Navigation
Navigation
Download PDF to view sources

Why Nature? Why Now?

How nature is key to achieving a 1.5˚C world

1. Climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, sources and sinks

Human activity has increased the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere

GHGs are the gaseous constituents that trap heat in the atmosphere. They are released through natural processes (e.g. decomposition of biomass) and as a result of human activity (e.g. the burning of fossil fuels). Some gases are naturally occurring (e.g. carbon dioxide) while others are human-made (e.g. the halocarbons). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest single contributor to climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change covers the following GHGs:

Carbon dioxide

CO2

CO2 is naturally occurring but is also a by-product of burning fossil fuels, of burning biomass, of land-use changes and of industrial processes.

Methane

CH4

CH4 is the major component of natural gas and it is associated with all hydrocarbon fuels. Significant emissions also occur as a result of animal husbandry, waste management and agriculture.

Nitrous oxide

N2O

The main anthropogenic source of N2O is agriculture, in addition to sewage treatment, fossil fuel combustion, and chemical industrial processes. N2O is also produced naturally e.g. through microbial action in wet tropical forests.

Fluorinated gases

F-gases

F-gases include sulphur hexafluoride (man-made chemical primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution systems, and in electronics), hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (alternatives to ozone depleting substances, these by-products of industrial processes are powerful GHGs).

The GWP allows comparisons of the global warming impacts of different gases over specific timeframes. CO2 is the reference gas and so the GWP is 1.

Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere have caused a warming of the Earth's mean surface temperature. This is referred to as the greenhouse effect.

Human activities release
greenhouse gases

Carbon dioxide
Oil
Coal
Deforestation

Methane
Cattle
Fertilizer

CFCs & Haloalkane
Refrigerators
Aerosols

Nitrous oxide
Gasoline
Agriculture

The three main systems capable of storing carbon and nitrogen, known as “stocks” or “pools”, include the land ecosystems, the ocean and the Earth’s crust.

Carbon and nitrogen not stored in these pools resides in the atmosphere as a component of greenhouse gases.

Land ecosystems (such as forests and peatlands): Plants absorb carbon through photosynthesis. The carbon they capture is stored in vegetation or integrated into soils when plants die. The breakdown of plant material and soil by microorganisms leads to emissions.

The Earth’s deep mantle sequesters carbon through sedimentation and other geological formations, on geological timescales (many millennia). Carbon is released into the atmosphere through the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels.

Atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the ocean, and phytoplankton also sequester carbon by photosynthesis, while deep cold waters absorb carbon.

What is released or cannot be stored by other carbon stocks accumulates into the atmosphere.

Whether a stock is considered a "sink" or a "source" of greenhouse gases depends on the net flux of 1) emissions out of the stock and into the atmosphere and 2) removals from the atmosphere and into the stock.

Carbon inflow /
atmospheric removal
Carbon outflow /
emission
Net (in/out) flux

Carbon sinks are the carbon pools capable of sequestering more carbon than they emit. They include the ocean and the land biosphere.

Carbon sources are those systems that emit more CO2 than they sequester over a period of time.

Carbon sinks are the carbon pools capable of sequestering more carbon than they emit. They include the ocean and the land biosphere.

Carbon sources are those systems that emit more CO2 than they sequester over a period of time.

For example, forests are the largest terrestrial sink - globally, their net removal of carbon is equivalent to 5.7 billion metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) a year. This represents 45% of carbon dioxide sequestration from the land sink.

But disturbances of land, ocean and geological stocks can result in net emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere, reducing the size of the global sinks.

The California wildfires in 2020 released more than 91 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, 25% more than California’s annual emissions from fossil fuels. A large portion of these emissions will be recovered over coming centuries by vegetation regrowth; however, the increasing frequency of fire disturbance raises the possibility of long-term losses of forest carbon stocks to the atmosphere.

Forests, such as the Amazon or Russia’s boreal forests, are exposed to tipping points and Earth system feedback loops which could see them turn into net sources of carbon. The more the climate warms, the more likely these accelerating feedbacks and tipping points become.

The increasing frequency of regional disturbances such as fire can diminish regional sinks or trigger those sinks to become sources of GHGs. The more widespread these regional changes, the greater influence on the global GHG sinks.

This is already happening in forest areas across the tropical belt…

This map shows the net carbon sinks (green) and sources (red) from forests across the period 2001-19 (MtCO2e). The largest sinks are found in tropical forests. The largest sources are found in disturbed tropical forests.

Net annual forest-related greenhouse gases fluxes

2. Stock-take: the flow of greenhouse gas emissions into and out of the atmosphere today

In the case of CO2, human activity resulted in an average of 50.6 billion tonnes of gross anthropogenic CO2 emissions a year over the period 2010 to 2019.

Which includes 34.4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement.

And 16.1 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from human activities on land, including those leading to land-use change and forestry (often referred to as Land Use and Land Use Change and Forestry or LULUCF emissions).

Human activities on land can also result in atmospheric removals, for example through reforestation, afforestation or switching to regenerative agricultural practices. Over the same period, these human activities resulted in the removal of 10.6 billion tonnes of CO2 each year (on average).

A further 12.5 billion tonnes of CO2 were removed by the natural terrestrial sink (i.e. through natural processes not related to human activity).

And 9.2 billion tonnes of CO2 were removed by the natural ocean sink.

18.7 billion tonnes of CO2 remained in the atmosphere.

In summary, we are emitting more CO2 than can be removed by Earth’s systems…

And the story is similar for other greenhouse gases such as methane…

… and nitrous oxide.

Fossil fuel combustion and oxidation from all energy and industrial processes, also including cement production and carbonation.

And the story is similar for other greenhouse gases such as methane…

… and nitrous oxide

Emissions from human activities on land, including those leading to land-use change and forestry (LULUCF emissions) are often cited as accounting for 10-15% of global CO2 emissions (~38.5 GtCO2).

But by focusing on net CO2 fluxes, this approach underplays the significance of the land sector in climate mitigation.

Considering non-CO2 gases and looking at the gross fluxes instead of net emissions, the contribution of the land system to climate change is startling, representing 48% of all anthropogenic GHGs flowing in and out of the atmosphere.

Annual emissions and removals for carbon (average 2010-19), methane (av. 2008-17)
and nitrous oxide (2007-16), GtCO2e.

3. Rising risk of catastrophic impacts: temperature thresholds, carbon budgets, and tipping points

We have already reached 1.09˚C of warming compared to pre-industrial times (circa 1850) as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

@ed_hawkins

Sixth Assessment Report

“It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”

“The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state of many aspects of the climate system are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.”

“The last decade was more likely than not warmer than any multi-centennial period after the Last Interglacial, roughly 125,000 years ago.”

Scientists have established 1.5˚C as the safer upper limit for warming (compared to pre-industrial times) to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Climate change will significantly impact our society’s production systems, vital economic and social infrastructures, government facilities, threatening our jobs and livelihoods.

The frequency of disasters, the survival of plants and animals, the spread of diseases, the stability of our global climate system and – ultimately – the possibility for humanity to survive on this planet hinge on these few degrees.

The Paris Agreement signatories committed to keep global warming well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5˚C. Even with 1.5˚C of warming the world will face severe climate impacts, but these get significantly worse with 2˚C.

Based on this safer upper limited, scientists
have defined a "remaining carbon budget".

The budget is the maximum net difference between CO2 emissions
and removals that can be emitted before reaching 1.5°C of warming.

Remaining “budget” of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during this century

500 GtCO2

For a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C

400 GtCO2

For a 67% chance…

In other words, the maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions that would result in limiting global warming to 1.5°C, taking into account the effect of other anthropogenic climate forcers (such as other GHG like methane and nitrous oxide), should not exceed 400 GtCO2 from now on for a 67% chance of actually managing to limit global temperatures to 1.5°C.

Given an average, over the past decade, of 40 GtCO2 net annual anthropogenic emissions, we need to reach net zero CO2 emissions in 10 years.

Best estimates suggest that we will reach 1.5˚C by 2040, even under the most ambitious scenarios.

Future annual emissions of CO₂ based on five illustrative scenarios that cover the range of possible future development of human drivers of climate change

Estimated warming impact in the near-, mid- and long-term for each of the five illustrative scenarios

The Paris Agreement signatories committed to keep global warming well below 2˚C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5˚C. Even with 1.5˚C of warming the world will face severe climate impacts, but these get significantly worse with 2˚C.

But there is uncertainty associated with the remaining budget due to the existence of “tipping points” where the land and ocean processes that capture GHGs could begin to weaken.

Scientists are increasingly concerned about the existence of tipping points (defined as “critical thresholds beyond which a system reorganizes, often abruptly and/or irreversibly”) linked to a number of “Earth system feedbacks”.

For example, increased GHG concentration in the atmosphere leads to warming, which in turn results in reduced rates of carbon sequestration by the land and ocean sink (for example, either by causing wildfires or by reducing the rate of photosynthesis in plants) which further accelerates the change in atmospheric GHG concentration and climate.

Latest research suggests that rising temperatures could lead to a near halving of the land sink strength due to reduced photosynthesis by as early as 2040.

While the latest carbon budget – as set out in the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - takes into account a number of these Earth system feedbacks such as permafrost thawing, there is a high degree of uncertainty, meaning the remaining carbon budget could be overestimated. Recent research suggests that the budget for remaining below 1.5˚C has a 17% chance of already being negative (i.e. we have already surpassed it).

To reduce the risk of triggering these ecological and climate tipping points, we must reduce emissions as rapidly as possible and protect and enhance the remaining natural carbon sinks.

Example of an Earth system feedback: permafrost thawing.

Thawing releases CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere, which increases warming and causes further thawing of the permafrost.

This is complicated stuff... To help you find your "Eureka" moment, let's simplify it with the analogy of the bath tub...

To help you find your "Eureka" moment, let's simplify it with the analogy of the bath tub...

Focus in this animation is on carbon dioxide.

The water level represents the stock/ pool of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The inflow of water represents flows of emissions into the atmosphere, e.g. from burning fossil fuels. The more water flowing in, the more the tub fills.

The water draining out represents the sequestration or removal of emissions out of the atmosphere and into the sinks such as forests and the ocean.

The remaining carbon budget is the limit before the bathtub overflows.

The bathtub is dangerously close to overflowing.

Annual CO2 fluxes (GtCO2) in 2010-19

Figures are average emissions / removals for the period 2010-19, from the Global Carbon Project (2020).

And ecological tipping points could accelerate it even further.

So, what do we do?

4. Two levers for action on climate: reduce emissions, protect and enhance the sinks

Lever 1
Stop the flow:

GHG emissions reductions

Lever 2 Pull the plug:

GHG emissions removals
(i.e. protect and enhance the
capacity of sinks)

We need to do both,
at the same time!

Focusing only on reducing emissions overshadows the significant role that protecting and enhancing natural sinks can play in climate change mitigation.

A bottom-up assessment of the Nationally Determined Commitments provided by countries as of May 2021 shows that a substantial ambition gap remains based on the levels of net emissions expected in 2030.

We therefore need to significantly raise ambition and speed
on reducing emissions (lever 1) in both the energy sector…

Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 (and thus keeping within 1.5˚C) requires all
governments and companies to raise their ambitions.

Systems wide transformation includes:

By 2025:

  • No new sales of fossil fuel boilers
  • No new unabated coal plants, coal mines (or extensions) or oil and gas fields approved for development

By 2030:

  • Universal energy access
  • All new buildings zero-carbon ready
  • 60% of global car sales are electric
  • Phase-put of unabated coal in advanced economies

2035:

  • 50% of heavy truck sales are electric
  • No new internal combustion engine car sales
  • Overall net zero emissions electricity in advanced economies

2040:

  • 50% existing buildings retrofitted to zero-carbon-ready levels
  • 50% fuels in aviation are low emission
  • Net zero emissions electricity globally

2045:

  • 50% of heating demand met by heat pumps

2050:

  • More than 85% of buildings zero-carbon ready
  • Almost 70% of electricity generation globally from solar PV and wind

... and the land sector

Emissions reduction potential in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use sector can reach 7 GtCO2e per annum to meet the 1.5°C warming target by 2050.

Average annual feasible and cost-effective (< $100/tCO2e) emissions reduction potential in the AFOLU sector, per reduction strategy between 2020 and 2050 (GtCO2e/yr)

…and simultaneously pull much harder on our
second lever to protect and enhance GHG sinks.

We can also enhance sinks through engineered
"negative emission technologies”.

GHGs can be removed from the atmosphere with biological or engineered chemical processes and stored for long periods of time in the ground, ocean or built environment.

These human engineered negative emissions technologies will undoubtedly complement nature-based removals but their costs are much higher, their potential for mitigation is highly uncertain, they lack co-benefits associated with wider SDGs and they have the potential to drive further inequality and wealth concentration.

Single actions (such as protecting standing forests) can pull on both levers at the same time.

For example: protect tropical forests
and improve their management

Gross carbon inflow / removal
Gross carbon outflow / emission
Net flux

Prevents the forest carbon sink from becoming a
source of emissions through combustion of biomass.

Maintains the capacity of the protected forest to
sequester carbon dioxide both today and in the future.

It is also important to note that plantations are much poorer at storing carbon than natural forests, which develop with little or no disturbance from humans. Hence the importance of protecting existing, natural forests.

If nothing is done to protect existing natural carbon sinks, gigantic quantities of carbon could be released in the atmosphere and make it virtually impossible to maintain temperatures below 1.5°C warming.

In fact, at least 260 billion tonnes of irrecoverable carbon (GtCO2) are stored in ecosystems highly impacted by human activities around the world, particularly in peatlands, mangroves, old-growth forests and marshes.

Irrecoverable carbon means that, if released, it would not be possible to recapture that carbon on a timeframe relevant to meeting the target of zero net emissions by 2050 and maintaining temperatures below 1.5°C.

This carbon is highly vulnerable to release into the atmosphere as a result of human management/ use of land.

The most tried and tested method for
capturing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere is the one the planet has been
utilising for millions of years: photosynthesis.

As a result, “natural climate solutions” are
expected to provide the lions share of carbon
removal in the next 30 years.

5. Natural climate solutions: climate mitigation, co-benefits and cost-effectiveness

Natural climate solutions (NCS) are the activities that reduce land and marine emissions and protect and enhance land and marine removals.

NCS are defined as: conservation, restoration, and/or improved land and ocean management actions to increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global marine ecosystems, forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands.

Categories of natural climate solutions

  • Emissions removal
  • Emissions reduction
Demand side
  • Reduce food waste
  • Shift to healthier diets
  • Increase cleaner cookstoves
Supply side
Land and ocean use
  • Reduce deforestation
  • Reduce mangrove conversion (and other blue carbon ecosystems*)
  • Reduce peatland degradation
  • Improve forest management
  • Grassland fire management

* Blue carbon ecosystems are defined as the vegetated coastal and marine ecosystems that sequester and store carbon (e.g. mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds)

Carbon dioxide removal
  • Afforestation / reforestation
  • Restore mangrove (and other blue carbon ecosystems*)
  • Restore peatland
  • Soil carbon sequestration in grazing lands
  • Soil carbon sequestration in croplands
  • Biochar application
  • Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
  • Ocean fertilization & alkalinity
Agriculture
  • Enteric fermentation
  • Manure management
  • Nutrient management
  • Rice cultivation
  • Agroforestry
  • Biochar from crop residues
  • Soil organic carbon in croplands
  • Soil organic carbon in grasslands

While the has a major regulating role in the climate system, we must be careful about relying on the ocean to remove CO2 from the atmosphere since this increases its acidity with negative impacts on marine ecosystems.
Rising atmospheric CO2 pushes additional CO2 into the ocean. Most of this CO2 reacts with carbonate ions in seawater to form bicarbonate, a process which enhances the capacity of the ocean to absorb carbon. Carbon in its various forms is transported to the deep ocean through circulation.

The ocean is a major regulating force in the Earth’s climate system, capturing slightly less than 1/5 of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year.

But greater concentrations of CO2 also contribute to a rise in ocean acidification which results in negative implications for marine ecosystems, and the effect of ecosystem changes on the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is unknown.

If the risk of acidification were mitigated, significant opportunities could be developed to enhance ocean-based removals, through:

  • blue carbon projects: actions to enhance the capacity of vegetated coastal and marine ecosystems that sequester and store carbon (e.g. mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds).

  • ocean fertilization: applying nutrients to the ocean to increase photosynthesis and sequester carbon.

  • ocean alkalinity: increasing ocean concentration of ions like calcium to increase uptake of CO2 into the ocean, and reverse acidification caused by enhanced CO2 uptake.

While blue carbon projects could reach a strong mitigation potential in 2050 (0.5-1.4 GtCO2e per year), ocean fertilization and alkalinity have highly uncertain feasibility and environmental impacts at this stage.

As such, we focus here on land-based or "terrestrial" NCS which can also deliver critical outcomes relating to climate adaptation and resilience, biodiversity and sustainable development.

CO2 sequestration through photosynthesis is the most cost-efficient and oldest carbon removal technology on Earth.

Forests play an essential role in regulating climate and water cycles, protecting against flood, drought and erosion, and maintaining soil and water health.

Mangrove forests provide more than $80 billion per year in avoided losses from coastal flooding and directly protect 18 million people in coastal areas. They also contribute $40–50 billion annually through fisheries, forestry and recreation benefits.

They are also highly cost-effective forms of mitigation, especially when it comes to removing carbon, with the potential to sequester 1.2 GtCO2 for under $30 per tCO2.

NCS removals

Method Annual cost & mitigation potential
Afforestation, Reforestation & Forest management
  • 1.2 GtCO2 < $30 /tCO2 per annum
  • 0.4 GtCO2 < $3 /tCO2 p.a.
  • In 2100: $15-30 /tCO2
Wetland, peatland and coastal habitat restoration
  • 0.4-18 tCO2 per ha p.a. (wetland restoration)
  • $10-100 per tCO2 (peatland restoration)
Soil carbon sequestration
  • 1.1-11.4 GtCO2 p.a.
  • Range from a saving of $12 per tCO2 to a cost of $3
Biochar
  • 2.1-4.8 tCO2 per tonne of biochar
  • $18-166 per tCO2
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
  • Approx. 10 GtCO2 p.a.
  • $140-$270 per tCO2
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
  • Max. 3.7 GtCO2 p.a.
  • ~$10 per tCO2
Building with biomass
  • 0.5-1 GtCO2 p.a.
  • Costs negligible

Human engineered removals & geoengineering

Method Annual mitigation potential1
Enhanced terrestrial weathering
  • 0.5-4.0 GtCO2 p.a. by 2100
  • $52-480 per tCO2
Mineral carbonation
  • Uncertain
  • $50-300 /tCO2 (ex situ), $17 /tCO2 (in situ)
Ocean alkalinity
  • As much as 3,500 GtCO2 by 2100
  • $72-159 per tCO2
Direct air capture and carbon storage
  • Estimated storage capacity of the order of 900 GtCO2
  • $200-600 per tCO2
Low-carbon concrete
  • Uncertain
  • $50-300 per tCO2

Terrestrial NCS is often cited as 30% of the cost effective and feasible mitigation needed for 1.5℃. But this just considers the potential for reducing emissions from human activity on land (e.g. deforestation) and the potential for enhanced removals on land through human intervention. It does not consider the actions that humankind can take to protect and maintain the existing natural carbon sink e.g. protecting intact tropical forest on land that is not considered as “managed” by humans. As such, the role of the land system in the fight against climate change is far greater than 30%.

The average annual cost-effective (< $100/tCO2e) and feasible terrestrial mitigation needed between 2020 and 2050 to deliver on the 1.5°C target (GtCO2e/yr), in addition to the existing 13.3 GtCO2e of net removals from the land sink which needs to be protected.

The largest share of terrestrial mitigation comes from protecting, restoring and managing forests and other ecosystems.

Deforestation impacts climate change through both foregone carbon sequestration (decreased sink capacity) and, when trees are burned or left to decompose, the release of the carbon stored over the tree’s lifetime (carbon emissions).

Human activities have led to the loss of around 40% of the world’s forests.

Tropical forests and peatlands are high priority for protection and restoration as they are critical carbon sinks.

The tropical belt
The tropical belt is a high priority region in terms of carbon storage…

By combining data on global biomass carbon and distributions of soil carbon stocks vulnerable to land-use change, Nature Map produced an integrated map of carbon stocks (biomass and soils) that are vulnerable to human impact.

The tropical belt is a region with high carbon stocks that are particularly vulnerable to human impact.

The Nature Map
... as well as biodiversity and clean water supply

The Nature Map developed an integrated global map of biodiversity, carbon storage, and clean water supply to support countries to integrate nature and climate in decision making.

The tropical belt should be prioritised for urgent protection and restoration measures but there are clearly other important non-tropical areas as well.

6. Summary of key takeaways

1 RECAP ON THE NUMBERS

  • Emissions from human activities on land, including those leading to land-use change and forestry (LULUCF emissions) are often cited as accounting for 10-15% of global CO2 emissions (~38.5 GtCO2).
  • But by considering CO2 and non-CO2 emissions from agriculture and land use, as well as the sequestration of anthropogenic GHG emissions by land, the land system accounts for 48% of anthropogenic GHGs flowing into and out of the atmosphere (46 GtCO2e).
  • Similarly, it is often cited that a third of climate mitigation can cost-effectively and feasibly be delivered by terrestrial Natural Climate Solutions. This is equivalent to 14 GtCO2e per annum, at less than $100/tCO2e.
  • However, this just considers the potential for reducing emissions from human activity on land (e.g. deforestation) and the potential for enhanced removals on land through human intervention. It does not consider the actions that humankind can take to protect and maintain the existing natural sink e.g. protecting intact tropical forest on land that is not considered as “managed” by humans. As such, the role of the land system in the fight against climate change is far greater than 30%.

2 RECAP ON THE LEVERS FOR MITIGATION

  • Scientists have defined 1.5℃ as the safer upper limit of warming. Best estimates suggest that we will reach 1.5℃ by 2040, even under the most ambitious scenarios.
  • We therefore need to urgently and simultaneously pull on two levers to address climate change:
    1. reduce global greenhouse gases emissions (from both land and energy systems) and
    2. increase the capture and storage of greenhouse gases.

3 THE WONDERS OF NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS

  • Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) can feasibly and cost-effectively activate both these “levers” through 1) avoiding emissions associated with activities such as deforestation and 2) maintaining and enhancing the capacity of nature to remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
  • The largest NCS mitigation potential is attributed to the protection, restoration and management of forests and other ecosystems.
  • Despite their central role in the fight against climate change, estimates suggest that just 3% of public climate funding is currently allocated to NCS, while between $4-6 trillion of subsidies each year damage nature.
  • If nothing is done to protect existing natural carbon sinks, irreversible ecological tipping points could cause gigantic quantities of carbon to be released in the atmosphere and make virtually impossible to maintain temperatures below 1.5°C warming.
  • There really is no path to net zero without nature.

4 IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT CLIMATE MITIGATION!

  • We are already feeling the impact of climate change and a 1.5℃ world will entail further damage to human life, wellbeing and livelihoods and to ecosystems and biodiversity.
  • Natural Climate Solutions are often seen as win-win investments as they also deliver critical outcomes or “co-benefits” relating to climate adaptation and resilience, biodiversity and sustainable development.

5 AN URGENT CALL TO ACTION

Authors: Victor Lanel and Scarlett Benson

Victor Lanel and Scarlett Ben Download PDF

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

FOLU is grateful to Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) which funded this work.

This work draws from a great number of scientists, researchers and other professionals working hard to address climate change and to protect and restore nature. In particular, we would like to acknowledge contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment reports and special reports, contributors to the Global Carbon Project and Frances Seymour and Jonah Busch whose seminal book Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change inspired both our work and our title. We are also hugely grateful to a number of other individuals who contributed:

  • Alessandro Caprini
  • Aline Mosnier
  • Christa Anderson
  • Clea Kaske-Kuck
  • Cecil Haverkamp
  • Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi
  • David Burns
  • Douglas Flynn
  • David Landholm
  • Federica Bietta
  • Frances Seymour
  • Frank Sperling
  • Guido Schmidt-Traub
  • Helen Ding
  • Jack Stephenson
  • Klara Nilson
  • Katie Lyons
  • Maria Diaz
  • Marion Ferrat
  • Morgan Gillespy
  • Mark Grundy
  • Michael Hugman
  • Matthew W. Jones*
  • Maximilian Bucher
  • Micheline Khan
  • Morten Rossé
  • Martha Stevenson
  • Nancy Harris
  • Paul De Noon
  • Pierre Friedlingstein
  • Piero Visconti
  • Peter Beare
  • Rebecca Nohl
  • Robert Perez
  • Sanna O’Connor-Morberg
  • Susanne Kat
  • Sophie Mongalvy
  • Stephanie Roe
  • Talia Smith
  • Tom Williams
  • Alessandro Caprini
  • Aline Mosnier
  • Christa Anderson
  • Clea Kaske-Kuck
  • Cecil Haverkamp
  • Caterina Ruggeri Laderchi
  • David Burns
  • Douglas Flynn
  • David Landholm
  • Federica Bietta
  • Frances Seymour
  • Frank Sperling
  • Guido Schmidt-Traub
  • Helen Ding
  • Jack Stephenson
  • Klara Nilson
  • Katie Lyons
  • Maria Diaz
  • Marion Ferrat
  • Morgan Gillespy
  • Mark Grundy
  • Michael Hugman
  • Matthew W. Jones*
  • Maximilian Bucher
  • Micheline Khan
  • Morten Rossé
  • Martha Stevenson
  • Nancy Harris
  • Paul De Noon
  • Pierre Friedlingstein
  • Piero Visconti
  • Peter Beare
  • Rebecca Nohl
  • Robert Perez
  • Sanna O’Connor-Morberg
  • Susanne Kat
  • Sophie Mongalvy
  • Stephanie Roe
  • Talia Smith
  • Tom Williams

*With special thanks for leading the peer review.

Design by Regency Creative

X