He ends his talk on the suggestion to focus efforts on “green” and “blue” carbon as part of climate change mitigation. Green and blue carbon is the carbon stored in terrestrial and marine ecosystems respectively.

Pavan Sukhdev tells us that he strongly supports the REDD+ mechanisms, whereby emitting countries fund projects in forested countries that avoid deforestation and/or forest degradation. There is a lot of potential there for synergies between carbon sequestration goals and the continued provision of other ecosystem services (and biodiversity).

Concerning blue carbon, it is interesting to note how he explains that we, collectively, have made the ethical choice to lose coral reefs through unmitigated climate change. It was probably an implicit choice, but it is quite revealing that Pavan Sukhdev and TEEB recognize that there are critical thresholds of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss. Those thresholds can be ecological (to avoid extinction or complete loss) or social but they certainly define the boundaries of our future life support system. Good debates to be had there…

The document only makes a passing mention of offsets and PES schemes as mechanisms for involving the private sector in funding biodiversity conservation. As such, it is a bit of a stretch to say that the strategy endorses “species banking” (as did the Ecosystem Marketplace). In fact, it is strange that the key role of offsets in the Habitats directive (article 6.4) did not get mentioned in this context. The strategy does not mention the 2004 environmental liability directive which also includes offsets.

Targets set by the strategy include (1) the full implementation of the Birds (1979) and Habitats (1992) directives (i.e. improving the conservation status of twice the number of habitat types as are currently and 50% more for species), (2) maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services through the development of “green infrastructure” and the restoration of >15% of currently degraded ecosystems (no definition provided), (3) developing a adequate policy response to invasive species and (4) “stepping-up” the EU’s contribution averting global biodiversity loss (whatever that means apart from forking out aid…).

Interesting chapters in the document discuss interactions with existing policies and in particular the Common Agricultural Policy which will have to contribute to the first two targets : improving the conservation status of habitats and species and restoring degraded ecosystems. The forthcoming CAP will have considerable impact on biodiversity and Europe and a lot is certainly at play there. The document states that discussions are in progress for a framework directive aimed at preserving soil resources in the EU. That’s a lot of news to come…

He claims that slowing desertification and land degradation decreases the emission of carbon dioxide stored in the top-soil. A recent article in the Guardian (a UK newspaper) has him saying that people must be paid via global carbon markets for preserving the soil.

people must be paid via global carbon markets for preserving the soil

This claim should come as no surprise given the payments budgeted for reduced rates of deforestation in the tropics. There will certainly be other claimants soon : oceans, grasslands, wetlands…

REDD has also generated concern about its effects on biodiversity, which has led the world bank to set up a wildlife premium for wildlife friendly policies aimed at reducing deforestation.

Unfortunately, this premium only applies to emblematic species such as large mammals that require large forest areas. These species are often protected.

Does the bank’s market-based instrument mean that governments will be rewarded financially for not destroying a protected species’ habitat? Leaves you wondering doesn’t it?

Biological diversity underpins ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services essential for human well-being. Its continued loss, therefore, has major implications for current and future human well-being.

Diversitas reports:

Delegates agreed that IPBES will be established as an independent intergovernmental body, administered by one or more existing UN organisations. IPBES will respond to requests of government and also welcome suggestions from all relevant stakeholders, such as MEAs, scientific organisations, NGOs and the private sector. IPBES will perform regular and timely assessments of knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services. These assessments will be scientifically independent and peer-reviewed. IPBES will also support policy formulation and implementation, and place a major emphasis on capacity building needs to improve the science-policy interface.

The official launch will most likely take place during the 65th session of the UN General Assembly (on 20-30 September 2010).

Hopefully, a clear governance structure will be established for the IPBES and the interface between biodiversity science and policy will be strengthened.

In summary, most glaciers are shrinking and although some may survive and others disappear (particularly in tropical and subtropical regions) the key message is that people who depend on rivers fed by glaciers and snow must already learn to adapt to changes in seasonal water flows.

The IPCC has replied to its critiques. You can read their statement here (pdf)