Implications of the Paris Agreement for Biodiversity and Conservation Planning (IMPALA)

气候变化给生物多样性带来风险，特别是改变物种生活的气候，使其不适合继续生活在那里。2014年12月，根据联合国《巴黎协定》，各国同意“努力.将温度上升限制在工业化前水平以上1.5摄氏度。IMPALA旨在了解未来世界对生物多样性的这些风险，在未来世界中，人类将气候变化限制在与工业化前相比升温1.5 ℃，并将其与升温2 ℃（以下简称1.5/2C）的情况进行比较。它试图了解全球和区域范围内的相对风险。物种还面临着一个挑战，即在所需的移动速度和处理自然和/或人为的移动障碍方面，能够在整个景观中跟踪其首选的气候空间。先前的几项研究预测，由于气候变化，全球或区域大部分物种的广泛范围损失和灭绝风险增加，例如在研究的50，000种物种中，57+/-5%的植物和34+/-7%的动物预计将失去超过一半的气候范围，比工业化前水平高出约3.6 ℃。0.5C有什么区别？当涉及到陆地生物多样性时，1.5 ℃和2 ℃的变暖真的有很大的区别吗？对80，000种物种在2 ℃和2.5 ℃的气候范围内的大规模潜在变化的研究表明，至少在世界某些地区可能存在很大的差异。这些差异有可能使过去在保护方面的大部分投资面临风险。这项研究将着眼于将变暖限制在1.5摄氏度与2摄氏度之间最有区别的地区，特别是全球保护区和生物多样性热点等关键保护区。它将确定哪些保护区在1.5摄氏度和2摄氏度下受到生物多样性变化的风险最大和最小，以及保护区之间的走廊将发挥最大作用。IMPAL旨在为联合王国政府和环境非政府组织，特别是联合王国世界野生动物基金会的决策者提供信息。环境非政府组织对保护规划感兴趣，即决定世界上哪些地区需要纳入保护区网络，或通过其他方式保护，例如与当地人合作保护物种的栖息地。由于不可能保护所有的自然生态系统，非政府组织和政府需要优先考虑，气候变化将通过改变物种可以生活的地方来影响优先考虑。IMPALA将告知WWF-UK，其他非政府组织和政府现有的保护区系统是否对1.5/2 C的变暖具有鲁棒性，哪些地区风险最大，哪些地区作为物种在1.5/2 C全球变暖后仍然可以生活的避难所。IMPALA考虑物种如何试图移动以跟踪气候变化，并将确定需要保护的地方，以使物种能够移动和殖民新的地区，以应对气候变化。使生态系统（和生物多样性）自然适应气候变化的努力复杂化的可能是将气候变化控制在1.5摄氏度的努力。许多将变暖限制在1.5和2摄氏度的提议要求大面积的土地被转换为生物能源作物。存在的风险是，可能有必要将大面积的原生/次生林和其他生态系统转变为生物能源作物，以便农业用地能够继续种植粮食。由于栖息地的丧失是生物多样性丧失的一个主要因素，因此，在1.5 ℃的升温下，生物多样性可能比2 ℃的升温更糟。本研究将寻求生物多样性和减缓的双赢解决方案，以促进符合第2条的减缓-即既不妨碍生态系统自然适应，也不妨碍粮食生产的减缓。

Climate change creates risks to biodiversity, in particular by changing the climate in which species live, and making it unsuitable for them to continue to live there. In December 2014, under the United Nations Paris Agreement countries agreed to 'pursue efforts to ...limit the temperature increase to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels'. IMPALA seeks to understand these risks to biodiversity arising in a future world in which humans limit climate change to 1.5C warming compared to pre-industrial times, and to compare this with the situation when there is 2C warming (hereafter referred to as 1.5/2C). It seeks understand the relative risks both globally, and at the regional scale. Species also face a challenge in being able to track their preferred climate space across a landscape, both in terms of the speed of movement required and in dealing with natural and/or manmade obstacles to movement. Several previous studies have projected extensive range loss and increased extinction risks across large fractions of species globally or regionally due to climate change e.g. amongst 50,000 species studied, 57+/-5% of plants and 34+/-7% of animals are projected to lose over half their climatic range for a warming of approximately 3.6C above pre-industrial levels. But what difference does 0.5C make? Is there really much difference between 1.5C and 2C of warming when it comes to terrestrial biodiversity? Examination of the large-scale potential changes in climatic ranges of 80,000 species at 2C versus 2.5C suggests that there may be a large difference, at least in some parts of the world. These differences have the potential to put much of the past investment in conservation at risk. This study will look at the areas where it makes the most difference to constrain warming to 1.5 versus 2C, looking specifically at Global Protected Areas, and key conservation regions such as biodiversity hotspots. It will identify which Protected Areas are most, and least, at risk from biodiversity changes at 1.5 vs. 2C, and where corridors between protected areas would do the most good. IMPALA is designed to inform decision makers in the UK government and also within environmental NGOs, in particular World Wildlife Fund-UK. Environmental NGOs are interested in conservation planning, that is deciding which areas of the world need to be brought into the protected area network, or protected by other means such as working with local people to protect habitats for species. Since it is not possible to protect all natural ecosystems, NGOs and Governments need to prioritise, and climate change will affect that prioritisation by changing the places where species can live. IMPALA will inform WWF-UK, other NGOs, and Governments whether the existing protected area system is robust to warming of 1.5/2C, which areas are most at risk, and which areas act as refuges where species can still live after 1.5/2C global warming has occurred. IMPALA considers how species try to move to track climate change, and will also identify places that need to be protected to enable species to move and colonize new areas in response to climate change. Complicating the efforts to allow ecosystems (and biodiversity) to adapt naturally to climate change may be the efforts needed to hold climate change to 1.5C of warming. Many proposals to limit warming to 1.5 and 2C of warming require large areas to be converted to bioenergy crops. There is the risk that it may be necessary to convert large areas of primary/secondary forest and other ecosystems to bioenergy crops, so that agricultural land can continue to grow food. As habitat loss is a major factor in biodiversity loss, then it might potentially be worse for biodiversity at 1.5C warming than 2C warming. This study will look for win-win solutions for biodiversity and mitigation in order to promote Article 2 compliant mitigation - that is, mitigation that hinders neither ecosystems from adapting naturally and the production of food.