According to Worldwatch:
Sea level rise could be even higher than predicted this century.
“The average sea level around the world has risen a total of 222 millimeters (mm) since 1875, which means an annual rate of 1.7 mm (See Figure 1.) Yet at the end of this long period, from 1993 to 2009, the sea level rose 3.0 mm per year—a much faster rate.
An estimated 30 percent of the sea level increase since 1993 is a result of warmer ocean temperatures that cause the water to expand (thermal expansion).
Another 55 percent of the increase results from the melting of land-based ice, mainly from glaciers and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. (Sea ice that melts does not contribute to sea level rise, as the volume remains constant.)
The other 15 percent of the rise is due to changes in terrestrial freshwater dynamics, such as wetland drainage and lowered water tables.”
Image credit: Flickr/climatesafety
I found this great resource while I was web-surfing the other day. It is the official site for CleanMed 2010, a sustainable healthcare conference held in Baltimore MD during May 2010.
Sustainable healthcare conference - CleanMed 2010
The interesting thing is that many of the posters and speaker-presentations are available online. Just click these links:
Home Page
Presentations
Posters
There is some very useful information there – check it out for yourself. Some of the titles include:
Climate and Health Literacy – A MUST see! DIRECT LINK
Waste Management in the Operating Room: Exploring & Improving the Environmental, Human Health & Economic Impacts
Envisioning the High-Performance Hospital: Implications for a New Low Energy, High-Performance Prototype
Healthcare Water Effluent & Potential Strategies
Building Green During Economic Turmoil
Pesticide and Pediatrics – How Hospitals Can Grow Healthy Food and Healthy Children
High Performance Hospitals in a Carbon Constrained World
Designing a New Emergency Department Around Daylight and Nature
How Nature Helps to Restore Body, Mind and Spirit
Posted in healthcare | Tags: conference proceedings, green healthcare, healthy hospitals, sustainable healthcare | No Comments »
Cancer treatment centers built without materials linked to cancer. Pediatric clinics free of chemicals that trigger asthma. Health care facilities with fresh air and sunlight that reduce their carbon footprint. Hospitals that serve healthy food.
Sustainable healthcare can be a reality
Posted in Hospitals, Sustainability | Tags: carbon-neutral, green-guide-for-healthcare, healthcare, Hospitals, sustainability | No Comments »
New research suggests that climate change will worsen the urban heat island effect as this century progresses, as a combination of accelerated urban growth and global warming pushes city temperatures much higher than surrounding rural areas, especially at night. Based on a new model developed by the UK’s Hadley Centre, some of the findings included:
>The effect is most extreme in dry, subtropical regions, where the differences between night-time and daytime temperatures are greatest.
>Regions of high population growth will coincide with regions of high urban heat island potential, most notably in the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, and East Africa.
>Warming and extreme heat events due to urbanisation and increased energy consumption are simulated to be as large as the impact of doubled CO2 in some regions.
>Climate change increases the disparity in extreme hot nights between rural and urban areas (up to 5.6C in some areas).
“If you’ve been exposed to hot temperatures during the day and you expect relief over night, that becomes increasingly difficult as temperatures at night get warmer,” says Betts. “We have to prepare to live in a warmer world.” (quoted here)
Health Effects
UHIs have the potential to directly influence the health and welfare of urban residents. Within the United States alone, an average of 1,000 people die each year due to extreme heat. As UHIs are characterized by increased temperature, they can potentially increase the magnitude and duration of heat waves within cities. Research has found that the mortality rate during a heat wave increases exponentially with the maximum temperature, an effect that is exacerbated by the UHI. The nighttime effect of UHIs can be particularly harmful during a heat wave, as it deprives urban residents of the cool relief found in rural areas during the night.
Research in the United States suggests that the relationship between extreme temperature and mortality varies by location. Heat is more likely to increase the risk of mortality in cities at mid-latitudes and high latitudes with significant annual temperature variation. For example, when Chicago and New York experience unusually hot summertime temperatures, elevated levels of illness and death are predicted. In contrast, parts of the country that are mild to hot year-round have a lower public health risk from excessive heat. Research shows that residents of southern cities, such as Miami, tend to be acclimated to hot weather conditions and therefore less vulnerable to heat related deaths.
Increased temperatures and sunny days help lead to the formation of low-level ozone from volatile organic compounds and nitrous oxides which already exist in the air. As urban heat islands lead to increased temperatures within cities, they contribute to worsened air quality. UHIs also impair water quality. Hot pavement and rooftop surfaces transfer their excess heat to stormwater, which then drains into storm sewers and raises water temperatures as it is released into streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes. Rapid temperature changes can be stressful to aquatic ecosystems.
About the heat island effect
An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area which is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas. The phenomenon was first investigated and described by Luke Howard in the 1810s, although he was not the one to name the phenomenon. The temperature difference usually is larger at night than during the day, and is most apparent when winds are weak.
Seasonally, UHI is seen during both summer and winter. The main cause of the urban heat island is modification of the land surface by urban development which uses materials which effectively retain heat. Waste heat generated by energy usage is a secondary contributor.
As population centers grow they tend to modify a greater and greater area of land and have a corresponding increase in average temperature. The lesser-used term heat island refers to any area, populated or not, which is consistently hotter than the surrounding area.
Increases in the death rate during heat waves has been shown to increase by latitude due to the urban heat island effect.
Monthly rainfall is greater downwind of cities, partially due to the UHI. Increases in heat within urban centers increases the length of growing seasons, and decreases the occurrence of weak tornadoes. The UHI decreases air quality by increasing the production of pollutants such as ozone, and decreases water quality as warmer waters flow into area streams, which stresses their ecosystems (source: wikipedia)
I’ve just about finished reading a great new book on climate change by Australian thinker and university professor Clive Hamilton. The book, Requiem For A Species, is an interesting but disconcerting read.
| Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change |
 |
Overall Rating: |
| Retail Price: $24.95 |
| Amazon Price: $16.47 |
The starting point is an admission that (as many climate change activists know) our goose is well and truly cooked. Hamilton reviews the now conclusive science that we will experience up to four degrees of warming this century – on our way there we will cross several major tipping points (such as an ice-free Arctic, and loss of much of the Amazon Basin through drought and fire) that will produce positive feedback and accelerate global warming.
The main focus of the book is why our civilisation can’t accept the scientific evidence that major warming-induced changes have already occurred, and that such changes are at or above the worst case IPCC scenario from the 2007 report. He blames our consumerist society for much of the problem, and goes to some length to explain why green is the new red (from the conservative’s point of view).
He discusses what a +4 degree world could be like, and ends with some ideas about what we can still do to mitigate the most extreme manifestations of climate instability.
Posted in Australia, Books, Climate Change, Climate Change Denial, ethics | Tags: Books, hamilton | No Comments »
WASHINGTON May 19 2010 — As part of its most comprehensive study of climate change to date, the National Research Council today issued three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices.
National Academies of Science released 3 important reports on May 19 2010 that sound more alarms about the urgency of taking concerted action on climate change.
“These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.”
‘Poses Significant Risks’
The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
…multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems,” the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on “fundamental, use-inspired” research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change. Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to support this more comprehensive and integrative scientific enterprise.
Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems
The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established in 1990, could fulfill this role, but it would need to form partnerships with action-oriented programs and address weaknesses that in the past have led to research gaps, particularly in the critical area of research that supports decisions about responding to climate change. Leaders of federal climate research should also redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive climate observing system.
Our world is heating up much faster than predicted - can we act fast enough to make a difference?
Beyond ‘Business as Usual’
Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt and sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral changes, says Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, another of the new reports. Although limiting emissions must be a global effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will help encourage other countries to do the same. In addition, the U.S. could establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the technologies necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.
…the longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.
An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all levels of government, the private sector, and millions of households and individuals are contributing to shared national goals. Toward that end, the U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions “budget” that sets a limit on total domestic emissions over a set period of time and provides a clear, directly measurable goal. However, the report warns, the longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.
The report does not recommend a specific target for a domestic emissions budget, but suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of Congress. Even at the higher end of this range, meeting the target will require a major departure from “business-as-usual” emission trends. The report notes that with the exception of the recent economic downtown, domestic emissions have been rising for most of the past three decades. The U.S. emitted approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most current year for which such data were available). If emissions continue at that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before 2050, the report says.
A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives. While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.
Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic emissions, the report warns. Strategically chosen, complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.
Many species are already in trouble from a changing climate, especially in the Arctic.
Managing the Risks
Reducing vulnerabilities to impacts of climate change that the nation cannot, or does not, avoid is a highly desirable strategy to manage and minimize the risks, says the third report, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country. The report notes that policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate conditions and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of impacts is not a reason to wait to act. In fact, it says boosting U.S. adaptive capacity now can be viewed as “an insurance policy against an uncertain future,” while inaction could increase risks, especially if the rate of climate change is particularly large.
Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country.
Although much of the response to climate change will occur at local and regional levels, a national adaptation strategy is needed to facilitate cooperation and collaboration across all lines of government and between government and other key parties, including the private sector, community organizations, and nongovernmental organizations. As part of this strategy, the federal government should provide technical and scientific resources that are lacking at the local or regional scale, incentives for local and state authorities to begin adaptation planning, guidance across jurisdictions, and support of scientific research to expand knowledge of impacts and adaptation.
Adapting to climate change will be an ongoing, iterative process, the report says, and will involve decision makers at every scale of government and all parts of society. A first step is to identify vulnerabilities to climate change impacts and begin to examine adaptation options that will improve resilience. To build the scientific knowledge base and provide a basis for increasingly effective action in the future, adaptation efforts should be monitored and analyzed to judge successes, problems, and unintended consequences. The report also calls for research to develop new adaptation options and a better understanding of vulnerabilities and impacts on smaller spatial scales.
Adaptation to climate change should not be seen as an alternative to attempts to limit it.
Adaptation to climate change should not be seen as an alternative to attempts to limit it, the report emphasizes. Rather, the two approaches should be seen as partners, given that society’s ability to cope with the impacts of climate change decreases as the severity of climate change increases. At moderate rates and levels of climate change, adaptation can be effective, but at severe rates, adapting to disturbances caused by climate change may not be possible, the report says.
Flexible and Adjustable
The new reports stress that national climate change research, efforts to limit emissions, and adaptation strategies should be designed to be flexible and responsive to new information and conditions in the coming decades. Because knowledge about future climate change and possible impacts will evolve, policies and programs should continually monitor and adjust to progress and consequences of actions.America’s Climate Choices also includes two additional reports that will be released later this year: Informing an Effective Response to Climate Change will examine how to best provide decision makers information on climate change, and an overarching report will build on each of the previous reports and other work to offer a scientific framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation’s efforts to confront climate change.
(Reprinted from National Academies of Sciences press release).
I'm a believer... Andrew Stott, on his family farm in Whitton, says climate change will drive some farmers off their land and producers need to prepare for the challenge that it poses.
AUSTRALIAN farmers are sceptical about climate change and many do not believe it will affect agriculture during their lifetimes, according to a new report.
Ironically though, they are already starting to see the changes on their farms, with the intensity and duration of Australia’s last big drought linked to global warming.
The research was conducted by Australia’s CSIRO late last year using a workshopping / focus group format with farmers.
According to one newspaper’s coverage, CSIRO research team leader Steven Crimp said the need for improved climate change knowledge was paramount – “There is a lot of information about climate change and climate projections but there isn’t a lot of information on how to make changes within farm management,” he said.
The official website has a link to the report, and more importantly around 20 downloadable presentations from the workshop covering a range of aspects of this issue.
Another piece of the biodiversity puzzle: lead author of last week’s global biodiversity report talks about tipping points, climate change (around 14.00 minutes in) and some positive reasons to not lose all hope that as a civilisation we can actually do something about this (although my opinion is: don’t hold your breath!).
About the speaker
Thomas E. Lovejoy was the World Bank’s Chief Biodiversity Advisor and Lead Specialist for Environment for Latin America and the Caribbean and Senior Advisor to the President of the United Nations Foundation. Dr. Lovejoy has been Assistant Secretary and Counselor to the Secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior, and Executive Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund–U.S. He originated the concept of debt-for-nature swaps, and is the founder of the public television series Nature. In 2001 he was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement. Dr. Lovejoy served on science and environmental councils or committees under the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. He received his B. S. and Ph.D. (biology) degrees from Yale University.
This is the video that accompanied Monday’s biodiversity report. It is well produced and very informative. It is incredibly important to raise people’s awareness about this issue – we don’t have much time!
Please ask your friends and colleagues to watch this video, visit the biodiversity report website, or read my previous blog post about the biodiversity report. Please retweet / bookmark this page so that others can find it – the Earth needs your help.
Montreal, Canada. 10 May 2010. Natural systems that support economies, lives and livelihoods across the planet are at risk of rapid degradation and collapse, unless there is swift, radical and creative action to conserve and sustainably use the variety of life on Earth.
That is a principal conclusion of a major new assessment of the current state of biodiversity and the implications of its continued loss for human well-being.
The third edition of Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3), produced by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) confirms that the world failed to meet its target to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.
Amphibians are one of the groups most at risk of extinction from climate change and other stressors.
The report is based on scientific assessments, national reports submitted by governments and a study on future scenarios for biodiversity. Subject to an extensive independent scientific review process, publication of GBO-3 is one of the principal milestones of the UN’s International Year of Biodiversity
The Outlook will be a key input into discussions by world leaders and heads of state at a special high level segment of the United Nations General Assembly on 22 September. Its conclusions will also be central to the negotiations by world governments at the Nagoya Biodiversity Summit in October.
The Outlook warns that massive further loss of biodiversity is becoming increasingly likely, and with it, a severe reduction of many essential services to human societies as several “tipping points” are approached, in which ecosystems shift to alternative, less productive states from which it may be difficult or impossible to recover.
Potential tipping points analyzed for GBO-3 include:
*The dieback of large areas of the Amazon forest, due to the interactions of climate change, deforestation and fires, with consequences for the global climate, regional rainfall and widespread species extinctions.
Much of the Amazon is expected to disappear during this century
*The shift of many freshwater lakes and other inland water bodies to eutrophic or algae-dominated states, caused by the buildup of nutrients and leading to widespread fish kills and loss of recreational amenities.
*Multiple collapses of coral reef ecosystems, due to a combination of ocean acidification, warmer water leading to bleaching, overfishing and nutrient pollution; and threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of millions directly dependent on coral reef resources.
The Outlook argues, however, that such outcomes are avoidable if effective and coordinated action is taken to reduce the multiple pressures being imposed on biodiversity. For example, urgent action is needed to reduce land-based pollution and destructive fishing practices that weaken coral reefs, making them more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.
The document notes that the linked challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change must be addressed by policymakers with equal priority and in close co-ordination, if the most severe impacts of each are to be avoided. Conserving biodiversity and the ecosystems it underpins can help to store more carbon, reducing further build-up of greenhouse gases; and people will be better able to adapt to unavoidable climate change if ecosystems are made more resilient with the easing of other pressures.
The Outlook outlines a possible new strategy for reducing biodiversity loss, learning the lessons from the failure to meet the 2010 target. It includes addressing the underlying causes or indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such as patterns of consumption, the impacts of increased trade and demographic change. Ending harmful subsidies would also be an important step.
GBO-3 concludes that we can no longer see the continued loss of biodiversity as an issue separate from the core concerns of society. Realizing objectives such as tackling poverty and improving the health, wealth and security of present and future generations will be greatly strengthened if we finally give biodiversity the priority it deserves.
The Outlook points out that for a fraction of the money summoned up instantly by the world’s governments in 2008-9 to avoid economic meltdown, we can avoid a much more serious and fundamental breakdown in the Earth’s life support systems
In his foreword to GBO-3, the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon writes: “To tackle the root causes of biodiversity loss, we must give it higher priority in all areas of decision making and in all economic sectors.
“As this third Global Biodiversity Outlook makes clear, conserving biodiversity cannot be an afterthought once other objectives are addressed – it is the foundation on which many of these objectives are built.
“We need a new vision for biological diversity for a healthy planet and a sustainable future for humankind.”
UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, adds that there have been key economic reasons why the 2010 biodiversity was not met.
“Many economies remain blind to the huge value of the diversity of animals, plants and other life-forms and their role in healthy and functioning ecosystems from forests and freshwaters to soils, oceans and even the atmosphere,” observes Dr. Steiner.
Healthy, functioning ecosystems have been undervalued by modern economics
“Many countries are beginning to factor natural capital into some areas of economic and social life with important returns, but this needs rapid and sustained scaling-up.
Humanity has fabricated the illusion that somehow we can get by without biodiversity or that it is somehow peripheral to our contemporary world: the truth is we need it more than ever on a planet of six billion heading to over nine billion people by 2050.
The Executive-Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ahmed Djoghlaf, says “The news is not good. We continue to lose biodiversity at a rate never before seen in history — extinction rates may be up to 1,000 times higher than the historical background rate.
“The assessment of the state of the world’s biodiversity in 2010, as contained in GBO-3 based on the latest indicators, over 110 national reports submitted to the Convention Secretariat, and scenarios for the 21st Century should serve as a wake-up call for humanity. Business as usual is no longer an option if we are to avoid irreversible damage to the life-support systems of our planet.
“The Convention’s new Strategic Plan, to be adopted at the 2010 Nagoya Biodiversity Summit must tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. The linked challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change must be addressed with equal priority and close cooperation. Joint action is needed to implement the Conventions on Biodiversity, Climate Change and to Combat Desertification — the three conventions born of the 1992 Rio Conference. The Rio+20 Summit offers an opportunity to adopt a work plan to achieve this.”
KEY FINDINGS
Biodiversity in 2010
Multiple lines of evidence show that the target set by world governments in 2002 (to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level) has not been met. Key findings of the report include:
*None of the twenty-one subsidiary targets accompanying the overall 2010 biodiversity target can be said definitively to have been achieved globally, although some have been partially or locally achieved. Ten of fifteen headline indicators developed by the CBD show trends unfavorable for biodiversity.
*No government claims to have completely met the 2010 biodiversity target at the national level, and around one-fifth state explicitly that it has not been met.
*Species that have been assessed for extinction risk are on average moving closer to extinction, with amphibians facing the greatest risk and coral species deteriorating most rapidly in status.
*The abundance of vertebrate species, based on assessed populations, fell by nearly one-third on average between 1970 and 2006, and continues to fall globally, with especially severe declines in the tropics and among freshwater species.
Natural habitats in most parts of the world continue to decline in extent and integrity, notably freshwater wetlands, sea ice habitats, salt marshes, coral reefs, seagrass beds and shellfish reefs; although there has been significant progress in slowing the rate of loss of tropical forests and mangroves, in some regions.
*Crop and livestock genetic diversity continues to decline in agricultural systems. For example, more than sixty breeds of livestock are reported to have become extinct since 2000.
More than sixty breeds of livestock are reported to have become extinct since 2000
*The five principal pressures directly driving biodiversity loss (habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change) are either constant or increasing in intensity.
*There has been significant progress in the increase of protected areas both on land and in coastal waters. However, 44% of terrestrial eco-regions (areas with a large proportion of shared species and habitat types), and 82% of marine ecoregions, fall below the target of 10% protection.
The majority of sites judged to be of special importance to biodiversity also fall outside protected areas.
Biodiversity Futures for the 21st Century
Scientists from a wide range of disciplines came together as part of the preparation of GBO-3 to identify possible future outcomes for biodiversity during the current century, based on observed trends, models and experiments. Their principal conclusions include:
*Projections of the impact of global change on biodiversity show continuing and often accelerating species extinctions, loss of natural habitat, and changes in the distribution and abundance of species, species groups and biomes over the 21st century.
*There is a high risk of dramatic biodiversity loss and accompanying degradation of a broad range of ecosystem services if the Earth system is pushed beyond certain thresholds or tipping points.
Earlier assessments have underestimated the potential severity of biodiversity loss based on plausible scenarios, because the impacts of passing tipping points or thresholds of ecosystem change have not previously been taken into account.
*There are greater opportunities than identified in earlier assessments to address the biodiversity crisis while contributing to other social objectives; for example, by reducing the scale of climate change without large-scale deployment of biofuels and accompanying loss of natural habitats.
*Biodiversity and ecosystem changes could be prevented, significantly reduced or even reversed if strong action is applied urgently, comprehensively and appropriately, at international, national and local levels.
Towards a strategy for reducing biodiversity loss
GBO-3 sets out a number of elements that could be considered in a future strategy to reduce biodiversity loss, and avoid the worst impacts of the scenarios analyzed in the Outlook. It is likely to form the basis of discussion of the strategic plan currently being considered for the next decade of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and due to be agreed at the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the CBD in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010. The elements include:
*Continued and intensified direct intervention to reduce loss of biodiversity, for example through expanding and strengthening protected areas, and programmes targeted at vulnerable species and habitats.
*Continued and intensified measures to reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity, such as preventing nutrient pollution, cutting off the pathways for introduction alien invasive species, and introducing more sustainable practices in fisheries, forestry and agriculture.
*Much greater efficiency in the use of land, energy, fresh water and materials to meet growing demand from a rising and more prosperous population.
*Use of market incentives, and avoidance of perverse subsidies, to minimize unsustainable resource use and wasteful consumption.
*Strategic planning to reconcile development with the conservation of biodiversity and the maintenance of the multiple services provided by the ecosystems it underpins.
*Restoration of ecosystems to safeguard essential services to human societies, while recognizing that protecting existing ecosystems is generally much more cost-effective than allowing them to degrade in the first place.
*Ensuring that the benefits arising from use of and access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, for example through the development of drugs and cosmetics, are equitably shared with the countries and cultures from which they are obtained.
*Communication, education and awareness-raising to ensure that as far as possible, everyone understands the value of biodiversity and what steps they can take to protect it, including through changes in personal consumption and behavior.
Image credits:
