There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.

No abstract

While sustainable forestry in Europe is characterized by the provision of a multitude of forest ecosystem services, there exists no comprehensive study that scrutinizes their sensitivity to forest management on a pan-European scale, so far. We compile scenario runs from regionally tailored forest growth models and Decision Support Systems (DSS) from 20 case studies throughout Europe and analyze whether the ecosystem service provision depends on management intensity and other co-variables, comprising regional affiliation, social environment, and tree species composition. The simulation runs provide information about the case-specifically most important ecosystem services in terms of appropriate indicators. We found a strong positive correlation between management intensity and wood production, but only weak correlation with protective and socioeconomic forest functions. Interestingly, depending on the forest region, we found that biodiversity can react in both ways, positively and negatively, to increased management intensity. Thus, it may be in tradeoff or in synergy with wood production and forest resource maintenance. The covariables species composition and social environment are of punctual interest only, while the affiliation to a certain region often makes an important difference in terms of an ecosystem service's treatment sensitivity.

Forest ecosystems are fundamental for the terrestrial biosphere as they deliver multiple essential ecosystem services (ES). In environmental management, understanding ES distribution and interactions and assessing the economic value of forest ES represent future challenges. In this study, we developed a spatially explicit method based on a multi-scale approach (MiMoSe-Multiscale Mapping of ecoSystem services) to assess the current and future potential of a given forest area to provide ES. To do this we modified and improved the InVEST model in order to adapt input data and simulations to the context of Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Specifically, we integrated a GIS-based model, scenario model, and economic valuation to investigate two ES (wood production and carbon sequestration) and their trade-offs in a test area located in Molise region (Central Italy). Spatial information and trade-off analyses were used to assess the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on investigated services. Scenario A was designed to describe the current Business as Usual approach. Two alternative scenarios were designed to describe management approaches oriented towards nature protection (scenario B) or wood production (scenario C) and compared to scenario A. Management scenarios were simulated at the scale of forest management units over a 20-year time period. Our results show that forest management influenced ES provision and associated benefits at the regional scale. In the test area, the Total Ecosystem Services Value of the investigated ES increases 85% in scenario B and decreases 82% in scenario C, when compared to scenario A. Our study contributes to the ongoing debate about trade-offs and synergies between carbon sequestration and wood production benefits associated with socio-ecological systems. The MiMoSe approach can be replicated in other contexts with similar characteristics, thus providing a useful basis for the projection of benefits from forest ecosystems over the future.

No abstract