Lera J Miles

... Nairobi, Kenya PAUL HARRISON and ANDREW WILLIAMS Kilimanyika, Arusha, Tanzania SIMON L. LEWIS and SIMON WILLCOCK Ecology and ... 2004 for terminology): East Africa montane forests, Albertine rift forests, southern rift forests, mangrove forest, Victoria Basin forest ...

Tropical montane cloud forests represent a rare and
fragile ecosystem that is under threat in many parts
of the world. Urgent action is needed to conserve
these rich mountain forests, not only because they harbour
concentrations of endemic and threatened species
but to maintain their vital role in the provision of
freshwater. All tropical forests are under threat but cloud
forests are uniquely threatened both by human pressures
and by climate change impacting on temperature,

This chapter presents results of a scenario-building exercise, designed to explore future trends in forest biodiversity in four forest areas, and the potential implications for policy develop-ment and implementation. An expert consultation conducted in a workshop environment identified 11 principal pressures responsible for biodiversity loss in Latin America, namely land-cover change, fire, invasive species, browsing animals, pollution, mining, development of infrastructure (roads, pipelines, dams), logging/fuelwood extraction, habitat fragmentation, climate change and loss of keystone species and ecological structures. The relative importance of these different pressures was assessed in each of four study areas, namely Central Veracruz (Mexico), the Highlands of Chiapas (Mexico), Rio Maule-Cobquecura (Region VII, Chile) and Los Muermos-Ancud (Region X, Chile). Scores were generated for each area describing both variation in intensity of the pressures over time and their potential i...

Rothman, DS; Agard, J.; Alcamo, J.; Alder, J.; Al-Zubari, WK; Beek, T. aus der; Chenje, M.; Eickhout, B.; Flörke, M.; Galt, M.; Ghosh, N.; Hemmings, A.; Hernandez-Pedresa, G.; Hijioka, Y.; Hughes, B.; Hunsberger, C.; Kainuma, M.; Kartha, S.; Miles, L.; Msangi, S.; Odongo Ochola, W.; Pichs Madruga, R.; Pirc-Velkarvh, A.; Ribeiro, T.; Ringler, C.; Rogan-Finnemore, M.; Sall, A.; Schaldach, R.; Stanners, D.; Sydnor, M.; Ruijven, B. van; Vuuren, D. van; Verburg, PH; Verzano, K.; Zöckler, C. ... There are no comments yet. You can post the first ...

ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to explore policy options that could have major positive or negative impacts on biodiversity. The main question is whether the 2010 Biodiversity Target can be met at global and regional levels. Effects up to 2050 are taken into account. According to a business as usual scenario (baseline), and six individual options, it is unlikely that the 2010 target will be met at either global level or regional level. The loss of biodiversity is expected to continue at an unchanged pace in the coming decades. Key drivers, global population and economic activity are expected to keep on growing. Between 2000 and 2050, the global population is projected to grow by 50% and the global economy to quadruple. The need for food, fodder, energy and wood will unavoidably lead to a decrease in the global natural stocks. The negative impact of climate change, nitrogen deposition, fragmentation, infrastructure and unchecked human settlement on biodiversity will further expand. As a result, global biodiversity is projected to decrease from about 70% in 2000 to about 63% by 2050. According to this baseline scenario, the rate of biodiversity loss over the coming decades will increase instead of decrease. Some options for reducing the rate of loss in the longer term may lead to an increase in the rate of loss in the short term. Increase of protected areas to 20% of all ecological regions and sustainable meat production contribute to bringing the 2010 target closer, and may potentially reduce the rate of loss before 2050. Measures for limiting climate change by, amongst others, large-scale production of bioenergy seem to inevitably lead to additional loss of biodiversity in the medium term (2010-2050). By 2050 the biodiversity gain from avoided climate change does not compensate for the biodiversity loss due to additional land use, although this may be reversed in the long term (>2100). Large-scale plantation forestry also leads initially to additional biodiversity loss through increased land use. However, when plantations gradually take over global production (> 2040 in this option) the total biodiversity loss becomes less than that from ongoing exploitation of mostly (semi-)natural forests. Full trade liberalization in agriculture (WTO) will lead to further loss of biodiversity through ongoing agricultural expansion and large-scale land conversion in low-cost areas, where agricultural productivity is less efficient. Major loss results from a production shift by abandoning agricultural areas in developed regions and converting large natural areas in developing regions, concentrated in Latin America and Southern Africa. The shift results in higher net land requirements at the global level, since current crop yields are higher in the developed regions. Full trade liberalization in agriculture in combination with poverty alleviation in Sub- Saharan Africa leads to additional loss of biodiversity through agricultural expansion. Over the next 50 years much of the world’s remaining natural capital will consist of mountainous, boreal, tundra, ice and (semi-) arid ecosystems, generally considered less suitable for human settlement. The reader should be aware that this study is not meant to predict the future but to explore the major contributions of various currently debated policy options. Not all the possible measures or their combinations were assessed, and inland waters and marine ecosystems have not been considered. In all calculations agricultural productivity has been optimistically estimated. Less optimistic trends would correspond to an additional biodiversity loss of several percent. Increase in agricultural productivity will therefore be a key factor in reducing biodiversity loss in the future. We stress that option effects in terms of direction and relative magnitude are more robust than the absolute baseline trend. This study was commissioned by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD) and carried out by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) in cooperation with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP-WCMC), UNEP/GRID-Arendal and the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI, part of Wageningen University and Research Centre). The results were used as input for the second edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-2).