Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are increasingly referred to under the framing of the triple planetary crisis, recognising the complex interlinkages at the levels of the underpinning planetary processes and the policies developed in response. This introductory chapter first provides the context and the stakes of the interlocking challenges and establishes the key contributions and the outline of the new OECD Environmental Outlook. It then summarises the notable biophysical linkages and introduces the emerging policy landscape that calls for a more integrated and synergistic policy approach. Finally, it provides a review of the past work and outlines the methodological approach taken in the Outlook.
Environmental Outlook on the Triple Planetary Crisis
Stakes, Evolution and Policy Linkages
Abstract
Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – the three elements of what is now called “the triple planetary crisis” – are a growing significant risk to human health, well-being, the environment and the economy. Although each challenge is individually pressing, their complex interlinkages can amplify their impacts while also opening up opportunities for more integrated policy action.
Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are responsible for the observed increase in global surface temperature since the industrial revolution (IPCC, 2023[1]). 2024 was the warmest year since 1850, 1.6 ºC warmer than the pre-industrial level (Copernicus Climate Change Service, 2025[2]). This exceeded, for the first time in history, the lower bound threshold set forth by the Paris Agreement to limit “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C [...]” (Paris Agreement, 2015[3]). The Sixth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe, with human activity contributing to many observed changes in weather and climate extremes. This includes heat waves, wildfires, heavy precipitation and the associated flooding, sea level rise and drought. Changes in climatic variables including temperature and precipitation patterns may affect crop yields and food security, as well as having negative consequences on human health. Under current climate mitigation policies, median global warming could reach 2.4 to 3.5°C by 2100 (IPCC, 2022[4]). The latest scientific evidence also suggests that tipping points in the climate system could be crossed even under low levels of warming (IPCC, 2021[5]).
Biodiversity is broadly defined as “the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (United Nations, 1992[6]). While there is no universal indicator that can adequately capture all the dimensions, functions and complex interactions of biodiversity (Magurran, 2021[7]), available metrics suggest that global biodiversity is in overall decline (OECD, 2021[8]). The last Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) global assessment report found that around 25% of the species in plant and animal assessed groups were threatened with extinction – a larger proportion than ever before. Jointly, the extent and physical condition of natural ecosystems deteriorated by 47% on average, relative to their earliest estimated states (IPBES, 2019[9]). The accelerating trends of biodiversity decline are a concern, as it compromises valuable and often irreplaceable ecosystem services. For example, agricultural production can be compromised by biodiversity loss, as approximately 75% of global food crop types (equivalent to 35% of global crop production in volume), including fruits and vegetables, rely to some extent on pollination from bees, butterflies and other insects (IPBES, 2017[10]). If insufficient action is taken, there will be further acceleration in the rate at which species become extinct around the world, which is already at least tens to hundreds of times above the average over the past 10 million years.
Pollution (defined broadly as the introduction of substances and forms of energy into the environment with adverse impacts on human health and the environment) is widespread, multifaceted and affects all media: air, water and soil. Pollution has significant adverse health consequences, with estimates suggesting it was responsible for 9 million premature deaths in 2019, equivalent to one out of six deaths around the world (Fuller et al., 2022[11]); see also Annex Table 1.A.1 on a select examples of health impacts. Air pollution was responsible for the majority of pollution mortality (6.7 million premature deaths), in which 62% of deaths were attributed to ambient particulate matter (PM2.5), while water pollution, including unsafe drinking water and sanitation, was estimated to be responsible for 1.4 million premature deaths (Fuller et al., 2022[11]). Soil pollution is also pervasive. Estimations suggest that there are over 5 million contaminated brownfield sites around the world (Hou et al., 2023[12]).1 Meanwhile, 38% of global municipal solid waste was uncontrolled (e.g. not collected, or collected but later dumped or burned in open sites i.e. mismanaged) in 2020 (UNEP, 2024[13]). Further, disease attributable to mismanaged waste is estimated to cause 0.4 to 1 million deaths annually in developing countries (UNEP, 2024[13]).
The sheer variety, number and ubiquity of chemicals in modern life is illustrative of the complexity of tackling pollution. While manufactured chemicals have contributed to economic productivity, health, food security and well-being, many chemicals are also hazardous (UNEP, 2019[14]). A range of chemicals are considered to have adverse environmental and health impacts, including developmental neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity and immunotoxicity (Fuller et al., 2022[11]). Lead poisoning remains a persistent challenge – responsible for 0.9 million deaths mostly due to its link to cardiovascular diseases; a number that could be six times higher according to an alternative estimate considering impacts of lead beyond increased blood pressure (Larsen and Sánchez-Triana, 2023[15]). Agrochemicals, such as pesticides and excess nutrients applied as fertilisers, also threaten human health and negatively affect ecosystems (Devi, Manjula and Bhavani, 2022[16]).
However, the impact of pollution could be even larger since much still remains unknown about the effects of pollutants and their impacts on human and planetary health. Each year, around 6.1 million tonnes (Mt) of plastic waste leaks into aquatic environments, of which 1.7 Mt flows into oceans (OECD, 2022[17]). While the negative and visible effects of macroplastics on species such as entanglement are relatively well documented, the impacts of microplastics and those mediated by plastic chemicals on human health and the environment are still uncertain and possibly underappreciated (Landrigan et al., 2025[18]). Meanwhile, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment, have been found in many places including drinking water, soils, food and household products in a range of countries (Wee and Aris, 2023[19]). While research is still limited to a handful of PFAS, available epidemiological studies suggest that exposure to certain PFAS, even at low levels, can lead to negative health outcomes (Fenton et al., 2021[20]). For instance, PFAS in-vitro and in-vivo exposure is associated with supressed immune function (Sunderland et al., 2019[21]). Furthermore, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has recently classified PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctanoic and perfluorooctanesulfonic acids, which constitute two groups of PFAS) “carcinogenic to humans” and “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, respectively (Zahm et al., 2024[22]).
This OECD Environmental Outlook examines the interlinkages among climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution at multiple levels, including their interlocking drivers, environmental pressures, states and biophysical impacts, as well as in terms of policy responses. Underpinning the Outlook is an integrated modelling toolbox (Section 1.6.1) to consistently capture these sets of interlinkages. The model-based quantitative analysis charts how environmental change may unfold through to 2050 based on the policies that are currently in place, providing insights into the key channels and their magnitude as well as their potential future developments (Chapters 2 and 3). A better understanding of the regionally specific factors exacerbating the challenge can help identify policy priorities for different regions and sectors.
The subsequent three chapters turn to the policy interactions. Chapter 4 develops a clustered approach to identify the potential synergies and trade-offs between policy objectives by thematically categorising representative sets of policies to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution into broad clusters based on the overall objective to which they contribute. Following this conceptual analysis, Chapter 5 presents a first-ever stocktake of policy integration by reviewing Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) submitted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 10 countries to examine the extent to which synergies and trade-offs are considered in policymaking at the national level. Chapter 6 delves into key considerations for policy integration at the implementation stage of core policy responses within four key areas: (i) renewable energy expansion, (ii) management and expansion of protected areas, (iii) air pollution control and (iv) nutrient management. Finally, insights from the modelling and the policy analysis in the Outlook are then summarised to develop recommendations on how governments can develop more integrated responses in Chapter 7.
The remainder of this overview chapter is organised as follows. First, Section 1.3 reviews the biophysical and biogeochemical interlinkages among climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.2 Next, Section 1.4 provides an overview of the interlinkages that are being recognised within multilateral frameworks. An assessment of past relevant work on the interlinkages is provided in Section 1.5 and key gaps are identified. The integrated modelling toolbox and analytical framework developed for this Outlook to address some of these research gaps are detailed next in Section 1.6.
Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution interact in complex ways (Figure 1.1). For example, climate change and pollution each contribute to around 14% of the measured biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2019[9]), along with land and sea-use changes (30%), direct exploitation of natural resources (23%), invasive alien species (11%) and other human disturbance (9%). The combination of increased temperature, low humidity and precipitation will lengthen the warmer and drier seasons with heightened risk of wildfires, which can lead to habitat degradation and loss in some regions, although it is also important to note that some ecosystems rely on fire to maintain habitat quality and stimulate regeneration (Bowman et al., 2009[23]). A warmer climate will also increase the risk of extreme weather events such as floods that can lead to spills, leaks and release of pollutants including waste such as plastic waste into the environment. Pollution, in turn, can degrade natural habitats and adversely affect biodiversity; furthermore, some pollutants affect the climate (either as coolant or warming forcer). Loss and degradation of natural habitats, meanwhile, can compromise important regulating ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and erosion control that are key to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The sheer number of possible interactions among environmental stressors defies an exhaustive analysis (Côté, Darling and Brown, 2016[24]). Some interlinkages are more prominent and more direct than others. Available evidence also suggests that the overall impacts of these interlinkages are highly context- and ecosystem-dependent, with variations in their magnitude and direction (Catford et al., 2022[25]). Nonetheless, the findings from the available studies suggest that a myopic focus on one aspect may lead to mismanaged trade-offs and missed opportunities for synergies. Notable linkages are summarised in Table 1.1 through illustrative examples. These pairwise linkages are further detailed in the following section.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration based on the literature reviewed in this Outlook.
1.3.1. Interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity loss
Climate change drives biodiversity loss
Climate change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2019[9]), the importance of which is projected to further increase in the near future (Ortiz et al., 2021[26]) (see also Chapter 3). While the magnitude varies both by individual taxonomic groups and biomes, climate change is estimated to result in an accelerated loss of species richness as well as areas with suitable climates (Nunez et al., 2019[27]). An estimate suggests that the geographical range size of mammals, birds and amphibians has already declined by 18% on average over the centuries, and climate change can further trigger accelerated habitat loss (Beyer and Manica, 2020[28]). Increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, temperature rise and changes in precipitation patterns can also directly alter the environment of natural habitats. In marine ecosystems, rising global temperatures lead to melting glaciers and subsequent rising sea levels which can cause the loss of important habitats such as mangroves, salt marshes and coral reefs – critical ecosystems supporting diverse marine life (Kibria et al., 2021[29]) (see also Box 1.1).
Climate change affects various interrelated dimensions of biodiversity. Climate change induces various genetic and plastic (changes in physiology and morphology as well as development) responses of species,3 which alter the interactions between species and their ecological functions, cascading across scales and even threatening the ecological integrity of biomes (Bellard et al., 2012[30]; Jaureguiberry et al., 2022[31]).
Interactions among species are also altered by the climate-induced shifts in their geographical ranges. Since species have limited thermal (and hence geographical) performance ranges, climate change triggers species to shift to higher latitudes, altitudes and deeper water in search of more suitable climatic conditions (Pörtner et al., 2023[32]). From fish communities in the Arctic to plant species in North America, these shifts have already been observed across continents and taxonomic groups. A recent study estimates that species have shifted along elevations at 11 m per decade and higher latitude at 16.9 km per decade on average (Muluneh, 2021[33]). Such adaptive shifts are not viable for thermally specialised species with a narrow range of temperature variation or species already living near their tolerance thresholds, such as polar bears in the Arctic. Species that are native to insular environments, such as mountain peaks and isolated freshwater lakes, are also unable to seek new climates (Pinsky, Comte and Sax, 2022[34]). The fragmentation of landscape further hinders the adaptive shift of species, posing obstacles to their movement (Urban, 2015[35]).
Those unable to migrate or adapt rapidly face the risk of local extinction (Pinsky, Comte and Sax, 2022[34]). Furthermore, the responses of species to the changing environment through evolutionary adaptation and migration are expected to become increasingly less viable due to the magnitude and accelerating pace of climate change (Sage, 2020[36]). While there are a range of estimates and a high level of regional variability, climate change is projected to lead to the extinction of 7.9% of species on average (Urban, 2015[35]). In particular, climate change poses risks for extinction in regions with rich assemblages of endemic species with limited ranges (Urban, 2015[35]). Through interactions, initial extinctions of species can lead to secondary extinctions, amplifying the impact of disturbances (Kehoe, Frago and Sanders, 2021[37]).
Importantly, these cascading impacts can impair various provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. Genetic responses to climate change may alter interactions among species, threatening the integrity of the food web and disrupting the seasonal synchrony of various populations, for instance, between plants and their pollinators (Bellard et al., 2012[30]). Notably, occurrences of these “phenological mismatches” have been found across regions and species (Scheffers et al., 2016[38]), with emerging evidence highlighting the spatial decoupling of suitability for crops and their pollinators due to changes in temperature, rainfall or extreme weather events (Imbach et al., 2017[39]). Moreover, some species in terrestrial and aquatic environments are shrinking in body size due to the desirability of large surface-to-volume ratio under warmer climate (Scheffers et al., 2016[38]). These altered interactions and morphologies can negatively affect agricultural and fisheries productivity and threaten food security.4
While evidence is relatively limited, more frequent and severe extreme weather events are also linked to direct (i.e. mortality) and indirect losses (e.g. through destruction and disturbance of habitat) of biodiversity. Although attributing reduced species richness to extreme weather is challenging due to natural variability in climatic conditions (Harris et al., 2020[40]), existing evidence suggests that acute temperature spikes can cause mass mortality (Scheffers et al., 2016[38]), as observed in a wide range of regions and species including the bleaching and mortality of corals in the tropics (Albert et al., 2017[41]). A literature review of over 500 observational studies quantifying responses to extreme weather events identify over 100 cases in which these events led to population decline by over 25% and 31 cases of complete species local extinction (Maxwell et al., 2019[42]).
Importantly, these adverse impacts on biodiversity are expected to worsen over time, because recurring extreme events compromise ecosystems’ natural capacity to recover from a disturbance (Mahecha et al., 2024[43]). For instance, cyclones can leave temporary structural damages (e.g. uprooting) to plants, with lasting impacts on mortality and reduced species diversity (Maxwell et al., 2019[42]). Increasingly frequent marine heatwaves also have adverse impacts on most species, particularly sessile species (species lacking self-locomotion), with increased coral bleaching, reduced seagrass density and kelp biomass (Smale et al., 2019[44]). Extreme weather events that affect hydrological dynamics (e.g. floods) also reduce riverine biodiversity measured in terms of species richness and biomass (Sabater et al., 2023[45]).
There are key differences in how climate change affects terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. For marine environments, a recent meta-analysis suggests that climate change is already the second most significant direct driver of biodiversity loss, following direct exploitation (Jaureguiberry et al., 2022[31]). Marine species are generally found to be more sensitive to the effects of climate change than species on land, although some impacts are attenuated by their greater ability to colonise new territory under water (Pinsky, Selden and Kitchel, 2020[46]). High CO2 concentrations trigger photosynthesis and competition from algae and seagrasses, while ocean acidification (pH reduction) caused by CO2 dissolution can cause stress to fish and calcifying species (Sage, 2020[36]). The impacts on species that are considered most vulnerable to both ocean warming and acidification, such as marine species at lower trophic levels (e.g. herbivore fish) and calcifying species, can result in bottom-up disruptions in the ecological dynamics through the food web (Hu et al., 2022[47]).
Given the relative stability of the temperatures of oceans (i.e. seasonal and daily variation of temperature is significantly higher for land than for oceans), the current extent of rapid warming may exceed species’ adaptive range (Pinsky, Selden and Kitchel, 2020[46]). Since the metabolism of marine species is affected by temperature, which in turn affects oxygen levels (due to the inverse relation between water temperature and oxygen solubility), rising temperatures can make certain areas uninhabitable, while increasing the risk of colliding habitats for prey and predators as well as for fisheries (Stewart et al., 2014[48]; Prince et al., 2010[49]). This raises further concerns over food security, given the current reliance of the world population on aquatic animal food as the source of animal protein (constituting 15% of the total), particularly in low-income countries (FAO, 2024[50]).
Climate change amplifies the impacts of other drivers of biodiversity loss
Climate change also amplifies the impacts of other drivers of biodiversity loss across marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (IPBES, 2019[9]). Human responses to climate change can further magnify these impacts on biodiversity (Brodie and Watson, 2023[51]). For instance, climate change is enhancing the accessibility of previously remote areas, increasing the pressures from direct exploitation such as logging and hunting activities (Brodie, Post and Laurance, 2012[52]). Adverse impacts of climate change on economic activities, including declines in yields for agriculture, fishery and forestry, can incentivise increased activities to compensate for the loss, exacerbating the impacts on biodiversity (Wang et al., 2018[53]). These pressures can be further amplified through the impacts of extreme weather events, health consequences, crop losses and food price shocks on poverty, which can intensify the use of natural resources as sources of livelihoods (Hallegatte et al., 2015[54]).
While different drivers of biodiversity loss tend to be examined in isolation, the impacts of co-occurring environmental stressors can be more than additive. For instance, climate change is amplifying the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on biodiversity, particularly in areas characterised by high maximum temperature (Mantyka-pringle, Martin and Rhodes, 2012[55]). Climate change also affects the toxicity of environmental pollutants and concentrations, amplifying their impact on biodiversity (Hansen et al., 2010[56]). The combined effects of toxic pollutants and climate change on species may affect the time needed for affected populations to recover from exposure, lower community resistance to other stressors, or have lasting effects on community composition (Moe et al., 2012[57]).
By altering the distribution of species, climate change can also indirectly amplify the risks of biodiversity loss (Noyes and Lema, 2015[58]; Scheffers et al., 2016[38]). For example, climate change can facilitate the spread and establishment of invasive alien species which cause biotic homogenisation whereby biological communities become more similar, resulting in alterations of soil and water characteristics (IPBES, 2023[59]).5 Invasive alien species play a role in 60% of global animal and plant species extinctions, and they are considered the sole attributable driver of 16% of the extinctions (IPBES, 2023[59]). Climate change affects their range size, although there is no consensus over the scale of the issue and the magnitude varies by taxa and by scale (Bellard et al., 2018[60]). While the evidence is inconclusive, some studies also suggest that invasive alien species may benefit relatively more from climate change than native species. For instance, higher temperature and CO2 enrichment increases the performance of invasive alien plants compared to native plant species (Liu et al., 2017[61]). While the evidence substantiating the linkage between invasive alien species and climate change is more well-established for terrestrial environments, marine and freshwater environments can also be susceptible. For instance, warming ocean can also facilitate introduction and alter the environmental conditions, allowing survival and reproduction of invasive alien species in regions where they were previously unable to survive (Walther et al., 2009[62]).
Biodiversity loss accelerates climate change
Biodiversity loss undermines its essential role in regulating the climate, accelerating climate change in a mutually reinforcing manner (Pörtner et al., 2021[63]). Among the most well-recognised linkages is between the temperature and the capacity of natural carbon sinks. The balance between carbon stored in ecosystems and in the atmosphere is a critical determinant of the global climate (De Graaff et al., 2015[64]). For instance, between 2010-2019, over half of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be captured (e.g. through photosynthesis), stored and sequestered (e.g. by the so-called “solubility pump” in the ocean, moving carbon from the surface to the interior) in terrestrial and marine ecosystems (Canadell et al., 2021[65]). However, accelerated biodiversity loss is projected to result in the release of stored carbon, contributing to warming while simultaneously lowering the ability of ecosystems to absorb other pollutants (Weiskopf et al., 2024[66]).
Within terrestrial ecosystems, forests act not only as carbon sinks, but also play a temperature regulating role at local and global scales as they photosynthesise and evapotranspire water from the leaves and soil and lower the surface temperature (Lawrence et al., 2022[67]; Harris et al., 2021[68]). Importantly, the strength of terrestrial carbon sinks hinges on the balance between photosynthesis and respiration that are both affected by temperature (Duffy et al., 2021[69]). For example, increased respiration without a concomitant increase in photosynthesis (due to e.g. droughts inhibiting plant growth) results in degraded carbon sinks (Duffy et al., 2021[69]). Furthermore, it has been suggested that some parts of the largest forests, such as southeastern Amazon tropical rainforests, now emit more carbon than they capture, turning natural carbon sinks into a carbon source as a result of deforestation and forest degradation (Gatti et al., 2021[70]). Conversion of forest land in Amazonia (containing around 123 petagrams of carbon of above- and belowground biomass) resulted in a forest loss of around 17%, 14% of which is used for agriculture (Gatti et al., 2021[70]).
Relatedly, soil plays a critical role in supporting biodiversity and carbon cycling. A meta-analysis suggests that biodiversity loss in soil reduces soil carbon respiration by 28% and plant tissue decomposition by 18% (De Graaff et al., 2015[64]). Soil moisture and temperature feedback loops, through which the combination of heat and drought causes moisture availability disruption, leads to increases in air temperature and higher evaporative demand, further exacerbating the temperature increase (Mahecha et al., 2024[43]).
Aquatic ecosystems are also important sinks for “blue carbon”, carbon stored in organisms in wetlands such as peatlands, mangroves and tidal salt marshes. Wetlands cover only 6% of land surfaces, yet they are estimated to contain between 20-30% of global soil carbon (Lal, 2004[71]) and support a wide range of animal and plant species (Beers, Crooks and Fennessy, 2020[72]). However, wetlands are reported to be being degraded and disappearing at a rate three times faster than forests. For instance, an estimate suggests that 35% of global wetlands have been lost since 1970 (Davidson, 2014[73]).
The ocean is estimated to absorb 20-30% of carbon emissions, which can, once stored, remain in sediments for centuries (Pörtner et al., 2022[74]). A variety of marine species ranging from planktons to mesopelagic fish sustain this vital function (Elsler et al., 2022[75]). However, while the absorption of carbon emissions by oceans is critical for mitigating further climate change, it simultaneously causes ocean acidification. Ocean acidification in turn hinders ecological functions of marine organisms, including gaseous sulphur production of phytoplankton, accelerating warming due to reduced reflection of solar radiation (IPBES, 2019[9]) (see also Box 1.1).
Biodiversity loss reduces nature’s climate adaptation potential
Importantly, biodiversity loss can heighten human and nature’s vulnerability to climate change. For instance, biodiversity helps buffer climate change impacts by helping regulate the hydrological cycle. Forests, at regional and global scales, can act as “biotic pumps” of water through evapotranspiration. Forests (together with rest of the land) are thus estimated to return around 60% of precipitation on land back into the atmosphere (Trenberth, Fasullo and Mackaro, 2011[76]). In turn, forests intensify the water cycle and increase local precipitation as well as cross-continental transport of moisture vapour, facilitating precipitation in distant locations (Ellison, Futter and Bishop, 2012[77]). Compositional and spatial changes in terrestrial biodiversity can also modify surface temperature via changes in albedo, emissivity and surface roughness (Duveiller, Hooker and Cescatti, 2018[78]). For instance, an estimate suggests that surface energy balance changes caused by vegetation change between 2000 and 2015 are associated with an average increase of around 0.23°C in the areas where the changes occurred (Duveiller, Hooker and Cescatti, 2018[78]).
Biodiversity also plays a key role in protecting communities from the impact of natural disasters, over 70% of which are water-related in nature (Lee et al., 2020[79]). Coral reefs in islands and coastal areas drastically reduce wave strength, attenuating coastal erosion and the impact of flooding events (Temmerman et al., 2013[80]). Similarly, wetlands such as mangroves provide vital protection against storms. Biodiversity loss therefore results in weakened capacity to buffer against the impacts of natural hazards. Although more diverse ecosystems are not systematically more stable (De Boeck et al., 2018[81]), more diverse assemblages can be more resilient against risks through the “insurance effect”, for instance, as they are more likely to contain key species that prevent degradation of the ecosystem (Mahecha et al., 2024[43]).
1.3.2. Interlinkages between biodiversity loss and pollution
Pollution drives biodiversity loss
While quantitative assessments of pollution are available only for a handful of systematically monitored pollutants, the adverse impact of pollution on biodiversity is well-established (Jaureguiberry et al., 2022[31]). The need to address pollution is highlighted in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) adopted in the late 2022 by the Parties to the CBD. Many chemicals are toxic for organisms, as indicated by the classifications under the Globally Harmonised System for the Classification and Labelling of Chemicals.6
Air pollution has extensive impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Within terrestrial environments, air pollution can threaten biodiversity by directly harming certain species and altering interactions between them, both of which raise serious food security concerns. For instance, a recent analysis demonstrates that even moderate air pollution reduces the performance of pollinators and natural pest regulators by almost a third, while leaving pest invertebrates and other herbivores relatively unaffected (Ryalls et al., 2024[82]). Furthermore, ground-level ozone slows vegetation growth and heightens their vulnerability to pests by damaging leaves and impairing photosynthesis (EEA, 2022[83]). Many staple food crops (e.g. wheat and soybean) are highly sensitive to ground-level ozone (Mills, Wagg and Harmens, 2013[84]), with available estimates suggesting that ground-level ozone negatively affects crop yields, although there is a wide range of estimated losses between 2 to 27% depending on the crop types and regions (Ainsworth, 2017[85]). While some air pollutants such as SO2 that cause acidification of surface water and soil have declined over the years in many regions (OECD, 2017[86]), even a low concentration of these pollutants can be lethal to fish species and impair plant growth.
Target 7 of the 2030 targets under the KMGBF also draws attention to (i) the goal to reduce nutrient pollution by at least half, (ii) the goal to reduce the overall risks posed by use of pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half, as well as (iii) the need to tackle plastic pollution (CBD, 2023[87]). Nitrogen pollution, of which fertilisers remain the dominant source, has a number of significant linkages with biodiversity loss across ecosystems due to its uniquely cascading nature in air, water and soil (Kanter, 2018[88]). While 60% of nitrogen lost in the environment is waterborne, the remainder is emitted as ammonia (NH3) (25%), nitrous oxide (N2O) (10%) and NOx (5%) (Kanter and Brownlie, 2019[89]; Sutton MA et al., 2013[90]). Across ecosystems, nitrogen favours a subset of faster-growing, potentially invasive species over native species, altering the competitive interactions and therefore affecting the relative abundance of species.
While phosphorus cycle has no significant gaseous component, phosphorus constitutes a significant source of nutrient load7 into water, which has doubled in quantity over the last century (Beusen et al., 2016[91]; Kanter and Brownlie, 2019[89]). The nature of the challenges is regionally varied. While the limited use of inorganic fertilisers and the diversion of organic inputs such as manure for household cooking (Jones and Deuss, 2024[92]) lead to negative nutrient balances (nutrient deficits) – and thus limited crop yields – in developing regions, notably in Sub-Saharan Africa, other regions have significant phosphorus surpluses.8 These surpluses can be a threat for water quality, with for example critical thresholds for nitrogen concentration in surface water exceeded in 48% of Europe’s total area in 2020, followed by East Asia (41%) and South Asia (21%) (see Chapter 3). Anthropogenic releases to waterbodies have resulted in an imbalance in the nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P) ratio,9 which can affect natural ecosystems and their food provision and carbon storage capacity (Penuelas et al., 2020[93]).
A common challenge of nutrient pollution is eutrophication and harmful algal blooms that cause hypoxia (low oxygen) and anoxia (no oxygen), leading to increased turbidity of water in lakes and rivers (Altieri and Gedan, 2015[94]; Amorim and Moura, 2021[95]). Lower oxygen concentrations threaten fish and invertebrates (Whitehead et al., 2009[96]) as well as plankton biodiversity, with cascading consequences to ecosystem functioning. In freshwater ecosystems, an estimate from a meta-analysis suggests that exposure to nitrate leads to 79% decrease in activity, 29% decrease in growth and 62% decrease in survival of species (Gomez Isaza, Cramp and Franklin, 2020[97]). Due to the rapid development of aquaculture and waste from fish farms, green tides and blooms are now also increasingly observed in the ocean (Sage, 2020[36]). Globally, there are over 700 coastal areas impacted by “dead zones” (Convention on Wetlands, 2021[98]), including in continental seas from the Baltics to the Gulf of Mexico, all of which affect fisheries (Robertson and Vitousek, 2009[99]).
Pesticides also pose a threat to non-target species (i.e. species not intended for control by pesticides) including birds, insects and pollinators and may reduce their genetic diversity (UNEP, 2021[100]). A recent review of studies examining the impact of pesticides on non-target plants, animals and microorganisms across aquatic and terrestrial environments finds that pesticides consistently supressed growth and reproduction across all taxonomic groups (Wan et al., 2025[101]).10 Through the food chain, these individual impacts on non-target species can result in wider ecosystem-scale impacts (e.g. compositional biodiversity) by favouring pesticide-tolerant species (Ito et al., 2020[102]). Pesticides disperse across the environment through water runoff, soil leaching and atmospheric transport with extensive impacts beyond areas directly used for agricultural activities (Sud, 2020[103]). For instance, pesticide residue has contaminated aquatic environments and has adverse implications for fisheries and aquaculture (Carvalho, 2017[104]). Despite their critical role in improving crop yields (Tudi et al., 2021[105]), indiscriminate and excessive use of pesticides can also compromise yields of some crops in the long term, as the contaminated soil from pesticides can reduce biodiversity and hinder soil productivity (Burian et al., 2024[106]; Naidu et al., 2021[107]).
Furthermore, plastic pollution has garnered attention in recent years due to its cross-cutting impact on biodiversity. Plastic debris can persist in the environment for hundreds of years, breaking down into smaller particles known as microplastics. Additionally, the impacts of macroplastics including marine debris (e.g. fishing gear) on wildlife have been relatively widely documented. For instance, marine species frequently ingest or are entangled in plastics, which can harm or ultimately kill species (Gall and Thompson, 2015[108]). A recent review also suggests that at least 206 freshwater species have likewise ingested macro and microplastics (Azevedo-Santos et al., 2021[109]). While the impacts of microplastics are less certain, there is emerging research exploring how they might mobilise other pollutants (see Box 1.2).
While ingestion and entanglement pose immediate threats to aquatic species, plastics can also serve as rafts for non-indigenous species to eschew historical home ranges (Barnes, 2002[110]; Hahladakis, 2024[111]). Discarded plastics at the land-sea interface can be swept into oceans with increasingly frequent extreme weather events due to climate change, further amplifying the risk of the introduction of invasive alien species (Pyšek et al., 2020[112]). These species, once established, can exert significant impacts on native biodiversity. Although research on the impact of plastics on terrestrial species is less established, available evidence suggests that they adversely impact plants (e.g. delaying germination) and soil fauna (e.g. lower reproduction) (Huo et al., 2022[113]).
Plastics affect biodiversity loss and climate change throughout their lifecycle (Carney Almroth and Villarrubia-Gómez, 2024[114]). While research on the impacts of plastic pollution on biodiversity is still nascent, existing studies suggest that plastics can affect wildlife through (i) their physical characteristics, (ii) disturbances to habitats and (iii) toxicity of associated chemicals (Carney Almroth and Villarrubia-Gómez, 2024[114]). Both micro- and macroplastics can affect species, through ingestion, entanglement and inhalation (Savoca, McInturf and Hazen, 2021[115]; OECD, 2021[116]). Microplastic uptake can impact foundational species such as phytoplankton that underpin biodiversity and facilitate nutrient cycling (Shi et al., 2024[117]). Studies have cumulatively identified over 4 000 aquatic species that have been affected by micro- and macroplastics (Tekman et al., 2025[118]). While less developed compared to the research on oceans and freshwater ecosystems, there are also some emerging studies identifying accumulation of microplastics in soils (Li et al., 2024[119]) as well as impacts of microplastic pollution on photosynthesis of terrestrial plants along with marine and freshwater algae (Zhu et al., 2025[120]).
Plastic pollution can further pose a risk to biodiversity due to its complex chemical composition. Many chemicals used to make plastics are ecotoxic and can be released into different environmental media across the plastic lifecycle, including at end-of-life (Carney Almroth et al., 2022[121]). According to a recent UNEP report, more than 13 000 chemicals have been found to be associated with plastics, out of which 3 200 have been identified as having hazardous properties of concern to human health or the environment (United Nations Environment Programme and Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, 2023[122]). The report also called for increased transparency of chemicals used in plastics and their properties. Since the publication, the International Council of Chemical Associations has undertaken an effort to identify plastic additives and their properties, hazard classifications and related regulatory activities, which have been compiled in their Plastic Additives Database (ICCA, n.d.[123]).
Importantly, due to their characteristics of random irregular shapes and pores, microplastics are suggested to absorb other contaminants and result in combined pollution (Li et al., 2024[119]). From the potential impacts microplastics on plant and soil phosphorus (Zhou et al., 2024[124]) to the co-occurrence of PFAS and microplastics in aquatic environment (Lukić Bilela et al., 2023[125]), research exploring the relation between plastics and other contaminants is rapidly expanding but remains a key knowledge gap.
From production and conversion to waste management, the lifecycle of plastics is also associated with climate change, although there are also a number of positive contributions including the light weight which contributes to fuel efficiency of vehicles (OECD, 2023[126]). Production and conversion of plastics relies on transforming fossil fuels through energy-intensive processes. End of life GHG emissions resulting from waste management practices, such as incineration, account for about 10% of total plastics-related GHG emissions (OECD, 2023[126]). Production of plastics resulted in 3.6% of total GHG emission in 2020 (OECD, 2024[127]). Plastics-related GHG emissions are projected to account for 5% of global emissions by 2040. While elevated, this figure is likely to be an underestimate given that informal burning of plastic waste has not been captured.
Plastic pollution may further contribute to climate change through positive feedback loops. For instance, by decreasing sea ice albedo, plastic pollution can reduce the earth’s ability to reflect solar radiation (Geilfus et al., 2019[128]). As climate change alters ocean salinity and volume, it can lead to consolidated microplastic hotspots, in turn further decreasing earth’s albedo and contributing to additional warming (Welden and Lusher, 2017[129]).
Heavy metals can bioaccumulate through food chains, posing threats to human and wildlife health. For instance, elemental mercury settles in the sediment of freshwater ecosystems (e.g. rivers) and transforms into methylmercury, which accumulates in fish species (WHO, 2021[130]). Additionally, it is estimated that 62 Mt of electrical and electronic waste (e-waste) was generated globally in 2022 (Baldé et al., 2024[131]). Despite the valuable raw materials in e-waste (e.g. copper, gold, silver), only 22% of the e-waste is formally collected and recycled and the fate of remaining waste is uncertain. Mismanaged e-waste can threaten ecosystems as e-waste also contains hazardous materials and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as flame retardants (UNEP/BRS/MC, 2021[132]).
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (also known as endocrine active chemicals) interfere with endocrine system and affect a variety of functions, including developmental, reproductive, neurological and immunity impacts (OECD, 2018[133]). They are found to compromise the reproductive capacity of a variety of species including fish, mammals and insects, which can cause concomitant decline in biodiversity across taxa (Noyes and Lema, 2015[58]). Subgroups of PFAS that are listed as industrial POPs11 under the Stockholm Convention persist in the environment for over a long period of time. Although there is considerable uncertainty in how PFAS affect biodiversity (Evich et al., 2022[134]) and human health, bioaccumulated PFAS have been detected in host of aquatic species, ranging from polar bears to mussels (Kurwadkar et al., 2022[135]).
Importantly, pollution from various sources can be interlinked in a complex manner and often occurs simultaneously. Wildlife rarely faces a single stressor or pollutant (Gomez Isaza, Cramp and Franklin, 2020[97]). Different types of pollutants can interact to result in more than additive impacts. Although the cumulative impact of multiple stressors remains a key knowledge gap in biodiversity conservation (Gomez Isaza, Cramp and Franklin, 2020[97]), early evidence suggests that these impacts can be substantial (Sigmund et al., 2023[136]). For instance, the combined impacts of multiple pollutants has been found to be significant in soil biodiversity (Wang et al., 2022[137]) and synergistic as a cause of pollinator mortality (Siviter et al., 2021[138]).
Biodiversity loss compromises nature’s capacity to recover from pollution
As highlighted in Target 11 of the 2030 targets under the KMGBF, before air, water and soil become “polluted”, biodiversity plays a myriad of roles in stabilising and restoring the environment through their self-purification capacity. A range of complex interactions underpin nature’s restorative capacity, the mechanisms of which vary substantially by pollutant as well as realms.12
There are certain ecosystems that play an outsized role in remediating pollution. Forests absorb and degrade pollutants before they enter the water body through the process of infiltration (entry of water in the soil through topsoil pores) and reduce runoff through percolation (water diffusion from surface to the deep layer) (Cheng et al., 2021[139]). Tree canopies purify pollutants and prevent pollutants in the upper atmosphere from reaching the ground level. For instance, canopies are suggested to reduce the ground-level ozone concentrations by up to 20%, although their capacity is reduced under drought conditions (Mills, Wagg and Harmens, 2013[84]). Droughts induce water-stressed plants to close their leaf stomata to limit water loss, thereby impairing the uptake of ozone, which may partially explain why ground-level ozone episodes have not declined despite the marked decline in precursor emissions13 as a result of increasingly stricter air quality policy in Europe over the last decade (Lin et al., 2020[140]).
Wetlands, often referred to as “the kidney of the world” (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007[141]), help purify water through nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition. As transitional zones between terrestrial and aquatic environments (Zhang et al., 2020[142]), wetlands support 37% of mammals, 20% of freshwater fish (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005[143]). However, wetland-dependent species have declined more sharply than those dependent on other biomes (Convention on Wetlands, 2021[98]), with a quarter threatened with extinction (Convention on Wetlands, 2018[144]).
Pollution exceeding a certain threshold can impair the ability of species to adapt and respond to the changing environment (Noyes and Lema, 2015[58]). For instance, adapting to one type of pollutant may reduce genetic diversity, thereby lowering the capacity for adaptation to other co-occurring and future stressors (Groh et al., 2022[145]). The reduced capacity for restoring the environment in turn can have adverse impacts on human and planetary health. For instance, the over-and misuse of antibiotics in agriculture, and resultant soil and water pollution, is leading to antimicrobial resistance, compromising the cure for otherwise treatable infectious diseases (Zhu et al., 2019[146]).
1.3.3. Interlinkages between pollution and climate change
Climate change increases the exposure to and toxicity of certain pollutants
Climate change can impact the ways in which pollutants mobilise through the environment, altering the patterns of exposure and impacts on human and planetary health (Biswas et al., 2018[147]). The patterns of transfer of pollutants between environmental reservoirs, whether air to surface or ice to water, can be affected by the altered biogeochemical processes (Teng et al., 2012[148]). For instance, pesticides accumulate in the atmosphere through increased vaporisation at higher temperatures (see Box 1.3) (Tudi et al., 2021[105]). When the spray method of pesticide application is used, 30% or more of the pesticide can be released into the air depending on the application technique14 and other environmental conditions (Van Den Berg et al., 1999[149]).
Climate change may affect agricultural activities in ways that may end up increasing agrochemical applications (Yang et al., 2024[150]). Once applied, pesticides transfer and deposit across different environmental media through mobilisation, photolysis, volatilisation, hydrolysis and microbiological degradation, most of which are affected by at least one climatic variable such as temperature and level of precipitation.
Compromised efficacy of pesticides due to climate change, particularly through increased transfer and accelerated degradation, imply that pesticides may need to be applied in larger quantities and more frequently to maintain crop yields (Delcour, Spanoghe and Uyttendaele, 2015[151]). Meanwhile, the transfer can result in pesticides accumulating in surrounding environmental realms and harming non-target species. Between 10 to 50% of pesticides are estimated to be lost to the environment, making their ways into surface and groundwater (Zhu et al., 2020[152]).
Importantly, increased temperature is likely to result in heightened prevalence of insect pests and livestock and plant diseases in temperate regions as it extends the geographical range of pest and disease vectors (Seidl et al., 2017[153]). Extreme weather conditions such as droughts can also increase susceptibility of plants to pests (Skendžić et al., 2021[154]). Furthermore, temperature variation is expected to contribute to the evolution of crop resistance to pesticides as the higher temperature accelerates metabolic detoxification (Matzrafi et al., 2016[155]). These climate-induced and climate-mediated impacts on pests, as well as the accelerated degradation of pesticides under climate change, may further increase the need for pesticides (Kibria et al., 2021[29]; Delcour, Spanoghe and Uyttendaele, 2015[151]).
The chronic onset of climate change and extreme weather events can also lead to increased releases of pollutants from natural environmental reservoirs (Kibria et al., 2021[29]). Similarly, climate change may increase the risk of the release of pollutants from artificial reservoirs. For instance, hazardous by-products of extractive operations stored in tailings15 ponds may be released into river catchments due to the increased frequency of extreme weather events (Kossoff et al., 2014[156]). More precipitation caused by rising temperatures might result in elevated runoff into water systems, allowing pollutants to leach into groundwater and release to surface waters (OECD, 2023[157]). Conversely, lack of precipitation and reduced snowfall, and subsequently less snowmelt, may result in less groundwater recharge, compromising the capacity to restore the water quality (Gander, 2022[158]; OECD, 2023[157]). As climate change accelerates, it may play an even larger role in the time-delayed release of stored pollutants. For instance, snow has a large capacity to bind pollutants, resulting in glaciers storing accumulated POPs. Melting glaciers and thawing permafrost can therefore be a significant secondary source of legacy pollutants (Hung et al., 2022[159]). Similarly, Schuster et al. (2018[160]) suggest that the Northern Hemisphere permafrost stores twice as much mercury as the rest of the soils, atmosphere and the oceans combined, drawing attention to the severity of the risk associated with the melting permafrost.
In addition to influencing mobilisation patterns, rising temperatures can also alter the properties of pollutants. For instance, properties of plastics can deteriorate under heat, with polymer degradation resulting in the faster generation of microplastics (Wei, Yang and Hedenqvist, 2024[161]). This may also affect the accumulated stocks of plastics in the aquatic environment due to marine heatwaves and warmer water temperature (Wei, Yang and Hedenqvist, 2024[161]). Furthermore, highly degraded plastic waste would be less suitable to reuse and recycle.
Climate change also affects air pollution physically by modifying transport and mixture, and chemically by altering reactions of pollutants (Im et al., 2022[162]). Changes in climatic variables such as temperature and precipitation alter the patterns of air pollutants emissions and can lead to either lower or higher pollution. For example, higher temperatures leads to higher NH3 emissions from agriculture and anthropogenic VOC emissions from petroleum products, while also increasing biogenic VOCs from terrestrial and oceanic vegetations (Im et al., 2022[162]). As highlighted by the “climate penalty” of air pollution, higher temperatures and increased moisture in the atmosphere can also lead to higher ground-level ozone concentrations (Donzelli and Suarez-Varela, 2024[163]). Meanwhile, increased precipitation can reduce PM concentrations, as wet deposition serves as a key removal mechanism (Im et al., 2022[162]).
Relatedly, rising temperatures can influence pollutant behaviour, intensifying their toxicity and bioaccumulation across systems. For most pollutants, their toxicity and lethality for wildlife are found to increase at higher temperatures (Kibria et al., 2021[29]). In addition, increasing temperatures are often coupled with higher solar intensities, affecting emissions into the air and photodegradation of pollutants that can result in more toxic intermediate by-products (Bolan et al., 2024[164]). Several studies also suggest that higher temperatures result in higher bioaccumulation of pollutants due to the increased metabolic rate across terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Kibria et al., 2021[29]; Bolan et al., 2024[164]). While the effect of ocean acidification on pollutants is less clear-cut, the toxicity of certain heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury also increases at higher acidity. The combined impact of increased mobility and toxicity of pollutants may in turn be exacerbated by the reduced capacity of the environment to restore its quality.
More frequent extreme weather events are also exacerbating the adverse health impact of pollution. In particular, transmission potential is increasing for many of the vector-, food- and waterborne infectious diseases under climate change (Romanello et al., 2023[165]). For instance, the coastal area that is environmentally suitable for Vibrio pathogen transmission (e.g. Vibrio spp which causes cholera and non-cholera infections (Baker-Austin et al., 2018[166])) is expanding by 329 km a year since 1982, totalling almost 10% of global coastline in 2022 (Romanello et al., 2023[165]).
Increasing temperatures are generally conducive for the fitness, survival, and production of pathogens (Semenza and Ko, 2023[167]). Floodwaters from extreme precipitations can also become a means for dispersion of pathogens and cause outbreaks in dense urban areas. Importantly, while mortality from infectious diseases has declined overall over time, accelerating climate change runs the risk of undoing the progress made to date (Semenza, Rocklöv and Ebi, 2022[168]). There are already some early warning signs; for instance, recent evidence suggests that the geographical expansion of pathogens, such as West Nile virus in Europe, is attributable partly to the changing climate (Erazo et al., 2024[169]).
The increased health risks of the nexus of climate change and pollution extend well beyond the spread of infectious diseases, including zoonoses. Importantly, climate change may amplify the risks of Natural Hazard Triggered Technological (Natech) accidents due to changes in intensity, frequency and location of extreme weather events, which can in turn result in pollution (OECD/European Union, 2024[170]). Extreme weather events are also expected to have implications for air pollution, as more frequent droughts lead to more wildfires and increased PM2.5 (Fiore, Naik and Leibensperger, 2015[171]). For instance, increasingly frequent wildfires bring significant health consequences beyond lives lost (OECD, 2023[172]). Smoke from wildfires threatens respiratory and cardiovascular health through elevating the level of PM, especially when accompanied by low precipitation, while contributing to climate change through the release of GHGs into the atmosphere (Knorr et al., 2017[173]; Im et al., 2022[162]). Wildfires can also mobilise and release mercury contained in vegetation and soil, releasing gaseous form of mercury into air and mobilising them into water bodies (Webster et al., 2016[174]) (see Box 1.4).
Evidence suggests that, in many regions, higher atmospheric temperatures, increasing aridity of landscapes and changing lightning patterns from climate change have increased the prevalence of wildfires (Sullivan et al., 2022[175]). For example, changes in extreme heat and drought suggest that climate change increases the risk of fires that are at least as severe as the 2019/20 Australian “Black Summer” wildfires (destroying around 6 000 buildings and resulting in at least 34 human fatalities) by at least 30% (Van Oldenborgh et al., 2021[176]).
Wildfire smoke releases hazardous air pollutants, including PM2.5 consisting of organic carbon (OC) and black carbon (BC). The morbidity risk of wildfire smoke exposure, including (exacerbation of) respiratory illnesses, is well-recognised. Several studies have examined the mortality impacts attributable to wildfire-prone regions to find significant impacts on premature deaths (e.g. (Connolly et al., 2024[177]; Matz et al., 2020[178]; Alari et al., 2025[179])). Recent meta-analyses also find consistent evidence of an increased risk of same-day mortality (Gould et al., 2024[180]) as well as wildfire-induced all-cause mortality (Wang et al., 2025[181]). A global estimate combining the impacts of short-term and chronic exposure to wildfire smoke suggests that it is responsible for 339 000 premature deaths per year (Johnston et al., 2012[182]). A more recent estimate finds that wildfire smoke is responsible for a larger number of premature deaths (678 000 per year), with the greatest impacts in Central and West Africa and South and Southeast Asia (Roberts and Wooster, 2021[183]). There are also concerns that mercury mobilised during wildfires can also affect surface water downstream (Sever, 2021[184]).
Aerosol emissions from wildfires can also contribute to further warming by absorbing solar radiation when suspended and deposited (e.g. on snow) (Jiang et al., 2020[185]). While the impacts of both suspended and deposited aerosol emissions from wildfires on climate warming vary regionally, cascading impacts can be substantial. For instance, peatland fires can release vast amounts of sequestered carbon in the soil through layers of partially undecomposed organic matter, contributing further to climate change as well as the likelihood of additional peatland fires (Kuklina et al., 2022[186]). The 2015 outbreak of fires in Indonesia, more than half of which occurred on peatland, for instance, are estimated to have resulted in the daily emissions exceeding 16 Mt of CO2 on most days (Harris et al., 2015[187]).
Wildfires also have significant impacts on biodiversity, although these impacts vary widely across ecosystems. Wildfires are a natural component for certain ecosystems (e.g. boreal forests), and species rely on them to maintain reproduction and growth levels (Hincks et al., 2011[188]). Studies suggest that fire suppression may lead to decreases in biodiversity in certain fire-prone regions, such as the Brazilian Cerrado, where forest growth, normally curtailed by periodic fires, has encroached on the habitats of plants and ants (Abreu et al., 2017[189]). In some instances, small-scale fires are prescribed to create heterogeneous successional habitats for the purpose of biodiversity conservation (Pastro, Dickman and Letnic, 2011[190]). For instance, research suggests that Indigenous fire regimes that replicate historic fire temporal and spatial diversity can increase plant richness for certain plant groups (Greenwood et al., 2024[191]). Nevertheless, wildfires are now also impacting ecosystems that are not fire-adapted, threatening many species (Kelly et al., 2020[192]). Although the evidence is relatively limited, existing research suggests that severe wildfires can result in direct wildlife mortalities (Jolly et al., 2022[193]). Wildfires can also diminish biodiversity indirectly, for instance by burning habitats and displacing species as well as by affecting soil quality (OECD, 2023[172]).
Pollution affects atmospheric temperature and other climatic variables
There are notable feedback loops between climate change and pollution, of which air pollution is among the most well-documented. Air pollutants can affect climate through their impact on cloud properties, precipitation and radiation. In addition, certain air pollutants – climate forcers (Stocker et al., 2014[194]) – have a warming effect. For instance, BC is both an air pollutant (and a primary component of PM2.5) and a short-lived climate pollutant (SLCP), which also induces snowmelt when deposited. Wildfires, the spread of which is partially determined by climatic conditions, also constitute a large source of BC emissions (Bowman et al., 2009[23]).
There are also important impacts of manufactured chemicals on climate change. Chemicals production relies heavily on fossil fuels as feedstocks (Bălan et al., 2025[195]). Alternatives introduced as less polluting chemicals can also have unintended consequences on climate change (Bălan et al., 2025[195]). For instance, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chemicals introduced as a substitute for ozone-depleting substances banned under the Montreal Protocol, are a powerful SLCP.16 As with other feedback loops, not all are mutually amplifying. For example, air pollutants including NOx and SO2 are precursors to inorganic aerosols (mainly highly reflective and soluble nitrates and sulphates), which exert cooling effects on the climate by directly reflecting and scattering sunlight and indirectly altering cloud formation and precipitation patterns (Im et al., 2022[162]).
The overall impact of aerosols on the reduction of surface temperature can be significant (IPCC, 2018[196]), suggesting that future climate and pollution mitigation efforts could be more effective if they account for feedback loops in policy appraisals (see also Chapters 3 and 6). Although scattering aerosols altogether are estimated to offset about a third of warming impact of GHG emissions, the balance between absorbing (warming) and scattering (cooling) aerosols can vary regionally (Li et al., 2022[197]).17 Evidence is emerging that recent reductions in, for instance, SO2 emissions increase radiative forcing18 and thus accelerate warming (Copernicus, 2023[198]); see also Chapter 3), although uncertainties on the effects remain, especially at the regional level.
Policy responses to each component of the triple planetary challenge are also closely interconnected. Policies targeting one dimension can have positive and negative spillovers on the other two. For instance, climate mitigation policies targeting GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion can also reduce co-emitted air pollutants like PM2.5, PM10, NOx, NH3 and SO2. On the other hand, expansion of renewables like solar and wind power, while contributing to climate mitigation objectives, could potentially lead to adverse impacts on biodiversity through fragmentation of natural habitats and loss of certain bird and bat species, if these factors are not adequately considered in project permitting.
Similarly, many technologies that can be used to reduce environmental pressures, ranging from wind turbines to electric vehicles, rely on a set of minerals and materials (“critical raw materials, CRMs”), the mining and processing of which raise environmental and socio-economic concerns (UNEP, 2024[199]). While CRMs and chemicals play an important role in addressing climate change, a key driver of biodiversity loss, they can at the same time pose a threat to biodiversity. Similarly, alternative materials for chemicals and plastics can in some cases also lead to the shifting of environmental burdens. These complex interlinkages underscore the need to tackle different environmental challenges in a holistic manner and to carefully consider the full environmental impacts of alternative choices – solutions to solve one environmental problem may not always be best from the integrated perspective of the triple challenge.
At the global level, the international community is making progress, although not always in a co-ordinated manner. Countries are working towards their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) as a country-driven global collective response to climate change. In recent years, a growing number of countries have announced their commitments to achieve net zero emissions by mid-century. In parallel, the Parties to the CBD have successfully adopted the KMGBF in 2022, in acknowledgement of the need for policy action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. In September 2025, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) reached 60 ratifications required to trigger its entry into force (United Nations, 2025[200]).
Different types of pollution have also increasingly garnered policy attention. Several WHO guidelines have provided a frame of reference for policymaking, reflecting the inextricable interlinkages between pollution and health. The WHO has recently revised its global air quality guidelines to reflect the latest scientific evidence identifying adverse health impacts associated with even low levels of pollution (WHO, 2021[201]). In addition, the WHO recently published updated guidelines for drinking-water quality to support implementation of hazard identification and risk management through health-based targets, catchment-to-consumer water safety plans and independent surveillance (WHO, 2022[202]). Furthermore, a new Global Framework on Chemicals (GFC) has been adopted to promote the sound management of chemicals and waste at the Fifth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM5) in September 2023. Finally, at the resumed session of the Fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA – 5.2) in February-March 2022, the countries collectively committed to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.
There is already some explicit recognition of the interlinkages in these existing intergovernmental frameworks, which provide an impetus for more integrated approach towards tackling the triple planetary crisis. The joint investigation into the interlinkages between biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation by the two intergovernmental bodies, IPCC and IPBES, has also suggested that biodiversity and climate change need to be considered together routinely, rather than exceptionally (Pörtner et al., 2021[63]). The New Biodiversity Targets (for 2030) and Goals (for 2050) in KMGBF firmly establish the interlinkages among biodiversity, pollution and climate change. For instance, Target 7 and 8 respectively call for reducing pollution and minimising climate change impact on biodiversity (CBD, 2023[87]).
Another related development is the growing emphasis on nature-based solutions (NbS) within multilateral policy landscape.19 They are gaining ground with the UNEA-5.5 resolution adopting a multilaterally agreed definition in 2022 (UNEP, 2022[203]).20 NbS with appropriate safeguards can help meet the climate objectives, while delivering biodiversity benefits (IPBES, 2019[9]). Reflecting the broad-based support for NbS, Target 11 under the KMGBF recognises NbS and/or ecosystem-based approaches for restoring, maintaining and enhancing ecosystem services.
There is also widespread acknowledgement of the need to enhance resource efficiency, including through the transition to more circular economies. While there is no universal definition, “circular economy” commonly describes the process of decoupling natural resource extraction from economic production (McCarthy, Dellink and Bibas, 2018[204]). Enhancing circularity can help address one of the main drivers of the triple planetary challenge – unsustainable patterns of resource use (UNEP, 2024[205]) by closing, extending and narrowing the “material loops of the traditional linear system” in which natural resources are extracted, made into goods and eventually discarded through landfilling or incineration.
Furthermore, the interlinkages among hazardous chemicals and wastes and climate change (2021[206]) and biodiversity loss (2021[207]) are garnering attention within the context of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions and the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Similarly, the GFC Target E6 on enhanced implementation calls on stakeholders to identify and strengthen synergies and interlinkages among chemicals and waste management and other key environmental, health and labour policies, including those relating to tackling climate change, biodiversity conservation, human rights protection and health care (Global Framework on Chemicals, 2024[208]). The close linkages between air pollution and climate change, meanwhile, are highlighted in international initiatives like the Climate and Clean Air Coalition.
Countries around the world have started to recognise the importance of addressing the triple planetary crisis in a more co-ordinated manner to pursue synergies, as illustrated by the ministerial declarations of the fifth and sixth sessions of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), as well as the adoption of the UNEA resolution for “promoting synergies, cooperation or collaboration for national implementation of multilateral environmental agreements and other relevant environmental instruments (UNEP/EA/6/Res.4)” (UNEP, 2024[209]).
These interlinkages at the international level are clearly important. However, despite the growing recognition of the synergies and trade-offs between environmental policies addressing the different aspects of the triple planetary crisis, policies to tackle them are often conceived and implemented in a siloed manner. Furthermore, some of the key trade-offs and synergies between the different policy objectives are fundamentally sub-national and local. Regardless of the levels, where these interlinkages are considered, they tend to focus on pairwise interactions rather than three-way interlinkages.
While the triple planetary crisis has featured prominently in the international policy agenda in recent years, there is a dearth of literature that comprehensively assesses the interlinkages. Few studies look at the three challenges at the same time. One synthesis report from the UNEP shows that the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is threatened by an array of escalating and mutually reinforcing environmental risks and emphasises the need for tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, and air and water pollution together and for policy response to become more synergistic and effective (UNEP, 2021[210]). Another recent key contribution is the latest IPBES thematic assessment report, which highlights the importance of the interlinkages among five nexus elements of biodiversity, water, food, health and climate change (McElwee et al., 2024[211]). The report provides a scientific assessment of the evidence on complex biophysical and policy interactions, as well as a review of projections of interactions in the future.
The existing model-based quantitative projections, meanwhile, primarily focus on pairwise challenges. This literature covers, for instance, the interactions between climate change (mitigation) and plastics (Stegmann et al., 2022[212]), air pollution (Vandyck et al., 2018[213]; Fouré et al., Forthcoming[214]), and biodiversity and ecosystems (Bastien-Olvera et al., 2023[215]), as well as the relations between nitrogen pollution and biodiversity (Schulte-Uebbing et al., 2022[216]). A series of other studies quantify the influence of underlying drivers on multiple environmental outcomes, such as food consumption (Springmann et al., 2018[217]; Leclère et al., 2020[218]; Springmann et al., 2023[219]) and energy use from coal (Rauner et al., 2020[220]).
However, studies with a broader lens still remain relatively scarce, and have been emerging only recently in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (e.g. multi-model comparison in (Soergel et al., 2024[221])) and planetary boundaries (Richardson et al., 2023[222]). For instance, the latest study estimated that six out of the nine planetary boundaries21 have already been transgressed, reinforcing the need for accelerated action to limit human pressures on the environment (Richardson et al., 2023[222]). A recent study providing projections on the evolution of planetary boundaries suggests that policy action needs to address all dimensions of the environmental challenges. While ambitious climate action may bring synergies for air and nitrogen pollution, it is insufficient on its own to stay within safe planetary boundaries in the future (van Vuuren et al., 2025[223]). Even integrated approaches still result in the transgression of three out of eight boundaries by 2050, highlighting the need to better account for synergies and trade-offs.
Similarly, previous global assessment modelling work rarely focused on the three-way interlinkages although there are a few studies that build on the nexus-approach of the SDGs (Willaarts et al., 2024[224]). A substantial share focused on climate change and biodiversity loss, while sometimes covering a few dimensions of pollution (Doelman et al., 2022[225]; van der Esch et al., 2022[226]; Fuglie et al., 2022[227]; Zabel et al., 2019[228]; Moreno et al., 2023[229]; Ohashi et al., 2019[230]). The IPCC and IPBES global assessment reports include chapters on biophysical and policy linkages, mainly focusing on the synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation and NbS. Another strand of the global modelling literature looked primarily at the health synergies of climate change mitigation policies highlighting large positive spillovers, but they mostly focused on health benefits from reduced ambient air pollution (Markandya et al., 2018[231]; Hamilton et al., 2021[232]; Reis, Drouet and Tavoni, 2022[233]; Sampedro et al., 2023[234]; Vandyck et al., 2018[213]). Fewer studies looked at other types of pollution reduction synergies from climate change mitigation policies. For example, it was estimated that the adoption of ambitious policies across the lifecycle of plastics at the global level to minimise plastic leakage to the environment could reduce plastic lifecycle GHG emissions by 41% (1.7 Gt CO2-eq) compared to a Baseline scenario in 2040 (OECD, 2024[127]).
Other relevant modelling work has focused on nexus systems that do not cover the triple planetary crisis in its entirety. One relevant study analysed how land, water and energy interact in the biophysical and economic systems and assessed the global consequences of policy inaction regarding the limited availability of land, water and energy (OECD, 2017[235]). However, the study mainly looked at biophysical bottlenecks in terms of land, water and energy resources and did not quantify impacts of the triple planetary crisis.
Three-way analysis is challenging for a number of reasons, including the availability of data and the difficulty in capturing and modelling the interactions between different dimensions of the triple planetary crisis. For instance, globally comparable data that capture various dimensions of biodiversity is scarce and dispersed. Existing modelling tools typically omit ecological processes (e.g. species interactions and adaptation to climate change) (Urban et al., 2022[236]). The complexity of pollutant interactions and the combined impact of exposure is also difficult to capture consistently. A further layer of difficulty lies in the need to couple economic and biophysical models to meaningfully represent the drivers of the triple planetary crisis, the resulting changes in environmental conditions and how changes in the state of the environment feed back into human societies, productivity and their development pathways. Finally, bridging the scale gap between global drivers and local impacts—while accounting for how local changes in turn influence global trends—remains a major challenge, with ongoing technical developments in this area (Hertel, 2025[237]).
One important exception to the general lack of three-way analysis is the forthcoming Global Environment Outlook (GEO). The seventh edition of UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook (GEO-7) assesses two main themes: the impacts of the interlinked global environmental crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and land degradation and pollution and waste; and how these crises can be addressed through systems transformations (UNEP, 2022[238]). The current OECD Environmental Outlook complements the analysis through environment-economy modelling projections and the in-depth analysis of policy synergies and trade-offs.
1.6.1. Integrated modelling toolbox
A core contribution of the Environmental Outlook is environment-economy projections of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, which remains a major gap in the literature. Given the complexity of the interactions among the different components as already outlined in this chapter, a dynamic systems approach is needed to understand the future evolution of the pressures associated with the triple planetary crisis and their impacts. The challenge lies in moving beyond the conceptual framing of the triple planetary crisis and quantitatively assessing the biophysical and economic consequences of the interconnected issues of climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss. This requires a consistent modelling framework that links socio-economic and specific drivers and environmental pressures of each aspect of the triple planetary crisis. Unlike earlier studies that tend to focus on pairwise projections, the integrated modelling toolbox developed for this Outlook allows for consistent projections of climate, biodiversity and pollution metrics.
The projections are based on an integrated modelling toolbox comprising two main components: the OECD’s in-house ENV-Linkages model (Annex 1.C) and the IMAGE modelling framework of PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (Annex 1.D). The combination of the economic and biophysical models allows for quantitative analysis that recognises the close interlinkages among the economy and the environment, as well as among the different dimensions of the triple planetary crisis. The two models are further complemented with other tools such as the MAGICC model for climate and the TM5-FASST model for air pollution. Providing a broad lens on the future evolution of the triple planetary crisis, and the associated drivers, consequences and interactions calls for an assessment framework that is:
Integrated, as economic activities are linked to each other via supply chains, and are linked to biophysical process through inputs (use of energy, materials, water) and their impact on the environment; an integrated framework enables a consistent quantitative assessment;
Multidisciplinary, to be able to quantify both the economic and biophysical drivers, consequences, and interactions of the triple crisis, reflecting that the economy is embedded in nature and that both interact in multiple and often complex ways;
Economy-wide and sector-specific, as a comprehensive picture is required for a complete assessment, covering environmental pressures for all sectors and acknowledging sectoral heterogeneity in terms of resource use, technologies and associated projections;
Global and spatially disaggregated (as detailed in Annex 1.C), because there are significant differences between regions and their projected trends for the coming decades; furthermore, global changes (such as climate change) generate impacts that manifest at the local level, and local developments can drive environmental change in other regions, e.g. via international trade or transboundary pollution;
Dynamic, to reflect the evolution of the challenge over time based on projections of socio-economic drivers and technological progress.
Both models are linked to ensure consistent but complementary insights (Figure 1.2). First, both models are driven by a common set of exogenous socio-economic trends that influence the activities modelled in detail. These trends include population and income growth, as well as changes in technology and behaviour. Second, key economic trends projected with ENV-Linkages, such as the impact of differences in productivity growth between economic sectors on structural change, are fed into the IMAGE modelling framework. These soft links on drivers between both models ensure that the resulting projections on production, consumption (both private and governmental) and international trade are harmonised across both models. Third, projections of land use and agricultural production in ENV-Linkages are harmonised with the projections by the IMAGE modelling framework to ensure that the underlying biophysical trends, such as water availability and agricultural yield improvements, are adequately considered.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
1.6.2. Analytical framework
The analytical framework helps unpack the triple planetary crisis through the consideration of the chain of interlinkages among drivers, pressures, states and impacts, which broadly reflects the driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) framework (Hellweg et al., 2023[239]). Drivers22 include direct drivers of the triple planetary crisis, such as food and energy demand, plastics and materials use or water consumption, which are in turn shaped by socio-economic trends: population, GDP per capita, technological and structural change. These drivers in turn lead to environmental pressures in the form of emissions of GHG, emissions and releases of pollutants, and land use and land use change. These pressures change the state of the environment over time and translate into wide-ranging impacts on human and planetary health and the economy.
These different components are linked together in three key ways, as indicated by the arrows in Figure 1.3. The first connection is a logical sequence related to causality (arrow from top to bottom): the broader underlying drivers lead to environmental pressures, which cause the triple planetary crisis and the resulting impacts. The second connection represents feedback effects (arrow from bottom to top): climate change, for instance, affects plant growth and the uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere (environmental pressure), which in turn has adverse macroeconomic consequences (socio-economic trends). Finally, a third connection shown in the figure represents interactions within one component (circular arrow at each level): one driver or a socio-economic trend (e.g. population growth) affects other drivers (e.g. food and energy use); one environmental pressure (e.g. land use change) affects other pressures (CO2 emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use); one crisis affects other aspects of the triple planetary crisis (e.g. biodiversity loss due to climate change); and one impact affects other impacts (e.g. crop yields affect health). Bringing different interlinkages (including causality and the interactions within each component) together, the analytical framework quantitatively illustrates that the triple planetary crisis is characterised by a multitude of interactions. It also demonstrates that the observed consequences result from a complex system of evolving drivers and pressures that all need to be addressed.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
An important limitation of this framework is that it does not fully “close the loop”. Feedback effects of environmental degradation on the socio-economic drivers are not included in the modelling analysis (but qualitatively acknowledged in various parts). The main reason for this omission is that the magnitude of these feedback loops is highly uncertain and contested, and robust data remains elusive. For instance, recent estimates on the economic damages of climate change vary by more than an order of magnitude (IPCC, 2022[4]), with considerable differences depending on e.g. the methodology used and the (mostly assumed) persistence of the economic effects of climate impacts. Economic effects of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services are even more uncertain, and the associated literature is less developed. For example, the seminal Dasgupta Review (Dasgupta, 2021[240]) suggests that an assessment of the costs of biodiversity loss is not readily available and that assessing the value of the associated ecosystems may be more insightful. Finally, many impacts of climate change and pollution relate to human health, either through mortality or morbidity effects. Such effects are not captured in standard economic indicators: GDP impacts and healthcare costs are not useful indicators of welfare losses of lives lost. Thus, many environmental impacts are not monetary, and framing them in monetary terms (through methods like Value of a Statistical Life) is fraught with complications.
There are also interlinkages at the level of policies to tackle the triple planetary challenge. This calls for a better understanding of synergies and trade-offs and the extent to which these interlinkages are considered in policymaking and in policy implementation. These analyses of policy interlinkages at various levels can elucidate the strengths and gaps in current policy approaches and inform how policy design and implementation can be optimised to reap synergies while minimising trade-offs (Figure 1.4).
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
The following two chapters present the baseline modelling projections of the evolution of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution through to 2050 under current policies. Building on the analytical framework, Chapter 2 unpacks the common underlying and multifaceted drivers and explores how the environmental pressures can be explained by the changes in drivers. Chapter 3 examines the current and projected state of each dimension of the triple planetary challenge and explores what the projected state in 2050 means for the economy and human health. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 examine policy interactions at the three levels outlined in Figure 1.4 (conceptualising policy interactions, attention to policy interactions at the national level, and deep dives on managing synergies and trade-offs at the implementation stage). Chapter 7 concludes with an action plan for more integrated and effective policy responses to tackle the triple planetary challenge in a holistic manner.
The modelling toolbox developed for the Outlook builds on the general concept of driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR) causal links. As the first step, it examines a set of drivers of environmental change. Chapter 2 goes into details on the first step in the framework and discusses the broader socio-economic trends and specific drivers that together shape environmental pressures. The former includes e.g. demographic changes, income growth and structural change, while the latter contain a wide range of indicators, including e.g. food demand, nitrogen fertiliser use, energy demand, plastics use, materials use23 and water consumption. The latter depend on the former and thus the specific drivers are usually expressed in the form of intensities. For example, economic activity provides the scale of production of energy-using economic activities, and energy intensity of production reflects the specific driver. Together, these represent the driver of energy demand.
There are alternatives and shortcuts to the DPSIR framework, for example by condensing the driver and pressure parts into one category. Thus, there are different ways in which “drivers” can be categorised. For example, the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by the IPBES refers to the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. Direct drivers are both non-human and anthropogenic changes to terrestrial, freshwater and marine biomes that physically affect biodiversity (land- and sea-use change; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species), which have underlying causes that are classified as indirect drivers (demographic and sociocultural; economic and technological; institutions and governance; conflicts and epidemics). Roughly speaking, the direct drivers reflect the pressure-to-state stage in the DPSIR framework, while the indirect drivers reflect the driver-to-pressure stage, although these links are not fully corresponding. Meanwhile, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report attributes observed warming (increase in surface temperature) mainly to anthropogenic drivers (changes in GHG concentrations, partly masked by cooling aerosols emissions) (see Annex Table 1.B.1), i.e. focusing more on pressures than on the underlying socioeconomic trends and specific drivers in the DPSIR framework.
The ENV-Linkages model is a standard computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, which is used to study the linkages between the economy and the environment. Production in ENV Linkages is assumed to operate under cost minimisation with perfect markets and constant returns-to-scale technology. The production technology is specified as nested Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) production functions in a branching hierarchy. This structure is replicated for each output, while the parameterisation of the CES functions may differ across sectors. The model adopts a putty/semi-putty technology specification, where substitution possibilities among factors are assumed to be higher with new vintage capital than with old vintage capital. In the short run this ensures inertia in the economic system, with limited possibilities to substitute away from more expensive inputs, but in the longer run this implies a relatively smooth adjustment of quantities to price changes. Capital accumulation is modelled as in the traditional Solow/Swan neo classical growth model, where economic growth is assumed to stem from the combination of labour, capital accumulation and technological progress.
Household consumption demand is the result of static maximisation behaviour, which is formally implemented as an “Extended Linear Expenditure System”. A representative consumer in each region – who takes prices as given – optimally allocates disposal income among the full set of consumption commodities and savings. Saving is considered as a standard good in the utility function and does not rely on forward looking behaviour by the consumer. The government in each region collects various kinds of taxes in order to finance government expenditures. Assuming fixed public savings (or deficits), the government budget is balanced through the adjustment of the income tax on consumer income. In each period, investment net-of-economic depreciation is equal to the sum of government savings, consumer savings and net capital flows from abroad.
International trade is based on a set of regional bilateral flows. The model adopts the Armington specification, assuming that domestic and imported products are not perfectly substitutable. Moreover, total imports are also imperfectly substitutable between regions of origin. Allocation of trade between partners then responds to relative prices at the equilibrium.
Market goods equilibria imply that, on the one side, the total production of any goods or services is equal to the demand addressed to domestic producers plus exports; and, on the other side, the total demand is allocated between the demands (both final and intermediary) by domestic producers and the import demand.
ENV-Linkages is fully homogeneous in prices and only relative prices matter. All prices are expressed relative to the numéraire of the price system that is arbitrarily chosen as the index of OECD manufacturing exports prices. Each region runs a current account balance, which is fixed in terms of the numéraire.
As ENV-Linkages is recursive-dynamic and does not incorporate forward-looking behaviour, price-induced changes in innovation patterns are not represented in the model. The model does, however, entail technological progress through an annual adjustment of the various productivity parameters, including e.g. autonomous energy efficiency and labour productivity improvements. Furthermore, as production with new capital has a relatively large degree of flexibility in choice of inputs, existing technologies can diffuse to other firms. Thus, within the CGE framework, firms choose the least-cost combination of inputs, given the existing state of technology. The capital vintage structure also ensures that such flexibilities are larger in the long run than in the short run.
The ENV-Linkages model includes a range of environmental pressures, including (GHG) emissions, emissions of air pollutants, materials use and plastics use, waste and end-of-life fates. In all cases, the environmental pressure is linked to the relevant economic activity, using factors to translate from monetary to physical units. These factors (or intensities, as they reflect the environmental pressure per unit of related economic input) are sector-, region- and time-specific (see Annex Box 1.C.1 for an explanation of the time-specific component). This allows that production of the same commodities in different regions leads to different environmental pressures.
Over time, efficiency improvements (from technological improvements, learning-by-doing, etc.) allow for a partial, relative decoupling of economic activity and environmental pressure. Most technological progress that allows less use of environmental inputs (or outputs in case of emissions) per unit of output is captured by reduced use of the associated economic input: energy efficiency improvements imply less demand for fuels, and thus lower emissions, not lower emissions per unit of fuel use. However, in some cases the environmental input per unit of economic activity can also decrease, especially when the environmental pressure is not linked to a specific input in production, but a by-product of the production process. A typical example is end-of-pipe measures to reduce the release of air pollutants per unit of production. In the latter case, the environmental factor reduces over time.
Greenhouse gas emissions in ENV-Linkages encompass the three main GHGs, CO2, CH4 and N2O. These originate from fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes, and agricultural activities. Emissions are tied to economic variables through sector-, region- and time-specific emission factors on fossil fuel use for combustion emissions, sectoral output for industrial processes and fugitive emissions, and production factors. Emission abatement happens through different mechanisms: changes in the prices of fuel, other production factors and output (including due to carbon pricing) affect the least-cost production methods and affect both the composition of production inputs and level of activity related to emissions, while emission factors related to process emissions can also decrease for CH4 and N2O as well as process CO2 following marginal abatement cost curves from the literature (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2019[286]), complemented by other sources). Changes in the climate system are then recovered using the MAGICC model (Meinshausen et al., 2020[287]; Meinshausen, Raper and Wigley, 2011[288]).
ENV-Linkages includes air pollutant emissions, comprising BC, OC, other fine particles (particulate matter lower than 2.5 µm, Other PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), NH3, NOx, SO2 and non- CH4 volatile organic compounds (NMVOC). These air pollutants combine to projections for PM2.5 as well as tropospheric ozone. The modelling of air pollutant emissions in ENV-Linkages is similar to GHGs: emissions are tied to economic variables: fossil fuel demand for combustion emissions, sector output for process emissions and production factors for agricultural activities. Abatement of air pollutant emissions are operated through activity reduction based on fuel, factors and output prices, as well as emission factors reductions based on the GAINS model outputs (Amann et al., 2011[289]). Changes in air pollutant concentration, as well as impacts, are ultimately evaluated using the JRC TM5-FASST model (Van Dingenen et al., 2018[290]).
Modelling materials use in ENV-Linkages in a demand-based approach allows for capturing the effects of structural changes as well as modifications of consumption and trade patterns, which drive changes in materials demand. The projections cover 60 materials, grouped in 4 categories: metals (e.g. Iron, Copper or Aluminium ores), non-metallic minerals (e.g. sand, gravel and crushed rocks, limestone), fossil fuels (e.g. oil, natural gas and various coal types) and biomass (e.g. about 15 crops, grazed biomass, fish). Including materials in the modelling toolbox requires three main steps: (i) including the extraction of primary materials in the model, (ii) modelling recycling and secondary material processing, and (iii) modelling the substitution between primary and secondary materials, when possible. Physical material flows are linked to the economic flows in the ENV-Linkages model (OECD, 2019[291]), based on physical material flows (UNEP IRP, 2024[292]). Material flows are either directly linked to the economic output of the corresponding extraction sector (e.g. coal extraction or sugar cane and beet cultivation) or to the economic activity of the downstream processing sectors (e.g. iron ores is linked to the demand for mining products by the iron and steel sector).
The ENV-Linkages modelling framework is also used to calculate plastic flows along their lifecycle, encompassing use, waste generation and management as well as leakage. ENV-Linkages has been enhanced to include data on plastics use, waste and end-of-life treatment (see (OECD, 2022[293]) for more details). The projections encompass 14 polymer groups, 14 applications, 4 waste treatment options. Plastics use is modelled by linking it to economic activities. Plastics are considered not only as a final good for consumption, but also as a production input for each sector, taking into account the complexity of the interactions across sectors and regions and along the plastic lifecycle. The generation of waste depends on the average lifespan of each plastic product. International trade in plastic goods and waste is also modelled. The ENV-Linkages model has also been enhanced to distinguish the end-of-life fates of plastics, which heavily depend on the waste management capacities and regulations of the location where plastic waste is generated and handled. Four end-of-life fates are modelled: waste can be recycled, incinerated, landfilled (in sanitary landfilling), or mismanaged (which includes uncollected litter). The recycling of plastics physical flows is then linked back to the economic flows represented in the economic sectors in ENV-Linkages.
IMAGE is an integrated assessment modelling framework that simulates the environmental consequences of human activities worldwide. It represents interactions between society, the biosphere, and the climate system to assess sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity and human well-being. The model can be used to explore long-term pathways for future environmental and sustainable development problems as well as possible response strategies. It has representations of the energy, agriculture, land use, and climate systems. Typical outputs include projections of energy supply and demand, agricultural production, land use and land cover change, emissions of GHGs and other pollutants, and demand for water and material resources. The model is calibrated to datasets of energy supply and demand (International Energy Agency) and agricultural production and land cover (Food and Agricultural Organisation). IMAGE participates in multiple model intercomparison projects covering energy transition, land use change and emission scenarios, and sustainable development trajectories. IMAGE is a hybrid systems dynamics model. It employs stylised optimisation techniques when meeting climate targets. The model simulates the human and natural environment from 1971 to 2100, with the 1971-2022 period acting as a calibration and spin-up period. The model works on an annual timestep.
Population and economic activity are key exogenous drivers. Assumptions (across the food and energy systems) on technology availability and development, behavioural and lifestyle choices are also inputs. The model can incorporate land protection, energy, and other quantifiable policies. Biophysical and land use are represented at a 0.5x0.5-degree grid, while socio-economic processes are modelled on the level of 26 regions.
The energy system is modelled by the energy-system simulation model, TIMER (van Vuuren et al., 2007[294]). This energy model includes fossil and renewable primary energy carriers (coal, heavy/light oil, natural gas, modern/traditional biomass, nuclear, concentrated/photovoltaic solar, onshore/offshore wind, hydropower, and geothermal). Primary energy carriers can be converted to secondary and final energy carriers (solids, liquids, electricity, hydrogen, heat) in order to provide energy services for different end-use sectors (heavy industry, transport, residential, services, chemicals and other).
The model projects future (useful) energy demand for each end use sector based on relationships between energy services and activity, the latter of which is related to economic growth. More details on the methods can be found in papers on the modelling of energy demand in heavy industry (van Ruijven et al., 2016[295]), transport (Girod, van Vuuren and de Vries, 2013[296]; 2012[297]), the residential sector (Daioglou, van Ruijven and van Vuuren, 2012[298]), chemicals (Daioglou et al., 2014[299]) and other sectors (Stehfest et al., 2014[300]).
For each demand sector, secondary energy carriers (including solid and liquid biofuels) compete based on relative costs with each other in order to meet the useful energy demand. A Multinomial Logit function is used to determine market shares of each energy carrier, where the cheapest option gets the largest market share, the 2nd cheapest the 2nd largest market share, and so on. Energy prices are based on supply curves of energy carriers (Rogner, 1997[301]). For non-renewable sources, these are formulated in terms of cumulative extraction; while for renewable sources, these are formulated in terms of annual production (as explained above for biomass).
Land use dynamics including agricultural activities and forestry are modelled at grid level in the IMAGE land component (Doelman et al., 2018[302]). The agro-economic general equilibrium model MAGNET is soft-coupled to IMAGE and provides information on crop and livestock demand, trends in intensification and international trade (Woltjer, 2014[303]). The land supply curve specifies the relation between total agricultural land supply and the real land price and depends on the constraints related to the availability of biophysically suitable land and institutional factors (agricultural and urban policy, conservation of nature) source. The land supply curve is constructed with land availability data provided by IMAGE (Dixon et al., 2016[304]; van Meijl et al., 2006[305]).
Crops, the carbon cycle and the hydrological system are represented through the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land model (LPJmL). LPJmL is a global gridded model that describes the coupled carbon and water cycles (Schaphoff et al., 2018[306]). It simulates natural vegetation growth, crop growth and hydrology. The human impacts to the hydrological cycle, such as irrigation water withdrawals, other water withdrawals, water supply and the operation of large dams and reservoirs, are included. The effect of water limitation on vegetation growth is simulated. This makes LPJmL a very suitable tool to study the interactions between water and food production. The model is validated against discharge measurements, carbon fluxes and vegetation patterns, and calibrated against crop yields at country level. LPJmL is run fully coupled to IMAGE. This means that it gets annually gridded data on climate, non-agricultural water use, land use from IMAGE, and sends back annual info on crop yields, agricultural water withdrawals, water availability, natural vegetation growth and the carbon cycle to IMAGE. The LPJmL model represents all biophysical processes at 0.5x0.5-degree grid, but water balances are calculated with subgrid variability. Crop management parameters are calibrated at country level. The model output can subsequently be aggregated to any regional level.
The GLOBIO model quantifies local terrestrial biodiversity intactness, expressed as the Mean Species Abundance (MSA) indicator as a function of climate change, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, land use, roads, and hunting (tropical regions). The impact of habitat fragmentation, resulting from both land use and roads, is also included. The impact of the different pressures on MSA is quantified for plants and vertebrates separately, and then combined into one overall MSA value. In this study, we applied version 4 of the GLOBIO model. GLOBIO 4.0 is based on pressure-impact relationships established through meta-analytical approaches based on empirical data in combination with data on pressure levels. Regression equations for each independent pressure factor are estimated using generalised linear mixed models.
Population changes and economic activity are key exogenous factors driving land use change, climate change and nutrient pollution. These pressures are exogenous input for the GLOBIO model and were for this study provided by OECD (based on (United Nations, 2022[307]) and Environmental Outlook modelling toolbox; see also Annex 2.A. on socioeconomic trends for more details in Chapter 2). Additional assumption on nature protection and the level of protection, land use configuration and the level of infrastructure use can be adapted to address scenario assumptions and policies. Global road data are from the GRIP database (Meijer et al., 2018[308]). To quantify hunting pressure in tropical regions, the distance to settlements is required. We obtained locations of settlements from OpenStreetMap (http://download.geofabrik.de), the Humanitarian Data Exchange (www.data.humdata.org) and national databases.
The Global Nutrient Model (GNM) is a global distributed, spatially explicit model using hydrology from PCRGLOBWB as the basis for describing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) delivery24 to surface water, transport and in-stream retention in rivers, lakes and reservoirs in the IMAGE model. GNM is hard-linked to the integrated assessment modelling framework IMAGE. IMAGE-GNM uses the land use information and nitrogen deposition from IMAGE and the associated agricultural production (grass, crop and animal production) to estimate the N and P fertiliser use for cropland and grassland. Human protein consumption is used to estimate the delivery of human and industrial sewage to the rivers. Also, the delivery of nutrients from natural land to the rivers is estimated. The load is transported by the rivers to the coastal seas, taking into account the in-stream loss processes in the river. The model can be used to explore the long-term pathways for future environmental and sustainable development problems as well as possible response strategies. Typical outputs include projections of nutrient delivery to the rivers and the export of nutrients to the coastal seas including the distribution of the different nutrient sources.
IMAGE-GNM is a global distributed, spatially explicit model. The model works on an annual timestep while taking into account the historical loads. The model starts in 1900. This is needed to incorporate the storage of nitrogen in groundwater and storage of phosphorus in the soil pools. The model is validated on long term time series of observed nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations in several river basins (e.g. Mississippi, Rhine, Meuse, Yangtze).
Alongside the data that is used from IMAGE, there are other assumptions that are not provided by the IMAGE model. Nitrogen use efficiency is used as the main driver to calculate future nitrogen fertiliser use. The phosphorus fertiliser use is determined by the phosphorus content of the soil and the phosphorus availability for the plant. The recycling of manure and soil conservation in the agricultural sector are policy options which can lead to a more sustainable sector. Assumptions on the number of people connected to a sewage system and the efficiency of the sewage treatment plants can improve the population health and the water quality. The production of aquaculture is another direct source of nutrients in rivers and is one of the scenario assumptions.
The analysis in this report has global coverage and provides regional details. Throughout the report, results are presented at the global level, or disaggregated into three or nine regions.
Annex Table 1.E.1 shows how these regions map onto the 26 regions of the IMAGE modelling framework. Outputs at these levels of aggregation are complemented with more detailed maps where possible.
Note: The 3-region aggregation is based on the average income level in 2050 of the 9 aggregate regions included, not on the income level of individual countries. Thus, individual countries are first grouped geographically (e.g. Haiti in Central America) and then allocated to the income aggregate of that region (in this case the Middle-income region).
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
References
[189] Abreu, R. et al. (2017), “The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna”, Science Advances, Vol. 3/8, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701284.
[286] Agency, U. (2019), Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Mitigation 2015-2050, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207A).
[85] Ainsworth, E. (2017), “Understanding and improving global crop response to ozone pollution”, Plant Journal, Vol. 90/5, https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13298.
[281] Akinnawo, S. (2023), Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, physical, chemical and biological techniques for mitigation strategies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100733.
[179] Alari, A. et al. (2025), “Quantifying the short-term mortality effects of wildfire smoke in Europe: a multicountry epidemiological study in 654 contiguous regions”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 9/8, p. 101296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanplh.2025.101296.
[41] Albert, S. et al. (2017), “Winners and losers as mangrove, coral and seagrass ecosystems respond to sea-level rise in Solomon Islands”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 12/9, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7e68.
[94] Altieri, A. and K. Gedan (2015), Climate change and dead zones, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12754.
[289] Amann, M. et al. (2011), “Cost-effective control of air quality and greenhouse gases in Europe: Modeling and policy applications”, Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 26/12, pp. 1489-1501, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.07.012.
[95] Amorim, C. and A. Moura (2021), “Ecological impacts of freshwater algal blooms on water quality, plankton biodiversity, structure, and ecosystem functioning”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143605.
[109] Azevedo-Santos, V. et al. (2021), “Plastic pollution: A focus on freshwater biodiversity”, Ambio, Vol. 50/7, pp. 1313-1324, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5.
[166] Baker-Austin, C. et al. (2018), “Vibrio spp. infections”, Nature Reviews Disease Primers, Vol. 4/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-018-0005-8.
[195] Bălan, S. et al. (2025), “Confronting the interconnection of chemical pollution and climate change”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 55, p. 100966, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.100966.
[131] Baldé, C. et al. (2024), Global E-waste Monitor 2024, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).
[110] Barnes, D. (2002), “Invasions by marine life on plastic debris”, Nature, Vol. 416, pp. 808-809, https://doi.org/10.1038/416808a.
[215] Bastien-Olvera, B. et al. (2023), “Unequal climate impacts on global values of natural capital”, Nature, Vol. 625/7996, pp. 722-727, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06769-z.
[272] Beach, R. et al. (2019), “Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 3/7, pp. e307-e317, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(19)30094-4.
[72] Beers, L., S. Crooks and S. Fennessy (2020), The contribution of blue carbon ecosystems to climate change mitigation, https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/bn12_blue_carbon_ccmitigation_e.pdf.
[30] Bellard, C. et al. (2012), Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x.
[60] Bellard, C. et al. (2018), “Insights from modeling studies on how climate change affects invasive alien species geography”, Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 8/11, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4098.
[91] Beusen, A. et al. (2016), “Global riverine N and P transport to ocean increased during the 20th century despite increased retention along the aquatic continuum”, Biogeosciences, Vol. 13/8, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2441-2016.
[28] Beyer, R. and A. Manica (2020), “Historical and projected future range sizes of the world’s mammals, birds, and amphibians”, Nature Communications, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19455-9.
[147] Biswas, B. et al. (2018), The fate of chemical pollutants with soil properties and processes in the climate change paradigm—a review, https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems2030051.
[164] Bolan, S. et al. (2024), Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168388.
[23] Bowman, D. et al. (2009), Fire in the earth system, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1163886.
[309] Brisson, J. et al. (2020), “Plant diversity effect on water quality in wetlands: a meta-analysis based on experimental systems”, Ecological Applications, Vol. 30/4, https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2074.
[52] Brodie, J., E. Post and W. Laurance (2012), Climate change and tropical biodiversity: A new focus, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.09.008.
[51] Brodie, J. and J. Watson (2023), “Human responses to climate change will likely determine the fate of biodiversity”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 120/8, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205512120.
[106] Burian, A. et al. (2024), “Biodiversity–production feedback effects lead to intensification traps in agricultural landscapes”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 8/4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02349-0.
[263] Burke, M. et al. (2018), “Higher temperatures increase suicide rates in the United States and Mexico”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 8/8, pp. 723-729, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0222-x.
[266] Buxton, R. et al. (2024), “Mental health is positively associated with biodiversity in Canadian cities”, Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 5/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01482-9.
[65] Canadell, J. et al. (2021), “Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks”, in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[280] Cardinale, B. et al. (2006), “Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems”, Nature, Vol. 443/7114, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05202.
[121] Carney Almroth, B. et al. (2022), Understanding and addressing the planetary crisis of chemicals and plastics, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.09.012.
[114] Carney Almroth, B. and P. Villarrubia-Gómez (2024), Fact Sheet: Plastics and the Triple Planetary Crisis, Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty.
[104] Carvalho, F. (2017), Pesticides, environment, and food safety, https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.108.
[25] Catford, J. et al. (2022), Addressing context dependence in ecology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.09.007.
[87] CBD (2023), 2030 Targets, https://www.cbd.int/gbf/vision.
[139] Cheng, K. et al. (2021), The role of soils in regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0176.
[177] Connolly, R. et al. (2024), “Mortality attributable to PM <sub>2.5</sub> from wildland fires in California from 2008 to 2018”, Science Advances, Vol. 10/23, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adl1252.
[98] Convention on Wetlands (2021), Global Wetland Outlook: Special Edition 2021, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b256c78e17ba335ea89fe1f/t/61b8a904f3ceb458e9b5ca44/1639491853578/Ramsar+GWO_Special+Edition+2021%E2%80%93ENGLISH_WEB.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2024).
[144] Convention on Wetlands (2018), Global Wetland Outlook: State of the World’s Wetlands and their Services to People 2018, https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/gwo_e.pdf.
[198] Copernicus (2023), Aerosols: are SO2 emissions reductions contributing to global warming?.
[2] Copernicus Climate Change Service (2025), Global Climate Highlights 2024, https://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2024.
[24] Côté, I., E. Darling and C. Brown (2016), Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2592.
[283] Cristaldi, A. et al. (2022), “Possible association between PM2.5 and neurodegenerative diseases: A systematic review”, Environmental Research, Vol. 208, p. 112581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112581.
[299] Daioglou, V. et al. (2014), “Energy demand and emissions of the non-energy sector”, Energy Environ. Sci., Vol. 7/2, pp. 482-498, https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee42667j.
[298] Daioglou, V., B. van Ruijven and D. van Vuuren (2012), “Model projections for household energy use in developing countries”, Energy, Vol. 37/1, pp. 601-615, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.10.044.
[240] Dasgupta, P. (2021), “The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury.”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 286/Seiem 2018.
[73] Davidson, N. (2014), “How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area”, Marine and Freshwater Research, Vol. 65/10, https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173.
[81] De Boeck, H. et al. (2018), Patterns and drivers of biodiversity–stability relationships under climate extremes, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12897.
[64] De Graaff, M. et al. (2015), “A meta-analysis of soil biodiversity impacts on the carbon cycle”, SOIL, Vol. 1/1, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-257-2015.
[151] Delcour, I., P. Spanoghe and M. Uyttendaele (2015), Literature review: Impact of climate change on pesticide use, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.09.030.
[16] Devi, P., M. Manjula and R. Bhavani (2022), Agrochemicals, Environment, and Human Health, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-111015.
[304] Dixon, P. et al. (2016), “RED versus REDD: Biofuel policy versus forest conservation”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 52, pp. 366-374, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.09.014.
[225] Doelman, J. et al. (2022), “Quantifying synergies and trade-offs in the global water-land-food-climate nexus using a multi-model scenario approach”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 17/4, p. 045004.
[302] Doelman, J. et al. (2018), “Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: Regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 48, pp. 119-135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.014.
[246] Donovan, G., S. Landry and D. Gatziolis (2021), “The natural environment, plant diversity, and adult asthma: A retrospective observational study using the CDC’s 500 Cities Project Data”, Health & Place, Vol. 67, p. 102494, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102494.
[163] Donzelli, G. and M. Suarez-Varela (2024), “Tropospheric Ozone: A Critical Review of the Literature on Emissions, Exposure, and Health Effects”, Atmosphere, Vol. 15/7, p. 779, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070779.
[69] Duffy, K. et al. (2021), “How close are we to the temperature tipping point of the terrestrial biosphere?”, Science Advances, Vol. 7/3, p. eaay1052, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay1052.
[78] Duveiller, G., J. Hooker and A. Cescatti (2018), “The mark of vegetation change on Earth’s surface energy balance”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02810-8.
[242] Ebi, K. et al. (2021), “Hot weather and heat extremes: health risks”, The Lancet, Vol. 398/10301, pp. 698-708, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01208-3.
[83] EEA (2022), Air quality in Europe 2022: Impacts of air pollution on ecosystems, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2022/impacts-of-air-pollution-on-ecosystems.
[77] Ellison, D., M. Futter and K. Bishop (2012), On the forest cover-water yield debate: From demand- to supply-side thinking, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x.
[75] Elsler, L. et al. (2022), “Protecting ocean carbon through biodiversity and climate governance”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.880424.
[169] Erazo, D. et al. (2024), “Contribution of climate change to the spatial expansion of West Nile virus in Europe”, Nature Communications, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-45290-3.
[134] Evich, M. et al. (2022), “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment”, Science, Vol. 375/6580, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg9065.
[276] FAO (2024), Initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition. Information note on progress and priorities, https://www.cbd.int/agriculture/doc/initiative-biodiversity-fao-en.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2025).
[50] FAO (2024), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024.
[275] FAO (2019), The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, http://www.fao.org/3/CA3129EN/CA3129EN.pdf.
[20] Fenton, S. et al. (2021), Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4890.
[171] Fiore, A., V. Naik and E. Leibensperger (2015), “Air Quality and Climate Connections”, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 65/6, pp. 645-685, https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2015.1040526.
[214] Fouré, J. et al. (Forthcoming), The contribution of air quality policies to the carbon neutrality transition in Korea, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/EPOC/WPIEEP(2023)6/REV1/en/pdf.
[227] Fuglie, K. et al. (2022), “The R&D cost of climate mitigation in agriculture”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 44/4, pp. 1955-1974.
[11] Fuller, R. et al. (2022), “Pollution and health: a progress update”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 6/6, pp. e535-e547.
[108] Gall, S. and R. Thompson (2015), “The impact of debris on marine life”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 92/1-2, pp. 170-179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
[158] Gander, M. (2022), “Climate change and the water quality threats posed by the emerging contaminants per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and microplastics”, Water International, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2022.2120255.
[70] Gatti, L. et al. (2021), “Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change”, Nature, Vol. 595/7867, pp. 388–393, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03629-6.
[128] Geilfus, N. et al. (2019), “Distribution and impacts of microplastic incorporation within sea ice”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.029.
[256] Gibb, R. et al. (2020), “Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems”, Nature, Vol. 584/7821, pp. 398-402, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8.
[296] Girod, B., D. van Vuuren and B. de Vries (2013), “Influence of travel behavior on global CO2 emissions”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 50, pp. 183-197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.046.
[297] Girod, B., D. van Vuuren and S. Deetman (2012), “Global travel within the 2°C climate target”, Energy Policy, Vol. 45, pp. 152-166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.008.
[208] Global Framework on Chemicals (2024), Text of the Global Framework on Chemicals, https://www.chemicalsframework.org/page/text-global-framework-chemicals.
[97] Gomez Isaza, D., R. Cramp and C. Franklin (2020), “Living in polluted waters: A meta-analysis of the effects of nitrate and interactions with other environmental stressors on freshwater taxa”, Environmental Pollution, Vol. 261/114091, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114091.
[241] Gostimirovic, M. et al. (2020), “The influence of climate change on human cardiovascular function”, Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, Vol. 75/7, https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.1742079.
[180] Gould, C. et al. (2024), “Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Exposure”, Annual Review of Medicine, Vol. 75/1, pp. 277-292, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-052422-020909.
[191] Greenwood, L. et al. (2024), “Indigenous pyrodiversity promotes plant diversity”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110479.
[145] Groh, K. et al. (2022), Anthropogenic Chemicals As Underestimated Drivers of Biodiversity Loss: Scientific and Societal Implications, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08399.
[111] Hahladakis, J. (2024), “A meta-research analysis on the biological impact of plastic litter in the marine biota”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 928/June, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172504.
[54] Hallegatte, S. et al. (2015), Shock Waves: Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on Poverty, World Bank Group.
[232] Hamilton, I. et al. (2021), “The public health implications of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 5/2, pp. e74-e83.
[265] Hammoud, R. et al. (2024), “Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals an incremental association between natural diversity and mental wellbeing”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7.
[56] Hansen, L. et al. (2010), “Designing climate-smart conservation: Guidance and case studies: Special section”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 24/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01404.x.
[68] Harris, N. et al. (2021), “Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6.
[187] Harris, N. et al. (2015), Indonesia’s Fire Outbreaks Producing More Daily Emissions than Entire US Economy.
[40] Harris, R. et al. (2020), “Biological responses to extreme weather events are detectable but difficult to formally attribute to anthropogenic climate change”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70901-6.
[260] Healths Effects Institute (2024), State of Global Air 2024. Special Report, Healths Effects Institute, https://www.stateofglobalair.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/soga-2024-report_0.pdf.
[239] Hellweg, S. et al. (2023), Life-cycle assessment to guide solutions for the triple planetary crisis, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00449-2.
[237] Hertel, T. (2025), “Economic Analysis of Global and Local Policies for Respecting Planetary Boundaries”, Agricultural Economics, Vol. 56/3, pp. 336-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70008.
[188] Hincks, T. et al. (2011), “Risk assessment and management of wildfires”, in Risk and Uncertainty Assessment for Natural Hazards, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139047562.013.
[12] Hou, D. et al. (2023), Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00404-1.
[47] Hu, N. et al. (2022), Meta-analysis reveals variance in tolerance to climate change across marine trophic levels, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154244.
[159] Hung, H. et al. (2022), Climate change influence on the levels and trends of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and chemicals of emerging Arctic concern (CEACs) in the Arctic physical environment - a review, https://doi.org/10.1039/d1em00485a.
[113] Huo, Y. et al. (2022), Ecotoxicological effects of plastics on plants, soil fauna and microorganisms: A meta-analysis, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119892.
[123] ICCA (n.d.), ICCA Plastic Additives Database.
[314] IISD (2015), IISD-ELA and Climate Change Part 5: Our Fish Are Getting Smaller.
[39] Imbach, P. et al. (2017), “Coupling of pollination services and coffee suitability under climate change”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 114/39, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617940114.
[162] Im, U. et al. (2022), Reviewing the links and feedbacks between climate change and air pollution in Europe, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.954045.
[264] IPBES (2024), The thematic assessment report on interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health. Summary for policymakers, https://ipbes.canto.de/pdfviewer/viewer/viewer.html?v=IPBES11Media&portalType=v%2FIPBES11Media&column=document&id=cj0uc5396d1ed5418tsuic2r45&suffix=pdf&print=1.
[59] IPBES (2023), Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessments of invasive alien species and their control of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, https://zenodo.org/records/11254974.
[9] IPBES (2019), “Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Brondízio, E. S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H. T. (eds).”, IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 1144 pages. ISBN: 978-3-947851-20-1.
[10] IPBES (2017), The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production.
[1] IPCC (2023), “Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland”, https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.
[4] IPCC (2022), “Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change.”, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf.
[5] IPCC (2021), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021).
[196] IPCC (2018), “IPCC report Global warming of 1.5°C”, Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,, Vol. 2/October.
[102] Ito, H. et al. (2020), “Combined impact of pesticides and other environmental stressors on animal diversity in irrigation ponds”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 15/7, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229052.
[31] Jaureguiberry, P. et al. (2022), “The direct drivers of recent global anthropogenic biodiversity loss”, Science Advances, Vol. 8/45, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm9982.
[185] Jiang, Y. et al. (2020), “Impacts of wildfire aerosols on global energy budget and climate: The role of climate feedbacks”, Journal of Climate, Vol. 33/8, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0572.1.
[182] Johnston, F. et al. (2012), “Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 120/5, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104422.
[193] Jolly, C. et al. (2022), “Animal mortality during fire”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 28/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16044.
[92] Jones, D. and A. Deuss (2024), “Understanding the resilience of fertiliser markets to shocks: An overview of fertiliser policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 208, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/43664170-en.
[88] Kanter, D. (2018), “Nitrogen pollution: a key building block for addressing climate change”, Climatic Change, Vol. 147/1-2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2126-6.
[89] Kanter, D. and W. Brownlie (2019), “Joint nitrogen and phosphorus management for sustainable development and climate goals”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.020.
[37] Kehoe, R., E. Frago and D. Sanders (2021), Cascading extinctions as a hidden driver of insect decline, https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12985.
[192] Kelly, L. et al. (2020), Fire and biodiversity in the Anthropocene, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb0355.
[29] Kibria, G. et al. (2021), Climate change impacts on pollutants mobilization and interactive effects of climate change and pollutants on toxicity and bioaccumulation of pollutants in estuarine and marine biota and linkage to seafood security, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112364.
[173] Knorr, W. et al. (2017), “Wildfire air pollution hazard during the 21st century”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17/14, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-9223-2017.
[156] Kossoff, D. et al. (2014), Mine tailings dams: Characteristics, failure, environmental impacts, and remediation, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.010.
[252] Kraemer, M. et al. (2019), “Past and future spread of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus”, Nature Microbiology, Vol. 4/5, pp. 854-863, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0376-y.
[186] Kuklina, V. et al. (2022), “Fires on Ice: Emerging Permafrost Peatlands Fire Regimes in Russia’s Subarctic Taiga”, Land, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11030322.
[135] Kurwadkar, S. et al. (2022), Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in water and wastewater: A critical review of their global occurrence and distribution, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151003.
[71] Lal, R. (2004), Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396.
[18] Landrigan, P. et al. (2025), “The Lancet Countdown on health and plastics”, The Lancet, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)01447-3.
[15] Larsen, B. and E. Sánchez-Triana (2023), “Global health burden and cost of lead exposure in children and adults: a health impact and economic modelling analysis”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 7/10, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00166-3.
[261] Lawrance, E. et al. (2022), “The Impact of Climate Change on Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence, and its Implications”, International Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 34/5, pp. 443-498, https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725.
[67] Lawrence, D. et al. (2022), “The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate”, Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115.
[218] Leclère, D. et al. (2020), “Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy”, Nature, Vol. 585/7826, pp. 551-556, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y.
[79] Lee, J. et al. (2020), Water-related disasters and their health impacts: A global review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2020.100123.
[253] Leon, T. (ed.) (2023), “Long-term projections of the impacts of warming temperatures on Zika and dengue risk in four Brazilian cities using a temperature-dependent basic reproduction number”, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Vol. 17/4, p. e0010839, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0010839.
[119] Li, F. et al. (2024), “Behaviour, ecological impacts of microplastics and cadmium on soil systems: A systematic review”, Environmental Technology & Innovation, Vol. 35, p. 103637, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2024.103637.
[197] Li, J. et al. (2022), Scattering and absorbing aerosols in the climate system, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00296-7.
[140] Lin, M. et al. (2020), “Vegetation feedbacks during drought exacerbate ozone air pollution extremes in Europe”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 10/5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0743-y.
[61] Liu, Y. et al. (2017), “Do invasive alien plants benefit more from global environmental change than native plants?”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 23/8, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13579.
[125] Lukić Bilela, L. et al. (2023), Impact of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) on the marine environment: Raising awareness, challenges, legislation, and mitigation approaches under the One Health concept, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115309.
[7] Magurran, A. (2021), “Measuring biological diversity”, Current Biology, Vol. 31/19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.07.049.
[43] Mahecha, M. et al. (2024), “Biodiversity and Climate Extremes: Known Interactions and Research Gaps”, Earth’s Future, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003963.
[255] Mahon, M. et al. (2024), “A meta-analysis on global change drivers and the risk of infectious disease”, Nature, Vol. 629/8013, pp. 830-836, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07380-6.
[55] Mantyka-pringle, C., T. Martin and J. Rhodes (2012), “Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 18/4, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x.
[231] Markandya, A. et al. (2018), “Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 2/3.
[178] Matz, C. et al. (2020), “Health impact analysis of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke in Canada (2013–2015, 2017–2018)”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 725, p. 138506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138506.
[155] Matzrafi, M. et al. (2016), “Climate change increases the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds due to enhanced detoxification”, Planta, Vol. 244/6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-016-2577-4.
[42] Maxwell, S. et al. (2019), Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events, https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12878.
[204] McCarthy, A., R. Dellink and R. Bibas (2018), “The Macroeconomics of the Circular Economy Transition: A Critical Review of Modelling Approaches”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/af983f9a-en.
[211] McElwee et al. (2024), The thematic assessment report on interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health: Summary for policymakers, IPBES.
[308] Meijer, J. et al. (2018), “Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13/6, p. 064006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabd42.
[287] Meinshausen, M. et al. (2020), “The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500”, Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 13/8, pp. 3571-3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020.
[288] Meinshausen, M., S. Raper and T. Wigley (2011), “Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model description and calibration”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 11/4, pp. 1417-1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011.
[143] Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water, https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf.
[84] Mills, G., S. Wagg and H. Harmens (2013), Ozone Pollution: Impacts on ecosystem services and biodiversity.
[141] Mitsch, W. and J. Gosselink (2007), Wetlands, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[57] Moe, S. et al. (2012), “Combined and interactive effects of global climate change and toxicants on populations and communities”, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 32/1, pp. 49-61, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2045.
[251] Mora, C. et al. (2022), “Over half of known human pathogenic diseases can be aggravated by climate change”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 12/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01426-1.
[229] Moreno, J. et al. (2023), “Assessing synergies and trade-offs of diverging Paris-compliant mitigation strategies with long-term SDG objectives”, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 78, p. 102624.
[33] Muluneh, M. (2021), Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective—a review article, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00318-5.
[107] Naidu, R. et al. (2021), Chemical pollution: A growing peril and potential catastrophic risk to humanity, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106616.
[58] Noyes, P. and S. Lema (2015), “Forecasting the impacts of chemical pollution and climate change interactions on the health of wildlife”, Current Zoology, Vol. 61/4, https://doi.org/10.1093/czoolo/61.4.669.
[27] Nunez, S. et al. (2019), “Assessing the impacts of climate change on biodiversity: is below 2 °C enough?”, Climatic Change, Vol. 154/3-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02420-x.
[311] OECD (2024), eChemPortal.
[127] OECD (2024), Policy Scenarios for Eliminating Plastic Pollution by 2040, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76400890-en.
[126] OECD (2023), “Climate change and Plastics: Synergies between two crucial environmental challenges”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 45, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5e0bfe87-en.
[157] OECD (2023), Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Freshwater: Monitoring and Regulating Water Quality, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5696d960-en.
[172] OECD (2023), Taming Wildfires in the Context of Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd00c367-en.
[17] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[293] OECD (2022), Modelling plastics in ENV-Linkages: A novel approach to projecting future plastics use and waste, https://www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/Technical-Report-Modelling-plastics-in-ENV-Linkages.pdf.
[8] OECD (2021), “Biodiversity, natural capital and the economy: A policy guide for finance, economic and environment ministers”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a1ae114-en.
[116] OECD (2021), Policies to Reduce Microplastics Pollution in Water: Focus on Textiles and Tyres, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7ec7e5ef-en.
[291] OECD (2019), Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307452-en.
[133] OECD (2018), OECD Work on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/testing-of-chemicals/OECD%20Work%20on%20Endocrine%20Disrupting%20Chemicals.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original.media_file.download_attachment.file/OECD%20Work%20on%20Endocrine%20Disrupting.
[86] OECD (2017), Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264269064-en.
[235] OECD (2017), The Land-Water-Energy Nexus: Biophysical and Economic Consequences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279360-en.
[249] OECD (2016), Social Costs of Morbidity Impacts of Air Pollution, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm55j7cq0lv-en.
[170] OECD/European Union (2024), Managing Risks from Natural Hazards to Hazardous Installations (Natech): A Guide for Senior Leaders in Industry and Public Authorities, Series on Chemical Accidents, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9bb63229-en.
[230] Ohashi, H. et al. (2019), “Biodiversity can benefit from climate stabilization despite adverse side effects of land-based mitigation”, Nature communications, Vol. 10/1, p. 5240.
[26] Ortiz, A. et al. (2021), A review of the interactions between biodiversity, agriculture, climate change, and international trade: research and policy priorities, Cell Press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.008.
[245] Paciência, I. et al. (2024), “The Role of Biodiversity in the Development of Asthma and Allergic Sensitization: A State-of-the-Science Review”, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 132/6, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp13948.
[3] Paris Agreement (2015), United Nations Treaty Collection Certified True Copies (CTCs) of Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General Chapter XXVII.7.d, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27.
[190] Pastro, L., C. Dickman and M. Letnic (2011), “Burning for biodiversity or burning biodiversity? Prescribed burn vs. wildfire impacts on plants, lizards, and mammals”, Ecological Applications, Vol. 21/8, https://doi.org/10.1890/10-2351.1.
[93] Penuelas, J. et al. (2020), Anthropogenic global shifts in biospheric N and P concentrations and ratios and their impacts on biodiversity, ecosystem productivity, food security, and human health, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14981.
[34] Pinsky, M., L. Comte and D. Sax (2022), Unifying climate change biology across realms and taxa, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.011.
[46] Pinsky, M., R. Selden and Z. Kitchel (2020), Climate-Driven Shifts in Marine Species Ranges: Scaling from Organisms to Communities, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916.
[63] Pörtner, H. et al. (2021), IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change; IPBES and IPCC, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4782538.
[32] Pörtner, H. et al. (2023), Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4881.
[74] Pörtner, D. et al. (2022), “IPCC, 2019: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate”, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate October.
[49] Prince, E. et al. (2010), “Ocean scale hypoxia-based habitat compression of Atlantic istiophorid billfishes”, Fisheries Oceanography, Vol. 19/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2419.2010.00556.x.
[112] Pyšek, P. et al. (2020), “Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species”, Biological Reviews, Vol. 95/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627.
[268] Radua, J. et al. (2024), “Impact of air pollution and climate change on mental health outcomes: an umbrella review of global evidence”, World Psychiatry, Vol. 23/2, pp. 244-256, https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21219.
[220] Rauner, S. et al. (2020), “Coal-exit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 10/4, pp. 308-312, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0728-x.
[244] Reid, C. et al. (2016), Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409277.
[233] Reis, L., L. Drouet and M. Tavoni (2022), “Internalising health-economic impacts of air pollution into climate policy: a global modelling study.”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 6/1, pp. e40-e48.
[222] Richardson, K. et al. (2023), “Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries”, Science Advances, Vol. 9/37, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458.
[274] Ritchie, H. (2021), How much of the world’s food production is dependent on pollinators?, Our World in Data.
[183] Roberts, G. and M. Wooster (2021), “Global impact of landscape fire emissions on surface level PM2.5 concentrations, air quality exposure and population mortality”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2021.118210.
[99] Robertson, G. and P. Vitousek (2009), “Nitrogen in agriculture: Balancing the cost of an essential resource”, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 34, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.032108.105046.
[310] Rockström, J. et al. (2009), “Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity”, Ecology and Society, Vol. 14/2, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
[301] Rogner, H. (1997), “AN ASSESSMENT OF WORLD HYDROCARBON RESOURCES”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 22/1, pp. 217-262, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.22.1.217.
[165] Romanello, M. et al. (2023), The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01859-7.
[243] Romanello, M. et al. (2024), “The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action”, The Lancet, Vol. 404/10465, pp. 1847-1896, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(24)01822-1.
[82] Ryalls, J. et al. (2024), “Air pollution disproportionately impairs beneficial invertebrates: a meta-analysis.”, Nature communications, Vol. 15/5447, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49729-5.
[45] Sabater, S. et al. (2023), “Extreme weather events threaten biodiversity and functions of river ecosystems: evidence from a meta-analysis”, Biological Reviews, Vol. 98/2, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12914.
[36] Sage, R. (2020), Global change biology: A primer, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14893.
[258] Samaddar, S. et al. (2021), “Role of soil in the regulation of human and plant pathogens: soils’ contributions to people”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 376/1834, p. 20200179, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0179.
[234] Sampedro, J. et al. (2023), “Short-term health co-benefits of existing climate policies: the need for more ambitious and integrated policy action.”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 7/7, pp. e540-e541.
[115] Savoca, M., A. McInturf and E. Hazen (2021), “Plastic ingestion by marine fish is widespread and increasing”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 27/10, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15533.
[306] Schaphoff, S. et al. (2018), “LPJmL4 – a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land – Part 1: Model description”, Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11/4, pp. 1343-1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018.
[38] Scheffers, B. et al. (2016), The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7671.
[216] Schulte-Uebbing, L. et al. (2022), “From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution”, Nature, Vol. 610/7932, pp. 507-512, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2.
[160] Schuster, P. et al. (2018), “Permafrost Stores a Globally Significant Amount of Mercury”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45/3, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075571.
[206] Secreatariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions; the Secretariat of the Minatmata Convention (2021), Chemicals, wastes and climate change interlinkages and potential for coordinated action.
[207] Secreatariats of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions; the Secretariat of the Minatmata Convention (2021), Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: key insights.
[312] Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (2022), Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and the Stockholm Convention on POPs.
[279] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2015), Water and Biodiversity: Summary of the findings of the Fourth Edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook as they relate to water.
[153] Seidl, R. et al. (2017), Forest disturbances under climate change, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3303.
[167] Semenza, J. and A. Ko (2023), “Waterborne Diseases That Are Sensitive to Climate Variability and Climate Change”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 389/23, https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra2300794.
[168] Semenza, J., J. Rocklöv and K. Ebi (2022), Climate Change and Cascading Risks from Infectious Disease, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-022-00647-3.
[184] Sever, M. (2021), Big wildfires mobilize mercury. What are the risks to surface water?, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2110558118.
[117] Shi, W. et al. (2024), A global review on the abundance and threats of microplastics in soils to terrestrial ecosystem and human health, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169469.
[136] Sigmund, G. et al. (2023), “Addressing chemical pollution in biodiversity research”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 29/12, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16689.
[138] Siviter, H. et al. (2021), “Agrochemicals interact synergistically to increase bee mortality”, Nature, Vol. 596/7872, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03787-7.
[154] Skendžić, S. et al. (2021), The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12050440.
[44] Smale, D. et al. (2019), Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0412-1.
[221] Soergel, B. et al. (2024), “Multiple pathways towards sustainable development goals and climate targets”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 19/12, p. 124009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad80af.
[217] Springmann, M. et al. (2018), “Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits”, Nature, Vol. 562/7728, pp. 519-525, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0.
[270] Springmann, M. et al. (2016), “Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study”, The Lancet, Vol. 387/10031, pp. 1937-1946, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01156-3.
[219] Springmann, M. et al. (2023), “The global and regional air quality impacts of dietary change”, Nature Communications, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41789-3.
[212] Stegmann, P. et al. (2022), “Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions”, Nature, Vol. 612/7939, pp. 272-276, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5.
[300] Stehfest, E. et al. (2014), Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE3.0 - Model description and policy applications, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
[48] Stewart, J. et al. (2014), “Combined climate- and prey-mediated range expansion of Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas), a large marine predator in the California Current System”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 20/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12502.
[194] Stocker, T. et al. (eds.) (2014), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
[103] Sud, M. (2020), “Managing the biodiversity impacts of fertiliser and pesticide use: Overview and insights from trends and policies across selected OECD countries”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 155, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/63942249-en.
[175] Sullivan, A. et al. (2022), Spreading like wildfire: The rising threat of extraordinary landscape fires.
[21] Sunderland, E. et al. (2019), A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1.
[90] Sutton MA et al. (2013), Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution.
[118] Tekman, M. et al. (2025), The amount and distribution of litter and microplastic, https://litterbase.awi.de/litter_detail.
[80] Temmerman, S. et al. (2013), Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12859.
[148] Teng, Y. et al. (2012), How do persistent organic pollutants be coupled with biogeochemical cycles of carbon and nutrients in terrestrial ecosystems under global climate change?, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-011-0462-0.
[247] Thangavel, P., D. Park and Y. Lee (2022), “Recent Insights into Particulate Matter (PM2.5)-Mediated Toxicity in Humans: An Overview”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19/12, p. 7511, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127511.
[269] Thomson, E. (2019), Air Pollution, Stress, and Allostatic Load: Linking Systemic and Central Nervous System Impacts, https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-190015.
[76] Trenberth, K., J. Fasullo and J. Mackaro (2011), “Atmospheric Moisture Transports from Ocean to Land and Global Energy Flows in Reanalyses”, Journal of Climate, Vol. 24/18, pp. 4907-4924, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jcli4171.1.
[105] Tudi, M. et al. (2021), Agriculture development, pesticide application and its impact on the environment, MDPI AG, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031112.
[273] UN World Food Programme (2021), Climate Crisis and Malnutrition. A case for acting now, https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000131581/download/?_ga=2.262182540.1475842698.1731763337-2130416631.1731763336.
[199] UNEP (2024), Critical Transitions: Circularity, equity and responsibility in the quest for energy transition minerals.
[205] UNEP (2024), Global Resources Outlook 2024: Bend the trend - Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes, United Nations Environment Programme.
[13] UNEP (2024), “Global Waste Management Outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste – Turning rubbish into a resource”, Nairobi, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/44939.
[209] UNEP (2024), Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 1 March 2024, https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/k24/008/07/pdf/k2400807.pdf.
[203] UNEP (2022), “Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022”.
[238] UNEP (2022), Scoping of the Seventh Edition of the Global Environment Outlook: Action for a Healthy Planet, https://www.unep.org/resources/toolkits-manuals-and-guides/scoping-seventh-edition-global-environment-outlook-action.
[285] UNEP (2022), Synthesis Report on the Environmental and Health Impacts of Pesticides and Fertilizers and Ways to Minimize Them.
[100] UNEP (2021), Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: Key Insights, https://minamataconvention.org/en/resources/interlinkages-between-chemicals-and-waste-multilateral-environmental-agreements-and (accessed on 13 June 2024).
[210] UNEP (2021), “Making Peace with Nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies”, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, https://www.unep.org/resources/global-assessments-sythesis-report-path-to-sustainable-future.
[14] UNEP (2019), Global Chemicals Outlook II: From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development – Synthesis Report.
[313] UNEP (n.d.), What are POPs?.
[292] UNEP IRP (2024), Global Material Flows Database, https://www.resourcepanel.org/global-material-flows-database.
[132] UNEP/BRS/MC (2021), “Interlinkages between the chemicals and waste multilateral environmental agreements and biodiversity: key insights”.
[271] UNICEF (2023), The global climate crisis is a child nutrition crisis. UNICEF Agenda for Child Nutrition and Climate Action, https://www.unicef.org/media/150356/file/The%20Global%20Climate%20Crisis%20is%20a%20Child%20Crisis.pdf.
[200] United Nations (2025), Depository notification on the entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2025/CN.447.2025-Eng.pdf?_gl=1*gkp89f*_ga*MzE4MzAxMDQ4LjE2NzUzNDkzODA.*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*czE3NjA0MzEyOTgkbzU5JGcxJHQxNzYwNDMxMzE1JGo0MyRsMCRoMA..
[307] United Nations (2022), World Population Prospects 2022 Summary of Results, https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2025).
[6] United Nations (1992), The Convention on Biological Diversity.
[122] United Nations Environment Programme and Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions (2023), Chemicals in Plastics, UNEP.
[278] UN-Water (2019), “Climate Change and Water UN-Water Policy Brief”, he UN-Water Expert Group on Water and Climate Change UN-Wate Policy Brief.
[35] Urban, M. (2015), “Accelerating extinction risk from climate change”, Science, Vol. 348/6234, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984.
[236] Urban, M. et al. (2022), “Coding for Life: Designing a Platform for Projecting and Protecting Global Biodiversity”, BioScience, Vol. 72/1, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab099.
[149] Van Den Berg, F. et al. (1999), Emission of pesticides into the air, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005234329622.
[226] van der Esch, S. et al. (2022), “The global potential for land restoration: Scenarios for the Global Land Outlook 2”, The Hague, The Netherlands, PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency.
[290] Van Dingenen, R. et al. (2018), “TM5-FASST: a global atmospheric source–receptor model for rapid impact analysis of emission changes on air quality and short-lived climate pollutants”, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18/21, pp. 16173-16211, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16173-2018.
[305] van Meijl, H. et al. (2006), “The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe”, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 114/1, pp. 21-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006.
[176] Van Oldenborgh, J. et al. (2021), “Attribution of the Australian bushfire risk to anthropogenic climate change”, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, Vol. 21/3, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-941-2021.
[295] van Ruijven, B. et al. (2016), “Long-term model-based projections of energy use and CO2 emissions from the global steel and cement industries”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 112, pp. 15-36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.016.
[294] van Vuuren, D. et al. (2007), “Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs”, Climatic Change, Vol. 81/2, pp. 119-159, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9172-9.
[223] van Vuuren, D. et al. (2025), “Exploring pathways for world development within planetary boundaries”, Nature, Vol. 641/8064, pp. 910-916, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08928-w.
[213] Vandyck, T. et al. (2018), “Air quality co-benefits for human health and agriculture counterbalance costs to meet Paris Agreement pledges”, Nature Communications, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06885-9.
[277] Wagner, M. et al. (2024), State of the science on plastic chemicals - Identifying and addressing chemicals and polymers of concern, https://zenodo.org/records/10701706.
[257] Wall, D., U. Nielsen and J. Six (2015), “Soil biodiversity and human health”, Nature, Vol. 528/7580, pp. 69-76, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15744.
[62] Walther, G. et al. (2009), Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportunities, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.008.
[53] Wang, J. et al. (2018), Effect of climate change on the yield of cereal crops: A review, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6020041.
[137] Wang, X. et al. (2022), “Effects of combined pollution of organic pollutants and heavy metals on biodiversity and soil multifunctionality in e-waste contaminated soil”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 440, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129727.
[181] Wang, Y. et al. (2025), “Associations of wildfire-derived particulate matter with hospitalization, emergency department visits and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Environmental Research, Vol. 273, p. 121221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2025.121221.
[284] Wang, Y. et al. (2021), “Exposure to PM2.5 aggravates Parkinson’s disease via inhibition of autophagy and mitophagy pathway”, Toxicology, Vol. 456, p. 152770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2021.152770.
[101] Wan, N. et al. (2025), “Pesticides have negative effects on non-target organisms”, Nature Communications, Vol. 16/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56732-x.
[174] Webster, J. et al. (2016), “Estimating mercury emissions resulting from wildfire in forests of the Western United States”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.166.
[19] Wee, S. and A. Aris (2023), “Revisiting the “forever chemicals”, PFOA and PFOS exposure in drinking water.”, NPJ Clean Water, Vol. 6/1, p. 57.
[282] Weilnhammer, V. et al. (2021), Extreme weather events in europe and their health consequences – A systematic review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113688.
[66] Weiskopf, S. et al. (2024), “Biodiversity loss reduces global terrestrial carbon storage”, Nature communications, Vol. 15/4354, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47872-7.
[161] Wei, X., W. Yang and M. Hedenqvist (2024), Plastic pollution amplified by a warming climate, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46127-9.
[259] Wei, Y. et al. (2019), “Short term exposure to fine particulate matter and hospital admission risks and costs in the Medicare population: time stratified, case crossover study”, BMJ, p. l6258, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6258.
[129] Welden, N. and A. Lusher (2017), Impacts of changing ocean circulation on the distribution of marine microplastic litter, https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1911.
[96] Whitehead, P. et al. (2009), “A review of the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality”, Hydrological Sciences, Vol. 54/1, pp. 101-123, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.1.101.
[254] WHO (2024), Global strategic preparedness, readiness and response plan for dengue and other Aedes-borne arboviruses, https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/ntds/dengue/global-sprp-for-dengue-and-other-aedes-borne-arboviruses.pdf?sfvrsn=7ab2e43b_3&download=true.
[202] WHO (2022), Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240045064.
[262] WHO (2022), Mental health and Climate Change: Policy Brief.
[130] WHO (2021), Exposure to mercury: a major public health concern, second edition. Preventing disease through healthy environments.
[201] WHO (2021), WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/345329.
[250] WHO (2018), Air pollution and child health. Prescribing clean air.
[248] WHO (2013), Health risks of air pollution in Europe – HRAPIE project. Recommendations for concentration–response functions for cost–benefit analysis of particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/153692.
[267] WHO/CBD (2015), Connecting global priorities: biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review.
[224] Willaarts, B. et al. (2024), SDG pathfinding methodological framework: Participatory Approach to Localise the Sustainable Development Agenda, https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/20174/1/D%202.1%20SDG%20Methodological%20Framework%2005%2012%202024.pdf.
[303] Woltjer, G. (2014), The MAGNET model: Module description. LEI Wageningen UR.
[150] Yang et al. (2024), “Climate change exacerbates the environmental impacts of agriculture”, Science, Vol. 385/6713, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn3747.
[228] Zabel, F. et al. (2019), “Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity.”, Nature communications, Vol. 10/1, p. 2844.
[22] Zahm, S. et al. (2024), “Carcinogenicity of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid”, The Lancet. Oncology, Vol. 25/1, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00622-8.
[142] Zhang, C. et al. (2020), “Can constructedwetlands be wildlife refuges? A review of their potential biodiversity conservation value”, Sustainability (Switzerland), Vol. 12/4, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041442.
[124] Zhou, J. et al. (2024), “Effects of microplastics pollution on plant and soil phosphorus: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132705.
[120] Zhu, R. et al. (2025), “A global estimate of multiecosystem photosynthesis losses under microplastic pollution”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 122/11, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2423957122.
[152] Zhu, X. et al. (2020), “Reductions in water, soil and nutrient losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: a review of evidence and processes”, Plant and Soil, Vol. 453/1-2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04377-3.
[146] Zhu, Y. et al. (2019), Soil biota, antimicrobial resistance and planetary health, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105059.
← 1. Brownfield land is abandoned land that was previously developed, and which may be polluted.
← 2. The socioeconomic interlinkages are discussed more extensively in Chapter 2.
← 3. There remains considerable ambiguity over the importance of genetic evolution versus plastic responses.
← 4. See, for example, smaller fish sizes recorded in IISD’s Experimental Lake Areas (IISD, 2015[314]).
← 5. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Convention on Biological Diversity, “invasive alien species” refer to a subset of alien species that have harmful impact on the economy, environment or health.
← 6. See for instance eChemPortal (OECD, 2024[311]) for information on chemical properties.
← 7. Nutrient load refers to the total amount of nutrients, such as nitrogen or phosphorus, entering a system or environment such as water bodies over a specific time period.
← 8. The surplus of nitrogen and phosphorus is calculated as the difference between nutrient inputs (such as manure, synthetic fertilisers, atmospheric deposition and biological nitrogen fixation) and the amount of nutrients taken up in plant biomass. This surplus leads to nutrient buildup in soils and runoff into water bodies.
← 9. The N:P ratio is a measure of nutrient balance, expressing the relative availability or concentration of nitrogen relative to phosphorus, typically expressed in molar terms.
← 10. The meta-analysis includes studies on 471 different pesticide active ingredients, which also include both those banned and currently in use.
← 11. Under the Stockholm Convention, the POPs are defined as organic chemical substances that have a “combination of physical and chemical properties such that, once released into the environment, they (i) remain intact for exceptionally long periods, (ii) become widely distributed throughout the environment as a result of natural processes involving soil, water and, most notably, air; (iii) accumulate in the living organisms including humans, and are found at higher concentrations at higher levels in the food chain, and (iv) are toxic to both human and wildlife” (UNEP, n.d.[313]). On a subgroup of PFAS, see also (Secretariat of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, 2022[312]).
← 12. For instance, while suspended solids rely on physical processes of sedimentation and filtration from the substrate, organic matter and nitrogen removal occur through microbiological degradation stimulated by plants (Brisson et al., 2020[309]).
← 13. Ground-level ozone is formed through photochemical reaction of precursors (NOx and VOCs) with heat and solar radiation.
← 14. The spray drift depends on the application techniques. For instance, upward spraying results in greater release compared to downward spraying.
← 15. Tailings are a mixture of crushed rock and fluids that remain after the extraction of resources such as metals and minerals (Kossoff et al., 2014[156]).
← 16. The Kigali amendment of the Montreal Protocol, implemented in 2019, commits the Parties to reduce the production and consumption by more than 80% to limit GHG emissions.
← 17. Aerosols vary in shape and size and depending on their characteristics, they can either scatter or absorb radiation. Sulphates, nitrates and ammonium are examples of scattering aerosols, while BC is an absorbing aerosol (Li et al., 2022[197]).
← 18. Radiative forcing is the disruption to the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system; in the context of air pollution and climate change, for instance, it represents the net balance between the warming and cooling impacts of the changes in concentrations of different pollutants.
← 19. NbS are not new; for instance, Article 5 of the Paris Agreement highlights the importance of conserving and enhancing natural reservoirs of GHGs including forests.
← 20. NbS are defined as “actions to protect, conserve restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services and resilience and biodiversity benefits” (UNEP, 2022[203]).
← 21. The nine planetary boundaries are: (1) climate change, (2) novel entities, (3) stratospheric ozone depletion, (4) atmospheric aerosol loading, (5) ocean acidification, (6) modification of biogeochemical flows, (7) freshwater change, (8) land system change, (9) biosphere integrity (Rockström et al., 2009[310]).
← 22. Drivers can be classified differently in various analyses. For an overview, see Annex 1.B.
← 23. While the scope of materials can vary depending on contexts, for instance including only raw materials or including transformed materials as well, including or not water, in this report materials use refers to the primary raw materials as detailed in (OECD, 2019[291]), and encompassed in the updated UNEP-IRP (2024[292]) materials database. These materials pertain to four groups: metals, non-metallic minerals, biomass and fossil fuels.
← 24. Nutrient delivery reflects the transport of nutrients to the water system. It differs from nutrient application, which is the nutrient content of e.g. fertiliser or manure put on the ground.