An integrated approach could improve nature, climate and health at once

The major environmental, social and economic crises facing the world today – involving biodiversity, climate change, health, food and water – are inextricably linked, and tackling them together has many benefits. However, focusing on one problem alone can make the other crises worse.

This is the conclusion of a major report prepared by 165 researchers from 57 countries over the past three years, and approved by the governments of 147 countries.

The UN conventions on topics such as biodiversity and climate focus on these problems individually. “So what hasn’t been done before, as we’re doing in this report, is to bring all that together and show that looking at these crises individually is not only ineffective, but actually has a real danger,” says Paula Harrison at the UK Center for Ecology & Hydrology, who co-chaired the assessment process for the report. “Action is urgent, but if we don’t act in a way that takes these interdependencies into account, it will cause new problems or make existing problems worse.”

Harrison says the scientific studies assessed for the report provide strong evidence that there are many actions that can be taken that have beneficial effects in all five areas simultaneously. These include conservation and restoration of mangrove forests, increasing soil health and carbon content, creating early warning systems for all kinds of hazards, reducing the risk of diseases that spread from animals to humans, universal health care and international cooperation on technologies related to these issues.

There are trade-offs: the actions with far-reaching benefits are not the same as the actions that are the most optimal solution to any problem, she says.

“What you can’t do is get the highest possible value at the same time,” says Harrison. “You can’t optimize food production and not have a negative impact on everything else, but you can have a balanced approach across all of them that benefits them all.”

Harrison gives the example of planting trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If the focus is solely on climate, the trees chosen may be fast-growing exotic species that do not support any wildlife and affect water supplies by taking up too much water. But if the projects take a more holistic approach, they would choose native tree species that use less water and increase biodiversity. “They may not sequester quite as much carbon, but they will provide a lot of value to other aspects of the system,” says Harrison.

There are also economic benefits to an integrated approach that help conserve biodiversity as well as achieve other goals. The Nexus report, as it is officially known, says that more than half of global gross domestic product – $50 trillion – is moderately to heavily dependent on nature.

“It is estimated that the unanticipated costs of current approaches to economic activity – which reflect impacts on biodiversity, water, health and climate change, including from food production – are at least $10 to $25 trillion per year,” Pamela McElwee of Rutgers University in New Jersey , the second co-chairman said in a statement.

“There is a lot of evidence now, if we continue as we are, that there are very strong and increasing biophysical risks to economic prosperity and financial stability,” says Harrison.

The Nexus report was compiled by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which is a non-UN body but works in the same way as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report was officially endorsed on 16 December by representatives of the 147 member countries of IPBES who met in Namibia.

The report is very ambitious, says Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of IPBES. The goal is to provide the science and evidence needed to support the achievement of other international treaties, she says, including the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement on climate change.