How can we satisfy the (increasingly conflicting) needs to maintain global human well-being and to maintain global biodiversity (including its “option values” for the future)?

Earth system research focuses on “observing, understanding, reconstructing and predicting global environmental changes involving interactions between land, atmosphere, water, ice, biosphere, societies, technologies and economies”. The question I pose is perhaps the most fundamental of the “interactions” questions relating to global environmental change. It matches well the Vision’s goals to identify “research questions that… would provide answers that are relevant to the needs of decision-makers concerned with global environmental change and human well-being”. This question might have been listed only under “biodiversity” – but I list it as “Interdisciplinary” because it is an multidisciplinary challenge, and perhaps calls for new institutions and programs over the next decade. At same time, it makes sense that “biodiversity” is highlighted because biodiversity underpins present and future benefits and services.

This question is important in next decade because there is a narrow window of opportunity to find effective solutions. Answers to the question would serve the needs of decision-makers in addressing the increasing “tensions” between local versus global values; current versus future benefits; known elements of diversity versus unknown elements, etc. There are good opportunities to make a difference in the next decade. For example, emerging new technologies for rapid biodiversity discovery and assessment, if well-coordinated regionally and globally, might help us to integrate biodiversity values into interdisciplinary conservation planning, and into policy frameworks such as “beyond-2010”.

What are the consequences of land cover and land use change for human societies and the sustainability of ecosystems?

The environment of the Earth has many close connections and relationships with human activity. It is also now more widely recognized that a profound transformation of the Earth’s environment is taking place and that many of these changes are the result of human action. Growing world population and increasing wealth are driving demands for more food production. Croplands and pastures occupies today roughly 40% of the land surface and global land cover and is according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) the main modification humanity makes to land cover, and therefore a main driver of ecological change, and biodiversity loss at the global scale.

Current trends in land use allow humans to appropriate an ever-larger fraction of the biosphere’s goods and services while simultaneously diminishing the capacity of global ecosystems to sustain food production, maintain freshwater and forest resources, regulate climate and air quality, and mediate infectious diseases…
Modern landuse practices, while increasing the short-term supplies of material goods, may undermine many ecosystem services in the long run, even on regional and global scales. Confronting the global environmental challenges of land use will require assessing and managing inherent trade-offs between meeting immediate human needs and maintaining the capacity of ecosystems to provide goods and services in the future. Assessments of trade-offs must recognize that land use provides crucial social and economic benefits, even while leading to possible long-term declines in human welfare through altered ecosystem functioning.
…

How can we provide food to humanity while sustaining animal well-being and biodiversity ?

The animal well being can not be set aside in favor of human well being. Both are interconnected and interdependent. Livestock farming today is awful and does not seem to improve. The same remarks can also address the agricultural field. If we can establish a parallel between biodiversity and humanity qualities and living conditions, what will the future look like ?

How will agricultural biodiversity losses predicted by climate change impact agriculture, rural development and food security?

Agricultural biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) as an important component of biodiversity provides a number of benefits associated with production and productivity, agro-ecosystem function, and human well-being. At the same time it is well known that the climate change will be the main driver of loss of biodiversity in general and of agrobiodiversity in particular. This impact will be different for the different components of agricultural biodiversity. Thus the undertaking predictive modelling of impact of possible losses and distribution of agricultural biodiversity most important to food security on agriculture and rural development will significantly contribute to address food security needs in face of global warming.

How do we meet the human wellbeing requirements (e.g. food and nutritional security, health, livelihoods) of current and future human populations without increasing pressure on already vulnerable ecosystems?

Increasing evidence suggests that demands on food production are likely to reach a peak mid-century. At the same time, our ability to produce and transport sufficient food is predicted to be reduced by climate change (temperature and water dynamics), carbon costs (chemicals, transport), and the loss of land to energy production.

There will therefore be increasing pressure on:
• natural resources (land and associated water and soil, biodiversity), leading to trade-offs for ecosystem service provisioning (with impacts on livelihoods, ecosystem and human health, security) and other land uses (agriculture, biofuels, urban planning, conservation, recreation)
• agricultural practice leading for the need for new and innovative techniques and technologies, and the concomitant risks for environmental and human health

To stand a chance of tackling these inter-related issues, mechanisms and funding for regional and global projects that move beyond assessment are required. Projects should be interdisciplinary and participatory incorporating researchers, practitioners and the people whose wellbeing is under investigation. Such work should not only allow conceptual and theoretical development in the fields of environmental and sustainability science but must also have impact on the ground, creating opportunities for improved human wellbeing and increased resilience not just for now, but into the future also.

What would life in a warmer and ocean-acidified world be like, and how easy will it be to adapt?

Only when we can communicate a scientifically defensible but more detailed picture of what a higher-CO2 world would be like to live in, can the average person really decide how hard we should work to avoid it. We often assume that we will adapt, but without quantitatively examining whether anticipated adaptations will work, how they will interact with each other, and how they will affect human well-being. This requires an interdisciplinary push of the sciences beyond their comfort zones, aggressive use of integrated assessment and adaptation models, some storyteller’s imagination as to possible future scenarios where aspects of life that we now take for granted might no longer hold, and examination of how required adjustments would affect people mentally and physically.

How do we overcome the apparent unreadiness of the scientific community to take a leadership role in addressing the interrelated ecological, biological, social, and economic complexities of the global catastrophe we are currently experiencing before it is too late?

Actions taken by the scientific community must consider the complex interrelationship between the crises. It is the combined impact of Climate Change+ the Ecological Emergency+ Global Warming + the Global Economic Crisis + Armed Conflict + Public Health Emergencies + Extreme Poverty that has brought the planet and its people to breaking point. These crises have created an unprecedented catastrophe of unparalleled complexity.

Attention must also be paid to human life on the planet. We are a species first — biologically, physiologically, psychologically, and emotionally – before we are separated by gender, ethnicity, race, religion, politics or national identity. There is much that can be accomplished if we work with people to preserve biodiversity. It is critical that scientists harness both new and old media to engage with governments, financial institutions, industry, NGO’s, educational institutions, and people.

Global networks of scientists need to spend time in communities, understand local conditions and support local initiatives. Mathematical models will not help us understand human misery caused by the destruction of ecosystems. For many, harmony of living with the Earth has been destroyed by wars, the removal of natural resources by industry, and the co-opting of land for agribusiness. One billion people are already at the point of starvation. We will not reach those who live so close to death with our one hundred facts about the global crises. They are in crisis and it is already deadly.

It is also critical we make the health and well-being of women central to the ecological survival of the planet, and their education a global priority. Protect women’s reproductive rights and they will have fewer children – but their children will be healthy. The mantra should be “what’s good for the planet is good for the humanity,” and the shifts in thinking and behavior will begin to take place. The task is monumental. We should begin immediately.

Denny Taylor, ICEC, Hofstra Univerisity

What are the net consequences for human wellbeing of converting remaining areas of wild nature for “mainstream” economic use?

This question is central to understanding whether conservation makes economic (as well as moral) sense. As the MA confirmed, nearly all studies to date focus on gross values of “intact” ecosystems, but policy makers need to know about changes net of the goods and services delivered during and after conversion. To date only ~5 studies anywhere in the world have addressed this crucial question. Obstacles include the misguided perception that such studies need to be comprehensive, covering all services. However, if they include just a handful but still (as in all examples to date) reveal a net cost of conversion, they can nevertheless provide a compelling case for conservation.

Would human well being goal and operational mechanism be able to motivate the human society to transcend anthropocentric view for valuing biodiversity?

Through out the civilization process human beings have tried to organize themselves. Human well being goal has given rise to political system, economic system, social institutions. But all are governed by time bound action programmes which does not look beyond life time of maximum of two generations as private motive, time preference for present over future dominate. Non human biodiversity, their space in the ecosystem, role in human well being are least understood . This knowledge gap makes precautionary principle also fail to get defined and accepted. It is not technology, legislation or cooperation but education, ethics, that may lead to a smooth paradigm shift. Challenge is how to build that eco-centric goal which will embed in it anthropocentric goals. But theoretical solution will not be enough unless operational rules are laid out. Anthropocentric goals have led to human habitat design, mobility design etc. but without considering if that is in conflict with ecosystem’s well being. So challenge is how can the bigger picture be organised?

Between the goals of climate stabilization and sustainability, which goal can better deliver paradigm shifts in the development pathway and life style choices of nations, irrespective of which stage of development they are at?

Threat of climate change is almost unanimously accepted but while the question of action comes several other priorities overshadow the importance of climate responsiveness. Still it is believed that climate response will generate loss of human welfare in the short term and so more development oriented goals dominate the choice. The position taken by many cannot be ignored when the question is of global dimension. Given the very wide range of inequality among the people on earth at the moment in terms of access to basic needs of living to luxury, whether need based or right based approach both would favour reduction in wastage and relative disparity. Through human civilization and history it has been over and over again proved that in real world theoretical best practice-be it policy, technology, behaviour never works, so also cooperation. Under this hypothesis it is important to understand what operational principles can best manage the activities across various groups given multiple goals. It is also relevant to understand if there will be any paradigm shift and if so within what time scale?