant aspect is the extent to which activities takeinto account concerns of the local and indigenouscommunities in meeting the carbon credit priori-ties of investors (Prance 2002, Pretty et al. 2002).Incorporation of what is ‘valuable biodiversity’from the local community perspective helps tostrike a balance between biodiversity and carbonuptake, and promote long-term protection ofplantings (Díaz and Cáceres 2000, Prance 2002).The stipulation in the Marrakesh Accords thatCDM projects must contribute to the sustainabledevelopment of the host country and may best beachieved by the CBD ecosystem approach mayencourage project planners to design activitiesthat conserve and enhance biodiversity.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 65


59

Afforestation and reforestation planta-tions can have beneficial environmentalimpacts, especially if modifications are incor-porated. Although plantations typically havelower biodiversity than natural forests (see refer-ences in Hunter 1999, Thompson et al. 2003), insome cases they can reduce pressures on naturalforests by serving as sources of forest products,thereby leaving greater areas of natural forestsfor biodiversity conservation and provision ofenvironmental services. Afforestation and refor-estation activities may also re-establish criticalecological functions, such as erosion controlwithin degraded watersheds, and corridors with-in a fragmented landscape. Further, in somecountries success at supporting at least somenative (non-tree) species in plantation forestshas been achieved, by paying attention to (standand landscape) structure, stem density, andspecies mixing (Thompson et al. 2002, Carnus etal. 2003 and references therein). In someinstances, plantation forests have been shown tomaintain considerable numbers of local species(Carnus et al. 2003). Even modest changes inproject design have the potential to significantlybenefit biodiversity in plantation forests. Forexample, mixing different species along thestand edge, creating small clearings within thestand, creating small water catchments in or nearthe stand, and allowing under-story growth maygreatly improve habitat for some animals andcreate favorable microsite conditions for someplants. Significant biodiversity benefits can beachieved by allowing a portion of the stand on alandscape to age past maturity, by reducingchemical and insect control, and avoiding localeswhere rare or vulnerable ecosystems and speciesare present at the time of site selection (Hunter1999, Thompson et al. 2003). Finally, mixed-species plantations have more overall ecosystem-service value and therefore are more likely to beretained by local communities for a longer timethan single-species plantations (Daily 1997,Prance 2002). However, it must be noted thatunder climate change, there is considerable

uncertainty associated with the permanence ofbenefits (Royal Society 2001).

Afforestation and reforestation activitiesthat replace native non-forest ecosystems (e.g.,species-rich native grasslands, wetland, heath-land or shrubland habitats) with non-nativespecies, or with a single or few species of anyorigin, can negatively affect biodiversity. Forexample, in South Africa, expansion of commer-cial plantations (Eucalyptus and Pinus) has ledto significant declines in several endemic andthreatened species of native grassland birds andsuppression of indigenous ground flora(Matthews et al. 1999). Similarly, drainage ofwetlands for afforestation and reforestationactivities may not be a viable carbon mitigationoption, as drainage will lead to immediate loss ofcarbon stocks and potential loss of biodiversity.

Afforestation with non-indigenous speciesmay result in higher rates of water uptake thanby existing vegetation and this could cause sig-nificant reductions in streamflow especially inecosystems where water is limiting. Thesechanges could have adverse effects on in-stream,riparian, wetland, and floodplain biodiversity(Le Maitre et al. 2002, Scott and Lesch 1997). Forexample, the water yield from catchments inSouth Africa was significantly reduced when thecatchments were planted with pines and euca-lypts (UNEP 2002).

Tree improvement through silviculturaltechniques can increase the productivity asso-ciated with plantations, and maintain geneticdiversity of local species. Individual tree speciesare adapted to specific ranges of moisture andtemperature. Careful selection of seeds and treestocks under climate change scenarios, based onmodeling, will enable more rapid growth andincrease survivorship of planted tree species andindividuals than would be expected by relyingon available stocks (e.g., Rehfeldt et al. 1999).This can be accomplished by matching expectedtemperature and moisture regimes to plantedspecies and individuals within species and pay-ing attention to maintaining species genetic

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 66


60

diversity to enhance success of plantation forests(Carnus et al. 2003). Conversely, single-speciesplantations of commercially valuable tree specieshave been widely planted in many regions of theworld. While still within their geographic range,these plantations have often been planted off-siteinto areas where factors like soil, elevation, mois-ture, slope, and aspect differ significantly fromwhere they are normally found in the landscape.Many of these plantations will become suscepti-ble to reduce growth or dieback under drier orwarmer climate scenarios (e.g., Lexer et al. 2002,Rehfeldt et al. 1999).

Measuring the success of afforestation andreforestation activities can be accomplishedwith a series of indicators for carbon uptake, aswell as for biodiversity, at the site and land-scape scale (see chapter 5). In developing suchactivities, the following considerations for biodi-versity may be useful (Noss 2001, Thompson etal. 2002, 2003; Carnus et al. 2003):(a) landscape structure and planted trees

species composition can affect understoryplant species and animal species diversity;

(b) a regional suite of animal species requiresthe full variety of local forest types and agesof stands, with the structures normally asso-ciated with those forests;

(c) planted forests that are structurally diversemaintain more species than those that havesimple structure (i.e., monocultures);

(d) planted forests of native species conservelocal and regional animal species better thando plantations of exotic tree species, ormonocultures of native species;

(e) large areas of forest maintain more speciesthan do small areas, and fragmented forestsmaintain fewer species than do continuousforests;

(f) core areas and protected areas connected byreforested corridors or habitats enhancepopulation levels of species by reducingfragmentation effects and improving disper-

sal capability, and through supporting moreindividuals;

(g) some exotic tree species have the potential tobecome invasive, with potentially negativeconsequences for ecosystem functioningand biodiversity conservation;

(h) planted forests that have high genetic diver-sity are likely to be more successful over timeand under climate changes than those withreduced genetic diversity.

(i) the spatial context where activities take placeis important to optimize for biodiversity ofdesired species.Uncertainty pertaining to the benefits of

mitigation and adaptation measures suggeststhat adaptive management should be designedinto any project. Afforestation and reforesta-tion projects should be viewed as experimentswith respect to their possible benefits to biodi-versity. Monitoring programs should be put inplace to enable the long-term assessment of ben-efits compared to expectations, and possibleadjustments made as required to design andfuture efforts.

4.5.4 Afforestation and reforestation ofmires and peatlands as a special case

Pristine mires play an important role withrespect to global warming as carbon stores.Their impact on climate change due to the emis-sion of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)is typically insignificant (Joosten and Clarke2002). However, methane production can behigh when water tables are within 20 cm of thesurface. Mires and peatlands25 are characterizedby their unique ability to accumulate and storedead plant material originating from mosses,sedges, reeds, shrubs, and trees (i.e., peat), underwaterlogged conditions. About 50% of the dryorganic matter of peat consists of carbon.Peatlands are the most prevalent wetland in theworld, representing 50 to 70 percent of all

25 A peatland is an area of landscape with a naturally accumulated peat layer on its surface. A mire is a peatland on which peat is currently form-ing and accumulating. All mires are peatlands but peatlands that are no longer accumulating peat would not be considered mires anymore.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 67


61

wetlands and covering more than four millionkm2 – or three percent – of the land and fresh-water surface of the planet (Lappalainen 1996).Between 270-370 Gt of carbon is currentlystored in the peats of boreal and sub-boreal peat-lands alone (Turunen et al. 2000). This meansthat, globally, peat represents about one-third ofthe total soil carbon pool (about 1395 Gt) (Postet al. 1982). Peat contains the equivalent ofapproximately 2/3 of all carbon in the atmos-phere and carbon equivalent to all terrestrialbiomass on the earth (Houghton et al. 1990).Peatlands exist on all continents, from tropical topolar zones, and from sea level to high altitude.Humans affect peatlands both directly, throughdrainage, land conversion, excavation, and inun-dation, and indirectly, as a result of air pollution,water contamination, water removal, and infra-structure development.

Anthropogenic drainage has changedmires and peatlands from a global carbon sinkto a global carbon (and other greenhouse gas)source, and afforestation and reforestationactivities in recently drained peatlands may beinconsequential as carbon sequestration activ-ities (Joosten and Clarke 2002). Human activi-ties continue to be the most important factorsaffecting peatlands, both globally and locally,leading to a current annual decrease of the mireresource. When peatlands are drained to createmore agricultural land N2O emissions areincreased and these lands become more prone tofires. In some years greenhouse gas emissionsfrom the burning of these drained peatlands(e.g., in South East Asia) may constitute a sub-stantial portion of the global emissions (Page etal. 2002).

4.5.5 Agroforestry as a special case ofafforestation and reforestation

Agroforestry systems incorporate trees orshrubs in agricultural landscapes.Agroforestry practices could be considered eli-gible under the CDM if they meet the adopted

CDM definition of afforestation or reforesta-tion. Agroforestry systems include a wide vari-ety of practices: agrosilvicultural systems; sil-vopastoral systems; and tree-based systems suchas fodder plantations, shelterbelts, and riparianforest buffers. These systems are typically man-aged, but can also be natural, such as silvopas-toral systems in Sudan. Agroforestry systemsmay lead to more diversified and sustainableproduction systems than farming systems with-out trees, and may provide increased social, eco-nomic and environmental benefits (IPCC 2000,Leakey 1996). The IPCC recognizes two classesof agroforestry activities for increasing carbonstocks: (a) land conversion; and (b) improvedland use. Land conversion includes transforma-tion of degraded cropland and grassland, intonew agroforests (IPCC 2000). Improved land userequires the implementation of practices such ashigh-density plantings and nutrient manage-ment that result in increased carbon stock.

Globally, significant amounts of carboncould be sequestered in agroforestry systems,due to the large agricultural land base in manycountries. In temperate systems, agroforestrypractices have been shown to store largeamounts of carbon in trees and shrubs (Kort andTurlock 1999, Schroeder 1994, IPCC 2000,Dixon et al. 1994, van Kooten et al. 1999).Positive net differences in carbon stocks, includ-ing those in the soil, have been documented inthe tropics between agroforestry systems andcommon agricultural practices (IPCC 2000,Palm et al. 2002, Woomer et al. 1999, Fay et al.1998, Sanchez et al. 1997).

In addition to carbon uptake, agroforestryactivities can have beneficial effects on biodi-versity, especially in landscapes that are domi-nated by production agriculture. Agroforestrycan add plant and animal diversity to landscapesthat might otherwise contain only monoculturesof crops. Freemark et al. (2002) demonstratedthe important role of farmland habitat for theconservation of native plant species in EasternCanada. In the Great Plains region of the United

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 68


62

States, where cropland occupies most of thelandscape, linear riparian zones and field shel-terbelts play essential roles in maintaining natu-ral habitats for biodiversity (Guo 2000). In thesame region, Brandle et al. (1992) highlightedthe potential of agroforestry practices to providewildlife habitat. Traditional agroforestry sys-tems, e.g. shaded coffee plantations, are commonthroughout Central and South America. Thesesystems may contain well over 100 annual andperennial plant species per field and providebeneficial habitat for birds (including migratoryspecies) and other vertebrates (Altieri 1991,Thrupp 1997).

Agroforestry can enhance biodiversity ondegraded and deforested sites (IPCC 2002).Agroforestry systems tend to be more biological-ly diverse than conventional croplands, degradedgrasslands or pastures, and the early stages ofsecondary forest fallows. However, where agro-forestry replaces native forests biodiversity isusually lost (IPCC 2002). The use of nativespecies in agroforestry systems will providegreatest benefits to biodiversity. In view ofhuman migrations to the forest margins, theoptimal tradeoffs between carbon sequestrationand economic and social benefits are an impor-tant policy determination. Examples of suchtradeoffs are described in Gockowski et al.(1999), Vosti et al. (1999), and Tomich et al.(1998, 1999).

Agroforestry can be used to functionallylink forest fragments and other critical habitatas part of a broad landscape managementstrategy. Agroforestry can augment the supplyof forest habitat and enhance its connectivity.This can facilitate the migration of species inresponse to climate change. Even when there areforest reserves in an area, they may be too smallin size to contain the habitat requirements of allanimal species, and whose populations mayextend in range beyond reserve boundaries(Kramer et al. 1997).

4.6 DEFORESTATION

The Marrakesh Accords define deforestation asthe direct human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 page 58).Deforestation, especially of primary forests,causes an immediate reduction in above- andbelow-ground biomass carbon stocks, followedby several years of decreases in other carbonstocks, including soils and a consequent declinein associated biodiversity. Increased soil temper-ature following deforestation leads to an increasein the rate of decay of surface dead wood and lit-ter, as well as the decay of soil organic matter,thus increasing the loss of carbon from the sys-tem (e.g., Fearnside 2000, Duan et al. 2001).Deforestation may result in forest fragmenta-tion, which adversely affects the ability of theforest to uptake carbon, and can interact syner-gistically with other changes, such as edge effectsand fire, potentially leading to serious degrada-tion of the ecosystem (Gascon et al. 2000,Laurance and Williamson 2001, Laurance et al.1997). Large-scale deforestation may also causea decrease in precipitation, by reducing plantevapotranspiration and altering local microcli-mates and reducing moisture in the fragmentedstand and leading to increased fire potential(Laurance and Williamson 2001).

In the tropics, expansion of agriculture isthe principal cause of deforestation. Tropicalforests currently experience the highest rates ofdeforestation of all forest ecosystems. Achard etal. (2002) estimate that between 1990 and 1997,about 5.8 Mha of tropical forests were lost eachyear (a much lower estimate than that of FAO[2001] of 15 Mha per year). Globally, emissionsof carbon from land use changes have been esti-mated to be 1.7 + 0.8 Gt/yr (Houghton 1999,Houghton et al. 2000, IPCC 2000). The futurecarbon mitigation potential of slowing currentrates of tropical deforestation has been estimat-ed at about 11-21 Gt of carbon by 2050 (IPCC2002). Worldwide, forests currently represent a

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 69


63

carbon sink of about 3 Gt of carbon per year –about half is taken up by northern hemisphereecosystems with the major contribution fluctu-ating between Eurasia and North America. Theother half is in tropical ecosystems, which meansthat the tropical zone is currently neither a sig-nificant net source or sink (Watson and Noble2002), but also suggests that slowing the rate ofdeforestation would make tropical forests a netcarbon sink.

In addition to climate change mitigationbenefits, slowing deforestation and/or forestdegradation could provide substantial biodi-versity benefits. Primary tropical forests containan estimated 50–70 percent of all terrestrialspecies, and tropical deforestation and degrada-tion of forests are major causes of global biodi-versity loss. Deforestation reduces the availabili-ty of suitable habitats for species coexistence,may cause local extinctions, and can decreaseboth population and genetic diversity. Thusreducing the rate of deforestation is key to halt-ing the loss of biodiversity in forests (Stork 1997,Iremonger et al. 1997, Thompson et al. 2002).Although any project that slows deforestation orforest degradation will help to conserve biodi-versity, projects in threatened/vulnerable foreststhat are unusually species-rich, globally rare, orunique to that region can provide the greatestbiodiversity benefits. Projects that protect forestsfrom land conversion or degradation in keywatersheds have potential to substantially slowsoil erosion, protect water resources, and con-serve biodiversity.

Forest protection through avoided defor-estation may have either positive or negativesocial impacts. The possible conflicts betweenthe protection of forested ecosystems and ancil-lary negative effects, restrictions on the activitiesof local populations, reduced income, and/orreduced products from these forests, can be min-imized by appropriate stand and landscape man-agement, as well as using environmental andsocial assessments (IPCC 2002).

Pilot projects designed to avoid emissions

by reducing deforestation and forest degrada-tion have produced marked ancillary environ-mental and socio-economic benefits. Theseinclude biodiversity conservation, protectionof watersheds, improved forest management,and local capacity-building. Although avoideddeforestation is not an eligible CDM activity, it isan important mechanism to maintain biodiver-sity. It is important that reduced deforestation inone location does not simply result in intendedor unintended deforestation at another location;i.e., leakage (see Box 4.2).

4.7. REVEGETATION

Revegetation is an eligible activity underArticle 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol."Revegetation" is defined as a direct human-induced activity to increase on-site carbonstocks through the establishment of vegetationthat covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares anddoes not meet the definitions of afforestationand reforestation (FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add. 1,page 58).

Revegetation includes various activitiesdesigned to increase plant cover on eroded,severely degraded or otherwise disturbed land.Short-term goals of revegetation are often ero-sion control, improved soil stability, recovery ofsoil microbial populations, increased productiv-ity of degraded rangelands and improvedappearance of sites damaged by such activities asmining or construction. It is often the initial stepin the long-term restoration of ecosystem struc-ture and function, natural habitats, and ecosys-tem services.

Soils of eroded or degraded sites generallyhave low carbon levels but have high potentialfor carbon sequestration through revegetation.Lal (2001) estimated the sequestration potentialof eroded land restoration as 0.2-0.3 Gt of car-bon yr-1. Research in Iceland has demonstratedsequestration of carbon in soils, above- andbelow-ground biomass, and litter, but sequestra-tion rates depend on various factors, including

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 70


64

the revegetation method, soil characteristics, andclimate (Aradottir et al. 2000, Arnalds et al.2000).

The effects of revegetation on biodiversitywill vary depending on the site conditions andmethods used. Effects on biodiversity can bepositive if revegetation efforts create conditionsthat are conducive to an increase of native plantspecies over time (e.g., Choi and Wali 1995,Aradottir and Arnalds 2001, Gretarsdottir 2002),or if it prevents further degradation and protectsneighboring ecosystems. Conversely, biodiversi-ty can be negatively affected by revegetation if itresults in conditions that impede the coloniza-tion of native species (Densmore 1992, Forbesand McKendrick 2002). In certain instanceswhere endemic species may now be impossibleto grow on some severely degraded sites, the useof exotic species and fertilizers may provide thebest opportunity as a catalyst for regeneration ofnatural vegetation. However, in such instances,it is desirable that the use of exotic species istemporary (D’Antonio and Mayerson 2002, Ewelet al. 1999). Furthermore, exotic species used forrevegetation can invade native habitats and alterplant communities and ecosystem processes farbeyond the areas where they were originally used(e.g., Pickard et al. 1998, Whisenant 1999,Magnusson et al. 2001, Williamson and Harrison2002).

Revegetation actions that do not dependon direct seeding or planting enhance localpopulations and have positive effects on biodi-versity. Such actions involve manipulation of:seed dispersal processes (Robinson and Handel2001), seedbed properties (Urbanska 1997,Whisenant 1999) and resource base for estab-lishment and growth of plants (e.g. Tongway andLudwig 1996, Whisenant 1999). This shouldenhance local populations and have positiveeffects on biodiversity, unless exotic species arecommon at the given site.

4.8 LAND MANAGEMENT

Land management actions to offset greenhouse gasemissions can affect overall environmental quality,including soil quality and soil erosion, water quali-ty, air quality, and wildlife habitat and in turn,affect terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (IPCC2002). The subsections below deal with manage-ment of forests, croplands and grazing lands.

4.8.1 Forest management

Most of the world forests are managed (FAO2001), so improved management can enhancecarbon uptake, or at least minimize carbonlosses, and maintain biodiversity. For the pur-poses of the Kyoto Protocol, forest managementis defined as a system of practices for steward-ship and use of forest lands, aimed at fulfilling relevant ecological (including biodiversity), economic, and social functions of the forest in a sustainable manner(FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 page 58). Forestmanagement is one of the carbon uptake activi-ties for which Annex 1 countries can receivecredit when fulfilling their commitments underthe Kyoto Protocol. Forest management refers toactivities such as harvesting, thinning and regen-eration. These management activities provideopportunities to promote conditions that areconducive to increased biodiversity. Zhang andJustice (2001) estimated that improved forestmanagement in central Africa could provide theuptake of an additional 18.3 Gt of carbon overthe next 50 years. By reducing the amount oflogging debris through "good" forestry practicessuch as low-impact harvesting in tropical forests,significant amounts of carbon in the standingvegetation can be retained and that otherwisewould have been released to the atmosphere bydecomposition (e.g., Pinard and Putz 1996).Low impact harvesting also minimizes the prob-ability of forest fires, as there is little woodydebris that otherwise would serve as combustionfuel (Holdsworth and Uhl 1997).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 71


65

Forest ecosystems are extremely variedand the positive or negative impacts on biodi-versity of any forest management operationwill differ according to soil, climate, and sitehistory. Therefore, it would not be helpful torecommend that any specific system or measureis inherently good or bad for biodiversity underall circumstances. Prescriptions must be adaptedto specific local forest conditions and the type offorest ecosystem under management.

Because forests are enormous repositoriesof terrestrial biodiversity at all levels of organ-ization (genetic, species, population, andecosystem), good management practices canhave positive effects on biodiversity. Forestrypractices that enhance biodiversity in managedstands and have a positive influence on carbonretention within forests include: increasing rota-tion age, low intensity harvesting, leaving woodydebris, post-harvest silviculture to restore nativeplant communities that are similar to naturalspecies composition, and harvesting that emu-lates natural disturbance regimes (Hunter 1999).The application of appropriate silviculturalpractices can reduce local impacts while ensur-ing the long-term protection of soils and animaland plant species (see section 6.3.5). The use ofappropriate harvesting methods can lessen thenegative impacts on biodiversity, while still pro-viding socio-economic benefits to local ownersand communities that are largely dependent onthe forest for their livelihoods.

Measuring progress towards sustainabili-ty, and managing adaptively, is an importantaspect of forest management. Many nationaland international agencies, have adopted a seriesof indicators to measure progress in conservingbiological diversity in sustainable forest manage-ment, for which there is a large body of availableliterature (see chapter 5).

Forest regeneration includes practicessuch as planting at specific stocking levels,enrichment planting, reduced grazing of forested savannas, and changes in tree provenances/genetics or tree species.

Box 4.3. Forest Management Practices withPotential Impacts on Biodiversity

Improved regeneration, or the act of renewing treecover by establishing young trees naturally or artifi-cially—generally, before, during or promptly afterthe previous stand or forest has been removed.Fertilization, or the addition of nutrients toincrease growth rates or correct a soil nutrient defi-ciency.Forest fire management, which is used to reducethe loss of forest biomass from fires, and reduceemissions of greenhouse gases.Pest management, or the application of strategies tomaintain pest populations within acceptable levels.Harvest level and timing, including thinnings,selection, and clear-cut harvesting.

Regeneration techniques can influence speciescomposition, stocking, and density and canaffect biodiversity. Natural regeneration offorests can provide benefits for biodiversity byexpanding the range of natural or semi-naturalforests. Areas adjacent to natural forests demon-strate the most potential for such activities.Plantations, even of indigenous species, adjacentto natural or semi-natural forests may not pro-vide maximum benefits to biodiversity unlessdesigned as part of an integrated scheme for theeventual restoration of natural forests (Niestenet al. 2002). Efforts to understand and integrateland use at the landscape scale can increase the like-lihood that biodiversity will be accommodated.

Forest fertilization may have negative orpositive environmental effects. Fertilizationmay adversely affect biodiversity, soil and waterquality by improving the environment forunwanted species (i.e., weeds), by alteringspecies composition and by increasing nutrientsin water run-off that adversely affect watercours-es (e.g., increased emissions of nitrous oxide[N2O] to air, ground, and water). Although care-ful attention to the rate, timing, and method offertilization can minimize environmentalimpacts, in general, positive environmental ben-efits are not likely to result from forest fertiliza-tion, except on highly degraded sites. There, fer-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 72


66

tilization may be necessary where soils andnutrients have been depleted. Fertility can affectthe establishment of trees, shrubs, and understo-ry plant communities (Oren et al. 2001). Whenorganic and inorganic amendments wereapplied to an eroded site in South Iceland, plantcover and the diversity of native vascular plantand moss species increased (Elmarsdottir 2001).Another study on the same site showedincreased carbon stocks in soil, vegetation andlitter in similar but successively older treatments(Aradottir et al. 2000). Approaches that use notonly inorganic fertilizers, but also organicamendments and nitrogen fixing plant species aswell should be considered.

Fire management has environmentalimpacts that are difficult to generalize becausein some forest ecosystems fires are essential forregenerative processes to occur. Restoring near-historical fire regimes may be an importantcomponent of sustainable forestry but may alsorequire practices, such as road construction, thatmay create indirect deleterious environmentaleffects. The suppression of natural fire cyclesleads to the excessive accumulation of com-bustible material, potentially leading to larger,more intense fires and is unlikely to provideviable long-term carbon sequestration (Noss2001). In some forest ecosystems periodic firesare necessary to regenerate understory plantcommunities and their associated biodiversity.However, in forests not subjected to recurrentnatural fires, e.g., tropical rainforests, increasedfire frequencies lead to overall negative effects onbiodiversity, and loss of soil nutrients throughleaching and runoff.

The use of biocides to control pests mayresult in increased or reduced biodiversity.Many introduced plant and animal species havehad unintended negative impacts on biodiversi-ty. Carefully targeted pest management effortshave been used to reduce the impact of intro-duced species on native populations, for exam-ple predation of birds and their eggs. Biocidescan, at times, prevent large-scale forest die-off,

and can increase benefits associated with land-scape, recreation, and watersheds. Conversely,the potential adverse effects of herbicides andpesticides on biodiversity include disruption ofroot-mycorrhizae symbiosis (Noss 2001) and areduction in plant species populations anddiversity. Pesticide use may also have undesiredsecondary effects on predators (Noss andCooperrider 1994). If not carefully used, pesti-cides can be leached into surface waters andgroundwater and cause negative impacts toaquatic biodiversity and human health.

Harvesting practices affect the quality andquantity of timber produced, which has impli-cations for carbon storage and biodiversity.Harvesting can have positive or negative impactson biodiversity, recreation, and landscape man-agement. Small-scale harvesting (i.e., patch orselection) is often appropriate in forest ecosys-tems on soils that are subject to erosion.

4.8.2 Management of cropland

The Marrakesh Accords define cropland man-agement as "the system of practices on land onwhich agricultural crops are grown, and on land that is set aside or temporarily not being used for crop production"(FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 page 58).

Most carbon stocks in cropland are housedin the soil; they currently constitute about 8-10percent of total global carbon stocks. Somestudies suggest that most of the world’s agricul-tural soils have about half of their pre-croppedsoil carbon and that change in soil management,especially reducing tillage, can greatly increasetheir carbon stocks (IPCC 1996, IPCC 2000).

Generally, conversion of natural systemsto cropland results in losses of soil organic car-bon ranging from 20-50 percent of the pre-cul-tivation carbon stocks (IPCC 2000). For exam-ple, following conversion from forest to row-crop agriculture, soil carbon losses associatedwith CO2 emissions is about 20-30 percent of theoriginal carbon stocks. On a global basis, the

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 73


67

cumulative historic loss of carbon from agricul-tural soils due to practices such as crop residueremoval, inadequate erosion control and excessivesoil disturbance has been estimated at 55 Gt, ornearly one third of the total carbon loss (i.e., 150Gt of carbon) from soils and vegetation (IPCC1996, Houghton 1999).

Activities in the agricultural sector thatreduce greenhouse gas emissions and increasecarbon sequestration may enhance or decreasegiven levels of biodiversity. There are many agri-cultural management activities that can be used tosequester carbon in soils (e.g., intensification, irri-gation, conservation tillage, and erosion control).Practices may have positive or negative effects onbiodiversity, depending on the specific practiceand the context in which it is applied. Activitiesinclude adopting farmer participatory approaches;consideration of local knowledge and technolo-gies; the use of organic materials; and the use oflocally adapted crop varieties and crop diversifica-tion. Agricultural practices that enhance and pre-serve soil organic carbon can affect CH4 and N2Oemissions.

Agricultural intensification practices thatmay enhance production and increase plantresidue in soil include crop rotations, reducedbare fallow, cover crops, improved varieties, inte-grated pest management, optimization of inor-ganic and/or organic fertilization, irrigation,water table management, and site-specific man-agement. These have numerous ancillary benefitsincluding increased food production, erosion con-trol, water conservation, improved water quality,and reduced siltation of reservoirs and waterwaysbenefiting fisheries and biodiversity. However, soiland water quality is adversely affected by indis-criminate use of chemical inputs and irrigation,and increased use of nitrogen fertilizers willincrease fossil energy use and may increase N2Oemissions. Agricultural intensification influencessoil carbon through the amount and quality ofcarbon returned to the soil, and through water andnutrient influences on decomposition.

Irrigation can increase crop production,

but may also degrade ecosystems. Irrigationalso increases the risk of salinization and maydivert water from rivers and flood flows with sig-nificant impacts on the biodiversity of rivers andflood plains. Return flows from irrigation cancause downstream impacts on water quality andaquatic ecosystems. Additional impacts caninclude the spread of water-borne diseases.

Conservation tillage denotes a wide rangeof tillage practices, including chisel-plow,ridge-till, strip-till, mulch-till, and no-till toconserve soil organic carbon. Adoption of con-servation tillage has numerous ancillary benefits,including control of water and wind erosion,water conservation, increased water-holdingcapacity, reduced compaction, improved soil,water, and air quality, enhanced soil biodiversity,reduced energy use, reduced siltation of reser-voirs and waterways with associated benefits forfisheries and biodiversity. In some areas (e.g.,Australia), increased leaching from greater waterretention with conservation tillage could causedownslope salinization.

Reduction or elimination of intensive soiltillage practices can preserve and increase soilorganic carbon stocks. In these practices 30% ormore of crop residues are left on the soil surfaceafter planting. Conservation tillage has thepotential to sequester significant amounts ofcarbon in the soil. Soil carbon sequestration canbe further increased when cover crops are usedin combination with conservation tillage (IPCC2000). Carbon levels can be increased in the soilprofile for 25 to 50 years, or until saturation isreached, but the rate may be highest in the initial5 – 20 years. However, long-term soil carbonsequestration through conservation tillage willlargely depend on its continued use, as reversionback to conventional practices can cause therapid loss of sequestered carbon.

Erosion control practices—which includewater conservation structures, vegetative stripsused as filters for riparian zone management,and agroforestry shelterbelts for wind erosioncontrol—can reduce the global quantity of soil

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 74


68

organic carbon displaced by soil erosion. Thereare numerous ancillary benefits and associatedimpacts, including increased productivity;improved water quality; reduced use of fertiliz-ers, especially nitrates; decreased siltation ofwaterways; reduced CH4 emissions; associatedreductions in risks of flooding; and increasedbiodiversity in aquatic systems, shelter belts, andriparian zones.

Rice management strategies—whichinclude irrigation, fertilization, and cropresidue management—affect CH4 emissionsand carbon stocks. But there is limited informa-tion on the impacts of greenhouse gas mitiga-tion rice management activities on biodiversity.

4.8.3 Grazing lands and grasslands

The response of grazing land systems will varyunder potential climate change scenariosdepending on its type and location. Grazingland (which include grasslands, pasture, range-land, shrubland, savanna, and arid grasslands)contain 10-30 percent of the world’s soil carbon(IPCC 2000). The mixture of grass, herb, treesand shrub species usually determines the pro-ductivity of a given rangeland. Grazing land witha higher percentage of grass in relation to otherplant components is likely to have higher pro-ductivity. A greater percentage of annual orephemeral species would suggest lower annualproductivity, whereas a predominance of peren-nial species is more likely to result in high pro-ductivity. The Marrakesh Accords define grazingland management as "the system of practices onland use for livestock production aimed at manipulating the amount and type of vegetation and livestock produced"(FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1, page 58).Operationally, a distinction is sometimes madebetween grazing land management and grass-land management; grazing lands are managedfor livestock, whereas grasslands may be man-aged for different purposes, including conserva-tion, but not specifically for livestock. One of the

goals of grazing land management is to preventovergrazing, which is the single greatest cause ofgrassland degradation and the overridinghuman-influenced factor in grassland soil car-bon loss (Ojima et al. 1993).

In grazing lands, carbon accumulatesabove- and below-ground, and transformingcropped or degraded lands to perennial grass-lands can increase above- and below-groundbiomass, soil carbon, and biodiversity.Protection of previously intensively grazed landsand reversion of cultivated lands to perennialgrasslands is likely to be more prevalent in coun-tries with agricultural surpluses, but opportuni-ties for environmental protection set-asides arepossible in all countries. Globally, estimates ofthe potential area of cropland that could beplaced into set-asides are approximately 100 Mha (IPCC 1996).

Grasslands management activities thatcan be used to sequester carbon in soils includegrazing management, protected grasslands andset-asides, grassland productivity improve-ments, and fire management. The productivityof many pastoral lands, and thus the potentialfor carbon sequestration, particularly in thetropics and arid zones, is restricted by nitrogenand other nutrient limitations and the unsuit-ability of some native species to high-intensitygrazing. Introduction of nitrogen-fixinglegumes and high-productivity grasses or addi-tions of fertilizer can increase biomass produc-tion and soil carbon pools, but some of theseintroduced species have significant potential tobecome weeds (IPCC 2000).

Most grassland management activities arebeneficial to biodiversity and carbon uptake;some such as fertilization may decrease on-sitebiodiversity (LULUCF 2000-Table 4.1). Carbonaccumulation can be enhanced throughimproved practices when grazing lands areintensively managed or strictly protected.Properly managed native species can enhancethe biodiversity associated with grazing lands.Native species are also often more tolerant of cli-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 75


69

matic variations than exotic species, and canprovide essential habitat for animals. Bucklandet al. (2001) suggest that native perennial speciesof grass have the potential to establish and effec-tively compete with annuals, improving systemstability. Grazing lands can also be made moreproductive, e.g., through fertilization, althoughit may lead to a reduction in the biodiversity ofnative grasslands.

4.9 CARBON SEQUESTRATION INOCEAN SYSTEMS, WETLANDS AND

GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS

Oceans and wetlands are enormous reservoirsof carbon; currently, there is approximately 50times as much carbon in the oceans as in theatmosphere. Oceans have provided a sink forup to 30 percent of the anthropogenic carbondioxide emissions (Raven and Falkowski 1999).However, these activities cannot generate creditsto meet commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

Marine ecosystems may offer mitigationopportunities for removing CO2 from theatmosphere, but the implications for biodiver-sity and ecosystem functioning are not wellunderstood. Mitigation of climate changeimpacts by means of the direct introduction offossil fuel-derived carbon dioxide into marinewaters was first proposed in 1977. Subsequently,proposals have been developed to inject CO2 gasinto intermediate depth waters (800 m), eitherfrom fixed shore-based pipelines (Drange et al.2001) or from pipelines towed behind ships.Other proposals envisage delivery of CO2 intodeep water to form a lake covered with CO2-clathrate hydrate (Brewer 2000).

All proposed oceanic CO2 storage schemeshave the potential to cause ecosystem distur-bance (Raven and Falkowski 1999). Carbondioxide introduced at depth will alter seawaterpH, with potentially adverse consequences formarine organisms (Ametistova et al. 2002). Adecline in pH associated with a CO2 plume coulddisrupt marine nitrification and lead to unpre-

dictable phenomena at both the ecosystem andcommunity level (Huesemann et al. 2002).Organisms unable to avoid regions of low pHbecause of limited mobility will be most affect-ed; layers of low pH water could prevent verticalmigration of species and alter particle composi-tion, affecting nutrient availability (Ametistovaet al. 2002). Deep-sea organisms are highly sen-sitive to changes in pH and CO2 concentration(Seibel and Walsh 2001). Thus, even smallchanges in pH or CO2 could have adverse conse-quences for deep-sea ecology and hence forglobal biogeochemical cycles that depend onthese ecosystems (Seibel and Walsh 2001). Theintroduction of CO2 into seamount ecosystems,which are essentially the tops of mountains orchains of mountains beneath the sea, raises fur-ther concerns. While data is limited, it appearsthat seamounts have high levels of endemic bio-diversity; i.e., containing species unique foundnowhere else in the world (Koslow et al. 2000,Forges et al. 2000). The overall ecological andbiodiversity implications of ocean CO2 disposalare highly uncertain, especially to benthic sys-tems, due to a lack of knowledge about the fau-nal assemblages likely to be affected, and theextent of the areas affected. It is important tonote that these activities are likely to take placeon the high seas outside of national jurisdiction.

Ocean fertilization is another type of car-bon sequestration. The concept of mitigatingclimate change through increased biologicalsequestration of carbon dioxide in oceanic envi-ronments (IPCC 2001a) has mainly focused onfertilization of the limiting micronutrient, iron,to marine waters that have high nitrate and lowchlorophyll levels (Boyd et al. 2000). The aim isto promote the growth of phytoplankton that, inturn, will fix significant amounts of carbon. Theintroduction of nitrogen into the upper ocean asa fertilizer has also been suggested (Shoji andJones 2001). However, the effectiveness of oceanfertilization as a means of mitigating climatechange may be limited (Trull et al. 2001,Buesseler and Boyd 2003).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 76


70

The consequences of larger and longer-term introductions of iron remain uncertain.There are several feedback mechanisms betweenocean systems and climate, and there is a dangerto disrupt the current functioning of the Earth’slargest ecosystem through mitigation activities.There are concerns that the introduction of ironcould alter food webs and biogeochemical cyclesin the oceans (Chisholm et al. 2001) causingadverse effects on biodiversity. There are alsopossibilities of nuisance or toxic phytoplanktonblooms and the risk of deep ocean anoxia fromsustained fertilization (Hall and Safi 2001). Aseries of experimental introductions of iron intothe Southern Ocean promoted a bloom of phy-toplankton (Boyd et al. 2000) but also producedsignificant changes in community compositionand the microbial food web (Hall and Safi 2001).

Wetlands have positive impacts on waterquality, provide protection against local flood-ing, help control soil and coastal erosion, andare important reservoirs of unique biodiversi-ty. They also serve as corridors for many long-range, migrant species and provide importantbreeding grounds for fish. Long-term revegeta-tion (i.e., ecological restoration) of former wet-lands can increase carbon sequestration but maylead to increases in other gas emissions.Wetlands are important reservoirs of biodiversi-ty. Thus restoration of wetlands that have beenformerly drained for agriculture or forestry willprovide important benefits: improvement ofwater quality, control of soil and coastal erosion,as well as providing protection against localflooding (IPCC 2000). Restoration of wetlandswill increase carbon storage as organic matter,but may also increase methane (CH4) emissions.

Effects of carbon sequestration in geologi-cal formations on biodiversity are not wellunderstood. As with marine carbon sequestra-tion, this option is not explicitly incorporated inthe Kyoto Protocol, but the technical potential isvery large, and considerable governmental andprivate sector investments in research are under-way to further develop this alternative. The bio-

diversity implications of the different technolo-gies applied (storage in oil fields, coal beds oraquifers) are not well understood; possible nega-tive effects could be due to release of carbondioxide from underground storage or by chang-ing the chemical properties of ground water(Reichle et al. 1999).

4.10 ENERGY ACTIVITIES

About 60 % of anthropogenic global green-house gas emissions originate from the genera-tion and use of energy. The majority of mitiga-tion efforts are therefore focused on energy pro-duction, transport and space heating.

A substantial proportion of anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions originate from non-energy sources. Measures are being taken to cutemissions from sources such as waste disposal,forestry and agriculture, as well as enhanceremovals. By definition, these actions provideenvironmental benefits in terms of climatechange; they may have beneficial or adverseeffects on biodiversity. Potential impacts on bio-diversity of some emission reduction actions arediscussed below.

Mitigation options in the energy sectorthat may affect biodiversity include increasingthe use of renewable energy sources such asbioenergy, and wind-, solar-, and hydropower.Some activities that increase efficiency in thegeneration or use of fossil fuels are not discussedin this report but may also have beneficial effectson biodiversity. Increased efficiency in thesetypes of activities will reduce fossil-fuel use,thereby reducing the impacts on biodiversitycaused by mining, extraction, transport, andcombustion of fossil fuels.

4.10.1 Use of biomass / Bioenergy

The use of biomass (plant material) as a fuel canmitigate the impacts of climate change bydecreasing fossil fuel use. Bioenergy carriersstore solar energy in the form of organic materi-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 77


71

al, which can be used at any time. The variety offorms in which bioenergy carriers occur is a fur-ther advantage: they can be used in solid, liquidor gaseous state to produce either electricity orheat or both. During plant growth, plants assim-ilate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. TheCO2 is released during combustion. Therefore,the use of bioenergy is more or less CO2-neutral.Any difference will depend on the amount offossil fuels used to produce, harvest and convertbioenergy carriers. Generally, the use of agricul-tural or forest residues requires a smaller incre-mental use of fossil energy than the cultivationof specialized energy crops. However, emissionsfrom biomass fuels still include componentssuch as sulphur and black carbon particles, orgases (such as N2O or CH4) that have negativeeffects on the environment.

Today, eleven percent of the global pri-mary energy consumption (419 EJ) is producedfrom bioenergy (Goldemberg 2000). In somedeveloping countries the share of bioenergy canbe as high as 90 percent of total energy con-sumption, although the average for developingcountries is 33 percent (Hall 1997). According toIPCC calculations, energy crops could supplymuch of modern bioenergy, which could be cul-tivated on about 10 percent of the world’s land

area (Table 4.2). Achieving the technical poten-tial indicated by IPCC’s calculation wouldrequire setting aside large areas in Latin Americaand Africa for bioenergy crops.

Despite many advantages, such as overallavailability and diversity of uses, bioenergyalso bears risks for the global biosphere and forfood security. To exploit bioenergy to the poten-tial presented in the IPCC third assessmentreport (IPCC 2001a,b,c), it may require the con-version of natural vegetation, especially forests,to bioenergy plantations, and causing a signifi-cant loss of biodiversity in the affected regions.Several studies have shown that bioenergy treeplantations host less breeding bird and mammalspecies and individuals than the surroundingforests and shrublands (Hanowski et al. 1997,Christian et al. 1998). Moreover, these planta-tions are not colonized by forest animals but byspecies typical of open landscapes (Christian etal. 1997;1998). The introduction of wood ener-gy crops into open landscapes changes wildlifecommunity dynamics and might lead to a frag-mentation of grasslands, precipitating the loss ofspecies who depend on large open areas (Paine etal. 1996).

Nevertheless, bioenergy crops can result inneutral or positive impacts on biodiversity if

Study IPCC (2001a,b,c) Kaltschmitt et al. (2002) Fischer and Schrattenholzer (2001)

Potential (EJ) 396 (+45) 104 370-450

Area for energy crops ~10% of world’s ~2.5% of world’s land area Whole grassland area

land area

16% of Africa

32% of Latin America

Yields for energy crops High Moderate Moderate

[t ha-1] 15 6-7 4.7

Residue use (average) [t ha-1] No data Forest: 0.5 Forest: 1.4

Agriculture: 0.7 Agriculture: 1.2

Table 4.2: Comparison of several studies calculating global bioenergy potentials.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 78


72

several points are considered.(a) Bioenergy plantations, which do not replace

natural vegetation but cropland or non-native grazing land (e.g., managed pasturesor plantations) in areas affected by degrada-tion or erosion, may result in improved soilfertility and structure. Precise land usemodels, such as those developed for north-eastern Brazil (Schneider et al. 2001), canidentify suitable land and avoid competitionwith food production areas.

(b) Bioenergy plantations containing a highlevel of structural heterogeneity are betterfor biodiversity than large homogenousmonocultures (Christian et al. 1994).Examples of these plantations are standsthat are established with patches of differentspecies or clones.

(c) Use of native species that resemble as close-ly as possible the natural vegetation of a cer-tain region. For example, switchgrass(Panicum virgatum) plantations in theNorth American prairie region providessuitable habitat for native wildlife species(Paine et al. 1996).

(d) Perennial energy crops require less agro-chemicals than annual crops and are oftenmore productive (Graham et al. 1996, Paineet al. 1996, Zan et al. 2001).

4.10.2 Fuel wood as a special case of bioenergy

More than half of the world’s total round woodproduction is used as fuel wood, and fuelwoodand charcoal consumption in tropical coun-tries is estimated to increase from 1.3 billion m3

in 1991 to 3.4 billion m3 by 2050 (Schulte-Bisping et al. 1999). In the rural areas of mostdeveloping countries fuel wood collected inforested common lands is the main source ofdomestic energy (Heltberg et al. 2000). In sever-al Asian and African countries, e.g., China, India,and Kenya, wood consumption exceeds plantgrowth rates. Several authors have described the

cycle induced by fuel wood scarcity: increasedefforts to find fuel wood lead to increased envi-ronmental degradation, which in turn intensifiesfuel wood scarcity (Heltberg et al. 2000, Köhlinand Parks 2001). Integration of sustainable pro-duction of fuel wood into forest management,afforestation/reforestation, agroforestry, revege-tation and grassland management projects willhelp to reduce the pressure on forests and theirbiodiversity.

The extent of environmental degradationand the effects for biodiversity depend on thetype of wood collected. Normally, fuel woodcollectors first gather dry wood lying on the for-est floor, before breaking dead twigs and branch-es off living trees (Du Plessis 1995). The removalof these substrata may affect a variety of species,which use dead wood for food, shelter, or nest-ing. The disruption of nutrient flows that aresupplied to the soil from decomposing woodmay disturb or even eliminate biotic decom-posers that include insects, fungi, and microbes.(Shankar et al. 1998). Similar effects are causedby the excessive removal of uprooted shrubs andover-topped trees on village common lands inIndia (Ravindranath and Hall 1995). Liu et al.(1999) noted that giant panda habitat declinedin the Wolong Nature Reserve in China as thepopulation, and hence the demand for fuel woodincreased.

Fuelwood conservation measures, such asefficient cookstoves, solar cooking and biogas,have the potential to reduce pressure on forestsand thus conserve both carbon reservoirs andbiodiversity. Biogas derived from anaerobicdecomposition of crop waste and cattle dung canpotentially substitute for fuelwood at the house-hold or community levels. The same holds truewhen solar energy is used. Thus, mitigationactivities aimed at reducing fuelwood use forcooking and heating through improvements inefficiency (improved stoves and biogas) andchanges in behavior of local people can signifi-cantly reduce pressure on forests and therebycontribute to biodiversity conservation. In some

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 79


73

circumstances however, like in Mediterraneancountries, the termination of brushwood gather-ing led to an increase in fire risk and thus put apotential threat to biodiversity.

4.10.3 Hydropower and dams

Hydropower has been promoted as a technolo-gy with significant potential to mitigate cli-mate change by reducing the greenhouse gasintensity of energy production (e.g.,International Hydropower Association 2000).Greenhouse gas emissions from most hydropow-er projects are relatively low, with the exceptionof large shallow lakes in heavily vegetated tropi-cal areas where emissions of methane (CH4)from decaying vegetation can be substantial.Currently, about 19 percent of the world’s elec-tricity is produced from hydropower. While alarge proportion of hydropower potential inEurope and North America is already tapped, asmaller proportion of the larger potential indeveloping countries has been exploited. Of thefirst 25 projects moving through the CleanDevelopment Mechanism validation process asof August 2002, seven were hydro projects(Pearson, in press).

Emissions of carbon dioxide and methanecaused by dams and reservoirs may be a limit-ing factor on the use of hydropower to mitigateclimate change. Preliminary research suggeststhat emissions from dams and reservoirs world-wide may be equivalent to about one-fifth ofestimated total anthropogenic methane (CH4)emissions and four percent of anthropogeniccarbon dioxide emissions. The science of quanti-fying reservoir emissions is, however, still devel-oping and subject to many uncertainties. Onemajor issue requiring further study is how damsand reservoirs affect watershed carbon cycling.Measurements of gross reservoir emissions maysignificantly under- or over-estimate net emis-sions depending on how pre-dam carbon fluxeshave been affected (World Commission onDams 2000a).

Large-scale hydropower development canalso have other high environmental and socialcosts. The large-scale promotion of hydropowerfor climate mitigation could have seriousimpacts on biodiversity, especially in aquatic andriparian ecosystems. The World Bank/IUCN-sponsored World Commission on Dams (WorldCommission on Dams 2000b) concluded that"large dams have many, mostly negative impactson ecosystems. These impacts are complex, var-ied and often profound in nature. In many cases,dams have led to the irreversible loss of speciespopulations and ecosystems". Dam reservoirsresult in loss of land, which may lead to loss oflocal terrestrial biodiversity. Dams may also pre-vent fish migration, an essential part of the lifecycle of some species and thus damage fishingresources with its associated social impacts onlocal populations. Altering the timing, flow,flood pulse, oxygen and sediment content ofwater may reduce aquatic and terrestrial biodi-versity. Systematic changes of the aquatic habi-tats by hydropower projects may cause a cumu-lative negative effect on specialized aquatic andsemi-aquatic species. Disturbing aquatic ecosys-tems in tropical areas can also induce indirectenvironmental effects; for example, increasedpathogens and their intermediate hosts may leadto an increase in human diseases such as malar-ia, schistosomiasis, filariasis, and yellow fever.The environmental impacts of hydropowerplants are summarized in Table 4.3.

The ecosystem impacts of specifichydropower projects vary widely and may beminimized depending on factors includingtype and condition of pre-dam ecosystems,type and operation of dam, and the height ofdam and area of reservoir. Well-designed instal-lations, for example using modern technologiesthat cascade the water through a number ofsmaller dams and power plants, may reduce theadverse environmental impacts of the system.Small and micro-scale hydroelectric schemesnormally have low environmental impacts, butthe cumulative effects of many projects within

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 80


74

a watercourse may have considerable impact onthe biodiversity within a larger area. In general,run-of-river projects will have fewer impactsthan storage dams with large reservoirs26 butthey may also have serious effects on biodiversi-ty. These impacts are mainly due to the blockingof fish migration, either because of the physicalbarrier of the dam wall or through the dewater-ing of a stretch of river below the dam.Cumulative impacts of small dams on biodiver-sity need to be considered even when individualinstallations may have only a small impact(World Commission on Dams 2000b).

Proper design and operation of reservoirsand dams could decrease their impact on bio-diversity. Another important determinant ofdam impacts is their location within the riversystem. Dams near the headwaters of tributarieswill tend to have fewer impacts than mainstreamdams that may cause perturbations throughoutthe whole watershed (see e.g. Pringle 1997). Theprotection of dams from siltation may be a

mayor incentive for biodiversity conservation inthe form of reforestation or afforestation meas-ures within the watershed. The WorldCommission on Dams has published a compre-hensive list of guidelines for water and energyplanning which might be helpful in that respect(World Commission on Dams 2000b).

4.10.4 Wind energy

Wind energy plays an important role in thedevelopment of renewable energy; the use ofwind energy is increasing rapidly and it is onestrategy to mitigate climate change. The addi-tionally installed capacity in the record year 2001was 6824 MW worldwide (Krogsgaard andMadsen 2002). Today wind energy next tohydropower is the most important renewableenergy source of electricity. Europe accounts formore than 70 percent of the total installed capac-ity in the world, and the United States ofAmerica has 18 percent. In Germany 37 percent

Impacts Due to Dam and Reservoir Presence

Upstream change from river valley to reservoir(includes flooding of terrestrial habitats and conversionof aquatic habitats from wetland and riverine to lacus-trine).

Changes in downstream morphology of riverbed andbanks, delta, estuary and coastline due to altered sedi-ment load.

Changes in downstream water quality: effects on rivertemperature, nutrient load, turbidity, dissolved bases,concentration of heavy metals and minerals.

Reduction of biodiversity due to the blocking of move-ment of organisms and because of the above changes.

Impacts Due to Pattern of Dam Operation

Changes in downstream hydrology;changes in total flows;change in seasonal timing of flows;short-term fluctuation in flows;change in extreme high and low flows.

Changes in downstream morphology caused byaltered flow patterns.

Changes in downstream water quality caused byaltered flow patterns.

Reduction in riverine/riparian/floodplain habitatdiversity, especially due to elimination of floods.

Table 4.3: Typology of main environmental impacts from hydropower (from McCully 1996).

26 The term run-of-river is ill-defined but refers to projects with very small storage capacity relevant to streamflow.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 81


75

of the world’s capacity is connected to the grid(Brown 2002, Bundesverband Windenergie2002). In addition to the installation onshore,development of offshore wind farms will accel-erate in the future.

Onshore, as well as offshore, the construc-tion and the operation of wind energy plantsmay cause negative impacts on the naturalenvironment. Detailed and long-term researchprograms are needed to provide data on theeffects of onshore and offshore wind farms onthe natural environment and biological diversity.Onshore, there is proof of impacts on fauna,mainly avifauna. Wind energy farms may alsolead to direct and/or indirect loss of habitat(Ketzenberg et al. 2002), which may be criticalfor rare species. Most of the studies have demon-strated low rates of collision mortality, but theserates could nevertheless be significant for somespecies (BfN 2000, and references therein).Studies conducted so far indicate species andsite-specific sensitivity of birds, but furtherresearch is needed (Anderson et al. 1999,Kruckenberg and Laene 1999, Leddy et al. 1999,Morrison et al. 1998, Winkelmann 1992).

At present, knowledge of the effects of off-shore wind farms on the avifauna (migrationpaths) is less extensive than the informationavailable on onshore farms (Garthe 2000).Little is known about the impacts on sea mam-mals, fish, and the biotic-communities of theseabed (Merck and Nordheim 1999), but in seamammals, there is a high potential risk of disori-entation or displacement due to the noise duringthe construction and operation of wind farms.Benthic communities and fish may be affectedby direct loss of habitats (during construction),or through rearrangement of the sediment. Theinput of solid substrates (concrete or steel foun-dation) may also have negative impacts on bio-diversity. However, current knowledge aboutthese impacts is still limited. Land use planningcan help identify biologically sensitive areas andprevent them from being negatively impacted(Huggett 2001). For example, Germany is cur-

rently performing respective action with refer-ence to their offshore wind energy strategy(BMU 2002) identifying ecologically sensitiveareas and simultaneously defining wind energyqualification areas. Parallel to this strategy anextensive research plan related to possible envi-ronmental effects of wind farms is executed.

4.11 OPTIONS FOR ADAPTATION TOCLIMATE CHANGE

The Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange has defined "adaptation" as adjustmentin natural or human systems to a new or chang-ing environment. In the context of climatechange, adaptation refers to adjustment in prac-tices, processes, or structures in response to actu-al or expected climatic stimuli or their effects,with an effort to reduce a system’s vulnerabilityand to ease its adverse impacts. While ecosystemscan, to a certain extent, adapt naturally to chang-ing conditions, in human systems adaptationrequires: an awareness of potential impacts ofclimate change, the need for taking action, anunderstanding of available strategies, measuresand means to assess adaptive responses, and thecapacity to implement effective options. In thefollowing discussion, the term "adaptation" doesnot include the autonomous response of naturalsystems to climate change (e.g., to changed CO2

levels).Adaptation activities could include policies

and programs to:(a) Increase robustness of infrastructure and

investments to climate change impacts (e.g.,expanding buffer zones against sea levelrise);

(b) Discourage investments that would increasevulnerability in systems sensitive to climatechange;

(c) Increase flexibility of managed systems toaccommodate and adapt to climate change;

(d) Learn from, and enhance resilience andadaptability of, natural systems; and

(e) Reverse maladaptive trends in development

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 82


76

and resource management and use (e.g.,reducing subsidies associated with ineffi-cient use of energy and water; GEF 2003).Inertia27 in the climate, ecological, and

socio-economic systems makes adaptationinevitable and already necessary in some cases.Mitigation of climate change itself is a long-termendeavor. Even if all anthropogenic additions ofgreenhouse gases to the atmosphere were to bestopped immediately, global warming and asso-ciated impacts such as sea level rise, would beexpected to continue for many decades (IPCC2001d). Thus mitigation options alone (see sec-tion 4.4) may not be adequate to reduce theimpacts of climate change on biodiversity andecosystems; adaptation activities need to be con-sidered along with mitigation options.

Adaptation activities to climate changewill be required in all countries and in mostsectors. For example, adaptation activities maybe necessary for water management, agriculture,and forestry, and infrastructure development. Itis generally considered that adaptation optionsare best carried out as part of an overallapproach to sustainable development, integrat-ed, for example, with national biodiversitystrategies and action plans. As mentioned inSection 4.3, the ecosystem approach provides aunifying framework for adaptation activities toclimate change in the context of sustainabledevelopment. Implementing appropriate moni-toring systems will help detect potential trendsin changes in biodiversity and help plan adaptivemanagement strategies.

4.11.1 Adaptation options to reduce thenegative impacts of climate change on

biodiversity

Adaptation is necessary not only for the pro-jected changes in climate but also because cli-

mate change is already affecting many ecosys-tems. Adaptation options include activitiesaimed at conserving and restoring native ecosys-tems, managing habitats for rare, threatened,and endangered species, and protecting andenhancing ecosystem services.

Reduction of other pressures on biodiver-sity arising from habitat conversion, over-har-vesting, pollution, and alien species invasions,constitute important climate change adapta-tion measures. Since mitigation of climatechange itself is a long-term endeavour, reductionof other pressures may be among the most prac-tical options. For example, increasing the healthof coral reefs may allow them to be moreresilient to increased water temperature andreduce bleaching (see section 4.11.4).

A major adaptation measure is to counterhabitat fragmentation, through the establish-ment of biological corridors between protectedareas, particularly in forests. More generally,the establishment of a mosaic of interconnectedterrestrial, freshwater and marine multiple-usereserve protected areas designed to take intoaccount projected changes in climate, can bebeneficial to biodiversity.

While some protected areas are large, usu-ally the entire suite of local species includingtheir full genetic variation are absent as mostreserves are too small to contain the habitatrequirements of all species (Kramer et al. 1997).Biodiversity affects, and is affected by, ecologicalprocesses that typically span spatial scales greaterthan the area encompassed within a protectedarea (Schulze and Mooney 1993; chapters 2 and3). Moreover, because biodiversity respondsintimately to climate change, with among othereffects, shifts in species distributions, efforts mayhave to be directed to actions that increase theresiliency of existing protected areas to futureclimate change while recognizing that some

27 According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, inertia means delay, slowness, or resistance in the response of the climate, bio-logical, or human systems to factors that alter their rate of change, including continuation of change in the system after the cause of that changehas been removed.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 83


77

change is inevitable as a consequence of theresponse of species to climate change. For exam-ple, many species have populations that extendbeyond current reserve boundaries; in Alaskaand Canada, it is not possible to protect the fullrange of migratory caribou (Rangifer tarandus)herds, as these cover tens of thousands of km2.

Networks of reserves with connecting cor-ridors provide dispersal and migration routesfor plants and animals. The placement andmanagement of reserves (including marine andcoastal reserves) and protected areas will need totake into account potential climate change if thereserve system is to continue to achieve its fullpotential. Options include corridors, or habitatmatrices that link currently fragmented reservesand landscapes to provide the potential formigration. In many instances, corridors can beused to connect fragmented habitats. For exam-ple, agroforestry shelterbelts across agriculturallands can be designed to connect forest frag-ments. A ‘corridor’ may simply be habitat areassufficiently close to each other (i.e., functionallylinked) to enable dispersal. The appropriatewidth and species composition, how the edges ofthe corridors should be managed, and the opti-mal pattern of patches within the matrix of sur-rounding land needs to be understood. Manycorridors may be useful for animals but theirutility for plants or entire vegetation types tomove with climate change is less certain.Transitional zones between ecosystem typeswithin and among reserves (ecotones) serve asrepository regions for genetic diversity that maybe drawn upon to restore degraded, adjacentregions. Hence, additional adaptation measuresmay be needed in ecotones. As an insurancemeasure, such approaches can be completed byex situ conservation.

Conservation of biodiversity and mainte-nance of ecosystem structure and function areimportant climate change adaptation strate-gies because genetically-diverse populationsand species-rich ecosystems have a greaterpotential to adapt to climate change.

Conserving biodiversity at the species and genet-ic levels (including food crops, trees, and live-stock races) means that options are kept open toadapt human societies better to climate change.While some natural pest-control, pollination,soil-stabilization, flood-control, water-purifica-tion and seed-dispersal services can be replacedwhen damaged or destroyed by climate change,technical alternatives may be costly and thereforenot feasible to apply in many situations.

Captive breeding for animals, ex-situ con-servation for plants, and translocation pro-grams can be used to augment or reestablishsome threatened or sensitive species. Captivebreeding and translocation, when combinedwith habitat restoration and in situ conservation,may be successful in preventing the extinction ofsmall numbers of key taxa under small tomoderate climate change. Captive breeding forreintroduction and translocation is likely to beless successful if climate change is more dramaticas such change could result in large-scale modi-fications of environmental conditions, includingthe loss or significant alteration of existing habitatover some or all of a species’ range. However, it istechnically difficult, often expensive, and unlikelyto be successful in the absence of completeknowledge about the species’ biology (Kelleret al. 2002).

Moving populations of threatened speciesto adapt to the changing climate zones isfraught with scientific uncertainties and con-siderable costs. Special attention may be givento poor dispersers, specialists, species with smallpopulations, endemic species with a restrictedrange, those that are genetically isolated, or thosethat have an important role in ecosystem func-tion. These species may be assisted by the provi-sion of migration corridors (e.g., by erectingreserves with north–south orientation), butmany may eventually require assisted migrationto keep up with the speed with which their suit-able habitats move with climate change.Superimposing a new biota on a regional biotathat is experiencing an increase in problems

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 84


78

from warmer climates will likely be a controver-sial adaptation.

4.11.2 Consequences of adaptation activities on ecosystems and biodiversity

Adaptation activities may be necessary to reducethe impacts of climate change on human wellbe-ing. Some such adaptation measures may threat-en biodiversity, although the negative effects canoften be mitigated by careful design. Dependingon the location, some climate change adaptationactivities may have either beneficial or adverseimpacts on biodiversity.

Physical barriers may be necessary to pro-tect against extreme weather events as adapta-tion measures (e.g., storm surges, floods), andmay have positive or negative impacts on bio-diversity. In terms of negative impacts, a loss ofbiodiversity due to adaptation measures mayimpair ecosystem functions, resulting inincreased vulnerability to future climate change.For example, in some cases, certain ecosystemsin small islands may be largely destroyed byefforts to obtain construction material forcoastal protection. On the other hand, certainadaptation options may benefit biodiversity; forexample, the preservation of ecosystems thatserve as natural protection against potentialimpacts of climate change, such as mangroveforests and coral reefs, and the strategic place-ment of artificial wetlands. Traditional respons-es to climate change (e.g., building on stilts andthe use of expandable, readily available indige-nous building materials) have proven to be effec-tive responses in many regions.

The use of pesticides and herbicides maybe increased to control new pest and diseases,and invasive alien species that might resultfrom climate change. This may lead to damageto existing plant and animal communities, waterquality, and human health. Human responses toclimate change may also contribute synergisti-cally to existing pressures; for example, if newpest outbreaks are countered with increased pes-

ticide use, non-target species might have toendure both climate and contaminant-linkedstressors. In addition, non-target species couldinclude natural predators of other pests thus cre-ating more problems due to even more frequentpest outbreaks. In some cases, use of integratedpest management may offer a more sustainablesolution, especially in agriculture.

Changes in agriculture and increased use of aquaculture--including mariculture--employed to compensate for climate-inducedlosses in food production, may have negativeeffects on natural ecosystems and associatedbiodiversity. However, there may also be oppor-tunities for sustainable agriculture and aquacul-ture.

4.11.3 The contribution of biodiversity toadaptation options

The protection, restoration or establishment ofbiologically diverse ecosystems that provideimportant goods and services may constituteimportant adaptation measures to supplementexisting goods and services, in anticipation ofincreased pressures or demand, or to compen-sate for likely losses. Although climate changehas been observed to affect ecosystems and theirbiodiversity, biodiversity itself can play a poten-tially important role in enhancing ecosystemcapacity to recover (resilience) and adapt to theimpacts of climate change (see Chapter 2). Inaddition, recent work on the valuation of theservices provided by ecosystems suggests that inmany cases, the value of ecosystems in their nat-ural state is greater than that of their convertedstate. For example, the net present value of intactmangrove in Thailand is greater than the valueobtained from shrimp farming once converted(Balmford et al. 2002). Reducing general envi-ronmental pollution and other external stresses,as noted above, can increase ecosystem resilienceagainst climate change. For example:(a) The protection or restoration of mangroves

can offer increased protection of coastal

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 85


79

areas to sea level rise and extreme weatherevents (see section below on marine andcoastal ecosystems);

(b) The rehabilitation of upland forests, coastalforests, and wetlands can help regulate flowin watersheds, thereby moderating floodsfrom heavy rain and ameliorating waterquality; and

(c) Conservation of natural habitats such as pri-mary forests, with high ecosystemresilience, may decrease losses of biodiversi-ty from climate change and compensate forlosses in other, less resilient, areas.

4.11.4 Adaptation options in variousecosystems

4.11.4.1 Marine and coastal ecosystems

An integrated approach to fisheries manage-ment, which takes into consideration ecologi-cal as well as socio-economic issues andreduces pressures on fisheries and associatedecosystems constitute an adaptation strategy.Recent (2002) FAO fisheries statistics indicatethat 47% of global fisheries are fully fished, while18% are overfished and 9% depleted. In addi-tion, 90% of large predatory fish biomass world-wide has been lost since pre-industrial times(Myers and Worm 2003). The relationshipbetween climatic factors and fish carrying capac-ity is complicated, and the effects of climatechange will likely have different consequencesfor various species. Overfishing causes a simpli-fication of marine food webs, and will thus affectthe ability of predators to switch between preyitems (Stephens and Krebs 1986, Pauly et al.2002). Healthy fisheries are better able to with-stand environmental fluctuations, including cli-mate change, than those under stress from over-exploitation (see e.g., Jackson et al. 2001, Pauly etal. 2002).

Considering the depleted state of theworld’s fish stocks, a reduction of the pressureson fully- and overexploited coastal and oceanic

fisheries can be an important component ofadaptation measures to reduce impacts on bio-diversity, and facilitate sustainable harvesting.The World Summit on Sustainable Developmentagreed on a goal to restore fish stocks to levelsthat can produce maximum sustainable yields bythe year 2015 (WSSD Plan of Implementation,paragraph 30(a)). Means to reach this goalinclude, for example, reduction of the size offishing fleets, ending subsidies for industrialfishing and establishing a global network ofmarine reserves, which would allow fish stocksto regenerate (Pauly and MacLean 2003).

Adaptation strategies relating to coralreefs will need to focus on the reduction andremoval of other external stresses. Climatechange may represent the single greatest threatto coral reefs worldwide (West and Salm 2003).The geographic extent, increasing frequency, andregional severity of mass bleaching events are anapparent result of steadily rising marine temper-atures, combined with regionally specific ElNiño and La Niña events (Reaser et al. 2000),and the frequency and severity of such bleachingevents is likely to increase (Hoegh-Guldberg1999). Although it may be possible that coralreefs will expand their range with the warmingof water temperatures, the potential for estab-lishing new reefs polewards will ultimately belimited by the light levels at higher (or lower) lat-itudes, and will be insufficient to compensate forthe loss of reefs elsewhere. Given the inertia inthe climate change system, adaptation measureswill need to focus on reducing the anthro-pogenic stresses on coral reefs.

Although all reefs, even those grantedwell-enforced legal protection as marine pro-tected areas or managed for sustainable use, arethreatened by climate change, several recentstudies suggest that unstressed and protectedreefs are better able to recover from bleachingevents (e.g., Reaser et al. 2000). The 2002 Statusof Coral Reefs of the World report (Wilkinson2002), concluded that reefs that are highly pro-tected and are not stressed were better able to

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 86


80

recover from bleaching events. Similarly, theCoral Reef Degradation in the Indian Ocean(CORDIO) 2002 Status Report (Linden et al.2002) noted that while in most areas recoveryfollowing bleaching has been slow, patchy ornon-existent, significant recovery had occurredin areas that were either far away from humaninfluence or inside well protected marinereserves. These two studies support the use ofeffective integrated marine and coastal areamanagement, including, as its central compo-nent, highly protected marine reserves as anadaptation strategy. Such highly protected areasalso serve to spread risk, whereby areas thatescape damage can act as sources of larvae to aidrecovery of nearby affected areas (Hughes et al.2003). Practical advice on the management ofbleached and severely damaged coral reefs isavailable (Westmacott et al. 2000).

Aquaculture, including mariculture, cannegatively impact biodiversity at the genetic,species and ecosystem level, although sucheffects can be mitigated through sustainablepractices. Development of mariculture andaquaculture has been proposed as a possibleadaptation option to potential climate-changeinduced decline of wild fisheries. However, theclaim that aqua- and mariculture would reducethe impact on the remaining coastal systems isdisputed (Naylor et al. 1998; 2000). The farmingof carnivorous species such as salmon, trout, andsea bream may have a detrimental effect on wildfisheries because the harvest of small fish forconversion to fish meal leaves less in the foodweb for other commercially valuable predatoryfish, such as cod, and for other marine predators,such as seabirds and seals (Pauly et al. 1998).Some improvement to this situation may be pro-vided in the future by development of new feedswhere fishmeal can be replaced by other ingredi-ents (Foster 1999). Importantly, in the context ofclimate change adaptation strategies, large- scaledevelopments of aqua-and mariculture in, e.g.mangrove ecosystems, leading to clear cutting oflarge areas in coastal zones, may affect the

ecosystems’ capacity to mitigate floods andstorms. Habitat conversion from mangroveswamp to shrimp farms in Malaysia has beenestimated to produce a significant loss of wildfish from habitat conversion alone. Other nega-tive biodiversity effects of unsustainable aqua-culture include modification, degradation ordestruction of habitat, disruption of trophic sys-tems, depletion of natural seedstock, and trans-mission of diseases and reduction of geneticvariability (Naylor et al. 2000). For example,fish-farming for salmon and char has beenshown to increase the incidence of salmon liceon wild salmonid populations, which negativelyaffects the production, survivorship, and behav-iour of the wild fish (Bjorn et al. 2001). Further,there are considerable localised eutrophicationeffects from aquaculture generally on the diver-sity and community structure of benthic com-munities (e.g., Pohle et al. 2001, Holmer et al.2002, Yokoyama 2002). For aquaculture or mar-iculture to be considered as a viable climatechange adaptation option, it needs to be under-taken in a sustainable manner, and in the contextof integrated marine and coastal area manage-ment.

Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosys-tems offer adaptation services within the con-text of predicted sea level and climate changes.The protection and restoration of coastal ecosys-tems, such as mangrove and salt marsh vegeta-tion, can protect coastlines from the impacts ofclimate induced sea-level rise, and also have bio-diversity benefits (Suman 1994). Maintenance ofhealthy mangrove cover and restoration of man-groves in areas where they have been logged canbe a positive adaptation strategy (Macintosh etal. 2002). There is also a possibility for the rangeof mangroves to be expanded landwards as afunction of changes in sea level and other coastalclimate change impacts (Richmond et al. 1998).Coastline adaptation strategies for ecosystems,such as the use of mangrove and salt marsh veg-etation can be relatively easy to implement,unless dykes and tidal barriers are already

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 87


81

installed. Adaptation measures should provide aholistic approach to the integrated managementof entire watersheds, including inland water,coastal and marine areas.

4.11.4.2 Inland water ecosystems

As with terrestrial ecosystems, adaptationstrategies to climate change in inland waterecosystems include conservation and spatiallinkages. Climate change is expected to impactinland water ecosystems in two major ways.First, through changes in the water cycle.Second, through associated changes in the ter-restrial ecosystem within a given catchment.Adaptation options to these changes should con-sider all components of the watershed (e.g.,Sparks 1995). River biota, within reasonable lim-its, is naturally well adapted to rapid and unpre-dictable changes in environmental conditions(Puckridge et al. 1998). For rivers, it may beessential to conserve or restore ecosystem con-nectivity, both longitudinally along the rivercourse and laterally between the river and itswetlands, in order to sustain ecosystem function(Ward et al. 2001). However, many of the natu-ral aquatic corridors are already blocked throughdams and embankments. This increases the vul-nerability of freshwater biodiversity to climatechange and constrains implementing adaptivestrategies. In their lower reaches, coastal riversenter the estuarine and coastal zone where theyhave a major influence. These areas should beconsidered a contiguous part of inland waterecosystems and managed together under theecosystem approach. The identification of thedegree of vulnerability of the various compo-nents of complex inland water ecosystems, andthe subsequent development of appropriateecosystem management plans based upon thisinformation, is a critical requirement for adapta-tion to climate change for inland waters.

Any management that favors near naturalhydrological function in inland water ecosys-tems is likely to have major benefits for the

conservation of biodiversity. In particular,modern approaches to the management of riversrecognise that for many systems change isinevitable. This has stimulated much interest inthe concept of sustaining "environmental flows"as a management target for rivers (Tharme inpress). Such approaches need to take on boardclimate change if they are to be adaptive. Theincrease in extreme weather events that climatechange may bring (for freshwaters - particularlythe frequency and extent of droughts and floods)is likely to be more of a concern with isolatedlakes and wetlands. The issue of extreme hydro-logical events is, however, of major significanceto integrated water resources planning and man-agement. For example, maintaining river flood-plains and wetlands helps restore water balanceand hence mitigate catastrophic flooding.Climate change, therefore, can be regarded asproviding additional incentives to manageinland waters better and both the financial andconservation benefits of doing so are consider-able. Maintaining natural river form and relatedecosystem processes is likely to provide signifi-cant benefits for coastal regions.

4.11.4.3 Forest ecosystems

Due to their high resilience, adaptation strategiesto climate change in forest ecosystems that miti-gate the underlying causes of forest destructionand its degradation, are likely to be the mosteffective. It should be noted, however, that someof these strategies may overlap with those aimedat mitigating climate change through forestmanagement (see section 4.5). For example, aforest plantation designed as an altitudinalwildlife migration corridor (to adapt to climatechange) may also sequester carbon and hence bea mitigation activity. Nevertheless, there aresome specific considerations relevant to forestecosystem management as adaptation optionsthat may help to conserve biodiversity in achanging climate (Noss 2001):(a) Maintaining representative forest ecosys-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 88


82

tem types across environmental gradientsin protected areas. Because it is difficult toascertain which forest types are to be themost sensitive to climate change, mainte-nance of a full spectrum of types serves as a"bet-hedging" strategy;

(b) Protecting climatic refugia at all spatialscales, therefore allowing persisting popula-tions of plants and animals to recolonize thesurrounding landscape when conditionsfavorable for their survival and reproduc-tion return;

(c) Protecting primary forests. As the intensi-ty and rate of biotic change is likely to bebuffered in forest interiors, maintaininglarge patches of primary forests may help tomaintain biodiversity during climatechange. Primary forests also provide store-houses of genetic diversity that may bediminished in second-growth forests, andhence limiting the ability for various speciesto be able to adapt to climate change (e.g.,Rajora et al. 2002);

(d) Avoiding fragmentation and providingecological connectivity, especially parallelto climatic gradients. By increasing habitatisolation, fragmentation is likely to hamperthe ability of a species to migrate due to cli-mate change. Ecological connectivity canbe achieved through a mixed strategy ofcorridors and unconnected but nevertheless"stepping-stone" habitats;

(e) Providing buffer zones for adjustment ofreserve boundaries. With changing cli-mate, buffer zones have the potential to pro-vide for shifting populations as conditionsinside reserves become unsuitable;

(f) Practicing low-intensity forestry and pre-venting conversion of natural forests toplantations. Mixed-species plantations,where appropriate, are likely to spread therisk of biotic change at the stand levelbecause different species have distinct levelsof response to climate change. They mayalso facilitate migrating species to be incor-

porated into the mix. This also applies toforest restoration practices that incorporatemixed species plantings of native trees indegraded areas;

(g) Maintaining natural fire regimes wherepossible. The threat to biodiversity fromlack of fire in many forest ecosystem typesmay outweigh the potential advantages ofsuppressing fire even though in the shortterm, fire suppression enhances carbonstorage;

(h) Proactively maintaining diverse genepools as genetic diversity is the basis forgenetic adaptation to climate change. Thisis particularly important in the case ofmixed-species plantations and reforestationwith monocultures when necessary; and

(i) Identifying and protecting "functional"groups of similar species, and/or ecologi-cally important species. That is, large her-bivores and carnivores, and frugivorousbirds, as their presence may be essential forecosystem adaptability to climate change.

4.11.4.4. Agricultural ecosystems andgrasslands

Agricultural systems are vulnerable to climatechange, but as a human managed ecosystem,adaptation is possible, given sufficient socio-eco-nomic resources and a supportive policy envi-ronment.

Conservation of crop and livestock geneticresources, in situ and ex situ, and their incorpo-ration in long term strategic breeding pro-grammes is important in maintaining futureoptions for unknown needs of agriculture,including those arising from the impacts of cli-mate change (FAO 1998, Cooper et al. 2001).This includes conventional collection and stor-age in gene banks as well as dynamic manage-ment of populations allowing continued adapta-tion through evolution to changing conditions.Promotion of on-farm conservation of cropdiversity may serve a similar function.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 89


83

Conservation of other components of agricul-tural biodiversity, i.e., "the associated biodiversi-ty" that provides natural pest control, pollina-tion, and seed dispersal services and ensures soilhealth, can be promoted through measures suchas integrated pest management and reducedtillage, while minimizing the use of pesticidesand herbicides. On the other hand the servicesprovided by such components of agriculturalbiodiversity can sometimes be replaced, but thealternatives may be costly, and may impact neg-atively on biodiversity.211. Native grasslands species have adaptivecharacteristics that enable them to respond toclimatic changes. For a grassland ecosystem tomaintain resilience to adverse changes in cli-mate, maintenance of a balanced native speciescomposition may be essential. Prescribed graz-ing management regimes would be beneficial inorder to enhance adaptability of the system toclimatic changes. Rehabilitation of degradedpasturelands using native grass species would beimportant in enhancing species as well as genet-ic variability and increasing resilience and adapt-ability of the system.

4.11.4.5. Mountain Ecosystems and Arcticecosystems

Mountain and arctic ecosystems and associatedbiodiversity could be under particular stressand threat of degradation due to their highsensitivity and vulnerable characteristics to cli-mate change. But few adaptation options areavailable.

Arctic ecosystems are likely to be severelyaffected by climate warming and changes inprecipitation regimes through increased UV-Bradiation, deterioration of permafrost, meltingof glaciers and icecaps, and reduced freshwaterflows into Arctic oceans. The precise effects ofclimate change on arctic ecosystems while high-ly uncertain, will be negative to present biodiver-sity, and so the only adaptation strategies avail-able are to carefully monitor changes to try to

predict future conditions, make use of tradition-al knowledge to formulate hypotheses for test-ing, and to identify knowledge gaps that researchcan address.

Adaptation activities that best addresshow mountain ecosystem management leads toadaptation benefits may be those that linkupland-lowland management strategies. Theseinclude mountain watershed management, andestablishment of corridors that allow for speciesmigration as well as adaptation to climatic stress.When adaptation measures are considered, pro-grams and projects using integrated manage-ment of mountain ecosystems should identifyecosystems and human societies at risk fromadverse change, and those likely to be vulnerableto climate change in the future.

4.12. RESEARCH NEEDS AND INFORMATION GAPS

The main message of this chapter is that,depending on the management options applied,the temporal and spatial scales considered, andthe type of ecosystem, activities aimed at miti-gating or adapting to climate change can havepositive, neutral, or negative impacts on biodi-versity; and that the conservation and use of bio-diversity, and the maintenance of ecosystemstructure and function, are in turn, related to themany options aimed at coping with global cli-mate change through mitigation and adaptationstrategies. Still, several research needs and infor-mation gaps exist:(a) There is a need for stand level modeling (as

opposed to tree-based models) to under-stand the true potential of forests (i.e., atbroad scales) to sequester carbon over time.

(b) The relationships between elevated levels ofCO2 and plant growth, and forest function-ing are presently not entirely clear; moreknowledge is needed to calibrate models topredict changes both in forest structure andbiodiversity.

(c) Climate change may affect rates of plant her-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 90


84

bivory in future forest stands and this will haveconsequences for stand growth and survival;however, little predictive modeling has beendone on this topic.

(d) Gathering of data for modelling relationshipsbetween climate change, ecosystem function,and biodiversity is needed; also, for modellingrelative response of individual species to cli-mate change and predicting community struc-tures under climate change scenarios.

(e) The ability of migrating species to use treeplantations as corridors, and the relative 'hos-tility' of planted forests of various types tomigrating animals, needs further assessment.

(f) The effects of energy activities (wind, water,solar, biomass energy) on biodiversity need tobe better understood.

4.13 REFERENCES Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H-J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T.,Malingreau, J-P. (2002). Determination of deforestation rates of the world'shumid tropical forests. Science 297: 999-1002Aerts, R. (1995). The advantages of being evergreen. - Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:402-407Altieri, M.A. (1991). Traditional farming in Latin America. The Ecologist21(2): 93-96Ametistova, L.; Twidell, J. and J. Briden (2002). The sequestration switch:removing industrial CO2 by direct ocean absorption. - Science of the TotalEnvironment 289: 213-223Amiro, B.D. (2001). Paired-tower measurements of carbon and energy flux-es following disturance in the boral forest. Global Change Biology 7: 253-268.Anderson, R.; Morrison, M.; Sinclair, K. and D. Strickland (1999). Studyingwind energy/bird interactions: a guidance document: Metrics and methodsfor determining or monitoring potential impacts on birds at existing andproposed wind energy sites. - National Wind Coordinating Committee: 70-75 www.nationalwind.orgAradottir, A.L. and O. Arnalds (2001). Ecosystem degradation and restora-tion of birch woodlands in Iceland. - In: Wielgolaski, F.E. (Ed.): NordicMountain Birch Ecosystems. - Paris (UNESCO); Carnforth (ParthenonPublishing): pp. 295-308Aradottir, A.L., Svavarsdottir, K., Jonsson, T.H., and G. Gu_bergsson (2000).Carbon accumulation in vegetation and soils by reclamation of degradedareas. - Icelandic Agricultural Sciences 13: 99-113Arnalds, O.; Gu_bergsson, G. and J. Gu_mundsson (2000). Carbon seques-tration of Icelandic soils as a result of reclamation of severely degraded areas.- Icelandic Agricultural Sciences 13: 87-97Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper P, Costanza R, Farber S, Green RE, JenkinsM, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J, Munro K, Myers N, Naeem S, Paavola J,Rayment M, Rosendo, S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K, and Turner RK.(2002). Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297: 950-953.BfN (2000): Empfehlungen des Bundesamtes für Naturschutz zunaturverträglichen Windkraftanlagen. - Projektgruppe„Windenergienutzung": 1-63Bjorn, PA, Finstad, B, and Kristoffersen, R. (2001). Salmon lice infection ofwild sea trout and Arctic char in marine and freshwaters: the effects ofsalmon farms. Aquaculture Research 32: 947-962.BMU (2002). Strategy of the German Government on the use of off-shorewind energy. - 4-8Boyd P.W.; Watson, A.J.; Law, C.S.; Abraham, E.R.; Trull, T.; Murdoch, R.;Bakker, D.C.E.; Bowie, A.R.; Buesseler, K.O.; Chang, H.; Charette, M.; Croot,P.; Downing, K.; Frew, R.; Gall, M.; Hadfield, M.; Hall, J.; Harvey, M.;Jameson, G.; LaRoche, J.; Liddicoat, M.; Ling, R.; Maldonado, M.T.; McKay,R.M.; Nodder, S.; Pickmere, S.; Pridmore, R.; Rintoul, S.; Safi, K.; Sutton, P.;Strzepek, R.; Tanneberger ,K.; Turner, S.; Waite, A. and J. Zeldis (2000). Amesoscale phytoplankton bloom in the polar Southern Ocean stimulated byiron fertilization. - Nature 407: 695-702Brandle, J.R.; Wardle, T.D. and G.F. Bratton (1992). Opportunities toincrease tree planting in shelterbelts and the potential impacts on carbonstorage and conservation. - In: Sampson, R.N. and D. Hair (Eds.): Forestsand Global Change Vol. 1: Ch. 9. – Washington.Brewer, P.G. (2000). Contemplating action: storing carbon dioxide in theocean. Oceanography 13(2): 84-92Brown, L.R. (2002). World Wind Generating Capacity Jumps 31 Percent in2001: Press realease 1/2002. - Earth Policy InstituteBrown, S., Swingland, I.R., Hanbury-Tenison, R., Prance, G.T., Myers, N.(2002). Changes in the use and management of forests for abating carbonemissions: issues and challenges under the Kyoto Protocol. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society London A, 360, 1593-1605.

Buckland et al. (2001). Grassland invasions: effects of manipulations of cli-mate and management. - Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 301-309Bundesverband Windenergie (2002). Zahlen zur Windenergie. - www.wind-energie.deCarey, E.V.; Sala, A.; Keane, R. and R.M. Callaway (2001). Are old forestsunderestimated as global carbon sinks? - Global Change Biology 7: 339-344Carnus, J.-M.; Parrotta, J.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Arbez, M.; Jactel, H.; Kremer,A.; Lamb, D.; O’Hara, K. and B. Walters (2003). Planted forests and biodi-versity. - In: UNFF intersessional experts meeting: The role of planted forestsin sustainable forest management. 25-27 Mar. 2003, Wellington, NZ.Caspersen, J.P. and S.W. Pacala (2001). Successional diversity and forestecosystem function. - Ecological Research 16: 895-904Choi, Y.D. and M.K. Wali (1995). The Role of Panicum virgatum (SwitchGrass) in the Revegetation of Iron-Mine Tailings in Northern New-York. -Restoration Ecology 3: 123-132Christian, D.P.; Collins, P.T.; Hanowski, J.M. and G. Niemi (1997). Bird andsmall mammal use of short-rotation hybrid poplar plantations. - Journal ofWildlife Management 61: 171-182Christian, D.P.; Hoffmann, W.; Hanowski, J.M.; Niemi , G. and J. Beyea(1998). Bird and mammal diversity on woody biomass plantations in NorthAmerica. - Biomass and Bioenergy 14: 395-402Christian, D.P.; Niemi, G.; Janowski, J.M. and P.T. Collins (1994).Perspectives on biomass energy tree plantations and changes in habitat forbiological organisms. - Biomass and Bioenergy 6: 31-39Chisholm, S.W.; Falkowski, P.G. and J.J. Cullen (2001). Dis-crediting oceanfertilization. Science 294: 309-310CIFOR. (2003). Fast-wood forestry: myths and realities. Centre forInternational Forestry Reseach (CIFOR), Indonesia.http://www.cifor.cgiar.orgClark, D.A., S.C. Piper, C.D. Keeling, and D.B. Clark. (2003). Tropical rainforest tree growth and atmospheric carbon dynamics linked to inter-annu-al temperature variation during 1984-2000. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 100:5852-5857.Cochrane, M. (2003). Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421: 913-919.Cooper HD, Spillane C and Hodgkin T. (Editors). (2001). Broadening thegenetic base of crop production. CABI publishing.D’Antonio, C. and Meyerson, L.A. (2002). Exotic plant species as problemsand solutions in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Restoration Ecology 10:703-713.Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s services: societal dependency on natural ecosys-tems. - Washington (Island Press)Densmore, R.V. (1992). Succession on an Alaskan tundra disturbance withand without assisted revegetation with grass. - Arctic and Alpine Research24: 238-243Díaz, S. and D. Cáceres (2000). Ecological approaches to rural developmentprojects. - Cadernos de Saúde Pública 16 (suppl. 3): 7-14Dixon et al. (1994). Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. -Science 263: 185-190Drange, H.; Alendal, G. and O.M. Johanessen (2001). Ocean release of fossilfuel CO2: a case study. - Geophysical Research Letters 28(13): 2637-2640Du Plessis, M.A. (1995). The effects of fuelwood removal on the diversity ofsome cavity-using birds and mammals in South Africa. - BiologicalConservation 74: 77-82Duan, Z.H.; Xiao, H.L.; Dong, Z.B.; He, X.D. and G. Wang (2001). Estimateof total CO2 output from desertified sandy land in China. - AtmosphericEnvironment 35: 5915-5921Elmarsdottir, A. (2001). Colonization of native plants on degraded andreclaimed sites in Iceland. - MS thesis, Colorado State Univeristy, Ft. Collins,Colorado.Ewel J.J., O'Dowd D.J., Bergelson J., Daehler C.C., D'Antonio C.M., GomezL.D., Gordon D.R., Hobbs R.J., Holt A., Hopper K.R., Hughes C.E., LaHart

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 91


85

M., Leakey R.R.B., Lee W.G., Loope L.L., Lorence D.H., Louda S.M., LugoA.E., McEvoy P.B., Richardson D.M.,Vitousek P.M. (1999). Deliberate intro-ductions of species: Research needs. Bioscience 49: 619-630.FAO (1998). The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources. Rome.FAO (2001). Global forest resource assessment 2000. - Rome. - ForestryPaper 140.FAO (2002). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome.Fay, C.; de Foresta, H.; Sarait, M. and T.P. Tomich (1998). A policy break-through for indonesian farmers in the Krui damar agroforests. AgroforestryToday 10(2): 25-26Fearnside, P.M. (2000). Greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change inBrazil’s Amazon region. - In: Kimble, J.M. and B.A. Stewart (Eds.): GlobalClimate Change and Tropical Ecosystems: Advances in Soil Science. - BocaRaton (CRC Press): 231-249Fischer, G. and Schrattenholzer, L. (2001). Global bioenergy potentialsthrough 2050. Biomass and Bioenergy 20: 151-159.Forbes, B.C. and J.D. McKendrick (2002). Polar tundra. - In: Perrow, M.R.and A.J. Davy (Eds.): Handbook of Ecological Restoration. 2. Restoration inPractice. - Cambridge (Cambridge University Press): 355-375Forges, B.R. de; Koslow, J.A. and G.C.B. Poore (2000). Diversity andendemism of the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific. - Nature405: 944-947Foster, J. (1999). Shrimp and salmon farming. Science 283: 639.Freemark, K.E.; Boutin, C. and C.J. Keddy (2002). Importance of Farmlandhabitat for conservation of plant species. - Conservation Biology 16:399-412Garthe, S. (2000). Mögliche Auswirkungen von Offshore-Windenergieanlagen auf See- und Wasservögel der deutschen Nord- undOstsee. - In: Merck, T. and H v. Nordheim (Eds.): Technische Eingriffe inmarine Lebensräume. - BfN-Skripten 29: 113-119Gascon, C.; Williamson, G.B. and G.A.B. da Fonseca (2000). Receding forestedges and vanishing reserves. - Science 288: 1356-1358.Global Environment Facility-GEF (2003). A proposed GEF Approach toAdaptation to Climate Change. GEF/C.21/Inf.10Gockowski, J., Nkamelu, B. and K. Wendt (1999). Implications of resourceuse intensification for environment and sustainable technology systems inthe Central African rainforest. In: Barrett, C.R. and D.R. Lee(eds.):Agricultural Intensification and the Environment. - Blackwell SciencePublishers, Oxon, United Kingdom,Goldemberg, J. (Ed.) (2000). World Energy Assessment: Energy and thechallenge of sustainability. - New York.Graham, R. L.; Downing, M. and M.E. Walsh (1996). A framework to assessregional environmental impacts of dedicated energy crop production.Environmental Management 20: 475-485Gretarsdottir, J. (2002). Long term effects of reclamation treatments onplant succession at two localities in Iceland. - Cand. Scient. Thesis,University of Bergen, Norway.Guo, Q. (2000). Climate change and biodiversity conservation in GreatPlains agroecosystems. - Global Environmental Change 10:289-298Hall, D.O. (1997). Biomass energy in industrialised countries - a view of thefuture. - Forest Ecology and Management 91: 17-45Hall, J.A. and K. Safi (2001). The impact of in situ Fe fertilization on themicrobial food web in the Southern Ocean. - Deep-Sea Research II 48: 2591-2613Hanowski, J.M., Niemi, G. J. and D.C. Christian (1997). Influence of within-plantation heterogeneity and surrounding landscape composition on aviancommunities in hybrid poplar plantations. - Conservation Biology 11: 936-944Healey, S. P., and R. I. Gara. 2002. The effect of a teak (Tectona grandis)plantation on the establishment of native species in an abandoned pasturein Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Managment 176: 497-507.Heltberg, R.; Arndt, T.C. and N.U. Sekhar (2000). Fuelwood consumptionand forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy substitutionin rural India. - Land Economics 76: 213-232Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (1999). Climate Change, Coral Bleaching and theFuture of the World’s Coral Reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 839-866.Holdsworth, A. R, and C. Uhl. (1997). Fire in amazonian selectively loggedrain forest and the potential for fire reduction. Ecological Applications 7:713–725.Holmer, M, Marba, N, Terrados, J, Duarte, CM, and Fortes, MD. (2002).Impacts of milkfish (Chanos chanos) aquaculture on carbon and nutrientfluxes in the Bolinao area, Philippines. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 685-696.Houghton, J.T.; Jenkins, G.J. and Ephraums, J.J. (eds.) (1990). ClimateChange: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.Houghton, R.A. (1999). The annual net flux of carbon to the atmospherefrom changes in land use 1850-1990. Tellus 50B: 298-313Houghton, R.A.; Skole, D.L.; Nobra, C.A.; Hacker, J.L.; Lawence, K.T. andW.H. Chomentowski (2000). Annual fluxes of carbon from deforestation

and regrowth in the brasilian Amazon. - Nature 403: 301-304House, J.I.; Prentice, C. and C. Le Quéré (2002). Maximum impacts offuture reforestation ore deforestation on atmospheric CO2. - Global ChangeBiology 8: 1047-1052Huesemann, M.H.; Skillman, A.D. and E.A. Crecelius (2002). The inhibitionof marine nitrification by ocean disposal of carbon dioxide. - MarinePollution Bulletin 44: 142-148Hugget, D. (2001). Identification and Demarcation of Marine IBAS andtheir Relationship to the Birds Directive. - In: Boedeker D. and H v.Nordheim (Eds.): Application of Natura 2000 in the Marine Environment.- BfN-Skripten 56: 56-62Hughes, T. P., Barid, A. H., Bellwood, D. R., Card, M., Connolly, S. R., Folke,C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jackson, J. B. C., Kleypas, J., Lough, J.M., Marshall, P., Nystrom, M., Palumbi, S. R., Pandolfi, J. M., Rosen, B.,Roughgarden, J. (2003). Climate change, human impacts, and the resilienceof coral reefs. Science 301: 929-933.Hunter, M.F. (Ed.) (1999). Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems.Cambridge University Press.International Hydropower Association/IEA Implementing Agreement onHydropower/Canadian Hydropower Association (2000). Hydropower andthe World's Energy Future.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1996). ClimateChange 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N.Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press.572 pp.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2000). ‘Land-use,Land-use Change and Forestry: Special Report. Cambridge UniversityPress.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001a). ClimateChange 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the ThirdAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. -Cambridge University Press.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001b). ClimateChange 2001 the Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to theThird Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge University Press.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001c). ClimateChange 2001: Impact, Adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of work-ing group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change. - Cambridge (Cambridge University Press)IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001d). SynthesisReport-Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the IPCC ThirdAssessment Report. Cambridge University Press.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2002). Climatechange and Biodiversity. GenevaIremonger, S.; Ravilious, C. and T. Quinton (1997). A statistical analysis ofglobal forest conservation. - In: CIFOR and UNEP-WCMC (Eds.): A globaloverview of forest conservation.. - Cambridge. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/data/cdrom2/gtabs.htmJackson, J.B.C, Kirby, M.X, Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Botsford, L.W.,Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R., Erlandson, J., Estes, J.A., Hughes,T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H.,Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J. and R.R. Warner (2001). Historical Overfishingand the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science 293: 629-638.Joosten, H. and Clarke (2002). Wise use of mires and peatlands – back-ground and principles including a framework for decision making.International Mire Conservation Group and International Peatland Society.Kaltschmitt, M., Merten, D. and Fröhlich, N. and Nill, M. (2002). Expertisezur Energiegewinnung aus Biomasse. Institut für Umwelt und EnergetikgGmbH, Leipzig.Keller, T.; Korn, H.; Schmid, H. & Weisser, C. (2002). Chances andLimitations of „ex situ" Conservation of Species and Genetic Diversity on aGlobal Perspective. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Bonn,Germany.Ketzenberg, C.; Exo, K.-M.; Reichenbach, M. and M. Castor (2002). Effectsof wind turbines upon breeding meadow birds. - Natur und Landschaft 4:144-153Kimmins, H. (1997). Balancing act: environmental issues in forestry. UBCPress, Vancouver, Can.Kirschbaum, M.U.F. (1999). Modelling forest growth and carbon storage inresponse to increasing CO2 and temperature. Tellus Series B-Chemical andPhysical Meteorology 51: 871-888.Klopatek, J.M. (2002). Belowground carbon pools and processes in differentage stands of Douglas-fir. Tree-Physiology 22: 197-204.Knohl, A.; Kolle, O.; Minayeva, T.; Milyukova, I.M.; Vygodskaya, N.N.;Foken, T. and Schulze, E.D. (2002). Carbon dioxide exchange of a Russianboreal forest after disturbance by windthrow. Global Change Biology 8: 231-246.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:56 Page 92


86

Köhlin, G. and P.J. Parks (2001). Spatial variability and disincentives to har-vest: deforestation and fuelwood collection in South Asia. - Land Economics77: 206-218 Körner, C. (2003). Slow in, rapid out – carbon flux studies and Kyoto tar-gets. Science, 300, 1242.Kort, J. and R. Turlock (1999). Carbon reservoir and biomass in Canadianprairie shelterbelts. - Agroforestry Systems 44:175-189 Koslow, J.A.; Boehlert, G.W.; Gordon, J.D.M.; Headrich, R.L.; Lorance, P. andN. Parin (2000). Continental slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for afragile ecosystem. - ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 548-557.Kramer P., van Shaik, C.P. and J. Johnson (1997). Lost stand - protected areasand the defense of tropical biodiversity. Oxford Univ. Press.Krogsgaard, P. and B.T. Madsen (2002). International Wind EnergyDevelopment: Press release 4/2002. - www.btm.dk/Documents/PressKruckenberg , H. and J. Laene (1999). Zum Einfluss eines Windparks auf dieVerteilung weidender Blässgänse im Rheiderland (Landkreis Leer,Niedersachsen). - Natur und Landschaft 74: 420-427Lal, R. (2001). Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon andmitigate the greenhouse effect. - Climatic Change 51: 35-72Lappalainen, E. (ed.) (1996). Global peat resources. International PeatSociety and Geological Survey of Finland, Jyskä.Laurance, W.F. and G.B. Williamson (2001). Positive Feedbacks amongForest Fragmentation, Drought and Climate Change in the Amazon.Conservation Biology 15: 1529-1535Laurance, W.F.; Laurance, S.G.; Ferreira, L.V.; Rankin, J.M.; Gascon, C. andT.E. Lovejoy (1997). Biomass collapse in Amazonian forest fragments.Science 278: 1117-1118Law, B.E.; Thornton, P.E.; Irvine, J.; Anthoni, P.M. and Tuyl, S.van (2001).Carbon storage and fluxes in ponderosa pine forests at different develop-ment stages. Global Change Biology 7: 755-777.Leakey, R.R.B. (1996). Definition of Agroforestry revisited. AgroforestryToday 8(1): 5-7Leddy, K.L.; Higgins, K.F. and D.E. Naugle (1999). Effects of Wind Turbineson Upland Nesting Birds in Conservation Reserve Program Grasslands.Wilson Bull. 111:100-101.LeMaitre, D.C.; van Wilgen, B.W.; Gelderblom, C.M.; Bailey, C.; Chapman,R.A. and Nel, J.A. (2002). Invasive alien trees and water resoureces in SouthAfrica; Case studies of the costs and benefits of management. Forest Ecologyand Management 160: 143-159.Lexer, M.J., Honninger, K., Scheifinger, H., Matulla, C., Groll, N., Kromp-Kolb, H., Schadauer, K., Starlinger, F., and Englisch, M. (2002). The sensitiv-ity of Austrian forests to scenarios of climatic change: a large-scale riskassessment based on a modified gap model and forest inventory data. ForestEcol. and Manage.162 (1): 53-72.Linden, O., Souter, D., Wilhelmsson, D and D. Obura (Eds) (2002). CoralReef Degradation in the Indian Ocean – Status Report 2002.Liu, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Taylor, W.W.; Groop, R.; Tan, Y. and H. Zhang (1999). Aframework for evaluating the effects of human factors on wildlife habitat:the case of giant pandas. - Conservation Biology 13: 1360-1370LULUCF. (2000). Land-use, land use change and forestry.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report.Macintosh, D.J., Ashton, E.C. and S. Havanon (2002). MangroveRehabilitation and Intertidal Biodiversity: A Study in the Ranong MangroveEcosystem, Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 331-345.Magnusson, B.; Magnusson, S.H. and B.D. Sigur_sson (2001). Vegetationsuccession in areas colonized by the introduced Nootka lupin (Lupinusnootkatensis) in Iceland. - Reykjavik (Agricultural Research Institute). - RalaReport 207.Matthews,W.S.;Van Wyk,A.E. and Ran Rooyen, N. (1999).Vegetation of theSileza Nature Reserve and neighbouring areas, South Africa, and its impor-tance in conserving the woody grasslands of the Maputoland Centre ofEndemism. Bothalia 29: 151-167.McCully, P. (1996). Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams.- New York (Zed Books)Merck, T. and H. v. Nordheim (1999). Probleme bei der Nutzung vonOffshore-Windenergie aus der Sicht des Naturschutzes. - DeutscheHydrographische Zeitschrift Suppl. 10.Morrison, M.L.; Pollack, K.H.; Oberg, A.L. and K.C. Sinclair (1998).Predicting the Response of Bird Populations to Wind Energy-Related Death.- Colorado (National Renewable Energy Laboratory): 8 pp. WE801410Myers, R.A. and B. Worm (2003). Rapid Worldwide Depletion of PredatoryFish Communities. Nature 423: 280-283.Naylor, R.L., Goldburg, R.J., Mooney, H., Beveridge, M., Clay, J., Folke, C.,Kautsky, N., Lubchenco, J., Primavera, J., and M. Williams (1998). Nature'sSubsidies to Shrimp and Salmon Farming. Science 282: 883-884Naylor, R. L., R. J. Goldburg, J. H. Primavera, N. Kautsby, M. C. M. Beveridge,J. Clay, C. Folke, J. Lubchenco, H. Mooney, and M. Troell. (2000). Effect ofAquaculture on World Fish supplies. Nature 405:1017-1024Niesten, E.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Manion, M. and J.J. Hardner (2002). Designinga carbon market that protects forests in developing countries. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 360: 1875-1888Noss, R. (2001). Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid cli-matic change. Conservation Biology 15: 578-590Noss, R. F. and A.Y. Cooperrider (1994). Saving nature's legacy. -Washington (Island Press)Ojima, D.S.; Scurlock, J.M.O.and Gilmanov, T.G. (1993). Observations andModeling of Biomass and Soil Organic Matter Dynamics for the GrasslandBiome Worldwide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7: 785-Oren, R.; Ellsworth, D.S.; Johnsen, K.H.; Phillips, N.; Ewers, B.E.; Maier, C.;Schafer, K.V.R.; McCarthy, H.; Hendrey, G.; McNulty, S.G. and G.G. Katul(2001). Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in aCO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411: 469-472Page, S.E., Siegert, F., Rieley, J.O., Boehm, H.-D. V., Jayak, A., and S. Limink(2002). The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires inIndonesia during 1997. Nature 420: 61-65Paine, L.K.; Peterson, T.L.; Undersander, D.J.; Rineer, K.C.; Bartlet, G.A.;Temple, S.A.; Sample, D.W. and R.M. Klemme (1996). Some ecological andsocio-economic considerations for biomass energy crop production. -Biomass and Bioenergy 10: 131-242Palm, C.A.; Alegre, J.C.; Arevalo, L.; Mutuo, P.K.; Mosier, A.R. and Coe, R.(2002). Nitrous oxide and methane fluxes in six different sland use systemsin the Peruvian Amazon. Global Biogeochemical Cycles.Paul, K.L., Polglase, P.J., Richards, G.P. (2003). Predicted change in soil car-bon following afforestation or reforestation, and analysis of controlling fac-tors by linking a C ccounting model (CAMFor) to models of forest growth(3PG), litter decomposition (GENDEC) and soil C turnover (RothC).Forest Ecology and Management 177: 485-501.Paul, K.I., Polglase, P.J., Nyakuengama, J.G., and Khanna, P.K. (2002).Change in soil carbon following afforestation. Forest Ecol. and Management168: 241-257.Pauly, D. and J. Maclean (2003). In a Perfect Ocean: The State of Fisheriesand Ecosystems in the North Atlantic Ocean. Island Press.Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, and F. Torres, Jr. (1998).Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science 279: 860-863.Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Pitcher, T, Sumaila, U.R., Walters,C.J., Watson, R. and D. Zeller (2002). Towards Sustainability in WorldFisheries. Nature 418: 689-695.Pearson, B. (in press): The CDM one year on: prompt start of false start.Environmental Finance.Pickard, A.J.; Miller, L.M. and T.E. Duebendorfer (1998). Yellow bush lupineinvasion in northern California coastal dunes - I. Ecological impacts andmanual restoration techniques. - Restoration Ecology 6: 59-68Pinard, M.A. and F.E. Putz (1996). Retaining forest biomass by reducing log-ging damage. - Biotropica 28(3): 278–295.Pohle, G; Frost, B; Findlay, R. (2001). Assessment of regional benthic impactof salmon mariculture within the Letang Inlet, Bay of Fundy. ICES Journalof Marine Science 58: 417-426.Post, W.M.; Emanuel, W.R.; Zinke, P.J. and Stangenberger, A.G. (1982). Soilcarbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298: 156-159.Prance, G.T. (2002). Species survival and carbon retention in commerciallyexploited tropical rainforest. - Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety of London Series A: Mathematical, Physical and EngineeringSciences.Pretty, J.N.; Ball; Xiaoyun and Ranvindranath (2002). The role of sustainableagriculture and renewable resource management in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and increasing sinks in China and India. - PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathematical,Physical and Engineering Sciences.Pringle, C.M. (1997). Exploring how disturbance is transmitted upstream:Going against the flow. - J. N. Am. Benthological Soc. 16: 425-438Puckridge, J. T., Sheldon, F.,Walker, K. F. and A. J. Boulton. (1998). Flow vari-ability and the ecology of large rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 49:55-72.Rajora,O.P., Mosseler,A., and Major, J.E. (2002). Mating system and repro-ductive fitness traits of eastern whitepine (Pinus strobus) in large, central versus small, isolated, marginal popu-lations. Can. Jour. Bot. 80: 1173-1184.Raven, J.A. and P.G. Falkowski (1999). Oceanic sinks for atmospheric CO2.- Plant cell and environment 22(6): 741-755Ravindranath, N.H. and D.O.Hall (1995). Environmental impacts of bio-mass energy: Biomass, energy, and environment. A developing country per-spective from India. Oxford University Press.Reaser, J.K. Pomerance, R and P.O. Thomas (2000). Coral Bleaching andGlobal Climate Change: Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations.Conservation Biology, Vol 14, No. 5: 1500-1511.Rehfeldt, G.E., Ying, C.C., Spittlehouse, D.L., and Hamilton, D.A. (1999).Genetic responses to climate in Pinus contorta: Niche breadth, climatechange, and reforestation. Ecol. Monogr. 69 (3): 375-407.Reichle et.al. (1999). Carbon sequestration research and development. -www.ornl.gov/carbon_sequestra tion

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 93


87

Richmond, B.M., Mieremet, B., and T. Reiss (1998). Yap Islands NaturalCoastal Systems and Vulnerability to Potential Accelerated Sea-level Rise, In:Leatherman, S.P. (Ed.). Island States at Risk: Global Climate Change,Development and Population. Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 24:153-172.Robinson, G.R. and S.N. Handel (2001). Directing spatial patterns ofrecruitment during an experimental urban woodland reclamation. -Ecological Applications 10: 174-188Royal Society (2001). The role of land carbon sinks in mitigation global cli-mate change. Policy document 10/01. online at: www.royalsoc.ac.ukSanchez, P.A.; Shephard, K.D.; Soule, M.I.; Place, F.M.; Buresh, R.J.;Mokwyne, U.; Kresiga, F.R. ; Ndiritu, C.G. and P.L. Woomer (1997). Soil fer-tility replenishment in Africa: an investment in natural resource capital. - In:Buresh, R.J.; Sanchez, P.A. and F Calhoun (eds.): Replenishing soil fertility inAfrica. - Washington (Soil Sience Society of America). - SSSA Publication51: 1-46Schneider, L.C.; Kinzig, A.P.; Larson, E.D. and L.A. Solorzano (2001).Method for spatially explicit calculations of potential biomass yields andassessment of land availability for biomass energy production inNortheastern Brazil. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 84: 207-226Schroeder, P. (1994). Carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems. -Agroforestry Systems 27: 89-97Schulte-Bisping, H., Bredemeier, M., and Beese, F. (1999). Global availabil-ity of wood and energy supply from fuelwood and charcoal. Ambio 28: 592-594.Schulze, E.-D. and H.A. Mooney (1993). Ecosystem function of Biodiversity.- Ecological studies 99: 497Schulze, E.-D., C. Wirth, and M. Heimann. (2000). Managing forests afterKyoto. Science 289:2058-2059.Scott, D.F. and Lesch, W. (1997). Mokobulaan experimental catchments,South Africa. Journal of Hydrology 199: 360-377.Seibel, B.A. and P.J. Walsh (2001). Potential impacts of CO2 injection ondeep-sea biota. - Science 294: 319-320Shankar, U.; Ravi, H. and K.S. Bawa (1998). Extraction of non-timber forestproducts in the forests of Biligiri Rangan Hills, India. 6. Fuelwood pressureand management options. - Economic Botany 52: 320-336Shoji, K. and I.S.F. Jones (2001). The costing of carbon credits from oceannourishment plants. - The Science of the Total Environment 277: 27-31Sparks, R. E. (1995). The need for ecosystem management for large riversand floodplains. BioScience 45: 168-182.Stephens, D.W. and J.R. Krebs (1986). Foraging Theory. PrincetonUniversity Press.Stork, N.E. (1997). Measuring global biodiversity and its decline. - In:Readka-Kudla, M-L., Wilson, D.E. and E.O Wilson (Eds.): Biodiversity II. -Washington (John Henry Press): 41-68Suman, D.O. (1994). Status of Mangroves in Latin America and theCaribbean Basin. In: El Ecosistema de Manglar en America Latina y laCuenta del Caribe: Su Manejo y Conservacion. D.O. Suman (Ed.).Rosenstile School of Marine and Atmospheric Research, University ofMiami, Florida and the Tinker Foundation, New York, N.Y, pp. 11-20.Tharme, R. E. In press. A global perspective on environmental flow assess-ment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmen-tal flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications.Thompson, I.D.; Baker, A. and M. TerMikaelian (2003). A review of thelong-term effects of post-harvest silvicultureon vertebrate wildlife, and pre-dictive models, with an emphasis on boreal forests in Ontario, Canada. -Forest Ecology and Management 177: 441-469Thompson, I.; Patterson, G.; Leiner, S.; Nasi, R.; de Pascual Pola, C.N.;Sigaud, P.; LeDanff, J.-P.; Mulongoy, K.J. and H. Toivonen (2002). Review ofthe status and trands of, and major threats to, forest biological diversity. - AdHoc Technical Expert Group on Forest Biodiversity. - Montreal (Secretariatfor the Conservation of Biological Diversity)Thornley, J.H.M. and Cannell, M.G.R. (2000). Managing forests for woodyield and carbon storage: a theoretical study. Tree Physiology. 20: 477-484.Thrupp, L.A. (1997). Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture: Challenges andopportunities for sustainable food security. - Washington (World ResourcesInstitute)Tian, H.; Melillo, J.M.; Kicklighter, A.D.; McGuire, A.D.; Helfrich III, J.V.K.;Moore III, B. and C.J. Vörösmarty (1998). Effect of Interannual Climatevariability on Carbon Storage in Amazonian Ecosystems. - Nature 396: 664-667Tomich, T.P.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Vosti, S. and J. Witcover (1998).Agricultural development with rainforest conservation: Methods for seek-ing best-bet alternatives to slash-and-burn, with applications to Brazil andIndonesia. - Agricultural Economics 19: 159–174Tomich, T.P.; Van Noordwijk , M.; Budidarsono, S. ; Gillison,A.; Kusumanto,T.; Murdiyarso, D.; Stolle, f. and A.M. Fagi (1999). Agricultural intensifica-tion, deforestation and the environment: assessing tradeoffs in Sumatra,Indonesia. - In: Barrett, C.R. and D.R. Lee (Eds.): Agricultural Intensificationand the Environment. - Blackwell Science Publishers, United Kingdom.

Tongway, D.J. and J.A. Ludwig (1996). Rehabilitation of semiarid landscapesin Australia. I. Restoring productive soil patches. - Restoration Ecology 4:388-397Trull, T.; Rintoul, S.R.; Hadfiled, M. and E.R. Abraham (2001). Circulationand seasonal evolution of polar waters south of Australia: implications foriron fertilization of the Southern Ocean. - Deep-Sea Research II 48: 2439-2466Turner, J. and Lambert, M. (2000). Change in organic carbon in forest plan-tation soils in eastern Australia. Forest Ecol. and Manage. 133 (3): 231-247.Turunen, J.; Tomppo, E.; Tolonen, K and Reinikainen, A. (2000). Estimatingcarbon accumulation rates of undrained mires in Finland – application toboreals and subarctic regions. Clobal Biogeochemical Cycles.UNEP-United Nations Environment Programme (2002). African environ-ment outlook: integrateds environmental assessment reporting. - London,EarthprintUrbanska, K.M. (1997). Safe sites - interface of plant population ecology andrestoration ecology. - In: Urbanska, K.M.; Webb, N.R. and P.J. Edwards(Eds.): Restoration Ecology and Sustainable Development. - CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 81-110.van Kooten, G.C.; Krcemar-Nozic, E.; Stennes, B. and R. V. Gorkom (1999).Economics of fossil fuel substitution and wood product sinks when trees areplanted to sequester carbon on agricultural lands in western Canada. -Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29(11): 1669-1678Vesterdal, L.; Ritter, E. and Gundersen, P. (2002). Change in soil organic car-bon following afforestation of former arable land. Forest Ecology andManagement 169: 137-147Vosti, S.A.; Witcover, J.; Carpentier, C.L. and E. do Amaral (1999).Intensifying small-scale agriculture in the western Brazilian Amazon: Issues,implications and implementation. In: Barrett, C.R. and D.R. Lee (Eds.):Agricultural Intensification and the Environment. - Blackwell SciencePublishers, United Kingdom.Ward, J. V., Tockner, U., Uehlinger, U. and F. Malard. (2001). Understandingnatural patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effectiveriver restoration. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 117: 311-323.Watson, R.T. and I.R. Noble (2002). Carbon and the Science-Policy Nexus:The Kyoto Challenge. Challenges of a Changing Earth, Proceedings of theGlobal Change Open Science Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,10-13, July 2001, Springer: 57-64West, J.M. and R.V. Salm (2003). Resistance and Resilience to CoralBleaching: Implications for Coral Reef Conservation and Management.Conservation Biology 17: 956-967.Westmacott, S., Teleki, K, Wells, S. and J.M. West (2000). Management ofBleached and Severely Damaged Coral Reefs. IUCN Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK, vi + 37pp.Whisenant, S.G. (1999). Repairing Damaged Wildlands. CambridgeUniversity Press.Williamson, J. and S. Harrison (2002). Biotic and abiotic limits to the spreadof exotic revegetation species. - Ecological Applications 12: 40-51Wilkinson, C. (Ed) (2002). Status of Coral Reefs of the World.Winkelman, J. E. (1992): The impact of the SEP wind park nearOosterbierum (Fr.), the Netherlands, on birds,4: Disturbace. DLO-Intituutvoor Bos- en Natuuronderzoek, Arnhem. - RIN rapport 92/5Woomer, P.H.; Palm, C.A.; Alegre, J.; Castilla, C.; Gordon, D.G.; Hariah, K.;Kotto-Sane, J.; Moukan, A.; Rodrigues, V.; Ricse, A. and van Nordwijk(1999): Carbon dynamics in slash- and burn systems and land use alterna-tives: findings of the Alternatives to Slash- and Burn programme. –Advances in soil science.World Commission on Dams (2000a): Dam Reservoirs and GreenhouseGases: Report on the Workshop held on February 24 and 25. Hydro-Quebec, Montreal. Final Minutes. Thematic Review II.2 Dams and GlobalChange.World Commission on Dams. (2000b). Dams and development: a newframework for decision making. Earthscan Publications, London, UnitedKingdom. 356p.Yokoyama, H. (2002). Impact of fish and pearl farming on the benthic envi-ronments in Gokasho Bay: Evaluation from seasonal fluctuations of themacrobenthos. Fisheries Science 68: 258-268.Zan, C.S.; Fyles, J.W.; Girouard, P. and R.A. Samson (2001): Carbon seques-tration in perennial bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems insouthern Quebec. - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86: 135-144Zhang, Q. and C.O. Justice (2001): Carbon emissions and uptake potentialof central African ecosystems. - Ambio 30: 351-355

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 94


88

Main authors: Robert Watson, Inhee Chung,Habiba Gitay, Anke Herold, Steven Kelleher,Kanta Kumari, Robert Lamb, Fabrice Lantheaume,Christiane Ploetz, M.V.K. Sivakumar, Allan Watt.

INTRODUCTION

Different types of mitigation activities (fromnational level policy changes to individual projects)undertaken by Parties to the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol with the goal ofreducing net carbon emissions could have highlyvariable beneficial or adverse social and/or envi-ronmental-ecological consequences (see chapter4). Similarly, adaptation activities undertaken byParties to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol toadjust to climate change may have highly variableconsequences as could activities to conserve andsustainably manage ecosystems undertaken byParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) and the United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD) and other bio-diversity related conventions and agreements (e.g.,Convention on Migratory Species, Convention onWetlands, and World Heritage Convention).Activities may support or violate principles of equi-ty, cultural needs or ecological sustainability,depending upon the political, social, institutional,technological and environmental settings withinwhich the activity takes place. Therefore, tools thatcan be used to assess the environmental and socialimplications of different policy options and proj-ects, and to choose among them, are discussed inthe chapter.

There is a clear opportunity to implementmutually beneficial activities (policies and projects)that take advantage of the synergies between theUNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, the CBD andbroader national development objectives. A criticalrequirement of sustainable development is thecapacity to design policy measures that exploitpotential synergies between national and sub-national economic development objectives andenvironmentally focused projects and policies.

Therefore, the capacity of countries to implementclimate change adaptation and mitigation activitieswill be enhanced when there is coherence betweeneconomic, social and environmental policies. Thelinkages among climate change, biodiversity andland degradation, and their implication for meet-ing human needs, offer opportunities to capturesynergies in developing policy options, althoughtrade-offs may exist. In order to do so the success-ful implementation of climate change mitigationand adaptation options would need to overcometechnical, economic, political, cultural, social,behavioural and/or institutional barriers.

Decisions are value laden and combine politi-cal and technocratic elements. Ideally, they shouldcombine problem identification and analysis, poli-cy option identification, policy choice, policyimplementation, and monitoring and evaluation inan iterative fashion. Transparency and participa-tion by all relevant stakeholders are highly desirableproperties of decision-making processes.Experience shows that transparent and participato-ry decision-making processes involving all relevantstakeholders, integrated into project or policydesign right from the beginning, can enhance theprobability of long-term success. The success andvalue of international environmental agreementsdepend critically on their successful implementa-tion at the national and sub-national level, whichdepends on related institutional arrangements(section 5.1).

A range of tools and processes are available toassess the economic, environmental and socialimplications of different climate change mitigationand adaptation activities (projects and policies)within the broader context of sustainable develop-ment. These include, but are not limited to, envi-ronmental impact assessments (EIAs), strategicenvironmental assessments (SEAs), decision ana-lytical frameworks, valuation techniques, and crite-ria and indicators. Decision analytical frameworks,valuation techniques, and criteria and indicatorsare tools that can be applied within the environ-mental impact and strategic environmental assess-ment processes.

5. APPROACHES FOR SUPPORTING PLANNING, DECISION MAKING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 95


89

Environmental impact assessments and strate-gic environmental assessments as processes thatcan be used to gauge the environmental andsocioeconomic implications of different activitiesare discussed in section 5.2. Environmental impactassessments (EIAs) provide a process for assessingthe possible environmental and social impacts atthe project level, whereas strategic environmentalassessments (SEAs) can be used as policy planningtools at a range of spatial scales up to the nationalscale and provide an analytical framework to assessthe impacts of multiple projects and broad cross-cutting policies. Section 5.3 briefly addresses theimplications of the lack of a set of minimum com-mon international environmental and social stan-dards for climate change mitigation and adaptationprojects. A range of decision-analytical frame-works presented in section 5.4 are available to assistin selecting amongst the climate change mitigationand adaptation projects or policies as well as thosefor the conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity, from cost-benefit and cost-effectivenessanalysis to cultural prescriptive rules.

Current decision-making processes oftenignore or underestimate the value of ecologicalservices. Therefore changes in current valuationpractice may be required to better account for theintrinsic and utilitarian values of ecological servic-es as discussed in section 5.5. Use and non-use, andmarket and non-market values are important toevaluate and take into account in the decision-making process. Decisions about the use of ecosys-tems often restrict or preclude alternative uses ofthese systems, therefore there are tradeoffs amongdifferent activities within an ecosystem that areimportant to be valued in terms of net social benefits.

National, regional and possibly internationalsystems of criteria and indicators are needed formonitoring and qualitatively and quantitativelyevaluating the impact of climate change, as well asto assess the impact climate change mitigation andadaptation activities, on biodiversity and otheraspects of sustainable development (section 5.6).Indicators are needed at each stage in the decision-making process, recognizing that different spatial

and temporal scales may require different indica-tors. Systems need to be developed to track projectand policy performance. Section 5.6 concludeswith a table that describes the possible elements ofpositive and negative effects from Land Use, LandUse Change and Forestry (LULUCF) projects onbiodiversity. Finally, section 5.7 summarizes thekey research needs and information gaps.

5.1 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The formation of institutional arrangements isconstrained by several factors including socio-eco-nomic and environmental components.Institutions can be defined to be sets of rules, deci-sion-making procedures, and programmes thatdefine social practices, assign roles to the partici-pants in these practices, and guide interactionsamong the occupants of individual roles.

The performance of institutions, which is cru-cial for achieving the targets they were set up toobtain, depends on several issues and the factorsaffecting the performance vary from case to case.The purpose of environmental institutions is usu-ally to secure sustainable development in its differ-ent dimensions, but also other criteria can be for-mulated for assessing the performance of the insti-tutions. Such criteria will often include the aspectsof efficiency and equity.

Institutions play more or less significant roleswith regard to most environmental changes involv-ing human action. Yet institutions seldom accountfor all of the variance in these situations. In a typi-cal case they are one among a number of drivingforces, whose operation, both individually and incombination, generates relevant environmentalchanges. A prominent feature of research on theinstitutional dimensions of environmental change,therefore, is the effort to separate the signals associ-ated with institutional drivers from those associat-ed with other drivers and to understand how dif-ferent driving forces interact with one another toaccount for observed outcomes.

International environmental agreements suchas the CBD and the Kyoto Protocol form particular

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 96

28 For a description of these terms see Box no. 4.2


90

types of institutions. At the national level theseinstitutions interact with other regimes includingrules that govern international trade or invest-ments and other social practices operating at thelevel of a social system. The interactions at thenational level shape these institutions and affecttheir performance and efficiency.

The performance and efficiency of biodiversi-ty and climate policy related institutions depend toa great extent on the design of the institutions aswell as the capacities and resources available.Capacity building, especially in developing coun-tries, forms, and is to be regarded as, an integralpart of the CBD and the Kyoto Protocol.Consequently, to be effective, capacity buildingshould be based on firm information on the per-formance and efficiency of differently relevantinstitutional designs, global, national as well aslocal.

The formation of national level institutions asa function of several factors will be of great impor-tance. These factors consist of interaction of (1)international environmental regimes, (2) interna-tional economic regimes (such as trade and invest-ment) and the globalisation of economies, (3)socio-cultural systems and (4) the governancestructures, practices and histories of the countries.229. An institutional arrangement that performswell dealing with one problem in a certain contextmay be a failure in solving other problems. Theproblem of fit in heterogeneous environmental,socio-economic and cultural systems calls for spe-cific context related solutions requiring multilocalapproaches. Causes for the problem of fit, that is, amismatch between the problems and the institu-tional attributes, can be distinguished in threegroups: state of knowledge, institutional con-straints and rent-seeking behavior (Young 2002).

Most institutions interact with other similararrangements both horizontally and vertically.Horizontal interactions occur at the same level ofsocial organisations; vertical interplay is a result ofcross-scale interactions or links involving institu-

tions located at different levels of social organisa-tion. Interplay between or among institutions maytake the form of functional interdependencies orarise as a consequence of politics of institutionaldesign and management (Young 2002).

5.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) andstrategic environmental assessments (SEAs) can beused to assess the environmental and socio-eco-nomic implications of different energy and LandUse, Land use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)projects and policies. EIAs are applied at the proj-ect level, whereas SEAs are generally applied at thestrategic policy level. The concept of EIAs hasevolved from originally only encompassing abioticenvironmental effects (e.g., local air pollution) tonow encompassing biodiversity concerns andsocial aspects (e.g., impact on people’s livelihoods),all of which are fundamental for a complete assess-ment process. However EIAs in practice often failto adequately include the biodiversity and socialaspects. The basic EIA and SEA methodologies canbe modified to address specific issues identifiedunder the UNFCCC regarding LULUCF projects,such as leakage and permanence28.

5.2.1 Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

EIA is a planning process or a tool for assessingthe environmental and socio-economic impactsof projects, including the possible impacts of cli-mate change mitigation and adaptation activitieson biodiversity. This section is not intended to bean exhaustive analysis of any specific assessmentEIA method (see Box 5.1), but aims to present anoverview of the EIA, and how EIAs could be used tointegrate biodiversity and social considerationsinto project planning, risk minimization and bene-fit enhancement for climate change-related proj-ects. There are numerous impact assessment

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 97


91

methodologies and tools to be drawn from, all ofwhich have a number of common steps.

Environmental impact assessments andstrategic environmental assessments can be inte-grated into the design of climate change mitigationand adaptation projects and policies to assist plan-ners, decision-makers and all stakeholders to iden-tify and mitigate potentially harmful environmen-

tal and social impacts and enhance the likelihood ofpositive benefits such as carbon storage, biodiversi-ty conservation and improved livelihoods. Whilethe CBD explicitly encourages the use of EIA (Article14), there is no respective reference to them in theUNFCCC or its Kyoto Protocol. The operationalrules for the Kyoto Protocol included in theMarrakesh Accords only stipulate that the clean

Box 5.1. What is an EIA and what are the common steps

What is an EIA? An EIA is defined as a technique and a participatory process through which information aboutthe environmental and social effects of a project can be collected, assessed and taken into account by the develop-er, governments, NGOs, community groups, etc., when designing a project. Public involvement is an importantpart of the EIA process. An EIA is thus a systematic and iterative process that examines the consequences of activ-ities in advance of implementation, and takes steps to avoid potential negative outcomes, and promote more ben-eficial outcomes through such responses as impact minimisation or design modification. The EIA process has thepotential to serve as the basis for negotiating trade-offs between the developer, public interest groups and decisionmakers. EIAs are often seen as an unnecessary, costly and time-consuming process to slow program or projectfinalization, however if structured correctly, they can be an invaluable tool to mitigate potential unforeseen costsand impacts. The main steps in an EIA are outlined below and presented in Figure 5.1.

1. Developing the project concept. The first step in defining the project and its objectives, as well as identifyingalternatives

2. Screening. Identifying potentially significant impacts of project location and design on biodiversity and com-munities. Questions include: Is biodiversity likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project? Will locallivelihoods be impacted adversely or will they benefit? What, in broad terms, will the impacts be? Does the proj-ect have the potential to enhance biodiversity and/or local livelihoods? This step separates those projects not like-ly to have significant environmental or social impacts from those that might.

3. Scoping. This step focuses on those project impacts, both positive and negative, that are likely to be significant.This step determines whether or not a project calls for an assessment, and the level of assessment and detail thatmay be necessary. Questions include: What are the main issues? What is required to set the baseline and howshould the relevant information be collected? What socio-economic and environmental elements are of interest,and to which stakeholder(s)?

4. Information gathering. Establishes the baseline for environmental and social aspects under consideration atpresent and in the future under project and non-project scenarios. This step also includes the presentation andconsideration of alternatives.

5. Prediction of impacts. This step attempts to identify and quantify the magnitude of potential impacts – e.g.,positive and negative, long and short-term, on each stakeholder group; and put these into perspective as to theirrelative significance.

6. Mitigation measures and management plan. Provides options for eliminating, reducing to acceptable levels ormitigating adverse impacts on biodiversity and local communities, to enable project redesign, compensation, relo-cation and other alternatives.

7. Monitoring. Monitoring and supervision of the project is critical to ensure that the project is carried out accord-ing to the management plan.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 98


92

development mechanism (CDM) and in some casesjoint implementation (JI) project participants (seesection 4.2 for definition) have to carry out an EIA inaccordance with the requirements of the host Party ifafter a preliminary analysis they or host countriesconsider the environmental impacts of the projectactivities significant. Article 14 of the CBD requestsEIAs for projects in order to avoid or minimizeadverse effects on biological diversity and to allowpublic participation in such procedures. DecisionVI/7 of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to theCBD includes an annex on "Guidelines for incorpo-rating biodiversity-related issues into environmentalimpact assessment legislation and/or process and instrategic environmental assessment". These guide-lines have also been adopted by the Convention onWetlands. Some governments believe that use of theCBD EIA or SEA process to assess climate change

mitigation and adaptation projects and policieswould add further layers of assessment and compli-ance costs to UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol projects,resulting in that many beneficial projects may notoccur. The UNFCCC is in the process of developingdefinitions and modalities for CDM LULUCF proj-ects to take into account socio-economic and envi-ronmental impacts, including impacts on biodiversi-ty and natural ecosystems29.

Most international and multilateral develop-ment agencies use EIAs to ensure their projects areenvironmentally and socially sustainable.International development agencies such as the UKDepartment for International Development (DFID)and the US Agency for International Development(USAID), multilateral development agencies such asthe World Bank, Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), Global

Box 5.2. The World Bank's "Safeguard Policies"

The World Bank uses environmental assessments, in conjunction with ten environmental, social, and legalSafeguard Policies, to identify, avoid, and mitigate the potential negative environmental and social impactsassociated with lending operations. This improves decision making, ensuring that project options under consid-eration are sound and sustainable, and that potentially affected people have been properly consulted.

The World Bank’s environmental assessment policy and recommended processing are described in OperationalPolicy (OP)/Bank Procedure (BP) 4.01: Environmental Assessment. This policy is considered to be the umbrellapolicy for the Bank's environmental "safeguard policies" which among others include: Natural Habitats (OD 4.04),Forestry (OP 4.36), Pest Management (OP 4.09), Cultural Property (OPN 11.03), and Safety of Dams (OP 4.37).The ten safeguard policies are:

1. Assess potential environmental impacts of projects early in the project cycle;

2. Prohibit financing projects involving the degradation of natural habitats-unless there is no feasible alternative;

3. Financing of forest projects only if the assessment shows that sustainability requirements are fulfilled;

4. Support environmentally sound pest management;

5. Restore and improve income-earning capacity of involuntarily resettled people.

6. Avoid and mitigate adverse impacts on indigenous people;

7. Preserve cultural property and avoid their elimination;

8. Apply environmental assessments and detailed plans for safe construction and operation of dams;Requirenotifications and agreement between states/parties in international waterways; and

10. Identify problems in disputed areasing to the management plan.

29 FCCC/SBSTA/2003/5

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 99


93

Environment Facility (GEF), and United NationsEnvironment Program (UNEP) have environmentaland social assessment or impact processes, as domany national governments. Most countries that areParties to the CBD and UNFCCC have agreed to cer-tain EIA protocols through membership in TheWorld Bank Group and in receiving funding frombilateral donors. Both donor and recipient nationsagree to The World Bank’s policies, including envi-ronmental safeguards for project design and imple-mentation, including the use of EIAs. The adoptionof these EIA processes provides tools that could beapplied to each country interested in hosting a cli-mate-related project or program, thus assuring equi-ty and consistency for projects worldwide.

5.2.1.1. Experience with EIAs and their application to climate change mitigation and

adaptation projects

Years of development and experience show thattransparent and participatory assessmentapproaches, integrated into project or programdesign right from the beginning, can enhance theprobability of long-term environment and devel-opment success. EIAs should not be considered pol-icy prescriptive in the context of designing adapta-tion or energy and carbon sequestration projectsunder the UNFCCC. EIAs remain the basic plan-ning, information sharing and community empow-ering tools for sustainable development projects, butwhere there is a lack of a sound legal framework tobroadly define the issues to be addressed within anEIA and procedures to conduct them, their effective-ness is greatly reduced (Mercier and Bekhechi 2002).Given that EIAs operate at the project level, they areinadequate to consider the cumulative effects of mul-tiple projects. This limitation could be addressedthrough use of additional tools such as SEAs and byadopting the ecosystem approach (see section 4.3).Another critical lesson from past experience is thatthe social impacts need to be given full and equalreview with environmental considerations (see casestudies in chapter 6).

To maximize the value of an EIA process, it is

critical that EIAs are applied systematically in thecontext of climate change mitigation and adapta-tion projects, to ensure that they go beyond the nar-row scope of carbon dioxide emissions reductionsor carbon sequestration. To date EIAs have not beensystematically applied under the Kyoto Protocolframework for various reasons. These include: miti-gation and adaptation project planning is relativelynew and evolving (except for GEF projects); deci-sions were made only in November 2002 clarifyingthe types of LULUCF projects to be allowed for mit-igation under the UNFCCC for its’ first commitmentperiod (2008-2012); some mitigation projects areseen only in terms of carbon dioxide emissionsreductions or carbon sequestration, and not in broadterms of the overall environmental and social goodsand services that such projects could provide, andEIAs are not currently required in some countries.

There is a wide array of environmental andsocial impact assessment methodologies, whichcan be modified for energy and LULUCF climatechange mitigation and adaptation projects. An EIAadds critical qualitative, as well as additional quanti-tative (e.g., baseline assessments) information to theoverall design and implementation process of proj-ects, helping to identify and mitigate risks, andincreasing the likelihood that the carbon asset, as wellas biodiversity and social co-benefits, are maintainedand/or enhanced. An EIA can be "modified" to takeaccount of issues that are considered to potentiallycause non-permanence and leakage in LULUCFprojects and to adequately address biodiversity con-cerns. For example, issues related to permanencecould include fires, pest outbreaks and diseases, and amanagement action plan could include risk mini-mization actions specifically addressing site andspecies choice, fire management, and promotingspecies diversification. Leakage can be more compre-hensively addressed by doing an SEA and large-scaleland-use planning that adopts an ecosystemapproach to ensure that the potential causes of leak-age are understood, and a management action plandeveloped where, inter-alia, alternative livelihoodprograms are offered and benefit sharing from thecarbon incomes are considered. Given that EIAs

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 100


94

often inadequately address biodiversity concerns,they could be modified, by applying the guidelines inthe Annex to COP Decision VI/7 to the CBD, so theconcept of biological diversity, as defined by theCBD, is incorporated into the term "environment"outlined in national legislation and procedures. Theexperience with, and development of EIA and SEAsystems, could be useful if embodied into the devel-opment of afforestation and reforestation projectsunder the CDM.

5.2.2 Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs)

Strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) can beused to inform broad cross-cutting policy at thenational level, as well as to assess the potentialimpacts of climate change mitigation and adapta-tion policies, or multiple projects in a region or sec-tor, on the conservation and sustainable use of bio-diversity. There are several types of SEA stemmingfrom the many ideas over its role and purpose. Thedefinition of a SEA used here is a systematic, decisionaiding procedure for evaluating the likely significantenvironmental and social effects throughout the pol-icy planning process or when considering multipleprojects (Brown and Therivel 2000, Sadler andVerheem 1996). They therefore enable the integra-tion of environmental considerations into nationalstrategic decision-making (DEAT 2000, ICON et al.2001, Partidario 1996;1999). They also seek toinform the decision-maker of the degree of uncer-tainty over impacts, as well as the level of consistencyin objectives and the sensitivity of the baseline (i.e.,state of the environment). It is important that SEAsbe initiated at the earliest stages of policy planningand, as with EIAs, with the involvement of the publicthroughout the process. Indeed, SEAs provide aforum in which a wider group of people can beinvolved in decision-making (Sadler 1995).

5.2.2.1 Key elements of a SEA process

The key elements of a SEA process in comparisonwith an EIA process and the Kyoto CDM "project

cycle" are shown in Figure 5.1. It illustrates how dif-ferent elements can be linked together to form amore systematic SEA process. One of the major suc-cess factors of SEA is its ability to enable decisionmakers to consider the subject of integration (be itenvironment, climate change or biodiversity relatedissues) at key stages in the policy making cycle(ICON et al. 2001). Furthermore, it will also facilitateSEA best practice elements such as public participa-tion, through the involvement of, for example, a sus-tainable development round table, as well as qualitycontrol, through an audit committee.

5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL STANDARDS

Without a set of minimum common internationalenvironmental and social standards, climatechange mitigation projects could flow to countrieswith minimal or non-existent standards, adverselyaffecting biodiversity and human societies. Thecurrent broad range of guidelines and procedures ondesign and implementation of projects among gov-ernments, international agencies, the private sector,non-governmental sector and project implementerscould result in the potential for local environmentaland social standards being met, but not those ofinternational and multi-national development agen-cies or those consistent with the goals of multilateralenvironmental agreements, e.g., the CBD. The WorldBank’s environmental safeguards or other similarexisting standards could be used as a starting pointfor exploring a minimum set of international stan-dards for climate change mitigation and adaptationprojects. If agreed internationally, such standardscould be incorporated into national planning efforts.However, the Marrakesh Accords affirm that it is thehost Party's prerogative to confirm whether a CDMproject activity assists it in achieving sustainabledevelopment.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 101


95

Figure 5.1: Flow diagram illustrating the Kyoto CDM "project cycle",EIA and SEA processes

Kyoto Project Cycle

Project Design

(Adapted from ProForest, 2002; ICON et al., 2001)

Validation of Project

Host Country Approval

Implemation

Monitoring

Verification

Certification

Implementation

Decision Making

Policy Decision

Reviewing the ER

Evaluate Impacts

Preparing the ER

Option Analysis

Baseline Surveyiteration

Scoping

Screening

Project Concept Select & Define Issue

Carry out the EIA

Scoping

Screening

Set Objectives/Develop Options

Implementation

Monitoring and Auditing Monitoring and Review

Issue of Certified EmissionReductions

by Project Executive Board

Registration - Project Executive Board

EIA Process Policy Level SEA

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 102


96

5.4 DECISION PROCESSES AND DECISIONANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS AND TOOLS

Decision-making processes and institutions operateat a range of spatial scales from the local to the glob-al level. A number of mechanisms can improve theprocess of making decisions about climate changemitigation and adaptation, and biodiversity conser-vation projects, and their environmental and socialimplications (Toth 2000). It is desirable that decisionmaking processes at the local, national or globalscales incorporate the following characteristics(Hemmati 2001, Petkova et al. 2002, and Dietz 2003):(i) use the best available information; (ii) be trans-parent involving all those with an interest in a deci-sion (Fiorino 1990, Dietz 1994, Renn et al. 1995,Slocum et al. 1995, Stern et al. 2001, Chess et al. 1998,Chess and Purcell 1999, Webler 1999, US NRC 1999,USEPA SAB 2000, Beierle and Cayford 2002), recog-nizing the strengths and limitations of differentstakeholder groups to process and use information(Kahneman et al. 1982, Cosmides and Tooby 1996,and Wilson 2002); and (iii) pay special attention toequity (Agrawal 2002, McCay 2002) and to the mostvulnerable populations. Experience also suggeststhat policies and projects should be developed toincorporate lessons learnt from past experience(Gunderson et al. 1995, Yohe and Toth 2000), hedgeagainst risk, consider uncertainties, maximize effi-ciency, consider all relevant spatial and temporalscales, and allow for adaptive management and thusallow mid-course corrections. In addition, effectivedecision-making can develop only if the people mak-ing decisions are accountable for them (Perrow1984).

Decision-analytic frameworks are tools thatcan be used to evaluate the economic, social andenvironmental impacts of climate change mitiga-tion and adaptation activities and those of biodi-versity conservation activities. These include, butare not limited to, decision analysis, cost-benefitanalysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, the policy exer-cise approach, to cultural prescriptive rules. Differentdecision making principles (objectives) can be usedindividually or in combinations as decision-analytic

frameworks (DAFs) can be adopted to address spe-cific problems. Each DAF can accommodate somedecision objectives, e.g., optimizing cost-effectivenessor equity, better than others, but complete incompat-ibility is rare (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment2003). For example, decision analysis, cost-benefitanalysis and cost-effectiveness analysis are all wellsuited for economic optimization efficiency, notinghowever, that the issue of discounting and risk atti-tudes is important when taking a long-term perspec-tive. They can be applied at all spatial scales from thefarm or firm level, to local community, to national,and to global. However, issues associated with theprecautionary principle and equity is not centralwithin their frameworks. On the other hand, ethicaland cultural prescriptive rules are weak with respectto economic optimization efficiency, but explicitlyincorporate ethical considerations and are also appli-cable over a wide range of spatial scales.

Use of decision-analytic frameworks prior toimplementing a project or a policy, can helpaddress a series of questions that should be part ofthe project or policy design. E.g., (i) is this a cost-effective mitigation strategy (i.e., cost per ton of car-bon), or is this a cost-effective adaptation or conser-vation strategy?; (ii) to what extent does the activityenhance or impair the ability of ecosystems to pro-vide goods and services in the future (i.e., is it sus-tainable)? and; (iii) does the activity benefit oradversely affect one group or individual dispropor-tionately (i.e., is it equitable)?

Decision-analytic frameworks can be dividedinto four broad categories, i.e.(a) Those that deal directly with valuation and

commensuration - normative (e.g., decisionanalysis, which is the product of utility theory,probability and mathematical optimization;cost-benefit analysis, which involves valuing allcosts and benefits of a proposed project or pol-icy over time; cost-effectiveness, which takes apredetermined objective and seeks approachesto minimize the cost of meeting that objective;and portfolio theory, which is concerned withcreating an optimal composition of assets undera budget constraint);

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 103


97

(b) Those that are descriptive (e.g., game theory,which investigates interactions between stake-holders and predicts outcomes by simultane-ously accounting for their objectives, utilities,costs and benefits; behavioral decision theorywhich combines economics and psychology todescribe human decision making);

(c) Those that deal with the discovery of informa-tion from people - deliberative (e.g., policyexercise approach, which involves a flexiblystructured process designed as an interfacebetween experts/analysts and policymakers);and

(d) Those in traditional and transitional societiestypified as ethically and culturally based (e.g.,cultural theory is concerned with forms ofsocial organizations that are largely ignored byeconomists and political scientists and empha-sizes the importance in DAFs of social organiza-tions that are usually excluded by conventionaland social science dichotomies).The diverse characteristics of the possible cli-

mate change mitigation and adaptation activitiesand biodiversity conservation activities imply theneed for a diverse set of decision analytical frame-works so that the ones most relevant to the choicesat hand can be selected and applied. Different DAFsoverlap in practice, and one method of analysis usu-ally requires input from the others. None of theframeworks can incorporate the full complexity ofdecision-making, hence their results comprise onlypart of the information shaping the outcome, i.e.,each DAF has its own merits and shortcoming due toits ability to address some of the critical issues better,while other facets less adequately. There are certainfeatures (e.g., sequential decision-making and hedg-ing), specific methodologies (e.g., multi-criteriaanalysis), distinctive applications (e.g., risk assess-ment) or basic components (multi-attribute utilitytheory) of decision analysis that are all rooted in thesame theoretical framework. Decision analysis, whichmay prove particularly attractive for sectoral andregional adaptation assessments, can be performedwith single or multiple criteria, with multi-attributeutility theory providing the conceptual underpin-

nings for the latter. Decision analysis, adapted tomanaging technological, social or environmentalhazards constitutes part of risk assessment.

Decision analysis uses quantitative techniquesto identify the "best" choice or combination ofchoices from among a range of alternatives. Model-based decision analysis tools are often used as part ofinteractive techniques in which stakeholders struc-ture problems and encode subjective preferencesexplicitly into the models, thus making the majortrade-offs explicit. Although decision analysis cangenerate an explicit value as a basis for choice, theyare based on a range of relevant monetary and non-monetary criteria. They are used to explore the deci-sion and to generate improved options that are wellbalanced in the major objectives and are robust withrespect to different futures. A review of the limita-tions of quantitative decision models when they havebeen applied to actual problems and the consistencyof their theoretical assumptions with decision-mak-ing, highlighted the following points:(a) There is no single decision maker in either cli-

mate change mitigation/adaptation activities, orin the conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity. As a result of differences in values andobjectives between the different stakeholders (ordecision makers), it means that the stakeholdersthat participate in a collective decision-makingprocess do not apply the same criteria to thechoice of alternatives. Consequently, decisionanalysis cannot yield a universally preferredsolution.

(b) Decision analysis requires a consistent utilityvaluation of decision outcomes. In climatechange mitigation activities and adaptationprojects and the conservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity, many decision outcomes aredifficult to value.

(c) Decision analysis may help keep the informationcontent of the climate change mitigation activi-ties and adaptation projects and the conserva-tion and sustainable use of biodiversity prob-lems within the cognitive limits of decision mak-ers. Without the structure of decision analysis,climate change and biodiversity information

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 104

30 The concepts of utilitarian and intrinsic values used in this paper are consistent with those recently published in the Conceptual Frameworkpaper of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). However, some experts would use different formulations for intrinsic value arguing thatintrinsic value is a philosophical concept based on naturalism and is non-anthropocentric, where-as the ethical, cultural and religious perspec-tives incorporated within the MA intrinsic value framework are part of an anthropocentric framework (utilitarian non-use), and the value ofthese can be captured in an economic sense using techniques such as "willingness to pay".


98

becomes cognitively unmanageable, which lim-its the ability of decision makers to analyse theoutcomes of alternative actions rationally.Quantitative comparisons among decisionoptions (and their attributes) are implied bychoices between options (the concept of"revealed preference" in economics). Better deci-sions are made when these quantitative compar-isons are explicit rather than implicit.

(d) The treatment of uncertainty in decision analy-sis is quite powerful, but the probabilities ofuncertain decision outcomes must be quantifi-able. In climate change mitigation activities andadaptation projects and the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity, objective proba-bilities have not been established for many of theoutcomes. In real-world applications subjectiveprobabilities are used.Uncertainties, coupled with different stake-

holder preferences, may mean there may be no"globally" optimal climate mitigation/adaptation--biodiversity strategy; nevertheless, the factors thataffect the optimal strategies for single decision mak-ers still have relevance to individual stakeholders.

5.5 VALUE AND VALUATION TECHNIQUES

Ecological systems have both intrinsic and utilitar-ian value30. Ecosystems have utilitarian value by pro-viding services of direct value to humans, e.g., theprovisioning of food, regulating climate and main-taining soils. In addition, ecosystems have intrinsic(non-utilitarian) value arising from a variety of ethi-cal, cultural, religious and philosophical perspectives,which cannot be measured in monetary terms. Thevaluation of ecological goods and services providesinformation to help guide social choice and policyformulation for informed management decisionsthat take account of economic, environmental andsocial considerations. Numerous studies haveassessed the contribution of ecosystems to social and

economic well being (Hartwick 1994, Asheim 1997,Costanza et al. 1997, Pimentel and Wilson 1997,Hamilton and Clemens 1998, World Bank 1997).While the contribution of ecological goods and serv-ices to human well being are well understood, manyof these services are not normally traded in the mar-ket (e.g., pollination, climate control and waterpurification), i.e., they are public goods. Hence theirvalue is not adequately captured in market prices norreflected in national accounting. The depletion orappreciation of natural capital is typically ignored inassessing total national wealth, even though it is a sig-nificant share in many countries, especially in devel-oping countries. Policy formulation and choice ofprojects undertaken by Parties to the UNFCCC (mit-igation and adaptation), CBD, and UNCCD are like-ly to be less than optimal unless the current andfuture economic, environmental and social impactsof changes in ecological services are taken intoaccount. Valuation is a tool that can be used toenhance the ability of the decision-maker to evaluatetrade-offs between alternate projects and policies.When a decision-maker assesses the utilitarian valueof making a decision regarding the possible conver-sion of an ecosystem, it is important that they alsorecognize the intrinsic value of the ecosystem.

The concept of total economic value is a usefulframework for assessing the utilitarian value ofboth the use and non-use values of ecosystem serv-ices now and in the future. The use values arise fromdirect use, indirect use or option values, where-as thenon-use values include existence values (Pearce andWarford 1993) – see Figure 5.2. Direct use valuesarise from the provisioning of goods produced orprovided by ecosystems that are consumed. Forexample food, fibre, fresh water, and geneticresources; and from cultural services, which are non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems, such asrecreational, aesthetic, spiritual and education, andthat are non-consumptive. Indirect use values arisefrom supporting services whereby the benefits are

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 105


99

obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes,such as water purification, waste assimilation, stormprotection, climate control and pollination. Optionvalue is related to the value of preserving the optionto use ecosystem services in the future by either thisor future generations. Non-use values are alsoknown as existence values (or sometimes conserva-tion values). Humans ascribe value to knowing thata resource exists, even if they never use that resourcedirectly – this is an area of partial overlap with thenon-utilitarian (or intrinsic) sources of value.

Many methods are available for measuring theutilitarian values of ecosystem services, which arefounded on the theoretical axioms and principlesof welfare economics. Under the utilitarianapproach, numerous methodologies have beendeveloped to attempt to quantify the benefits of dif-ferent ecosystem services (Hufschmidt et al. 1983,Braden and Kolstad 1991, Hanemann 1992, Freeman1993, Dixon et al. 1994). Welfare change can bereflected in people’s willingness to pay (WTP) orwillingness to accept compensation (WTA) for

changes in their use of ecosystem services(Hanemann 1991, Shogren and Hayes 1997).Measures of economic value can be either based onobserved behaviour and decision-making of individ-uals, or hypothetical behaviour and decision-makingof economic value. For example, direct observedbehaviour methods are typically based on marketprices, e.g., of food and fibre, which reflect theobserved decision-making behaviour of producersand consumers in functioning markets. Indirectobserved behaviour methods are used where a mar-ket does not exist for a particular ecosystem service,but observations of the actual market behaviour inan appropriate surrogate market. Methods to eliciteconomic value, that are based on hypotheticalbehaviour, use responses to questionnaires whichdescribe hypothetical markets or situations to assessWTP or WTA. Such methods include contingentvaluation, contingent ranking or choice experimenttests, where consumer behaviour is investigatedunder controlled market simulation contexts.Importantly, only such methods can capture non-use

Figure 5.2: Categories of economic values attributed to environmental assets

Total Economic Value

Decreasing “tangibility” of value to individuals

Existance and bequestOptionsIndirect UseDirect Use

Non-Use ValuesUse Values

Output that is notconsumed

Future directand indirectuse values

Value from knowledge continued existance

Functionalbenefits

Output that canbe consumeddirectly

Warer and airpurificationPollinationClimate control

Cultural,AestheticRecreationalEducational

Food BiomassClean waterBiochemicals

Conservationof biodiversity

Conservationof ecosystemservices

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 106


100

values like existence or bequest values. Other meth-ods include the Avoidance Cost Method, where theecosystem value is calculated as the cost of restoringthe environment to a predefined level; theOpportunity Cost Method, where the value is simplyderived from the lost monetary benefits (e.g., losttimber value as a result of forest conservation).

In the policy context these valuation tech-niques can be useful to estimate the change in someof the values of the ecosystem services resultingfrom climate change mitigation and adaptation, aswell as biodiversity conservation and sustainableuse, projects and policies. This requires understand-ing how ecosystem services change in response to aproject or policy and then estimating the correspon-ding change in use and non-use values for all servic-es provided by the ecosystem. These techniques canalso be used to assess distributional issues, i.e., howthe value of ecosystems changes under differentmanagement regimes for the society as a whole or forsub-sets of society. In addition, the analysis can beused to estimate the impact on current and futureflows of ecosystem services; that is, to assess the inter-generational aspects of a policy option.

5.6 CRITERIA AND INDICATORS FOR PROJECT DESIGN, BASELINE

DESCRIPTION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In the context of the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol,and the CBD, there are two primary reasons forestablishing a monitoring and evaluation process inregard to biodiversity, the sustainable use of naturalresources and other aspects of sustainable develop-ment:(a) To quantify the impact of climate change on

inter-alia, biodiversity and other environmentaland social aspects of sustainable development,including employment, human health, povertyand equity; and

(b) To assess the impact of energy and LULUCFmitigation and adaptation projects and policiesundertaken by Parties to the UNFCCC ongreenhouse gas emissions on the basis of the

revised Good Practice Guidance of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(1996), and the Good Practice Guidance forLULUCF (in preparation), and other aspects ofsustainable development.

Whether climate change mitigation and adaptationprojects and policies have beneficial or adverse con-sequences for biodiversity and other environmentaland social aspects of sustainable developmentdepends upon:(a) The choice of project or policy;(b) The management options related to the project

or policy intervention;(c) The biological and physical conditions of the

area influenced by the project or policy; and(d) The socio-economic conditions of the region

influenced by the project or policyThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change identified six principles/criteria tostrengthen the sustainability of Land Use Land UseChange and Forestry projects:1) Consistency of project activities with interna-

tional principles and criteria of sustainabledevelopment;

2) Consistency of project activities with nationallydefined sustainable development and/or nation-al development goals, objectives, and policies;

3) Availability of sufficient institutional and techni-cal capacity to develop and implement projectguidelines and safeguards;

4) Extent and effectiveness of local communityparticipation in project development and imple-mentation;

5) Transfer and local adaptation of technology; and6) Application of sound environmental and social

assessment methodologies to assess sustainabledevelopment implications;The most important aspect of monitoring and

evaluation is the choice of suitable and meaningfulcriteria and indicators. For the purposes of thisreport, a criterion is a state of an ecosystem or inter-acting social system and should be formulated toallow an evaluation of the degree to which a projector policy intervention meets its objectives. Indicatorsare needed at each stage in the decision-making

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 107


101

process, recognizing that different spatial and tempo-ral scales may require different indicators. Two kindsof indicators are normally used for monitoring andevaluation: implementation performance indicators(project inputs and outputs) and project impactindicators. Project impact indicators can be quanti-tative or qualitative variables, which can be measuredor described and which, when observed periodically,demonstrate trends in environmental (including dif-ferent aspects of biodiversity) and social conditions.Indicators link the fields of policy-making and sci-ence: policy makers set the environmental and socialtargets for a project or policy intervention, whileexperts determine relevant variables, determine base-lines, monitor the current state, and develop modelsto make projections of future status. Some of themost useful criteria and indicators in the field offorestry have often been developed at the nationaland regional level because they have taken intoaccount local and national concerns and circum-stances.

Indicators must be practical, and should,whenever possible, be meaningful at both thenational and site level, as well as consistent with themain objectives of the project or policy interven-tion. To be most useful and effective, the suite ofindicators should be complete and those most rele-vant to a specific project or policy context, andshould, to the extent possible:(a) be cost-effective to monitor (maximum infor-

mation with minimum sampling time, effortand expenditure);

(b) use well established methods in order to revealmeaningful trends;

(c) determine greenhouse gas emissions on thebasis of the revised Good Practice Guidance ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(1996) and the Good Practice Guidance forLULUCF (in preparation), the state of biodiver-sity, and other environmental and social aspectsof sustainable development as directly as possi-ble;

(d) be precise and unambiguous so that they can beclearly defined and understood the same way bydifferent stakeholders;

(e) to the extent possible, monitoring indicatorsshould be chosen that allow the identificationand separation of the effects of climate changeand natural climate variability from other pres-sures;

(f) be amenable to sampling by non-specialists,including user/local communities;

(g) be consistent (comparable) with, if not the sameas, national level indicators as well as those usedin other protected areas; and

(h) require the involvement of the minimum possi-ble number of individuals and agencies in theirevaluation.Criteria and indicators consistent with nation-

al sustainable development objectives are to somedegree available for assessing and comparing theimpacts of climate change mitigation and adapta-tion policies and projects on greenhouse gas emis-sions, biodiversity and other environmental andsocial aspects of sustainable development.However, monitoring biodiversity is not as simple asmonitoring other environmental characteristics,such as greenhouse gas emissions, or air and waterquality for which there are relatively well establishedstandards, given the multidimensional scale depend-ent aspects of biodiversity (genetic, species andecosystem). Like other environmental variables thatexhibit natural variability, the biodiversity of an areaundergoes considerable natural fluctuations and isimpacted by a range of factors that need to be moni-tored and understood so that they can be taken intoaccount in evaluating the impact of climate change,or climate change mitigation projects and policies, onbiodiversity. Monitoring provides the basis for eval-uating whether projects and policies are having theirdesired effect and whether there are unintended pos-itive or negative effects. In formulating a monitoringand evaluation plan in the context of UNFCCC andits Kyoto Protocol, and to ensure positive synergieswith the CBD, the selection of indicators is deter-mined largely by the:(a) objectives for greenhouse gas and biodiversity

management;(b) nature of the proposed interventions or activi-

ties;

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 108

Box 5.3. Sustainable forest management processes

International Tropical Timber Organization – 27 tropical countriesHelsinki process – 44 European countries and the EU +13 non-European countries as observersMontreal process – 12 non-European countries with boreal and temperate forestsTarapoto process – 8 countries in the Amazon Cooperation TreatyLepaterique – 7 Central American countriesSub-Sahel dry zone Africa – 28 sub-Saharan countriesNorth Africa and Near East – 20 countries stretching from Morocco to AfghanistanCentral Africa – 13 countries of the African Timber Organization

Box 5.4. Examples of the Tarapoto process criteria for sustainable forest management

Environmental

• Biodiversity (genetic, species, ecological and landscape)

• Ecosystem productivity

• Soil (including erosion)

• Water conservation (quantity and quality)

• Forest ecosystem functioning and processes

• Contribution to carbon sequestration

Socio-economic

• Long-term supply of social benefits

• Long-term output of multiple economic benefits

• Recognition of, and respect for, indigenous rights


102

(c) feasibility and cost of collecting various types ofinformation and data;

(d) institutional capability for incorporating theminto analysis and decision making; and

(e) policy choices enabling comprehensive projectdesign for carbon and non-carbon (biodiversi-ty, ecological and social) benefits.

Many international processes are currently devel-oping specific criteria and indicators in manage-ment guidelines for forestry and the associatedimpacts on biodiversity and social aspects of sus-tainable development that could be useful forafforestation, reforestation and conservation(avoided deforestation) projects and policies. Overthe past decade there have been eight intergovern-mental processes that have developed sets of criteriaand indicators for sustainable forest management(Box 5.3), that can, if the Parties agree, be readilyadapted by the UNFCCC to meet its objectives forclimate change forestry activities. Many nations are

using international sets of criteria and indicators todevelop a more detailed set that is specific to theirforests and situation and are being incorporated intolegislation. However, the profusion of national andinternational sets of criteria and indicators suggeststhe need for harmonization. Some of the sets of cri-teria, e.g., those developed under the TarapotoProcess, have been designed to evaluate policies at theproject, national and global levels (Box 5.4). As anexample of indicators, Box 5.5 shows quantitativeindicators under the criteria for the maintenance,conservation, and appropriate enhancement of bio-logical diversity in forest ecosystems developed dur-ing the Ministerial Conference on the Protection ofForests in Europe (Vienna, Austria; October 2002).The Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests andLandscape has developed a set of ecosystem-level cri-teria and indicators for assessing the impacts ofLULUCF CDM projects on biodiversity based on thearea and proportions of each ecosystem which are

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 109

Box 5.5. Quantitative indicators for the maintenance, conservation, and appropriate enhancement of bio-logical diversity in forest ecosystems as adopted by the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forestsin Europe (MCPFE; Expert Level Meeting, 2002).

Tree species composition – area of forest and other wooded land, classified by number of tree species

occurring and by forest type.

Regeneration – area of regeneration within even-aged stands and uneven aged-stands, classified by

regeneration type.

Naturalness – area of forest and other wooded land, classified by "undisturbed by man", by "semi-natural"

or by "plantations", each by forest type.

Introduced tree species – area of forest and other wooded land dominated by introduced tree species.

Deadwood – volume of deadwood and of lying deadwood on forest and other wooded land classified by

forest type.

Genetic resources – area managed for conservation and utilization of forest tree genetic resources

(in situ and ex situ gene conservation) and area managed for seed production.

Landscape pattern – landscape-level spatial pattern of forest cover.

Threatened forest species – number of threatened forest species, classified according to IUCN Red List

categories in relation to total number of forest species.

Protected forests – area of forests and other wooded lands protected to conserve biodiversity, landscapes and

specific natural elements, according to MCPFE assessment guidelines.


103

intervened, and the type and degree of intervention(Pedroni 2001). The proposition includes criteriaand indicators of existing international processesaimed at sustainable forest management (i.e.,Montreal, Helsinki, Tarapoto, Lepaterique, ForestStewardship Council, and International TropicalTimber Organization).

A critical evaluation of the current criteria andindicators developed under the Convention onBiological Diversity, the Ministerial Conference onthe Protection of Forests in Europe, and the manyother national and international initiatives couldassist in assessing their utility to qualitatively andquantitatively evaluate the impact of projects andpolicies undertaken by Parties to the UNFCCC and

the Kyoto Protocol on biodiversity and other envi-ronmental and social aspects of sustainable devel-opment. This would allow the presentation of anarray of eligible standards and procedures for valida-tion and certification that could enable national,regional and international initiatives to select ascheme that best serves their project circumstances.

A key question is whether an internationalsystem of criteria and indicators needs to be devel-oped under the Kyoto Protocol to assess and com-pare the environmental and social impacts acrossalternative mitigation and adaptation options. If astandard set of criteria and indicators were developedthey may need to be modified to account for nation-al, regional and biome-specific conditions.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 110

Set Category First-track example Second-track example

State Ecosystem quantity Self-regenerating and Self-regenerating area per man-made area as percentage habitat type as percentage ofof total area. 1993 and of postulated

pre-industrial baseline

Ecosystem quality – species Distribution or abundance Extended list of selected abundance relative to of a few selected species species which provide a postulated baseline as a percent of postulated more detailed and representative

baseline per country picture of the change in biodiversity per country

Ecosystem quality – Area of sustainable managedecosystem structure forest (%).

The relative number of Number of threatened and As first track, but with extended threatened and extinct species as a percent dataextinct species of particular considered group

per country

Pressure Habitat loss Annual conversion of self- A range of region-specificgenerating area by habitat type variables and decision rulesas % of remaining area

Harvest Total amount harvested per Total amount harvested relativeunit effort to estimate of sustainable

offtake levels

Species introductions Total number of non-indigenous Relative abundance/biomass ofspecies as a % of a particular non-indigenous species as a %group per country of a particular group

Pollution Average exceedence of soil water and air standards (critical loads) of particular pollutants.

Climate change Change in mean temp. per Change in max. and min.50x50km grid cell averaged per temperature and precipitationcountry over 20-years per 50x50km grid cell over 20

years

Use Ecosystem goods Total amount harvested per Percent of wild species with species and grand total known or potential medicinal over time. uses

Ecosystem services Total and per km2 carbon Percent of transboundarystored within forests per watershed area assessed ascountry referenced to baseline "low risk of erosion"

Table 5.1: Categories of indicators proposed and examples for each category


104

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 111


105

Project proponents would probably be more com-fortable with a system under which they are free toselect, among an array of eligible standards and pro-cedures of validation, certification, and the schemethat suits best their national and project needs.

The pressure-state-response framework hasbeen used to develop a set of biological indicatorsthat are of utility at the national and global scale toassess the impact of climate change on biodiversityand the impact of climate change mitigation andadaptation policies on biodiversity. A CBD expertgroup developed recommendations for a core set ofbiodiversity indicators (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/9)using a two-track approach (Table 5.1 shows indica-tors for state and pressure, but not response). Theassessment method for biodiversity indicators in thisreport uses the pressure-state-response frameworkwherein the "pressures" are the socio-economic fac-tors which affect biological diversity, "state" is thestate of biological diversity, and "responses" are themeasures which are taken in order to change the cur-rent or projected state. The first track for immediateimplementation considers existing and tested stateand pressure indicators related to the conservation ofbiological diversity and to the sustainable use of itscomponents. The second track, for longer-termimplementation, should consider not only the stateand pressure indicators, but also the identification,development and testing of response indicators forthe three objectives of the CBD: (i) the conservationof biological diversity; (ii) the sustainable use of itscomponents; and (iii) the fair and equitable sharingof the benefits arising out of the utilization of genet-ic resources. The second track should also aim atcontinuous improvement of the state and pressureindicators for the first two objectives of theConvention. These indicators are most suitable forthe assessment of national and global trends in bio-diversity (Herold et al. 2001), hence they may bemost useful for assessing how biodiversity is affectedby climate change and how national climate changemitigation and adaptation policies impact on biodi-versity. However, they are too general to provide thekind of information that would be suitable for assess-ing the impact of individual climate change and

adaptation projects on biodiversity. In addition,Gillison (2001), in a Review of the Impact of ClimateChange on Forest Biological Diversity(UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-BDCC/1/2), questioned theuse of the pressure-state-response framework, notingthat the assumptions about ecosystem ‘state’ arequestionable due to unknown, unmeasurable, andongoing environmental lag effects.

The driver, pressure, state, impact andresponse framework, which has evolved from thepressure-state-response framework, should helpdecision makers to implement effective environ-mental policy actions. The driver, pressure, state,impact and response framework (DPSIR) developsthe idea of the PSR framework further by including asocietal element describing the causes on environ-mental pressure (called drivers) and an element forthe effects of the environmental problems into socie-ty (called impacts). The DPSIR is a general frame-work for organising information about the state ofthe environment and its relation to human activities.It has widely been applied internationally, in particu-lar for organising a system of indicators in the con-text of environment and further sustainable develop-ment. The framework assumes cause-effect relation-ships between interacting components of social, eco-nomic, and environmental systems, which can beseen in Box 5.6. The DSPIR framework can be usedto conduct integrated environmental assessments(Figure 5.3). Table 5.2 gives some examples howDPSIR framework could be used in the case of biodi-versity and climate policies (EEA 1995).

Box 5.6. Driver, Pressure, State, Impact andResponse (DPSIR) framework components

• Driving forces of environmental change

(e.g. economic growth)

• Pressures on the environment (e.g. har-

vest of timber)

• State of the environment (e.g. habitat

loss)

• Impacts on population, economy, ecosys-

tems (e.g. erosion)

• Response of the society (e.g. legislation)

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 112

The driver, pressure, state, impact and responseframework has a number of limitations as the realworld is usually far more complicated than can beexpressed in simple causal relations. There is variabil-ity between the environmental system and the humansystem, and, moreover, many of the mechanismsbetween the human system and the environmental sys-tem are not sufficiently understood or are difficult tocapture in a simple framework (Smeets and Weterings1999). The DPSIR framework can require verydetailed statistics and the indicator systems have theirproblems: (i) there can often be a lack of data; (ii) thedata sources are not clear; and (ii) the defined criteriafor the different elements at operational level are notclear. To be an efficient framework, the data collectedshould be easily available and the costs of collecting thedata should be low. The challenge with the DPSIRmodel is to translate the data of indicators to naturalsystems entities and vice versa in a meaningful way.

It is important to recognize the different spatialand temporal scales of monitoring that will berequired to assess the implications of the range ofpossible climate change mitigation and adaptationprojects and policies. For example, changes in green-

house gas emissions resulting from mitigation projectsand policies may need frequent monitoring, while cli-mate change adaptation and biodiversity conservationactivities, which impact on ecological processes, mayneed less frequent monitoring given that changes inbiodiversity (e.g., changes in numbers of a populationof a key species, or changes in species composition)may be slow. This suggests the need to establish a sys-tem that will simultaneously contribute to monitoringthe short- and long-term effects of individual projectsas well as national policy changes.

Monitoring and evaluation plans and identifi-cation of relevant indicators should, as much as pos-sible, be meaningful and involve those communitiesand institutions likely to be affected by project andpolicy interventions. Given the importance of mak-ing the indicators meaningful to local people, it isessential to include socio-economic and cultural indi-cators in additional to biological indicators to quanti-fy the impact of climate change mitigation and adap-tation projects and policies on the national andregional economy and employment, and as instru-ments for securing and maintaining equitable oppor-tunities for the public in decision making.


106

Figure 5.3: Integrated Environmental Assessment in the DPSIR Framework

Response (policies)

Economy

Sectors ofrelevance

TransportAgricultureIndustryEnergyHouseholdsetc.

Productionand structures

Applicationoftechnology

Consump-tion

Waste

Emissions

Use ofnaturalresourcesincludingland

Physical state

HydrologyLandscapeAvailability ofresources

Chemical state

Air qualityWater qualitySoil quality

Biological state

Appearance of species

Ecosystems

Marina watersFresh watersForestsetc.

Biodiversity

SpeciesHabitats etc.

FunctionsRecreationmaterialsFood production etc.

Human health

Macro-economic

policy

Sector-specific policies

Environmental policies

Abatement costsEconomic repercussions

Prioritising

Settingof

targets

Driving forces Pressures State Impact

The environment

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 11/17/03 2:00 PM Page 113


107


Table 5.2: Example of indicators related to biodiversity and climate policies and organized in the DPSIR framework.

Driving Forces

Economic development andpopulation growth

Value added in agriculture Value added in cultivation practices

Pressure Agricultural intensity Total cultivated land area Pesticide use per cultivatedhectare

State Ecosystem quantity Self-regenerating and man-madearea as a % of total area

Self-regenerating area per habitattype as a % of 1993 and of postu-lated pre-industrial baseline

Impacts Ecosystem goods Change in total amount of har-vested per species and grand totalover time

Percent of wild species withknown or potential medicinaluses

Ecosystem quality – speciesabundance relative to postu-lated baseline

Distribution of abundance of fewselected species as a % of postu-lated baseline per country

Extended list of selected specieswhich provide a more detailed andrepresentative picture of thechange in biodiversity per country

Harvest of timber Harvested area of total forest area Harvested area relative to sustainable harvesting

Increase of urban areas androads

Increase of built-up area as a % oftotal area

Increase of built-up area as a %of total area by intensity groups

Greenhouse gas emissions Changes in the amount of domes-tic and transboundary emissions

Changes in the deposit ofdomestic and transboundaryemissions

Ecosystem quality – ecosystemstructure

Area of sustainable managed for-est (%)

Area of sustainable managedforest (%) by bio-type

Relative number of threatenedand extinct species

Number of threatened and extinctspecies as a % of particular consid-ered group per country

As first-track but with extendeddata

Habitat loss Annual conversion of self-regener-ating area as a % of remaining area

Annual conversion of self-regenerating area by habitattype as a % of remaining area

Ecosystem quality – amount ofmicro-organisms in soil

Amount of micro-organisms in aspecific area

As first-track but with extendeddata

Air quality Level of SOx and NOx gases in theair

Acidity of rainwater in differentareas

Species introduction Total number of non-indigenousspecies as a % of particular groupper country

Relative abundance/biomass ofnon-indigenous species as a %of particular group per country

Climate change Change in mean temperature per50x50 km grid cell averaged percountry over 20 years

Change in max and min tempand precipitation per 50x50 kmgrid cell averaged per countryover 20 years


Value added in forestry Value added in forest industry


Land use change Deforested area


Value added in energy production Use of fossil fuels

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 114


108

The identification of meaningful indicators andappropriate sampling regimes should also take intoaccount existing monitoring programs and data sets atthe local and national level, capacity at these levels, andthe need to establish agreed sampling and recordingprotocols at the national level. Consistency of monitor-ing approaches across local areas and protected areasystems should have a high priority.

Determining the impact of climate change proj-ects and policies on biodiversity is, in some instances,likely to remain problematical given the long-lag timebetween the intervention and the response of the sys-tem e.g., species populations and composition.Hence, long-term monitoring to determine changes inbiodiversity will be necessary (see examples of theseimpacts from possible LULUCF activities in Table 5.3).


There are many gaps in information. In many casesit is primarily a question of exercising and applyingthe tools mentioned in this chapter, rather than morefundamental research:

(a) Systematic application of EIAs, SEAs, DAFs andvaluation techniques in the context of climatechange and biodiversity;

(b) Application of EIAs modified to take account ofissues such as non-permanence and leakage;

(c) Improved understanding of the DSPIR relation-ships, i.e., between:• the drivers of change (e.g., economy, demog-raphy, population and socio-political) and pres-sures (e.g., demands for natural resources, emis-sions and introductions)• pressures and ecosystem state (i.e., the phys-ical and biological state)• state (physical and biological) and impacts(e.g., the provisioning, regulating, cultural andsupporting ecosystem goods and services)• the response (policies) and the drivers ofchange and the pressures

(d) Increased data to apply the EIAs, SEAs, DAFs andDSPIR frameworks; and

(e) Improving the development of indicators, espe-cially for biodiversity


Impacts(cont.)

Response

Human health Increase of tropical diseases (e.g.malaria)

Sea level rise Loss of agricultural land area Loss of agricultural land area bycrop type

Erosion Increased erosion due to decreas-ing land cover or monocultureplantations

Increased erosion due to decreas-ing land cover by species type

Greenhouse gas mitigation Climate strategies adopted Policies and measures adopted

Biodiversity policy Share of protected areas of thetotal land area

Share of protected areas of the totalland area by different bio-types

Education Expenditure on education Expenditure on education ofnature protection

Environmental taxation Amount of environmental taxesas a % of all taxes

Taxes aimed at decreasing thegreenhouse gas emissions

Legislation Amount of environmental laws Amount of environmental laws inspecific areas related to biodiver-sity and climate change

Environmental managementand auditing systems

Total number of environmentalauditing systems implementedin a country

Total number of environmentalauditing systems implemented ina specific sector

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 115


109

Afforestation and refor-estation (note: these are theonly eligible LULUCF activ-ities under the CDM)

• On degraded lands• If natural regeneration and native

species are used, reflecting the struc-tural properties of surrounding forests

• If clearing of pre-existing vegetationis minimized

• If chemical use (e.g., fertilizers, herbi-cides and pesticides) is minimized

• If areas for habitats for differentspecies are considered

• If rotation lengths are extended• If tree density respects biodiversity

needs• If low impact harvesting methods are

used

• On areas where natural ecosystems aredestroyed

• If monocultures of exotic species areused on large areas

• If other vegetation is cleared before andduring the activity

• If chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicidesand pesticides) are used abundantly

• If no habitats are created• If short rotation periods are used• If tree density is very high• If harvesting operations clear complete

vegetation• If sites with special significance for the

in-situ conservation of agrobiodiversityare afforested.

Restoration of degradedlands and ecosystems

Generally positive characteristics for apositive impact, depending upon theextent of degradation

• Habitats of species conditioned toextreme conditions could be destroyed

• Possible emissions of nitrous oxide iffertilizers are used

Forest Management If natural forest regeneration occurs and"sustainable forest management" harvest-ing practices are applied

If monocultures of exotic species areplanted and natural regeneration sup-pressed

Agroforestry Generally positive characteristics for apositive impact unless established onareas of natural ecosystems

Negative if natural forests or other ecosys-tems are replaced

Cropland management If reduced tillage is used withoutincreased use of herbicides

• If increased use of herbicides andpesticides

• If established on areas of naturalecosystems

Grassland and pasturemanagement

• Mainly positive if no natural ecosys-tems are destroyed

• If no exotic species are used• If fire management respects natural

fire regeneration cycles

• If established on areas that containednatural ecosystems

• If non-native species are introduced

Adaptation activities Generally positive characteristics for apositive impact if the activities conserveor restore natural ecosystems

Possible LULUCF projects Characteristics for positive impactson biodiversity

Characteristics for negative impacts onbiodiversity or other aspects of sus-tainable development

Conservation of naturalforests

Generally positive characteristics for apositive impact

Conservation and restora-tion of wetlands

Generally positive characteristics for apositive impact

Could result in an increase in green-house gas emissions

Table 5.3: List of possible LULUCF projects with potential effects on biodiversity (from Herold et al. 2001).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 116


110

5.8 REFERENCESAgrawal, A. (2002). Common Resources and Institutional Stability. In:The Drama of the Commons [Ostrom, E. et. Al. (eds)]. NationalAcademy Press, Washington D.C. pp. 41-85.Asheim, G., (1997). Adjusting Green NNP to Measure Sustainability.Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99:, 355-370.Beierle, T.C. and J. Cayford (2002). Democracy in practice: public par-ticipation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future,Washington D.C., 160pp.Braden, J.B. and C.D. Kolstad (eds). (1991). Measuring the Demand forEnvironmental Quality. Contributions to Economic Analysis No.198.North-Holland, Amsterdam.Brown, A L and Therivel, R. (2000). Principles to guide the developmentof strategic environmental assessment methodology, Impact Assessmentand Project Appraisal 18: 83-189.Chess, C. and K. Purcell (1999). Public participation and the environ-ment: do we know what works? Environmental Science and Technology33: 2685-2692Chess C., T. Dietz and M. Shannon. (1998). Who should deliberate when?Human Ecology Review 5: 45-48COP 6, Decision VI/7. 2002. Identification, monitoring, indicators andassessments. Decision VI/7 of the Session 6 of the Conference of Partiesto the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Hague, The Netherlands,7-17 April 2002.Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisti-cians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judge-ment and uncertainty. Cognition 58: 1-73Costanza, R., R. D’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K.Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neil, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M.van den Belt. (1997). The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services andNatural Capital. Nature 387: 253-260.Dietz, T. (1994). What should we do? Human ecology and collectivedecision-making. Human Ecology Review 1: 3012-309Dietz, T. (2003). What is a good decision? Human Ecology Review 10:60-67Dixon, J.A., L.F. Scura, R.A. Carpenter, and P.B. Sherman. (1994).Economic Analysis of Environmental Impacts. Earthscan, London.Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2000).Strategic Environmental Assessment in South AfricaEEA. (1995). Europe’s Environment –The Dobris Assessment. StannersD. and Bourdeau P. (Eds.) Copenhagen.Fiorino, D.J., (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a sur-vey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values15: 226-243Freeman, A. Myrick III. (1993). The Measurement of Environmental andResource Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, D.C.: Resources forthe Future.Gillison, A.N. (2001). A Review of the Impact of Climate Change onForest Biological Diversity Review prepared for the Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, First Meeting of the Ad HocTechnical Expert Group on Biological Diversity and Climate Change, 21-25 January 2002, Helsinki, Finland. UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-BDCC/1/2. 52pp.Gunderson, L.H., C.S. Holling and S.S. Light (eds). (1995). Barriers andBridges to the Renewal of ecosystems and institutions. ColumbiaUniversity Press, New YorkHamilton, K., and M. Clemens (1998). Genuine Savings Rates inDeveloping Countries. World Bank Economic Review 13: 333-356.Hanemann, W.M. (1991). Willingness-to-pay and Willingness-to-accept:How Much Can They Differ? American Economic Review 81: 635-47.Hanemann, W.M. (1992). Preface. In: Pricing the European Environment[Navrud, S. (ed.)], Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.Hartwick, J. (1994). National Wealth and Net National Product.Scandinavian Journal of Economics 99: 253-256.Hemmati, M. (2001). Multi-Stakeholder Processes: A MethodologicalFramework: Executive Summary. UNED Forum, LondonHerold, A., Eberle, U., Ploetz, C and Schulz, S. (2001). Requirements ofclimate protection with regard to the quality of ecosystems: Use of syner-gies between the Framework Convention on Climate Change and theConvention on Biological Diversity. Federal Environmental Agency ofGermany, Berlin. (UBA-Report 03/01).Hufschmidt, M.M., D.E. James, A.D. Meister, B.T. Bower, and J.A. Dixon(1983). Environment, Natural Systems, and Development: An EconomicValuation Guide. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. (1982). Judgement UnderUncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, EnglandImperial College Consultants Ltd (ICON), Richardson, J, Aschemann, R,Palerm, J, and Steen, U. (2001). SEA and Integration of the Environmentinto Strategic Decision-Making, Vol. 1

McCay, B.J. (2002). Emergence of Institutions for the Commons:Contexts, Situations and Events. In: The Drama of the Commons[Ostrom, E. et. Al. (eds)]. National Academy Press, Washington DC pp.361-402Mercier, J.R, and M.A. Bekhechi. (2002). The Legal and RegulatoryFramework for Environmental Impact Assessments: A Study of SelectedCountries in Sub-Saharan Africa, World Bank, May 2002.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). A Conceptual Framework.Partidario, M. R. (1996). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Key IssuesEmerging from Recent Practice. Environmental Impact AssessmentReview 16: 31-55.Partidario, M R (1999). Strategic Environmental Assessment – Principlesand Potential, in Petts, J. (ed.). Handbook of Environmental ImpactAssessment (Vol.1). Pp 60-73. Blackwell Science.Pearce, D.W., and J.W. Warford. (1993). World Without End: Economics,Environment, and Sustainable Development. Oxford University Press,Oxford.Pedroni, L. (2001). Forest Activities under the CDM: Opportunity orThreat to Biological Diversity Conservation? Final Draft submitted to theSwiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape (SAEFL), Bern,Switzerland. 59 pp.Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living With High RiskTechnologies. Basic Books, New York, 386ppPetkova, E., C. Maurer, N. Henninger, F. Irwin, J. Coyle, and G. Hoff.(2002). Closing the Gap: Information, Participation, and Justice inDecision-Making for the Environment. World Resources Institute,Washington D.C., 12ppPimentel, D., and C. Wilson. (1997). Economic and EnvironmentalBenefits of Biodiversity. Bioscience 47: 747-758.Proforest (2002). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, in draft,Oxford, UKRenn, O., T. Webler, and P. Wiedmann (eds). (1995). Fairness andCompetence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models forEnvironmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers: DordrechtSadler, B. (1995). Strategic Environmental Assessment: Paper presented atthe 15th Annual Meeting of the International Associations of ImpactAssessment (IAIA); DurbanSadler, B. and Verheem, R. (1996). Strategic Environmental Assessment:Status, Challenges and Future Directions. Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment of the Netherlands.Shogren, J., and J. Hayes. (1997). Resolving Differences in Willingness ToPay and Willingness To Accept: A Reply. American Economic Review 87:241-44.Slocum, R., L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, and B. Thomas-Slayter. (1995).Power, Process and Participation: Tool for Change. IntermediateTechnologies Press, LondonSmeets, E. and Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typologyand overview. TNO Centre for Strategy, Technology and Policy, EEA,Copenhagen.Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, E. Ostrom, and S. Stonich. (2001).Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy Press,Washington DCToth, F.L. (2000). Decision Analysis Frameworks in TAR. In: CrossCutting Issues Guidance Papers [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi, and K.Tanaka (eds)]. Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, Geneva,Switzerland, pp 53-68UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/3/9. 1997. Recommendations for a core set of indi-cators of biological diversity. Report submitted to the Third Meeting ofthe Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice tothe CBD.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. (2000).Toward Integrated Environmental Decision-Making, Washington, D.C.U.S. National Research Council (1999). Perspectives on Biodiversity:Valuing its Role in an Everchanging World. National Academy Press.Washington, D.C.Webler, T. (1999). The Craft and Theory of Public Participation: ADialectical Process. Journal of Risk Research 2: 55-71Wilson, J. (2002). Scientific Uncertainty, Complex Systems and theDesign of Common Pool Institutions. In: The Drama of the Commons[Ostrom, E. et. Al. (eds)]. National Academy Press, Washington D.C., pp.327-359World Bank (1997). Expanding the Measure of Wealth: Indicators ofEnvironmentally Sustainable Development. Environmentally SustainableDevelopment Studies and Monographs No.17. Washington: World Bank.Yohe, G., and F.L. Toth. (2000). Adaptation and the Guardrail Approachto tolerable Climate Change. Climatic Change 45: 103-128Young, O. R. (2002). The Institutional Dimensions of EnvironmentalChange. Fit, Interplay and Scale. Cambridge, MIT Press.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 117


111

Main authors: Kanta Kumari, Robert Watson,Habiba Gitay

Contributing authors: Benoit Bosquet, MikeHarley, Mikael Hilden, Fabrice Lantheaume.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter builds on the conceptual and empir-ical basis for harmonizing and optimizing benefitsarising from climate change mitigation and adap-tation activities with the conservation of biologicaldiversity as presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Basedon a review of 10 case studies, it provides insightson key practical challenges and opportunitieswhen implementing projects with multiple objec-tives, including climate and biodiversity consider-ations. The individual and collective experiencefrom these case studies also provides some suc-cinct lessons for improving the design of futureprojects.

Section 6.1 provides an overview of the keyissues and overall lessons from the analyses of thecase studies. Information gaps and research needsare identified in section 6.2. A full description ofeach case study is provided in section 6.3.

6.1 OVERVIEW OF KEY ISSUES ANDLESSONS LEARNED FROM THE CASE

STUDIES

The case studies presented here are being imple-mented at various spatial scales (site, national andregional). Two of these case studies are focused ondeveloped (Annex 1) countries (see section 4.2 fordefinitions) by applying tools and methodologiesto advance the integration of climate issues intopolicy and planning processes. Another four casestudies focus on developing countries and illus-trate the challenges of addressing multiple stake-holders and multiple objectives (including climateand biodiversity considerations), into projectdesign and/or implementation. A further four case

studies demonstrate partnerships between devel-oping countries and Annex 1 countries and/or pri-vate investors and showcase the application of thedifferent flexibility mechanisms allowed for underthe Kyoto Protocol.

Box 6.1. List of Case Studies

1. Uganda and The Netherlands/Privateinvestor: Mount Elgon National Park

2. Costa Rica: Ecomarkets3. Finland: Environmental Assessment of the

National Climate Strategy4. Madagascar: Masaola National Park

Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentProgram

5. Belize and the United States: Rio BravoClimate Action Project

6. Sudan: Community Based RangelandRehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration

7. Britain and Ireland: Climate Change andNature Conservation

8. Central America and Mexico: MesoamericanBiological Corridor

9. Uganda and Norway/Private investor: Treeplantations for Carbon Credits

10. Romania and Prototype Carbon Fund(PCF): Afforestation of Degraded AgriculturalLand Project

Some of the case studies reviewed are pilotprojects launched in anticipation of the KyotoProtocol; others preceded the Kyoto discussion.For example, the Mesoamerican BiologicalCorridor project [8]31 was not conceived with cli-mate considerations in its design, but it showcasesthe potential for synergies to be explored. Others(e.g. Uganda-Netherlands/Private investor [1],Costa Rica [2], Finland [3], Belize [5], Uganda-Norway/Private investor [9]) represent pioneeringefforts undertaken by governments, privateinvestors, and consortiums, to learn and betterprepare themselves for future opportunities. Acaution with respect to the case studies addressingafforestation and avoided deforestation is that it isnot definite that any of these projects will in fact be

6. SELECTED CASE STUDIES: HARMONIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION ACTIVITIES, WITH BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS

31 Numbers refer to the case studies listed in Box 6.1.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 118


112

validated as Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) projects under the Kyoto Protocol, asmodalities are still under development. Further, itis recognised that avoided deforestation, pursuedthrough forest conservation, is not yet eligibleunder the CDM, but some of the pilot experiencesreported in this chapter have included this aspectin the design of their projects.

6.1.1 Potential benefits for biodiversityconservation through the application of

different flexibility mechanisms allowed forunder the Kyoto Protocol

Various flexibility mechanisms allowed for underthe Kyoto Protocol are described in the case stud-ies, particularly joint implementation (JI; see sec-tion 4.2 for definitions), and the potential applica-tion of afforestation, reforestation and avoideddeforestation through the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM; see section 4.4). The Romaniacase study [10] showcases joint implementationbetween an Annex 1 country and a consortium ofdonors under the auspices of an umbrella manag-er (the World Bank Prototype Carbon Fund). Thetwo Uganda cases [1,9] are examples of potentialCDM projects done in partnership with privateinvestors in developed countries, while the CostaRica case [2] is illustrative of a unilateral CDM.The Belize case [5] is designed as an ‘ActivityImplemented Jointly’ following earlier terminolo-gy (which would in current Kyoto Protocol termi-nology be an example of CDM). The interventionsinclude afforestation (e.g., Sudan [6], Uganda-Norway/Private investor [9], and Romania [10]),reforestation (e.g., Uganda-Netherlands/Privateinvestor [1], Costa Rica [2], Belize [5], Romania[10]), and avoided deforestation (e.g. Costa Rica[2], Belize [5], Romania [10]).

The case studies examined reveal that there isscope for the harmonization of afforestation andreforestation options with biodiversity conserva-tion. Several cases improved the conservation ofprotected areas, including the Romania projectwhere degraded parts of a Ramsar site will be

reforested [10]; Uganda, where Mount ElgonNational Park will be reforested [1]; and the exten-sion of the Rio Bravo Conservation Area in Belize[5]. These and other projects also included specif-ic design features to optimize conservation bene-fits through the use of native species for planting,reduced impact logging to ensure minimal ecosys-tem disturbance, and the establishment of biolog-ical corridors. In addition, sustainable use offorests was also strengthened through variousincentive measures, particularly in the cases ofSudan [6], Costa Rica [2] and Uganda-Netherlands/Private investor [1]. Nevertheless,there is room for improvement in existing projectsto further explore synergies between climate miti-gation and adaptation activities with biodiversityconservation. For example, the MesoamericanBiological Corridor Project [8], originally con-ceived as a regional strategy for biodiversity con-servation, and not to address climate change,clearly has significant potential and scope for mit-igation and adaptation options to be designed intothe particular national-level implementation ofprojects.

Lesson 1: There is scope for afforestation, refor-estation, improved forest management andavoided deforestation activities as mitigationand adaptation options to be harmonized withbiodiversity conservation benefits.

6.1.2 Use of the Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM) as a tool to advance

sustainable development and biodiversityconservation in developing countries

Sustainable development, which forms the basis ofCDM, in the context of developing countries,could be achieved if the projects are designed topay explicit attention to environmental, social andeconomic dimensions. According to the KyotoProtocol, projects under CDM must be consistentwith the sustainable development priorities of thehost country, as determined by the host country.This provides a mechanism for developing coun-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 119


113

tries to screen projects on the basis of social, eco-nomic and environmental considerations, whichsupport sustainable development, in order tomaximize the benefits of CDM projects.Biodiversity considerations should be a criticalconsideration in this suite of issues.

Biodiversity conservation and sustainable useof its components is often closely aligned to com-munity livelihoods and their sustainable develop-ment. For example, the "success" of the Sudanproject [6] stems from combining key local devel-opment and livelihood concerns with those relat-ing to carbon sequestration and biodiversity con-servation. The spontaneous replication of theactivities and techniques of this project by neigh-boring villages is testimony to this success.Similarly, in the Costa Rica case [2], small-scalefarmers were provided with financial resources toconduct forest reforestation and conservationactivities that would generate carbon credits thatwould subsequently be sold in international mar-kets. In contrast, the restrictions imposed on thelivelihoods of the local communities in theUganda-Netherlands/Private investor [1] casealmost led to project failure.

Lesson 2: The linkages between conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity with communitylivelihood options provides a good basis forprojects supported under the CleanDevelopment Mechanism to advance sustainabledevelopment.

6.1.3 Adequate attention to the social,environmental and economic aspects for effective and sustained benefits for

climate change and biodiversity conservation

Social, environmental and economic considera-tions are critical elements for effective and sus-tained benefits for climate change and biodiversityconservation. For example, the omission of socialand environmental issues in the Uganda-Norway/Private investor project [9] during plan-

ning and negotiation of agreements resulted inlosses to key stakeholders: land conflicts whichundermined the security of carbon credits for theinvestor, livelihood loss for local communities, andunsustainable forest management for theUgandan forest authorities. The lack of a processto address the local tenure and settlement issuescontinues to undermine the successful carbonsequestration and biological conservation benefitsoriginally envisaged. This was also initially the casein the Uganda-Netherlands/Private investor proj-ect [1], although later the project took a proactiveapproach to address these issues.

Continued attention to economic and envi-ronmental considerations in Costa Rica [2] hasproved to be useful for balancing the carbon andbiodiversity objectives; after an initial period,reforestation contracts were excluded because thehigher financial rewards for these contracts overthose for forest conservation were serving as a dis-incentive for conservation.

Lesson 3: The neglect and/or omission of social,environmental and economic considerations canlead to conflicts which could undermine theoverall success of carbon mitigation projects,and long-term biodiversity conservation.

6.1.4 Balanced partnerships through capacity building and transparency

The Kyoto Protocol is relatively new, and thus the"playing field" is still not leveled. There appears tobe a need to equip countries and key stakeholderswith the necessary information, tools, and capaci-ty to understand, negotiate and reach agreementsover CDM projects. This empowerment couldensure that the CDM projects will be balancedwith respect to the national needs and priorities, aswell as conservation and carbon sequestrationgoals. The Uganda-Norway/Private investor proj-ect [9], highlights the challenges of implementingagreements from the perspectives of the hostcountry, project investors, and local communi-ties: the tensions between key stakeholders and

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 120


114

wavering commitment to the agreement can bepartly attributed to the asymmetry of informationand understandings of their roles and responsibili-ties at the time of finalizing the deal. It is criticalthat all stakeholders understand the benefits andthe costs of proposed interventions to each partner,including the opportunities and synergies to beachieved with conservation. In this regard, CostaRica’s experience [2] has been more positive in partdue to the country’s institutional and policy envi-ronment, and its capacity to deal with key projectissues and key stakeholders as equal partners.

Just as the host country of a CDM projectwould seek to ensure that the project is consistentwith its sustainable development priorities, it maybe useful to consider a process by which the parentcountry of private investor entities sets some mini-mum norms (or guiding framework) for such enti-ties, especially since the carbon credits purchasedwould subsequently be used to offset emissions inthe parent country. Without such minimumnorms, e.g., between ‘private investors/parentcountries’, projects could still be able to claim car-bon credits even when they have detrimental envi-ronmental and/or social impacts, as indicated bythe Uganda-Norway/Private investor project [9].

Lesson 4: Countries and key stakeholders need tohave the necessary information, tools and capac-ity to understand, negotiate, and reach agree-ments under the Kyoto Protocol to ensure thatthe resulting projects are balanced with respectto environment, social and development goals.

Lesson 5: Some minimum environmental andsocial norms (or guiding frameworks) whenpurchasing carbon credits through CDM proj-ects could avoid perverse outcomes.

6.1.5 Application of tools and instrumentsfor informed decision making and

adaptive management

In most cases, only a sub-set of the available toolsdiscussed in chapter 5 were used in designing the

projects. However, several of the case studies illus-trate the application of at least one of the analyti-cal tools and instruments, which in turn influ-enced key stages of the project or program. Theapplication of cost-benefit analysis at a specific sitein Madagascar [4] provided the rationale forretaining the Masaola forest as a national parkinstead of converting it to a logging concession,but concluded that conservation would only suc-ceed in the long term if the benefits outweigh costs–a condition that the study noted could potential-ly be met if, for example, avoided deforestationbecomes an eligible activity under the KyotoProtocol. The comprehensive approach taken byCosta Rica [2] is also exemplary in that it com-bined various tools (valuation, strategic sector-level analysis, and decision analytical frameworks)to meet multiple objectives.

At the policy level, the application of thestrategic environmental assessment at a nationallevel in Finland [3] revealed that the scenarios ini-tially chosen for the climate change strategy hadbeen too narrowly defined, and the Parliament hassince requested widening the scope of analyses. Astrategic modeling approach to inform the adapta-tion of nature conservation policy and manage-ment practice to climate change impacts wasundertaken in Britain and Ireland [7].

Lesson 6: The application of appropriate analyt-ical tools and instruments can provide construc-tive frameworks for ex-ante analysis to guidedecision making; provide adaptive managementoptions during implementation; and provide abasis for learning and replication through ex-post evaluations.

6.1.6 Monitoring and verification processes for carbon and biodiversity

related management

The case studies examined show a mixedrecord on monitoring and verification process-es. The Sudan project [6] had monitoringprocesses in place to measure carbon seques-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 121


115

tration (although it lacked a rigorous field ver-ification program), but the biodiversity inven-tory and monitoring component was droppeddue to resource constraints. The Belize andCosta Rica projects [2,5] are simultaneouslymonitoring and measuring carbon and certainaspects of biodiversity, although the need forground-truthing (verification) of Costa Rica’smonitoring system has been raised.Nevertheless, Costa Rica has managed to someextent to use its monitoring processes forimproving management (e.g., withdrawingreforestation contracts).

For the Kyoto Protocol, the amount of car-bon reduced or sequestered is of utmostimportance, while there are no obligatoryrequirements for conservation targets underthe CBD. It may be important that biodiversitybaselines, inventories and monitoring also getsdone, in addition to the carbon accounting, toallow for longer-term management of biodi-versity.

Lesson 7: Measuring the impact of CleanDevelopment Mechanism and JointImplementation projects on biodiversityrequires baseline data, inventories and moni-toring systems.

6.1.7 The Ecosystem Approach of theCBD as a holistic management strategy

The overall analyses of the case studies suggeststhat several projects benefited either from theconsideration Principles of the EcosystemApproach (see section 4.3 and Box 4.1), or fromtheir explicit application. For example, theCosta Rica project [2] appropriately appliedPrinciples 2 and 9 of the Ecosystem Approach inthat it was quick to withdraw financial incentiveswhen they undermined some key objectives ofthe project. Part of the success of the case studyfrom Britain and Ireland [7] can be attributed tothe application of Principle 12 of the ecosystemapproach when a consortium of government

agencies, NGOs and research institutes workedto conduct scientific research to inform theadaptation of nature conservation policy andmanagement practice to climate change impacts.Some projects that applied Principle 4 appropri-ately (Sudan [6]; and Costa Rica [2]) preventedlocal conflicts, while other projects that did not,subsequently faced challenges (Uganda [1,9]).

Lesson 8: The Ecosystem Approach provides agood basis to guide the formulation of climatechange mitigation policies/projects and con-servation of biodiversity.


There are some information gaps and researchneeds emerging from the lessons learnt from thecase studies which should be addressed in aneffort to optimise and sustain the benefits frombiodiversity conservation and climate changemitigation and adaptation options over the longterm. These include:(a) Need for ways and means to equip countries

and key stakeholders with the necessaryinformation, tools and capacity to under-stand, negotiate, and reach agreements underthe Kyoto Protocol to ensure that the result-ing projects are both balanced with respect toclimate change and biodiversity considera-tions and consistent with national priorities.

(b) A process for Annex 1 countries to set someminimum norms (or guiding frameworks)for private investor entities participating inCDM projects.

(c) Systematic piloting of projects that apply var-ious analytical tools and instruments (EIAs,DAFs, valuation; see chapter 5) and a strategyfor encouraging their replication.

(d) Pilot projects that explore synergies in themonitoring processes for CDM and JI projects (for compliance with the KyotoProtocol) and sustained biodiversity conser-vation.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 122


116

Title of case Key features Main Lessons Learnt Tools and monitoring Relevance to UNFCCCprocesses and CBD

1. Uganda and TheNetherlands/PrivateInvestor:Mount ElgonNational Park

• Partnershipbetween privateinvestor in devel-oped (Annex 1)country and con-servation depart-ment in developingcountry (non-Annex 1).

• Potential for use ofcarbon credits tomeet emissionsreduction targets inAnnex 1 country.

• Illustrates criticalneed to considercommunity andsocial dimensionsin design of theproject

• The omission ofsocial issues in theoriginal design canresult in conflictswhich impactadversely on locallivelihoods, whichcould in turnundermine the suc-cess of the project.

• Adaptive manage-ment can help tomitigate conflicts asthey emerge, andensure that theobjectives can bemet successfully

• Adaptive manage-ment.

• Environmental andsocial impact con-sidered – posthu-mously.

• Certification andverification byindependent entity

• An example of apotential reforesta-tion project underCDM (Article 12of Kyoto Protocol).

• ProgrammeElement 1 of theCBD expandedprogramme ofwork on forest bio-logical diversity(Annex to COPdecision VI/22)

• Incentive measures(COP decisionVI/15).

2. Costa Rica:Ecomarkets

• Illustrates a strate-gic approach at asector level to opti-mize conservationbenefits and climatechange mitigationwithin the contextof national sustain-able development

• EnvironmentService Payments(ESPs) used to miti-gate greenhouse gasemissions, and forbiodiversity conser-vation.

• Sale of certifiedtradable offsets orcarbon bonds fromforest ecosystems.

• Prerequisite of gooddatabase on land-use, land ownershipand tenure coupledwith efficient moni-toring and indica-tor processes.

• A holistic, broadbased approach toenvironmentalissues has allowedthe country tomobilise marketsfrom environmentalservices at both thenational and globallevel.

• Sound institutionalarrangements andreliable databasesand monitoringprocesses enable acountry to capi-talise on new inno-vations and oppor-tunities (e.g., KyotoProtocol., environ-mental services,certification).

• Not explicitly stat-ed, but potentiallycould have usedStrategicEnvironmentalAssessments

• Valuation as a basisfor designatingESPs

• Efficient monitor-ing and trackingindicator.

• Regular field moni-toring of contracts,although need forvalidation throughground-truthing.

• An example of apotential unilateralproject under theCDM (Article 12of Kyoto Protocol)of UNFCCC.


• Incentive measures(COP decisionVI/15 CBD).

Table 6.1: Summary of selected case studies: harmonization of climate change mitigation and adaptation activities with biodiversity considerations

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 123


117


3.Finland:EnvironmentalAssessment ofthe nationalclimate strategy

• Illustrates the appli-cation of StrategicEnvironmentalAssessmentapproach in devel-oping a national cli-mate strategy.

• Results revealedthat the scenariosfor the climatestrategy were nar-row in scope limit-ing a thoroughassessment of allconcerns on possi-ble energy futures.

• The Parliament hasrequested for morescenarios andlonger term analy-ses be undertaken.The process is nowpart of the govern-ment’s program.

• The design of an ana-lytical framework forthe assessment (or ex-ante evaluation) wasimportant for thewhole assessment. Thepeer and expert reviewof the steering groupwas important forfocusing on key issues.

• The multidimensionalanalytical frameworkfor the assessment,which included explicitlinks to environmental,economic,technicaland social aspects of thestrategy and scenariosgave a basis for dealingwith problems andsolutions in an ade-quate manner and dis-played essential charac-teristics of the strategyand the chosen scenarios.

• The public and trans-parent presentation ofthe assessment resultssupported a reviewprocess in the form ofpublic discussions.Thiskind of review processis important for a pub-lic discussion on climatestrategies.

• Adaptive manage-ment.

• Environmental andsocial impact con-sidered – posthu-mously.

• Certification andverification byindependent entity

• An example of apotential reforesta-tion project underCDM (Article 12of Kyoto Protocol).


• Incentive measures(COP decisionVI/15).

4.Madagascar:MasaolaNational ParkIntegratedConservationandDevelopmentProgram

• Applies valuation,and cost benefitanalyses to analyzethe benefits togreenhouse gasmitigation throughavoided deforesta-tion.

• Trade-offs calculat-ed at local, nationaland global levels ofdifferent manage-ment options forthe MasaolaNational Park.

• An ex-ante valuationallowed for moreinformed land-usechoices to be made.

• Valuation in itselfdoes not generate arevenue stream;there is a need toput appropriate mar-ket mechanisms inplace.

• Recommendationfor application of asplit-incentive coststo secure greenhousegas mitigation andconservation concur-rently.

• Cost-benefit analysis,• Economic valuation:

total economic valueframework (use,non-use values,goods and services)

• Potential scope forconserving foreststhrough avoideddeforestation as amitigation option.

• Responsive to theCBD expandedprogramme ofwork on forest bio-logical diversity(Annex to COPdecision VI/22).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 124


118


5. Belize andU.S.: Rio BravoClimate ActionProject

• Greenhouse gas mit-igation achievedthrough avoideddeforestation andsustainable forest

• The conservationand sustainablemanagement of c.500,000 hectares offorests will sequesterc. 2.4 M t of carbonover the projectduration (40 years).

• Adaptation to cli-mate change project-ed impacts throughconservation and useof corridors in theRio Bravo forests (i.e.through increasedresilience and con-nectivity)

• Consideration ofadditionality andleakage aspects with-in project design.

• The baseline infor-mation being collect-ed on carbon seques-tration in the RioBravo tropical forestsis critical for contin-ued support for cal-culation of net car-bon removals, as wellas replication of thisproject.

• Experiments withinnovative sustain-able forest-manage-ment have assistedlocal residents findsustainable econom-ic alternatives todestructive loggingpractices.

• Analysis of land-useoptions

• Monitoringprocesses in placefor forest manage-ment plans (inde-pendently certified)and for leakage

• No evidence of anyenvironmentaland/or socialimpact assessments.

• This is an activityimplementedjointly (AIJ) underthe UNFCCC andUS- JointImplementation,and not under theKyoto Protocol. Itis not eligible forvalidation in thefirst commitmentperiod.

• The case illustratesthe potential roleof avoided defor-estation and goodforestry practices(reduced impactlogging) as poten-tial mitigationoptions.

6. Sudan:CommunityBasedRangelandRehabilitationfor CarbonSequestration

• Project successfullycombined needs ofthe local communi-ties with long-termgoal of carbonsequestration.

• Highlights thenuances and issuesrelated to carbonaccounting, such asestablishment ofbaselines, projectboundary, time-scaleof project versus car-bon benefit, andattribution of car-bon benefits frompositive leakage.

• Demonstrates thepotential scope forcarbon sequestrationin semi-arid areas ifextended over largerspatial areas.

• Effectively combin-ing key local devel-opment and liveli-hood concerns withcarbon sequestrationcould lead to suc-cessful sustainableoutcomes.

• Establishing, defensi-ble baselines andmonitoring systemsfor both carbon andbiodiversity from theoutset is critical iftrue additionality isto be achieved onboth counts.

• Weak validation ofcarbon sequesteredcan undermine cred-ibility of achieve-ments.

• Participatory RuralAssessment meth-ods.

• Carbon accountingmethodologies(although the caseomitted soil carboncomponent).

• The project pro-vided baselineinformation forthe First Nationalcommunication toUNFCCC

• Provides informa-tion on the poten-tial feasibility ofafforestation underCDM in semi-aridareas.

• Potential scope forsynergies withCBD work pro-gram on arid andsemi-arid lands(COP decisionVI/4) and carbonsequestration.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 125


119


7. Britain andIreland:Climate changeand natureconservation

• Use of a modelingapproach to inform theadaptation of natureconservation policy andmanagement practiceto climate changeimpacts.

• Results from the firstphase indicate the needfor a flexible and for-ward looking approach,with objectives set with-in a dynamic frame-work that can adjust tothe changing distribu-tion of species andhabitat types and to therate of this change.

• For the next phase ofresearch,downscaledversions of the modelswill be used togetherwith dispersal modelsand predictions for landcover change to assessthe likelihood of specieskeeping pace withpotential climatechange and occupyingtheir future climate space.

• A science-basedapproach has greaterlikelihood in inform-ing and influencingpolicy than generali-ties and speculativestatements.

• The inclusiveapproach to theresearch, undertakenby a consortium ofgovernment agen-cies, NGOs andresearch instituteshas the addedstrength of bringingdiverse views, con-cerns and perspec-tives into the analysisfrom the outset andinfluencing policy.

• The bioclimaticclassification (spa-tial and temporal)for present distri-butions.

• Modelling changesin climate space forspecies

• Modelling dispersalcharacteristics ofspecies

• Predicting changesin land-use

• Modelling changesin ecosystem func-tion

• Methodology andoutputs applicableto delivery ofspecies and habitatcommitmentsunder CBD (andother internationaland national legis-lation and agree-ments).

• Potentially usefulanalysis to feedinto ongoing dis-cussion in the bod-ies of UNFCCC(SBSTA and COP)

8. CentralAmerica andMexico:MesoamericanBiologicalCorridor

• The spatial scale ofthe program providessignificant potentialfor adaptation ofspecies to the impactof climate change:both in latitude andaltitudinal terms.

• Highlights the poten-tial scope for climatemitigation options(avoided deforesta-tion, reforestation,afforestation, agro-forestry) to bedesigned into anongoing programaddressing biodiversi-ty conservation.

• Scope for enhancedcommunity involve-ment

• Opportunities andsynergies betweenbiodiversity and cli-mate change arebeing missedbecause of a biodi-versity focus beingapplied to the pro-gram.

• The CBD andUNFCCC couldleverage significantcollateral benefits atthe scale of theMesoamericanBiological Corridorproject.

• Regional agreements,various planningexercised, and con-sultation workshops.

• Priority setting exer-cises for conserva-tion areas.

• Showcases thepotential for syner-gies to be exploredwith regard to theCBD and UNFCCCthrough explicitlyaddressing adapta-tion and mitigationoptions in its designfeatures.

• The project isresponsive to allthree objectives ofthe CBD.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 126


120


9. Norway andUganda/Privateinvestor: Treeplantations forcarbon credits

• The case study high-lights the challenges ofentering CDM typeagreements from theperspectives of the hostcountry,investors andlocal communities.

• Disregard of social andenvironmental issuesduring planning andnegotiation of agree-ments resulted in landconflicts that under-mine the security of theforest plantations forcarbon credits for theinvestors,livelihoodsecurity of the commu-nities,and sustainableforest management forthe Ugandan forestauthorities.

• Raises questions of therole and conduct of pri-vate entities that arelikely to be importantbrokers in the emissionstrading of carbon cred-its purchased throughCDM projects.

• Need to address infor-mation and capacityasymmetry betweendeveloping countriesand Annex 1 countries(or investors) so thatthe agreementsreached can berespected by all stake-holders over the dura-tion of the project

• The sustainable devel-opment objective fordeveloping countries -which form the basisof CDM projects-could be achieved ifthe projects aredesigned to payexplicit attention toenvironmental, socialand economic dimen-sions.

• There is a need for aclear process for con-flict resolution,arbitra-tion,as well as adaptivemanagement built intoproject design.

• No evidence of anyenvironmentaland/or socialimpact assessments

• Pilot projectdesigned in antici-pation of theKyoto Protocolthrough afforesta-tion.

• Good lessons forthe formulation ofguidelines of CDMprojects.

10. Romaniaand PrototypeCarbon Fund(PCF):Afforestation ofDegradedAgriculturalLand Project

• Use of carbon financeto restore forests ondegraded land.

• Climate change miti-gation throughafforestation andreforestation forabove and belowground biomass andsoils.

• Conservation of aRamsar site throughreforestation of itsdegraded parts.

• Secure financingsource provides cer-tainty and planningfor the afforestation.

• Application ofEnvironmentalImpact Assessmentsto meet the safe-guard policies relat-ing to the socialissues will likelyavoid conflicts after-wards.

• The demonstrationeffect of this projectfor Romania’slonger-termafforestation plans isexpected to be signif-icant

• EnvironmentalImpact Assessments

• Valuation: cost bene-fit analysis likely tobe utilised in design-ing alternative liveli-hoods for the com-pensation of localcommunities.

• Joint implementa-tion (under Art. 6 ofthe Kyoto Protocol)between an Annex 1country and a con-sortium of donors(under the auspicesof the PrototypeCarbon Fund).

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 127


121

6.3 ANNEX: DESCRIPTION OF THECASE STUDIES

6.3.1 Case study 1. Uganda and TheNetherlands/Private investor: Mount

Elgon National Park

Mount Elgon was designated as a National Park in1993, prior to which it was forest reserve, and since1996 it comes under the jurisdiction of theUganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), which isresponsible for protected area in the country. TheGeneral Management Plan for the park recognizesa wide range of conservation values which have tobe taken into management considerations: includ-ing watershed, biological, aesthetic, tourist, cultur-al, communal uses, plantations resources,resources used by communities, and its value as acarbon sink. The Management plan notes collabo-ration with external partners as a means to sup-port the park management.

The UWA-FACE project (Forest AbsorbingCarbon Emissions) funded by a Dutch foundationsupports the replanting of indigenous trees inareas of the National Park that were previouslyencroached. This project started in 1994, and theFACE Foundation of Netherlands could potential-ly claim carbon credits equivalent to the amountof carbon sequestered in the reforestation area.These credits would in that case be offset againstCO2 emissions by the Foundation’s clients, whichinclude power generating companies and otherindustrial and business clients in Europe. Thecredits will assist companies in complying withemissions reduction targets set by the KyotoProtocol of the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. This projectpotentially represents an example of a reforesta-tion project under the CDM project through theKyoto Protocol but as indicated in section 6.1, it issubject to validation once the CDM modalities arefinalized.

The early phases of the project focused exclu-sively on the goals of the two partners, namely, car-bon sequestration achieved by maximizing bio-

mass production on the site for the FACE founda-tion; and biodiversity conservation achieved byrestoring forests in the National Park for theUganda Wildlife Authority. When communityneeds for subsistence forest resources conflictedwith the project goals, carbon sequestration andbiodiversity conservation took precedence. Peoplewere banned from harvesting firewood, thatchinggrass and other subsistence resources on thegrounds that this would reduce the total carbonaccumulation on the site. This brought the author-ities into conflict with local people, who destroyedtree seedlings in a number of cases. Concerns overthe long-term security of the reforested areas ledthe authorities to review their policy of excludinglocal people. At the same time, Uganda WildlifeAuthority (UWA) was experimenting with newcommunity-based approaches to protected areamanagement. With the assistance of IUCN, UWApilot tested collaborative management approacheswith local communities on Mt. Elgon thatinvolved providing access to resources in exchangefor self-regulation and resource protection by thecommunity.

The use of incentive schemes was a criticaldimension of the revised approach that has provensuccessful and has been expanded to areas refor-ested under the FACE project. People are now ableto enter into formal written agreements with theauthorities to harvest a wide variety of resourcessuch as firewood, wild fruit and vegetables, thatch-ing grass, vines, wild honey and bamboo. Theagreements are designed to permit sustainable lev-els of harvest and to empower the communities toregulate their use of the forest. The communitieshave agreed in return to monitor forest use andprotect the forest from destruction or unsustain-able use. It is expected that this will ultimatelyreduce the need for protection by the Authorityand better security for the forest in the long-term.

Tools and monitoring processes

The project was certified by a third party in 2002against the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 128


122

Principles and Criteria on social, economic andenvironmental issues. As part of the accredita-tion requirements, the third party certifier needsto visit and perform annual monitoring of themanagement and conservation activities. Theassessment and the monitoring include indica-tors on social issues such as on the involvementof local and indigenous population to theresource management, on biodiversity aspectssuch as species used for reforestation and theproportion of areas under protection, and indi-cators on benefits of the projects to the localpopulation such as economic impacts and nontimber forest resources being managed and used.

The project is financed by the NetherlandsFACE Foundation and implemented by theUganda Wildlife Authority. The project com-menced in 1994 and is still ongoing.

Sources of information

http://www.facefoundation.nl/Eng/fshomeE.html

http://www.stichtingface.nl/disppage.php

Uganda Wildlife Authority (2000) Mt. Elgon National

Park – General Management Plan.

6.3.2. Case study 2. Costa Rica: Ecomarkets

In 1996 Costa Rica adopted Forestry Law 7575,which explicitly recognized four environmentalservices provided by forest ecosystems: (i) mitiga-tion of greenhouse gas emissions; (ii) hydrologicalservices, including provision of water for humanconsumption, irrigation, and energy production;(iii) biodiversity conservation; and (iv) provision ofscenic beauty for recreation and ecotourism.

In this context, the Environmental ServicePayments (ESP) program, aims to protect primaryforest and allow secondary forest to flourish ondeforested land, and promote forest plantations tomeet industrial demand for lumber and paperproducts. These goals are met through site-specificESP contracts with individual small and medium

sized farmers. ESP contracts are based on two fac-tors: (1) the value of the environmental servicesprovided by primary and secondary forests; and (2)the management costs specific to each type of con-tract. There is a serious concern however, that thehigh cost of producing a ton of carbon may in factfavor large-scale projects, who are able to managedue to the already significant income from timbersales.

There are four types of ESP contract, each dis-bursing a fixed amount per hectare over a five-yearperiod.• Forest conservation contracts: US$200 per

hectare for forest conservation easements.• Sustainable forest management contracts: US$13

per hectare for sustainable forest managementeasements.

• Reforestation A contracts: US$513 per hectare,with commitments to maintain reforested areasfor 15 to 20 years, depending on the tree species –only native species are allowed to be planted. 5%of these contracts are on degraded and aban-doned agricultural land.

• Reforestation B contracts: US$200 per hectare,for those landowners that have established forestplantations with their own resources. These con-stitute less than 1% of ESP contracts.

Reforestation has in fact recently been exclud-ed from the scheme because the higher rewardsgiven for this compared to forest conservation con-tracts were a disincentive to go into conservation.This represents an important lesson, as it demon-strates that such schemes are dynamic and need tobe responsive to the overall goals and objectives ofthe program.

Principal sources of funding for the programinclude a tax on fuel sales, payments to FONAFIFO(National Forest Financing Fund) from private sec-tor renewable energy producers for the conserva-tion of critical watersheds, and through the sale ofCertified Tradable Offsets or carbon bonds derivedfrom forest ecosystems32. Landowners cede their

32 However, a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science documents that forests in Costa Rica that were mon-itored between 1994 and 2000 may have switched from "carbon sinks" to "carbon sources"; indicating that there is still significant lack of under-standing of carbon cycles in tropical forests.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 129


123

greenhouse emissions reduction rights to FON-AFIFO to sell to the international market.Financing is also coming from municipalities,and companies in need of a reliable supply ofclean water. The Ecomarkets project is fundedby the Government of Costa Rica, the WorldBank, the GEF, and bilateral development agen-cies. The project commenced in 2000 and isongoing.


Geographic information systems are used tovisualize, manipulate, analyze and display spatialdata. The key attribute of the system is that itlinks databases to maps and is interactive. Inother words, one can ask questions of the system(such as compliance with contracts with theindividual landowners – on management plan,prevention of forest degradation, control of ille-gal hunting). There is, however, a need for moredirect monitoring and tracking.

Some broader level program indicators,which have been tracked include:• 100,000 hectares of land contracted as conser-

vation easements in the MesoamericanBiological Corridor project in Costa Rica (cor-ridors, connectivity, reduced fragmentation;see case study no. 8)

• indicators to track increased participation ofwomen landowners and indigenous commu-nities in the ESP program over time

• increased local capacity to value and marketenvironmental services, as measured throughtechnical studies and introduction of marketmechanisms


The World Bank (May 2000). "Appraisal Document

on a Proposed IBRD Loan of US$32.6 million and A

Grant from the GEF Trust Fund of $8 million to the

Government of Costa Rica for the Ecomarkets

Project".

6.3.3 Case study 3. Finland:Environmental Assessment of the

national climate strategy

Finland is committed to meet the targets for thereduction of greenhouse gases based on theKyoto Protocol and as agreed in the burden shar-ing decision within the European Union (EU). Asuite of measures was envisioned to meet thesetargets. According to Section 24 of the Finnishlegislation on environmental impact assessment"Environmental impact shall be investigated andassessed to a sufficient degree when an authorityis preparing policies, plans and programmeswhich may have significant environmentalimpact once implemented...". A national climatestrategy meets by definition the condition of sig-nificant environmental impacts and henceemphasise the need for a broad assessment of thepossible impact of the strategy (see also chapter5). This case illustrates the strategic environ-mental assessment approaches applied inFinland when the national climate strategy wasdeveloped.

Under the guidance of an inter-Ministerialgroup, a concrete framework was conceivedwhich included three basic scenarios (a baselineand two alternatives) for the preparation of thenational climate strategy. These scenarios werequantified in technical and economic terms byexpert institutions. The assessment frameworkwas developed under the guidance of a steeringgroup with representatives of all key ministriesand in co-operation with those responsible forthe technical and economic assessments. Thisresulted in a review process that focused theassessment and ensured its scientific quality. Italso meant that the overall assessment becamemulti-dimensional with explicit links betweenenvironmental, technical, economic and socialaspects. The environmental assessment wasbased on the very same scenarios but requiredfurther a selection of the variables to be assessedand a specification of methods to be used. Theenvironmental assessment covered all measures

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 130


124

of the key sector Ministries (Environment,Agriculture and Forestry, Transport andTelecommunications, Trade and Industry).Stakeholder participation was a critical part of theassessment and provided information on perceivedcharacteristics of the scenarios and also on risks andopportunities associated with the scenarios. Allassessments, plans and results were made public.

The baseline scenario was developed assuminga yearly economic growth of 2.3 %, including agrowth in production industries (such as paper,cardboard and steel). Population growth is assumedto be low, increasing from 5.19 million to 5.29 mil-lion in 2020. Assumptions were also made concern-ing the price of oil (USD 25/barrel until 2010, there-after gradual increase to 30 USD in 2020) and theprice of natural gas (20 % increase until 2010, 48 %until 2020 compared with the price level in 2000).The alternative scenarios were developed by assum-ing a program supporting the development ofrenewable energy resources and a program aimingat saving energy in buildings and households. In onescenario an additional 1300 MW nuclear powerplant was assumed whereas the other included anexplicit prohibition to use coal in the production ofelectricity. To complete the scenarios energy taxationwas raised in order to meet the Kyoto Protocol tar-gets by 2010 as agreed in the burden sharing deci-sion within the EU. This means that the differencebetween the two alternative scenarios amounted toalternative ways of producing additional energy andto relatively small differences in the energy taxation.

The technical, economic and environmentalassessments provided an analysis of the energy use,greenhouse gas emissions, costs and environmentaleffects of the different scenarios until 2020. A syn-thesis of the available information was producedusing the strategic SWOT (strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats) analysis approach. Ageneral observation was that the measures plannedin the alternative scenarios would be generally bene-ficial compared to the baseline. However, the differ-ences between the alternative scenarios were smallwhen done over a 10-year period, and were slightlylarger when the analysis was extended to 20 years,

but still limited. The SWOT analysis further con-firmed that the two alternatives did not make a greatdifference; but rather the factors assumed constantin the model (such as level and structure of energytaxation, electricity imports) would change thecourse of developments more than the measuresassumed. The technical and economic assessmentswere linked and thus the different aspects of the cli-mate strategy could be subject to a simultaneous andbalanced public review instead of dealing with oneissue (environment, technology, economics, social)at a time.

The assessment revealed that the scenarios werevariations on a theme rather than explorative of dis-tinctly different situations. The assessment conclud-ed that the scenarios were myopic and too narrow inscope, and unable to capture all concerns and argu-ments on possible energy futures – thus limiting thescope for a broad public discussion. The Parliamentmade extensive use of the SWOT results in its dis-cussions of the strategy and confirmed that the pro-posed strategy was myopic. It has since requestedsome widening of the scope of analyses. This work isnow part of the government’s programme.


Forsström, J. and Honkatukia, J. 2001. Suomen ilmas-

tostrategian kokonaistaloudelliset kustannukset. [The

economic costs of the National climate strategy] The

Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Discussion

Papers 759, 28 p.

Hildén, M., Attila, M., Hiltunen, M. Karvosenoja, N. and

Syri, S. 2001. Kansallisen ilmastostrategian ympäristö-

vaikutusten arviointi [Environmental assessment of the

national climate strategy] The Finnish Environment

Institute, Suomen ympäristö 482, 105 p.

Kemppi, H., Perrels, A., and Lentilä, A. 2001. Suomen

kansallisen ilmasto-ohjelman taloudelliset vaikutukset.

[The economic effects of the Finnish national climate strat-

egy]. Government Institute for Economic Research, VATT-

Research Reports 75, 114 p.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 131


125

6.3.4 Case study 4. Madagascar: MasaolaNational Park Integrated Conservation and

Development Program

The Masaola National Park in Madagascar is com-posed of 2300 km2 of primary rain forest and issurrounded by a 1000 km2 buffer of unprotectedforests. Slash and burn farming for subsistence riceproduction represent the current principal threatto these forests. To counter deforestation, theMasaola Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Project’s (ICDP) strategy is to createeconomic incentives for conservation, by workingwith local communities. Besides local incentives,incentives at the national and global scales are alsoimportant considerations. Several timber compa-nies were prospecting for concession in theMasaola Peninsula during the time the NationalPark was being established, and the governmentnearly abandoned the park project in favor of a log-ging company. The conservation and diplomaticcommunity played a large role in persuading thegovernment to reject the logging proposalHowever, conservation is most likely to succeedonly when benefits outweigh costs at the scales ofall relevant stakeholders.

The authors estimated the cost of conserva-tion from local, national and global perspectivesfor the National Park. Conservation generated sig-nificant benefits over logging and agriculture local-ly and globally. Nationally, however, financial ben-

efits from industrial logging exceeded the ICDP’sconservation value even when the lowest estimatesof revenue generated by logging were used.

The loss of Masaola’s forest would be a signif-icant economic cost to the international communi-ty ($68 million to $645 million). This estimate isbased on the damages avoided by preventinggreenhouse gas emissions from the deforestationthat would otherwise occur in the ICDP, using adamage cost of $20/ t C based on conservativeassumptions. Based on a unit cost of conservingcarbon of between $ 0.84/tC and $ 15.9/tC; and apartitioning of these costs into global cost (foreignaid for forest protection) and Madagascar’s cost(opportunities foregone) they estimate that regard-less of opportunity costs scenarios, whenMadagascar conserves forests, it is paying 57% to96% of the total costs, while it would benefit rela-tively little from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The authors conclude that similar split-incen-tive situations exist, and that the Kyoto Protocolcould secure net local, national and global benefitsequitably by recompensing nation for the opportu-nity costs of conservation through global transfersunder the CDM. However, under current CDMrules, avoided deforestation is not eligible duringthe first commitment period, and the earliest thiscould be a possibility would be in 2012 when therules for the next commitment period will com-mence.

Discount rate 3% 10% 20%Time span 10 years 20 years 10 years 20 years 10 years 20 years

$ 1996 x 103

Impact of ICDP:Local economy net benefit 206 527 143 237 92 114

National net benefit -82 -264 -50 -108 -27 -41

Global net benefit 181 645 116 254 68 100

Notes: Local economy net benefit estimate includes: sustainable community forestry, ecotourism, non-timber forestproducts (NTFPs), hill rice, and opportunity cost of large scale forests; National net benefit estimate includes:donor investments, ecotourism, sustainable community forestry/biodiversity products, sustainable use of NTFPs,watershed protection value, park/buffer management costs, opportunity cost: industrial logging, and hill rice farm-ing; Global net benefit estimate includes: carbon conservation value, and donor investment.

Local, national and global net benefits for ICDP

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 132


126


Kremen, C., J.O. Niles, M.G. Dalton, G.C. Daily, P.R

Ehrlich, J.P. Fay, D. Grewal and R.P. Guillery (2000).

Economic Incentives for Rain Forest Conservation

Across Scales. Science 288: 1828-1832.

6.3.5. Case study 5. Belize and the UnitedStates: Rio Bravo Climate Action Project

The Rio Bravo climate action project involves theconservation and sustainable management of morethan 123,000 acres of mixed lowland, moist sub-tropical broadleaved forest in northwest Belize. It isestimated that the project will sequester approxi-mately 2 million metric tons of carbon during thenext 40 years by preventing deforestation andensuring sustainable forest management. Thisdemonstration project is implemented under theUNFCCC pilot phase Activities ImplementedJointly (AIJ) through registration with U.S.Initiative on Joint Implementation (as opposed tothe JI under article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol that isbetween Annex 1 countries).

Programme for Belize (PfB), a local NGO, waslaunched in 1989. It manages the project and hasover the years started to progressively acquire land.Currently, the Rio Bravo ConservationManagement Area comprises four parcels of land,acquired between 1989 and 1995. The project has aduration of 40 years. A number of energy produc-ers provided $5.6 million in funding for the first 10years. Investors include Cinergy Corporation, TheDetroit Edison Company, Nexen Inc., PacifiCorp,Suncor Energy Inc., Utilitree Carbon Company andWisconsin Electric Power Company. Long-termfunding mechanisms, including establishment ofan endowment fund, will help to support the proj-ect beyond its initial funding.

The Rio Bravo Conservation and ManagementArea is situated amid the biologically rich Mayanforest. It is part of a million-acre corridor that is keyto biodiversity conservation in Central America andone of the Conservancy's top conservation priori-ties. The area is home to the endangered black

howler monkey and jaguar, numerous migratorybirds, mahogany and other important tree species.It contains forest cover types protected nowhere elsein Belize. The project site was under imminentthreat of conversion to agriculture. Studies under-taken before the project began indicated that with-out further protection, up to 90 percent of the for-est cover would have been converted to agriculturaluse. The conservation of this area, and the connec-tivity provided by the biological corridor mayincrease the resilience and adaptation of the speciesto climate change impacts.

The project is expected to reduce, avoid or mit-igate an estimated 2.4 million tons of carbonthrough two primary approaches: (a) Program forBelize purchased 33,000 acres of upland forest andadded it to the existing protected area. Estimatedcarbon emissions avoided from this component are1.7 million tons over the duration of the project (b)Sustainable forest management and regeneration:on approximately 90,000 acres of land, a combina-tion of improved timber operations and ecosystemmanagement practices will sequester more than600,000 tons of carbon. Management practicesinclude creation of undisturbed buffer areas andprotection zones; reduced-impact harvesting tech-niques; and enhanced fire management and sitesecurity.

Various project activities provide jobs andtraining in forestry, forest management and parksecurity. Improved road maintenance and otherinfrastructure improvements benefit communitiesthat border the area.


Program for Belize employs a rigorous monitoringprotocol designed by Winrock International. Dataon forest growth and recovery are collected period-ically from nearly 200 permanent sample plots andanalyzed to determine the net carbon benefit of theproject.

Certification. The forest management plan iscertified by Smart Wood and Woodmark. The fieldassessment for the application of certification

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 133


127

guidelines included a reflection of the social andenvironmental conditions found in Belize. Controlof fire and illegal wood harvesting in the projectarea help reduce unintended loss of forest and newemissions of carbon dioxide.

Additionality. The carbon benefits are clearlyadditional to what would have occurred withoutthe project. Other parties would have purchasedthe newly acquired land and converted it to agri-cultural production. Also the land now under nat-ural forest management plan would have beenlogged under customary practices.

Leakage. The project ensures that all carbonbenefits achieved within the project boundaries arenot negated by actions off site caused by the proj-ect. Working with local communities allows PfB totrack logging and agricultural activities outside theproject site that might result in leakage.


http://www.pfbelize.org

http:/www.nature.org/aboutus/projects/climate/work

6.3.6 Case study 6. Sudan: CommunityBased Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon

Sequestration

The Community Based Rangeland RehabilitationProject conducted within Gireigikh rural council ofBara Province of North Kordofan State has twomain objectives. The first objective was to create alocally sustainable natural resource managementsystem that would both prevent overexploitation ofmarginal lands and rehabilitate rangelands for thepurpose of carbon sequestration, preservation ofbiodiversity, and reduction of atmospheric dust.The second objective was to reduce the risk of pro-duction failure in the drought-prone area byincreasing the number of alternatives for sustain-able production strategies, thereby leading togreater stability for the local population.

From a local villager perspective, global warm-ing is clearly not a major concern: whereas foodand water security are overriding concerns. One of

the attractive features of the project’s design is thatit pursued several key areas in parallel, namelypoverty alleviation, natural resource management,technology transfer, and women in development.By identifying local obstacles and challenges tosecuring long-term carbon storage in rural com-munities, this pilot project provides some very use-ful lessons for the ongoing discussions on the CDMfront. Specific measures which have contributed tothe villagers’ near term needs include fodder pro-duction, livestock restocking, development of vil-lage-level irrigated gardens, improved cook stoves,introduction of revolving credit systems, anddrought contingency planning. The spontaneousreplication of the project activities beyond theselected villages is testimony of the benefits to com-munities.

From the perspective of delivery of biodiversi-ty and carbon benefits there are some very usefullessons. The consideration and tracking of biodi-versity improvements in the project are lacking,and rest on the premise that enhanced biodiversitywill be a co-benefit of project activities. Althoughthe ecology of the rangelands was improvedthrough the various interventions targeted toresource management, the systematic attention tobiodiversity issues: oversight, monitoring and eval-uation has not been satisfactory. In fact, the biodi-versity goals of the project were further compro-mised due to budgetary constraints.

The attention given to carbon sequestrationwas more defined. In this context, the project pro-vides some useful lessons on the ongoing discus-sion and debate relating to carbon accounting. Forexample, when defining the end of project situa-tion regarding carbon storage, an implicit thoughunstated assumption in the project document wasthat no further land degradation would take placein the project area over the next 20 years. That is,incremental carbon sequestration benefits weremeasured against a static baseline, thus underesti-mating potential benefits of the project. The tablebelow provides a summary of carbon sequestrationbenefits claimed in the project document. Theevaluation of the project concluded that only the

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 134

direct benefit of 5 400 t of carbon is firm, subject toevaluation and verification. The remaining levels ofcarbon sequestration that claimed are evaluated inqualitative terms only. The lack of a suitablydesigned and vetted program to quantify the car-bon sequestration benefits achieved by project activities calls into question the credibility of proj-ect claims in this regard. There is insufficient evi-

dence, at the present time, to quantify with confi-dence the linkage between the supportive develop-ment activities and actual levels of carbonsequestered. Nevertheless the project providessome useful lessons on the ongoing discussion anddebate relating to carbon accounting

The most pressing conclusion emerging fromthe terminal evaluation is that the project strategyto rehabilitate and improve marginal lands hasdemonstrated the potential to enhance carbonsequestration. The appeal of carbon sequestrationin semi-arid areas as in Sudan lies in its spatialpotential rather than its carbon intensity per unitof land area. That is, even though carbon seques-tration levels are low in semi-arid rangelands inSudan compared to tropical forests, potential car-bon storage levels could be very large given theenormous rural land resources available. Investorsunder future CDM regime may consider invest-ments in Sudan attractive if they can be persuaded

that the vast spatial potential is not only accessiblebut also amenable to alternative, long-term, andverifiable rangeland management strategies.

The project commenced in 1995 and conclud-ed in 2001. The project received a grant of $1.5 mil-lion from GEF and had co-financing of $90,000.


Sudan: Community Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for

Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity. Project

Document (1992). GEF, Washington, D.C.

Dougherty, B; Abusuwar, A; Razik, K.A. (2001)

Community Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon

Sequestration and Biodiversity. Report of the Terminal

Evaluation. UNDP.

6.3.7 Case study 7. Britain and Ireland:Climate Change and Nature Conservation

In seeking to understand the implications of cli-mate change for nature conservation policy andpractice in Britain and Ireland, a consortium ofgovernment agencies and NGOs began a majorprogram of research, ‘Modeling Natural ResourceResponses to Climate Change’ (MONARCH),


128

"Direct" Benefits33 "Indirect" Benefits

Project Activity At end of Expected Total Expected Inferred Total project after 20 (after 20 after 20 after 20 (after 20

years years) years years years)

Rangeland management 0 10,128 10,128 27,731 0 27,73

Rangeland improvement 3,000 0 3,000 4,000 0 4,000

Dune stabilization 210 405 615 2,835 5,265 8,10

Windbreaks 2,190 2,450 4,640 4,220 4,690 8,910

Total 5,400 12,983 18,383 38,786 9,955 48,741

Summary of carbon sequestration benefits (in tons of carbon) claimed in the project document

33 Direct benefits are those from the selected villages; indirect benefits from positive leakage. The project duration is 5 years, and carbon benefitsestimate for 20 years.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 135


129

in August 1999. The consortium is led by EnglishNature (the government nature conservationagency in England) and the research carried out bya team of scientists brought together by theEnvironmental Change Institute, University ofOxford.

The MONARCH project is a phased investiga-tion into the impacts of climate change on thenature conservation resources of Britain andIreland. The main objective of the first phase of thestudy was to develop an understanding of thebroad-scale responses of key species and habitattypes across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.This was investigated by linking established impactmodels with coherent bioclimatic classes.Definitions of 21 bioclimatic classes were devel-oped using sophisticated statistical techniques, andfor each class a range of nature conservation attrib-utes (including characteristic habitat types, geolog-ical and geomorphological features, and percent-age cover of designated nature conservation sites)were obtained. Existing simulation models werethen adapted for application in terrestrial, freshwa-ter and coastal environments, and conceptualmodels produced for geological/geomorphologicalfeatures and the marine environment. The impactson these were studied by applying the range of cli-mate scenarios to the models to the range of cli-mate change scenarios for the 2020s and 2050sproduced by the UK Climate Impacts Programmein 1998. An important part of this work involvedmapping the available climate space under eachscenario for around 50 species associated with pri-ority habitat types.

The outputs of the first phase of the projectinclude a technical report, a summary report and,because of the innovative nature of the research, aseries of papers in Journal for NatureConservation. The technical report describes themethods used in the study, the range of impactscenarios produced, and an interpretation of theresults. The latter has raised some fundamentalchallenges to current policies for conserving biodi-versity and the long-term management of thenature conservation resource, both in designated

sites and the wider countryside:Nature conservation policies must be more flex-

ible and forward looking, with objectives set within adynamic framework that can adjust to the changingdistribution of species and habitat types and to therate of this change. International collaboration willbe needed to assist in the conservation of somespecies and discussions between countries on theimplications of climate change for conservationpolicy should be encouraged. In particular, themechanisms for conserving biodiversity (e.g. habi-tat recreation) should make provision for possiblespecies’ movements and changes in habitat compo-sition as climate continues to change. Awareness ofclimate change impacts needs to be raised amongstpolicy-makers, planners, practitioners and the gen-eral public.

The resilience of existing designated sites shouldbe improved through management and buffer zonesto minimize stresses on existing species and to provideopportunities for the development of new communi-ties. Greater integration is needed between natureconservation and other land uses, which them-selves should address the implications of climatechange. Optimum locations, sizes and shapes fornew nature conservation sites also need considera-tion. The effectiveness of species’ translocations,wildlife corridors and stepping-stones in the con-text of climate change requires further research.Consideration should also be given to the conser-vation of species ex situ (e.g. in botanic gardens).The issue of non-native species, their potentialspread, their contribution or threat to conservationvalue, and their source and rate of influx needs tobe addressed.

The methodologies developed in the firstphase of MONARCH were aimed at broad-scaleassessment and understanding. Whilst this was anessential ‘first step’, it was always recognized that theapproach would need further development ifpotential changes in species’ distribution and dis-persal were to be captured at a range of spatial andtemporal scales, and the implications for ecosystemfunction understood. Therefore, in a second phaseof MONARCH, downscaled versions of the mod-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 136


130

els used in MONARCH 1 and a dispersal model,which will be used in conjunction with predictionsfor land cover change, are being developed. Thesewill be used to assess the likelihood of species keep-ing pace with potential climate change and occu-pying their future climate space. In addition, theimplications of changing species’ distributions forecosystem composition and processes are beingexplored by linking model outputs with conceptu-al models of ecosystem function. This work beganin October 2001 and, following refinement, will betested in a number of case study areas in Britainand Ireland - using the UK Climate ImpactsProgramme’s 2002 climate change scenarios. Thesecond phase of MONARCH should be completedin spring 2004 and will further inform the adapta-tion of nature conservation policy and manage-ment practice to climate change impacts.


Cook, C. and P.A. Harrison (Eds.) (2001): Climate

change and nature conservation in Britain and Ireland:

Modelling Natural Resource -Responses to Climate

Change (the MONARCH project). UKCIP Summary

Report. - Oxford (UK Climate Impacts Program)

Harrison, P.A., Berry P.M. and T.P. Dawson (Eds.)

(2001): Climate change and nature conservation in

Britain and Ireland: Modeling Natural Resource

Responses to Climate Change (the MONARCH project).

- UKCIP Technical Report. – Oxford (UK Climate

Impacts Program)

Hulme, M. and G.J. Jenkins (1998): Climate change sce-

narios for the UK: scientific report. - UKCIP Technical

Report No.1., Norwich (Climatic Research h Unit).

Hulme, M.; Jenkins, G.J., Lu, X.; Turnpenny, J.R.;

Mitchell, T.D., Jones, R.G.; Lowe J.; Murphy, J.M.;

Hassell, D.; Boorman, P.; Mcdonald, R. and S. Hill

(2002): Climate change scenarios for the United

Kingdom: the UKCIP02 scientific report. – Norwich

(Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research).

Journal for Nature Conservation, Volume 11(1) (2003).

Climate Change Special Issue.

6.3.8 Case study 8. Central America andMexico: Mesoamerican Biological Corridor

In Mesoamerica — Southern Mexico and the sevencountries of Central America — 44 hectares of for-est are lost every 60 seconds, mostly to satisfy thedemand for firewood. If this were to continueunabated, the area would be virtually without for-est in a decade and a half. The MesoamericanBiological Corridor (MBC), crossing a diverselandscape of approximately 768,990 square km,accounts for about 8% of the earth’s biodiversity.The goal of the MBC program is the recovery of"the chain of forests that up to a few years ago unit-ed South and North America and which at thistime appears as a series of barren patches threat-ened by indiscriminate felling". While directedtowards revitalizing the natural corridor fromMexico in the north to Panama in the southeast,the initiative "is by no means focused exclusively onprotecting the animals, plants and microorganismswhich inhabit the tropical forests, but will providebenefit on a priority basis to the people who livethere, to all Mesoamericans and, by extension, tothe entire world". The project is anticipated to bean 8-year program (1998-2005), and had initialfunding for about $24 million, with about $ 11 mil-lion from the GEF.

To achieve all these things, the program isbeing built upon two main pillars. The first andbetter known is biodiversity conservation. Thisincludes strengthening the existing protected areasand building links among them. The second pillaris the sustainable use of the resources of the region.Environmentally friendly agricultural pursuits —including organic food production — as well asecotourism, pharmaceutical prospecting and re-forestation have been identified as possible areas ofactivity and investment. This project builds uponall regional and in-country initiatives to collabora-tively form conservation and sustainable use pro-grams and harmonization of regional policies.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 137


131

331. Technically, biological corridors are geograph-ic extensions whose function is to connect areas inorder to sustain the distribution of fauna and floraand provide natural conditions that assure theirconservation and that of essential habitats. Thesehabitats are those ecosystems which are (a) used bythe biota in at least one critical stage of its life cycle;(b) composed of a significant combination of abi-otic characteristics (e.g. hydrology, geology, geo-morphology) and biotic characteristics (e.g. highbiodiversity, productivity); (c) of great structuralcomplexity; and (d) areas that are used for repro-duction, mating, nourishment and protection.332. The MBC has been conceived as a super-cor-ridor enveloping many corridors, or as a programencompassing many projects. At the moment, it isstill hard to understand fully the areas of overlapand disagreement, as a series of dichotomies maybe observed, between the regional and the nation-al, and between local environmental managementby the communities themselves or by an externalagency. The idea of the corridor has been wellreceived by the local communities, but until now,the local impact has been weak from a social andeconomic point of view. The principal future chal-lenge of the initiative will be to decide how nation-al sustainable development strategies can be linkedto the regional scope. There has been progress onthis front. The operational planning exercises per-formed in 2001 resulted in the decision that theimplementation of the project will be defined atthe national level.

The physical scale and extent of the MBC pro-gram would in reality provide species significantscope to adapt to impact of climate change by pro-viding them the latitude and altitudinal habitats todo so. However, to date the scope for the MBC tocontribute to adaptation has not been consideredsystematically at a programmatic level. It is impor-tant that the scientific work and experiments forsuch adaptation is commences as soon as possible.The scope for this program to contribute also togreenhouse gas mitigation through avoided defor-estation (in the protected areas), afforestation,reforestation; as well as agroforestry is significant.

These options too have not yet been addressedexplicitly or aggressively in the national and region-al components of the program.334. Although the MBC represents a regional linkto sustainable development with the objectives ofthe CBD, it has tremendous opportunity to lever-age action from the UNFCCC.


Programme for the Consolidation of the Mesoamerican

Biological Corridor. GEF project document.

(www.gefweb.org/wprogram/nov1997/mesoamer.doc).

Miller, Kenton, Elsa Chang, and Nels Johnson, Defining

Common Ground for the Mesoamerican Biological

Corridor. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.,

2001.

Rivera, V. S.; Cordero, P.M., Cruz, I.A. and Borras, M.F.

(2002) Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and Local

Participation. Parks 12 (2): 42-54.

6.3.9. Case study 9. Uganda andNorway/Private investor: Tree plantations

for carbon credits

Tree Farms (TF), a private Norwegian company,piloted a tree plantation scheme in Uganda inanticipation of the Kyoto Protocol and its CDM.The aim here was to seek afforestation and refor-estation of lands. The project commenced in 1996and is ongoing. TF’s subsidiary in Uganda, BusogaForestry Company Ltd., entered into an agreementwith the Ugandan authorities to lease for a periodof 50 years, an area of 5,160 ha in the BukalebaForest Reserve. It is anticipated that 4,260 ha will beplantations, and the rest used for infrastructureand protection of existing natural forests. The restof the 8,000 ha reserve is under lease to a Germancompany. TF has the option to renew the contractfor another 50 years. The Ugandan forest authori-ties will receive a one-off sum of $500,000 shillings(NOK 2,600) for the contract as well as an annualrent of 5,000 shillings for each hectare planted with

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 138

34 4,260 ha x 500 tons of CO2 x NOK 125 (or 85 for the lower scenario)35 4,260 ha x NOK 26 x 25 years.


132

forest. This rent would be adjusted every 10 years toreflect inflation. The rental agreement impliescommitment to planting forest and conductingmodern forestry within the concession area. Norent is paid for areas not planted with trees.

Tree Farms has planted about 600 hectares,mainly with fast growing pines (Pinus caribaea, P.oocarpa, P. tecunumani) and eucalypts(Eucalyptus grandis). On some smaller plots, thecompany has also planted the local tree speciesmusizi (Aesopsis emini), mahogany (Khayaanthoiheca) and Musambya (Macadanua lutea).The total investment to date by TF has been NOK5-6 million. The issues from the perspectives ofthe key stakeholders’ vis-à-vis the agreement as itstands are as follows:• The lack of information and understanding of

the Kyoto Protocol and carbon trading on thepart of the host government when negotiatingthe terms of the agreement has resulted in afeeling that they had been taken advantage ofand have ended up with low prices on a landlease of fairly long duration (50 years). Therealization that opportunity cost of the landhad not been factored in, nor the potentiallylucrative returns from carbon trading hasresulted in tensions that have mounted furtherdue to some of the activities of the investors. Inparticular, the investors have been plantingparts of the leased land (within the F.R.) withmaize but for which the authorities receive norent, as the agreement requires payment onlywhen trees are planted. This practice of plant-ing maize in a forest reserve selling the maize inthe market, and competing with local farmerproduce is not viewed positively.

• The Bukaleba Forest Reserve has been used bythe local communities since the 1960s; andalthough they were evicted in the early 1990sthey have over the years continued to moveback into the reserve, with some claiming own-ership of some of the reserve land. The author-ities do not have the capacity to control this

movement, and a study in 1999 estimatedabout 8,000 people living in the reserve. Whatis interesting, is that the efforts of the farmersin preparing the land for farming benefits theTF as it prepares the land for tree planting(since a taungya system is practiced in theleased land – i.e. trees are planted with anunderstory of crops). While the farmers are notpaid for their labor, they are required to payrent to TF for farming the leased land. With alack of alternative livelihoods, the Tree Farmsproject is viewed as a threat tot the locals.

• It is estimated that the carbon profits after the25-year period based on CICERO (Centre forInternational Climate and EnvironmentalResearch Oslo) figures could range anywherefrom NOK 85-266 million34, depending on theprice per ton of CO2. In contrast the rent to theUgandan authorities will be NOK 2.8 million35.TF will also have further income from the saleof timber and wood. It is anticipated that theprofits may be less than anticipated due to avariety of reasons, although the asymmetry ofgains between the two partners is still likely tobe significant.

• There is great uncertainty as to the net amountof carbon that will be sequestered, especially inthe face of an estimated 8,000 people who mayclear new areas and forests in order to earn aliving. The trees have suffered from constantpruning, uprooting of tree seedlings, termiteattacks and insufficient weeding. The plantingof new areas is behind schedule, and with prof-its being questionable, people have sought toplant maize to generate some short-term prof-its. All of this may lead to carbon sequestrationlower than expected by project developers.

• If this project were to contribute to sustainabledevelopment, which is seen as an objective fordeveloping countries to undertake CDM typeprojects, the design of this project would have benefited from explicit attention to envi-ronmental, social and economic dimensions.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 139


133

It is evident that the key partners either did nothave all the necessary information, nor did theyaddress these issues explicitly and directly whendesigning the project. Disregard of social andenvironmental issues during planning andnegotiation of agreements has resulted in landconflicts that undermine the security of theforest plantations for carbon credits for theinvestors, and livelihood security of the com-munities, and sustainable forest managementfor the Ugandan forest authorities. There is alsono clear process for conflict resolution, arbitra-tion, or adaptive management to help resolvethe problems.

• This project is not yet validated for carboncredits as the modalities of CDM are still underdiscussion. But it does showcase some of thechallenges not just in terms of informationasymmetry, but perhaps the need for someminimum standards of conduct of private enti-ties when purchasing credits used towardsemission reductions back in their parent coun-try. Just as the host country of a CDM projectwould set the acceptable EnvironmentalImpact Assessment —as well as social stan-dards—of a project, it may be useful for theparent country of private entities to set someminimum norms or rules of conduct to guar-antee the use of these credits towards nationaltargets.


Harald Eraker (2000) CO2 Colonialism-Norwegian

Tree Plantations, Carbon Credits and Land Conflicts in

Uganda. Norwatch, Norway.

Norwatch news (www.fivh.no/norwatch).

6.3.10. Case study 10: Romania andPrototype Carbon Fund (PCF):

Afforestation of Degraded AgriculturalLand Project

The Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural LandProject proposes to afforest 6,852 ha of State-owned degraded agricultural lowlands in 7 coun-ties in the southwest and southeast of theRomanian Plain. In the southwest, the Projectwould stabilize soils through the planting of semi-naturalized species (Robinia pseudoacacia). In thesoutheast, ecological reconstruction of 10 isletsmaking up a natural park and Ramsar site in theLower Danube (Small Island of Braila) wouldoccur through the planting of native species(Pupulus alba, Pupulus nigra, Salix spp., Quercusspp.). Strictly speaking under the rules of Article3 of the Kyoto Protocol, afforestation will occuron land deforested for at least 50 years, i.e. onmost of the lands in the southwest, while refor-estation will take place on lands deforested withinthe last 50 years but before December 31, 1989.The main features of the project are:

Climate change mitigation through carbonsequestration: It is estimated that the project willsequester around 1 million tonnes of carbondioxide equivalent, or around 278,000 tC over aperiod of 15 years. Field samples made on com-parable plantations suggest that these estimatesare conservative. About 80 percent of this tonnagewould be stored in vegetation, the rest in soils.

Use of carbon finance to restore forests ondegraded land: Romania has a very ambitiouspolicy of expanding its forest cover by 100,000hectares of degraded land in the coming years.However, statistics for the past decade reveal thatafforestation volumes are grossly inadequate tomeet that goal (over the period 1991-2001, theaverage area afforested annually was just under400 hectares). One of the key explanatory factorsis simply the lack of financing to the NationalForest Administration (NFA), which is the public,yet financially autonomous, agency entrustedwith the management of public forests.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 140


134

Romania was the first industrialized (Annex1) country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and is nowbecoming the host to a few investment projectsunder Article 6 of the Protocol (joint implementa-tion). Under Article 6, another industrialized coun-try financier (in this case the countries to which the23 Prototype Carbon Fund Participants belong)makes it possible for a climate mitigation project tooccur, in return for which it acquires the titles tothe offsets that are generated by the project in thehost country (in this case Romania).

The Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) adminis-tered by the World Bank on behalf of 23 public andprivates entities is the agent of such buyers. ThePCF will sign an Emission Reductions PurchaseAgreement (ERPA), a long-term contract provid-ing for the delivery by the NFA to the PCF of justover one million tonnes of carbon dioxide equiva-lent at an agreed-upon price. The PCF’s financialcontribution gives the NFA the financial incentiveto undertake the necessary $10 million investment.The project commenced in 2002, and has a 15-yearcrediting period (until 2017).


The project will rely on a very detailed MonitoringPlan designed by the NFA and the PCF, at the heartof which is the NFA’s annual regeneration control.Monitoring is crucial to this project as the PCF willexecute its payments to the NFA on the annualdelivery of independently certified tonnes of car-bon. Without monitoring, this output-based sys-tem collapses.• Monitoring will occur for the whole duration of

the project, i.e. 15 years.• Carbon sequestration is the main but not the

only monitoring indicator in the project. TheMonitoring Plan provides for one indicator ofbiodiversity enhancement to be monitored,namely the number of bird species in projectsites.

• Social benefits will be monitored as well. Inaddition, compliance with World BankSafeguard Policies (Box 5.2) entailed some

requirements under the Bank’s Policy onInvoluntary Resettlement. Given that the projectwill render the earlier creation of a natural parkbinding and adversely impact the livelihoods ofa few local communities practicing seasonal ani-mal grazing on the Small Island of Braila, thePolicy mandates that a special participatoryprocess be followed to determine how the affect-ed population could be compensated.

• Additionality. The carbon and biodiversity ben-efits are clearly additional to what would haveoccurred in the baseline scenario, as the evidencefor the past decade suggests.

• Leakage. The project ensures that all carbonbenefits achieved within the project boundariesdo not come at the expense of similar benefitsalready achieved in the baseline scenario. A levelof 400 ha of afforestation of degraded land willhave to be maintained in addition to the pro-ject’s achievement.


Romania: Afforestation of Degraded Agricultural Land

Project. Project Design Document. World Bank.

(http://www.rosilva.ro/proiecteintl/english/Romania%2

0Afforestation%20PDD.pdf)

www.prototypecarbonfund.org

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 141


135

Technical experts

Mr. Mohamed Ali (Maldives)

Mr. Vaclav Burianek (Czech Republic)

Mr. Braulio Dias (Brazil)

Ms. Sandra Diaz (Argentina)

Mr. Samuel Dieme (Senegal)

Ms. Muna Nasser Faraj (Kuwait)

Ms. Habiba Gitay (Australia)

Mr. Esko Jaakkola (Finland)

Mr. Horst Korn (Germany)

Mr. Robert Lamb (Switzerland)

Ms. Mirna Marin (Honduras)

Mr. Matthew McGlone (New Zealand)

Mr. Alexander Minin (Russian Federation)

Mr. Phocus Ntayombya (Rwanda)

Ms. Maria Feliciana Ortigão (Brazil)

Mr. Clark Peteru (Samoa)

Mr. Gregory Ruark (United States of America)

Mr. Sem Shikongo (Namibia)

Mr. Peter Straka (Slovak Republic)

Mr. Avelino Suarez (Cuba)

Ms. Anneli Sund (Finland)

Mr. Ian Thompson (Canada)

Mr. Heikki Toivonen (Finland)

Mr. Yoshitaka Tsubaki (Japan)

Mr. Allan Watt (United Kingdom)

Co-chairs

Mr. Robert Watson (The World Bank)

Ms. Outi Berghäll (Ministry of the Environment-

Finland)

Organizations and United Nations bodies

Ms. Yasemin Biro (GEF Secretariat)

Ms. Danielle Cantin (IUCN-Canada)

Ms. Janet Cotter (Greenpeace International)

Mr. Claudio Forner (UNFCCC Secretariat)

Mr. Stephen Kelleher (World Wildlife Fund-

USA)

Ms. Kanta Kumari (GEF Secretariat)

Mr. Miguel Lovera (Global Forest Coalition)

Mr. Ndegwa Ndiang’ui (UNCCD Secretariat)

Mr. Zoltan Rakonczay (World Wildlife Fund

International)

Mr. Mario Ramos (GEF Secretariat)

Ms. Jan Sheltinga (UNCCD Secretariat)

Mr. M. V. K. Sivakumar (World Meteorological

Organization)

APPENDIX I.MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC TECHNICAL EXPERT GROUP ON BIOLOGICAL

DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 142


136

AdaptationAdjustment in natural or human systems to anew or changing environment. Adaptation to cli-mate change refers to adjustment in natural orhuman systems in response to actual or expectedclimatic stimuli or their effects, which moderatesharm or exploits beneficial opportunities.Various types of adaptation can be distin-guished, including anticipatory and reactiveadaptation, private and public adaptation, andautonomous and planned adaptation.

Adaptive capacity The ability of a system to adjust to climatechange (including climate variability andextremes) to moderate potential damages, totake advantage of opportunities, or to cope withthe consequences.

AerosolsA collection of airborne solid or liquid particles,with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 mm thatreside in the atmosphere for at least severalhours. Aerosols may be of either natural oranthropogenic origin. Aerosols may influenceclimate in two ways: directly through scatteringand absorbing radiation, and indirectly throughacting as condensation nuclei for cloud forma-tion or modifying the optical properties and life-time of clouds.

AfforestationPlanting of new forests on lands that historicallyhave not contained forests.

Agroforestry Planting of trees and crops on the same piece ofland.

AlbedoThe fraction of solar radiation reflected by a sur-face or object, often expressed as a percentage.Snow covered surfaces have a high albedo; thealbedo of soils ranges from high to low; vegeta-tion covered surfaces and oceans have a low albe-

do. The Earth’s albedo varies mainly throughvarying cloudiness, snow, ice, leaf area, and landcover changes.

BenthicReferred to the collection of organisms living onor in sea or lake bottoms.

BiofuelA fuel produced from dry organic matter orcombustible oils produced by plants. Examplesof biofuel include alcohol (from fermentedsugar), black liquor from the paper manufactur-ing process, wood, and soybean oil.

BiomassThe total mass of living organisms in a given areaor volume; recently dead plant material is oftenincluded as dead biomass.

BiomeA grouping of similar plant and animal commu-nities into broad landscape units that occurunder similar environmental conditions.

BogA poorly drained area rich in accumulated plantmaterial, frequently surrounding a body of openwater and having a characteristic flora (such assedges, heaths, and sphagnum).

Boreal forestForests of often dominated pine, spruce, fir, andlarch stretching from the east coast of Canadawestward to Alaska and continuing from Siberiawestward across the entire extent of Russia to theEuropean Plain.

C3 plantsPlants that produce a three-carbon compoundduring photosynthesis, including most trees andagricultural crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans,potatoes, and vegetables.

APPENDIX II.GLOSSARY OF TERMS

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 143


137

C4 plantsPlants that produce a four-carbon compoundduring photosynthesis (mainly of tropical ori-gin), including grasses and the agriculturallyimportant crops maize, sugar cane, millet, andsorghum.

CH4

See methane

Carbon dioxide (CO2)A naturally occurring gas, and also a by-productof burning fossil fuels and biomass, as well asland-use changes and industrial processes. It isthe principal anthropogenic greenhouse gas thataffects the Earth’s radiative balance.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) fertilizationThe enhancement of the growth of plants as aresult of increased atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentration.

ClimateClimate in a narrow sense is usually defined asthe "average weather" or more rigorously as thestatistical description in terms of the mean andvariability of relevant quantities over a period oftime ranging from months to thousands or mil-lions of years. The classical period is 30 years, asdefined by the World MeteorologicalOrganization (WMO). These relevant quantitiesare most often surface variables such as temper-ature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in awider sense is the state, including a statisticaldescription, of the climate system.

Climate changeClimate change refers to a statistically significantvariation in either the mean state of the climateor in its variability, persisting for an extendedperiod (typically decades or longer). Climatechange may be due to natural internal processesor external forcings, or to persistent anthro-pogenic changes in the composition of theatmosphere or in land use. Note that the United

Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines "cli-mate change" as: "a change of climate which isattributed directly or indirectly to human activi-ty that alters the composition of the globalatmosphere and which is in addition to naturalclimate variability observed over comparabletime periods." The UNFCCC thus makes a dis-tinction between "climate change" attributableto human activities altering the atmosphericcomposition, and "climate variability" attributa-ble to natural causes. See also climate variability.

Climate model (hierarchy)A numerical representation of the climate sys-tem based on the physical, chemical, and biolog-ical properties of its components, their interac-tions and feedback processes, and accounting forall or some of its known properties. The climatesystem can be represented by models of varyingcomplexity—that is, for any one component orcombination of components a "hierarchy" ofmodels can be identified, differing in suchaspects as the number of spatial dimensions, theextent to which physical, chemical or biologicalprocesses are explicitly represented, or the levelat which empirical parametrizations areinvolved. Coupled atmosphere/ocean/sea-icegeneral circulation models (AOGCMs) provide acomprehensive representation of the climate sys-tem. There is an evolution towards more com-plex models with active chemistry and biology.Climate models are applied, as a research tool, tostudy and simulate the climate, but also for oper-ational purposes, including monthly, seasonal,and interannual climate predictions.

Climate projectionA projection of the response of the climate sys-tem to emission or concentration scenarios ofgreenhouse gases and aerosols, or radiative forc-ing scenarios, often based upon simulations byclimate models. Climate projections are distin-guished from climate predictions in order toemphasize that climate projections depend upon

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 144

the emission/concentration/radiative forcingscenario used, which are based on assumptions,concerning, for example, future socio-economicand technological developments that may ormay not be realized, and are therefore subject tosubstantial uncertainty.

Climate scenarioA plausible and often simplified representation ofthe future climate, based on an internally consis-tent set of climatological relationships, that hasbeen constructed for explicit use in investigatingthe potential consequences of anthropogenic cli-mate change, often serving as input to impactmodels. Climate projections often serve as the rawmaterial for constructing climate scenarios, butclimate scenarios usually require additional infor-mation such as about the observed current cli-mate. A "climate change scenario" is the differencebetween a climate scenario and the current cli-mate.

Climate systemThe climate system is the highly complex systemconsisting of five major components: the atmos-phere, the hydrosphere, the cryosphere, the landsurface and the biosphere, and the interactionsbetween them. The climate system evolves in timeunder the influence of its own internal dynamicsand because of external forcings such as volcaniceruptions, solar variations, and human-inducedforcings such as the changing composition of theatmosphere and land-use change.

Climate variabilityClimate variability refers to variations in the meanstate and other statistics (such as standard devia-tions, the occurrence of extremes, etc.) of the cli-mate on all temporal and spatial scales beyondthat of individual weather events. Variability maybe due to natural internal processes within the cli-mate system (internal variability), or to variationsin natural or anthropogenic external forcing(external variability). See also climate change.

CommunityThe species (or populations of those species)that occur together in space and time, althoughthis cannot be separated from Ecosystems. Seeecosystems.

Coral bleachingThe paling in color of corals resulting from a lossof symbiotic algae. Bleaching occurs in responseto physiological shock in response to abruptchanges in temperature, salinity, and turbidity.

DeforestationConversion of forest to non-forest.

EcosystemA system of dynamic and interacting livingorganisms (plant, animal, fungal, and micro-organism) together with their physical environ-ment. The boundaries of what could be called anecosystem are somewhat arbitrary, depending onthe focus of interest or study. Thus, the extent ofan ecosystem may range from very small spatialscales to, ultimately, the entire Earth.

Ecosystem servicesEcological processes or functions that have valueto individual humans or societies.

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)El Niño, in its original sense, is a warm watercurrent that periodically flows along the coast ofEcuador and Peru, disrupting the local fishery.This oceanic event is associated with a fluctua-tion of the intertropical surface pressure patternand circulation in the Indian and Pacific Oceans,called the Southern Oscillation. This coupledatmosphere-ocean phenomenon is collectivelyknown as El Niño Southern Oscillation, orENSO. During an El Niño event, the prevailingtrade winds weaken and the equatorial counter-current strengthens, causing warm surfacewaters in the Indonesian area to flow eastward tooverlie the cold waters of the Peru current. Thisevent has great impact on the wind, sea surface


138

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 145


139

temperature, and precipitation patterns in thetropical Pacific. It has climatic effects throughoutthe Pacific region and in many other parts of theworld.

EndemicRestricted to a locality or region. With regard tohuman health, endemic can refer to a disease oragent present or usually prevalent in a popula-tion or geographical area at all times.

ErosionThe process of removal and transport of soil androck by weathering, mass wasting, and the actionof streams, glaciers, waves, winds, and under-ground water.

EvapotranspirationThe combined process of evaporation from theEarth’s surface and transpiration from vegetation

ExtinctionThe complete disappearance of a species.

ForestA minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectareswith tree crown cover (or equivalent stockinglevel) of more than 10-30 per cent with treeswith the potential to reach a minimum height of2-5 m at maturity in situ. A forest may consisteither of closed forest formations where trees ofvarious storeys and undergrowth cover a highproportion of the ground or open forest. Youngnatural stands and all plantations which have yetto reach a crown density of 10-30% or treeheight of 2-5 m are included under forest, as areareas normally forming part of the forest areawhich are temporarily unstocked as a result ofhuman intervention such as harvesting, or natu-ral causes, but which are expected to revert toforest (as defined by the Marrakesh Accords).

Fossil fuelsCarbon-based fuels from fossil carbon deposits,including coal, oil, and natural gas.

FragmentationBreaking an area, landscape or habitat into dis-crete and separate pieces often as a result of land-use change.

GeneA unit of inherited material-a hereditary factor

Global mean surface temperatureThe global mean surface temperature is the area-weighted global average of (i) the sea surfacetemperature over the oceans (i.e., the sub-sur-face bulk temperature in the first few meters ofthe ocean), and (ii) the surface air temperatureover land at 1.5 m above the ground.

Greenhouse gasGreenhouse gases are those gaseous constituentsof the atmosphere, both natural and anthro-pogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at spe-cific wavelengths within the spectrum ofinfrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface,the atmosphere, and clouds. This property caus-es the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O), car-bon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O),methane (CH4), and ozone (O3) are the primarygreenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.Moreover there are a number of entirely human-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, suchas halocarbons and other chlorine- andbromine-containing substances.

HabitatThe particular environment or place where anorganism or species tend to live; a more locallycircumscribed portion of the total environment.

Ice capA dome shaped ice mass covering a highlandarea that is considerably smaller in extent thanan ice sheet.

Ice sheetA mass of land ice that is sufficiently deep tocover most of the underlying bedrock topogra-

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 146


140

phy, so that its shape is mainly determined by itsinternal dynamics (the flow of the ice as itdeforms internally and slides at its base). Thereare only two large ice sheets in the modernworld, on Greenland and Antarctica, theAntarctic ice sheet being divided into East andWest by the Transantarctic Mountains; duringglacial periods there were others.

Indigenous peoplesPeople having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that devel-oped on their territories, consider themselvesdistinct from other sectors of societies now pre-vailing in those territories, or parts of them.They form at present non-dominant sectors ofsociety and are determined to preserve, develop,and transmit to future generations their ances-tral territories, and their ethnic identity, as thebasis of their continued existence as peoples, inaccordance with their own cultural patterns,social institutions and legal systems.

Invasive speciesAn native or (locally) non-native species thatinvades natural habitats.

LandscapeGroups of ecosystems (eg. forests, rivers, lakes,etc) that form a visible entity to humans.

Land useThe total of arrangements, activities, and inputsundertaken in a certain land cover type (a set ofhuman actions). The social and economic pur-poses for which land is managed (e.g., grazing,timber extraction, and conservation).

Land-use changeA change in the use or management of land byhumans, which may lead to a change in landcover. Land cover and land-use change may havean impact on the albedo, evapotranspiration,sources, and sinks of greenhouse gases, or otherproperties of the climate system, and may thus

have an impact on climate, locally or globally.

Local peoplesPeople who practice traditional lifestyles (typi-cally rural) whether or not indigenous to region.

Mean Sea Level (MSL)Mean Sea Level is normally defined as the aver-age relative sea level over a period, such as amonth or a year, long enough to average outtransients such as waves.

Methane (CH4)A hydrocarbon that is a greenhouse gas pro-duced through anaerobic (without oxygen)decomposition of waste in landfills, animaldigestion, decomposition of animal wastes, pro-duction and distribution of natural gas and oil,coal production, and incomplete fossil-fuel com-bustion. Methane is one of the six greenhousegases to be mitigated under the Kyoto Protocol.

MitigationAn anthropogenic intervention to reduce thesources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases.

N2ONitrous oxide

Net Biome Productivity (NBP)Net gain or loss of carbon from a region. NBP isequal to the Net Ecosystem Production minus thecarbon lost due to a disturbance (e.g., a forest fireor a forest harvest) over a certain time period(normally 1 year).

Net Ecosystem Productivity (NEP)Net gain or loss of carbon from an ecosystem. NEPis equal to the Net Primary Production minus thecarbon lost through heterotrophic respiration overa certain time period (normally 1 year).

Net Primary Productivity (NPP)The increase in plant biomass or carbon of a unitof area (terrestrial, aquatic, or marine). NPP is

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 147


141

equal to the Gross Primary Production minuscarbon lost through autotrophic respiration overa certain time period (normally 1 year).

Non-native species A species occurring in an area outside its histor-ically known natural range as a result of acciden-tal dispersal or deliberate introduction byhumans (also referred to as "exotic species" or"alien species" or "introduced species").

North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)The North Atlantic Oscillation consists of oppos-ing variations of barometric pressure near Icelandand near the Azores. On average, a westerly cur-rent, between the Icelandic low pressure area andthe Azores high pressure area, carries cyclones withtheir associated frontal systems towards Europe.However, the pressure difference between Icelandand the Azores fluctuates on time scales of days todecades, and can be reversed at times. It is thedominant mode of winter climate variability inthe North Atlantic region, ranging from centralNorth America to Europe.

PhenologyThe study of natural phenomena that recur peri-odically (e.g., blooming, migrating) and theirrelation to climate and seasonal changes.

PhotosynthesisThe process by which plants take carbon dioxide(CO2) from the air (or bicarbonate in water) tobuild carbohydrates, releasing oxygen (O2) in theprocess. There are several pathways of photosyn-thesis with different responses to atmosphericCO2 concentrations.

PhytoplanktonThe plant forms of plankton (e.g., diatoms).Phytoplankton are the dominant plants in thesea, and are the bast of the entire marine foodweb. These single-celled organisms are the prin-cipal agents for photosynthetic carbon fixationin the ocean.

PopulationA group of individuals of the same species whichoccur in an arbitrarily defined space/time andare much more likely to mate with one anotherthan with individuals from another such group.

Precautionary principleWhen dealing with environmental policy, the pre-cautionary principle states that: "when an activityraises threats of harm to human health or the envi-ronment, precautionary measures should be takeneven if some cause-and-effect relationships are notfully established scientifically".

Primary forestA forest that has never been logged and that hasdeveloped following natural disturbances andunder natural processes, regardless of its age.

RangelandUnimproved grasslands, shrublands, savannahs,and tundra.

ReforestationPlanting of forests on lands that have previouslycontained forests but that have been convertedto some other use.

Regeneration The renewal of a stand of trees through eithernatural means (seeded onsite or adjacent standsor deposited by wind, birds, or animals) or arti-ficial means (by planting seedlings or directseeding).

ReservoirA component of the climate system, other thanthe atmosphere, which has the capacity to store,accumulate, or release a substance of concern(e.g., carbon, a greenhouse gas, or a precursor).Oceans, soils, and forests are examples of reser-voirs of carbon. Pool is an equivalent term (notethat the definition of pool often includes theatmosphere). The absolute quantity of substanceof concerns, held within a reservoir at a specified

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 148


142

time, is called the stock. The term also means anartificial or natural storage place for water, suchas a lake, pond, or aquifer, from which the watermay be withdrawn for such purposes as irriga-tion, water supply, or irrigation.

ResilienceAmount of change a system can undergo with-out changing state.

Scenario (generic)A plausible and often simplified description ofhow the future may develop, based on a coherentand internally consistent set of assumptionsabout key driving forces (e.g., rate of technologychange, prices) and relationships. Scenarios areneither predictions nor forecasts and sometimesmay be based on a "narrative storyline."Scenarios may be derived from projections, butare often based on additional information fromother sources.

Sea-level riseAn increase in the mean level of the ocean. Eustaticsea-level rise is a change in global average sea levelbrought about by an alteration to the volume of theworld ocean. Relative sea-level rise occurs wherethere is a net increase in the level of the ocean rela-tive to local land movements.

SensitivitySensitivity is the degree to which a system isaffected, either adversely or beneficially, by cli-mate-related stimuli. The effect may be direct(e.g., a change in crop yield in response to achange in the mean, range, or variability of tem-perature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by anincrease in the frequency of coastal flooding dueto sea-level rise).

SequestrationThe process of increasing the carbon content ofa carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere.Biological approaches to sequestration includedirect removal of carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere through land-use change, afforesta-tion, reforestation, and practices that enhancesoil carbon in agriculture. Physical approachesinclude separation and disposal of carbon diox-ide from flue gases or from processing fossil fuelsto produce hydrogen- and carbon dioxide -richfractions and long-term storage in undergroundin depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams,and saline aquifers.

SinkAny process, activity or mechanism that removesa greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor of agreenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere.

SourceAny process, activity, or mechanism that releasesa greenhouse gas, an aerosol, or a precursor of agreenhouse gas or aerosol into the atmosphere.

Storm surgeThe temporary increase, at a particular locality,in the height of the sea due to extreme meteoro-logical conditions (low atmospheric pressureand/or strong winds). The storm surge is definedas being the excess above the level expected fromthe tidal variation alone at that time and place.

StreamflowWater within a river channel, usually expressedin m3 sec-1.

TectonicRelated to the movement of the earth’s crust.

ThermoclineA layer in a large body of water, such as a lake,that sharply separates regions differing in tem-perature so that the temperature gradient acrossthe layer is abrupt.

Thermohaline circulationA global ocean circulation that is driven by dif-ferences in the density of the sea water which inturn is controlled by temperature and salinity.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 149


143

Time scaleCharacteristic time for a process to be expressed.Since many processes exibit most of their effectsearly, and then have a long period during whichthey gradually approach full expression, for thepurpose of this report the time scale is numeri-cally defined as the time required for a perturba-tion in a process to show at least half of its finaleffect.

TundraA level, or gently undulating plain characteristicof arctic and subarctic regions dominated bysmall woody and herbaceous plants.

UptakeThe addition of a substance of concern to areservoir. The uptake of carbon-containing sub-stances, in particular carbon dioxide, is oftencalled (carbon) sequestration.

Vector An organism, such as an insect, that transmits apathogen from one host to another.

Vulnerability The degree to which a system is susceptible to, orunable to cope with, adverse effects of climatechange, including climate variability andextremes. Vulnerability is a function of the char-acter, magnitude, and rate of climate variation towhich a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and itsadaptive capacity.

CBD2_10/b14/11/03.qxd 14/11/03 14:57 Page 150

Interlin

kages between

biological diversity and clim

ate change

CB

D Tech

nical Series N

o.10

10INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGEAdvice on the integration of biodiversity considerationsinto the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and

its Kyoto Protocol

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity

Also available

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that ThreatenEcosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 2: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal InstrumentsApplicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 3: Assessment, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity andEcosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperateand Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, the ForestBiological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and trends of, and threats to, mountain biodiversity, marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems: Abstracts of poster presentations at the eightmeeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, Abstracts ofposter presentations on protected areas and technology transfer and cooperation at the ninth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice

53599_Couvert_no10 11/20/03 12:42 PM Page 1