Institute of Strategic and International Studies, Malaysia

Selected columns, New Straits Times national newspaper, Kuala Lumpur

“I hope that this volume, containing opinions from 2020 to the present, will provide some insights into the challenges of sustainable development, the hot-button issues facing the global community and how each of us could reflect on the steps that we could take in helping solve the problems…”

“Drafts of my columns were greatly enhanced by the ‘Midas Touch’ of a dear and long-time friend from Toronto, Canada, Terry Collins – a science writer and media consultant who has extensive experience supporting the United Nations, universities, and public institutions worldwide.”

Zakri Abdul Hamid
Founding Chair, Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2013-2016)

UN Secretary-General Scientific Advisory Board

Tun Hussein Onn Chair in International Studies, Institute of Strategic & International Studies, Malaysia

Full book here

Current global response insufficient; ‘transformative changes’ needed to restore and protect nature; opposition from vested interests can be overcome for public good; most comprehensive assessment of its kind; 1 million species threatened with extinction

Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history — and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely, warns a landmark new report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the summary of which was approved at the 7th session of the IPBES Plenary, meeting last week (29 April – 4 May) in Paris.

“The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

“The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global,” he said. “Through ‘transformative change’, nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably – this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.”

“The member States of IPBES Plenary have now acknowledged that, by its very nature, transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo, but also that such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good,” Watson said.

The IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is the most comprehensive ever completed. It is the first intergovernmental Report of its kind and builds on the landmark Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005, introducing innovative ways of evaluating evidence.

Compiled by 145 expert authors from 50 countries over the past three years, with inputs from another 310 contributing authors, the Report assesses changes over the past five decades, providing a comprehensive picture of the relationship between economic development pathways and their impacts on nature. It also offers a range of possible scenarios for the coming decades.

Based on the systematic review of about 15,000 scientific and government sources, the Report also draws (for the first time ever at this scale) on indigenous and local knowledge, particularly addressing issues relevant to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

“Biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are our common heritage and humanity’s most important life-supporting ‘safety net’. But our safety net is stretched almost to breaking point,” said Prof. Sandra Díaz (Argentina), who co-chaired the Assessment with Prof. Josef Settele (Germany) and Prof. Eduardo S. Brondízio (Brazil and USA).

“The diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems, as well as many fundamental contributions we derive from nature, are declining fast, although we still have the means to ensure a sustainable future for people and the planet.”

The Report finds that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.

The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reef-forming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.

“Ecosystems, species, wild populations, local varieties and breeds of domesticated plants and animals are shrinking, deteriorating or vanishing. The essential, interconnected web of life on Earth is getting smaller and increasingly frayed,” said Prof. Settele. “This loss is a direct result of human activity and constitutes a direct threat to human well-being in all regions of the world.”

To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.

The Report notes that, since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius – with climate change already impacting nature from the level of ecosystems to that of genetics – impacts expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases surpassing the impact of land and sea use change and other drivers.

Despite progress to conserve nature and implement policies, the Report also finds that global goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors. With good progress on components of only four of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, it is likely that most will be missed by the 2020 deadline. Current negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine progress towards 80% (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets of the Sustainable Development Goals, related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 15). Loss of biodiversity is therefore shown to be not only an environmental issue, but also a developmental, economic, security, social and moral issue as well.

“To better understand and, more importantly, to address the main causes of damage to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, we need to understand the history and global interconnection of complex demographic and economic indirect drivers of change, as well as the social values that underpin them,” said Prof. Brondízio. “Key indirect drivers include increased population and per capita consumption; technological innovation, which in some cases has lowered and in other cases increased the damage to nature; and, critically, issues of governance and accountability. A pattern that emerges is one of global interconnectivity and ‘telecoupling’ – with resource extraction and production often occurring in one part of the world to satisfy the needs of distant consumers in other regions.”

Other notable findings of the Report include:

• Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
• More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production.
• The value of agricultural crop production has increased by about 300% since 1970, raw timber harvest has risen by 45% and approximately 60 billion tons of renewable and non-renewable resources are now extracted globally every year – having nearly doubled since 1980.
• Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23% of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection.
• In 2015, 33% of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% were maximally sustainably fished, with just 7% harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished.
• Urban areas have more than doubled since 1992.
• Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped annually into the world’s waters, and fertilizers entering coastal ecosystems have produced more than 400 ocean ‘dead zones’, totalling more than 245,000 km2 (591-595) – a combined area greater than that of the United Kingdom.
• Negative trends in nature will continue to 2050 and beyond in all of the policy scenarios explored in the Report, except those that include transformative change – due to the projected impacts of increasing land-use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change, although with significant differences between regions.

The Report also presents a wide range of illustrative actions for sustainability and pathways for achieving them across and between sectors such as agriculture, forestry, marine systems, freshwater systems, urban areas, energy, finance and many others. It highlights the importance of, among others, adopting integrated management and cross-sectoral approaches that take into account the trade-offs of food and energy production, infrastructure, freshwater and coastal management, and biodiversity conservation.

Also identified as a key element of more sustainable future policies is the evolution of global financial and economic systems to build a global sustainable economy, steering away from the current limited paradigm of economic growth.

“IPBES presents the authoritative science, knowledge and the policy options to decision-makers for their consideration,” said IPBES Executive Secretary, Dr. Anne Larigauderie. “We thank the hundreds of experts, from around the world, who have volunteered their time and knowledge to help address the loss of species, ecosystems and genetic diversity – a truly global and generational threat to human well-being.”

###

IPBES has now released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Global Assessment report. The SPM presents the key messages and policy options, as approved by the IPBES Plenary. To access the SPM, photos, ‘B-roll’ and other media resources go to: bit.ly/IPBESReport The full six-chapter Report (including all data) is expected exceed 1,500 pages and will be published later this year.

Additional Resources:

For ease of reference, a number of issues highlighted in the Report are summarized in the ‘Further Information’ section that follows below, specifically on:

• Scale of loss of nature
• Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and nature
• Global targets and policy scenarios
• Policy tools, options and best practices
• By the numbers: key statistics and facts

IPBES Partner Comments about the importance of the Report:

• Joyce Msuya, Acting Head, UN Environment
• Audrey Azoulay, Director-General, UNESCO
• José Graziano da Silva, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
• Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme
• Cristiana Pa?ca Palmer, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity

About IPBES:

Often described as the “IPCC for biodiversity”, IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 130 member Governments. Established by Governments in 2012, it provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people, as well as the tools and methods to protect and sustainably use these vital natural assets. For more information about IPBES and its assessments visit http://www.ipbes.net

Video introduction to IPBES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOiGio7YU-M

Additional videos:

IPBES Assessment of Land Degradation and Restoration (2018): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCt7aai17Nk IPBES Regional Assessments of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2018): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR0HeepbWCc IPBES Assessment of Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production (2016): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwkYbeiwK5AIPBES Assessment of Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity (2016): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfcDmtGa9I

Follow IPBES on Social Media:
twitter.com/@ipbes 
linkedin.com/company/ipbes
youtube.com/ipbeschannel
facebook.com/ipbes 
instagram.com/ipbes_

Further Information on Key Issues from the Report

Scale of Loss of Nature

Gains from societal and policy responses, while important, have not stopped massive losses.

Since 1970, trends in agricultural production, fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of materials have increased, in response to population growth, rising demand and technological development, this has come at a steep price, which has been unequally distributed within and across countries. Many other key indicators of nature’s contributions to people however, such as soil organic carbon and pollinator diversity, have declined, indicating that gains in material contributions are often not sustainable .

The pace of agricultural expansion into intact ecosystems has varied from country to country. Losses of intact ecosystems have occurred primarily in the tropics, home to the highest levels of biodiversity on the planet. For example, 100 million hectares of tropical forest were lost from 1980 to 2000, resulting mainly from cattle ranching in Latin America (about 42 million hectares) and plantations in South-East Asia (about 7.5 million hectares, of which 80% is for palm oil, used mostly in food, cosmetics, cleaning products and fuel) among others.

Since 1970 the global human population has more than doubled (from 3.7 to 7.6 billion), rising unevenly across countries and regions; and per capita gross domestic product is four times higher – with ever-more distant consumers shifting the environmental burden of consumption and production across regions.

The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900.

The numbers of invasive alien species per country have risen by about 70% since 1970, across the 21 countries with detailed records.

The distributions of almost half (47%) of land-based flightless mammals, for example, and almost a quarter of threatened birds, may already have been negatively affected by climate change.

Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities and Nature

At least a quarter of the global land area is traditionally owned, managed, used or occupied by Indigenous Peoples. These areas include approximately 35% of the area that is formally protected, and approximately 35% of all remaining terrestrial areas with very low human intervention.

Nature managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities is under increasing pressure but is generally declining less rapidly than in other lands – although 72% of local indicators developed and used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities show the deterioration of nature that underpins local livelihoods.

The areas of the world projected to experience significant negative effects from global changes in climate, biodiversity, ecosystem functions and nature’s contributions to people are also areas in which large concentrations of Indigenous Peoples and many of the world’s poorest communities reside.

Regional and global scenarios currently lack and would benefit from an explicit consideration of the views, perspectives and rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, their knowledge and understanding of large regions and ecosystems, and their desired future development pathways. Recognition of the knowledge, innovations and practices, institutions and values of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and their inclusion and participation in environmental governance often enhances their quality of life, as well as nature conservation, restoration and sustainable use. Their positive contributions to sustainability can be facilitated through national recognition of land tenure, access and resource rights in accordance with national legislation, the application of free, prior and informed consent, and improved collaboration, fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use, and co-management arrangements with local communities.

Global Targets and Policy Scenarios

Past and ongoing rapid declines in biodiversity, ecosystem functions and many of nature’s contributions to people mean that most international societal and environmental goals, such as those embodied in the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will not be achieved based on current trajectories.

The authors of the Report examined six policy scenarios – very different ‘baskets’ of clustered policy options and approaches, including ‘Regional Competition’, ‘Business as Usual’ and ‘Global Sustainability’ – projecting the likely impacts on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people of these pathways by 2050. They concluded that, except in scenarios that include transformative change, the negative trends in nature, ecosystem functions and in many of nature’s contributions to people will continue to 2050 and beyond due to the projected impacts of increasing land and sea use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change.

Policy Tools, Options and Exemplary Practices

Policy actions and societal initiatives are helping to raise awareness about the impact of consumption on nature, protecting local environments, promoting sustainable local economies and restoring degraded areas. Together with initiatives at various levels these have contributed to expanding and strengthening the current network of ecologically representative and well-connected protected area networks and other effective area-based conservation measures, the protection of watersheds and incentives and sanctions to reduce pollution.

The Report presents an illustrative list of possible actions and pathways for achieving them across locations, systems and scales, which will be most likely to support sustainability. Taking an integrated approach:

In agriculture, the Report emphasizes, among others: promoting good agricultural and agroecological practices; multifunctional landscape planning (which simultaneously provides food security, livelihood opportunities, maintenance of species and ecological functions) and cross-sectoral integrated management. It also points to the importance of deeper engagement of all actors throughout the food system (including producers, the public sector, civil society and consumers) and more integrated landscape and watershed management; conservation of the diversity of genes, varieties, cultivars, breeds, landraces and species; as well as approaches that empower consumers and producers through market transparency, improved distribution and localization (that revitalizes local economies), reformed supply chains and reduced food waste.

In marine systems, the Report highlights, among others: ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management; spatial planning; effective quotas; marine protected areas; protecting and managing key marine biodiversity areas; reducing run- off pollution into oceans and working closely with producers and consumers.

In freshwater systems, policy options and actions include, among others: more inclusive water governance for collaborative water management and greater equity; better integration of water resource management and landscape planning across scales; promoting practices to reduce soil erosion, sedimentation and pollution run-off; increasing water storage; promoting investment in water projects with clear sustainability criteria; as well as addressing the fragmentation of many freshwater policies.

In urban areas, the Report highlights, among others: promotion of nature-based solutions; increasing access to urban services and a healthy urban environment for low-income communities; improving access to green spaces; sustainable production and consumption and ecological connectivity within urban spaces, particularly with native species.

Across all examples, the Report recognises the importance of including different value systems and diverse interests and worldviews in formulating policies and actions. This includes the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in governance, the reform and development of incentive structures and ensuring that biodiversity considerations are prioritised across all key sector planning.

“We have already seen the first stirrings of actions and initiatives for transformative change, such as innovative policies by many countries, local authorities and businesses, but especially by young people worldwide,” said Sir Robert Watson. “From the young global shapers behind the #VoiceforthePlanet movement, to school strikes for climate, there is a groundswell of understanding that urgent action is needed if we are to secure anything approaching a sustainable future. The IPBES Global Assessment Report offers the best available expert evidence to help inform these decisions, policies and actions – and provides the scientific basis for the biodiversity framework and new decadal targets for biodiversity, to be decided in late 2020 in China, under the auspices of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.”

By the Numbers – Key Statistics and Facts from the Report

General

• 75%: terrestrial environment “severely altered” to date by human actions (marine environments 66%)
• 47%: reduction in global indicators of ecosystem extent and condition against their estimated natural baselines, with many continuing to decline by at least 4% per decade
• 28%: global land area held and/or managed by Indigenous Peoples , including * >40% of formally protected areas and 37% of all remaining terrestrial areas with very low human intervention
• +/-60 billion: tons of renewable and non-renewable resources extracted globally each year, up nearly 100% since 1980
• 15%: increase in global per capita consumption of materials since 1980 >85%: of wetlands present in 1700 had been lost by 2000 – loss of wetlands is currently three times faster, in percentage terms, than forest loss.

Species, Populations and Varieties of Plants and Animals

• 8 million: total estimated number of animal and plant species on Earth (including 5.5 million insect species)
• Tens to hundreds of times: the extent to which the current rate of global species extinction is higher compared to average over the last 10 million years, and the rate is accelerating
• Up to 1 million: species threatened with extinction, many within decades
• >500,000 (+/-9%): share of the world’s estimated 5.9 million terrestrial species with insufficient habitat for long term survival without habitat restoration
• >40%: amphibian species threatened with extinction
• Almost 33%: reef forming corals, sharks and shark relatives, and >33% marine mammals threatened with extinction
• 25%: average proportion of species threatened with extinction across terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate, invertebrate and plant groups that have been studied in sufficient detail
• At least 680: vertebrate species driven to extinction by human actions since the 16th century
• +/-10%: tentative estimate of proportion of insect species threatened with extinction
• >20%: decline in average abundance of native species in most major terrestrial biomes, mostly since 1900?+/-560 (+/-10%): domesticated breeds of mammals were extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more threatened
• 3.5%: domesticated breed of birds extinct by 2016
• 70%: increase since 1970 in numbers of invasive alien species across 21 countries with detailed records
• 30%: reduction in global terrestrial habitat integrity caused by habitat loss and deterioration
• 47%: proportion of terrestrial flightless mammals and 23% of threatened birds whose distributions may have been negatively impacted by climate change already
• >6: species of ungulate (hoofed mammals) would likely be extinct or surviving only in captivity today without conservation measures

Food and Agriculture

• 300%: increase in food crop production since 1970
• 23%: land areas that have seen a reduction in productivity due to land degradation
• >75%: global food crop types that rely on animal pollination
• US$235 to US$577 billion: annual value of global crop output at risk due to pollinator loss
• 5.6 gigatons: annual CO2 emissions sequestered in marine and terrestrial ecosystems – equivalent to 60% of global fossil fuel emission
• +/-11%: world population that is undernourished
• 100 million: hectares of agricultural expansion in the tropics from 1980 to 2000, mainly cattle ranching in Latin America (+/-42 million ha), and plantations in Southeast Asia (+/-7.5 million ha, of which 80% is oil palm), half of it at the expense of intact forests
• 3%: increase in land transformation to agriculture between 1992 and 2015, half at the expense of intact tropical forests
• >33%: world’s land surface (and +/-75% of freshwater resources) devoted to crop or livestock production
• 12%: world’s ice-free land used for crop production
• 25%: world’s ice-free land used for grazing (+/-70% of drylands)
• +/-25%: greenhouse gas emissions caused by land clearing, crop production and fertilization, with animal-based food contributing 75% to that figure
• +/-30%: global crop production and global food supply provided by small land holdings (<2 ha), using +/-25% of agricultural land, usually maintaining rich agrobiodiversity
• $100 billion: estimated level of financial support in OECD countries (2015) to agriculture that is potentially harmful to the environment

Oceans and Fishing

• 33%: marine fish stocks in 2015 being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% are maximally sustainably fished; 7% are underfished
• >55%: ocean area covered by industrial fishing
• 3-10%: projected decrease in ocean net primary production due to climate change alone by the end of the century
• 3-25%: projected decrease in fish biomass by the end of the century in low and high climate warming scenarios, respectively
• >90%: proportion of the global commercial fishers accounted for by small scale fisheries (over 30 million people) – representing nearly 50% of global fish catch
• Up to 33%: estimated share in 2011 of world’s reported fish catch that is illegal, unreported or unregulated
• >10%: decrease per decade in the extent of seagrass meadows from 1970-2000
• +/-50%: live coral cover of reefs lost since 1870s
• 100-300 million: people in coastal areas at increased risk due to loss of coastal habitat protection
• 400: low oxygen (hypoxic) coastal ecosystem ‘dead zones’ caused by fertilizers, affecting >245,000 km2
• 29%: average reduction in the extinction risk for mammals and birds in 109 countries thanks to conservation investments from 1996 to 2008; the extinction risk of birds, mammals and amphibians would have been at least 20% greater without conservation action in recent decade
• >107: highly threatened birds, mammals and reptiles estimated to have benefitted from the eradication of invasive mammals on islands

Forests

• 45%: increase in raw timber production since 1970 (4 billion cubic meters in 2017)
• +/-13 million: forestry industry jobs
• 50%: agricultural expansion that occurred at the expense of forests
• 50%: decrease in net rate of forest loss since the 1990s (excluding those managed for timber or agricultural extraction)
• 68%: global forest area today compared with the estimated pre-industrial level
• 7%: reduction of intact forests (>500 sq. km with no human pressure) from 2000-2013 in developed and developing countries
• 290 million ha (+/-6%): native forest cover lost from 1990-2015 due to clearing and wood harvesting
• 110 million ha: rise in the area of planted forests from 1990-2015
• 10-15%: global timber supplies provided by illegal forestry (up to 50% in some areas)
• >2 billion: people who rely on wood fuel to meet their primary energy needs

Mining and Energy

• <1%: total land used for mining, but the industry has significant negative impacts on biodiversity, emissions, water quality and human health
• +/-17,000: large-scale mining sites (in 171 countries), mostly managed by 616 international corporations
• +/-6,500: offshore oil and gas ocean mining installations ((in 53 countries)
• US$345 billion: global subsidies for fossil fuels resulting in US$5 trillion in overall costs, including nature deterioration externalities; coal accounts for 52% of post-tax subsidies, petroleum for +/-33% and natural gas for +/-10%

Urbanization, Development and Socioeconomic Issues

• >100%: growth of urban areas since 1992
• 25 million km: length of new paved roads foreseen by 2050, with 90% of construction in least developed and developing countries
• +/-50,000: number of large dams (>15m height) ; +/-17 million reservoirs (>0.01 ha)
• 105%: increase in global human population (from 3.7 to 7.6 billion) since 1970 unevenly across countries and regions
• 50 times higher: per capita GDP in developed vs. least developed countries
• >2,500: conflicts over fossil fuels, water, food and land currently occurring worldwide
• >1,000: environmental activists and journalists killed between 2002 and 2013

Health

• 70%: proportion of cancer drugs that are natural or synthetic products inspired by nature
• +/-4 billion: people who rely primarily on natural medicines
• 17%: infectious diseases spread by animal vectors, causing >700,000 annual deaths
• +/-821 million: people face food insecurity in Asia and Africa 40%: of the global population lacks access to clean and safe drinking water
• >80%: global wastewater discharged untreated into the environment
• 300-400 million tons: heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge, and other wastes from industrial facilities dumped annually into the world’s waters
• 10 times: increase in plastic pollution since 1980

Climate Change

• 1 degree Celsius: average global temperature difference in 2017 compared to pre-industrial levels, rising +/-0.2 (+/-0.1) degrees Celsius per decade
• >3 mm: annual average global sea level rise over the past two decades
• 16-21 cm: rise in global average sea level since 1900
• 100% increase since 1980 in greenhouse gas emissions, raising average global temperature by at least 0.7 degree
• 40%: rise in carbon footprint of tourism (to 4.5Gt of carbon dioxide) from 2009 to 2013
• 8%: of total greenhouse gas emissions are from transport and food consumption related to tourism
• 5%: estimated fraction of species at risk of extinction from 2°C warming alone, rising to 16% at 4.3°C warming
• Even for global warming of 1.5 to 2 degrees, the majority of terrestrial species ranges are projected to shrink profoundly.

Global Goals

• Most: Aichi Biodiversity Targets for 2020 likely to be missed
• 22 of 44: assessed targets under the Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, ocean and land are being undermined by substantial negative trends in nature and its contributions to people
• 72%: of local indicators in nature developed and used by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities that show negative trends
• 4: number of Aichi Targets where good progress has been made on certain components, with moderate progress on some components of another 7 targets, poor progress on all components of 6 targets, and insufficient information to assess progress on some or all components of the remaining 3 targets

IPBES Partner Comments

“Nature makes human development possible but our relentless demand for the earth’s resources is accelerating extinction rates and devastating the world’s ecosystems. UN Environment is proud to support the Global Assessment Report produced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services because it highlights the critical need to integrate biodiversity considerations in global decision-making on any sector or challenge, whether its water or agriculture, infrastructure or business.”

– Joyce Msuya, Acting Head, UN Environment

“Across cultures, humans inherently value nature. The magic of seeing fireflies flickering long into the night is immense. We draw energy and nutrients from nature. We find sources of food, medicine, livelihoods and innovation in nature. Our well-being fundamentally depends on nature. Our efforts to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems must be underpinned by the best science that humanity can produce. This is why the scientific evidence compiled in this IPBES Global Assessment is so important. It will help us build a stronger foundation for shaping the post 2020 global biodiversity framework: the ‘New Deal for Nature and People’; and for achieving the SDGs.”

– Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme

“This essential report reminds each of us of the obvious truth: the present generations have the responsibility to bequeath to future generations a planet that is not irreversibly damaged by human activity. Our local, indigenous and scientific knowledge are proving that we have solutions and so no more excuses: we must live on earth differently. UNESCO is committed to promoting respect of the living and of its diversity, ecological solidarity with other living species, and to establish new, equitable and global links of partnership and intragenerational solidarity, for the perpetuation of humankind.”

– Audrey Azoulay, Director-General, UNESCO

“The IPBES’ 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services comes at a critical time for the planet and all its peoples. The report’s findings — and the years of diligent work by the many scientists who contributed– will offer a comprehensive view of the current conditions of global biodiversity. Healthy biodiversity is the essential infrastructure that supports all forms of life on earth, including human life. It also provides nature-based solutions on many of the most critical environmental, economic, and social challenges that we face as human society, including climate change, sustainable development, health, and water and food security. We are currently in the midst of preparing for the 2020 UN Biodiversity Conference, in China, which will mark the close of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and set the course for a post 2020 ecologically focused sustainable development pathway to deliver multiple benefits for people, the planet and our global economy. The IPBES report will serve as a fundamental baseline of where we are and where we need to go as a global community to inspire humanity to reach the 2050 Vision of the UN Biodiversity Convention “Living in harmony with nature”. I want to extend my thanks and congratulations to the IPBES community for their hard work, immense contributions and continued partnership.”

– Cristiana Pasca Palmer, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity

“The Global Assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services adds a major element to the body of evidence for the importance of biodiversity to efforts to achieve the Zero Hunger objective and meet the Sustainable Development Goals. Together, assessments undertaken by IPBES, FAO, CBD and other organizations point to the urgent need for action to better conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and to the importance of cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration among decision-makers and other stakeholders at all levels.”

– Jose Graziano da Silva, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

* * * * *

Coverage highlights

United Kingdom

Scientists warn 1 million species threatened with extinction

CNN

26 March,  2018

Main cause of species loss; driver of the migration of millions of people by 2050

In landmark 3-year assessment report, 100+ experts outline costs, dangers and options

The dangers of land degradation, which cost the equivalent of about 10% of the world’s annual gross product in 2010 through the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, are detailed for policymakers, together with a catalogue of corrective options, in the three-year assessment report by more than 100 leading experts from 45 countries, launched today.

Produced by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the report was approved at the 6th session of the IPBES Plenary in Medellín, Colombia. IPBES has 129 State Members.

Providing the best-available evidence for policymakers to make better-informed decisions, the report draws on more than 3,000 scientific, Government, indigenous and local knowledge sources. Extensively peer-reviewed, it was improved by more than 7,300 comments, received from over 200 external reviewers.

Serious Danger to Human Well-being

Rapid expansion and unsustainable management of croplands and grazing lands is the most extensive global direct driver of land degradation, causing significant loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services — food security, water purification, the provision of energy and other contributions of nature essential to people. This has reached ‘critical’ levels in many parts of the world, the report says.

“With negative impacts on the well-being of at least 3.2 billion people, the degradation of the Earth’s land surface through human activities is pushing the planet towards a sixth mass species extinction,” said Prof. Robert Scholes (South Africa), co-chair of the assessment with Dr. Luca Montanarella (Italy). “Avoiding, reducing and reversing this problem, and restoring degraded land, is an urgent priority to protect the biodiversity and ecosystem services vital to all life on Earth and to ensure human well-being.”

“Wetlands have been particularly hard hit,” said Dr. Montanarella. “We have seen losses of 87% in wetland areas since the start of the modern era — with 54% lost since 1900.”

According to the authors, land degradation manifests in many ways: land abandonment, declining populations of wild species, loss of soil and soil health, rangelands and fresh water, as well as deforestation.

Underlying drivers of land degradation, says the report, are the high-consumption lifestyles in the most developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies. High and rising per capita consumption, amplified by continued population growth in many parts of the world, can drive unsustainable levels of agricultural expansion, natural resource and mineral extraction, and urbanization — typically leading to greater levels of land degradation.

By 2014, more than 1.5 billion hectares of natural ecosystems had been converted to croplands. Less than 25% of the Earth’s land surface has escaped substantial impacts of human activity — and by 2050, the IPBES experts estimate this will have fallen to less than 10%.

Crop and grazing lands now cover more than one third of the Earth´s land surface, with recent clearance of native habitats, including forests, grasslands and wetlands, being concentrated in some of the most species-rich ecosystems on the planet.

The report says increasing demand for food and biofuels will likely lead to continued increase in nutrient and chemical inputs and a shift towards industrialized livestock production systems, with pesticide and fertilizer use expected to double by 2050.

Avoidance of further agricultural expansion into native habitats can be achieved through yield increases on the existing farmlands, shifts towards less land degrading diets, such as those with more plant-based foods and less animal protein from unsustainable sources, and reductions in food loss and waste.

Strong Links to Climate Change

“Through this report, the global community of experts has delivered a frank and urgent warning, with clear options to address dire environmental damage,” said Sir Robert Watson, Chair of IPBES.

“Land degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change are three different faces of the same central challenge: the increasingly dangerous impact of our choices on the health of our natural environment. We cannot afford to tackle any one of these three threats in isolation — they each deserve the highest policy priority and must be addressed together.”

The IPBES report finds that land degradation is a major contributor to climate change, with deforestation alone contributing about 10% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Another major driver of the changing climate has been the release of carbon previously stored in the soil, with land degradation between 2000 and 2009 responsible for annual global emissions of up to 4.4 billion tonnes of CO2.

Given the importance of soil’s carbon absorption and storage functions, the avoidance, reduction and reversal of land degradation could provide more than a third of the most cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation activities needed by 2030 to keep global warming under the 2°C threshold targeted in the Paris Agreement on climate change, increase food and water security, and contribute to the avoidance of conflict and migration.

Projections to 2050

“In just over three decades from now, an estimated 4 billion people will live in drylands,” said Prof. Scholes. “By then it is likely that land degradation, together with the closely related problems of climate change, will have forced 50-700 million people to migrate. Decreasing land productivity also makes societies more vulnerable to social instability — particularly in dryland areas, where years with extremely low rainfall have been associated with an increase of up to 45% in violent conflict.”

Dr. Montanarella added: “By 2050, the combination of land degradation and climate change is predicted to reduce global crop yields by an average of 10%, and by up to 50% in some regions. In the future, most degradation will occur in Central and South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia — the areas with the most land still remaining that is suitable for agriculture.”

The report also underlines the challenges that land degradation poses, and the importance of restoration, for key international development objectives, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. “The greatest value of the assessment is the evidence that it provides to decision makers in Government, business, academia and even at the level of local communities,” said Dr. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Secretary of IPBES. “With better information, backed by the consensus of the world’s leading experts, we can all make better choices for more effective action.”

Options for Land Restoration

The report notes that successful examples of land restoration are found in every ecosystem, and that many well-tested practices and techniques, both traditional and modern, can avoid or reverse degradation.

In croplands, for instance, some of these include reducing soil loss and improving soil health, the use of salt tolerant crops, conservation agriculture and integrated crop, livestock and forestry systems.

In rangelands with traditional grazing, maintenance of appropriate fire regimes, and the reinstatement or development of local livestock management practices and institutions have proven effective.

Successful responses in wetlands have included control over pollution sources, managing the wetlands as part of the landscape, and reflooding wetlands damaged by draining.

In urban areas, urban spatial planning, replanting with native species, the development of ‘green infrastructure’ such as parks and riverways, remediation of contaminated and sealed soils (e.g. under asphalt), wastewater treatment and river channel restoration are identified as key options for action.

Opportunities to accelerate action identified in the report include:

• Improving monitoring, verification systems and baseline data;
• Coordinating policy between different ministries to simultaneously encourage more sustainable production and consumption practices of land-based commodities;
• Eliminating ‘perverse incentives’ that promote land degradation and promoting positive incentives that reward sustainable land management; and Integrating the agricultural, forestry, energy, water, infrastructure and service agendas.
• Making the point that existing multilateral environmental agreements provide a good platform for action to avoid, reduce and reverse land degradation and promote restoration, the authors observe, however, that greater commitment and more effective cooperation is needed at the national and local levels to achieve the goals of zero net land degradation, no loss of biodiversity and improved human well-being.

Knowledge Gaps

Among the areas identified by the report as opportunities for further research are:

• The consequences of land degradation on freshwater and coastal ecosystems, physical and mental health and spiritual well-being, and infectious disease prevalence and transmission;
• The potential for land degradation to exacerbate climate change, and land restoration to help both mitigation and adaptation;
• The linkages between land degradation and restoration and social, economic and political processes in far-off places; and
• Interactions among land degradation, poverty, climate change, and the risk of conflict and of involuntary migration.

Environmental and Economic Sense

The report found that higher employment and other benefits of land restoration often exceed by far the costs involved. On average, the benefits of restoration are 10 times higher than the costs (estimated across nine different biomes), and, for regions like Asia and Africa, the cost of inaction in the face of land degradation is at least three times higher than the cost of action.

“Fully deploying the toolbox of proven ways to stop and reverse land degradation is not only vital to ensure food security, reduce climate change and protect biodiversity,” said Dr. Montanarella, “It’s also economically prudent and increasingly urgent.”

Echoing this message, Sir Robert Watson, said: “Of the many valuable messages in the report, this ranks among the most important: implementing the right actions to combat land degradation can transform the lives of millions of people across the planet, but this will become more difficult and more costly the longer we take to act.”

Highlights

• Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation and restoring degraded land is an urgent priority to protect the biodiversity and ecosystem services vital to all life on Earth and to ensure human well-being.
• Land degradation through human activities is undermining the well-being of at least 3.2 billion people.
• Land degradation through human activities is pushing the planet towards a sixth mass species extinction.
• Widespread lack of awareness of land degradation as a problem is a major barrier to action.
• Less than one quarter of the Earth’s land surface remains free from substantial human impacts. By 2050 it is estimated that this will drop to less than 10% – and this will be mostly in deserts, mountainous areas, tundra and polar areas unsuitable for human use or settlement.
• Wetlands are particularly degraded, with 87% lost globally in the last 300 years; 54% since 1900.
• Habitat loss through transformation, and the decline in suitability of the remaining habitat through degradation, are the leading causes of biodiversity loss.
• Between 1970 and 2012, the index of the average population size of wild land-based species of vertebrates dropped by 38% and freshwater species by 81%.

Projections

• The population in drylands will have increased from 2.7 billion in 2010 to 4 billion by 2050.
• The unprecedented growth in consumption, demography and technology will roughly quadruple the global economy in the first half of the twenty-first century.
• Unless urgent and concerted action is taken, land degradation will worsen in the face of population growth, unprecedented consumption, an increasingly globalized economy, and climate change.
• Most future degradation is expected to occur in Central and South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.
• Land degradation and climate change are likely to force 50 to 700 million people to migrate by 2050.
• By 2050, land degradation and climate change will reduce crop yields by an average of 10% globally, and up to 50% in certain regions.
• The capacity of rangelands to support livestock will continue to diminish in the future, due to both land degradation and loss of rangeland area.
• Biodiversity loss is projected to reach 38-46% by 2050. The strongest drivers of biodiversity loss to date have been agriculture followed by forestry, infrastructure, urban encroachment and climate change. In the 2010-2050 period, climate change, crop agriculture and infrastructure development are expected to be the drivers of biodiversity loss with the greatest projected increase.
• In a “middle of the road” scenario, the reduction is projected to be equivalent to a complete loss of the original biodiversity of an area about 1.5 times the size of the USA.

Economics

• The estimated economic cost of biodiversity and ecosystem services lost because of land degradation is more than 10% of annual global gross product.
• High-consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally.
• Studies from Asia and Africa indicate that the cost of inaction on land degradation is at least three times higher than the cost of action.
• The benefits of restoration exceed the costs by an average ratio of 10 to one (estimated across nine biomes).
• Benefits include increased employment, business spending, local investment in education, and improved livelihoods and gender equity.
• The full impact of consumption choices on land degradation worldwide is not often visible due to the distances that can separate many consumers and producers.
• The increasing spatial disconnect between consumers and the ecosystems that produce the food and other commodities they depend upon has resulted in a growing lack of awareness and understanding of the implications of consumption choices for land degradation.
• Many of those who benefit from overexploitation of natural resources are among the least affected by the direct negative impacts of land degradation, and therefore have the least incentive to take action.

Climate Change Links

• Land degradation is a major contributor to climate change, and climate change is foreseen as a leading driver of biodiversity loss (along with crop agriculture and infrastructure development) through 2050.
• The contribution of land degradation to climate change includes the release of carbon sequestered in soil. Between 2000 and 2009, land degradation was responsible for annual global emissions of 3.6-4.4 billion tonnes of CO2.
• Over the past 200 years, soil organic carbon, an indicator of soil health, has dropped an estimated 8% globally (176 Gt C – equivalent to the carbon that would be lost from clearing an area of tropical forest approximately the size of Australia).
• Without urgent action, further losses of 36 gigatons of carbon from soils – especially from Sub-Saharan Africa — is projected by 2050 (equivalent to nearly 20 years of emissions from the global transportation sector – all freight and passenger traffic by land, air, water and sea). The main processes include deforestation and forest degradation, the drying and burning of peatlands, and the decline of carbon content in many cultivated soils and rangelands because of excessive disturbance and insufficient return of organic matter to the soil.
• Deforestation alone contributes approximately 10% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, and can further alter the climate through changes in surface reflectivity and the generation of dust particles.
• In mountainous and high latitude regions, permafrost melt and glacier retreat will result in mass land movements such as landslides and surface subsidence (cave-ins, sinking) and higher greenhouse gas emissions. In forests, the likelihood of wildfires, pest and disease outbreaks increases in scenarios where droughts and hot spells are projected to be more frequent.
• The impacts of climate change on land degradation include accelerated soil erosion on degrade lands as a result of more extreme weather events, increased risk of forest fires, and changes in the distribution of invasive species, pests and pathogens.
• Strong 2-way interaction between climate change and land degradation mean the issues are best addressed in a coordinated way.
• Some activities aimed at climate change mitigation can increase the risk of land degradation and biodiversity loss – e.g. expansion of bioenergy crops. Planting trees where they did not historically occur (afforestation), can have an impact similar to deforestation, including the reduction of biodiversity and disruption of water, energy and nutrient cycles.
• Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation could provide more than a third of the most cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation activities needed by 2030 to keep global warming under 2°C, increase food and water security, and contribute to the avoidance of conflict and migration.

Human Health and Security

• Four-fifths of the world’s population now lives in areas where there is a threat to water security.
• Every 5% loss of gross domestic product, itself partly caused by degradation, is associated with a 12% increase in the likelihood of violent conflict.
• Transformation of natural ecosystems to human use can increase the risk of human diseases such as Ebola, monkey pox and Marburg virus, some of which have become global health risks by bringing people into more frequent contact with pathogens capable of transferring from wild to human hosts. Modifications in hydrological regimes affect the prevalence of pathogens and vents that spread disease
• Land degradation generally increases the number of people exposed to hazardous air, water and land pollution, particularly in developing countries, with the worst-off countries recording rates of pollution-related loss of life higher than those in wealthy countries.
• Land degradation generally harms psychological well-being by reducing benefits to mental balance, attention, inspiration and healing. It has particularly negative impacts on the mental health and spiritual well-being of indigenous peoples and local communities.
• Land degradation, especially in coastal and riparian areas, increases the risk of storm damage, flooding and landslides, with high socio-economic and human costs.

Remedial Options

• National and international responses to land degradation are often focused on mitigating damage already caused. Policies are typically fragmented in nature, targeting specific, visible drivers of degradation within specific sectors of the economy, in isolation from other drivers.
• Land degradation is rarely, if ever, the result of a single cause and can thus only be addressed through the simultaneous and coordinated use of diverse policy instruments and responses at the institutional, governance, community and individual levels.
• Avoiding, reducing and reversing land degradation is essential for reaching the majority of the Sustainable Development Goals and would synergistically support nearly all of them.
• Land managers, including indigenous peoples and local communities, have key roles to play in the design, implementation and evaluation of sustainable land management practices.

Proven approaches to halting and reversing land degradation include:

• Urban planning, replanting with native species, green infrastructure development, remediation of contaminated and sealed soils (e.g. under asphalt), wastewater treatment and river channel restoration.
• Better, more open-access information on the impacts of traded commodities.
• Coordinated policy agendas that simultaneously encourage more sustainable consumption of land-based commodities.
• Eliminating perverse incentives that promote degradation — subsidies that reward overproduction, for example — and devising positive incentives that reward the adoption of sustainable land management practices.

Examples of well-tested practices and techniques, both traditional and modern, to halt degradation of agricultural lands include:

Rangelands:

• Land capability and condition assessments and monitoring
• Grazing pressure management
• Pasture and forage crop improvement
• Silvopastoral management
• Weed and pest management

Rangelands with traditional grazing in many dryland regions have benefitted from maintaining appropriate fire regimes and the reinstatement or development of local livestock management practices and institutions. A variety of passive or active forest management and restoration techniques have successfully conserved biodiversity and avoided forest degradation while yielding multiple economic, social and environmental benefits.

Combating land degradation resulting from invasive species involves the identification and monitoring of invasion pathways and the adoption of eradication and control measures (mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical).

Responses to land degradation from mineral resource extraction include:

• on-site management of mining wastes (soils and water)
• reclamation of mine site topography
• conservation and early replacement of topsoil
• restoration and rehabilitation measures to recreate functioning grassland, forest, wetland and other ecosystems

Effective responses to avoid, reduce and reverse wetland degradation include:

• controlling point and diffuse pollution sources
• adopting integrated land and water management strategies; and
• restoring wetland hydrology, biodiversity, and ecosystem functions through passive and active restoration measures, such as constructed wetlands

###

Comments about the IPBES Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment

“The assessment of land degradation and restoration by IPBES is a wake-up call for us all. It shows the alarming scale of transformation that humankind has imposed on the land and the changing nature of the forces driving land degradation. We live in an increasingly connected world, yet as consumers we are living ever further away from the lands that sustain us. Addressing land degradation location by location is insufficient when consumption in one part of the world influences the land and people in another. The global target of Land Degradation Neutrality requires a new land agenda that ensures we can effectively, sustainably and equitably manage these dynamics.”

– Monique Barbut, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

“Unsustainable land use is scarring the Earth for generations. It is costing us billions, impacting human health and contributing to climate change. This report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems is a comprehensive effort to build credible scientific evidence so we can make much better decisions about land – for our people and our planet.”

– Erik Solheim, Executive Director of UN Environment

This report demonstrates the challenges we face due to global soil degradation, and the impact on human life if this critical issue is not urgently addressed. It is now essential to translate the report’s recommendations into tangible action. To do this, we will need to put biodiversity and people’s well-being at the heart of decision making, and foster interaction between all sectors of society. UNESCO will play its role by bringing experience and mobilizing its resources and networks to build these bridges between culture, education, science local and indigenous knowledge.

– Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO

“The degradation of land resources undermines our efforts to end hunger. The Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment will be an important guide for our country partners and FAO alike, as it draws on the best available science and local expertise. Managing land resources is critical for ensuring our vision for sustainable food and agriculture, and we are happy to have contributed to this effort. A healthy soil is the backbone of all healthy food system.”

– José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

“Around 12 million hectares of land are lost each year to degradation. In addition to harming the well-being of at least 3.2 billion people, land degradation costs more than 10% of annual global GDP in lost ecosystem services like preventing harmful nutrient run-off into streams or decreasing the effects of floods. Halting and reversing current trends of land degradation could generate up to USD 1.4 trillion per year of economic benefits and go a long way in helping to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.”

– Achim Steiner, Administrator of UNDP

Notes:

IPBES has today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration. The SPM present the key messages and policy options, as approved by the IPBES Plenary.

To access the SPM online: https://goo.gl/ERXLNr The complete report (inclusive of all data) will be published later this year.

About IPBES:

Often described as the “IPCC for biodiversity” IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body comprising 129 member Governments. Established by Governments in 2012, it provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people, as well as the tools and methods to protect and sustainably use these vital natural assets.

For more information about IPBES and its assessments visit http://www.ipbes.net

Follow Us:

Twitter: @IPBES

http://www.facebook.com/ipbes youtube.com/ipbeschannel

http://www.linkedin.com/company/ipbes

http://www.instagram.com/ipbes

News release in full, click here

Example coverage:

Coverage summary, click here

23 March 2018

Human well-being at risk; Landmark reports highlight options to protect and restore nature and its vital contributions to people

Biodiversity — the essential variety of life forms on Earth — continues to decline in every region of the world, significantly reducing nature’s capacity to contribute to people’s well-being. This alarming trend endangers economies, livelihoods, food security and the quality of life of people everywhere, according to four landmark science reports released today, written by more than 550 leading experts, from over 100 countries.

The result of three years of work, the four regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services cover the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Africa, as well as Europe and Central Asia — the entire planet except the poles and the open oceans. The assessment reports were approved by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), in Medellín, Colombia, at the 6th session of its Plenary. IPBES has 129 State Members.

“Biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people sound, to many people, academic and far removed from our daily lives,” said the Chair of IPBES, Sir Robert Watson, “Nothing could be further from the truth — they are the bedrock of our food, clean water and energy. They are at the heart not only of our survival, but of our cultures, identities and enjoyment of life. The best available evidence, gathered by the world’s leading experts, points us now to a single conclusion: we must act to halt and reverse the unsustainable use of nature — or risk not only the future we want, but even the lives we currently lead. Fortunately, the evidence also shows that we know how to protect and partially restore our vital natural assets.”

The extensively peer-reviewed IPBES assessment reports focus on providing answers to key questions for each of the four regions, including: why is biodiversity important, where are we making progress, what are the main threats and opportunities for biodiversity and how can we adjust our policies and institutions for a more sustainable future?

In every region, with the exception of a number of positive examples where lessons can be learned, biodiversity and nature’s capacity to contribute to people are being degraded, reduced and lost due to a number of common pressures — habitat stress; overexploitation and unsustainable use of natural resources; air, land and water pollution; increasing numbers and impact of invasive alien species and climate change, among others.

Declining Biodiversity — Now and in the Future

The Americas

“In the Americas, rich biodiversity makes an immense contribution to the quality of life, helping to reduce poverty while strengthening economies and livelihoods,” said Dr. Jake Rice (Canada), co-chair of the Americas assessment with Dr. Cristiana Simão Seixas (Brazil) and Prof. Maria Elena Zaccagnini (Argentina).

“The economic value of the Americas’ land-based nature’s contributions to people is estimated to be more than US$24 trillion per year — equivalent to the region’s GDP, yet almost two-thirds — 65% — of these contributions are in decline, with 21% declining strongly. Human-induced climate change, which affects temperature, precipitation and the nature of extreme events, is increasingly driving biodiversity loss and the reduction of nature’s contributions to people, worsening the impact of habitat degradation, pollution, invasive species and the overexploitation of natural resources.”

According to the report, under a ‘business as usual’ scenario, climate change will be the fastest growing driver negatively impacting biodiversity by 2050 in the Americas, becoming comparable to the pressures imposed by land use change. On average today, the populations of species in an area are about 31% smaller than was the case at the time of European settlement. With the growing effects of climate change added to the other drivers, this loss is projected to reach 40% by 2050.

The report highlights the fact that indigenous people and local communities have created a diversity of polyculture and agroforestry systems, which have increased biodiversity and shaped landscapes. However, the decoupling of lifestyles from the local environment has eroded, for many, their sense of place, language and indigenous local knowledge. More than 60% of the languages in the Americas, and the cultures associated with them, are troubled or dying out.

Africa

“Africa’s immense natural resources and its diverse cultural heritage are among its most important strategic assets for both human development and well-being,” said Dr. Emma Archer (South Africa), co-chair of the African assessment with Dr. Kalemani Jo Mulongoy (DRC) and Dr. Luthando Dziba (South Africa). “Africa is the last place on Earth with a wide range of large mammals, yet today there are more African plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and large mammals threatened than ever before by a range of both human-induced and natural causes.”

“Africa is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and this is going to have severe consequences for economically marginalized populations. By 2100, climate change could also result in the loss of more than half of African bird and mammal species, a 20-30% decline in the productivity of Africa’s lakes and significant loss of African plant species.”

The report adds that approximately 500,000 square kilometres of African land is already estimated to have been degraded by overexploitation of natural resources, erosion, salinization and pollution, resulting in significant loss of nature’s contributions to people. Even greater pressure will be placed on the continent’s biodiversity as the current African population of 1.25 billion people is set to double to 2.5 billion by 2050.

Marine and coastal environments make significant economic, social and cultural contributions to the people of Africa. Damage to coral reef systems, mostly due to pollution and climate change, has far-reaching implications for fisheries, food security, tourism and overall marine biodiversity.

Asia-Pacific

“Biodiversity and ecosystem services contributed to rapid average annual economic growth of 7.6% from 1990 to 2010 in the Asia-Pacific region, benefitting its more than 4.5 billion people. This growth, in turn, has had varying impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services,” said Dr. Madhav Karki (Nepal), co-chair of the Asia-Pacific assessment with Dr. Sonali Senaratna Sellamuttu (Sri Lanka). “The region’s biodiversity faces unprecedented threats, from extreme weather events and sea level rise, to invasive alien species, agricultural intensification and increasing waste and pollution.”

The report says that although there has been an overall decline in biodiversity, there have also been some important biodiversity successes including, for example, increases in protected areas. Over the past 25 years, marine protected areas in the region increased by almost 14% and terrestrial protected area increased by 0.3%. Forest cover increased by 2.5%, with the highest increases in North East Asia (22.9%) and by South Asia (5.8%).

There are concerns, however, that these efforts are insufficient to halt the loss of biodiversity and the decline in the value of nature’s contributions to people in the region. Unsustainable aquaculture practices, overfishing and destructive harvesting threaten coastal and marine ecosystems, with projections that, if current fishing practices continue, there will be no exploitable fish stocks in the region by 2048. Intertidal zones are also rapidly deteriorating due to human activities, with coral reefs of critical ecological, cultural and economic importance, already under serious threat, and some reefs having already been lost, especially in South and South-East Asia. According to the report, up to 90% of corals will suffer severe degradation by 2050, even under conservative climate change scenarios.

The report emphasizes that climate change and associated extreme events pose great threats, especially to coastal ecosystems, low-lying coastal areas and islands. Climate change is also impacting species distributions, population sizes, and the timing of reproduction and migration. Increased frequencies of pest and disease outbreaks resulting from these changes may have additional negative effects on agricultural production and human well-being, with impacts projected to worsen.

Forests, alpine ecosystems, inland freshwater and wetlands, as well as coastal systems are identified as the most threatened Asia-Pacific ecosystems. The increasing variety and abundance of invasive alien species is highlighted as one of the region’s most serious drivers of ecosystem change and biodiversity loss.

Europe and Central Asia

A major trend is the increasing intensity of conventional agriculture and forestry, which leads to biodiversity decline. There are also examples of sustainable agricultural and forestry practices that are beneficial to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in the region. Nature’s material contributions to people, such as food and energy, have been promoted at the expense of both regulating contributions, such as pollination and soil formation, and non-material contributions, such as cultural experiences or opportunities to develop a sense of place.

“The people of the region consume more renewable natural resources than the region produces,” said Prof. Markus Fischer (Switzerland), co-chair of the Europe and Central Asia assessment with Prof. Mark Rounsevell (UK), “Although this is somewhat off-set by higher biocapacities in Eastern Europe and northern parts of Western and Central Europe.”

In the European Union, among assessments of the conservation status of species and habitat types of conservation interest, only 7% of marine species and 9% of marine habitat types show a ‘favourable conservation status’. Moreover 27% of species assessments and 66% of habitat types assessments show an ‘unfavourable conservation status’, with the others categorised as ‘unknown’.

The authors find that further economic growth can facilitate sustainable development only if it is decoupled from the degradation of biodiversity and nature’s capacity to contribute to people. Such decoupling, however, has not yet happened, and would require far-reaching change in policies and tax reforms at the global and national levels.

Abandonment of traditional land-use systems, and loss of associated indigenous and local knowledge and practices, has been widespread in Europe and Central Asia, the report finds. Production-based subsidies driving growth in agricultural, forestry and natural resource extraction sectors tend to exacerbate conflicting land-use issues, often impinging on available territory for traditional users. Maintenance of traditional land use and lifestyles in Europe and Central Asia is strongly related to institutional adequacy and economic viability.

Global Development Goals in Jeopardy

“One of the most important findings across the four IPBES regional assessments is that failure to prioritize policies and actions to stop and reverse biodiversity loss, and the continued degradation of nature’s contributions to people, seriously jeopardises the chances of any region, and almost every country, meeting their global development targets,” said Dr. Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBES.

“Achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the Paris Agreement on climate change, all depend on the health and vitality of our natural environment in all its diversity and complexity. Acting to protect and promote biodiversity is at least as important to achieving these commitments and to human wellbeing as is the fight against global climate change”.

“Richer, more diverse ecosystems are better able to cope with disturbances – such as extreme events and the emergence of diseases. They are our ‘insurance policy’ against unforeseen disasters and, used sustainably, they also offer many of the best solutions to our most pressing challenges.”

The assessment of the Americas concludes that continued biodiversity loss could undermine the achievement of some of the SDGs as well as some of the international climate-related goals, targets and aspirations.

All the plausible future scenarios explored in the Africa assessment highlight that the drivers of biodiversity loss will increase, with associated negative impacts on nature’s contributions to people and human well-being. Achieving the African Union’s Agenda 2063, the SDGs and the Aichi Targets is unlikely in three out of five scenarios explored.

The experts of the Asia-Pacific assessment point to the value of ecosystem based approaches and identify, among others, lack of solid waste management, as well as air, water and land pollution as factors undermining gains in a number of the Aichi Targets and SDGs for many countries (e.g. extinction of plant and animal species due to deforestation, rising temperature and water pollution).

There has been some progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in Europe and Central Asia, e.g. in terms of the area under protection or in mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society. However, the pressures on biodiversity from direct drivers of change are unlikely to be reduced and so progress has been negative for indigenous and local knowledge, the equitable distribution of nature’s contributions and water security.

Looking beyond the 2030 timescale of the SDGs, scenario analysis highlights that continuation of past and current trends in drivers of change will inhibit the contribution of the region to the widespread achievement of the SDGs, while scenarios which focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature’s contributions to people and incorporate a diversity of values are more likely to contribute to achieving the majority of the SDGs.

Promising Policy Options Available

Accompanying the stark concerns of the IPBES experts, however, are messages of hope: promising policy options do exist and have been found to work in protecting and restoring biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, where they have been effectively applied.

In the Americas, protection of key biodiversity areas increased 17% between 1970 and 2010, yet fewer than 20% of key biodiversity areas are protected and coverage varies significantly. The report makes it clear that protected areas and restoration projects are only some of the possible interventions — with a need to also focus on strategies to make human-dominated landscapes more supportive of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

It also makes the point that biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are better protected when integrated into a broad array of economic and sectoral policies, such as payment for ecosystem services and voluntary eco-certification. Appropriate combinations of, for example, behavioural change, improved technology, research, adequate levels of finance, improved education and public awareness programs are among other options.

Measures taken by African Governments to protect biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, have contributed to some recovery of threatened species, especially in key biodiversity areas, and these efforts could be enhanced. Such measures include the establishment and effective management of protected areas and networks of wildlife corridors; restoration of degraded ecosystems; control of invasive alien species and reintroduction of wild animals. Despite the African Union’s priorities of poverty alleviation, inclusive growth and sustainable development, especially in the context of global climate change, the report finds that the continent is greatly undervaluing its natural resources.

In addition to enhancing biodiversity conservation through appropriate governance, policies and national implementation, the authors emphasize the need for better integration of indigenous and local knowledge and greater use of scenarios in African decision-making. Of the five possible scenarios they explore, two (regional sustainability and local sustainability) are identified as the most likely paths to meet Africa’s economic, social and environmental development aspirations, but the authors point to the need for capacity building on the use of scenarios in decision-making.

For Asia and the Pacific, the IPBES experts point to the success of countries that achieved rapid economic growth in gradually restoring and expanding protected areas – especially forests. They emphasize that, while assisting these countries in their efforts to meet some of the SDGs and Aichi Targets, this alone will not be sufficient to reduce biodiversity loss caused by the negative impacts of monoculture. For instance, the region registered a growth of 0.3% in terrestrial protected areas and 13.8% in marine protected areas – putting many countries on track to meet Aichi Target 11 – but most of the important bird areas and key biodiversity areas remain unprotected.”

Better application of science and technology, empowerment of local communities in decision making, integrating biodiversity conservation into other key sectors, scenario planning that is sensitive to economic and cultural diversity, private sector partnerships in financing biodiversity protection, as well as better cross-border regional collaboration, are some of the many important approaches the report identifies.

A range of governance options, policies and management practices is available in Europe and Central Asia to safeguard biodiversity and ensure nature’s contributions to people. Some progress has already been made in mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into public and private decision-making.

The assessment report highlights integrated approaches. These include measuring national welfare beyond GDP. Governance could become more effective by using well-designed mixes of policy instruments to motivate changes in behaviour to support sustainable development. The authors also emphasize the relevance of reconciling biodiversity conservation and human rights standards through rights-based instruments, as well as capacity building for indigenous peoples and local communities. Sufficient funding is also needed to support research, monitoring, education and training.

Speaking about the policy options emerging from the four regional assessments, Watson said: “Although there are no ‘silver bullets’ or ‘one-size-fits all’ answers, the best options in all four regional assessments are found in better governance, integrating biodiversity concerns into sectoral policies and practices (e.g. agriculture and energy), the application of scientific knowledge and technology, increased awareness and behavioural changes.”

“It is also clear that indigenous and local knowledge can be an invaluable asset, and biodiversity issues need to receive much higher priority in policy making and development planning at every level. Cross-border collaboration is also essential, given that biodiversity challenges recognize no national boundaries.”

By the numbers

The Americas

Trends / data

• 13%: the Americas’ share of world’s human population
• 40%: share of world ecosystems’ capacity to produce nature-based materials consumed by people, and to assimilate by-products from their consumption
• 65%: the proportion of nature’s contributions to people, across all units of analysis, in decline (with 21% declining strongly)
• >50%: share of the Americas’ population with a water security problem
• 61%: languages and associated cultures, in trouble or dying out
• >95%: North American tall grass prairie grasslands transformed into human-dominated landscapes since pre-European settlement
• 72% and 66% respectively: of tropical dry forest in Mesoamerica and the Caribbean have been transformed into human-dominated landscapes since pre-European settlement
• 88%: Atlantic tropical forest transformed into human-dominated landscapes since pre-European settlement
• 17%: Amazon forest transformed into human-dominated landscapes since pre-European settlement
• 50%: decrease in renewable freshwater available per person since the 1960s
• 200-300%: Increase in humanity’s ecological footprint in each subregion of the Americas since the 1960s
• 9.5% and 25%: Forest areas lost in South America and Mesoamerica respectively since the 1960s
• 0.4% and 43.4%: net gains in forest areas in North America and the Caribbean respectively since the 1960s
• 1.5 million: approximate number of Great Plains grassland hectares loss from 2014 to 2015
• 2.5 million: hectares under cultivation in Brazil’s northeast agricultural frontier in 2013, up from 1.2 million ha in 2003, with 74% of these new croplands taken from intact cerrado (tropical savanna) in that region
• 15-60%: North American drylands habitat lost between 2000 and 2009
• >50%: US wetlands lost since European settlement (up to 90% lost in agricultural regions)
• >50%: decline in coral reef cover by the 1970s; only 10% remained by 2003

Economic value of nature’s contributions to people

• $24.3 trillion: estimated value per year of terrestrial nature’s contributions to people in the Americas (equivalent to the region’s gross domestic product)
• $6.8, $5.3 and $3.6 trillion per year: nature’s contributions to people valued as ecosystem services in Brazil, USA and Canada respectively
• >$500 million: annual cost of managing the impacts of invasive alien zebra mussels on infrastructure for power, water supply and transportation in the Great Lakes

Projections

• 20%: expected regional population increase (to 1.2 billion) by 2050
• +/-100%: expected growth in region’s GDP by 2050, intensifying many drivers of biodiversity loss if ‘business as usual’ continues
• 40%: expected loss by 2050 of the region’s original biodiversity under a ‘business as usual’ scenario for climate change (with loss of 35-36% expected under the three “pathways to sustainability”)

By the numbers

Africa

Trends / data

• +/- 500,000: km2 of land is degraded due to factors such as deforestation, unsustainable agriculture, overgrazing, uncontrolled mining activities, invasive alien species and climate change, leading to soil erosion, salinization, pollution, and loss of vegetation or soil fertility
• +/- 62%: rural population directly dependent on wild nature and its services for survival (the most of any continent)
• +/- 2 million: km2 of land designated as protected (including 6% of biodiversity-rich tropical evergreen broadleaf forests and 2.5% of Africa’s seas
• 25%: people having faced hunger and malnutrition (2011-2013) in Sub-Saharan Africa, the world’s most food-deficient regionEconomic values of nature’s contributions to people

West Africa

• $4 billion: coastal fishery value added (per year)
• $40,000: water purification services (per km2, per year)
• $4,500: mangrove coastal protection services (per km2, per year)
• $2,800: coastal carbon sequestration services (average per km2, per year)

Central Africa

• $2 billion: coastal fishery value added (per year)
• $0.8 billion: inland fishery value added (per year)
• $14,000: forest carbon sequestration services (average per km2, per year)
• $3,500: mangrove coastal protection services (per km2, per year)
• $3,000: timber value added (per km2, per year)

Southern Africa

• $0.5 billion: coastal fishery value added (per year)
• $0.3 billion: inland fishery value added (per year)
• $9,000: recreation value (per km2, per year)

North Africa

• $0.6 billion: inland fishery value added (per year)
• $0.5 billion: coastal fishery value added (per year)
• $300: coastal carbon sequestration services (average per km2, per year)
• $2,000: timber production (per km2, per year)

East Africa and adjacent islands

• $2.5 billion: coastal fishery value added (per year)
• $1.2 billion: inland fishery value added (per year)
• $16,000: food production (per km2, per year)
• $12,000: forest carbon sequestration services (average per km2, per year)
• $11,000: erosion control (average per km2, per year)
• $7,800: forest bioprospecting (per km2, per year)
• $5,000: mangrove coastal protection services (per km2, per year)
• $2,200: coastal carbon sequestration services (average per km2, per year)

Projections

• >50% of African bird and mammal species could be lost to climate change by 2100
• 20 – 30%: expected decline in productivity of lakes by 2100
• 2.5 billion: predicted population of Africa in 2050 (double the current figure)
• 54%: Africans expected to live in urban and peri-urban areas by 2030 (up from 39% in 2003)By the numbers

Asia-Pacific

Trends / data

• Zero: exploitable fish stocks in the region by 2048 if current fishing practices continue
• Up to 90%: percentage of corals expected to suffer severe degradation by 2050, even under conservative climate change scenarios
• 1%-2%: annual estimated coral loss even for the most managed reefs
• 4.5 billion: people that benefit from the region’s biodiversity and ecosystem services, including food, water, energy, and health security, as well as cultural and spiritual fulfilment
• 400 million: region’s share of people below the poverty line (out of 767 million worldwide) — defined as $1.90 per person per day, using 2011 purchasing power parity
• 7.6%: regions’ average annual economic growth (1990-2010) compared to 3.4% global average
• 2-3%: region’s annual urbanization rate (among the fastest in the world)
• Nearly 200 million: people in the region that directly depend on the forest for their non-timber forest products, medicine, food, fuel as well as other subsistence needs
• $33.5 billion: estimated annual economic loss due to invasive alien species in South-East Asia
• 12.9%: reduction in forest cover in South-East Asia due largely to an increase in timber extraction, large-scale bio-fuel plantations and the expansion of intensive agriculture and shrimp farms (1990 to 2015)
• 22.9% and 5.8%: respective increase in forest cover in North-East Asia and South Asia (1990 to 2015), through policies and instruments such as joint participatory management, payment for ecosystem services and the restoration of degraded forests
• 37%: share of aquatic and semi-aquatic species in the region’s freshwater ecosystems threatened by, among others, climate change, overfishing, pollution, infrastructure development and invasive alien species
• 60%: grasslands degraded due to overgrazing by livestock, invasion by alien species, or conversion to agriculture, resulting in a rapid decline of native flora and fauna
• 8 out of 10: top most plastic-polluted rivers in the world are in Asia – accounting for up to 95% of global load of plastics in the oceans
• Nearly 25%: proportion of region’s endemic species that are threatened

Projections

• 24% and 29%: mammal and bird species likely to go extinct in lowland forests of Sundaland in South-East Asia in coming decades if forest loss continues at the present rate
• +/-45%: anticipated loss of habitats and species by 2050 if business continues as usual
  • • By the numbersEurope and Central AsiaTrends / data
      • >50%: share of nature’s regulating and some non-material contributions to people that declined from 1960 to 2016
      • 42%: terrestrial animal and plant species with known trends that have declined in population size the last decade
      • 5.1 hectares: per capita ecological footprint in Western Europe (subregion’s biocapacity: 2.2 hectares, meaning Western Europeans depend on net imports of renewable natural resources and material contributions of nature to people)
      • 3.6 hectares: per capita ecological footprint in Central Europe (biocapacity: 2.1 hectares)
      • 4.8 hectares: per capita ecological footprint in Eastern Europe (biocapacity: 5.3 hectares)
      • 3.4 hectares: per capita ecological footprint in Central Asia (biocapacity: 1.7 hectares)
      • 15%: per capita decrease in water availability (since 1990)
      • 25%: agricultural land in the EU affected by soil erosion (23% in Central Asia), which, combined with a decline in soil organic matter, might compromise food production
      • 20%: increase in erosion control on arable land in Western and Central Europe
      • 7%: of the assessments of EU marine species of conservation interest have shown favourable conservation status; 27% have shown unfavourable conservation status
      • 9%: of the assessment of EU marine habitats of conservation interest have shown favourable conservation status; 66% have shown unfavourable conservation status
      • 26.6%: estimated proportion of marine fish species (for which trend data exist) that have declining populations, due to unsustainable fishing, habitat degradation, invasive alien species, eutrophication and climate change
      • 1.6%: estimated proportion of marine fish species (for which trend data exist) with increasing populations, due to improved conditions including better fishing management and decreased eutrophication
      • 20%: diversity of arable crop species that have declined since 1950 in Western and Central Europe
      • 73%: percentage of assessments of EU freshwater habitats of conservation interest indicating unfavourable conservation status
      • 51%: extent of decline of wetlands in Western and Central Europe, and western parts of Eastern Europe, since 1970
      • 16 – 65%: threatened species of crabs (bivalves 23 – 49%; crayfish 24 – 47%; gastropods 33 – 68%; dragonflies, 9 – 44%) in Western and Central Europe, and western parts of Eastern Europe v71%: fish populations in decline in past decade
      • 60%: amphibian populations in decline in past decade
      • 37%: freshwater fish species threatened with extinction (amphibians: 23%) in Western and Central Europe and western parts of Eastern Europe

  Economic value of nature’s contributions to people

  • • • $765 / hectare / year: estimated median value (mid-range) of value (2017) of nature’s habitat maintenance in the region
      • $1,965: estimated median value (mid-range) of the economic value per hectare per year of nature’s regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality (2017)
      • $1,117: estimated median value (mid-range) of the economic value per hectare per year of nature’s non-material contributions to people, including physical and psychological experiences linked to tourism and recreation (2017)
      • $464 estimated median value (mid-range) of the economic value per hectare per year of nature’s regulation of climate

  ###

  UN Partner Comments about the IPBES Regional Assessments

  “The Sustainable Development Goals aim to “leave no one behind”. If we don’t protect and value biodiversity, we will never achieve this goal. When we erode biodiversity, we impact food, water, forests and livelihoods. But to tackle any challenge head on, we need to get the science right and this is why UN Environment is proud to support this series of assessments. Investing in the science of biodiversity and indigenous knowledge, means investing in people and the future we want.” – Erik Solheim, Executive Director of UN Environment

  “Biodiversity is the living fabric of our planet – the source of our present and our future. It is essential to helping us all adapt to the changes we face over the coming years. UNESCO, both as a UN partner of IPBES and as the host of the IPBES Technical Support Unit on Indigenous and Local Knowledge, has always been committed to supporting harmony between people and nature through its programmes and networks. These four regional reports are critical to understanding the role of human activities in biodiversity loss and its conservation, and our capacity to collectively implementing solutions to address the challenges ahead.” – Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO

  “The regional assessments demonstrate once again that biodiversity is among the earth’s most important resources. Biodiversity is also key to food security and nutrition. The maintenance of biological diversity is important for food production and for the conservation of the ecological foundations on which rural livelihoods depend. Biodiversity is under serious threat in many regions of the world and it is time for policy-makers to take action at national, regional and global levels.” – José Graziano da Silva, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

  “Tools like these four regional assessments provide scientific evidence for better decision making and a path we can take forward to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and harness nature’s power for our collective sustainable future. The world has lost over 130 million hectares of rainforests since 1990 and we lose dozens of species every day, pushing the Earth’s ecological system to its limit. Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports are not only the foundation for our life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.” – Achim Steiner, Administrator of UNDP

  Note to Editors:

  For enquiries and interviews please contact:

  The IPBES Media Team
  media@ipbes.net
  +57-310-626-6641 or +1-416-878-8712
  http://www.ipbes.net

  For photos, ‘B-roll’ and other media resources go to: https://goo.gl/oJ4DRq

  Three years in development, at a total cost of about US$5 million, the IPBES Regional Assessment Reports on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services involved the review of several thousand scientific papers, as well as extensive Government and other information sources, including indigenous and local knowledge, to arrive at conclusions about each region’s land-based, freshwater and coastal biodiversity, as well as the state of ecosystem functioning and nature’s contributions to people. Together they represent the most important expert contribution of the past decade to understanding of nature and its contributions to people, offering a roadmap for future action.

  IPBES has today released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of each of the four reports. The SPMs present the key messages and policy options from each assessment, as approved by the IPBES Plenary. To access the SPMs go to https://goo.gl/oJ4DRq The complete reports (inclusive of all data) will be published later this year.

  Note: A 5th new IPBES assessment report, on global land degradation and restoration, will be launched on Monday, 26 March 2018, at 08:30 Colombia Time / 09:30 US EDT / 13:30 GMT / 14:30 British Summer Time / 15:30 Central European Summer Time. To access the live webcast of this launch go to https://www.ipbes.net/webcast-media-launch-land-degradation

  About IPBES:

  Often described as the “IPCC for biodiversity” IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body comprising 129 member Governments. Established by Governments in 2012, it provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people, as well as the tools and methods to protect and sustainably use these vital natural assets. For more information about IPBES and its assessments visit http://www.ipbes.net

* * * * *

Example coverage:

Agence France Presse, France

IPBES: Keeping its finger on the pulse of biodiversity

Humanity imperiled by abuse of life-giving Nature: reports

After warnings of species plight: solutions in sight

Reuters (via the NY Times):

Nature’s ‘Alarming’ Decline Threatens Food, Water, Energy: U.N.

The Associated Press, USA

UN reports see a lonelier planet with fewer plants, animals

Agencia EFE, Spain

ONG insta a detener ‘crisis de extinción’ protegiendo la mitad del planeta

Peligroso declive de biodiversidad amenaza bienestar humano, dicen expertos

Deutsche Presse Agentur, Germany

Studie warnt vor Abnahme von biologischer Vielfalt

Experten debattieren in Kolumbien über Biodiversität

Spanish: Científicos alertan sobre la disminución de la biodiversidad global

BBC, UK (online reach: 10,894,085)

Half of African species ‘face extinction’

Press Association, UK

Ongoing declines in world´s plants and animals `puts humans at risk´

The Guardian 1,702,329

Destruction of nature as dangerous as climate change, scientists warn

Europa Press, Spain 1,748,729

Los científicos constatan la continuada y seria pérdida de biodiversidad y alertan de sus efectos, según SEO/Birdlife

Xinhua (Eng.), China 

Biodiversity worsens all over the world, in urgency to cope with: IPBES report 

Kyodo News, Japan

アジア、生態系の恩恵に危機自然破壊深刻と科学者組織が報告

IndoAsian News Agency (IANS), India

Biodiversity continues to decline globally, warn scientists

Belga, Belgium

Biodiversiteit blijft overval in wereld achteruitgaan

TT, Sweden

Experter: Livet på jorden hotat

National Geographic 10,274,735

Life on Earth Is Under Assault—But There’s Still Hope

El Tiempo, Colombia 4,042,591

‘La biodiversidad es un adorno: si no existe, el planeta colapsa’

El Espectador, Colombia 915,536

Colombia necesita USD 4,8 billones para conservar su biodiversidad a 2030

La biodiversidad se sigue deteriorando peligrosamente en todas las regiones del mundo

* * * * *

18 July 2016

Assembled by UNU-IIGH, six papers underline the value of applying science, technology to reduce disaster-related health risks; productivity in many jobs seen falling by up to 40 percent by 2050 due to heat stress; experts convene at UN forum in Malaysia

The rising price — in both money and health — of extreme weather events amid rapid urbanisation, and the corresponding value of applying science and technology to reduce the risks, is underscored in six new research papers formally launched at a UN event today.

Assembled by UN University’s Malaysia-based International Institute for Global Health (UNU-IIGH), the papers are published in a special issue of the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health.

And they help inform a special Forum on Advancing Science and Technology in the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, hosted in Kuala Lumpur July 19 by UNU-IIGH and the UN Development Programme.

The papers include a warning about large productivity losses due to heat stress, estimating that in South-East Asia alone “as much as 15% to 20% of annual work hours may already be lost in heat-exposed jobs,” a figure that may double by 2050 as the planet continues warming.

According to author Tord Kjellstrom of the Health and Environment International Trust, New Zealand: “Current climate conditions in tropical and subtropical parts of the world are already so hot during the hot seasons that occupational health effects occur and work capacity for many people is affected.”

Dr. Kjellstrom’s paper cites estimated GDP losses due to heat stress for 43 countries: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russia, Saint Lucia, Samoa, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu and Vietnam (see tables at http://bit.ly/29BL0Dn).

The situation in Malaysia is typical of the South-East Asian countries: As work slows or stops to avoid dangerous heat stress, the country’s Gross Domestic Product will decline by an estimated 5.9% (value: US $95 billion) by 2030, more than double the estimated 2.8% GDP lost to heat stress in 2010.

According to latest estimates, the global economic cost of reduced productivity may be more than US $2 trillion by 2030. The most susceptible jobs include the lowest paid — heavy labour and low-skill agricultural and manufacturing.

In 2030, in both India and China, the GDP losses could total $450 billion, although mitigation may be made possible by a major shift in working hours, among other measures employers will need to take to reduce losses.

This problem is already placing major strain on, for example, electricity infrastructure, Dr. Kiellstrom notes. The additional energy needed for a single city the size of Bangkok for each 1°C increase of average ambient temperature can be as much as 2000 MW, roughly the output of a major power plant.

“It is very important to develop and apply adaptation measures now to protect people from the disasters that current climate and slowing changing climate brings,” says Dr. Kjellstrom. “However, adaptation is only half an answer — we must also take decisive action now to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases. Failure will cause the frequency and intensity of disasters to worsen dramatically beyond 2050, and the situation at the end of this century will be especially alarming for the world’s poorest people.”

Heat stress is one of several direct and growing impacts on human health due to a warming planet, understanding all of which “is critical in planning for mitigation and adaptation plans,” the authors say.

According to the papers:

• Disastrously heavy rains can expand insect breeding sites, drive rodents from their burrows, and contaminate freshwater resources, leading to the spread of disease and compromising safe drinking water supplies.
• Warmer temperatures often promote the spread of mosquito-borne parasitic and viral diseases by shifting the vectors’ geographic range and shortening the pathogen incubation period.
• Climate change can worsen air quality by triggering fires and dust storms and promoting certain chemical reactions causing respiratory illness and other health problems.
• In extreme disasters, harm is often amplified by the destruction of medical facilities and disruption of health services
• Central and south China can anticipate the greatest number of casualties and highest economic losses from extreme weather events in the Asia Pacific region — the world’s most disaster-prone region — and a more integrated, multidisciplinary approach is needed to upgrade the nation’s emergency response system for natural disasters.
• From 1980 to 2012, roughly 2.1 million people worldwide died as a direct result of nearly 21,000 natural catastrophes such as floods, mudslides, extreme heat, drought, high winds or fires. The cost of those disasters exceeded $4 trillion (US) — a loss comparable to the current annual GDP of Germany.
• In Asia Pacific 1.2 billion people have been affected by 1,215 disasters since the millennium. Some 92% of human exposure to floods occurs in Asia Pacific, along with 91% of exposure to cyclones and two-thirds of all exposure to landslides. Between 1970 and 2011, two million people in the region — 75% of the world total — were killed by disasters.
• From 1993 to 2012, the Philippines experienced the highest number of extreme weather events (311), Thailand experienced the greatest financial loss (US$ 5.4 billion) and Myanmar experienced the highest death rate (13.5 deaths per 100,000 people).
• In just 40 years, from 1970 to 2010, the regional population exposed to flooding risk more than doubled from about 30 million to 64 million while those in cyclone-prone areas rose from roughly 72 to 121 million.
• Cities cover 2% of world land cover, generate 60 to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions and half of all waste, and are expanding at a rate of 1 million people per week. In a single generation — from 2000 to 2030 –urban land extents are expected to have tripled.

The authors underline that fast-rising numbers of people are being exposed to the impacts of climate change, with much of the increase occurring in cities in flood-prone coastal areas or on hills susceptible to mudslides or landslides. Especially vulnerable are people living in poverty, including about one billion in slums.

Cities — concentrated sources of energy consumption, heat and pollution, covered in surfaces that absorb warmth — create local heat islands and impair air quality, both threats to health.

And rising demand for cooling contributes to warming the world. Air conditioners not only pump heat out directly, the electricity required is typically produced by burning fossil fuels, adding to atmospheric greenhouse gases. As well, people acclimatized to air conditioning become less heat tolerant, further increasing demand for cooling.

On the other hand, better urban planning presents “tremendous opportunity” to mitigate the health impacts of more extreme weather events.

Urban planners, the authors say, can help by designing cities “in ways that enhance health, sustainability, and resilience all at once,” incorporating better building design, facilitating a shift to renewable energy, and fostering the protection and expansion of tree cover, wetlands and other carbon sinks, for example.

To mitigate the health impacts of longer, more severe extreme weather events, the authors stress the need to replace piecemeal reactive responses with integrated, multi-disciplinary planning approaches.

Beyond better preparation and warning systems to improve disaster response, recommended steps include enhancing drainage to reduce flood risks and strengthening health care, especially in poor areas.

In an introduction to the six paper collection, UNU-IIGH Research Fellows Jamal Hisham Hashim and José Siri write that humanity faces “substantial health risks from the degradation of the natural life support systems which are critical for human survival. It has become increasingly apparent that actions to mitigate environmental change have powerful co-benefits for health.”

Comments:

“It is not clear yet whether considerations of health and sustainability will overrule the press of economic progress in coming decades, and ethical considerations surrounding the right to development are thorny indeed. What is clear is that tremendous opportunities exist to design cities in ways that enhance health, sustainability, and resilience all at once. Decisions made today will have a profound impact on health around the world for many decades to come. We hope these papers help improve understanding of the complex relationship between global environmental change and health, of the threat climate change poses to hard-won advances in human health worldwide, and of policy options available to mitigate these risks.”

Anthony Capon, Director, UNU-IIGH

“The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) underlines the increasing importance of science-based decision-making. Public health and disaster risk reduction needs the concerted approach of scientists, policy makers, civil society, the private sector, media and other stakeholders. It is now time to develop “Words into Action” for implementation of the SFDRR.”

Michelle Gyles-McDonnough, UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam

“Disasters have killed more than 1.3 million people and cost over US$2 trillion during the last two decades. The only way to protect development gains from disasters and to eradicate poverty is to integrate disaster risk reduction into development and to make all development risk-informed. UNDP will continue to provide support for getting DRR on the political agenda as a cross-cutting development priority, and facilitating the translation of DRR policy frameworks into action at the local level for empowered lives and resilient nations.”

Rajib Shaw, Executive Director, Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Programme, China

“This excellent series of peer review papers help to focus attention on the impact of disasters and their health consequences, particularly in South East Asia. The papers summarise the need for emphasis on public health impact measurements as well as stressing the importance of enhanced scientific and technical work on disaster risk reduction. This very welcome series demonstrates that only by documenting the effects of disasters can evidence be provided to support the availability and application of science and technology to inform decision-making during difficult times.”

Virginia Murray, Global Disaster Risk Reduction Expert, Public Health England, and vice-chair, Scientific and Technical Advisory Group, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR)

“People know intuitively that “react and cure” is a far more expensive strategy than “anticipate and prevent.” The experts behind these insightful papers, by detailing the high price of inaction in terms of both our finances and our health, greatly strengthen the case for taking defensive steps against disaster risks — and the sooner the better.”

Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Malaysia

###

The six papers, published by the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health

• Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and Human Health Implications in the Asia Pacific Region, by Jamal Hisham Hashim and Zailina Hashim
• Urbanization, Extreme Events, and Health: The Case for Systems Approaches in Mitigation, Management, and Response, by José G. Siri, Barry Newell, Katrina Proust, and Anthony Capon
• Impact of Climate Conditions on Occupational Health and Related Economic Losses: A New Feature of Global and Urban Health in the Context of Climate Change, by Tord Kjellstrom
• Impact of Climate Change on Air Quality and Public Health in Urban Areas, by Noor Artika Hassan, Zailina Hashim, and Jamal Hisham Hashim
• Review of Climate Change and Water-Related Diseases in Cambodia and Findings From Stakeholder Knowledge Assessments, by Lachlan J. McIver, Vibol S. Chan, Kathyrn J. Bowen, Steven N. Iddings, Kol Hero and Piseth P. Raingsey
• Emergency Response to and Preparedness for Extreme Weather Events and Environmental Changes in China, by Li Wang, Yongfeng Liao, Linsheng Yang, Hairong Li, Bixiong Ye, and Wuyi Wang

Background

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was agreed at the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai, Japan in March 2015 and endorsed by the UN General Assembly in June 2015.

The goal of the Sendai Framework is to prevent new and reduce existing disaster risk through the implementation of integrated and inclusive economic, structural, legal, social, health, cultural, educational, environmental, technological, political and institutional measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery, and thus strengthen resilience.

The outcome expected by 2030 is a substantial reduction in disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental aspects of persons, private sector, communities and countries.

A key feature of the Sendai Framework is the shift of focus from managing ‘disasters’ to managing ‘risks’. Such a shift requires a better understanding of risk in all its dimensions of hazards, exposure and vulnerability.

The role of science and technology in providing the evidence and knowledge on risk features heavily in the Sendai Framework.

The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Science and Technology Conference, held 27-29 January 2016 in Geneva, produced the Science and Technology Roadmap to Support the Implementation of the Sendai Framework.

The UNU and UNDP Joint Public Forum and High Level Roundtable on Advancing Science and Technology in the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 has the following goals:

• Raise awareness of the value of science, technology and innovation (STI) for disaster risk reduction
• Engage key stakeholders in options to build STI capacity in this field, and
• Identify strategic next steps.

It takes place in Kuala Lumpur Tuesday, 19 July, 9 a.m. to noon (full details: http://bit.ly/29BK7dW).

About UN University

Established in 1973, United Nations University (UNU) is a global think tank and postgraduate teaching organization headquartered in Japan. The mission of the UN University is to contribute, through collaborative research and education, to efforts to resolve the pressing global problems of human development, welfare and survival that are the concern of the United Nations, its Peoples and Member States.

In carrying out this mission, UN University works with leading universities and research institutes in UN Member States, functioning as a bridge between the international academic community and the United Nations system. Through postgraduate teaching activities, UNU contributes to capacity building, particularly in developing countries.

About UNU-IIGH

The UNU International Institute for Global Health was founded in 2007 with a US$ 40 million endowment from the Malaysian Government. Based in Kuala Lumpur, the mission of UNU-IIGH is to build knowledge and capacity for decision-making by the UN system about global health issues.

As part of the International Council for Science (ICSU), UNU-IIGH is a co-sponsor of a 10-year global interdisciplinary science program on Health and Wellbeing in the Changing Urban Environment – A Systems Analysis Approaches.

UNU-IIGH contributions include capacity building in systems methods for population health research; development and evaluation of metrics for healthy urban development, particularly those relevant to low and middle income countries; and leadership training for city planners, elected officials, public health workers and others.

About UNDP

UNDP partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. On the ground in more than 170 countries and territories, we offer global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations.

* * * * *

News release in full, click here

Example coverage:

• Newswires / syndicates

Reuters, UK, Too hot to work: global warming to cost $2 trillion in lost productivity, click here

Washington Post, USA, As the world grows hotter, some workers are becoming less productive, click here

Bloomberg News, USA, Soaring Temperatures Will Make It Too Hot to Work, UN Warns, click here

The Independent, UK, Global warming set to cost the world economy £1.5 trillion by 2030 as it becomes too hot to work, click here

EuropaPress, Spain, Investigadores detallan los riesgos crecientes para salud de los desastres naturales, click here

RAI Novosty, Russia, ООН посчитала, во сколько мировой экономике обойдется глобальное потепление, click here

PAP, Poland, ONZ ostrzega: Wzrost temperatury doprowadzi do skrócenia czasu pracy, click here

• News sites

Le Figaro, France, via Yahoo News, La hausse des températures pourraient coûter 2 trillions de dollars à l’économie d’ici 2030, click here

Les Echos, France, Selon un rapport de l’ONU, la hausse des températures en raison du changement climatique pourrait coûter des points de PIB et des billions de dollars d’ici à 2030, click here

BFM Business, France, L’économie mondiale victime du réchauffement climatique, click here

Sina, China, 全球变暖每年将夺走13万亿元财富, click here

De Morgen, Belgium, Toenemende temperaturen doen wereldeconomie serieus zweten, click here

Business Green, UK, Heat stress is already impacting the bottom line – and it’s only going to get worse, click here

Climate News Network, UK, Climate change’s costs are still escalating, click here

Clean Malaysia, Climate Change will Cost us … a Lot, click here

Free Malaysia Today, Malaysia, Productivity to drop in Asia Pacific due to heat stress, click here

Mic, United States, As Republicans Deny Climate Change, the U.N. Says it Could Cost the World $2 Trillion, click here

RP, Poland, Cena globalnego ocieplenia: 2 biliony dolarów w ciągu najbliższych, click here

Taloussanomat, Finland, Kylmyyttä Pohjolaan, tukalaa Aasiaan – tuoko muutos säissä lisää lepoaikaa?, click here

iDNES, Czech Republic, Kvůli oteplování se bude méně pracovat. Ekonomiky zpomalí, varuje OSN, click here

Экспресс газета, Russia, Глобальное потепление может серьёзно ударить по мировой экономике, click here

Klimaretter, Germany, Weniger Arbeitstage durch Erderwärmung, click here

Rappler, USA, Hotter climate causing lower worker productivity – study, click here

Rinnovabili, Italy, Il riscaldamento globale fa sudare anche l’economia, click here

Privátbankár, Hungary, Olyan hőség lesz, amiben már dolgozni sem lehet – óriási károkat okoz majd, click here

Kommersant, Russia, Мировую экономику ожидает солнечный удар, click here

Okezone, Indonesia, Pemanasan Global Akan Membuat Perekonomian Asia Menderita, click here

XãLuận, Vietnam, GDP, năng suất lao động Việt Nam bị ảnh hưởng nặng bởi nắng nóng, click herehttp://www.xaluan.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1539110

iAgua, Spain, ¿Qué impactos tienen los desastres naturales en la salud?, click here

Full coverage summary, click here

IPBES, Bonn / Office of the Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia

26 Feb 2016

Assessment Details Options for Safeguarding Pollinators

* * * * *

Key media coverage

The New York Times, Decline of Species That Pollinate Poses a Threat to Global Food Supply, Report Warns, click here (print edition, Page A4, Sat Feb 27 2016, ad value: $445,185)

The Associated Press, UN Science Report Warns of Fewer Bees, Other Pollinators, click here

Reuters, UK, Vital to food output, bees and other pollinators at risk, click here

Russian, Пестициды и изменение климата грозят пчёлам и сельскому хозяйству (Pesticides and climate change threaten bees and agriculture), click here
Chinese, 联合国：蜜蜂和蝴蝶锐减威胁全球作物 (UN: Bees and butterflies dropped the threat of global crop), click here

Reuters, UK (2nd story)
Global group to assess human impact on nature over three years, click here

Agence France Presse
Decline of bees, other pollinators, poses crop risks: UN group, click here

French, Moins d’abeilles, moins de papillons: une partie de la production agricole menacée, click here
Spanish, Disminución de abejas y otros polinizadores amenaza la agricultura mundial, click here

Chinese, 蜜蜂蝴蝶銳減 威脅全球作物 (Bee, Butterfly decline threatens global crops), click here

Agencia EFE, Spain, ONU alerta por desaparición de polinizadores, click here

(2nd story)

Las abejas, en peligro de extinción (Bees endangered), click here

Kyoto News, Japan, “Pollinators’ “service” valued at 470 billion yen”, click here, Japanese, click here

Korean, “벌의 경제 가치는 713조 원” (“The economic value of bees is 713 trillion won.”), click here

UPI, Study: Dwindling bee, butterfly populations pose global agriculture threat,  click here

Newsweek, 40 Percent of Invertebrate Pollinators Face Extinction Across the Globe, click here

Deutsche Welle, Bee, butterfly disappearance threatens crops, click here

2nd story, UN report warns risk to bees and other pollinators threatens human food supplies, click here

Futura Sciences, France, Le déclin des pollinisateurs menace l’agriculture mondiale (The decline of bees threatens world agriculture), click here

New Scientist, Bijen onder de loep op internationaal congres, click here

Helsingen Sanomat, Finland, Raportti: Pölyttäjien katoaminen uhkaa koko maailman ruuantuotantoa (Report: the disappearance of pollinators threatens the entire world’s food production), click here

Oslobodjenje, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Crotian, Ugrožavanjem pčela i ostalih oprašivača dovedena u opasnost proizvodnja hrane (Jeopardizing bees and other pollinators endangers food production), click here

Bernama, Malaysia, World Concern Needed To Preserve Pollinators, click here

Free Malaysia Today, Malaysia, Prof’s lesson on food and the birds and the bees, click here

BBC World Service Radio (Newsday) UK, Simon Potts interview (3.5 minutes) starts at the 49 minute mark, click here

Voice of America, USA, World’s Pollinators, Food Supply Threatened, Study says, click here

Christian Science Monitor, Earth’s bees and other pollinators need our help: What can we do?, click here

The Washington Post, Unprecedented scientific report says bees and other pollinators are in dire need of help, click here

The Huffington Post, Bees Are Dying And That Could Be Devastating For Food Security, click here

National Public Radio, Report: More Pollinators Species In Jeopardy, Threatening World Food Supply, click here

Nature, Global biodiversity report warns pollinators are under threat, click here

Der Tagesspiegel, Weltbiodiversitätsrat IPBES Aus dem Staub gemacht, click here

Science.ORF.at, Austria, Zu wenig Bestäuber, zu wenig Nahrung, click here

Spiegel, Germany, Uno-Bericht: Bestäuber-Sterben bedroht Nahrungsmittelsicherheit, click here

Deutsche Presse Agentur, via Süddeutsche Zeitung, Germany, Agrar Rückgang der Bestäuber bedroht Nahrungsversorgung weltweit, click here

Die Welt, Germany, UN-Organisation beklagt Verschwinden von Bienen und Schmetterlingen, click here

CNN, United States, Beetles, butterflies and bees, oh my! Pollinators face extinction, study says, click here

Central News Agency, Taiwan, 聯合國：蜜蜂蝴蝶銳減威脅全球作物 (UN: decline in bees, butterfly threatens global crops), click here

Polskieradio, Poland, ONZ: ginące pszczoły to zagrożenie dla rolnictwa, click here

MSN Österreich, Austria, Bienensterben bedroht Millionen von Menschen, click here

Svenska – Yle, Finland, FN: Massdöd bland pollinerare hotar jordens matproduktion, click here

DN, Sweden, Massdöd av bin hotar matförsörjningen, click here

The Hindu, India, Bees, other pollinators at risk, may hit food output, click here

Journal o Globo, Brazil, Declínio da população de abelhas ameaça agricultura, alerta ONU, click here

EXAME, Brazil, Abelhas e outros polinizadores estão desaparecendo, diz ONU, click here

MAP newswire, Morocco, L’extinction des pollinisateurs met en danger la production agricole (rapport de l’ONU), click here

NTB newswire, Norway, Fallende biebestand truer landbruket, click here

Phys.Org, The UN guardians of biodiversity, click here

The Australian, Vital to food output, bees at risk, click here,

AGERPRES, Romania, Producția alimentara, in pericol, ca urmare a amenințarilor la adresa albinelor și a altor polenizatori (Food production in danger due to threats to bees and other pollinators), click here

Yam.com, China, 聯合國：蜂蝶銳減 危及農作物 (UN: bees and butterflies sharply threatening crops), click here

The New Straits Times (Kuala Lumpur), PLATFORM FOR SCIENTISTS TO ‘TALK’ TO GOVERNMENTS, click here

Jeopardy! (CBS, USA, video: https://youtu.be/ZQfuRGSJzjs)

Coverage summary

Hyperlinks to coverage in 23 languages at 938 online news sites in 73 countries (plus print newspaper and radio coverage), click here

11 Jan 2015

Additional Malaysian nanoscience research includes converting greenhouse gases into energy source;

‘Smart farming’ nanosensors; New program aims for macro impact in health, energy, environment, agriculture, electronics

Malaysian scientists are joining forces with Harvard University experts to help revolutionize the treatment of lung diseases — the delivery of nanomedicine deep into places otherwise impossible to reach.

Under a five-year memorandum of understanding between Harvard and the University of Malaya, Malaysian scientists will join a distinguished team seeking a safe, more effective way of tackling lung problems including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the progressive, irreversible obstruction of airways causing almost 1 in 10 deaths today.

Treatment of COPD and lung cancer commonly involves chemotherapeutics and corticosteroids misted into a fine spray and inhaled, enabling direct delivery to the lungs and quick medicinal effect. However, because the particles produced by today’s inhalers are large, most of the medicine is deposited in the upper respiratory tract.

The Harvard team, within the university’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is working on “smart” nanoparticles that deliver appropriate levels of diagnostic and therapeutic agents to the deepest, tiniest sacs of the lung, a process potentially assisted by the use of magnetic fields.

Malaysia’s role within the international collaboration: help ensure the safety and improve the effectiveness of nanomedicine, assessing how nanomedicine particles behave in the body, what attaches to them to form a coating, where the drug accumulates and how it interacts with target and non-target cells.

Led by Joseph Brain, the Cecil K. and Philip Drinker Professor of Environmental Physiology, the research draws on extensive expertise at Harvard in biokinetics — determining how to administer medicine to achieve the proper dosage to impact target cells and assessing the extent to which drug-loaded nanoparticles pass through biological barriers to different organs.

The studies also build on decades of experience studying the biology of macrophages — large, specialized cells that recognize, engulf and destroy target cells as part of the human immune system.

Manipulating immune cells represents an important strategy for treating lung diseases like COPD and lung cancer, as well as infectious diseases including tuberculosis and listeriosis.

Dr. Brain notes that every day humans breathe 20,000 litres of air loaded with bacteria and viruses, and that the world’s deadliest epidemic — an outbreak of airborne influenza in the 1920s — killed tens of millions.

Inhaled nanomedicine holds the promise of helping doctors prevent and treat such problems in future, reaching the target area more swiftly than if administered orally or even intravenously.

This is particularly true for lung cancer, says Dr. Brain. “Experiments have demonstrated that a drug dose administered directly to the respiratory tract achieves much higher local drug concentrations at the target site.”

COPD meanwhile affects over 235 million people worldwide and is on the rise, with 80% of cases caused by cigarette smoking. Exacerbated by poor air quality, COPD is expected to rise from 5th to 3rd place among humanity’s most lethal health problems by 2030.

“Nanotechnology is making a significant impact on healthcare by delivering improvements in disease diagnosis and monitoring, as well as enabling new approaches to regenerative medicine and drug delivery,” says Prof. Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia.

“Malaysia, through NanoMITe, is proud and excited to join the Harvard team and contribute to the creation of these life-giving innovations.”

Malaysia’s NanoMITe

The research effort with Harvard is one of several underway at the Malaysia Institute for Innovative Nanotechnology, initiated in 2013 through Malaysia’s Global Science & Innovation Advisory Council, led by YAB Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Razak.

Nanotechnology involves manipulation of matter at a molecular scale (up to 100 nanometers, a nanometer being one billionth of a meter), and creating special properties of matter that occur below a given size threshold. Based at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, NanoMITe’s mission to engage in global scientific research collaborations to generate ideas, knowledge and products to benefit society while contributing to the national economy.

Over 100 leading scientific collaborators at world-class academies in Asia, Europe and North America are pooling extensive expertise to make nanotech-enabled advances in health, the environment, energy, food production, and electronics.

Says Idris Jusoh, Malaysia’s Minister of Higher Education, NanoMITe’s foremost financial supporter: “Together, science, technology and innovation constitute the engine that will drive Malaysia’s sustainable economic development and nanotechnology research is on the cutting-edge of our pursuits. It is key to the solution of persistent problems throughout our societies but such breakthroughs can only be achieved through collaborative, international research across a spectrum of scientific fields and converging results. Our ministry is proud to support these efforts.”

Other NanoMITe research efforts include:

Nanotech-enabled generation of renewable energy

The energy-related research all involves nano scale molecular manipulation using novel local materials, catalysts, processes and technologies to create, for example:

• Low temperature solid-oxide fuel cells for the power industry;
• Flexible solar cells for economically viable, clean renewable energy; and
• Converting waste biomass from palm oil trees into jet fuel, which could add an estimated RM 30 billion to the Malaysian economy by 2020, help meet renewable energy targets and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Says Prof. Datuk Dr. Halimaton Hamdan of the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, head of NanoMITe: “A lot of materials in use today are characterized by low effectiveness and high energy consumption. Nanotechnologies are being used to create nanocomposites and catalysts that enable the production of lighter, more durable and stronger materials, more efficient use of resources and reducing energy consumption. Specific nanotechnologies will also create more efficient means of energy generation, storage and transportation.”

“We believe that within 20 years, nanotechnology could help reduce the intensity of energy needed to produce a unit of product by 45 percent.”

Converting greenhouse gases into valuable chemicals

Malaysian scientists are also investigating the possibility that, via nanotech, captured greenhouse gases can serve as carbon feedstock for use in chemical production.

Specifically, they’re looking to design catalytic-nanomaterials to convert GHGs — carbon dioxide and methane — into renewable fuels, offering a potential contribution to energy supplies, mitigating climate change and advancing economic development.

“Smart farming” with agricultural nanosensors

Fungus-related problems are estimated to cost the South East Asian economy US$500 million every year. Once infected with a common fungus (G. boninense), young oil palm trees usually die within 1 to 2 years; mature trees may survive slightly longer.

Now scientists at the Universiti Putra Malaysia and Universiti Malaysia Perlis are developing nano-sensors and nano-based systems to create smart, precision farming to help address this expensive problem.

With the aid of wireless communication networks, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Satellite Remote Sensing nanosensors embedded in trees, roots and soil can monitor and detect G. boninense disease. Automatic adjustments of pesticide applications, nutrients or irrigation levels would occur once disease, pests or drought are detected.

Such a smart farming system could also help make more efficient use of water, nutrients, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and plant growth regulators, improving stability against crop degradation and reducing pollution.

By understanding at nano scale the structure of the agricultural inputs and the soil, carriers can be designed to anchor plant roots to surrounding soil and organic matter.

Prof. Zakri, a leader of the GSIAC, underlined the crucially important role of the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education to the NanoMITe program:

“Without the Ministry’s financial support and trust, NanoMITe could have never have been realized.”

###

Malaysia’s Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council is a unique forum of international and Malaysian experts and leaders created to help guide the nation’s sustainable development.

The Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology is a not-for-profit public-private partnership with more than 100 members, both local and international, from industry, government and academia. MIGHT provides a platform for industry-government consensus building to advance high technology competency in Malaysia.

Example coverage:

Bernama (Malaysia), “UM-Harvard Collaboration To Tackle Lung Diseases,” click here; Malay, “UM-Harvard University Jalin Kerjasama Tangani Penyakit Paru-Paru,” click here

Agencia EFE (Spain), “Universities of Harvard and Malaya team up to develop nano medicines,” click here; Spanish, “Malasia y Harvard se unen para curar los males pulmonares con nanotecnología,” click here

Benessere, Milan, Italy, “Da USA e Malesia una speranza contro le malattie polmonari,” click here

ABC, Madrid, Spain, “El cáncer de pulmón y la EPOC se tratarán en un futuro próximo con nanofármacos,” click here

Medical News Today, UK, “Future of lung treatment: Malaysian scientists join Harvard team creating safe, effective nano drugs,” click here

Medical News, Australia, “Malaysian scientists join forces with Harvard experts to help revolutionize lung disease treatment,” click here

Coverage summary, click here

International ‘Kitchen Cabinet’ of sustainable development advisors assesses progress at 5th annual meeting in New York

Malaysia has passed an important milestone on its way to developed country status.

World Bank data shows that Malaysian GDP per capita -$10,830 in 2014 -has exceeded for the first time the average of all nations worldwide, $10,804. By comparison, in 2010 national per capita GDP was US $8,752, some 8% below the then-world average of US $9,513.

The achievement was noted in a review of Malaysia’s unique Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council (GSIAC, gsiac.org), which conducts its 5th annual meeting in Manhattan Sept. 28.

GSIAC, Malaysia’s “kitchen cabinet” of national and international sustainable development advisors, is mandated with helping the country achieve $15,000 per capita GDP-the threshold for developed country status -by 2020.

Chaired by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak, GSIAC is a body of distinguished national and international leaders in economics, business, science and technology. The Council is run jointly by the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) and the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS).

“With the benefit of GSIAC’s valuable insights and advice, Malaysia is firmly on the path to developed country status,” says Tan Sri Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Joint Chairman of MIGHT, and a member of the UN Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board.

“There is much to do, however, to reach our $15,000 goal sustainably. From 2015 to 2020 inclusive, Malaysia’s per capita GDP needs to increase by $695 per year on average.”

He notes that such an increase is well within the projections of the 11th Malaysia Plan, released in May, which foresees private consumption and investment driving growth in gross national income per capita of 7.9% per annum.

Prof. Zakri emphasized that science, technology and innovation, pursued through national Science into Action (S2A) initiatives, are integral to the success of 11th Malaysia Plan, which includes six economic objectives: unlocking national potential and productivity, raising the bottom 40% of households towards middle-class positions, enabling industry-led technical and vocational education and training, fostering green growth and competitive cities, and translating innovation into wealth.

The assessment of GSIAC’s first five years of work was conducted by independent reviewers Prof. Mohamed Hassan, Chair of the UN University Council and co-chair of IAP, the Global Network of Science Academies, and Kris Gopalakrishnan, co-founder of Infosys, the world’s leading, technology-focused strategic consulting firm, headquartered in India.

Through workshops and more than 30 interviews with Council members and stakeholders, the reviewers assessed GSIAC in terms of:

• Economic impact (wealth generation)
• Social and natural capital development (health and environmental improvement)
• Contribution to sustainable development goals
• The quality of international linkages and partnerships fostered

Defining GSIAC as “a powerful international body advising the Prime Minister of Malaysia on the development of Malaysia and its economy,” the assessment examined as well the Council’s vision, mission and objectives, and the relevance and impact of the GSIAC’s four overarching themes:

• Human capacity buildingThrough the GSIAC, the Ministry of Education (MOE) has developed collaborative networks with NYAS on human capacity building, and programs including the ‘Nobelist Mindset’ and Bitara STEM programs, which aim to foster the interest of young people in the pursuit of science and innovation, “From Cradle to Career.”
• Smart CommunitiesThe Smart Communities (Smart Cities, Smart Villages) initiative, announced at the conclusion of GSIAC’s first meeting, aims to promote environmental sustainability and accelerate the greening of urban and rural communities while building community well-being (public safety, education, social care, etc.)
• Nutrition and HealthMalaysia, dealing with rising problems with non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and obesity, has looked for the Council for international expert advice. Among the results: My Body Fit and Fabulous, a GSIAC-brokered program involving the collaboration of the NYAS-based Sackler Institute of Nutrition Science and Malaysia’s Ministry of Health. A school-based intervention program combines physical activity, good nutrition and psychology to combat overweight and obesity among primary and secondary students.
• Green FutureGreen Future calls for the promotion of new sustainable economic opportunities by ensuring industrial efficiencies, sustainable consumption and production with the emphasis being on zero pollution. Adopting green technologies related to energy, water, pharmaceuticals, construction and transportation is expected to create new opportunities in industrial development, research, education and develop highly-skilled manpower.”Over the past five years, GSIAC can proudly boast of 10 or so collaborations in various areas that led to the birth of several programs / initiatives,” the assessment says.”Some programs / initiatives require more time to complete construction or implementation to achieve large-scale results. However, positive results are noted despite significant challenges in implementation.”The report calls for the nation-wide scale up of pilot projects My Body Fit and Fabulous, and Bitera STEM, with implementation monitored by Malaysia’s National Science Council.

  “It is clear that these programs bring great benefit to the country and its people especially the young generation; the future leaders.”

  “In view of the magnitude of the promising potential of these programs, they should be conducted at national scale or included in the national syllabus or system….(and) collaborative efforts between policy makers, program champions and other stakeholders are crucial to scale-up.”

  Among other proposals, the reviewers called for establishment of at least one interactive science center in each state to promote “hands-on” science education and literacy. They highlighted as well the opportunity to introduce to religious educational institutions inquiry-based learning and problem-solving skills, “which could be a unique contribution of Malaysia to the world -transforming religious learning institutions.”

  In addition to offering suggestions on specific programs, the reviewers make several overarching recommendations:

  • Close alignment of GSIAC efforts with the 11th Malaysia Plan and the post-2015 global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
  • The appointment of young innovators and additional women to the Council
  • That the Council underscore the importance of science, technology and innovation to economic growth, job creation and prosperity
  • The encouragement of more South-South cooperation

  “It is our hope that Malaysia will continue to develop and prosper while making a significant international contribution,” the reviewers conclude.

  International evaluations of Malaysian innovation

  This year’s GSIAC meeting had the benefit of insights from the Global Innovation Index (GII)report, newly-published by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

  In this year’s GII, Malaysia ranks 32nd in the world overall, up a notch from 33rd the year before, and Malaysia is the top-ranked middle-income country.

  The report credits “political stability, inflows of foreign direct investment, and export-oriented industrialization”for Malaysia’s successful transformation into “an upper middle-income country.”

  “Malaysia has been an innovation achiever over the period 2011-2014, as seen in improvements to its Global Innovation Index (GII) score relative to its GDP,” the report says. “Furthermore, Malaysia’s remarkable innovation performance led it to record the highest GII rank among the middle-income countries in 2014.”

  “Malaysia outperformed its middle-income peers in all seven pillars of the GII over the period 2011-14. Its general institutions for stimulating innovation are good, as can be seen from the improvements in its ranking in the ease of starting a business indicator, from 90th in 2012 to 15th in 2014.”

  “Malaysia’s ranking in …Business environment has also improved, seen in its rise from 53rd place in 2011 to 25th in 2014. At the same time, the government’s increasing focus on research funding has helped stimulate expansion in innovation inputs and outputs, evidenced by the rise in R&D expenditure as a share of GDP, R&D researchers and scientists per million persons, and number of doctoral graduates and scientific publications.”

  On the other hand, the report says, “Malaysia has remained a net technology and services importer, with net receipts and licensing fees remaining negative for many years. Greater efforts should be made to improve institutional support and knowledge-based activities to turn Malaysia into a net exporter of technology and services. Taiwan, Province of China, is a good model for Malaysia to consider in its efforts to strengthen innovation efficiency.”

  “Malaysia’s boosting of university-industry linkages… is a good example for other countries that want to improve their innovation capacity. By making it a requisite for universities to engage industry when seeking public R&D grants, scientific research at universities is increasingly targeted at commercialization.”

  OECD’s review

  Another review of Malaysian innovation policy, prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, foresees “immense opportunities to be seized” thanks in part to the country’s proximity to the world’s largest, most populous and dynamic emerging economies, China and India. This environment offers opportunities to explore and develop several economic niches “capable of generating prosperity in a sustainable manner,” according to advance knowledge of the report.

  The OECD review is expected to cite several key actions needed to improve Malaysia’s innovation capacity:

  • Implementing an innovation-based development strategy
  • Sustained attention to and continued investment in developing human resources and skills, and science, technology and innovation
  • Gradually building a mature and well-performing national innovation system with healthy interactions between its constituent parts and the international environment
  • Fostering the innovation capabilities of business firms through a mix of innovation-friendly framework conditions and dedicated and responsive policy measures
  • Strengthening the contribution of universities and research institutes, notably by adequate mechanisms of steering and funding, taking account of the full range of these institutions’ functions (from educating skilled personnel for STI to performing advanced research).

  Comments:

• Ellis Rubinstein, President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences; Joint GSIAC Secretary:”That the feedback from key stakeholders has been overwhelmingly positive is ideal. However, just as important is the constructive feedback received, which will allow GSIAC to continue, and improve, on its path of creating and supporting multi-disciplinary collaborations that have the potential to transform the earning potential of an entire country, while positively impacting its citizens in countless ways.”
• Prof. Tan Sri Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia; Joint GSIAC Secretary”Malaysia is helping to foster the internationalization of science to enlarge our domestic capacity through global partnership – a point very clearly underlined in our national Science, Technology and Innovation policy. International linkages in the form of stakeholder networks, partnerships and collaborations help to find global remedies to challenges faced at home and to integrate technologies across all sectors of the economy.”
• Datuk Dr. Yusoff Sulaiman, Joint Secretariat, GSIAC; President and CEO, MIGHT”I am pleased that the assessment highlighted a number of successful collaborations in human capacity building, STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education, green futures, information and communications technologies, smart communities and health. Many of these programs are considered ‘game changers’ drawing the participation of both international and Malaysian organisations.”

  ###

  Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology

  The Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT) is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee under the purview of the Prime Minister of Malaysia. MIGHT is an organization built on the strength of public-private partnership with more than 100 members, both local and international, from industry, government and academia. As an organization MIGHT is dedicated to providing a platform for industry-government consensus building in the drive to advance high technology competency in Malaysia.

  New York Academy of Sciences

  The New York Academy of Sciences is an independent, not-for-profit organization that since 1817 has been committed to advancing science, technology, and society worldwide. With 25,000 members in 140 countries, the Academy is creating a global community of science for the benefit of humanity. The Academy’s core mission is to advance scientific knowledge, positively impact the major global challenges of society with science-based solutions, and increase the number of scientifically informed individuals in society at large.

  Malaysia 11th Plan

  In full: http://bit.ly/1NYrcKr

  Brochure: http://bit.ly/1R5wBxA

  Executive Summary: http://bit.ly/1QCPjf6

  GSIAC council members:

  International

  Alice Gast, President of Imperial College, London

  Andrew W. Wyckoff, Director, OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

  Dr. AnnaLee Saxenian, Dean and Professor, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley

  Dr. Anthony J. Sinskey, Prof. of Biology & Health Sciences & Technology, MIT

  Professor Anthony Cheetham, Treasurer and Vice President, Royal Society, United Kingdom

  Brian R. Mefford, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Connected Nations, Inc.

  Hon. Ilya Ponomarev, Member, DUMA of Russia, Chair, DUMA High Technology Committee

  Jae Hoon Chung, President, Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT)

  Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the United Nations

  Jeffrey R. Immelt, Chairman and CEO, General Electric (GE)

  Hon. Jerry MacArthur Hultin, President Emeritus, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Former Secretary

  Dr. John Gage, Former Chief Researcher and Vice President of the Science Officer, Sun Microsystems

  John T. Chambers, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, CISCO

  Dr. Kiyoshi Kurokawa, Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, former Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Japan

  Dr. Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University

  Dr. Mikael Dolsten, President, Worldwide Research and Development and Senior Vice President, Pfizer Inc

  Dr. Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor, The State University of New York

  Dr. Paul Horn, Senior Vice Provost for Research, New York University, former Senior Vice President & Executive Director of Research, IBM

  Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, Director General, The Energy Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi, Chair, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

  Sir Richard Roberts, Nobel Laureate, Chief Scientific Officer, New England Biolabs

  Dr. Rita Colwell, US Special Science Envoy to South Asia and Southeast Asia

  Dr. Roger Wyse, Co-Chairman, Malaysian Life Sciences Capital Fund

  Dr. Torsten Wiesel, Nobel Laureate, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, Chairman Emeritus, The New York Academy of Sciences

  Professor William F. Miller, Herbert Hoover Professor of Public & Private, Emeritus Professor of Computer Science Stanford University, former President & CEO of SRI International

  Professor Youngah Park, President, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning (KISTEP)

  National

  Dato’ Mah Siew Keong, Minister in Prime Minister’s Office

  Dato’ Sri Mustapa Mohamed, Minister of International Trade and Industry

  Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Maximus Johnity Ongkili, Minister of Energy, Green Technology & Water

  Datuk Amar Douglas Uggah Embas, Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities

  Datuk Madius Tangau, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)

  Dato’ Seri Haji Idris Bin Jusoh, Minister of Higher Education

  Senator Dato’ Sri Abdul Wahid Omar, Minister in Prime Minister’s Office

  Dato’ Seri DiRaja Mahdzir Bin Khalid, Minister of Education

  Senator Datuk Seri Panglima Dr. Mohd Salleh Tun Said Keruak, Minister of Communications and Multimedia

  Tan Sri Dr. Ahmad Tajuddin Ali FASc, President, Academy of Sciences Malaysia (ASM

  Tan Sri Dato’ Azman Bin Hj. Mokhtar, Managing Director, Khazanah

  Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Mohd Bakke Salleh, President and Group Chief Executive, Sime Darby Berhad

  Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Zamzamzairani Mohd Isa, Managing Director/Group Chief Executive Officer of TM

  Datuk Seri Ir. Azman Mohd, President/Chief Executive Officer of Tenaga Nasional Berhad

  YBhg. Datuk Wan Zulfiflee Wan Ariffin, President and Chief Executive Officer, PETRONAS

  Dato’ Mohd Emir Mavani Abdullah, Group President & Chief Executive Officer, Felda Global Ventures Holdings Bhd

* * * * *

Example coverage by:

New Straits Times, Malaysia, Malaysia nears developed status, click here

The Star, Malaysia (with video), PM: Malaysia on track to becoming high-income nation by 2020, click here

Bernama, Malaysia, 1) GSIAC: Malaysia’s 2014 GDP capita exceeds global average, click here

2) Malaysia Moves Up A Notch In Global Innovation Index, click here

Agencia EFE (Spain), Malasia puede ser un modelo para Latinoamérica, dice asesor científico de ONU (Malaysia can be a model for Latin America, says UN scientific adviser), click here

IndoAsian News Service, India, Malaysia to become high-income nation by 2020, click here

News release in full, click here

Coverage summary: click here 

Paris

9 July 2015

UN Secretary-General’s Scientific Advisory Board calls for advisor, not observer seat for science at leaders’ policy-making table; recommends science test for pending policy decisions

Investing up to 3.5% of a nation’s GDP in science, technology and innovation – including basic science and education – is a key benchmark for advancing sustainable development effectively, leading experts say.

In papers released July 9 in New York, international scientists advising UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon say closing the gap between developed and developing countries depends on first closing international science, technology and innovation (STI) investment gaps.

According to the UN SG’s 26-member Scientific Advisory Board: “While a target of 1% of (Gross Domestic Product) for (research and development) is perceived high by many governments, countries with strong and effective STI systems invest up to 3.5% of their GPD in R&D.”

“If countries wish to break the poverty cycle and achieve (post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals), they will have to set up ambitious national minimum target investments for STI, including special allotments for the promotion of basic science and science education and literacy.”

The Board also recommends specific investment areas, including “novel alternative energy solutions, water filters that remove pathogens at the point-of-use, new robust building materials from locally available materials, nanotechnology for health and agriculture, and biological approaches to industrial production, environmental remediation and management.”

Instituted by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on behalf of the Secretary-General, the Board is comprised of experts from a range of scientific disciplines relevant to sustainable development, including its social and ethical dimensions.

The Board contributes to a process concluding this fall to replace the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, agreed by nations in 2000 for achievement in 2015, with a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), through which progress in improving quality of life around the world will be tracked through 2030.

Among other highlights of the papers presented at UN Headquarters:

The Board recommends a dedicated seat for science at an influential new world leaders’ forum created to promote and monitor sustainable development – the UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – saying science needs to be engaged “formally in the HLPF as an advisor rather than an observer.”

“This could be accomplished by creating a formal seat for science on the HLPF, and/or by involving the UNSG’s Scientific Advisory Board and organizations such as the National Academies of Sciences, UNESCO, ICSU, Future Earth, regional scientific bodies, and others.”

The High-level Political Forum meets every four years at the level of Heads of State and Government under the auspices of the General Assembly, and annually under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council. The Forum adopts negotiated declarations.

The Board also suggests engaging scientific bodies in reviews of pending policy decisions against scientific evidence.

“The UN Scientific Advisory Board, ICSU (the International Council for Science), National Academies of Science, and other bodies and networks, in collaboration with UNESCO and the UN system, would run a rigorous process of scientific review and assessment identifying possible risks and opportunities related to key political decisions.”

In addition, the Board calls for an annual Global Sustainable Development Report – a flagship UN publication like the Human Development Report – that monitors progress, identifies critical issues and root causes of challenges, and offers potential ways forward.

The report would synthesize and integrate findings from a wide range of scientific fields and institutions, developed with strong inter-agency support involving a suggested consortium of UN agencies working on sustainable development.

Needed to support long-term thinking: A better educated, informed world

Creating and engaging a better informed and educated public, it adds, would help establish policies that serve humanity’s long-term wellbeing over decisions that favour short-term economic and political interests.

The success of STI “will depend on the efficiency of the science-policy-society interface,” involving stakeholders from governments, civil society, indigenous peoples and local communities, industry and business, academia and research organizations.

“Such an active cooperation of multiple stakeholders will need more than the occasional by-chance interaction of different groups of society. It will require institutionalized architecture that brings together all affected actors to ensure linking scientific information and data as well as findings, scientific assessments and evidence-based advice with both policy and society.”

“Broader societal understanding and support of key scientific findings would make it more likely for science-based actions and evidence-based solutions to also be supported and promoted by decision-makers at all levels.”

The Board underlines that science, technology and innovation can be “the game changer” for the future development efforts.

“It can contribute to alleviating poverty, creating jobs, reducing inequalities, increasing income and enhancing health and well-being. It can assist in solving critical problems such as access to energy, food and water security, climate change and biodiversity loss.”

###

The papers in full:

• Science, Technology and Innovation: Critical Means of Implementation for the SDGs
  http://bit.ly/1HfvAz6

and

• Strengthening the High-Level Political Forum and the UN Global Sustainable Development Report
  http://bit.ly/1eFxuPG

Scientific Advisory Board of the United Nations Secretary-General

The Scientific Advisory Board was created in 2013 at the request of the UN Secretary-General to further inform the debate on sustainable development. The Board is composed of 26 eminent scientists representing all regions and many scientific disciplines relevant for sustainable development: the engineering, political and natural sciences are represented as well as for example oceanic, climate and biodiversity research. In addition, all members of the SAB have extensive and manifold experience with international scientific cooperation as well as the science-policy-society interface.

Board members are appointed in their personal capacity, and not as representatives of their respective States or of any other entities with which they may be affiliated. They will serve on a pro bono basis for a period of two years, with the possibility of renewal for one subsequent two-year term at the discretion of the UN Secretary-General.

Members of the Board

The SAB held its 3rd meeting in Malaysia on 25-26 May, co-chaired by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova and Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia. The meeting was hosted by the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT).

Example coverage:

Reuters / Thomson Reuters, UK “Investing in science can be ‘the game changer’ for development: experts,” click here
InterPress News Service, Italy, “Science and Technology a Game Changer for Post-2015 Development Agenda,” click here, German, click here
SciDev.net, UK, “Developing nations urged to spend big on science,” click here
Bernama, Malaysia, “UN Secretary-General Thanks PM Najib For Successful UN-SAB Meeting In May,” click here

Coverage summary, click here

News release in full, click here

9-DEC-2014

New perspective on growth of world wealth, 1992-2010: GDP up 50 percent; ‘Inclusive Wealth’ 6 percent;

Looking beyond GDP, new index measures progress toward sustainability; combines changes in human capital, natural capital, produced capital

An innovative yardstick — the Inclusive Wealth Index — offers 140 countries a new perspective on their economic performance in recent decades, one that extends beyond Gross Domestic Product to help reflect sustainable development.

Worldwide from 1992 to 2010 GDP showed a gain of 50%. However, according to the second biennial Inclusive Wealth Report (IWR), released today, when changes in human capital, produced capital and natural capital are considered together, global wealth increased by an “anemic” 6% over those years.

Human capital — measured in levels of education, skills and abilities — is the main source of world wealth, comprising 57% of total Inclusive Wealth, according to the report. Human capital grew just 8% overall worldwide between 1992 and 2010.

Natural capital such as forests, sub-soil resources and other ecosystems, meanwhile, comprise 23% of total Inclusive Wealth and declined by about 30% worldwide in the period.

The relatively low increases in human capital, combined with vast losses in natural capital, largely explain the anemic overall growth in Inclusive Wealth worldwide despite enormous gains in produced capital, says Dr. Partha Dasgupta, Chair of the report’s science advisory group.

“This report on changes recorded in three key types of wealth-related capital challenges the narrow perspective presented by GDP. And it underscores the need for integrating sustainability into economic evaluation and policy planning,” says Dr. Dasgupta, Professor Emeritus of Economics, University of Cambridge. “Looking beyond GDP and adopting an Inclusive Wealth Index internationally is central to the post-2015 sustainable development agenda being negotiated within the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”

Published by Cambridge University Press (and available in full at http://bit.ly/1FTtpjs), the report is a joint initiative of the UN University – International Human Dimensions Programme and the UN Environment Programme, in collaboration with the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, ASCENT Africa Sustainability Centre, the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology, Science to Action (S2A), the Ministry of Environment – Government of Japan, UN University – Institute for Advanced Study of Sustainability, and endorsed by the Science and Technology Alliance for Global Sustainability.

The report was authored by 22 leading authorities from several of the world’s most renowned universities and institutions.

The table at http://bit.ly/15Pj9vH shows per capita changes in human capital, natural capital, produced capital, overall Inclusive Wealth change, and the percentage change in GDP over time * for all 140 countries covered in the 2014 report (up from 20 countries covered in the inaugural IWR two years ago).

In the USA, India and China, for example, wealth measured by GDP from 1990 to 2010 rose 33%, 155% and 523% respectively.

However, when measures of natural, human and manufactured capital are considered together, the USA’s Inclusive Wealth rose by 13%, India 16% and China 47% over that time.

Startling differences between GDP and the Inclusive Wealth Index are evident in many places, including Ecuador (37% GDP vs. -17% IW), Guyana (97% GDP vs. -2% IW), Qatar (85% GDP vs. -53% IW), Tanzania (67% GDP vs. -37% IW), Uganda (95% GDP vs. -6% IW).

Charts, national data: http://bit.ly/1ygySj7

“The 2014 Inclusive Wealth Report offers a new perspective on the sustainability of economic growth and advances global efforts to improve the quantification of two key but poorly understood components of wealth: natural capital and human capital,” report director Anantha Duraiappah, Director of the UNESCO / Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development.

“For more than half a century we have appraised progress of nations on the basis of how much is produced, consumed, and invested; we have measured that progress in U.S. dollars and aggregated the data into an easy-to-compare metric: Gross Domestic Product.”

“The implicit assumption, however, that the resource base upon which this growth depends is infinite clearly isn’t true. Less than 50% of the 140 countries assessed are on a sustainable trajectory; more than half are consuming beyond their means.”

The report is a tool for making macroeconomic decisions on what and where to invest, Dr. Duraiappah adds, as well as “a key educational resource that can be used by students of both economics and sustainability science to understand the human development and economic growth of countries and their inter-linkages through trade and environmental pressures such as climate change.”

Says Science Director of the report, Dr. Pablo Muñoz of UN University’s International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change: “The inclusive wealth index is a more comprehensive way of measuring national wealth and progress — a complement to GDP, not its replacement. The shift to sustainability as a core development pillar demands an index that can quantify, measure, and track sustainability.”

(Wealth data for all countries cover the period 1990-2010 except for Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine, for which the data starts from 1991; for Czech Republic and Slovakia from 1992).

###

Background

The Inclusive Wealth Report 2014 is a joint initiative of the UN University – International Human Dimensions Programme (UNU-IHDP) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), in collaboration with the UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development (UNESCO-MGIEP), ASCENT Africa Sustainability Centre, the Malaysian Industry-Government Group for High Technology (MIGHT), Science to Action (S2A), the Ministry of Environment – Government of Japan, UN University – Institute for Advanced Study of Sustainability, and endorsed by the Science and Technology Alliance for Global Sustainability.

Authors

Adnan Alsaati, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, USA

Giles Atkinson, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

Edward Barbier, University of Wyoming, USA

Ross Collins, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Elorm Darkey, University of Milan, Italy and Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Partha Dasgupta, University of Cambridge, UK

Anantha Duraiappah, UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, India

Cecília Fernandes, UN University International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Germany

Barbara Fraumeni, Central University for Finance and Economics, China

Haripriya Gundimeda, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India

Nabila Jamshed, UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, India

Pushpam Kumar, UN Environment Programme, Kenya

Gang Liu, Statistics Norway, Norway

Shunsuke Managi, Tohoku University, Japan

Kevin Mumford, Purdue University, USA

Pablo Muñoz, UN University International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, Germany

Kira Petters, University of Bonn, Germany

Vivek Sakhrani, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Noelle Selin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Rodney Smith, University of Minnesota, USA

Kenneth Strzepek – United Nations University, Finland, and University of Colorado / Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

Science Advisory Group

Mame Baba Cisse, Ambassador of Senegal in Malaysia

Ligia Costa, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil and Institut d’études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po), France

Justin Lin, Peking University, China

Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, USA

Harold Mooney, Stanford University, USA

Zakri Abdul Hamid, Government of Malaysia

Structure / content, IWR 2014

The IWR has been expanded from 20 countries from the inaugural report (2012) to 140 countries in 2014. And it reflects the most recent data, from 2009 and 2010 (in addition to the original 1990 to 2008 data).

While IWR 2012 included a special focus on natural capital, IWR 2014 does the same for human capital.

IWR 2014 is presented in three parts and eight chapters, each beginning with key messages.

Chapter 1: Accounting for the inclusive wealth of nations: key findings of the IWR 2014

Key messages

Empirical evidence shows average positive growth in per capita inclusive wealth – and thus progress toward sustainable development – in 85 of the 140 countries evaluated (approximately 60%).

Gains in inclusive wealth were in general less than those in GDP and HDI: 124 of 140 nations (89%) experienced gains in GDP, while 135 of 140 (96%) showed improvement in HDI over the same period.

Human capital is the foremost contributor to growth rates in inclusive wealth in 100 out of 140 countries. In 28 countries produced capital was the primary contributor. On average, human capital contributed 54% of overall gains in inclusive wealth, while produced capital contributed 33% and natural capital 13%.

Population growth and natural capital depreciation constitute the main driving forces of declining wealth per capita in the majority of countries. Population increased in 127 of 140 countries, while natural capital declined in 127 of 140 countries. Although both factors each negatively affect growth in wealth, changes in population were responsible for greater declines.

Produced capital, the capital type for which by far the most exhaustive (and reliable) data exists, represents only about 18% of the total wealth of nations. The remaining capital types, which together constitute 82% of wealth (54% in human capital and 28% in natural capital), are currently treated as, at best, satellite accounts in the System of National Accounts.

After adjusting for carbon damage, oil capital gains, and total factor productivity, the number of overall progressing countries drops from 85 to 58 of 140 counties (41%). Results show that all three factors negatively affected inclusive wealth in most of countries; of the three, total factor productivity adjustments had the greatest negative effect.

Chapter 2: The IWR and Policy Lessons

Key messages

Countries striving to improve their citizens’ well-being – and do so sustainably – should reorient economic policy planning and evaluation away from targeting GDP growth as a primary objective toward incorporating inclusive wealth accounting as part of a sustainable development agenda.

Investments in human capital – in particular education – would generate higher returns for IW growth, as compared to investments in other capital asset groups, in countries with high rates of population growth.

Investments in natural capital, in particular agricultural land and forest, can produce a twofold dividend: First, they can increase IW directly; second, they can improve agricultural resiliency and food security to accommodate anticipated population growth.

Investments in renewable energy can produce a triple dividend: First, they can increase IW directly by adding to natural and produced capital stocks; second, they improve energy security and reduce risk due to price fluctuations for oil-importing countries; third, they reduce global carbon emissions and thus carbon-related damages.

Investments in research and development to increase total factor productivity, which decreased in 65 percent of countries, can immediately contribute to growth in inclusive wealth in nearly every country.

Countries should expand the asset boundary of the present System of National Accounts (SNA), which currently captures only 18% of a country’s productive base, to include human and natural capital, which are now measured only through satellite accounts, if at all.

Chapter 3: Human Capital Measurement: A Bird’s Eye View

Key messages

Measuring human capital can serve many purposes: it can help one better understand what drives economic growth; assess the long-term sustainability of a country’s development path; measure the output and productivity of the educational sector; and facilitate informed discussions on social progress and well-being. In spite of this, human capital has not yet been included within the asset boundary of the SNA.

The multifaceted nature of the concept of human capital creates substantial challenges for its measurement. By focusing on formal education and economic returns for individuals – rather than on human capital in general and all the benefits due to human capital investment – we can begin from an empirically manageable and practical point of departure. All existing approaches to measuring human capital have both advantages and disadvantages. However, the monetary measures generated from the cost-based and the income-based approaches should arguably be designated a “core” status. One reason for this is to enable direct comparison of figures with those for traditional produced capital covered by the SNA, the construction of which is a primary task of national statistical offices.

Drawing on country experiences and international initiatives in the field of human capital measurement, one may conclude that an international trend is emerging toward an income-based approach, specifically the lifetime income approach. Estimates based on this approach can be used to assess the relative contribution of a range of factors (demographic, education, and labor market) to the evolution of human capital, and facilitate corresponding policy interventions.

Despite significant progress having been made, there remain considerable challenges regarding data availability, and detailed methodological choices inherent in applying monetary measures. Further research should therefore be encouraged, including toward the compilation of quality data for use in international and inter-temporal comparisons; the construction of experimental satellite accounts, in order to better understand and reconcile the discrepancies between estimates based on the cost-based and the income-based approaches; and, eventually, toward incorporating human capital measures into the SNA in the future.

Chapter 4: Human Capital: Country Estimates Using Alternative Approaches

Key messages

Human capital is critical to individual and societal well-being.

The educational attainment of a country’s younger cohort is frequently higher than the educational attainment of the older cohort; high levels of youth educational attainment correlate to high potential for improved well-being and economic growth in the future. Human capital indicators which depend solely on educational attainment information fail to capture the full potential of a country’s population. Human capital measures including information on present and future demographic trends, education, and wage or income components are essential for appropriate policy formulation and analysis.

Chapter 5: Health Capital

Key messages

Health is an essential characteristic of human well-being.

Health capital is an important part of inclusive wealth.

The economic model of health capital presented in this chapter allows health to affect human well-being through three distinct channels: direct well-being, productivity, and longevity.

Most health capital services influence human well-being directly rather than through the production of goods and services that are counted in GDP.

In the absence of better estimates of the direct and productivity effects, gains in life expectancy should be used as the primary measure of health capital.

Annual gains in health capital in the United States are worth approximately US$10,000 per person in monetary terms.

Chapter 6: Forest Wealth of Nations

Key messages

Forest ecosystems provide a huge range of tangible and intangible benefits for human well-being. These are of immense value and represent an important component of national and global wealth.

Demographic trends and economic growth are exerting increasing pressure on forest capital. Accounting more fully for this wealth, and how it is changing as a result of economic and social activity, is urgently required. The estimates in this chapter provide a tentative first step in this direction.

From a global perspective, in 2010 for the selected countries, forest wealth amounted to more than US$273 trillion. On the face of it this wealth, in absolute terms, seems concentrated in relatively few countries. However, for many other countries, forest capital remains an important component of national wealth. Many of these countries (although not all) have experienced alarming losses in forest capital over the past 20 years.

From an accounting perspective, these losses are frequently hidden from view. It is thus essential that nations pursue better accounting to understand quantity, quality, and distribution of forest wealth. Indeed, keeping forest wealth intact – and, more- over, investing in forests to reverse past losses – is an important pre-condition for sustaining development.

Chapter 7: Challenges to Ecosystem Service Valuation for Wealth Accounting

Key messages

In recent years, substantial progress has been made by economists working with ecologists and other natural scientists in valuing some ecosystem goods and services.

However, difficulties in measurement, data availability, and other limitations still preclude the valuation of certain ecosystem services.

There is often uncertainty associated with estimated ecosystem service values, and even more so with scaling up of local values to regional or national levels or updating these values annually, which poses problems for their use in wealth accounts.

In the absence of reliable estimates, the temptation is to use “second-best” estimates, or to transfer values from other locations; however, such methods should be used with caution and only under specific circumstances, at the risk of generating unrealistic values.

Progress in incorporating ecological capital in wealth accounts therefore requires developing more accurate methods of valuing ecosystem goods and services and applying them to a wider range of ecosystems.

Chapter 8: Using Inclusive Wealth for Policy Evaluation: The Case of Infrastructure Capital

Key messages

Wealth accounting to date has focused primarily on the assessment of past performance in economies, by measuring changes to produced, natural, and human capital.

In order to use inclusive wealth for policy evaluation, we must estimate the impacts of a given policy on the trajectories of the capital stocks that comprise wealth. Infrastructure is an important policy domain because proposed changes to current systems affect many, if not all, capital stocks, which results in capital stock interactions and trade-offs.

A systems view of policy evaluation is necessary in order to map and quantify these impacts and trade-offs; this can be managed using conceptual and mathematical models that capture integrated physical and economic processes.

To illustrate how one might conduct wealth-based policy evaluation, we use two infrastructure case studies – coal-fired power generation in China and the High Aswan Dam in Egypt. The case studies rely on integrated physical and economic models to quantify capital stock impacts of past infrastructure decisions.

Such models can be used to evaluate prospective infrastructure systems as well, although doing so requires careful consideration of future uncertainty. Scenario analysis is a useful and flexible method for incorporating uncertainty into wealth-based policy evaluation.

* * * * *

News release in full, click here

Example coverage by:

The Economist, UK, click here

Deutsche Presse Agentur, Germany, English, click here

Bild, Germany, German, click here

Press Trust of India, English, click here

Agencia EFE, Spain, Spanish, click here

BBC Brasil, UK, Portuguese, click here

HINA newswire, Hungary, Hungarian, click here

Coverage summary, click here