From Paris to Practice: Energy Sprawl Solutions. Joseph Kiesecker Lead Scientist The Nature Conservancy

Transcription

1 From Paris to Practice: Energy Sprawl Solutions Joseph Kiesecker Lead Scientist The Nature Conservancy

2 Buy land, they're not making it anymore. - Mark Twain

3

4 Global Assessment: Lands at Risk DEVELOPMENT THREAT CATEGORIES NATURAL LANDS 20% OF LANDS AT HIGH RISK 5% OF LANDS PROTECTED Oakleaf, Kennedy, Baruch-Mordo & Kiesecker (2015) A World at Risk: Aggregating Development Trends to Forecast Global Habitat Conversion. PLoS ONE 10 (10): e doi: /journal.pone

5

6

7

8 Impact Mitigation Hierarchy + Residual Offset Impact No Net Loss - Restore Potential Impact Minimize Avoid Kiesecker, J.M, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, N. Nibbelink, B. McKenney J. Dahlke, M. Holloran and D. Stroud 2009 A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale. BioScience 59:77-84.

9

10 What needs to change? Avoid Minimize GO BIG -Connect Global commitments to Local Scales -Site based to landscape scale -Revise current EIA process? Restore Offset GO EARLY -Advanced planning -Project future potential development -Develop quantitative conservation goals

11 Integrated Conservation & Development Planning Select BIODIVERSITY ELEMENTS Set GOALS COARSE FILTER Vegetation Types (X) Acres of habitat needed to maintain viability FINE FILTER Species ( Y ) Acres of habitat or point locations (i.e. nests) needed to maintain viability Other Goals i.e. Eco. Services Social/Cultural assess ECOLOGICAL CONDITION Cost / Suitability Index Road & RR Density Population Density Converted Land Cover Irrigated Land Cover Housing density Conservation Portfolio Design: Development Portfolio Design: automated site selection (MARXAN with ZONES) Future development pressure ( Z ) Amount of production

12 Achieving Conservation Goals in the Face of Development

13 globally and nationally endangered unique ecosystems source: : McCarthy (2000) source: McCarthy et al. (2009) endemic / restricited range + key evolutionary processes Landform classification wet/salty depressions congretory and migratory conservation portfolio = critical habitat =

14 Initial portfolio and existing mineral leases

15 Areas of potential conflict with mineral development

16 Initial portfolio re-designed to minimize conflict with mineral development

17 Portfolio re-designed to minimize conflict with mineral development

18 Mongolia: Science that works 2011 Eastern Grasslands 64,000 km2 (41%) 2013 Gobi region 34,900 km2 (19%) 2016 West & Central Mongolia 48,400 km2 new PAs in portfolio conservation portfolio National PAs study area [1] Heiner, M., Y. Bayarjargal, J.M. Kiesecker, D. Galbadrakh, N. Batsaikhan, M. Ganbaatar, I. Odonchimeg, O. Enkhtuya, D. Enkhbat, H. von Wehrden, R. Reading, K. Olson, R. Jackson, J. Evans, B. McKenney, J. Oakleaf, K. Sochi, E. Oidov. (2013) Applying conservation priorities in the face of future development: Applying development by design in the Mongolian Gobi. The Nature Conservancy. Ulanbaatar. [Also available in Mongolian] [2] Heiner, M., D. Galbadrakh, J.M. Kiesecker, B. McKenney, J. Evans, E. Tuguldur, D. Zumburelmaa, V. Ulziisaikhan, B. Oyungerel, D. Sanjmyatav, R. Gankhuyag, D. Enkhbat, L. Ocirhuyag, G. Sergelen, E. Girvetz and R. McDonald. (2011) Identifying Conservation Priorities in the Face of Future Development: Applying Development by Design in the Grasslands of Mongolia. The Nature Conservancy. Ulanbaatar. [Also available in Mongolian] (18%) 43% 9% of the portfolio of Mongolia

19 Achieving Development Goals in the Face of Conservation

20 Achieving Development Goals in the Face of Conservation

21 Obermeyer B, Manes R, Kiesecker J, Fargione J, Sochi K (2011) Development by Design: Mitigating Wind Development s Impacts on Wildlife in Kansas. PLoS ONE 6(10): e doi: /journal.pone

22 Achieving Development Objectives and Conservation Goals Simultaneously

23 Case Study Cerrado: Global biodiversity hotspot, with less than 50% natural habitat & < 2 % protected (Klink & Machado 2005) Land use: cattle ranching and increasingly sugarcane production (Lapola et al. 2010) Nature conservation on agricultural (private) lands is vital and regulated by the Brazilian Forest Code (FC) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014) Case study: Evaluate land use patterns to meet the FC and to optimize agricultural production, biodiversity, & ecosystem services Cerrado Cattle ranching Sugarcane

24 Brazilian Forest Code Rural Property River Agriculture Brazil pilot Agriculture Permanent Preservation Area (PPA): ~5%

25 Economic & Environmental Modeling Agriculture Cattle ranching Sugar cane Economic return ($) (Using spatial profit models of annua revenue annual costs) Biodiversity 539 terrestrial birds & mammal species (Using Polasky et al biologic model) Terrestrial Surface Water Quality Nutrients & sediments (N, P, S loads) in surface waterways (Using InVEST models, Tallis et al. 2013)

26 #Species (birds & mammals) N reduction (in tons) Brazil pilot: Optimizing land use decision-making Current Landscape Improved BD + 94 species Improved water quality (N, P, S loads reduced by 50%, 30%, 7%) Kennedy, C.M., P.L. Hawthorne, D.A. Miteva, L. Baumgarten, K. Sochi, M. Matsumoto, J.S. Evans, S. Polasky, P. Hamel, E.M. Vieira, P.F. Develey, C.H. Sekercioglu, A.D. Davidson, E.M. Ulhorn, & J. Kiesecker (i2016). Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian Agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, current Agricultural profit (in million USD) current Agricultural profit (in million USD)

27 Brazil pilot Optimizing land use decision-making Optimized for Biodiversity Average WQ reduced by 30% N loads increased by 41% S loads increased by 8% P loads increased by 42% Optimized for Water Quality Species reduced by 58% 122 fewer species Optimized for Biodiversity and Water Quality 94% species % of average water quality

28 ABCs for Resolving Land Use Conflicts Avoid Minimize Ahead of the impacts Bigger scale landscape-level planning Predicting The Future Restore Conservation outcome Development objectives Examining Tradeoffs Offset Policy Drivers

29 What, Where, How Much? Global Development Risk Assessment Biofuels Solar Wind Hydropower Conventional oil & gas Unconventional oil & gas Coal Agriculture Urban Mining Oakleaf, James R, Christina M Kennedy, Sharon Baruch-Mordo, Paul C West, James S Gerber, Larissa Jarvis, and Joseph Kiesecker A World at Risk: Aggregating Development Trends to Forecast Global Habitat Conversion. PloS One 10 (10). Public Library of Science: e doi: /journal.pone

30 18% (n=360) of sensitive watersheds will transition into a higher impact status 7% (n=130) will move into a nonsupporting or urban drainage impact status.

31 Putting Science to Work Science Gobi Ecoregional Assessment Web Map Riparian / Wetland Model Toolbox Geomorphometrics Toolbox Mongolia Mitigation Design Tool Brazil LegalGeo Policy Central Appalachians Critical Habitat Assessment Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Trends and Conditions Assessment Tool Stakeholder Engagement

32 Policy Assessments For more details see: Villarroya A, Barros AC, Kiesecker J (2014) Policy Development for Environmental Licensing and Biodiversity Offsets in Latin America. PLoS ONE 9(9): e doi: /journal.pone IA Avoidance Minim-rest Offsets Monitoring

33 Snow Leopards of the World: The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera Uncia Thomas McCarthy and David Mallon, Editors

34 Global Lands Program: