Search Results
A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios
2018, Kim, HyeJin, Rosa, Isabel M. D., Alkemade, Rob, Leadley, Paul, Hurtt, George, Popp, Alexander, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Anthoni, Peter, Arneth, Almut, Baisero, Daniele, Caton, Emma, Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Chini, Louise, De Palma, Adriana, Di Fulvio, Fulvio, Di Marco, Moreno, Espinoza, Felipe, Ferrier, Simon, Fujimori, Shinichiro, Gonzalez, Ricardo E., Gueguen, Maya, Guerra, Carlos, Harfoot, Mike, Harwood, Thomas D., Hasegawa, Tomoko, Haverd, Vanessa, Havlík, Petr, Hellweg, Stefanie, Hill, Samantha L. L., Hirata, Akiko, Hoskins, Andrew J., Janse, Jan H., Jetz, Walter, Johnson, Justin A., Krause, Andreas, Leclère, David, Martins, Ines S., Matsui, Tetsuya, Merow, Cory, Obersteiner, Michael, Ohashi, Haruka, Poulter, Benjamin, Purvis, Andy, Quesada, Benjamin, Rondinini, Carlo, Schipper, Aafke M., Sharp, Richard, Takahashi, Kiyoshi, Thuiller, Wilfried, Titeux, Nicolas, Visconti, Piero, Ware, Christopher, Wolf, Florian, Pereira, Henrique M.
To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)-SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6-to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.
Bioenergy for climate change mitigation: Scale and sustainability
2021, Calvin, Katherine, Cowie, Annette, Berndes, Göran, Arneth, Almut, Cherubini, Francesco, Portugal‐Pereira, Joana, Grassi, Giacomo, House, Jo, Johnson, Francis X., Popp, Alexander, Rounsevell, Mark, Slade, Raphael, Smith, Pete
Many global climate change mitigation pathways presented in IPCC assessment reports rely heavily on the deployment of bioenergy, often used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. We review the literature on bioenergy use for climate change mitigation, including studies that use top-down integrated assessment models or bottom-up modelling, and studies that do not rely on modelling. We summarize the state of knowledge concerning potential co-benefits and adverse side effects of bioenergy systems and discuss limitations of modelling studies used to analyse consequences of bioenergy expansion. The implications of bioenergy supply on mitigation and other sustainability criteria are context dependent and influenced by feedstock, management regime, climatic region, scale of deployment and how bioenergy alters energy systems and land use. Depending on previous land use, widespread deployment of monoculture plantations may contribute to mitigation but can cause negative impacts across a range of other sustainability criteria. Strategic integration of new biomass supply systems into existing agriculture and forest landscapes may result in less mitigation but can contribute positively to other sustainability objectives. There is considerable variation in evaluations of how sustainability challenges evolve as the scale of bioenergy deployment increases, due to limitations of existing models, and uncertainty over the future context with respect to the many variables that influence alternative uses of biomass and land. Integrative policies, coordinated institutions and improved governance mechanisms to enhance co-benefits and minimize adverse side effects can reduce the risks of large-scale deployment of bioenergy. Further, conservation and efficiency measures for energy, land and biomass can support greater flexibility in achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation.