Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity

Aim This paper describes a set of integrative scenarios developed in the ALARM (Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods) project. The ultimate aim of ALARM was to develop and test methods and protocols for the assessment of large-scale environmental risks to biodiversity and to evaluate mitigation options. Scenarios provide a tool for exploring such risks and the policy options to mitigate them; therefore they play a central role within the ALARM project. Methods Three integrative scenarios (liberalization, business as might be usual, sustainability) were developed and illustrated using the econometric model described in a subsequent paper. They are contextualized with projections from climate models and provide the input for model-based assessments of biodiversity trends. Additionally, three shock scenarios were developed (Gulf Stream collapse, peak oil, pandemic) to demonstrate the limits of linear extrapolation. As these extend beyond model capabilities, they are discussed semi-quantitatively based on modelling insights. Results Although the policy impacts on biodiversity are different for different pressures, biomes and species groups, some general trends could be identified. An extension of current EU policies will act as a brake on current trends by slowing down the loss of biodiversity in many cases and in most biomes, but it will be capable of neither halting nor of reversing the loss. Liberalization has the effect of accelerating biodiversity loss across the board, with few exceptions. A coherent sustainability scenario is clearly the most effective at preserving biodiversity, but the variant tested here still does not halt losses in all cases. Main conclusions Current EU policies for protecting biodiversity appear to be insufficient to reverse ongoing losses. Coherent sustainability strategies are effective at conserving biodiversity, but in order to assess losses and then reverse them, measures would need to be introduced that extend beyond the steps tested in the ALARM sustainability scenario. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

[1]  D. Streets,et al.  Exploring the concept of climate surprise , 2000 .

[2]  Pete Smith,et al.  A coherent set of future land use change scenarios for Europe , 2006 .

[3]  Joachim H. Spangenberg,et al.  Integrated scenarios for assessing biodiversity risks , 2007 .

[4]  Martin O'Connor,et al.  An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework , 2009 .

[5]  Karin Frank,et al.  Land Use Options - Strategies and Adaptation to Global Change , 2009 .

[6]  T. Hickler,et al.  Increasing range mismatching of interacting species under global change is related to their ecological characteristics , 2012 .

[7]  T. Carter,et al.  Representing two centuries of past and future climate for assessing risks to biodiversity in Europe , 2012 .

[8]  Isabelle Reginster,et al.  Projecting trends in plant invasions in Europe under different scenarios of future land-use change , 2012 .

[9]  J. Spangenberg.  Economic sustainability of the economy: concepts and indicators , 2005 .

[10]  Ines Omann,et al.  The socio‐economic modelling of the ALARM scenarios with GINFORS: results and analysis for selected European countries , 2012 .

[11]  S. Scrieciu,et al.  The inherent dangers of using computable general equilibrium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact assessment. A critical note on Bohringer and Loschel (2006) , 2007 .

[12]  T. Hickler,et al.  Potential implications of future climate and land-cover changes for the fate and distribution of persistent organic pollutants in Europe , 2012 .

[13]  Thomas Giesecke,et al.  Projecting the future distribution of European potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation model , 2012 .

[14]  G. Carbone,et al.  Climate Science and Decision Making , 2007 .

[15]  Joachim H. Spangenberg,et al.  Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind , 2007 .

[16]  J. Spangenberg,et al.  Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21 , 2002 .

[17]  Ingolf Kühn,et al.  Is the EC Afraid of Its Own Visions? , 2007, Science.

[18]  Joachim H. Spangenberg,et al.  Driving forces of chemical risks for the European biodiversity , 2009 .

[19]  R. Wood,et al.  Impacts of thermohaline circulation shutdown in the twenty-first century , 2008 .

[20]  Kaja Peterson,et al.  Agricultural land use and biodiversity changes in the new European Union Member States , 2010 .

[21]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science , 1994 .

[22]  J. Alcamo,et al.  Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Assessments , 2002 .

[23]  Heikki Tuomenvirta,et al.  Observed and Projected Future Shifts of Climatic Zones in Europe and Their Use to Visualize Climate Change Information , 2010 .

[24]  Marco Vighi,et al.  ALARM: Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods , 2005 .

[25]  The pan-European environment: glimpses into an uncertain future , 2007 .

[26]  Sophie A. Nicholson-Cole.  Representing climate change futures: a critique on the use of images for visual communication , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[27]  C. Müller,et al.  Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance , 2007 .

[28]  Ingolf Kühn,et al.  Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. , 2008, Ecology.

[29]  S S I T C H,et al.  Evaluation of Ecosystem Dynamics, Plant Geography and Terrestrial Carbon Cycling in the Lpj Dynamic Global Vegetation Model , 2022 .

[30]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model , 2003 .