Globally addressing the restoration of natural resources to avert major disasters

NATURE IN THE BALANCE: WHAT COMPANIES CAN DO TO RESTORE NATURAL CAPITAL

INTRODUCTION

Some explicit corporate effective actions, many with a positive return on investment, could help reverse the trend of the depletion of natural capital. Economic activity basically hinges on natural capital, the world’s stock of natural assets. But today, natural capital is being rapidly depleted, which has increasingly tangible consequences, from water shortages in California to a nitrogen crisis in the Netherlands. We are just exploring the state of natural capital, the economic sectors depending on and affecting it, and the opportunities for companies to help reduce those demands. It marks a first attempt to identify and size the actions corporations could take to act as catalysts to return the planet to a “safe operating space for humanity.”?The issue is a critical one: natural capital is in decline across multiple dimensions. By one estimate, current demands require resources at least 1.8 times greater than what the Earth appears to be able to sustain at this point. Yet fatalism would be misplaced. While a range of economic sectors contributes to this depletion of natural capital, specific actions taken by companies using current technologies—and supported by broader enabling actions of the whole of society—could not only inverse the direction but also bring about a positive return on investment (ROI) in a substantial number of cases. Human activity seems to have pushed the planet outside a ‘safe operating space on four planetary boundaries.

After the latest scientific research on planetary boundaries which is presented formally in 2009 and updated in 2015, these boundaries provide a framework for trailing the planet’s ability to support human development.?The framework defines a safe operating space for humanity with respect to the systems and processes that govern the stability of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and ecosystems. While climate change and some of its cascading impacts are now more familiar, the planetary-boundaries framework outlines eight additional Earth systems that, if destabilized beyond a defined level, could trigger a trigger point and lead to irreversible environmental changes, as we are aware now. We find that the impact of human activity is already extending beyond the safe operating space for at least four boundaries: biodiversity loss, chemical and plastic pollution, nutrient pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For two other boundaries which are forest cover loss, and freshwater consumption, the present impact of human activity is considered to be in the “zone of uncertainty.”

Terrestrial biodiversity loss expands at an estimated 2.7 times beyond the planetary boundary as currently understood and 1.4 times beyond 1970 levels. This raises an apprehension not only because of its direct impact on humanity but also because of the feedback loops (a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning) between biodiversity and the other planetary boundaries. Another standout boundary is chemical and plastic pollution. It is supposed that the world economy currently emits 2.6 times more plastic into water sources each year than it did in 2010 which resulted in harmfully affecting species, ecosystems, and food webs, and lessening the ability of oceans to set apart r carbon. Agriculture is the largest contributor to exceeding planetary boundaries, as currently conceived. As part of an analysis of the planetary boundaries, consider the contributions of economic sectors to the current position of each boundary. Based on this analysis, the agriculture sector precisely has the single largest explicit impact. The retail sales and services sector—which includes retail, housing, food services, IT, finance, insurance, professional and support services, education, health, and entertainment—is also a major contributor to the nature impact across multiple boundaries, significantly chemical and plastic pollution.

Food systems have the most substantial impact on the environment: they are the largest contributing sector for five of the nine planetary-boundary control variables assessed. The medium estimates suggest that crop agriculture accounts for 72 percent of freshwater consumption, 61 percent of nitrogen runoff pollution, and 32 percent of terrestrial biodiversity loss. We estimate that livestock agriculture is the largest contributor to biodiversity loss (53 percent), and phosphorus pollution is the second-largest contributor to nitrogen surplus and deposition (51 percent). The lopsided estimated impact of agriculture stems from its direct land footprint and the strong influence of downstream sectors such as the food-processing industry. Therefore, many actions that would address the impact of agriculture on natural capital would require sustained behavioral and operational changes from downstream actors, from individual households to buyers of agricultural products, including food processing companies, groceries, and restaurants. According to our midpoint estimates, retail sales and services account for 77 percent of chemical and plastic pollution (as measured by plastic waste emissions in aquatic environments).?Previous research?had recognized that the power sector and industry are the largest contributors to the GHG emissions that impel climate change.

Corporate action could help set natural capital on a path to recovery by 2050

Research findings advise that companies have the potential to shift the world’s course on natural capital and enter return to a safe operating space for humanity by 2050. It also suggests that they could do so through a set of targeted actions that use existing technologies and, in many cases, could provide positive returns on investment. It is evaluating the effect of about 50 potential corporate actions across five planetary boundaries: biodiversity loss, forest cover loss, freshwater consumption, chemical and plastic pollution, and nutrient pollution. Overall, it is advised that corporate action could possibly return the world to safe levels in three of the planetary boundaries: forest cover loss, freshwater consumption, and nutrient pollution. The sized levers could also address 48 percent of the projected overage of the boundary for biodiversity (getting close to a pre-1970 level) and 60 percent of the identified boundary for chemical and plastic pollution. While corporate action can make a change, analysis suggests it is not sufficient on its own. “Whole of society” levers such as nature conservation or consumer dietary shifts could help close the remaining gaps, as could technologies that are not yet widely available, including those that can break down plastic or extend the shelf life of foods. The abatement potential we present assumes each opportunity is, where feasible, pursued systematically and completely across the world; that there is collaboration and coordination between upstream and downstream partners (for instance, between farmers and the buyers of agricultural products); and that policymakers and other stakeholders create empowering conditions.

Almost half of the estimated abatement potential could provide a positive return on investment

Based on our midpoint estimates, 12 levers could have a net-positive ROI in 2022 dollars. If fully implemented, these levers could deliver about 45 percent of the total identified mitigation potential, amounting to an annual benefit of about $700 billion, net of costs. These levers include switching to regenerative agriculture, reducing food waste, and implementing new delivery models (such as returnable- and reusable-container programs) to reduce plastic production and pollution. Four levers—precision agriculture for cropland, regenerative agriculture in pastures, construction plastic recycling, and mechanical recycling—could deliver 8 percent of the identified mitigation potential at a net cost of about $15 billion per year. Twenty levers are estimated to be ROI negative in 2022 dollars. If fully implemented, they could deliver about 55 percent of the identified mitigation potential at an annual cost, net of savings, of about $1.5 trillion. They include agroforestry, biological pest control, drip irrigation, water-efficient manufacturing techniques, and biodegradable plastic for packaging. These rough ROI estimates are bound to change over time. New technologies can reduce costs, and new policies and investor expectations could encourage a greater accounting of nature's impacts. Contrarywise, costs may be higher, or returns lower, due to localized adoption challenges or slow adoption.

Corporate action on nature would have a meaningful overlap with climate action

Actions to address the loss of natural capital overlap with decarbonization activities that companies are already contemplating or pursuing. The costs above exclude the total cost of action on climate, but there are?synergies. In research included carbon abatement levers only if they provide abatement potential across noncarbon planetary boundaries; 13 of 47 levers meet this criterion. Nine of the 13, including regenerative and precision agriculture, drip irrigation, and switching to solar and wind power generation, together could address 64 percent of the projected gap to the freshwater boundary, 44 percent of the gap for nutrient pollution, and 5 percent of the gap for biodiversity loss. Estimates suggest these nine levers could also abate 15 metric gigatons (Gt) of CO2e of emissions per year, or about 40 percent of annual emissions in 2020.

Agriculture and other sectors could meaningfully contribute to abating loss of natural capital

Agriculture is the largest contributor to the depletion of natural capital, followed by retail sales and services (which includes retail, accommodation and food services, IT, finance, insurance, professional and support services, education, health, and entertainment), and the power sector. Agriculture seems to have the greatest opportunity to address projected overages or gaps in the biodiversity, freshwater, and nutrient planetary boundaries by 2050. Agriculture levers account for 72 percent of the total identified improvement in biodiversity loss, addressing 35 percent of the global overage in 2050, according to the midpoint estimate of our analysis. Agriculture could also bring the world within the planetary boundary for forest cover loss, address 82 percent of the gap to the freshwater consumption boundary, and meet 94 percent of the gap for nutrient pollution in 2050. Midpoint estimates suggest that eight levers if fully implemented, could have the largest impact in resolving the agriculture sector’s impacts on nature. Four of these levers require collaboration across the supply chain, but the agricultural sector could implement four directly:

Regenerative agriculture, which includes planting cover crops and using no-till farming, could address three out of five planetary boundaries by minimizing soil disturbance, limiting consumptive water losses, and enhancing habitats. At scale, it could mitigate 8 percent of the projected 2050 gap for the biodiversity boundary, 5 percent of the gap for the freshwater consumption boundary, and 16 percent of the gap for the nutrient pollution boundary. We estimate that, if fully implemented, regenerative agriculture could reduce farm operational and input costs and potentially provide $65 billion in value annually.

Agroforestry, which includes planting trees in cropland and pastureland and implementing buffer strips of natural vegetation cover, is the largest lever for biodiversity, according to our estimates. We assume it would be implemented in a way that does not affect output. Combined, agroforestry in cropland and pastureland could reduce 11 percent of the projected 2050 gap to the biodiversity boundary across cropland and pastureland for a cost of approximately $180 per hectare. We estimate that full mitigation could cost $300 billion globally each year.?Water-efficient agriculture techniques, including alternate-furrow irrigation, optimized-drip irrigation, and water-efficient seeds, could reduce freshwater consumption to address 19 percent of the projected 2050 global overage. We estimate that water-efficient agriculture could provide $40 billion in net value globally each year from reduced water consumption when fully implemented.

Manure management techniques, including anaerobic digesters on large farms and manure sequestration on smaller farms, could potentially address 39 percent of the projected nitrogen surface runoff overage and 32 percent of the projected phosphorus pollution overage. Both techniques would involve increased investment in necessary infrastructure and operational costs. We estimate that the net annual global cost will be $45 billion. Four additional levers could affect the agriculture baseline but would need a close partnership between the agriculture sector and downstream sectors. Our estimates suggest that plant-based alternatives for meat and dairy; advanced seed technology, including genetically modified seeds; and the?reduction of food loss and food waste?through supply optimization could help pull the economy back toward the boundaries. Together, these levers could address 23 percent of the gap for the biodiversity planetary boundary, 100 percent of the gap for the forest cover loss boundary, 45 percent of the gap for freshwater consumption, and 55 percent of the gap for nutrient pollution—simultaneously generating net savings for companies. Advanced seed technology and food-waste reduction would be ROI positive, with an estimated net annual savings opportunity of $320 billion. Corporate-driven adoption of plant-based alternatives (which would require pricing at a loss to achieve parity with animal-based products and to drive adoption) is currently estimated to be ROI negative and could cost $370 billion annually.

Nonagricultural actors can also take action to address their direct footprints. The following four actions have significant potential for reduction:

Switching to solar and wind power could reduce freshwater consumption by 12 percent of the gap to the planetary boundary and reduce nutrient pollution by 4 percent. Our estimate suggests that implementing low-cost power generation switching could provide the net value of $95 billion annually through lower operating costs. Addressing plastic waste by reducing the amount of plastic in packaging, implementing new delivery models (for instance, returnable- and reusable-container programs), expanding mechanical and chemical recycling of plastics, and using compostable bioplastics could help the retail sales and services sector address 52 percent of the plastic pollution overage. Plastic reduction and alternative delivery models would be ROI positive and provide an estimated $35 billion annually in value by reducing the amount of plastic needed. The remaining levers would be ROI negative, costing $40 billion annually from increased capital and operational costs. Sustainable-forestry measures—including variable thinning instead of clearcutting, the creation of buffers, subsoiling, and multispecies forestry techniques—could help the forestry sector address 5 percent of the overage on biodiversity. These measures could result in an estimated net cost of $300 billion annually. Mine reclamation, specifically in regions where it is not currently required, is unlikely to be able to address more than 0.1 percent of the projected 2050 overage of biodiversity loss. But it would be important at a local level and for other measures not quantified in this analysis, including water pollution, chemical pollution, and heavy-metal contamination. Expanded mine reclamation efforts could cost up to $60 billion annually.

?Four actions could guide corporate efforts on nature

The playbook for corporate engagement on nature is still in early development. Some companies are starting to realize dimensions of nature such as biodiversity loss, but very few have set quantified targets, and?those commitments vary. Given all the demands facing companies in a challenging macroeconomic environment, it can be hard to know where to start. Four steps could help companies find their way. First, companies can assess their nature footprint—that is, the types, magnitude, and materiality of their impacts and dependencies on nature. Before defining a nature strategy, companies would need transparency to ensure they can mitigate risks, address impacts on natural capital, and identify business opportunities. Companies can select metrics that broadly address impacts across their footprints from numerous indicators that are already available. Second, companies can identify which of their activities have the potential to both reduce impacts on nature and improve company performance. For each potential company-specific lever, companies can determine the abatement potential, how long it would take to have impact, sources of financing, and possible returns, among other factors. The “mitigation hierarchy”—an international framework from the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation—could provide guidance on the priority order of actions to take.

Third, companies could set initial targets for nature and levels of commitment, define a set of actions, and integrate them into a broader portfolio of initiatives. Companies may look to organizations such as the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) for guidance on how to set time-bound, science-based, and quantitative targets in line with the planetary boundaries.?They could create a portfolio of initiatives that includes implementing abatement levers and potentially investing in nature or biodiversity credits.

Fourth, companies can closely monitor progress against their goals and may prepare to disclose their progress. Various organizations are working to develop standardized voluntary reporting metrics, and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has developed detailed guidance across four pillars of disclosure: governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets.

?Corporate action on nature would need to be accompanied by enabling actions from other stakeholders

Companies can do a lot to support the return to a safe operating space for humanity, but they cannot do it on their own. Other stakeholders in both the public and social sectors will have a critical role to play in controlling issues such as evolving regulatory and policy guidance, a lack of standardized metrics or definitions of nature, widely distributed and nonstandard nature-related data, a lack of funding and financial incentives, limited options for investing in nature’s recovery, and a shortage of needed “green skills.” Three broad sets of enabling actions could help companies and stakeholders overcome these and other barriers:

Provide a framework for corporate nature efforts.?Standard nature reporting requirements could help companies identify which metrics are most critical and make company disclosures consistent and comparable. While companies could set ambitious targets on their own, governments can help encourage broader corporate action by setting clear guidance for nature actions and outcomes to target.

Develop and invest in the infrastructure—data, skills, and opportunities—that would help inform company actions.?Data on nature are frequently spread across sources and can be difficult to aggregate and use. Improving data availability and supply chain traceability are key enabling measures, along with more training to develop a workforce with the broad set of “green skills” necessary to interpret and use nature-related data to inform decision-making. Corporations would also need more options for investing in natural-capital preservation, which scientifically rigorous and well-regulated credit markets can help provide.

Consider expanding financing and incentives.?Financing a nature-positive path would likely require more resources than today’s approaches to nature finance can muster. Given that 55 percent of the identified abatement potential does not generate a near-term return on investment under current assumptions, new financing, incentives, and ways of thinking are needed to address the funding gap. For example, governments could consider reassessing subsidies or use internal accounting to price nature externalities and guide decision-making. Financial stakeholders could also implement policies and create new financial products that would help direct funding flows toward nature-oriented outcomes. In the current economic environment, companies face a multitude of challenges, including talent retention, macroeconomic pressures, geopolitical instability, and supply chain problems. Taking action on nature would not add to existing burdens, but instead could bring?tangible benefits?for both natural capital and company revenue. Building natural capital will be a journey that leads to a destination of greater prosperity and an economic environment that operates within safe limits.

Where the world’s largest companies stand on nature

While Global 500 companies increasingly recognize the importance of nature, few companies have established nature-related commitments outside of carbon. Nature’s health,?like climate change, is now recognized as an urgent global risk.?In purely economic terms, half of all economic activity is moderately or highly dependent on?natural capital—the world’s stock of natural assets.?Governments and intergovernmental organizations are increasingly calling attention to the nature crisis,?while a growing number of businesses are making pledges related to biodiversity or becoming “nature positive.?Industry-led organizations, such as the?Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), are setting the framework for how businesses report and act on nature-related risks and opportunities.

?Nature-related commitments remain low

?Companies are in the early stages of committing to a broad set of nature-related goals. A high-level review of the Fortune Global 500 companies shows that most companies have climate-related targets (83?percent) or at least acknowledge climate change (an additional 15 percent).?Across other dimensions of nature, however, targets and acknowledgments are far lower.

The methodology adopted

?For instance, although 51 percent of companies acknowledge biodiversity loss in some way, only 5?percent have set quantified targets in addition to that acknowledgment. Meanwhile, some dimensions of nature, such as soil nutrient pollution, show up much less frequently in public acknowledgments. This may not be surprising—while decades of experience have helped companies understand how to address climate change, corporate understanding of nature is still nascent. There is no standardized approach to measuring natural capital and ecosystem services,7?and many companies may not know what steps to take beyond simply acknowledging the challenge. This potential explanation is echoed by gained experience working with clients globally on sustainability topics: while corporate leaders increasingly acknowledge the importance of nature, limited understanding of how to structurally and responsibly engage on the topic of nature degradation prevents many from making quantified commitments.

Considering all dimensions of nature

Another cut of the same data highlights the fact that, among companies that have nature-related targets, most are only considering one dimension of nature—most often climate (in the context of natural climate solutions). Sixteen percent of the Fortune Global 500 have set targets against three or more dimensions of nature, and no companies have targets against the six dimensions as in this analysis. While one explanation for this could be that companies focus on what matters most in relation to their activities, expectations are rising: for example, the initial guidance of the Science-Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) initiative suggests that companies have “a comprehensive understanding of [their] impacts and dependencies on nature.”

Some sectors are ahead of others in setting targets

A sector-level cut of the data reveals that, as a proportion of the overall sector, transportation leads on overall target setting. This is likely due to a combination of the sector facing?climate transition risks, the regulatory focus on transportation sector carbon emissions,?and a?shift to renewable energy, among other factors. And although the sample is small, agriculture leads on setting three or more targets, likely due to increased attention to water and nutrient pollution concerns, in addition to?climate, compared with other sectors. Looking ahead to this year’s UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15), governments committed to a new set of goals for nature to ensure that “the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled.” Now is the time to consider what will be needed to induce broad and effective nature-based action among companies. Corporate leaders will need to understand the shape of the challenge ahead, risks to their operations and opportunities for business building, what the key targets are, and what actions their companies can take

Why investing in nature is key to climate mitigation

?A new consultation paper from McKinsey and the World Economic Forum explores the role that natural climate solutions can play in helping to address climate change and the destruction of nature.?As the world looks beyond?the COVID-19 pandemic, a consensus is emerging: certain measures to curb the growth of greenhouse-gas emissions will be central to?global economic recovery. Awareness is also growing around the urgent need to slow the destruction of the natural world, and it is becoming clear that the two environmental crises—a changing climate and nature loss—are inextricably linked and compounding. Natural climate solutions (NCS)—conservation, restoration, and land-management actions that increase carbon storage and avoid greenhouse-gas emissions—offer a way to address both crises and to increase resilience as the climate changes. In fact, as argued in a new paper produced by McKinsey in partnership with the World Economic Forum, there is no clear path to deliver climate mitigation without investing in nature. Climate action requires both the reduction of emissions and the removal of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. NCS can help with both, starting today.

?What are natural climate solutions?

Private-sector commitment to climate action is gaining momentum, with companies increasingly adopting strategies aimed at reaching net-zero emissions and some pledging to invest in nature through the purchase of NCS-generated carbon credits (or “offsets”) as part of the effort. Based on current net-zero commitments from more than 700 of the world’s largest companies, there have already been commitments of carbon credits of around 0.2 gigatons (Gt) of CO2?by 2030. Some companies are even beginning to make commitments beyond carbon to biodiversity and water, which will be a growing trend over the next decade. As a core component of corporate climate mitigation, NCS is thus becoming mainstream, if not yet commonplace. While undersized overall, NCS now account for around 40 percent of retired carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets, up from only 5 percent in 2010. Leaders are also beginning to invest directly in nature by protecting and restoring large expanses of land and ocean.

The benefit is large. Science tells us that if we are to establish an emissions pathway that limits warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, then we would need to reduce emissions by 50 percent, or 23 GtCO2, by 2030 from 2019 levels.?NCS projects could yield nearly a third of that target, or close to 7 GtCO2?per year by the end of this decade—mainly from preventing deforestation and peatland impact, reforestation, and soil sequestration in agriculture. It also shows that NCS, and in particular forestry projects, are largely a low-cost measure. In addition, there are substantial co-benefits of NCS, both from promoting environmental benefits such as biodiversity and water quality and from fostering capital flows to forest-rich countries in the Global South in support of sustainable development. With close to 7 GtCO2?in annual potential by 2030, assuming an illustrative price per ton of $20?would suggest potential capital flows greater than $100 billion to countries in the Global South that have high concentrations of NCS potential. Yet the ambition to undertake NCS at a global and meaningful scale is foxed by a number of difficulties, both real and perceived. These difficulties include the lack of consensus on how to treat NCS in corporate claims on climate action, combined with low public confidence in the effectiveness of past NCS schemes in contributing to real emissions reduction. There is a widespread suspicion that companies may be tempted to use NCS offsetting as an excuse to avoid fully addressing their own carbon footprint, despite clear guidance that direct emissions avoidance and

Other inhibitors to investment include the absence of an agreed-upon method to measure and recognize co-benefits of NCS for biodiversity, soil and water quality, and community livelihoods—for example, in resource-rich forest countries; undeveloped market infrastructure; and pervasive uncertainty about future supply and demand. There are challenges to ensuring that NCS projects produce carbon reductions that are genuinely additional (that is, reductions that would not have happened otherwise) and permanent. In the past, this overall lack of confidence has manifested itself in low price levels and an oversupply of carbon credits in general, and of forestry credits in particular. Building on other recent work aimed at developing the voluntary carbon market, in particular, that of the Task Force on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM), the paper proposes six steps to address these deficiencies:

Define net-zero and corporate claims:?Agreement is needed on NCS standards and certification under one commonly accepted international standards body. This would provide a more solid foundation for companies to make and validate claims concerning targets for carbon reduction and compensation, and to show precisely how they intend to attain net-zero emissions.

Highlight good practice for supply:?To address public concerns about the validity of NCS in achieving real and permanent carbon reductions, practitioners need to publicize recent progress in establishing good practices—for example, more rigorous measurement and verification methods and advances in sustainable land-use policies

Send a demand signal:?Carbon emitters should agree to prioritize high-quality NCS credits with large co-benefits: this would send a powerful demand signal to build confidence and solidify pricing across carbon markets, and it would encourage policymakers and credit originators to increase the project pipeline. ?

Improve market architecture:?Standards, infrastructure, and financing need to be developed to support the growth of NCS producing tradable credits, as set out in the recent TSVCM report. Necessary steps include the creation of carbon reference contracts that allow prices to reflect the co-benefits of NCS, a radical improvement in the availability of quality market data, and the development of centralized carbon exchanges. Create regulatory clarity:?Policymakers must focus on turning national and corporate carbon-reduction targets into actionable plans, underpinned by binding regulation. Clarity is also needed around how NCS projects can be accounted for within national carbon-reduction goals, how to integrate voluntary and compliance carbon markets, and how to organize the international transfer of carbon credits.

Build trust:?There is a need for greater collaboration among stakeholders in order to address the perceived credibility issues of NCS. A coalition of high-level champions can help amplify the call for high-quality, high-ambition NCS. For the private sector, NCS offers vast opportunities, and the momentum behind realizing them is growing. For example, Amazon is spending $10 million to restore 1.6 million hectares of forest in the United States; Nestlé is investing in ending deforestation and in forest restoration in Ghana and C?te d’Ivoire; and Shell is planting five million trees in the Netherlands, among other climate commitments. Walmart has pledged to be net zero in operations by 2040 and to manage or restore 50 million acres of land and one million square miles of ocean. Within their net-zero commitments, companies such as Unilever and PepsiCo have committed specifically to NCS, recognizing the importance of engaging across the value chain with farmers and growers, who are critical to protecting and restoring landscapes and forests. Another area of opportunity lies in enabling technologies that help unlock NCS potential: for example, hardware that physically enables NCS, such as enhanced tree-planting technologies, or software that can improve the effectiveness and monitoring of NCS. What is beyond doubt is that NCS is a key component both of the effort to reduce and sequester carbon emissions and of the necessary campaign to combat nature loss. International focus on these twin crises is growing, and governments and companies are making bolder commitments. It is time to scale up NCS within a market framework and turn these commitments into action.

?Immediate steps are required proactively to Conserve and restore Natural Resources

Natural resources?are utilized by human beings either directly or indirectly for survival. Examples of natural resources are air, soil, water, sunshine, coal, plants, animals, and minerals. Additionally, nature acts as the sole provider for our fundamental needs, which includes food, clothing, and shelter.?Everything we utilize in our day-to-day lives is drawn from the available natural resources. Besides, artificial resources are derived from available natural resources. However, we never think that these resources might eventually get depleted if we use them irresponsibly. The?surging global population,?rapid urbanization,?and industrialization have created an increased demand for available resources. Suitable and necessary steps require to be taken to secure that we continue enjoying these resources and failure to do that, the future generation will face incredible hardships. Natural resource conservation ensures that the ecological balance is maintained.

1. Use of alternative sources of power such as solar and wind energy?

These?alternative sources of energy?are bio-friendly, as no greenhouse emissions, and are even more effective than burning fossils such as coal and charcoal. They are cheap, difficult to be depleted, and renewable.

2. Plant trees to prevent soil erosion

Protect the critically maintain ecosystem encompasses planting trees and vegetation to?control soil erosion?caused by wind and water. They also provide a home for most insects, birds, and some symbiotic plants, which is a part of a habitat for wildlife.

3. Practicing judicious ways to conserve water in our homes

It requires people to use the water judiciously. As far as possible, minimize its use.

4. Use pipelines to transport oil

During the transportation of oil using ships, to prevent the oil leaks to determinantal to?flora and fauna instead use of?modern ways pipelines for this save most of these species.

5. Growing of vegetation in catchment areas

Catchment areas act as a source of water that flows in the streams, rivers, and oceans, and vegetation in this area enables enough percolation of water into the deep soil layers allowing for the?formation of groundwater.

6. Treatment of industrial wastes and sewages before they are released into the water bodies

Rapid industrialization has resulted in the release of wastes, and effluents that are harmful to the ecosystem, it requires industrial and human waste treatment to stop the thermal and chemical pollution of water.

7. Rain harvesting

?It is done by?harvesting rainwater?during the monsoon season and used in the dry season, and to use for irrigation of farms, and watering our lawns.

8. Practice in-situ or on-site conservation of wildlife

The areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, parks, and biosphere reserves, among others, help to conserve the?endangered plant and animal species in their natural habitats.

9. Practice Ex-situ or offsite conservation of wildlife

It involves the conservation of animals and plants outside the natural habitats, like, pollen banks, DNA banks, zoos, seed banks, botanical gardens, and tissue culture banks, among others.

10. Formulation of policies and regulations to curb poaching

The above will deter poacher kills elephants, rhinos, and leopards for their horns and skin and selling them on the black market. Some of the species are near extinct.

11. Practice judicious ways of conserving energy

It gives emphasis on electric consumption judiciously.

12. Use of biogas in our homes

Globally LPG is the most used by individuals and businesses, so some alternatives like biogas are to be promoted to avoid the depletion of the oil reserves. Biogas is mainly produced from cattle dung; biogas plants are a source of both biogas and manure.

13. Use of bio-fuels

Fossil fuels?have been a major source of energy but depleting rapidly, so use an alternative source of fuel such as?bio-fuels, mainly derived from plant species. Bio-fuels are bio-friendly and reducing in air pollution.

14. Ensure the recycling of wastes

These wastes include plastics, and paper bags created a huge amount of garbage. Recycling reduces garbage, reducing soil and water pollution.

15. Planting trees in home compounds

?to?prune the electricity costs?mainly used AC, trees planting will help.

16. Make use of electronic mail

Save tree use digital are already in practice, we can enhance it to avoid tree cutting.

17. Purchase hybrid cars instead of conventional cars

Hybrid cars?use a combination of electricity and minimal amounts of gas to run them and helping in conserving fossil fuels.

18. Use earthbags instead of plastic and paper bags

The e?excessive use of plastic bags to be replaced by an earth-bag o be recycled as well as wrapped in materials.

19. Use energy-saving fluorescent bulbs

Energy-saving bulbs may cost more money than old bulbs but have low electricity and also last long.

20. Industries can ensure they make production efficient to reduce wastage

This will ensure limited harvesting of natural resources and also reduce wastage.

21. Use ceramic cups to consume the daily cup of coffee rather than using disposable mugs

This ensures that there is less waste and also ensures the overall conservation of the ecosystem.

22. Practice crop rotation

Planting the same crops for long period reduces soil fertility. The practice of crop rotation will restore and maintain soil fertility.

23. Formulate regulations to stop overfishing

Overfishing interrupts aquatic life?and depletes the fish available in our water bodies. Regulations to deter overfishing.

41. Celebrate World Conservation Day

While celebrating ?World Conservation Day, spread awareness to a widespread level.

?ITS 2022?CHAMPIONS OF THE EARTH

UNEP?is the leading global voice on the environment. It provides leadership and encourages partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. Since the inception of the UNEP in 2005, the annual Champions of the Earth award has been awarded to trailblazers at the forefront of efforts to protect our natural world. It is the UN’s highest environmental honor. To date, the award has recognized 111 laureates: 26 world leaders, 69 individuals, and 16 organizations. This year a record 2,200 nominations from around the world were received.

THE UNEP ANNUAL PROGRAM WAS HELD ON NAIROBI, 22 NOVEMBER 2022?

?

On this day, UNEP announced its 2022?Champions of the Earth Award honoring a conservationist, an enterprise, an economist, a women’s rights activist, and a wildlife biologist for their transformative action to prevent, halt and reverse ecosystem degradation. “Healthy, functional ecosystems are critical to preventing the climate emergency and loss of biodiversity from causing irreversible damage to our planet. This year’s Champions of the Earth give us hope that our relationship with nature can be repaired,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. “This year’s Champions demonstrate how reviving ecosystems and supporting nature’s remarkable capacity for regeneration is everyone’s job: governments, the private sector, scientists, communities, NGOs, and individuals.”

UNEP’s?2022 Champions of the Earth?are:

Arcenciel?(Lebanon), honored in the?Inspiration and Action?category, is a leading environmental enterprise whose work to create a cleaner, the healthier environment has laid the foundation for the country’s national waste management strategy. Now it recycles more than 80 percent of Lebanon’s potentially infectious hospital waste yearly.

Constantino (Tino) Aucca Chutas?(Peru), also honored in the?Inspiration and Action?category, has pioneered a community reforestation model driven by local and Indigenous communities by planting three million trees. He is also driving the foremost ambitious reforestation efforts in other Andean countries.

Sir Partha Dasgupta?(UK), honored in the?Science and Innovation?category, is an eminent economist whose landmark review on the economics of biodiversity calls for a fundamental rethink of humanity’s relationship with the natural world to prevent critical ecosystems from reaching dangerous tipping points.

Dr. Purnima Devi Barman?(India), honored in the?Entrepreneurial Vision?category, is a wildlife biologist who leads the “Hargila Army”, an all-female grassroots conservation movement dedicated to protecting the Greater Adjutant Stork from extinction. The women create and sell textiles with motifs of the bird, helping to raise awareness about the species while building their own financial independence.

Cécile Bibiane Ndjebet?(Cameroon), honored in the?Inspiration and Action?category, is an untiring advocate for the rights of women in Africa to secure land tenure, which is prime to succeed in restoring ecosystems, fighting poverty and mitigating climate change. She is tirelessly also important efforts to effect policy on gender equality in forest management across 20 African countries.

Following the launch of the?UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration?(2021-2030), this year’s awards glow limelight on efforts to prevent, maintain, and reverse ecosystem degradation globally.

Ecosystems on every continent and in every ocean face massive threats. Every year, the?planet loses forest cover?equivalent to the size of Portugal. Oceans are being overfished and polluted, with 11 million tonnes of plastic alone ending up in marine environments annually. One million species are at risk of extinction as their habitats disappear or become polluted. Ecosystem restoration is essential for keeping global warming below 2°C and helping societies and economies to acclimatize to climate change. It is also crucial to fighting hunger: restoration through agroforestry alone has the potential to increase food security for 1.3 billion people. Restoring just 15 percent of converted lands could reduce the risk of species extinction by 60 percent.?Ecosystem restoration?will only succeed if everyone joins the #GenerationRestoration movement.

About the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) :: About the UNEP Champions of the Earth

The UNEP’s?Champions of the Earth?honors individuals and organizations whose actions have a transformative impact on the environment. The annual Champions of the Earth award is the UN’s highest environmental honor. It recognizes outstanding leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector.??????

About the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration

The United Nations General Assembly has declared the years 2021 through 2030?the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Led by the UN Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, together with the support of partners, it is designed to prevent, halt, and reverse the loss and degradation of ecosystems worldwide. It aims at reviving billions of hectares, covering terrestrial as well as aquatic ecosystems. A global call to action, the UN Decade draws together political support, scientific research, and financial muscle to massively scale up restoration.

Related Sustainable Development Goals

Goal 1: Zero Hunger

Goal 2: Clean Water and Sanitation

Goal 3: Affordable and Clean Energy

Goal 4:??Climate Action

Goal 5: Life Below Water

Goal 6: Life on Land

Goal 7: Partnerships for the Goals

Goal 8: No poverty

Goal 9: Affordable and Clean Energy

Goal 10: Sustainable Consumption and Production

?STEPS TAKEN BY OUR COUNTRY IN THIS REGARD

?A framework of different policies and strategies is in place to overcome these ecological and socio‐economic challenges. But, need more cohesiveness with separate aims and participation of diverse government institutions and departments. Therefore, posing challenges need to be eliminated in restoration and biodiversity conservation through policies in a cost‐effective, efficient and sustainable way to come out of its ecological and socio‐economic challenges. Forest restoration is one of the major concerns which need simplification of is one of the best resolutions to gain sustainable progress by restoring the ecological, economic, and social functions and values of the forests.

The continued decline of global forests by 3% between 1990 and 2015 as per the reports of FAO (2018) has also necessitated the need for increased forest protection and restoration. The trend of adopting tree planting as a suitable step to combat global warming as their ability to sequester carbon, thereby slowing climate change, is being challenged by alternate postulations, as in many instances planting without considering local factors and ecology may lead to negative consequences and more damages to ecosystems than the intended benefits. Similarly, bad planting in grasslands like savannahs may be disastrous, causing a loss of local biodiversity. A study from 2020 that mapped the carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth, stated that certainly restored forests tend to have nearly 32% more carbon storage. These findings have led to a favorable inclination in the conservation story, with more emphasis on forest restoration than tree planting. In this decade (2021-2030) on Ecosystem Restoration as designated by the UN, it is essential to employ new techniques of forest restoration. Restoration is now widely accepted, and its features such as cost-effectiveness and the ability to conserve more biodiversity make it a more suitable intervention than tree planting, and slowly gaining popularity among people and governments. Strong ecosystems assist livelihood security, fight climate change and prevent species’ mass extinction. Sadly, in the last century, the world has lost no less than 30% of its forests and 35% of its wetlands. As this loss continues, one-fifth of the world’s countries are at risk of ecosystem collapse, severely compromising our?biosphere integrity, a key planetary boundary. With increasing threats of climate change posing more impact on the health of ecosystems, the window for halting and reversing the trends of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss is becoming so critical that the United Nations has announced 2021-2030 as the?‘Decade on Ecosystem Restoration.’ The aim of this periodization is to inspire and challenge global development agencies to optimize and prompt restoration programs.

?To highlight the various ecosystem challenges in India and to inspire local stakeholders, Columbia Global Centers | Mumbai — in collaboration with IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management — organized a virtual panel discussion entitled ‘The Decade of Restoration: What Lies Ahead for India’s Ecosystems’ on December 7, 2021.

Ecosystem restoration has caused immense damage on a global scale, and India lies in an especially vulnerable position. Professor DeFries said that there are three acute crises that the world is facing today — the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis, and the loss of local livelihoods that are dependent on ecosystems. With a huge percentage of India’s population gradually shifting towards material well-being, conservation and restoration are not just needed for supporting livelihoods but for also neutralizing emissions as committed under Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.

To understand some of the key ecosystems of India and the challenges and opportunities to restore them, the panel discussion highlighting the various challenges around terrestrial ecosystems, especially forest ecosystems, in India, Dr. Dhyana threw a spotlight on how ignorant land-use change policies, climate change, forest fires, overexploitation of species, pollution and invasive species are leading to the degradation of forests and other ecosystems. While India joined the Bonn Challenge in 2015 with a pledge to restore 13 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2020 and 26 million hectares by 2030 to be able to create a committed carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, there are ecologists also who suggest that whatever has been committed is just 1.5% of the total degraded land in India. Dr. Dhyani advised that if the right policies and programs are put in place, India can achieve the target or at least a milestone close to the target. She also addressed the dilemma and debate regarding whether green cover enhancement efforts in India should be exclusively focused on natural forests or should equally promote trees outside forests (ToF). Dr. Kumar highlighted the predicament of several wetlands in India, which are valuable resources. Dr. Nitin Pandit noted that such ignorance should not cause the loss of a particular ecosystem. He advocated for an integrated restoration approach and shared ATREE’s approach to identifying large-scale landscapes and waterscapes to restore and conserve appropriate diverse ecosystems within that area. He also shared examples of innovative community engagement-based initiatives that matched local aspirations with demand-side management for innovations in funding restoration programs. The discussion minutely analyzed the rationale for adopting restoration policies, approaches to engaging multiple stakeholders, and programs for improving integrated restoration programs or?wholes capes.

?CONCLUSION

Millions of hectares of degraded land, unprecedented loss of biodiversity, and extreme climatic events are the key ecological challenges for India. Offering livelihood opportunities to millions of workers who migrated to their villages and recover from the economic crisis due to covid‐19 pandemic has emerged as the biggest socio‐economic challenge for the country. A framework of different policies and strategies is in place to overcome these ecological and socio‐economic challenges. But they are loosely interconnected with independent aims and involvement of different government institutions and departments. Therefore, challenges show how aiming at ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation through these policies can provide a cost‐effective, efficient and sustainable way for India to overcome its ecological and socio‐economic challenges. Forest restoration is the act of bringing back a forest or landscape which has been degraded or damaged by anthropogenic exploitation or natural factors, to its original state. Forest restoration not only means the recovery of degraded forests and their other functions, but also the best solutions contributing to sustainable improvement by restoring the ecological, economic, and social functions and values of the forests. It is a global issue; therefore, cooperation and collaboration are necessary. We observe that several efforts are being taken globally. But, the pace of mitigation is far from effective.