This chapter examines the interactions between the policy objectives of climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation and pollution prevention and control. By categorising a range of existing policies based on a broad set of policy objectives to which they contribute, it analyses how addressing one aspect of the interlocking challenge may affect the remaining two, and presents a conceptual overview of the potential synergies and trade-offs.
Environmental Outlook on the Triple Planetary Crisis
Stakes, Evolution and Policy Linkages
Abstract
There are interactions between policies for addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Considering these interlinkages can provide a more holistic picture of the costs and benefits of policies as well as more accurate estimates of their impacts. Conversely, policies that do not consider these interlinkages may result in unintended trade-offs between otherwise coherent objectives of tackling these challenges together.
There are a wide array of policies and an even larger set of policy instruments that have been implemented to address each of these challenges around the world. It is beyond the scope of the current analysis to map each policy or instrument and review its potential interlinkages. Instead, this analysis investigates these interlinkages by thematically categorising representative sets of policies into broad clusters based on the overall objective to which they contribute. These are further divided into sub-clusters to provide more granularity while remaining generalisable across contexts. Figure 4.1 provides an overview of these thematic clusters.
Climate policy objectives are categorised into three broad clusters (i) energy; (ii) food and (iii) ecosystems. These clusters encompass both climate change mitigation and adaptation. This categorisation draws upon the classification used by Pörtner et al. (2023[1]) in exploring the interlinkages between climate change and biodiversity.
Biodiversity policy objectives are categorised into three clusters of policies aiming to: (i) protect, (ii) manage and (iii) restore biodiversity, drawing on the classification used in Pörtner (2021[2]).1 The objectives considered also build upon the “mitigation hierarchy”2 of: (i) avoidance, (ii) minimisation, (iii) restoration and rehabilitation and (iv) offset that provide a versatile yet coherent framework for unifying various conservation efforts at different scales (from project-level to international) (Arlidge et al., 2018[3]). The hierarchy represents four sequential and iterative steps which puts avoidance of biodiversity loss at the top of the priority, followed by minimisation, restoration and rehabilitation, and finally offsetting of the remaining adverse impacts (OECD, 2024[4]). Full application of the mitigation hierarchy therefore should result in no net loss at minimum, and preferably a net gain (Maron et al., 2025[5]).
Pollution policy objectives are categorised into three clusters of policies that seek to: (i) prevent pollution at source, (ii) reduce leakage of pollutants into the environment and (iii) remediate pollution. This categorisation loosely mirrors the “waste hierarchy” concept which ranks waste management options from the most to the least preferred (i.e. prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery and disposal) (OECD, 2024[6]) as well as existing policy frameworks such as the European Union’s Action Plan “Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil” (European Commission, 2021[7]).
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Though non-exhaustive and context dependent, the analysis provides a conceptual overview of the possible synergies and trade-offs between policy objectives, to inform an integrated policy approach to address the triple planetary crisis. The broad patterns of synergies and trade-offs identified through literature review are detailed in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 and are visualised at the end of each in Figure 4.3, Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7, respectively. Following this analysis outlining the possibility of synergies and trade-offs as a first step in improving the policy coherence across different objectives (OECD, 2021[8]), the next two chapters examine the extent to which these policy interlinkages are currently considered in national documents (Chapter 5) and the manifestations, management and assessment (including quantification) of synergies and trade-offs at the implementation stage, using four deep dives as case studies (Chapter 6).
4.2.1. Energy
Increase clean energy supply
Reducing reliance on fossil fuel combustion as the primary source of energy is an integral part of climate change mitigation. Renewable energy, including solar and wind power, is considered among the key enablers of climate change mitigation (IEA, 2024[9]). A decisive shift towards clean energy3 also brings considerable synergies for reducing air and water pollution and alleviating pressures on biodiversity from habitat degradation, destruction and fragmentation associated with the extraction of fossil fuels (OECD, 2024[4]). In addition to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy outperforms fossil fuels on several other environmental parameters (see also Chapter 6.2, which provides a deep dive on the expansion of wind and solar energy). For instance, the impacts of the phase-out of fossil fuels and the expansion of renewable energy on air quality improvements have been extensively estimated, with many studies identifying significant reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 micrometres (PM2.5) and ground-level ozone (e.g. (Markandya et al., 2018[10]; Sampedro et al., 2023[11]; Millstein et al., 2017[12])). Improvements in air quality confer more localised and immediate benefits and further strengthen the rationale for climate action (Vandyck et al., 2022[13]).
Despite substantial benefits of replacing fossil fuels, renewable energy is also not entirely without environmental cost. Without careful consideration and management, there are risks that renewable energy infrastructure itself becomes a driver of biodiversity decline. From hydropower infrastructure impeding species’ movements and dispersal across river basins to solar power infrastructure coinciding with species’ natural habitats, there are cross-cutting risks relating to the spatial footprint of renewables’ infrastructure which may result in habitat loss and fragmentation (Dhar et al., 2020[14]; He, 2024[15]). Furthermore, electricity transmission, distribution and energy storage infrastructure can pose a threat for biodiversity (OECD, 2024[4]). As renewable energy is more diffuse compared to fossil fuels, there are additional concerns over energy sprawl at the cost of important areas for biodiversity conservation including protected areas.4 For instance, one study identifies over 2 200 existing renewable facilities within the boundaries of protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)5 and distinct wilderness areas; a trend that appears set to accelerate in the coming decades and expand to a broader set of regions including Southeast Asia and Africa (Rehbein et al., 2020[16]) (Figure 4.2).
Note: The number (a) and proportion (b) of operational (red) and under development (orange) renewable energy facilities within important conservation areas (protected areas, KBAs and wilderness areas) by energy regions.
Source: Rehbein et al. (2020[16]).
There are several land-sharing practices that can help mitigate these risks. For instance, in “agrivoltaics systems”, solar energy generation and agricultural production (food and energy crops) occur on the same land, helping to reduce land use pressures (Cogato, Marinello and Pezzuolo, 2023[17]). These systems can also provide habitats for pollinators and shades for plants underneath solar panels, and therefore potentially contribute to retaining soil and water availability and quality (Hernandez et al., 2019[18]; Cogato, Marinello and Pezzuolo, 2023[17]), although the highly site- and crop-specific nature of agrivoltaics makes the optimisation of agricultural outputs and power generation challenging (Asa’a, 2024[19]).
Similarly, it has also been suggested that competing uses for coastal zones can be balanced by co-locating offshore wind farms with low-trophic aquaculture (e.g. seaweed), which can also simultaneously contribute towards alleviating pressures on ecosystems from nutrient pollution (e.g. (Maar et al., 2023[20])). However, there remains uncertainty over the viability of such approaches and careful management and monitoring is warranted. While it has been suggested that offshore windfarms can potentially act as de facto marine protected areas as they provide artificial habitats and refuges from fisheries activities (Ashley, Mangi and Rodwell, 2014[21]), there are also concerns over the risk of adverse biodiversity outcomes, including the spread of invasive species that can exploit hard substrate of wind farms as their new habitat (Watson et al., 2024[22]).
Impacts and the trade-offs can also differ among various types of renewable energy. Mortality risks of birds and bats species through collision with wind turbines are relatively well-documented (OECD, 2024[4]). While bird mortality is relatively small in magnitude, wind turbine collision is identified as among the leading causes of collision mortality in bats (OECD, 2024[4]). Furthermore, while far less water is needed for solar compared to fossil fuels, there are still water needs such as for cleaning the surface of solar PVs to maintain their efficiency (Aljaghoub et al., 2022[23]). Some concentrated solar power plants also require water to be used as coolant, although dry cooling is an increasingly viable technology (Liqreina and Qoaider, 2014[24]).
There remain considerable research gaps over the impacts of renewable energy infrastructure on marine and freshwater ecosystems, compared to uncertain yet relatively better-researched impacts on terrestrial ecosystems (OECD, 2024[4]). Environmental impacts of various types of renewable energy generated using bodies of water are also relatively less understood, although existing evidence identifies some risks for biodiversity loss and pollution. For instance, hydropower infrastructure can lead to fragmentation in water bodies and change river sections from lotic (running) to lentic (standing), creating optimal conditions for phytoplankton growth and development of harmful algal blooms (He, 2024[15]). Furthermore, hydropower reservoirs result in non-negligible carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) as well as nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions through the decay and degradation of organic matter (Lu et al., 2020[25]). While still in its infancy, ocean energy harvesting technologies also raise concerns over disrupting marine ecosystems (Martínez et al., 2021[26]).
Beyond the immediate impacts during the operation (electricity generation, transmission and distribution) of renewable energy infrastructure, it is also important to consider the lifecycle environmental impacts, ranging from extraction of materials and manufacturing to decommissioning. In particular, risks of trade-offs for biodiversity and pollution objectives can arise from the environmental pressures from obtaining material resources required to produce renewable energy technologies. As with the renewable infrastructure itself, there are risks that mining and processing activities partially undermine the effectiveness of protected areas for biodiversity conservation (Sonter et al., 2020[27]). The manufacturing stage of renewable technologies can also result in various types of pollution which can harm human and planetary health. Manufacturing of solar PVs, for instance, is associated with the use of chemical compounds such as cadmium, arsenic and lead (Aman et al., 2015[28]). End-of-life impacts of renewables can also result in trade-offs with biodiversity and pollution control objectives. For instance, due to their heavy weight and heterogeneity, wind turbine blades are not currently widely reused or recycled (Khalid et al., 2023[29]).
Importantly, various impacts can accumulate, extending their reach beyond local sites. This makes the consideration of risks at multiple scales an imperative. Some impacts would be best addressed with cross-border collaboration, for instance, to consider the transboundary migratory patterns of certain species (e.g. birds and bats) (OECD, 2024[4]). Additionally, flow regulation and thermal alteration from hydropower generation can have cumulative and cascading impacts that extend beyond a single river, necessitating local and regional collaboration to address the risks (He, 2024[15]).
There are also risks of trade-offs associated with bioenergy (biomass and biofuels). Along with the concerns over the expansion of bioenergy for its potential impact on food security, the evolution of the debate over the role of bioenergy in decarbonisation of the energy system illustrates the need for the holistic consideration of environmental risks. Many mitigation pathways compatible with the 1.5°C goal feature the expansion of bioenergy, with some placing it on par with wind and solar energy (Rogelj et al., 2018[30]). However, it is well-recognised that land use pressures associated with bioenergy can hinder its viability, as sourcing bioenergy from dedicated crops would lead to land use change (OECD, 2019[31]; IEA, 2024[9]) and may indirectly lead to an intensification of agriculture due to competition for land or nutrient pollution due to increased fertiliser use (Pörtner et al., 2021[32]; Kanter and Brownlie, 2019[33]).
The expansion of bioenergy plantations can also run counter to the climate mitigation objective itself, while posing a threat to biodiversity, especially when it comes at the cost of degradation of natural carbon sinks that are simultaneously biodiversity hotspots. For instance, while deforestation and peatland drainage for palm oil contributes to economic security of small holders due to the potential to achieve high yield per area, these activities also result in GHG emissions as well as biodiversity loss, while making the areas more fire-prone (Meijaard et al., 2020[34]). Taxonomic diversity and species abundance are also found to be lower in crops for bioenergy compared to the natural ecosystems they replace (Núñez-Regueiro, Siddiqui and Fletcher, 2021[35]). Furthermore, although there is uncertainty over its magnitude, crop types used for bioenergy also tend to have higher biogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions, which are precursors to ground-level ozone (Rosenkranz et al., 2014[36]).
The severity of the environmental risks from expanding bioenergy production varies depending on a number of factors such as the type of crops, scale of deployment and previous land use (IPCC, 2019[37]). Some bioenergy requires dedicated land, while others can be produced from agricultural and industrial residues, including from sugarcane waste for ethanol. The biodiversity impact of bioenergy may be positive overall for a specific site under specific circumstances if, for instance, perennial bioenergy crops replace monocultural crops in agricultural landscapes (Landis et al., 2018[38]). Second-generation bioenergy derived from non-food feedstocks such as agricultural and forest residues is generally considered more environmentally benign compared to dedicated production of bioenergy crops (Jeswani, Chilvers and Azapagic, 2020[39]). Nonetheless, these solutions may come with their own risk of trade-offs. For instance, while using residues and organic waste as bioenergy feedstock can reduce pressures on land use change, they are limited in volume and may involve the removal of carbon and nutrient-rich residues that would otherwise remain on the ground and can reduce soil quality (IPCC, 2019[37]).
Increase uptake of clean technologies
Together with increased supply of clean energy, improved energy use and efficiency through uptake of clean technologies are critical for curbing GHG emissions. However, there are also uncertain impacts associated with some of the technologies that are expected to play an important role in the transition towards carbon neutrality. Some clean technologies are cross-cutting, while others are aimed at electrifying their fossil fuel-based equivalents and have more sector-specific applications.
For sectors such as transport and buildings, electrification is an integral part of decarbonisation (see also Chapter 2 on the implications of electrification). Technologies for electrification can reduce emissions from numerous small sources (e.g. households) that add up to constitute a large share of total GHG emissions. Moreover, these technologies have the potential to deliver synergies including enhanced indoor and outdoor air quality. Within the transport sector, policy attention has focused on the potential of electric vehicles (EVs). As EVs have no tailpipe emissions, incentivising their wider adoption can also help address air pollution. However, the purported benefits may be partially negated, as EVs typically weigh more compared to internal combustion engine vehicles due to the weight of the batteries and can therefore result in increased non-exhaust emissions (generated by the wearing down of brakes, tyres and road surfaces, as well as by the suspension of road dust) (OECD, 2020[40]). Although there is relatively limited research assessing the impact of policies such as fiscal incentives for the purchase of EVs on air quality, emerging evidence substantiates pollution reduction benefits at a local level (Li and Zhang, 2023[41]). Within the buildings sector, heat pumps and electrical devices that can covert energy from external sources to heat for residential and commercial buildings not only reduce GHG emissions, but can also improve indoor air quality (Gaur, Fitiwi and Curtis, 2021[42]).
However, material requirements of many of these clean technologies – referred to as “critical raw materials (CRMs)” – remain both a bottleneck for their uptake and the source of potential trade-offs with biodiversity conservation and pollution control objectives across their lifecycle. Mining activities generate large volumes of waste including tailing, drainage water and slag, mismanagement of which can have adverse impacts on the water and soil (OECD, 2025[43]). For instance, the production of clean hydrogen from renewable energy requires electrolysis, a process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. “Electrolysers” for these production processes have high requirements for CRMs and their expansion can result in environmental pressures upstream (Eikeng, 2024[44]). Similarly, inappropriate disposal of EV batteries can result in the release of toxic chemicals (Herbert-Read et al., 2022[45]). Meanwhile, recycling of batteries, while important for material recovery, can also pose some environmental risks as they contain chemicals (including PFAS) that may break down during recycling, for instance, due to incomplete burning, potentially becoming an additional source of pollution (Rensmo et al., 2023[46]). Without concomitant considerations of material recovery and resource efficiency, the accelerated deployment of these technologies could heighten the concerns over the expansion of unsustainable extraction from hitherto intact natural areas, such as the deep sea (e.g. lithium extraction from deep-sea brine pools (Herbert-Read et al., 2022[45])).
“Clean” hydrogen produced with low carbon emissions (including through carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies) can be a versatile energy carrier that can help decarbonise end-use sectors that use hydrogen as feedstock in industrial processes, such as production of steel and chemicals (Cordonnier and Saygin, 2022[47]). Hydrogen can also help better integrate renewables in the electricity system as an option for storing intermittent wind and solar power, and their derivatives (e.g. ammonia) can become low-carbon alternatives for long-range shipping fuels (Hassan et al., 2024[48]). However, expanding deployment of clean hydrogen carries potential risks for human safety and ecotoxicity due to its properties. Notably, hydrogen is flammable and can easily permeate, corrode and embrittle containment materials (Calabrese et al., 2024[49]). Safeguards are therefore essential for the expanding use of clean hydrogen. Furthermore, if inadequately managed, ammonia used as a marine shipping fuel could result in nitrous oxide emissions that can compromise some of the climate mitigation benefits (UNEP/FAO, 2024[50]), as well as create risks for acidification and eutrophication.
Water resource implications of hydrogen deployment also warrant attention (Shen et al., 2024[51]). Although water requirements are substantially lower compared to fossil fuels,6 the source of water remains an important consideration for limiting the wider environmental footprint of producing clean hydrogen (Woods, Bustamante and Aguey-Zinsou, 2022[52]). For instance, desalinating seawater is a viable option for meeting the water demand, but results in by-product brine which is harmful to aquatic species (Zhou, Chang and Fane, 2013[53]). However, there are emerging technologies for the production of hydrogen that may deliver co-benefits for pollution, such as those that enable the simultaneous treatment of wastewater and production of hydrogen (Merabet, Kerboua and Hoinkis, 2024[54]).
Reducing emissions from point sources through carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and use (CCU), referred together as CCUS,7 is also increasingly a key component of tackling GHG emissions. While the majority (60%) of currently operational CCUS facilities are natural gas processing facilities, they are also being established in other industrial sectors (Fajardy, 2025[55]). A review of lifecycle assessments of CCUS technologies identifies some risks to the environment, finding that burying and storing captured emissions deep underground may adversely affect biodiversity and exacerbate pollution (Cuéllar-Franca and Azapagic, 2015[56]). CCS deployed on-site within power and industrial facilities can also impact ecosystems through water footprint as well as water discharge, which risks causing acidification of aquifers (OECD, 2017[57]; Mikunda et al., 2021[58]). Regulatory frameworks that ensure geological storage sites are properly chosen, designed and managed can help address the risks associated with CCS. CO2 storage in properly selected and managed geological reservoirs suggests it is likely to remain secure over time (IPCC, 2023[59]),8 which is an advantage compared, for instance, to nature-based storage methods that can be more susceptible to the risks of extreme weather events.
Another set of cross-cutting technologies that can be deployed for climate mitigation is “negative emissions technologies” or carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, which can contribute to addressing residual emissions or potentially enabling net-negative emissions (Smith et al., 2024[60]).9 CDR entails an array of methods and options including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), mineral carbonation (e.g. enhanced weathering) or direct air capture.10 These technologies vary widely in certainty with which technical feasibility, scalability and effects on biodiversity and pollution can be estimated. Concerns over the adverse impacts on biodiversity have led to the COP10 CBD decision X/33, adopted in 2010 and widely interpreted as a non-binding moratorium, which urges caution on geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity (Smith et al., 2024[60]). Nonetheless, CDR options such as BECCS and direct air capture feature in several limited temperature increase scenarios (IPCC, 2023[59]). Additionally, the carbon neutrality targets set in many countries rely implicitly on negative emissions technologies as part of their policy packages. Around 40 countries have specified quantifiable CDR contributions in their long-term climate strategies to 2050 (Lamb et al., 2024[61]) and facilitate the deployment through various policies including dedicated research funding (e.g. Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom) and certification frameworks (e.g. EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework (European Commission, 2024[62])).
BECCS entails converting biomass into energy, capturing the CO2 released during the process, compressing it into liquid and storing it underground. This can potentially be a powerful option to achieve net-zero emissions, as the negative emissions from this technology can offset hard-to-abate emissions from other processes (not least food production). BECCS can pose several environmental risks, ranging from increased fertiliser use, water use and chemical runoff and the risks of monoculture expansion, soil degradation and ecosystem fragmentation as large-scale BECCS requires vast amounts of land and water for growing and processing feedstock (Geoengineering Monitor, 2021[63]; Williamson and Bodle, 2016[64]). Further, while BECCS can contribute towards diversification and increase in rural incomes, it can also expose smallholders to global market fluctuations as large-scale deployment could create competition for resources (including land) and may increase food prices (Stoy et al., 2018[65]). These risks can be managed better through governance of land use, including effective conservation measures and policies that account for biodiversity protection, water and nitrogen use, and land-use competition. The use of second-generation biomass feedstocks, such as agricultural and forest residues or dedicated cellulosic crops, combined with land management strategies that internalise environmental trade-offs, can help align BECCS deployment with broader sustainability objectives (IPCC, 2018[66]).11
CDR from the atmosphere, such as through direct air capture, typically requires the use of solvents and chemical sorbents and can result in local water and air pollution (Dooley, Harrould-Kolieb and Talberg, 2021[67]). Meanwhile, poorly managed mineral carbonation processes could have a comparable environmental impact to large-scale surface mining operations (IPCC, 2005[68]). For instance, while enhanced weathering (an approach that involves spreading select finely ground rocks at large scale over land to chemically bind atmospheric CO2) can improve soil fertility (and lower the need for fertiliser application) and sequester carbon, the risks of habitat degradation and destruction and water and soil quality deterioration associated with intensive mining of rock material, transport, and application processes also need to be carefully considered (Bach et al., 2019[69]; Williamson and Bodle, 2016[64]).
4.2.2. Food
Reduce food-related GHG emissions
Agriculture is vulnerable to climate change, yet at the same time, the sector is also a major driver of climate change (OECD, 2022[70]) due to CH4 emissions from livestock, N2O emissions from fertiliser applications, as well as land conversion for cropland and grassland (OECD, 2022[70]). In total, agricultural direct (i.e. on-farm; excluding land conversion) emissions contribute to 11% of global GHG emissions, a figure that doubles when considering land use change and increases further to about a third of global GHG emissions when considering the rest of the supply chains within the food system as a whole (OECD, 2023[71]; OECD, 2025[72]). At the same time, agricultural land can contribute to mitigating GHG emissions and act as a carbon sink depending on the agricultural practices deployed. In this context, agricultural policies can encourage farmers, landowners and managers to adopt practices that can improve soil health to reduce reliance on applications of agricultural inputs such as fertilisers and provide appropriate environmental safeguards.
Existing research suggests that agricultural practices that reduce GHG emissions generally can confer localised synergies for biodiversity and pollution. In particular, measures that can be implemented without creating demand for additional land can help alleviate pressures on biodiversity caused by habitat fragmentation and destruction (Smith et al., 2020[73]). These practices range from precision agriculture (e.g. enabling targeted application of fertiliser and pesticides) to improved crop management, such as high carbon input practices (e.g. through crop rotation) that help sequester carbon. Other examples include reduced tillage, which also facilitates carbon storage. Increased soil carbon content through these practices also helps improve soil structure, regulate water flow and improve filtering capacity of pollutants.
However, poorly targeted policies to reduce agricultural GHG emissions can unintendedly incentivise unsustainable intensification of land use and increased fertiliser use to maintain yields, which can negatively affect biodiversity and exacerbate water pollution (OECD, 2022[70]). These risks can be better managed by promoting sustainable agricultural productivity growth, which is essential for balancing the need for increased food production to feed the growing global population with the imperative to reduce environmental impacts through more efficient resource use (OECD, 2024[74]). Progress towards sustainable agricultural productivity growth requires appropriate economic incentives to encourage shifts in farming practices, as well as investment in research, innovation and extension services (OECD, 2024[74]). Governments – alongside farmers and researchers – can play a key role in promoting specific farming practices that strike the balance between several factors, including impacts on yields, costs, socio-economic outcomes and environmental impacts. For instance, research on “regenerative agriculture” has identified a number of practices that synergistically deliver positive biodiversity and climate outcomes (The Food and Land Use Coalition, 2023[75]) – see also Section 4.3.
Furthermore, there are concerns that various farming practices that enhance carbon sequestration may require more nitrogen applications to maintain the gains in soil carbon and increase nitrogen pollution (Almaraz et al., 2021[76]). Although these concerns have not been substantiated for many agricultural practices and are on average synergistic in terms of reduction in N2O emissions and nitrate leaching in soil, there is some evidence that reduced and no-tillage practices can incur leaching and may increase nitrate in water (Almaraz et al., 2021[76]). Similarly, while no-tillage practices can considerably reduce the particulate (attached to soil particles) phosphorous concentration, they can also lead to increased dissolved phosphorus in water, which are key elements of the eutrophication process of aquatic ecosystems (Daryanto, Wang and Jacinthe, 2017[77]). The viability and cost-effectiveness of farming practices that are widely considered environmentally beneficial can vary depending on climate, soil texture and topography (e.g. slope), underscoring the importance of tailoring practices to specific sites and contexts (Macrae et al., 2021[78]).
Mitigating emissions from livestock production and grazing land management can also deliver synergies for biodiversity. Advancements in technologies that improve productivity and sustainably enhance livestock food production could reduce land requirements, which can in turn help protect wildlife (Lamb et al., 2016[79]). There are a range of examples of techniques and technologies related to dietary management that improve feed conversion efficiency and limit CH4 emissions during digestion (OECD/FAO, 2025[80]). Direct interventions for limiting CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation such as feed additives (CH4 inhibitors) are increasingly deployed or considered (OECD, 2022[70]) – see also Chapter 6 on nutrient management for examples. Further, use of nitrification inhibitors in stored livestock manure is already widespread. Although nitrification inhibitors can reduce N₂O emissions and prevent nitrate leaching, their application requires precision, as they may pose ecotoxic risks to both aquatic and terrestrial species (Kösler et al., 2019[81]).
Promote dietary change
Promoting dietary change is a complementary objective to making the food system more environmentally sustainable. In particular, animal-based products such as red meat and dairy overall have an outsized impact on climate change, primarily due to pasture and land required for feed crops, as well as CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation from ruminants and N2O emissions from manure (OECD, 2022[70]).12 Higher intake of plant-based foods and lower consumption of animal-based products therefore have the potential to contribute towards climate change mitigation (IPCC, 2019[37]).
In addition to mitigating GHG emissions, large-scale dietary shifts towards more plant-based diets are estimated to have substantial potential to offer a number of synergies, including alleviating air, soil and water pollution (Bonnet and Coinon, 2024[82]). For instance, a modelling-based study suggests that substituting half of global consumption of the main animal products (pork, chicken, beef, and milk) with plant-based alternatives can lead to 31% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 compared to a reference scenario of no dietary change (Kozicka et al., 2023[83]). This shift could also yield additional synergies, including reduced water use and nitrogen applications (Kozicka et al., 2023[83]). Similarly, another study that explores the impact of excluding animal-based products from diets suggests that such a shift could also reduce eutrophication by half (Poore and Nemecek, 2018[84]).
Reduced consumption of meat and increased adoption of plant-based alternatives can also contribute towards protecting biodiversity, although its impact both on climate mitigation and biodiversity depends on how the animal-based food are substituted and how sustainably they are produced (FAO, 2023[85]). Most of the synergies for biodiversity conservation stem from reduced pressure for land conversion of species-rich areas into pasture for grazing and arable land for animal feed crops production (Godfray et al., 2018[86]). For instance, land conversion of ecosystems including rainforests for pasture is estimated to constitute almost 70% of land-use change in Latin America (De Sy et al., 2015[87]). There are also more indirect synergies for biodiversity conservation; for instance, reduced livestock production can reduce pressures on plant diversity, as grazing pressure tends to exceed that of wild herbivores, although impacts are significantly affected by various climatic variables such as precipitation patterns and ecosystem characteristics (Filazzola et al., 2020[88]). It may also help curb the decline of wild species’ populations, which are commonly targeted by farmland owners seeking to prevent interactions between wildlife and their livestock (Machovina, Feeley and Ripple, 2015[89]).
However, the current trend of increased consumption of animal-based calories along with economic development is projected to continue, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (see also Chapter 2). It can additionally be challenging to promote dietary change due to cultural norms, societal habits and personal significance (Hassett et al., 2025[90]). The acceptability and uptake of plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy products vary. Despite improved availability, plant-based meat alternatives still constitute a small share of food consumption (OECD/FAO, 2025[80]). In contrast, plant-based diary substitutes (e.g. soy milk) have become increasingly established in many regions (OECD/FAO, 2025[80]).
Furthermore, while plant-based alternatives may facilitate the sustainable transition of the food systems in the interim, it is also important to consider the agricultural practices and site-specific impacts of their production (IPCC, 2019[37]). For example, livestock production can have both negative (e.g. through land-use change) and positive (e.g. through improving the structural heterogeneity) impacts on biodiversity (Gordon, 2018[91]). Low-intensity livestock farming can potentially play a role in maintaining or even enhancing biodiversity in rangelands used for livestock grazing (Neilly, Vanderwal and Schwarzkopf, 2016[92]) and low-intensity grazing is also associated with increased soil carbon sequestration (Zhou et al., 2017[93]), although overall effects would depend on counterfactual scenarios (i.e. how the land would otherwise be used and if there was no land use change).
There is the considerable heterogeneity in environmental footprints across different producers, even for the same commodity produced within a country (Deconinck, Jansen and Barisone, 2023[94]). Nonetheless, available evidence based on LCAs suggest that the lowest-impact animal-based products typically have higher environmental impacts than plant-based substitutes (Poore and Nemecek, 2018[84]). Realising and amplifying the potential synergies of balanced diets for climate, biodiversity and pollution objectives necessitates the consideration of the overall and regionally-specific environmental impacts of food production, including through the use of primary data to measure environmental impacts such as carbon footprint (OECD, 2025[72]).
4.2.3. Ecosystems
Retain and enhance natural carbon sinks
Countries increasingly invest in the protection and restoration of natural carbon sinks through economic, (e.g. subsidies and tax incentives), regulatory (e.g. standards) and other policies as part of their climate mitigation strategies (OECD, 2024[95]). In particular, maintaining the intactness of natural ecosystems such as forests is highly important for carbon storage and other indispensable ecosystem services, including freshwater regulation (Watson et al., 2018[96]). Contrary to other “negative emissions” technologies that are still relatively nascent, afforestation, reforestation and soil carbon sequestration can be implemented as readily available mitigation options (Fuss et al., 2018[97]).
These solutions are referred to under a broad umbrella term of “Nature-based Solutions (NbS)”, recently defined by the UNEA-5 resolution 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[98]). NbS already feature explicitly in 41% of the Nationally Determined Contributions submitted as of the end of 2021 (Nature-based Solutions Initiative, 2022[99]).
There are a variety of NbS that have been widely adopted. Planting trees can enhance natural carbon sinks,13 as they remove carbon from the atmosphere and store them during tree growth (Smith et al., 2022[100]). In addition, planted trees can eventually become substitute materials for emissions-intensive concrete. Canada’s Green Construction through Wood program, for instance, encourages the use of wood-based products in infrastructure projects as a low-carbon building material (Government of Canada, 2025[101]). Reforestation generally contributes positively towards restoring biodiversity as it involves reducing pressures from land use and restoring ecosystems to a less disturbed state (Smith et al., 2018[102]). However, there are important context-specific considerations without which ecosystem restoration may result in trade-offs that need to be carefully weighed. In particular, a narrow focus on carbon storage, particularly through the planting of a limited variety of fast-growing and climate-resilient tree species, can undermine native forest cover and threaten species that are dependent on them (Girardin et al., 2021[103]).
Although “reforestation” (planting trees to restore forests in cleared land) and “afforestation” (planting tress in non-forested areas) can both contribute to carbon storage, their impact on biodiversity can differ considerably (Dooley, Harrould-Kolieb and Talberg, 2021[67]). Planting trees in areas that do not support natural forests introduces alien species, although it is possible to reforest areas that had been cleared with endemic species. In particular, the use of exotic monoculture plantations is associated with negative impacts on biodiversity (Di Sacco et al., 2021[104]). Afforestation via monocultures in biomes such as (previously unforested) grassland, savanna and non-forested wetland can therefore run counter to biodiversity goals. Studies also suggest that the use of non-native species can result in trade-offs for water availability (Chausson et al., 2020[105]), which can be particularly problematic in dry regions, as trees can reduce groundwater and river flow (Di Sacco et al., 2021[104]). Relatedly, trade-offs can arise from responses to policies for enhancing carbon sink capacity of forests. An analysis of past policies for incentivising tree planting (e.g. subsidies) suggests that, while tree cover increased as a result of these policies, they reduced overall carbon storage and biodiversity because the expansion of plantations of exotic and commercially valuable trees was favoured at the cost of natural regeneration (Heilmayr, Echeverría and Lambin, 2020[106]). Safeguards and a locally-adapted approach that prioritises regeneration of natural ecosystems are therefore needed for these policies to deliver synergies.
Wetlands are also integral to NbS for climate mitigation. Their conservation and restoration can also provide habitats for a wide range of species. Known for their ecological function as “the kidney of the world” (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2007[107]), wetlands deliver important benefits of water purification. Often referred to as “blue carbon” stocks, 14 there has been a particular emphasis on rooted vegetation in coastal areas (i.e. seagrass meadows, tidal marshes and mangroves) that store carbon in their soils and sediments.15 Together with the protection of other key ecosystems, such as macroalgae and seafloor, coastal wetlands can play a substantial role in climate mitigation while providing habitats for species (see also Section 4.3.3).
Improve capacity and effectiveness of climate adaptation
As demonstrated by the widespread adoption of national adaptation strategies and plans, there is growing awareness that climate mitigation needs to be accompanied by efforts to enhance resilience of people, ecosystems and economies through effective climate adaptation (OECD, 2024[108]). For certain types of adaptation action, the prevailing approach has been to develop and adopt engineered solutions, such as grey infrastructure (with man-made materials). For example, adaptation to extreme weather events has historically placed an emphasis on infrastructure assets and retrofitting, although there is a growing recognition of the importance of integrating other ecological and social considerations to strengthen climate resilience.
Studies identify that some of these engineered solutions may lead to “maladaptation”, defined as climate adaptation that causes an unintended harm, despite their crucial role in protecting lives and livelihoods from the impacts of climate change (Seddon et al., 2020[109]). Environmental impacts of grey infrastructure for climate adaptation have often been overlooked (Enríquez-de-Salamanca et al., 2017[110]). For instance, various shoreline hardening structures (e.g. seawall and submerged breakwater) have been installed to prevent coastal erosion and provide flood protection, but these structures are also found to support lower marine biodiversity (Gittman et al., 2016[111]). Similarly, building dams for the purpose of water storage and the reduction of the impacts of earthquakes or tidal waves can also adversely affect a range of species through habitat fragmentation (Wu et al., 2019[112]).
In this context, carefully implemented NbS can complement engineered solutions, offering synergies between climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation (OECD, 2021[113]). In coastal areas vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise (OECD, 2023[114]), restoration of coastal habitats (e.g. coral reefs and mangroves) can alleviate these impacts (Salem and Mercer, 2012[115]). For instance, one estimate suggests that these ecosystems can reduce wave heights by an average of 35-71%, and provide defense at a cost 2 to 5 times lower compared to grey infrastructure such as breakwater (Narayan et al., 2016[116]). These ecosystems can also help control the erosion of riverbanks, stabilise sediments and protect from landslides (Dudley et al., 2015[117]).
As urban areas are particularly vulnerable to the heat island effect, many jurisdictions are turning to the development of green and blue infrastructure (broadly defined in this context as natural and semi-natural land and water-related spaces) as a means of strengthening their climate adaptation capacity. As features of the urban environment such as the availability of trees and water spaces moderates the microclimate, green and blue infrastructure provide a number of regulating roles (Jay et al., 2021[118]). For instance, blue infrastructure provides evaporative cooling benefits, while green infrastructure regulates temperature through transpiration from leaves, evaporation from soil moisture and shading, thereby reducing daytime air temperature (Ziter et al., 2019[119]).
Urban green space, such as city parks and green roofs, can also provide refuge for biodiversity, as well as mitigate air pollution, particularly by lowering concentrations of particulate matter (PM) (Diener and Mudu, 2021[120]). A modelling study of over 200 cities around the world finds that urban greening can serve as a cost-effective solution for both climate mitigation and air pollution control (McDonald, 2016[121]). There is, however, a modest risk that these benefits may be partially offset, as the impact of planted vegetation on BVOC emissions which can form aerosols, remains uncertain (Sanaei et al., 2023[122]) and may vary by types of tree species used (Gu, Guenther and Faiola, 2021[123]).16 Tree canopy cover can also intercept rainfalls and reduce flooding from stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces in urban areas. However, they may entail some unintended consequences for other environmental objectives unless carefully managed; for instance, urban green space may contribute to litter-derived nutrients (e.g. from leaves and twigs), which can add to nutrient loading of stormwater and eutrophication in receiving water bodies (Taguchi et al., 2020[124]).
Another concern that has garnered policy and public attention in recent years is the increased frequency and severity of wildfires under climate change. While wildfires are a natural component of various ecosystems (and fire-adapted ecosystems recover naturally), an increase in the frequency, size and severity of wildfires has been observed in many countries (OECD, 2023[125]). Ecosystem protection, restoration and adaptive management can therefore constitute part of wildfire prevention (OECD, 2023[125]). For instance, using vegetation thinning (selectively removing parts of vegetation to lower forest density to prevent the spread of fire) can make forests more resilient to wildfires. However, some practices can also lead to trade-offs. For instance, “salvage logging” in the aftermath of wildfire can reduce richness of taxonomic groups or abundance of insects, fungi and bacterial species that rely on dead and decaying wood (Thorn et al., 2018[126]; Campbell and Ager, 2013[127]) and may in turn adversely affect water and soil quality (Leverkus et al., 2020[128]).
Importantly, there is a temporal dimension to synergies and trade-offs of climate policy, which has important implications for policy planning. For instance, health-related synergies of climate policy, such as reduced air pollution, tend to arise in shorter timeframes than climate impacts (Deng et al., 2017[129]; Vandyck et al., 2020[130]). Conversely, NbS such as tree planting that can deliver climate and biodiversity synergies need to be planned for longevity, as they require maintenance and take decades to fully realise their climate objectives (Holl and Brancalion, 2020[131]). For instance, Diochon, Kellman and Beltrami (2009[132]) find that postharvest soil carbon storage capacity is half that of intact forests, even after 30 years of growth. Similarly, biodiversity measured in terms of species richness in reforested areas increases with forest age, and it is estimated that species richness in reforested areas only reaches the level comparable to the adjacent intact forests after over a century (Wang et al., 2022[133]). Investments into NbS, in turn, need to account for the risk of being undermined by climate change to ensure viability and longevity of the solutions.
4.2.4. Summary of synergies and trade-offs: Climate policy objectives
The synergies and trade-offs between key climate policy objectives with those aimed at curbing biodiversity loss and controlling pollution discussed in the preceding sections are summarised in Figure 4.3. The interlinkages with high potential for synergies are indicated in dark green, while lighter green represents synergies with some associated risks. The interlinkages with high risks of trade-offs are presented in dark red, with lighter red indicating trade-offs that can be managed and mitigated in certain contexts. While specific interlinkages remain highly context-dependent, this summary offers insights into broad patterns of synergies and trade-offs to help identify key interactions that need to be considered in developing an integrated policy approach to address climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution together.
This analysis suggests that climate policy objectives to reduce food-related GHG emissions are generally synergistic with biodiversity conservation, particularly when the interventions can alleviate pressures on land use and land use change. Although there is large variation in how environmental processes respond to interventions, policies that promote agricultural practices that improve soil carbon content, for instance, can also yield pollution control synergies by regulating water flow and reducing soil erosion. Incentivising the adoption of locally tailored and appropriate sustainable farming practices can help deliver synergies. Promoting shifts towards sustainably produced food and plant-based diets can also play a complementary role for biodiversity conservation and pollution control.
Similarly, preserving natural ecosystems that play an outsized role in storing carbon, such as forests and wetlands, also helps maintain the quality of habitats for wildlife and improve the natural capacity to filter pollutants. NbS offer important means for climate change mitigation and adaptation, although risks for trade-offs must be carefully managed. For instance, the oft-cited example of afforestation via fast-growing monocultures and the associated risks for trade-offs for biodiversity and water retention, serve as a cautionary reminder to incorporate a consideration of trade-offs. In addition, NbS often require a long period of time before their synergies with biodiversity and pollution control can be realised. In this context, it remains important that efforts to pursue these synergies through NbS complement, rather than distract from, rapid and drastic emissions reductions through other climate mitigation policies (Seddon et al., 2020[109]). In parallel, climate adaptation can help strengthen the viability of NbS over time by protecting natural carbon sinks from heightening climate risks, such as increased frequency and severity of droughts, which compromise the ability of vegetation in ecosystems to capture and store carbon (OECD, 2025[134]).
To the extent it contributes to a shift away from fossil fuels as the primary source of energy, increasing the viability and availability of clean energy is fundamental to addressing climate change. Given the far-reaching lifecycle impacts of fossil fuels from extraction (e.g. habitat destruction) and combustion (e.g. air and water pollution), it also delivers substantial synergies for biodiversity conservation and pollution control. However, the energy transition is illustrative of the complex trade-offs arising from extensive spatial requirements of infrastructure and pollution associated with upstream material requirements and the limited recyclability of renewables technologies. Managing these trade-offs requires more explicit consideration of biodiversity and pollution control objectives throughout the entire lifecycle (see also Chapter 6). These risks of trade-offs also highlight the importance of complementing uptake with strategies for improving energy efficiency and reducing energy demand, thereby alleviating pressures on biodiversity via land- and sea-use.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
4.3.1. Protecting biodiversity
Enhance area-based conservation
Protecting biodiversity, specialised and narrowly distributed species in particular, requires large areas of intact environments (Balmford, 2021[135]). Research also suggests that intact ecosystems also provide greater ecosystem services compared to their managed or restored equivalents. For instance, a recent study on tropical forests finds that primary forests store 35% more carbon than forests that are commercially used (e.g. logging) on average (Mackey et al., 2020[136]). Protecting existing biodiversity and ecosystem intactness can deliver important synergies for climate change mitigation and adaptation by increasing the capacity of carbon sinks and attenuating the impact of extreme weather events. Protecting biodiversity also delivers synergies for tackling pollution, providing natural relief and regulating air, water and soil quality (Pörtner et al., 2021[32]). Protected areas help avoid the degradation of natural carbon sinks and are reported to contribute to significant GHG mitigation (Lee and Ignaciuk, 2025[137]).
Protected areas have been used as a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation policy globally, although their characteristics vary widely (see also Section 6.3, which provides a deep dive on management and expansion of protected areas). They have expanded around the world, and together with other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs),17 currently cover around 17.6% of land and 9.8% of the ocean (Protected Planet, 2025[138]). The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) sets out an ambitious target of expanding the global protection and conservation to at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 30% of marine and coastal areas by 2030.
Protected areas also contribute to climate change mitigation by storing and preventing carbon losses. Where effective, terrestrial protected areas simultaneously contribute to mitigating climate change by preventing deforestation and degradation, thereby preserving carbon stocks (Wolf et al., 2021[139]). A study estimates that forested protected areas store 26% of the all of the aboveground carbon globally, with designated protected areas contributing disproportionately more (on average 28% per unit area) than unprotected areas (Duncanson et al., 2023[140]). In addition, protected areas and OECMs are estimated to store 21% of the belowground biomass, 15% of the soil organic carbon and 7% of the marine sediment carbon (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022[141]). The type of carbon stored in protected areas also matters. Importantly, over half of “irrecoverable carbon”18 (which, if lost, constitutes a permanent debt to the remaining carbon budget) is stored within protected areas and the areas managed by Indigenous Peoples, as well as local communities (Noon et al., 2022[142]).
Marine and coastal protected areas can play an important role in climate mitigation and adaptation, as well as pollution control. Marine protected areas enhance blue carbon ecosystems, such as seagrass meadows, and prevent carbon losses (Marcos et al., 2021[143]). Relatedly, sediments in the seabed in protected areas are found to sequester substantially more carbon compared to trawled areas (Jacquemont et al., 2022[144]). Marine protected areas limit human disturbances within natural ecosystems and also contribute to the recovery of substrate and habitat heterogeneity and regulate biogeochemical flows (e.g. nutrient cycling) (Marcos et al., 2021[143]).
There is a growing recognition of the need to optimise the designation of protected areas across multiple objectives including carbon storage and water quality (Jung et al., 2021[145]). Many biodiversity-rich areas are areas with high carbon storage potential. A recent study suggests that only 12% of areas that are both suitable for proactive biodiversity conservation and carbon storage19 are currently protected, underscoring the remaining potential for optimising the designation of protected areas to deliver climate synergies (Soto-Navarro et al., 2020[146]). Relatedly, assessments of conservation of specific species (e.g. tigers) also suggest that conservation efforts deliver carbon storage benefits, highlighting the alignment between the two objectives (Lamba et al., 2023[147]).
However, such spatial congruence should not be taken for granted. For instance, coral reefs host a wealth of marine species20 and provide relief against extreme weather events, even if they are not net carbon sinks (Arneth et al., 2023[148]). Similarly, prioritising areas for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage may come at the cost of food production and fisheries (Sala et al., 2021[149]). While marine protected areas can enhance fisheries catch and terrestrial protected areas can provide habitats for pollinators (Gutiérrez-Arellano and Mulligan, 2020[150]), expanding the coverage of terrestrial areas in particular leaves less land available for agricultural production (Arneth et al., 2023[148]). These trade-offs underscore the importance of considering the siting and effectiveness of protected areas, as well as complementary policies that alleviate pressures such as those targeted at reducing food loss and waste (Arneth et al., 2023[148]).
While protected areas are important for local biodiversity conservation (Wiens and Bachelet, 2010[151]), realising synergies between climate mitigation and pollution control through biodiversity policy also requires consideration at multiple spatial scales as the impacts of protecting specific areas extend beyond the immediate sites. More synergistic outcomes may be progressively possible at a larger scale of “scape” (Pörtner et al., 2023[1]). Protected areas enhance natural capacity for filtering water-borne pollutants and for providing clean freshwater. They deliver 20% of the global total continental runoff and contribute to freshwater provision for nearly two-thirds of the global population (Harrison et al., 2016[152]). With about 70% of river reaches (by length) estimated to lack protected areas in their upstream catchments (Abell et al., 2016[153]), remediation of water quality is an additional consideration for optimising protected areas for simultaneously tackling biodiversity loss and pollution together.
More broadly, it is also important to mitigate the risk of dichotomisation of protected and unprotected areas. Without adequate consideration of this risk, land or sea-use restrictions in protected areas can have unintended negative spillovers on neighbouring areas, for instance, through direct displacement of activities to unprotected areas for forestry (Murray, McCarl and Lee, 2004[154]) and fishing activities (Sen, 2010[155]). Such displacement can indirectly lead to adverse impacts through the intensification of the land use within unprotected areas (Bastos Lima, Persson and Meyfroidt, 2019[156]).
Control the introduction and spread of invasive alien species
Invasive alien species (IAS) are estimated to play a role in 60% of global animal and plant extinctions (IPBES, 2023[157]). IAS have extensive impacts on the environment, including causing “regime shifts” (i.e. oft-irreversible changes in states of ecosystem structure and functions) (Pyšek et al., 2020[158]). As highlighted in Target 6 of the KMGBF, preventing the introduction and establishment of IAS is critical for protecting biodiversity (CBD, 2023[159]). As IAS can alter belowground carbon pools (e.g. root biomass, soil organic carbon and soil inorganic carbon) and CO2 and CH4 emissions (Raheem et al., 2024[160]) and reduce the resilience of ecosystems, effective IAS control strategies that coalesce around prevention and management can indirectly enhance the contribution of soil ecosystems towards climate mitigation and strengthen resilience against extreme weather events (IPBES, 2023[157]).
However, there can be unintended trade-offs from some of the measures to control IAS. The treatment of ballast water (water pumped into the lower part of ships to stabilise them; identified as one of the key dispersal pathways through which marine species are translocated), now mandatory under the International Convention on the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, provides an illustrative example. Although it restricts dispersal pathways of IAS, retrofitting ships can be associated with a small increase in CO2 emissions from fuel consumption (Ejder et al., 2024[161]). This underscores the need for considering the substitute shipping fuels and fuel efficiency together with the measures to tackle IAS introduction through ballast water. Furthermore, chemical management of established IAS can also have adverse implications as pesticides and herbicides widely deployed for the purpose of eliminating established IAS can also affect non-target species and infiltrate in soil and water, posing risks for pollution (IPBES, 2023[157]).
4.3.2. Managing biodiversity
Support sustainable use of biodiversity (including for biomass production)
Many indispensable anthropogenic activities rely on biodiversity and the ecosystem services it offers. While it is critical to avoid land use change to the extent possible, not all land and sea can be spared entirely from anthropogenic pressures, underscoring the importance of better use of managed land in a way that can also contribute to biodiversity conservation (Kremen and Merenlender, 2018[162]). From subsidies that ensure cross-compliance with multiple environmental objectives to Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES),21 there are a wide range of policy approaches that are adopted to incentivise and reward changes towards more sustainable land and resource use practices.
Agriculture is the prime example. Various dimensions of biodiversity sustain agriculture and underpins “provisioning services” of ecosystems, which sustain lives and livelihoods through providing a range of food, feed, fibre as well as other materials including fuel (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005[163]). Biodiversity also provides “regulating services”, such as pollination and pest control, as well as water regulation and soil erosion control. However, modern farming is characterised by growing limited varieties of plants and animals, which leads to more homogeneous and simplified land (Nicholson and Williams, 2021[164]). Landscape diversification in agriculture can help mitigate biodiversity loss, with research finding that more complex agricultural landscapes host richer biodiversity taxa and functional groups than simplified landscapes (Estrada-Carmona et al., 2022[165]). For instance, landscape diversification through embedding vegetation strips can enhance pollinator biodiversity (Buhk et al., 2018[166]).
Practices for promoting agricultural diversification can foster synergies for pollution control by reducing the need for fertilisers and pesticides. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions for agricultural diversification. These practices can be adopted at various spatial and temporal scales (Figure 4.4). Adopting long-standing practices of agroforestry as part of a landscape mosaic22 have gained renewed attention, and about 40% of the global agricultural land have at least 10% tree cover (Zomer et al., 2016[167]). Although the impact varies considerably by sites, agroforestry practices are associated with lower pesticides, herbicides and other pollutant losses (on average by 49%) and reduced run-off (on average by 58%) and soil erosion, as well as more efficient use of water and nutrients (Zhu et al., 2020[168]). These areas also provide habitats for species, which in turn improves agricultural productivity by retaining nutrients in soil and purifying water (Torralba et al., 2016[169]). Relative to conventional agricultural practice, studies have shown that agroforestry results in reduced impacts on biodiversity (Jose, 2009[170]), as well as increased carbon storage in above and belowground biomass (OECD, 2020[171]).
Agricultural diversification can also be achieved at the level of individual fields through biodiversity-friendly practices, such as intercropping and crop rotation, which can also enhance nutrient uptake (Cappelli et al., 2022[172]). Furthermore, these practices can improve other ecosystem functions (e.g. pollination, weed control), as pests spread more slowly on spatially and temporally diverse crop systems, thereby reducing the need for pesticides, irrigation and fertilisers (Letourneau et al., 2011[173]). In turn, reduction and efficient use of pesticides and fertilisers can further help prevent air, soil and water pollution (Smith et al., 2020[73]). These contribute to improved soil health, nutrient cycling, water replenishment and erosion control, which are fundamental to agricultural productivity (Khangura et al., 2023[174]).
Diversified agriculture can also contribute towards climate mitigation and adaptation. Practices that enhance plant biodiversity can also support the mitigation potential of soil, as they contribute to soil microbial diversity (Cappelli et al., 2022[172]) which is suggested play a role in carbon cycling due to its importance for soil carbon respiration and plant tissue decomposition (De Graaff et al., 2015[175]). Greater biodiversity can also reduce the risks of plant pathogens – which are heightened with climate change (Singh et al., 2023[176]) – through dilution effects, thereby supporting adaptation of agriculture to climate change (Keesing, Holt and Ostfeld, 2006[177]). Local and community-level efforts for protecting genetic diversity through conservation measures can indirectly support climate adaptation. For example, seed banks and botanical gardens23 can help maintain and develop resilient varieties of crops to ensure food security (Dempewolf et al., 2014[178]).
Source: Adopted from Cappelli et al. (2022[172]).
Despite these synergies and the potential for supporting long-term growth in agricultural productivity, these practices can also entail complex trade-offs for yields, which may occur at various temporal and spatial scales. For instance, at the farm-level, shade provided through agroforestry can simultaneously enhance resilience against extreme heat and increase the risk of reduced crop yields (OECD, 2020[171]). While some practices are relatively low-cost and scalable (e.g. crop rotations) (OECD/FAO, 2025[80]), it is also important to note that the impacts of agricultural diversification are highly context-dependent and can also result in increased burden for farmers, which may lead to lower income or yields for smallholders (Bravo-Peña and Yoder, 2024[179]). There is a need for ensuring that efforts for facilitating sustainable agricultural practices do not undermine the purported benefits for biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation by causing further conversion of agricultural land elsewhere (Balmford et al., 2025[180]).
Ensuring the sustainable use of biodiversity extends beyond agricultural production on land. For instance, removing incentives that can be harmful to biodiversity (for instance, for overfishing and improving fishery practices (e.g. minimising bycatch) is critical for the sustainable use of biodiversity, including fish stock, with potential synergies for climate change mitigation. Maintaining healthy fish stocks and marine ecosystems by limiting disruptions to their habitats can help maintain the ocean’s capacity for carbon absorption and storage (Sumaila and Tai, 2020[181]). Protecting marine ecosystems from pressures from industrial trawling and dredging fishery can also help prevent release of organic carbon sequestered in marine seabed sediments (Epstein et al., 2022[182]). Furthermore, improving fisheries management constitutes a cost-effective means to reduce GHG emissions associated with fisheries itself (OECD, 2022[183]).
Reducing the impact of aquaculture is also important as fish farms interact with local ecosystems, resulting in risks for competition and genetic contamination of wild fish stocks (Asche et al., 2022[184]). Aquaculture is associated with significant GHG emissions and water consumption, particularly in developing countries (Jiang et al., 2022[185]). Improving aquacultural practice and integrating NbS, such as the use of algae, is suggested to simultaneously reduce negative impacts on biodiversity and address water and soil degradation from effluents and medications such as antibiotics (Vijayaram et al., 2024[186]).
Reduce food loss and waste
Globally, around one-third of all food produced is lost or wasted every year (FAO, 2023[187]).24 In addition to raising concerns over sustainably meeting nutritional needs of the growing population (Alexander et al., 2017[188]), unconsumed food constitutes one quarter of global water, cropland and fertiliser use (Kummu et al., 2012[189]). Along with dietary change, promoting conscious food consumption to reduce food loss and waste has important synergies for climate mitigation, from avoided agricultural emissions as well as CH4 emissions from landfilled food waste (Poore and Nemecek, 2018[84]; Hoy et al., 2023[190]). A recent estimate suggests that halving food loss and waste can lead to a 4% reduction in agricultural GHG emissions by 2030 (OECD/FAO, 2024[191]).
Reducing food waste can also improve air, water and soil quality, primarily through indirectly reducing nitrogen applications in agriculture. Associated reduction in ammonia emissions is suggested to have substantial impact through reducing air pollution (ammonia reacts with acid forms of SO2 and NOx and form PM2.5) as well as reducing nitrogen deposition that can negatively affect biodiversity.25 For instance, an estimate suggests that eliminating food waste can reduce ammonia emissions by 16%, lower PM2.5 concentrations by up to 5 µg/m-3, and mitigate nitrogen deposition above the damage threshold26 in biodiversity hotspots27 by (up to) 19% (Guo et al., 2023[192]). Furthermore, cutting CH4 emissions results in lower ground-level ozone.
Certain materials, such as plastics, play a vital role in reducing food waste through preventing food contamination, reducing post-harvest losses and enabling shelf-life extension (Khangura et al., 2023[174]), although these positive contributions need to be carefully balanced against the potential health and environmental risks of alternative material choices.
Furthermore, attention is warranted to behavioural responses, as policies that target food loss and waste reduction may result in rebound effects. For instance, lower prices from efficiency improvements may lead to increase consumption (Hegwood et al., 2023[193]). Furthermore, notwithstanding the important synergies for climate mitigation and reduced pressures on land, stringent targets for reducing food waste can also suppress food demand and therefore reduce agricultural income, underscoring the importance of policy consideration, including through measures to alleviate these concerns to improve the viability and acceptability of environmental measures, to ensure the balance between environmental and economic objectives (Nenert et al., 2025[194]).
4.3.3. Restoring biodiversity
Restore lost and degraded natural habitats
With 75% of land surface already significantly altered and 66% of the ocean area experiencing cumulative impacts through human activities (IPBES, 2019[195]), many of the natural habitats sustaining rich biodiversity have been lost, degraded or abandoned. As highlighted in Target 2 of the KMGBF, restoration of degraded terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine ecosystems are a key lever for stemming the tide of biodiversity loss, which can also deliver important synergies for climate change mitigation and pollution control. In particular, as discussed in Section 4.2.3, well-designed NbS can help deliver on climate and biodiversity objectives simultaneously. While research investigating the contribution of biodiversity towards carbon storage has typically focused on taxonomic diversity to date, there is a growing body of evidence on how functional traits and composition of species contribute towards achieving climate objectives (Rahman et al., 2021[196]).28
In parallel with protected areas, prioritising restoration in areas that are important both for biodiversity and carbon storage can maximise synergies. A recent analysis identifying areas of value for both biodiversity conservation and climate mitigation suggests that an integrated approach can triple the number of species spared from extinction while doubling the capacity for carbon sequestration (Strassburg et al., 2019[197]). However, achieving restoration that benefits both biodiversity and climate change is not always straightforward (Pettorelli et al., 2021[198]). Biodiversity and climate priorities in restoration do not always overlap spatially, particularly in regions that are rich in endemic species with limited ranges because a neighbouring area with higher carbon storage capacity can contain very different species assemblages (Reside, VanDerWal and Moran, 2017[199]). The climate mitigation impact of forestation also varies by biomes and embedding biodiversity consideration, such as the reliance of rare species on non-forested drylands, may further limit the areas that are suitable for forestation (Rohatyn et al., 2022[200]).
There are also some cases in which prioritising biodiversity conservation may diminish climate mitigation synergies. At the global level, wetlands are of the highest relative importance to biodiversity together with forests (Strassburg et al., 2020[201]). However, restoring certain types of wetlands can result in substantial CH4 and N2O emissions, because the same sedimentary conditions that slow aerobic microbial decomposition and enable carbon storage may also lead to the production and emission of these GHGs (Rosentreter et al., 2021[202]). While restoring degraded inland wetlands is positive for climate mitigation overall, its benefits are expected to materialise at a relatively slow pace,29 over decadal to century-long time-scales, highlighting the desirability of conservation over restoration (Pörtner et al., 2021[32]; Taillardat et al., 2020[203]).
Create biodiversity
“Creating” biodiversity as part of NbS offers additional ways to stem the tide of biodiversity loss, while buffering against the impact of climate change and pollution. Re-introducing species can enhance climate adaptation capacity and coastal protection, with a wide array of examples ranging from the direct use of oyster or seagrass beds for attenuating flooding impact to incorporating them in man-made systems (e.g. dikes) (Borsje et al., 2011[204]). This approach is also an important consideration for adapting the biodiversity conservation strategy to the changing environment (Box 4.1).
While the evidence is relatively limited, it has also been suggested that trophic rewilding, reintroducing certain species for enabling top-down trophic interactions and their cascades, can also contribute towards climate change mitigation (Perino et al., 2019[205]). There is emerging research suggesting that rewilding can complement conventional plant-focused carbon sink strategies, given the impacts of animals on vegetation biomass through roaming across landscapes (Schmitz et al., 2018[206]). The population decline in megafauna (large animals) that play a critical role as “ecosystem engineers” has cascading impacts across species. For instance, as frugivores (e.g. elephants) become less abundant, seed dispersal of fruited and high-biomass trees becomes more limited, leading to their replacement by shorter trees with lower biomass and lower capacity for carbon storage (Watson et al., 2018[96]). Selectively re-introducing these frugivores and restoring their habitats can therefore offer climate synergies (Cromsigt et al., 2018[207]; Berzaghi et al., 2019[208]). Similarly, megafauna help maintain soil carbon storage in grassy biomes such as grasslands and savannahs; an important consideration for the regions in which afforestation is infeasible or unsuitable due to potential impacts on native species (Rohatyn et al., 2021[209]).
There is increasing recognition that biodiversity conservation practices themselves needs to adapt to the changing climate (see also Chapter 6). A wide array of climate change adaptation measures of nature conservation has been developed and can be categorised using the matrix typology proposed by (Prober et al., 2019[210]) (see Figure 4.5). The vertical axis represents the ecological mechanisms, ranging from measures that evade or ameliorate changing environments to measures that build adaptative capacity to promote nature’s inherent resilience. The horizontal axis represents the level of interventions, ranging from “low-regrets” measures which are likely to be beneficial regardless of the rate or extent of climate change to “climate-targeted” measures which may entail higher risks of unexpected negative spillovers, i.e. impact of assisted migration of exotic species on endemic species. The most interventionist approaches are genetic engineering and engineering environments (such as engineering topography to create moisture concentrations). The least interventionist approach is the restoration and preservation of the wildness of an ecosystem without any human intervention. The typology helps consider trade-offs between implementing climate-targeted approaches that are more interventionist and maintaining (or recreating) natural and wild areas. A meta-analysis of 473 reviewed studies covering worldwide nature conservation options for terrestrial areas shows that most current efforts consisted in “low-regrets” approaches that aimed to build adaptative capacities (i.e. lower left quadrant).
Source: Adapted from Prober et al. (2019[210]).
4.3.4. Summary of synergies and trade-offs: Biodiversity objectives
The synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity policy objectives with those aimed at addressing climate change and managing pollution discussed in the previous sections are summarised in Figure 4.6. Notably, there are significant complementarities between the objectives to protect, sustainably use, manage and restore biodiversity and GHG emissions reduction and pollution control, underscoring the importance of biodiversity and the indispensable ecosystems services it underpins.
Biodiversity conservation through protected areas can create synergies by improving carbon storage, offering climate adaptation solutions and providing natural relief against pollution. Many biodiversity-rich areas also have high carbon storage potential, although such spatial congruence is not universal, and optimisation is required to balance competing demands on land- and sea-use. It is also important to consider the goal of biodiversity conservation at multiple spatial scales, as dichotomisation of protected versus unprotected areas can lead to intensification of activities at the margin, which can in turn diminish the synergies or even increase overall GHG emissions and amplify the risks of pollution.
As not all land and seas can be spared from anthropogenic pressures, particular attention is warranted to ensure that the use of biodiversity is sustainable, such as through improved practices in agriculture, fishery and aquaculture that are attuned to the local context and balance environmental, social and economic objectives. In parallel, reducing food loss and waste can not only contribute to biodiversity objectives, but also helps avoid GHG emissions from production and landfilled food and packaging waste, as well as nitrogen applications in agriculture. While restoring lost biodiversity have the potential to foster synergies for climate and pollution objectives, strengthening these synergies requires the consideration of the interactions between various dimensions of biodiversity (e.g. functional traits of species and community composition) and environmental processes.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
4.4.1. Preventing pollution at source
Limit emissions from polluting activities
Quantitative constraints and emission standards are commonly deployed around the world to control air, water and soil pollution at source. Insofar as major pollutants originate from the same sources as GHG emissions, and given that pollution is one of the primary drivers of biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2019[195]), preventing pollution at source has the potential to bring considerable synergies for climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation.
Emission standards and air quality standards facilitate the shift in production and consumption to address stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. These regulatory approaches are also often complemented by market-based measures such as tradeable permits and taxes (Lanzi et al, 2022[211]). Limiting air pollution across sectors can also contribute towards reducing co-emitted GHG emissions (e.g. (Fouré, Forthcoming[212])) and short-lived climate pollutants, such as black carbon (see also Chapter 6.4, which provides a deep dive into policies for air pollution control). For the industrial sector, uptake of clean technologies and reduction in energy intensity can reduce both air pollution and GHG emissions, although some solutions such as end-of-pipe technologies may only address air pollutants (Qian et al., 2021[213]). For road transport, emission standards and complementary measures, such as low emission zones,30 can help reduce emissions of particulate matter and NOx from diffuse mobile sources (i.e. vehicles) while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions (Xu and Qin, 2023[214]).
Air quality improvements can also contribute towards biodiversity conservation. In particular, lowering ground-level concentrations of ozone can alleviate pressures on terrestrial ecosystems, as ground-level ozone is associated with adverse impacts on plants and their subsequent interactions with insects and microbial species (Agathokleous et al., 2020[215]). While less documented, it is suggested that effective regulations of ozone precursors have also averted the decline in bird species populations (Liang et al., 2020[216]). In addition, there are some less direct synergies associated with air pollution mitigation. For instance, deposition of air pollutants and dust on the surfaces of solar PVs can lower their performance (e.g. PM reduces visibility and reduces available solar radiation reaching the PV surfaces) and compromise solar energy conversion into electricity (e.g. black carbon absorbs heat) (Yassaa, 2016[217]; Song, Liu and Yang, 2021[218]).31 Reducing air pollution can therefore contribute towards increased clean energy supply by improving the efficiency of solar energy conversion.
However, addressing air pollution can also give rise to a complex trade-off, due to the “lost” cooling impact of scattering aerosols (e.g. pollutants such as SO2 form sulfate aerosols), implying that climate policy needs to be amplified to meet the temperature target (Im et al., 2022[219]). Between 1850-1900 and 2010-2019, it is estimated that aerosols of various sizes have contributed to lowering the temperature by 0.0°C to 0.8°C compared to what it would otherwise have been (IPCC, 2021[220]), although there remains considerable uncertainty over the direct and indirect impacts of aerosols on climate (Li et al., 2022[221]).
Compared to air pollution, improving ground and surface water quality has been challenging, partly due to their diffuse and intractable sources and the sheer range of pollutants that end up in aqueous media (OECD, 2017[57]). Globally, it is estimated with variation that up to 80% of wastewater enters the natural environment without effective treatment (Jones et al., 2021[222]; UNESCO, 2017[223]). Effective monitoring and regulation of contaminants of emerging environmental and health concerns, such as endocrine disruptors, should address the lifecycle of chemicals and proactively identify the risk of endpoints (OECD, 2023[224]). These measures can also help reduce adverse impacts on aquatic biodiversity.
Limiting nutrients applied as fertilisers can confer biodiversity conservation synergies. Across environmental media, managing nitrogen pollution from agriculture can help address biodiversity loss, given the cascading impact of nitrogen that leads to lower air quality, soil acidification and eutrophic water bodies (OECD, 2018[225]). Policies that enhance nutrient use efficiency and reduce applications by improving the precision of application in terms of location and timing can address N2O emissions and contribute to mitigating GHG emissions from agriculture without significant changes in yield (Adegbeye et al., 2020[226]; Pan et al., 2022[227]) (see also Section 6.5 in Chapter 6, which provides a deep dive on nutrient management). Excess phosphorous in freshwaters also leads to eutrophication, which in turn lead to higher CH4 emissions and contributes to climate change (Nijman et al., 2022[228]).
Restrict the use of harmful substances
The importance of sound management of chemicals and waste is increasingly recognised, as exemplified by the recently adopted Global Framework on Chemicals (ICCM5, 2023[229]). Substances known to be hazardous above a certain threshold can be restricted in terms of the use in products and production processes, which can in turn induce development and deployment of alternatives. Newly developed alternatives have the potential to contribute to climate mitigation objectives, particularly if they replace feedstock and emissions-intensive production processes. For instance, a synthesis of LCA studies for bio-based products suggests that, for the chemical industry as a whole, replacing primary petrochemicals with bio-alternatives may offer the dual benefit of reducing pollution and addressing climate change. GHG emissions are on average 45% lower compared to fossil-based counterparts, although variability and exceptions do exist (Zuiderveen et al., 2023[230]).
However, unanticipated responses to policies may diminish potential synergies or even result in burden shifting. For example, alternatives developed in response to policies may result in “regrettable substitution” (i.e. the use of chemicals that are no less harmful than the ones they are replace) (Zimmerman and Anastas, 2015[231]). Policy efforts to address atmospheric ozone depletion, following the phaseout under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer are particularly illustrative of the complexity of managing burden shifting risks. While the substitutes to ozone-depleting substances (ODS) provided better protection of the ozone layer and therefore protected species from harmful UV radiation, many of the initial replacements (e.g. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)) of ODS had high global warming potential (GWP), contributing to climate change (UNEP, 2023[232]). Subsequently, HFCs are now being phased down under the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal protocol. The next generation of refrigerants and coolants have lower GWP, but many of them break down to trifluoracetic acid (TFA) – a persistent substance – although TFA is currently judged not to pose a risk to human health or to the environment under the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, 2023[232]).
While limiting the use of pesticides can help conserve biodiversity, there are also similar concerns that bans on certain pesticides can incentivise producers to turn to new chemicals, which could ultimately prove more toxic to non-target species or harm a different group of species (Feckler et al., 2023[233]; Möhring et al., 2020[234]). Without careful consideration, reduced pesticide usage may also result in higher tillage intensity to maintain the crop yields, resulting in overall less ecotoxicological, but more energy-intensive crop production (Böcker, Möhring and Finger, 2019[235]).
Similarly, producers and consumers may turn to bio-based materials as substitutes, resulting in increased demand for land and biomass and subsequent trade-offs for nutrient pollution and risks for eutrophication (Zuiderveen et al., 2023[230]). Concerns over the land-use impacts of the increased uptake of bio-based plastics, for instance, illustrate the importance of considering the wider environmental implications (OECD, 2022[236]). While bio-based materials tend to be considered “green” by definition, relatively little is understood about their behaviours in the environment, their thermal stability under climate change, and their recyclability (Green et al., 2023[237]). Without adequate consideration of lifecycle impacts, these materials can result in burden shifting between different end points, such as health risks and environmental challenges, solving one challenge while unintendedly creating another.
Reducing the risk of regrettable substitution requires a better understanding of hazard and exposure, but also the consideration of the functionality they serve (Maertens, Golden and Hartung, 2021[238]). Disparate approaches, lack of data and expertise, as well as the ambiguity around what constitutes “safer”, can make it difficult to select safer chemicals alternatives. In this context, the OECD Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives discusses the minimum assessment criteria and recommended assessment practices for advancing a consistent understanding of the minimum requirements (OECD, 2021[239]).
4.4.2. Reducing leakage of pollutants into the environment
Minimise waste generation
The environmental toll of extraction, processing and use of materials underscores the need for recovery of materials and waste minimisation to alleviate pollution (UNEP, 2024[240]). From material sourcing, design and production to consumption and end-of-life, there is a suite of policies across the lifecycle of materials and products to improve resource efficiency and productivity (Svatikova, Brown and Börkey, 2025[241]; OECD, 2022[242]). Promoting reuse of products (e.g. through repair), components (e.g. remanufacturing), and materials (e.g. via recycling) can lower the pressures from primary production and help minimise waste.32
Secondary materials tend to be considerably less polluting on a number of environmental parameters, although it is important to note that there are some caveats (e.g. hazardous chemicals in plastics can become concentrated in recycled plastics (Singh and Walker, 2024[243]). For instance, the per kg environmental impacts of secondary copper (e.g. acidification, eutrophication, freshwater toxicity) are lower by a factor of 4 to 60 than primary copper (OECD, 2019[244]). Diverting waste from landfills can limit associated air pollution from suspension and water and soil pollution from contaminated leachates from heavy metals and VOCs (Vaverková, 2019[245]). As decomposition of landfilled waste is a significant source of potent and short-lived GHG (CH4) emissions, minimising waste can also contribute towards climate goals (Hoy et al., 2023[190]).
A key aspect of minimising waste is to recover value from materials and products for secondary and alternative use, which can deliver multiple synergies. In the agricultural sector, processing manure and crop residues and repurposing them as fertilisers can provide an alternative to chemical-based fertilisers, although due attention is warranted to avoid inadvertently exposing soil to toxic substances (e.g. heavy metals and antibiotics from manure from industrial livestock) (Köninger et al., 2021[246]). A recent analysis suggests that the amount of nitrogen available in animal manure could meet a large share of crop nutrient requirements in countries where manure is diverted for non-agricultural uses such as energy for household cooking (Jones and Deuss, 2024[247]). The use of recycled agricultural waste can directly reduce N2O and CH4 emissions from waste decomposition, as well as indirectly through reducing energy-intensive fertiliser production (Sharma et al., 2019[248]). The impact can be considerable, since production and use of nitrogen in agriculture is estimated to be responsible for over 2% of global emissions (Menegat, Ledo and Tirado, 2022[249]).
While facilitating secondary and alternative use is important, it is also worth noting that recycling itself can still be a polluting or energy-intensive process in some cases. For recycling to become more viable, there is a need to accelerate the transition to a cleaner energy system and incentivise more sustainable product design through the consideration of the full lifecycle of products. For instance, recycling critical raw materials from renewable technologies still remains highly specialised and complex, and as a result can be energy-intensive and associated with complex waste streams (IEA, 2024[250]).
A number of life cycle assessments of recycling e-waste also suggest that transport and energy consumption can offset some of the reduced emissions from lower primary production and result in ecotoxic impact through degraded air, water and soil quality (Lee, Choi and Kim, 2024[251]). Meanwhile, most e-waste is recycled informally, exposing workers to heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants while causing contamination of aquatic and terrestrial environment (Parvez et al., 2021[252]). Recycling of plastics offers another example demonstrating the need to consider the wider environmental and health impacts of recycling policies beyond waste prevention, with some evidence finding that recycled plastics may contain environmentally harmful contaminants (Carmona et al., 2023[253]; Singh and Walker, 2024[243]). Relatively novel technologies, such as chemical recycling of plastics, can also be highly energy-intensive, and their by-products may result in soil acidification and air pollution (OECD, 2022[236]). These risks also underscore the growing importance of integrating “safe-and-sustainable-by-design” within approaches to developing chemicals, which aims to identify and minimise the risks for human health and environment early on, considering various environmental aspects from a lifecycle perspective (OECD, 2025[254]).
There is also a need to consider the unintended consequences of policies to minimise waste that may partially offset the purported synergies for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. Some of these unintended consequences stem from direct cost-avoiding behaviours. For instance, levies such as landfill tax can provide incentives for illegal dumping, also referred to as fly-tipping (Purdy et al, 2022[255]). Others can be more indirect and arise from misalignment in availability and prices of less polluting secondary products and resultant “rebound effects”.33 For instance, for secondary materials and products to contribute to lower environmental pressures, they must displace primary production and new sales (Cooper and Gutowski, 2017[256]; Zink and Geyer, 2017[257]). Available evidence suggests that the increase uptake of secondary products does not always translate into a proportionate decrease in the primary production and sale of new products (Zink and Geyer, 2017[257]).
When options for reduction, recycling and recovery are exhausted, otherwise energy-intensive and polluting waste disposal methods can be less environmentally harmful through deploying “waste-to-energy” technologies of varying sophistication and infrastructure needs (Makarichi, Jutidamrongphan and Techato, 2018[258]). For instance, incineration can be accompanied with heat recovery, while biogas can be produced from anaerobic digestion of sewage sludge (Abanades et al., 2022[259]; Khan et al., 2022[260]).
Enhance natural capacity to filter pollutants
Some policy approaches and solutions to reduce leakage of pollutants rely on healthy ecosystems and their ecological functions. In particular, constructed wetlands have rapidly expanded globally as a mechanism to help remove pollutants, including diffuse pollution from heterogeneous sources, such as excess nutrients from agriculture and chemical residues from wastewater (Feckler et al., 2023[233]). They have been deployed in over 50 countries, as low-cost and less energy-intensive complements to wastewater treatment plants (Wu et al., 2023[261]).
Constructed wetlands offer several important synergies for climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation. For instance, they can provide an effective means for management and treatment of urban stormwater runoff, speed and volume of which has increased due to impervious surfaces in urban areas as well as altered precipitation patterns (Hale et al., 2019[262]; Bettez and Groffman, 2012[263]). As natural wetlands that harbour rich assemblages of biodiversity are disappearing at an accelerated speed, constructed wetlands can potentially offer refuges for wildlife including for migrating and nesting birds. In turn, rich biodiversity can support their water purification capacity (Zhang et al., 2020[264]).
However, there is mixed evidence on the overall impact of constructed wetlands on biodiversity, highlighting the importance of considering the multifaceted nature of biodiversity beyond the conventional focus on taxonomic diversity and species abundance. While species abundance may be high, there is some evidence that constructed wetlands could be used as an incidental and sub-optimal habitat and can create an “ecological trap” for wildlife, leading to their poorer fitness quality measured by growth, survival and reproduction (Hale et al., 2019[262]). Moreover, there may be modest trade-offs between pollution control and biodiversity conservation objectives in practice. For instance, desirable features of constructed wetlands for biodiversity conservation, such as shallow depth and large surface are that provide habitats for terrestrial and aquatic species (Hansson et al., 2005[265]) may reduce their efficiency in removing pollutants. Conversely, prioritising the objective of wastewater treatment and runoff prevention can result in simplified species composition and the use of alien species, thereby increasing the risk of invasion (Zhang et al., 2020[264]).
Moreover, there is a risk of unforeseen pollution swapping that can result in reduced synergies (Kanter et al., 2020[266]). Incomplete denitrification (soil microbes converting nitrate into nitrogen under low oxygen level) in constructed wetlands and riparian buffer zones34 can result in N2O emissions and create waterlogged soils that increase emissions of potent GHG, such as CH4 (Stevens and Quinton, 2009[267]). These potential trade-offs suggest that multiple objectives of constructed wetlands must be integrated from the initial design phase (Sharley et al., 2017[268]).
4.4.3. Remediating pollution
Restore quality of polluted land and water bodies
Restoring the quality of the environment from the consequences of pollution is important for human and planetary health. There is a heightened need for remediation in light of the competing needs for land. For instance, limiting additional land take implies that brownfield sites around the world, estimated to number around 5 million, need to be remediated and redeveloped for their alternative use, including residential space (Hou et al., 2023[269]).35 However, although cleaning up polluted sites generally delivers environmental benefits, conventional approaches may run counter to climate and biodiversity objectives. For instance, thermal desorption of contaminated soil is highly energy-intensive, and chemical treatment of contaminants in soil and groundwater can create toxic by-products that can adversely affect terrestrial biodiversity (Hou et al., 2023[269]). Similarly, remediating contaminated and eutrophic water bodies requires careful considerations of its broader environmental impact. Physical techniques, such as dredging, involve the removal of the bottom sediments of water bodies, potentially causing disruptions to aquatic ecosystems (Pereira and Mulligan, 2023[270]; Akinnawo, 2023[271]).
In light of these risks, various methods of “bioremediation” of polluted soil and water offer an increasingly viable alternative to physical and chemical treatments, including phytoremediation, which uses plants and their capacity to absorb and degrade pollutants for the clean-up of contaminated sites (Hou et al., 2023[269]). Biosorption using agricultural and food waste and bioaccumulation by microbes can help remove heavy metals from water and soil (Pande et al., 2022[272]; Zhang et al., 2023[273]). While some of these bioremediation techniques can be time-consuming as plants need sufficient time to grow before they can effectively remove contaminants (Wang et al., 2024[274]), there are emerging practices that seek to meet multiple environmental goals simultaneously. For instance, growing crops for biofuels on these lands can avoid creating competition for land with food production while meeting the remediation objectives (Espada et al., 2022[275]).
4.4.4. Summary of synergies and trade-offs: Pollution policy objectives
The synergies and trade-offs between pollution policy objectives with those aimed at addressing climate change and biodiversity loss discussed in the previous sections are summarised in Figure 4.7. Policy approaches that seek to address pollution at source bring important synergies for climate change through reducing co-emitted GHGs. However, the loss of the “cooling” effects of air pollution implies the need for more ambitious climate action. It is also important to consider the risks of trade-offs that may arise over time in response to policies. For instance, despite the positive environmental outcomes of restricting and limiting certain pollutants over the years, bans on harmful substances may lead to the development and the uptake of alternatives which can carry uncertainties on a range of factors, including their safety and environmental fate. Concerns have been raised for a range of chemicals, including pesticides and alternatives to ODS.
Promoting the reuse of products, components and materials, as well as diverting waste from landfills, can also contribute towards emissions reduction. Minimising waste holds important relevance for pursuing synergies with climate and biodiversity objectives, as it obviates the need for primary production and typically results in lower environmental pressures. Nonetheless, it is also important to consider the environmental impacts of these approaches; for instance, recycling of some CRMs still remains an energy-intensive and complex process.
As discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, there are inherent interlinkages among the quality of natural carbon sinks, habitats for wildlife and capacity to filter pollutants, although replicating natural ecosystems for the purpose of managing pollution may entail trade-offs in terms of their design. Finally, meeting the heightened need for remediating contaminated land and water bodies requires the careful consideration of its broader environmental impacts, as some techniques can be highly energy-intensive and result in toxic by-products.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.
Climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution are mutually driven and share common causes. It may therefore seem intuitive that addressing one issue would automatically contribute towards resolving others. However, this analysis suggests that policy approaches that seek to tackle each issue in an isolated manner can often be at odds with the interlinkages of the planetary processes underpinning these challenges. Trade-offs between policy objectives can diminish, though they may not entirely negate, the benefits of policies implemented to address an issue. Conversely, identifying and accounting for synergies appropriately can alter the calculus of policy costs and benefits, potentially increasing the viability of ambitious action that may have otherwise been considered cost ineffective.
Many existing policies have the potential to deliver synergies, which can be enhanced through enabling policies. An important step is identifying and considering the possibility of synergies and trade-offs that can materialise differently across contexts and measuring them to determine their relative importance to inform decision-making. Given that various dimensions of biodiversity underpin irreplaceable ecosystem services, it is perhaps not surprising that actions to protect, manage and restore biodiversity can bring synergies within local sites. However, trade-offs can arise from spillover impacts, unless appropriate incentives as well as safeguards are in place. For instance, restrictions of land use change may lead to intensified land use for agriculture or increased fertiliser use, posing a risk of increasing GHG emissions and nutrient runoff.
Considerable synergies can be gained from policy actions that address the common drivers of the inter-connected challenge, such as reducing fossil fuel use as primary sources of energy. NbS such as wetlands restoration can be also highly synergistic, as they can simultaneously contribute towards climate mitigation and adaptation and pollutant filtration, while providing habitats for species. While NbS offer important advantages in terms of efficiency of resources, durability and benefits across environmental domains, they operate on a longer time frame. There is also a need for action to avoid short-term impacts of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. The contributions of NbS can also be compromised by extreme weather events. Maintaining and increasing the viability of these solutions therefore require complementary policies that deliver more immediate and visible benefits.
Consideration should also be given to the risks of trade-offs that materialise later (i.e. a temporal scope), or that cause impacts upstream or downstream of the actions targeted by policy (i.e. a spatial or geographical scope) through measurement and assessment. Notably, increases in clean energy supply and uptake of renewables technologies are necessary for addressing biodiversity loss and pollution, yet their deployment is not entirely without environmental cost. These technologies may generate pollution associated with large material requirements upstream (e.g. for the production of wind turbines), as well as biodiversity impacts through habitat fragmentation, degradation and losses. These considerations necessitate assessments of risks of trade-offs at various stages of renewables infrastructure development and deployment, so that the challenge is addressed together with, rather than at the cost of, other dimensions of the triple planetary crisis.
Importantly, synergies and trade-offs are unlikely to remain static over time. For instance, ecotoxic properties of pollutants might be heightened, and protected areas may not provide home to wildlife at higher temperatures. This underscores the need for adaptive and proactive management to ensure effectiveness and adequacy of policy mixes.
References
[259] Abanades, S. et al. (2022), A critical review of biogas production and usage with legislations framework across the globe, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-021-03301-6.
[153] Abell, R. et al. (2016), “Looking Beyond the Fenceline: Assessing Protection Gaps for the World’s Rivers”, Conservation Letters, Vol. 10/4, pp. 384-394, https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12312.
[226] Adegbeye, M. et al. (2020), Sustainable agriculture options for production, greenhouse gasses and pollution alleviation, and nutrient recycling in emerging and transitional nations - An overview, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118319.
[215] Agathokleous, E. et al. (2020), “Ozone affects plant, insect, and soil microbial communities: A threat to terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity”, Science Advances, Vol. 6/33, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc1176.
[271] Akinnawo, S. (2023), Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, physical, chemical and biological techniques for mitigation strategies, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100733.
[188] Alexander, P. et al. (2017), “Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.014.
[23] Aljaghoub, H. et al. (2022), “Solar PV cleaning techniques contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) using Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM): Assessment and review”, International Journal of Thermofluids, Vol. 16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2022.100233.
[76] Almaraz, M. et al. (2021), A review of carbon farming impacts on nitrogen cycling, retention, and loss, https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14690.
[28] Aman, M. et al. (2015), A review of Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) issues of solar energy system, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.086.
[3] Arlidge, W. et al. (2018), A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy029.
[148] Arneth, A. et al. (2023), Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16664.
[19] Asa’a, S. (2024), “A multidisciplinary view on agrivoltaics: Future of energy and agriculture”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 200.
[184] Asche, F. et al. (2022), “Aquaculture: Externalities and Policy Options”, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, https://doi.org/10.1086/721055.
[21] Ashley, M., S. Mangi and L. Rodwell (2014), “The potential of offshore windfarms to act as marine protected areas – A systematic review of current evidence”, Marine Policy, Vol. 45, pp. 301-309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.002.
[69] Bach, L. et al. (2019), “CO2 Removal With Enhanced Weathering and Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement: Potential Risks and Co-benefits for Marine Pelagic Ecosystems”, Frontiers in Climate, Vol. 1/7, p. 476698, https://doi.org/10.3389/FCLIM.2019.00007/XML/NLM.
[135] Balmford, A. (2021), Concentrating vs. spreading our footprint: how to meet humanity’s needs at least cost to nature, https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12920.
[180] Balmford, A. et al. (2025), “Time to fix the biodiversity leak”, Science, Vol. 387/6735, pp. 720-722, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adv8264.
[156] Bastos Lima, M., U. Persson and P. Meyfroidt (2019), “Leakage and boosting effects in environmental governance: A framework for analysis”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 14/10, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4551.
[208] Berzaghi, F. et al. (2019), “Carbon stocks in central African forests enhanced by elephant disturbance”, Nature Geoscience, Vol. 12/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0395-6.
[263] Bettez, N. and P. Groffman (2012), “Denitrification potential in stormwater control structures and natural riparian zones in an urban landscape”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 46/20, https://doi.org/10.1021/es301409z.
[235] Böcker, T., N. Möhring and R. Finger (2019), “Herbicide free agriculture? A bio-economic modelling application to Swiss wheat production”, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.001.
[82] Bonnet, C. and M. Coinon (2024), “Environmental co-benefits of health policies to reduce meat consumption: A narrative review”, Health Policy, Vol. 143, p. 105017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105017.
[204] Borsje, B. et al. (2011), How ecological engineering can serve in coastal protection, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2010.11.027.
[179] Bravo-Peña, F. and L. Yoder (2024), Agrobiodiversity and smallholder resilience: A scoping review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119882.
[166] Buhk, C. et al. (2018), “Flower strip networks offer promising long term effects on pollinator species richness in intensively cultivated agricultural areas”, BMC Ecology, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-018-0210-z.
[49] Calabrese, M. et al. (2024), Hydrogen Safety Challenges: A Comprehensive Review on Production, Storage, Transport, Utilization, and CFD-Based Consequence and Risk Assessment, https://doi.org/10.3390/en17061350.
[127] Campbell, J. and A. Ager (2013), “Forest wildfire, fuel reduction treatments, and landscape carbon stocks: A sensitivity analysis”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.009.
[172] Cappelli, S. et al. (2022), Plant biodiversity promotes sustainable agriculture directly and via belowground effects, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2022.02.003.
[253] Carmona, E. et al. (2023), “A dataset of organic pollutants identified and quantified in recycled polyethylene pellets”, Data in Brief, Vol. 51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109740.
[288] Castro, C. et al. (2022), The rebound effect of circular economy: Definitions, mechanisms and a research agenda, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131136.
[159] CBD (2023), 2030 Targets, https://www.cbd.int/gbf/vision.
[287] Chamberlain, R. et al. (2023), Health effects of low emission and congestion charging zones: a systematic review, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00120-2.
[105] Chausson, A. et al. (2020), “Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 26/11, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15310.
[17] Cogato, A., F. Marinello and A. Pezzuolo (2023), Soil Footprint and Land-Use Change to Clean Energy Production: Implications for Solar and Wind Power Plants, https://doi.org/10.3390/land12101822.
[296] Convention on Biological Diversity (2018), Decision 14/8 Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures.
[256] Cooper, D. and T. Gutowski (2017), “The Environmental Impacts of Reuse: A Review”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12388.
[47] Cordonnier, J. and D. Saygin (2022), “Green hydrogen opportunities for emerging and developing economies: Identifying success factors for market development and building enabling conditions”, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 205, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53ad9f22-en.
[207] Cromsigt, J. et al. (2018), Trophic rewilding as a climate change mitigation strategy?, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0440.
[56] Cuéllar-Franca, R. and A. Azapagic (2015), Carbon capture, storage and utilisation technologies: A critical analysis and comparison of their life cycle environmental impacts, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2014.12.001.
[77] Daryanto, S., L. Wang and P. Jacinthe (2017), “Meta‐Analysis of Phosphorus Loss from No‐Till Soils”, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 46/5, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.03.0121.
[175] 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.
[87] De Sy, V. et al. (2015), “Land use patterns and related carbon losses following deforestation in South America”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10/12, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124004.
[94] Deconinck, K., M. Jansen and C. Barisone (2023), “Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50/4, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbad018.
[178] Dempewolf, H. et al. (2014), Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: A Global Initiative to Collect, Conserve, and Use Crop Wild Relatives, https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.870629.
[129] Deng, H. et al. (2017), “Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation: A review and classification by type, mitigation sector, and geography”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 12/12, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa98d2.
[14] Dhar, A. et al. (2020), Perspectives on environmental impacts and a land reclamation strategy for solar and wind energy systems, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134602.
[104] Di Sacco, A. et al. (2021), “Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 27/7, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498.
[120] Diener, A. and P. Mudu (2021), How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces’ mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public health perspective - with implications for urban planning, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148605.
[132] Diochon, A., L. Kellman and H. Beltrami (2009), “Looking deeper: An investigation of soil carbon losses following harvesting from a managed northeastern red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.) forest chronosequence”, Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 257/2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.015.
[67] Dooley, K., E. Harrould-Kolieb and A. Talberg (2021), “Carbon-dioxide Removal and Biodiversity: A Threat Identification Framework”, Global Policy, Vol. 12/S1, https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12828.
[117] Dudley, N. et al. (2015), Protected Areas as Tools for Disaster Risk Reduction. A handbook for practitioners, International Union for Conservation of Nature, https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2015.02.en.
[140] Duncanson, L. et al. (2023), “The effectiveness of global protected areas for climate change mitigation”, Nature Communications, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38073-9.
[291] Edenhofer, O. et al. (n.d.), “IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering Meeting Report”, http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[44] Eikeng, E. (2024), “Critical and strategic raw materials for electrolysers, fuel cells, metal hydrides and hydrogen separation technologies”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 71.
[161] Ejder, E. et al. (2024), “Sustainability in maritime transport: Selecting ballast water treatment for a bulk carrier”, Marine Environmental Research, p. 106511, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106511.
[110] Enríquez-de-Salamanca, Á. et al. (2017), “Environmental impacts of climate change adaptation”, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 64, pp. 87-96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.005.
[182] Epstein, G. et al. (2022), The impact of mobile demersal fishing on carbon storage in seabed sediments, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16105.
[275] Espada, J. et al. (2022), “Coupling phytoremediation of Pb-contaminated soil and biomass energy production: A comparative Life Cycle Assessment”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 840, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156675.
[165] Estrada-Carmona, N. et al. (2022), “Complex agricultural landscapes host more biodiversity than simple ones: A global meta-analysis”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 119/38, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2203385119.
[62] European Commission (2024), Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming - European Commission, https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming_en#eu-carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming-certification-crcf-regulation (accessed on 9 May 2025).
[7] European Commission (2021), Pathway to a Healthy Planet for All EU Action Plan: ’Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil’.
[289] European Commission (2021), Soil Strategy for 2030.
[55] Fajardy, M. (2025), CCUS projects around the world are reaching new milestones, IEA.
[292] FAO (2024), Delivering on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework through agrifood systems.
[85] FAO (2023), Pathways towards lower emissions, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en.
[187] FAO (2023), The Paradox of Hunger and Food Loss and Waste, https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d6b025b8-2ab7-47f2-b336-87a1de1e67e8/content/agrifood-solutions-to-climate-change-2023/paradox-of-hunger-and-food-loss-waste.html.
[233] Feckler, A. et al. (2023), Reducing pollution to levels not harming biodiversity and ecosystem functions: A perspective on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2023.100495.
[88] Filazzola, A. et al. (2020), The effects of livestock grazing on biodiversity are multi-trophic: a meta-analysis, https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13527.
[212] Fouré, J. (Forthcoming), “The contribution of air quality policies to the carbon neutrality transition in Korea”.
[97] Fuss, S. et al. (2018), “Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13/6, p. 063002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f.
[42] Gaur, A., D. Fitiwi and J. Curtis (2021), Heat pumps and our low-carbon future: A comprehensive review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101764.
[63] Geoengineering Monitor (2021), “Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage (BECCS)”.
[103] Girardin, C. et al. (2021), “Nature-based solutions can help cool the planet - if we act now”, Nature, Vol. 593/7858, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01241-2.
[111] Gittman, R. et al. (2016), Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: A meta-analysis, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw091.
[86] Godfray, H. et al. (2018), Meat consumption, health, and the environment, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324.
[91] Gordon, I. (2018), “Review: Livestock production increasingly influences wildlife across the globe”, Animal, Vol. 12, pp. s372-s382, https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731118001349.
[101] Government of Canada (2025), Green Construction through Wood (GCWood) Program.
[237] Green, C. et al. (2023), “A Horizon Scan to Support Chemical Pollution–Related Policymaking for Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Economies”, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 42/6, https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620.
[192] Guo, Y. et al. (2023), “Global food loss and waste embodies unrecognized harms to air quality and biodiversity hotspots”, Nature Food, Vol. 4/8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00810-0.
[123] Gu, S., A. Guenther and C. Faiola (2021), “Effects of Anthropogenic and Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds on Los Angeles Air Quality”, Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 55/18, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01481.
[150] Gutiérrez-Arellano, C. and M. Mulligan (2020), “Small-sized protected areas contribute more per unit area to tropical crop pollination than large protected areas”, Ecosystem Services, Vol. 44, p. 101137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101137.
[262] Hale, R. et al. (2019), “Balancing biodiversity outcomes and pollution management in urban stormwater treatment wetlands”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.12.064.
[265] Hansson, L. et al. (2005), “Conflicting demands on wetland ecosystem services: Nutrient retention, biodiversity or both?”, Freshwater Biology, Vol. 50/4, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01352.x.
[152] Harrison, I. et al. (2016), “Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security”, Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 26/S1, pp. 103-120, https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2652.
[48] Hassan, Q. et al. (2024), “Green hydrogen: A pathway to a sustainable energy future”, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.08.321.
[90] Hassett et al., K. (2025), Household food choices: New empirical evidence and policy implications for sustainable behaviour, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/97c4041a-en.
[15] He, F. (2024), “Hydropower impacts on riverine biodiversity”, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.
[193] Hegwood, M. et al. (2023), “Rebound effects could offset more than half of avoided food loss and waste”, Nature Food, Vol. 4/7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00792-z.
[106] Heilmayr, R., C. Echeverría and E. Lambin (2020), “Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 3/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0547-0.
[45] Herbert-Read, J. et al. (2022), “A global horizon scan of issues impacting marine and coastal biodiversity conservation”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 6/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01812-0.
[18] Hernandez, R. et al. (2019), Techno–ecological synergies of solar energy for global sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0309-z.
[131] Holl, K. and P. Brancalion (2020), Tree planting is not a simple solution, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba8232.
[269] Hou, D. et al. (2023), Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00404-1.
[190] Hoy, Z. et al. (2023), “Curbing global solid waste emissions toward net-zero warming futures”, Science, Vol. 382/6672, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg3177.
[229] ICCM5 (2023), Global Framework on Chemicals - For a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste.
[250] IEA (2024), Recycling of Critical Minerals, IEA Publishing, Paris.
[9] IEA (2024), Renewables 2024: Analysis and forecasts to 2030, IEA, Paris, https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2024.
[276] IEA (n.d.), Glossary, https://www.iea.org/glossary (accessed on 20 January 2025).
[219] 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.
[157] 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.
[195] IPBES (2019), The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
[59] IPCC (2023), Climate Change 2022 - Mitigation of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.
[220] IPCC (2021), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
[37] IPCC (2019), Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report.
[279] IPCC (2019), Glossary.
[66] IPCC (2018), 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, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.
[68] IPCC (2005), IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
[295] IUCN (2016), A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0., IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
[277] IUCN (2008), Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories.
[144] Jacquemont, J. et al. (2022), Ocean conservation boosts climate change mitigation and adaptation, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.09.002.
[118] Jay, O. et al. (2021), Reducing the health effects of hot weather and heat extremes: from personal cooling strategies to green cities, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01209-5.
[39] Jeswani, H., A. Chilvers and A. Azapagic (2020), Environmental sustainability of biofuels: A review: Environmental sustainability of biofuels, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2020.0351.
[185] Jiang, Q. et al. (2022), “Environmental sustainability and footprints of global aquaculture”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106183.
[247] 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.
[222] Jones, E. et al. (2021), “Country-level and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse”, Earth System Science Data, Vol. 13/2, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-237-2021.
[170] Jose, S. (2009), Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7.
[145] Jung, M. et al. (2021), “Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 5/11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7.
[33] 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.
[266] Kanter, D. et al. (2020), “Gaps and opportunities in nitrogen pollution policies around the world”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 3/11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0577-7.
[177] Keesing, F., R. Holt and R. Ostfeld (2006), Effects of species diversity on disease risk, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00885.x.
[29] Khalid, M. et al. (2023), Recycling of wind turbine blades through modern recycling technologies: A road to zero waste, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2023.02.001.
[260] Khan, A. et al. (2022), Current solid waste management strategies and energy recovery in developing countries - State of art review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133088.
[174] Khangura, R. et al. (2023), Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032338.
[246] Köninger, J. et al. (2021), Manure management and soil biodiversity: Towards more sustainable food systems in the EU, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103251.
[81] Kösler, J. et al. (2019), “Evaluating the ecotoxicity of nitrification inhibitors using terrestrial and aquatic test organisms”, Environmental Sciences Europe, Vol. 31/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-019-0272-3.
[83] Kozicka, M. et al. (2023), “Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives”, Nature Communications, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2.
[162] Kremen, C. and A. Merenlender (2018), Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau6020.
[189] Kummu, M. et al. (2012), “Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092.
[147] Lamba, A. et al. (2023), “Climate co-benefits of tiger conservation”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 7/7, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02069-x.
[79] Lamb, A. et al. (2016), “The potential for land sparing to offset greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 6/5, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2910.
[61] Lamb, W. et al. (2024), “The carbon dioxide removal gap”, Nature Climate Change, Vol. 14/6, pp. 644-651.
[38] Landis, D. et al. (2018), “Biomass and biofuel crop effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the North Central US”, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.02.003.
[211] Lanzi et al (2022), The economic benefits of international co-operation to improve air quality in Northeast Asia, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[251] Lee, J., H. Choi and J. Kim (2024), “Environmental and economic impacts of e-waste recycling: A systematic review”, Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 494, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2024.152917.
[137] Lee, L. and A. Ignaciuk (2025), “Mitigating climate change in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) sectors: A literature review on policy effectiveness”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 221, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/166b6c31-en.
[173] Letourneau, D. et al. (2011), Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review, https://doi.org/10.1890/09-2026.1.
[128] Leverkus, A. et al. (2020), Salvage logging effects on regulating ecosystem services and fuel loads, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2219.
[216] Liang, Y. et al. (2020), “Conservation cobenefits from air pollution regulation: Evidence from birds”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 117/49, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013568117.
[221] Li, J. et al. (2022), Scattering and absorbing aerosols in the climate system, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00296-7.
[41] Li, P. and Z. Zhang (2023), “The effects of new energy vehicle subsidies on air quality: Evidence from China”, Energy Economics, Vol. 120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.106624.
[24] Liqreina, A. and L. Qoaider (2014), “Dry cooling of concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, an economic competitive option for the desert regions of the MENA region”, Solar Energy, Vol. 103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.02.039.
[25] Lu, S. et al. (2020), “A review of the impact of hydropower reservoirs on global climate change”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 711, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134996.
[20] Maar, M. et al. (2023), “Multi-use of offshore wind farms with low-trophic aquaculture can help achieve global sustainability goals”, Communications Earth and Environment, Vol. 4/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01116-6.
[89] Machovina, B., K. Feeley and W. Ripple (2015), Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022.
[136] Mackey, B. et al. (2020), “Understanding the importance of primary tropical forest protection as a mitigation strategy”, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 25/5, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09891-4.
[78] Macrae, M. et al. (2021), “One size does not fit all: Toward regional conservation practice guidance to reduce phosphorus loss risk in the Lake Erie watershed”, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 50/3, pp. 529-546, https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20218.
[238] Maertens, A., E. Golden and T. Hartung (2021), “Avoiding Regrettable Substitutions: Green Toxicology for Sustainable Chemistry”, ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, Vol. 9/23, https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.0c09435.
[281] Mahilang, M., M. Deb and S. Pervez (2021), Biogenic secondary organic aerosols: A review on formation mechanism, analytical challenges and environmental impacts, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.127771.
[258] Makarichi, L., W. Jutidamrongphan and K. Techato (2018), The evolution of waste-to-energy incineration: A review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.088.
[143] Marcos, C. et al. (2021), Reviewing the Ecosystem Services, Societal Goods, and Benefits of Marine Protected Areas, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.613819.
[10] 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.
[5] Maron, M. et al. (2025), “Biodiversity offsets, their effectiveness and their role in a nature positive future”, Nature Reviews Biodiversity, Vol. 1/3, pp. 183-196, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00023-2.
[26] Martínez, M. et al. (2021), A systemic view of potential environmental impacts of ocean energy production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111332.
[121] McDonald, R. (2016), “Planting Healthy Air”.
[34] Meijaard, E. et al. (2020), The environmental impacts of palm oil in context, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00813-w.
[249] Menegat, S., A. Ledo and R. Tirado (2022), “Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w.
[286] Mensah, S. et al. (2016), “Tree species diversity promotes aboveground carbon storage through functional diversity and functional dominance”, Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 6/20, https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2525.
[54] Merabet, N., K. Kerboua and J. Hoinkis (2024), “Hydrogen production from wastewater: A comprehensive review of conventional and solar powered technologies”, Renewable Energy, Vol. 226.
[285] Mestanza-Ramón, C. et al. (2020), In-situ and ex-situ biodiversity conservation in ecuador: A review of policies, actions and challenges, https://doi.org/10.3390/D12080315.
[58] Mikunda, T. et al. (2021), “Carbon capture and storage and the sustainable development goals”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, Vol. 108, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2021.103318.
[163] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.
[12] Millstein, D. et al. (2017), “The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States”, Nature Energy, Vol. 2/9, https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.134.
[290] Milner-Gulland, E. et al. (2021), Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.011.
[278] Minx, J. et al. (2018), Negative emissions - Part 1: Research landscape and synthesis, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9b.
[107] Mitsch, W. and J. Gosselink (2007), Wetlands, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[234] Möhring, N. et al. (2020), Pathways for advancing pesticide policies, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00141-4.
[154] Murray, B., B. McCarl and H. Lee (2004), “Estimating Leakage from Forest Carbon Sequestration Programs”, Land Economics, Vol. 80/1, pp. 109-124, https://doi.org/10.2307/3147147.
[116] Narayan, S. et al. (2016), “The effectiveness, costs and coastal protection benefits of natural and nature-based defences”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 11/5, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154735.
[99] Nature-based Solutions Initiative (2022), Revised climate pledges show enhanced ambition for nature-based solutions.
[92] Neilly, H., J. Vanderwal and L. Schwarzkopf (2016), “Balancing Biodiversity and Food Production: A Better Understanding of Wildlife Response to Grazing Will Inform Off-Reserve Conservation on Rangelands”, Rangeland Ecology and Management, Vol. 69/6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2016.07.007.
[194] Nenert, C. et al. (2025), “The potential effects of reducing food loss and waste: Impacts on the triple challenge and cost-benefits analysis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 222, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd2aedc6-en.
[164] Nicholson, C. and N. Williams (2021), “Cropland heterogeneity drives frequency and intensity of pesticide use”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 16/7, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0a12.
[228] Nijman, T. et al. (2022), “Phosphorus control and dredging decrease methane emissions from shallow lakes”, Science of The Total Environment, Vol. 847, p. 157584, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157584.
[142] Noon, M. et al. (2022), “Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 5/1, pp. 37-46, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6.
[35] Núñez-Regueiro, M., S. Siddiqui and R. Fletcher (2021), Effects of bioenergy on biodiversity arising from land-use change and crop type, https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13452.
[43] OECD (2025), Enhancing Regional Mining Ecosystems in the European Union: Securing the Green Transition and Supply of Mineral Raw Materials, OECD Rural Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/97ba1224-en.
[134] OECD (2025), Global Drought Outlook: Trends, Impacts and Policies to Adapt to a Drier World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d492583a-en.
[72] OECD (2025), Measuring Carbon Footprints of Agri-Food Products: Eight Building Blocks, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8eb75706-en.
[254] OECD (2025), Safe(r) and Sustainable Innovation Approach (SSIA): Nano-Enabled and other Emerging Materials.
[74] OECD (2024), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2024: Innovation for Sustainable Productivity Growth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/74da57ed-en.
[6] OECD (2024), Environment at a Glance Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac4b8b89-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Renewable Power Infrastructure, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/357ac474-en.
[95] OECD (2024), Measuring policy progress on climate change mitigation in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sectors: Documentation of the policy inventory for direct and indirect mitigation policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6b2bd00-en.
[108] OECD (2024), Measuring Progress in Adapting to a Changing Climate: Insights from OECD countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8cfe45af-en.
[71] OECD (2023), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2023: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b14de474-en.
[224] 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.
[114] OECD (2023), OECD Work on Climate Adaptation.
[125] OECD (2023), Taming Wildfires in the Context of Climate Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd00c367-en.
[70] OECD (2022), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2022: Reforming Agricultural Policies for Climate Change Mitigation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7f4542bf-en.
[236] OECD (2022), Global Plastics Outlook: Economic Drivers, Environmental Impacts and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en.
[183] OECD (2022), OECD Review of Fisheries 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9c3ad238-en.
[242] OECD (2022), The OECD RE-CIRCLE project: The economics of the transition to a more resource-efficient, circular economy. Policy Perspectives, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5ed5352b-en.
[239] OECD (2021), Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives, OECD Series on Risk Management of Chemicals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1309425-en.
[8] OECD (2021), Making Better Policies for Food Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ddfba4de-en.
[113] OECD (2021), “Strengthening adaptation-mitigation linkages for a low-carbon, climate-resilient future”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6d79ff6a-en.
[40] OECD (2020), Non-exhaust Particulate Emissions from Road Transport: An Ignored Environmental Policy Challenge, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4a4dc6ca-en.
[171] OECD (2020), Towards Sustainable Land Use: Aligning Biodiversity, Climate and Food Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3809b6a1-en.
[31] OECD (2019), Enhancing Climate Change Mitigation through Agriculture, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9a79226-en.
[244] OECD (2019), Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060: Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307452-en.
[293] OECD (2019), Waste Management and the Circular Economy in Selected OECD Countries: Evidence from Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Environmental Performance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264309395-en.
[225] OECD (2018), Human Acceleration of the Nitrogen Cycle: Managing Risks and Uncertainty, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307438-en.
[57] OECD (2017), OECD Studies on Water Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions, OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264269064-en.
[80] OECD/FAO (2025), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2025-2034, OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, https://doi.org/10.1787/601276cd-en.
[191] OECD/FAO (2024), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2024-2033, OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, https://doi.org/10.1787/4c5d2cfb-en.
[272] Pande, V. et al. (2022), Microbial Interventions in Bioremediation of Heavy Metal Contaminants in Agroecosystem, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.824084.
[227] Pan, S. et al. (2022), Addressing nitrogenous gases from croplands toward low-emission agriculture, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00265-3.
[252] Parvez, S. et al. (2021), Health consequences of exposure to e-waste: an updated systematic review, https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00263-1.
[270] Pereira, A. and C. Mulligan (2023), Practices for Eutrophic Shallow Lake Water Remediation and Restoration: A Critical Literature Review, https://doi.org/10.3390/w15122270.
[205] Perino, A. et al. (2019), Rewilding complex ecosystems, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570.
[198] Pettorelli, N. et al. (2021), “Time to integrate global climate change and biodiversity science-policy agendas”, Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 58/11, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13985.
[84] Poore, J. and T. Nemecek (2018), “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers”, Science, Vol. 360/6392, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.
[2] Pörtner, H. (2021), Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change, IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany,.
[32] Pörtner, H. et al. (2021), Biodiversity and Climate Change: Scientific outcome, https://zenodo.org/records/5101125.
[1] Pörtner, H. et al. (2023), Overcoming the coupled climate and biodiversity crises and their societal impacts, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4881.
[210] Prober, S. et al. (2019), Shifting the conservation paradigm: a synthesis of options for renovating nature under climate change, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecm.1333.
[138] Protected Planet (2025), Protected Planet, https://www.protectedplanet.net/en.
[255] Purdy et al (2022), Fly-tipping: Drivers, Deterrents and Impacts.
[158] Pyšek, P. et al. (2020), “Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species”, Biological Reviews, Vol. 95/6, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12627.
[213] Qian, H. et al. (2021), “Air pollution reduction and climate co-benefits in China’s industries”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 4/5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00669-0.
[160] Raheem, A. et al. (2024), “Unraveling the ecological threads: How invasive alien plants influence soil carbon dynamics”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 356, p. 120556, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120556.
[196] Rahman, M. et al. (2021), “Co-benefits of protecting mangroves for biodiversity conservation and carbon storage”, Nature Communications, Vol. 12/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24207-4.
[280] Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2016), An Introduction to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Sub-series I: Handbook 1 International Cooperation on Wetlands.
[16] Rehbein, J. et al. (2020), “Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 26/5, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15067.
[46] Rensmo, A. et al. (2023), Lithium-ion battery recycling: a source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to the environment?, https://doi.org/10.1039/d2em00511e.
[199] Reside, A., J. VanDerWal and C. Moran (2017), “Trade-offs in carbon storage and biodiversity conservation under climate change reveal risk to endemic species”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.004.
[30] Rogelj, J. et al. (2018), “Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5°C in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C”, IPCC special report Global Warming of 1.5 ºC.
[209] Rohatyn, S. et al. (2021), “Assessing climatic benefits from forestation potential in semi-arid lands”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 16/10, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac29e9.
[200] Rohatyn, S. et al. (2022), “Limited climate change mitigation potential through forestation of the vast dryland regions”, Science, Vol. 377/6613, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm9684.
[36] Rosenkranz, M. et al. (2014), “Effect of land‐use change and management on biogenic volatile organic compound emissions – selecting climate‐smart cultivars”, Plant, Cell & Environment, Vol. 38/9, pp. 1896-1912, https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12453.
[202] Rosentreter, J. et al. (2021), Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions Complicate Coastal Blue Carbon Assessments, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GB006858.
[149] Sala, E. et al. (2021), “Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate”, Nature, Vol. 592/7854, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z.
[115] Salem, M. and D. Mercer (2012), “The Economic Value of Mangroves: A Meta-Analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 4/3, pp. 359-383, https://doi.org/10.3390/su4030359.
[284] Salzman, J. et al. (2018), “The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 1/3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0.
[11] 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.
[122] Sanaei, A. et al. (2023), “Changes in biodiversity impact atmospheric chemistry and climate through plant volatiles and particles”, Communications Earth and Environment, Vol. 4/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01113-9.
[206] Schmitz, O. et al. (2018), Animals and the zoogeochemistry of the carbon cycle, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3213.
[141] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2022), Global Status, Gaps and Opportunities of Protected Areas and Other Area-Based Conservation Measures, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/733c/eb83/f927e42ce5c325e8a0a1dd80/cop-15-inf-03-en.pdf.
[109] Seddon, N. et al. (2020), Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.
[155] Sen, S. (2010), “Developing a framework for displaced fishing effort programs in marine protected areas”, Marine Policy, Vol. 34/6, pp. 1171-1177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.017.
[268] Sharley, D. et al. (2017), “Linking urban land use to pollutants in constructed wetlands: Implications for stormwater and urban planning”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.016.
[248] Sharma, B. et al. (2019), Recycling of Organic Wastes in Agriculture: An Environmental Perspective, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-019-00175-y.
[51] Shen, H. et al. (2024), “Environmental and climate impacts of a large-scale deployment of green hydrogen in Europe”, Energy and Climate Change, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2024.100133.
[176] Singh, B. et al. (2023), Climate change impacts on plant pathogens, food security and paths forward, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-023-00900-7.
[243] Singh, N. and T. Walker (2024), “Plastic recycling: A panacea or environmental pollution problem”, npj Materials Sustainability, Vol. 2/1, p. 17, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00024-w.
[100] Smith, P. et al. (2022), How do we best synergize climate mitigation actions to co-benefit biodiversity?, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16056.
[73] Smith, P. et al. (2020), “Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 26/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878.
[102] Smith, P. et al. (2018), “Impacts on terrestrial biodiversity of moving from a 2°C to a1.5° Ctarget”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 376/2119, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0456.
[60] Smith, S. et al. (2024), “The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal - 2nd Edition”, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ.
[218] Song, Z., J. Liu and H. Yang (2021), “Air pollution and soiling implications for solar photovoltaic power generation: A comprehensive review”, Applied Energy, Vol. 298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117247.
[27] Sonter, L. et al. (2020), “Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity.”, Nature communications, Vol. 11/1, p. 4174.
[146] Soto-Navarro, C. et al. (2020), “Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 375/1794, p. 20190128, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0128.
[282] Souter, D. et al. (2020), “Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2020 Executive Summary”, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
[267] Stevens, C. and J. Quinton (2009), “Policy implications of pollution swapping”, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol. 34/8-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.01.001.
[65] Stoy, P. et al. (2018), Opportunities and Trade-offs among BECCS and the Food, Water, Energy, Biodiversity, and Social Systems Nexus at Regional Scales, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix145.
[197] Strassburg, B. et al. (2019), “Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 3/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0743-8.
[201] Strassburg, B. et al. (2020), “Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration”, Nature, Vol. 586/7831, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9.
[181] Sumaila, U. and T. Tai (2020), End Overfishing and Increase the Resilience of the Ocean to Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523.
[241] Svatikova, K., A. Brown and P. Börkey (2025), “Economic instruments for a resource-efficient circular economy”, OECD Environment Working Papers, Vol. No. 257, https://doi.org/10.1787/35a7051a-en.
[124] Taguchi, V. et al. (2020), It is not easy being green: Recognizing unintended consequences of green stormwater infrastructure, https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020522.
[203] Taillardat, P. et al. (2020), “Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration”, Interface Focus, Vol. 10/5, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129.
[75] The Food and Land Use Coalition (2023), Aligning regenerative agricultural practices with outcomes to deliver for people, nature and climate.
[126] Thorn, S. et al. (2018), Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity: A meta-analysis, https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945.
[169] Torralba, M. et al. (2016), Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002.
[240] UNEP (2024), Global Resources Outlook 2024: Bend the trend - Pathways to a liveable planet as resource use spikes.
[232] UNEP (2023), Environmental Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Depletion, UV Radiation, and Interactions with Climate Change: 2022 Assessment Report.
[294] UNEP (2023), One Atmosphere: An independent expert review on Solar Radiation Modification research and deployment, United Nations Environment Programme, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/41903 (accessed on 8 April 2025).
[98] UNEP (2022), “Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022”.
[50] UNEP/FAO (2024), Global Nitrous Oxide Assessment, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/46562.
[223] UNESCO (2017), “UN World Water Development Report 2017 | UN-Water”, UN World Water Development Report 2017, https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-world-water-development-report-2017.
[13] Vandyck, T. et al. (2022), Climate change, air pollution and human health, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac948e.
[130] Vandyck, T. et al. (2020), “Quantifying air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions”, Climatic Change, Vol. 163/3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02685-7.
[245] Vaverková, M. (2019), “Landfill Impacts on the Environment—Review”, Geosciences, Vol. 9/10, p. 431, https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9100431.
[186] Vijayaram, S. et al. (2024), Use of Algae in Aquaculture: A Review, https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes9020063.
[133] Wang, C. et al. (2022), “A global meta-analysis of the impacts of tree plantations on biodiversity”, Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol. 31/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13440.
[274] Wang, F. et al. (2024), Emerging contaminants: A One Health perspective, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100612.
[96] Watson, J. et al. (2018), The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x.
[22] Watson, S. et al. (2024), The global impact of offshore wind farms on ecosystem services, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107023.
[151] Wiens, J. and D. Bachelet (2010), “Matching the multiple scales of conservation with the multiple scales of climate change: Special section”, Conservation Biology, Vol. 24/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01409.x.
[64] Williamson, P. and R. Bodle (2016), “Update on Climate Geoengineering in Relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Potential Impacts and Regulatory Framework”, https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-84-en.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2025).
[139] Wolf, C. et al. (2021), “A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas”, Nature Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 5/4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0.
[52] Woods, P., H. Bustamante and K. Aguey-Zinsou (2022), “The hydrogen economy - Where is the water?”, Energy Nexus, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100123.
[112] Wu, H. et al. (2019), Effects of dam construction on biodiversity: A review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.001.
[261] Wu, H. et al. (2023), Constructed wetlands for pollution control, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00395-z.
[283] Wunder, S. (2015), “Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016.
[214] Xu, M. and Z. Qin (2023), “How does vehicle emission control policy affect air pollution emissions? Evidence from Hainan Province, China”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 866, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161244.
[217] Yassaa, N. (2016), Air pollution may alter efforts to mitigate climate change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.12.042.
[264] 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.
[273] Zhang, P. et al. (2023), Water Quality Degradation Due to Heavy Metal Contamination: Health Impacts and Eco-Friendly Approaches for Heavy Metal Remediation, https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11100828.
[93] Zhou, G. et al. (2017), “Grazing intensity significantly affects belowground carbon and nitrogen cycling in grassland ecosystems: a meta-analysis”, Global Change Biology, Vol. 23/3, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13431.
[53] Zhou, J., V. Chang and A. Fane (2013), “An improved life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) approach for assessing aquatic eco-toxic impact of brine disposal from seawater desalination plants”, Desalination, Vol. 308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.039.
[168] 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.
[231] Zimmerman, J. and P. Anastas (2015), “Toward substitution with no regrets”, Science, Vol. 347/6227, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa0812.
[257] Zink, T. and R. Geyer (2017), “Circular Economy Rebound”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 21/3, pp. 593-602, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12545.
[119] Ziter, C. et al. (2019), “Scale-dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 116/15, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817561116.
[167] Zomer, R. et al. (2016), “Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987.
[230] Zuiderveen, E. et al. (2023), “The potential of emerging bio-based products to reduce environmental impacts”, Nature Communications, Vol. 14/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43797-9.
← 1. The category of “create” is considered under the cluster of policies to “restore” biodiversity.
← 2. The mitigation hierarchy has been used explicitly and implicitly as an underlying principle for biodiversity policy around the world, applied at various scales including for Environmental Impact Assessment processes (Milner-Gulland et al., 2021[290]).
← 3. In accordance with the definition provided by (IEA, n.d.[276]), clean energy is used here as “an umbrella term that groups energy sources, infrastructure, applications and related assets that are compatible with a net zero emissions energy system.” The discussion in the chapter focusses primarily on “renewable energy”, defined as “modern bioenergy, geothermal, hydropower, solar photovoltaics, concentrated solar power, wind, marine (tide and wave) energy and renewable waste” (IEA, n.d.[276]).
← 4. Protected areas are defined as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (IUCN, 2008[277]).
← 5. Key biodiversity areas are sites that contribute significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. These areas are identified based on rigorous scientific criteria, including the presence of threatened species, geographically restricted species, ecological integrity, biological processes, and irreplaceability. KBAs are not legally designated but serve as a tool for conservation planning and prioritisation (IUCN, 2016[295]).
← 6. For instance, an estimate suggests about 43 litres of water is required for every kg of hydrogen throughout the lifecycle, while an average water footprint estimate for extracting and refining of oil is 133 litres of water (Woods, Bustamante and Aguey-Zinsou, 2022[52]) (see also Chapter 6).
← 7. They refer to emissions capture from large point sources, such as gas processing plants and subsequent long-term storage and use or recycling.
← 8. It is likely to remain secure for over 99% of the time over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1 000 years, while the majority of CO2 will gradually be immobilised through various trapping mechanisms, allowing it to be safely stored for up to millions of years (IPCC, 2005[68]).
← 9. CDR can be understood as one of the two broad categories of geoengineering (other being Solar Radiation Management, SRM) referring to the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of Earth’s climate system to counteract anthropogenic climate change (Smith et al., 2024[60]; Edenhofer et al., n.d.[291]). SRM can refer to reflecting a portion of incoming solar radiation back into space to reduce temperatures such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) (UNEP, 2023[294]). See also Section 6.5 in Chapter 6.
← 10. Biological CDR, including through restoration of forests and wetlands, are discussed in the section on Ecosystems.
← 11. Using food crops directly for bioenergy purposes has much larger consequences and directly competes with food production.
← 12. The impact depends by type of animals as well as practices of production. For instance, non-ruminant animals (e.g. poultry) use nutrients more efficiently compared to ruminants (Adegbeye et al., 2020[226]).
← 13. Carbon sinks refer to “process, activity and mechanism which remove a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas or aerosol from the atmosphere” (Minx et al., 2018[278]).
← 14. Blue carbon is defined as “all biologically driven carbon fluxes and storage in marine systems that are amenable to management” (IPCC, 2019[279]).
← 15. The Ramsar Convention categorises wetlands into three types (1) coastal/marine, (2) inland and (3) human-made (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2016[280]).
← 16. For instance, broad-leaved and coniferous tree species are found to be a source of BVOCs such as isoprene. Isoprene constitutes about half of total BVOC emissions (Mahilang, Deb and Pervez, 2021[281]).
← 17. Other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) are geographically defined areas distinct from protected areas that are governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained long-term outcomes for the in-situ conservation of biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services and, where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio-economic, and other locally relevant values (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018[296]).
← 18. The authors define the concept of irrecoverable carbon based on three criteria relevant for conservation efforts. They assess ecosystem carbon stocks according to: (1) how they can be influenced by direct and local human action (‘manageability’), (2) the magnitude of carbon lost upon disturbance (‘vulnerability’) and (3) the recoverability of carbon stocks following loss (‘recoverability’).”
← 19. This is higher (21%) for reactive (high threat, high irreplaceability) biodiversity conservation, although the percentage of the overlap in areas suitable for carbon storage and conservation (5%) are smaller than for proactive conservation (38%) (Soto-Navarro et al., 2020[146]).
← 20. It is estimated that they support around a quarter of marine species despite covering only 0.2% of the seafloor (Souter et al., 2020[282]).
← 21. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) are defined as “(1) voluntary transactions (2) between service users (3) and service provides (4) that are conditional on agreed rules of natural resource management (5) for generating offsite services (Wunder, 2015[283]). There are over 550 PES programmes around the world constituting USD 36-42 billion in annual transactions (Salzman et al., 2018[284]).
← 22. Agroforestry in this context is used as a generic term that includes a variety of practices and can be defined as “land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/ or animals” (FAO, 2024, p. 17[292]).
← 23. Biodiversity conservation actions are typically categorised into in-situ (on-site) and ex-situ (off-site) conservation (Mestanza-Ramón et al., 2020[285]). Seed banks for crops are an example of ex-situ conservation.
← 24. Post-harvest losses from structural and infrastructure deficiencies are common in developing countries, while losses at retail/consumer stage is the primary driver of food waste in developed countries (Smith et al., 2020[73]).
← 25. Deposition refers to the process by which nutrients (or pollutants more generally) are transferred from the atmosphere to the land or water surface. This can be through wet deposition (via rain, snow, fog) or dry deposition (dust, particles, gases settling).
← 26. Known as “critical loads”, the damage threshold is used in policy to mitigate adverse impact of nitrogen deposition on terrestrial biodiversity.
← 27. Biodiversity hotspots, like the Western Amazon, are large-scale regions that are (1) unique and rich in biodiversity (minimum 1,500 species of vascular plants endemic to the region), (2) endangered (at least 70% of its vegetation lost). There are 36 hotspots constituting 2.3% of the Earth surface yet host 44% of the plants and 35% of land vertebrates (Guo et al., 2023[192]).
← 28. Impacts of various dimensions of biodiversity on capacity for carbon storage has been explained in terms of (i) niche complementary hypothesis (capacity to store carbon is influenced by variance in the traits of species that compose the community) and (ii) selection (key species determine the ecosystem-wide capacity for carbon storage) (Mensah et al., 2016[286]).
← 29. Coastal wetlands deliver more rapid mitigation benefits compared to inland wetlands, suggesting that restoration can also be viable (Taillardat et al., 2020[203]).
← 30. Often implemented in cities, low emission zones charge or ban vehicles that exceed certain emission standards (Chamberlain et al., 2023[287]).
← 31. For instance, the estimates suggest that atmospheric aerosols can reduce the capacity by between 2 and 68% (Song, Liu and Yang, 2021[218]).
← 32. Wastes are materials that are not prime products (i.e. products to be placed on markets) and have no further use and are discarded (OECD, 2019[293]). They can refer to a range of materials such as plastics waste and e-waste.
← 33. Rebound effects can be understood as impact that diverge from the intended benefits due to the responses within the system, both in terms of production and consumption (Castro et al., 2022[288]).
← 34. Riparian buffer zones are vegetation strips along waterways to limit pollutants enter them by reducing the impact of soil erosion by slowing the overland flow (Stevens and Quinton, 2009[267]).
← 35. For instance, the European Union’s soil strategy aims to achieve “no net land take by 2050” (European Commission, 2021[289]).