The Importance of Being Integrated

The global devastation that continues to wage in first weeks of 2025 is yet another striking reminder of physical impacts that come from transgressing this planet’s boundaries. As the social, environmental, and monetary cost of these acute events continues to build, so does the evidence base behind the case of needing to urgently act.?

Either side of the New Year, there have been several reminders that the approach we take in acting is as key in acting itself. In fact, ITS (Integrated, trade-offs, and synergies) vital.

In recent days, it has been widely covered that 2024 saw Earth breach 1.5C (above those of the pre-industrial period) on an annual basis the first time in human history. Much has been written about its potential implications, both physically and for the prospect of achieving the ambition laid out within the Paris Agreement.

Beneath the headlines of what, the discussion over why we had seen such an acceleration in global temperatures last year continues to rage. Even as the evidence of the fast-warming atmosphere was increasingly apparent last year, it is widely acknowledged that the extent of the rise in global temperatures in 2024 can’t be fully or easily accounted for. ?Scientists have (and continue to) attempted to explain the excessive heat, with several candidates in play.?

Among them is the role that the reduction in emissions of sulphur dioxide has played. This reduction has both sectoral (Strict limits on the sulphur content of marine fuels at the global level in 2020) and national (China has reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by more than 60% in the last 15 years through production limits and technologies) drivers.? On one hand, reductions are positive for air pollution and quality (and thereby health outcomes), but on the other they act to ‘mask’ warming. In short, actions on sulphur may have led to cleaner air but an ‘unmasking’ of warming. An example of the potential short-term trade-offs of certain actions across climate and nature dimensions. ?

While reasonable people can debate and discuss the aggregate impacts of such actions across multiple climate, nature and social outcomes - assessing trade-offs is inherently values-based, subjective and dependent on a range of factors – they key is ensuring those trade-offs are part of an integrated decision-making process from the onset. ?

For any decision maker, the case for an integrated approach does not only refer to activities, products, services, and policies, but also its engagement too. In an excellent The Royal Society Society piece, four critical science and technical advances were identified as needed to enable private sector action at scale to halt and reverse nature loss.

These covered four elements of data (accessible global, regularly updated, consistent and location-specific), measurement (consensus on indicators and metrics associated with the state of nature and ecosystem services), accounting (standardised and consistent accounting systems to create accountability) and risk assessment (more sophisticated and standardised approaches to enable nature-related risk mitigation).

Across them all is a common thread: that limitations to each at present are inhibiting individual actions but addressing them requires collective effort. ?For any single organisation, that translates to engaging on these areas if they are inhibiting implementation. The inability to act alone does not mean an ability to engage collectively.

Finally, the imperative behind needing to take an integrated approach was also recently underscored in the IPBES Assessment Report on the Interlinkages Among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health – known as the Nexus Report - released towards the end of last year. ?The nexus – covering the interlinkages between climate change, biodiversity, food, water, and human health – assessment made clear that focusing on a single element of the nexus at the expense of the others would have adverse impacts on net.

The assessment examined over 70 'response options' for tackling at least one element of the nexus between biodiversity, water, food security, health and climate change.? As part of this, it discussed the potential synergies and trade-offs of these actions. Examples that were identified to have synergies across the nexus elements including restoring carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests, soils, mangroves, improving integrated landscape and seascape management; and managing biodiversity to reduce risk of diseases spreading from animals to humans.

It indicated that all of the options included for restoring biodiversity would come with synergies for mitigating and adapting to climate change, but the opposite was not true with some trade-offs at play. The report noted that some response options, such as offshore wind power and dams, may have negative impacts on certain nexus elements if not carefully implemented.

More widely, it also covered the need to mitigate “fragmented and siloed institutions” as well as "short-term, contradictory and non-inclusive policies" on biodiversity, climate change, food, water and health issues. At all decision-making levels, it suggested that a sole focus and approach on addressing single issue was potentially putting all of those systems at risk. In other words, anything less than seeking an integrated approach would lead to inadequate outcomes.

As we enter 2025 in earnest and the extent of early-year devastation subsides, the importance of being integrated will only become more intense.

Any views expressed on this platform are personal, and do not represent the views of any organisation.

Links:

·???????? State of the climate: 2024 sets a new record as the first year above 1.5C - Carbon Brief

·???????? Earth is warming faster. Scientists are closing in on why

·???????? Nexus assessment | IPBES secretariat

·???????? Science and technical priorities for private sector action to address biodiversity loss | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences