MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2019-20
MOF Alm.del Bilag 326
Offentligt

The global

assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY

AND ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE IPBES GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ISBN No: 978-3-947851-13-3

Reproduction

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in

any form for educational or non-profit services without special

permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement

of the source is made. The IPBES secretariat would appreciate

receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a

source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any

other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in

writing from the IPBES secretariat. Applications for such permission,

with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction,

should be addressed to the IPBES secretariat. The use of

information from this publication concerning proprietary products for

publicity or advertising is not permitted.

For further information, please contact:

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus

Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany

Phone: +49 (0) 228 815 0570

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.ipbes.net

Photo credits

Cover:

Nasa-USGS Landsat_N. Kuring / A. Hendry / Shutterstock_

Photocreo / C. Mittermeier_SeaLegacy:

Kayapo Beauty

–

Kubenkrajke, Brazil, 2010 –

A young Kayapó girl bathing in the warm

waters of the Xingú River in the Brazilian Amazon. The Kayapó

people are tied to the river for their entire lives through ceremony and

necessity and with this, comes in-depth knowledge on how to live in

balance with nature / Shutterstock_M. Bednarek

P. 3:

IISD/D. Noguera

P.4-5: UNEP

(J Masuya) /

UNESCO

(A Azoulay) /

FAO

(J Graziano

da Silva) /

UNDP

(Achim Steiner)

/ CBD

(Cristiana Paşca Palmer)

P. 6:

D. M. Cáceres

(Sandra Díaz)

/ UFZ_S. Wiedling

(Josef Settele)

IISD/ENB_M. Muzurakis

(Eduardo S. Brondízio)

P. 8-9:

Shutterstock_Mazur Travel

P. 11:

C. Mittermeier /Shutterstock_A. Fortuner / Shutterstock_D.

Mikhail / Shutterstock_Bonga 1965 / B. Vilá

P. 13:

Shutterstock_Trybex / S. Díaz / Shutterstock_Nimit Virdi

P. 20-21:

Shutterstock_R. Whitcombe

P. 48-49:

I. Palomo

Traceable accounts

The chapter references enclosed in curly brackets (e.g. {2.3.1,

2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3}) are traceable accounts and refer to sections

of the chapters of the IPBES Global Assessment. A traceable

account is a description within the corresponding texts of these

chapters, reflecting the evaluation of the type, amount, quality,

and consistency of evidence and the degree of agreement for that

particular statement or key finding.

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of material on

the maps used in the present report do not imply the expression

of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental

Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or

of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries. These maps have been prepared for the sole purpose

of facilitating the assessment of the broad biogeographical areas

represented therein.

Technical Support

Hien T. Ngo (Head)

Maximilien Guèze

Graphic Design

Maro Haas, Art direction and layout

Yuka Estrada, SPM figures

SUGGESTED CITATION:

IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental

Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J.

Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian,

G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin,

I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.

MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WHO PROVIDED GUIDANCE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THIS ASSESSMENT:

Robert T. Watson, Ivar A. Baste, Anne Larigauderie, Paul Leadley, Unai Pascual, Brigitte Baptiste, Sebsebe Demissew, Luthando Dziba,

Gunay Erpul, Asghar M. Fazel, Markus Fischer, Ana Maria Hernández, Madhav Karki, Vinod Mathur, Tamar Pataridze, Isabel Sousa Pinto,

Marie Stenseke, Katalin Török and Bibiana Vilá.

OVERALL REVIEW EDITORS

Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, Georgina M. Mace, Harold Mooney.

This report in the form of a PDF can be viewed and downloaded at www.ipbes.net

The IPBES global assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions including non-earmarked contributions to the

IPBES trust fund from Governments (Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France,

Germany, India, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa,

Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America); earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund toward the global

assessment (Germany, Canada, France (Agence Française pour la Biodiversité), Norway, United Kingdom and United States of America); and

in-kind contributions targeted at the global assessment. All donors are listed on the IPBES web site: www.ipbes.net/donors

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The global assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY AND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

AUTHORS:

Sandra Díaz (Co-Chair, Argentina), Josef Settele (Co-Chair, Germany), Eduardo Brondízio (Co-Chair, Brazil/United

States of America), Hien T. Ngo (IPBES), Maximilien Guèze (IPBES); John Agard (Trinidad and Tobago), Almut Arneth

(Germany), Patricia Balvanera (Mexico), Kate Brauman (United States of America), Stuart Butchart (United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland/BirdLife International), Kai Chan (Canada), Lucas A. Garibaldi (Argentina), Kazuhito

Ichii (Japan), Jianguo Liu (United States of America), Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian (India/United Nations

University), Guy F. Midgley (South Africa), Patricia Miloslavich (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela/Australia), Zsolt Molnár

(Hungary), David Obura (Kenya), Alexander Pfaff (United States of America), Stephen Polasky (United States of America),

Andy Purvis (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Jona Razzaque (Bangladesh/United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Belinda Reyers (South Africa), Rinku Roy Chowdhury (United States of America),

Yunne-Jai Shin (France), Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers (Netherlands/United States of America), Katherine Willis (United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Cynthia Zayas (Philippines).

1. Authors are listed with, in parenthesis, their country of citizenship, or countries of citizenship separated by a comma when they

have several; and, following a slash, their country of affiliation, if different from citizenship, or their organization if they belong to an

international organization; name of expert (nationality 1, nationality 2/affiliation). The countries or organizations having nominated

these experts are listed on the IPBES website.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

FOREWORD

key objective of the Intergovernmental

Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is to

provide Governments, the private sector

and civil society with scientiﬁcally credible

and independent up-to-date assessments

of available knowledge for better evidence-informed policy

decisions and action at the local, national, regional and

global levels.

This Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services has been carried out by about 150 selected experts

from all regions of the world, including 16 early career fellows,

assisted by 350 contributing authors. More than 15,000

scientific publications were analyzed as well as a substantive

body of indigenous and local knowledge. Its chapters were

accepted, and its summary for policymakers was approved,

by the more than 130 Governments that constitute the

Members of IPBES, at the seventh session of the IPBES

Plenary (29

April to 4

May, 2019), hosted by France at

UNESCO in Paris.

This report represents a critical assessment, the first in almost

15 years (since the release of the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment in 2005) and the first ever carried out by an

intergovernmental body, of the status and trends of the

natural world, the social implications of these trends, their

direct and indirect causes, and, importantly, the actions

that can still be taken to ensure a better future for all. These

complex links have been assessed using a simple, yet very

inclusive framework that should resonate with a wide range of

stakeholders, since it recognizes diverse world views, values

and knowledge systems.

The concept of nature’s contributions to people, which is

discussed in detail in chapter 1, embraces a wide range of

descriptions of human-nature interactions, including through

the concept of ecosystem services and other descriptions,

which range from strongly utilitarian to strongly relational. The

concept of nature’s contribution to people was developed to

embrace a fuller and more symmetric consideration of diverse

stakeholders and world views, and a richer evidence base

for action, i.e., the knowledge base offered by the natural

and social sciences, the humanities, and the knowledge of

practitioners and indigenous and local communities. The

reporting system for nature’s contributions to people has a

gradient of complementary and overlapping approaches,

ranging from a generalizing to a context-specific perspective.

The generalizing perspective is analytical in purpose and is

organized into eighteen categories of material, non-material

and regulating contributions. The context-specific perspective

FOREWORD

IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body

comprising over 130 member Governments.

Established by Governments in 2012, IPBES

provides policymakers with objective scientific

assessments about the state of knowledge

regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and

the contributions they make to people, as well as

options and actions to protect and sustainably use

these vital natural assets.

The IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services represents the landmark

product of the first work programme of IPBES

(2014-2018). The Global Assessment was initiated

following a decision from the IPBES Plenary at its

fourth session (IPBES 4, Kuala Lumpur, 2016), and

considered by the IPBES Plenary at its seventh

session (IPBES 7, Paris, 2019). It is composed of a

summary for policymakers, which was approved at

IPBES 7, and six chapters, which were accepted at

IPBES 7.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

is typical of indigenous and local knowledge

systems, where knowledge production does

not typically seek to explicitly extend or validate

itself beyond specific geographic and cultural

contexts. In this way, the nature’s contributions

to people approach (or the IPBES approach)

builds on the existing approaches, descriptors

and metrics used by different communities

of practice in the search for understanding

and solutions.

In the last 10-15 years, since the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, there has been a significant increase in our

understanding of biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as their

importance to the quality of life of every person. There is also

greater understanding now about which policies, practices,

technologies and behaviors can best lead to the conservation

and sustainable use of biodiversity and the achievement

of many of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement on Climate

Change. However, biodiversity is still being lost, ecosystems

are still being degraded and many of nature’s contributions to

people are being compromised.

The Assessment is critical today because evidence has

accumulated that the multiple threats to biodiversity have

intensified since previous reports, and that the sustainable use

of nature will be vital for adapting to and mitigating dangerous

anthropogenic interference with the climate system, as well as

for achieving many of our most important development goals.

The findings of this Assessment focus on the global scale,

spanning the period from the 1970s to 2050. They are based

on an unprecedented collection of evidence, integrating

natural and social science perspectives, a range of knowledge

systems and multiple dimensions of value. This is the first

global-level assessment to systematically consider evidence

about the contributions of indigenous and local knowledge

and practices, and issues concerning Indigenous Peoples and

Local Communities. All these features result in a more holistic

assessment of indirect drivers as root causes of changes

in nature and the associated risks to the quality of life of

all people.

As the Chair and the Executive Secretary of IPBES, we wish to

recognize the excellent and dedicated work of the co-chairs,

Professors Sandra Díaz (Argentina), Eduardo S. Brondízio

(Brazil and USA), and Josef Settele (Germany) and of all

the coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,

fellows, contributing authors and reviewers, and to warmly

thank them for their commitment, and for contributing their

time freely to this important report. We would also like to thank

Hien Ngo and Maximilien Guèze from the technical support

unit located at the IPBES secretariat in Bonn, Germany,

because this report would not have been possible without

their extraordinary dedication. Our thanks also go the current

and former members of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel

(MEP) and of the Bureau who provided guidance as part of

the management committee for this report, and to members

of other technical support units within the IPBES secretariat,

who have supported the production of this report. We would

also like to thank all Governments and other institutions that

provided financial and in-kind support for the preparation of

this assessment.

The IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services, together with the four IPBES regional assessments

of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the two

thematic Assessments of Pollination, Pollinators and Food

Production, and of Land Degradation and Restoration, form

an impressive corpus of knowledge to make better-informed

decisions regarding the conservation and sustainable use

of biodiversity. The IPBES Global Assessment is expected

to be an important evidence base for the assessment of

progress towards the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity

Targets in the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook

and to play a major role in the consideration of the post 2020

biodiversity framework by the 15

Conference of the Parties

to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in October 2020. It

is also expected to inform implementation of the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development

Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is our

sincere hope that the IPBES Global Assessment will continue

to place biodiversity at the top of the global political agenda,

with similar priority to that accorded to climate change. The

process leading to COP 15 offers this opportunity.

Sir Robert T. Watson

Chair of IPBES from 2016 to 2019

Anne Larigauderie

Executive Secretary of IPBES

FOREWORD

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

STATEMENTS FROM

KEY PARTNERS

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

Nature makes human

development possible but

our relentless demand for

the earth’s resources is accelerating

extinction rates and devastating the

world’s ecosystems. UN

Environment is proud to support the

Global Assessment Report

produced by the Intergovernmental

Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem

Services because it highlights the

critical need to integrate biodiversity

considerations in global decision-

making on any sector or challenge,

whether its water or agriculture,

infrastructure or business.

Joyce Masuya

Acting Executive Director,

United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP)

This essential report

reminds each of us of the

obvious truth: the present

generations have the responsibility

to bequeath to future generations a

planet that is not irreversibly

damaged by human activity. Our

local, indigenous and scientific

knowledge are proving that we have

solutions and so no more excuses:

we must live on earth differently.

UNESCO is committed to

promoting respect of the living and

of its diversity, ecological solidarity

with other living species, and to

establish new, equitable and global

links of partnership and

intragenerational solidarity, for the

perpetuation of humankind.

Audrey Azoulay

Director-General,

United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO)

The

Global assessment of

biodiversity and ecosystem

services

adds a major

element to the body of evidence for

the importance of biodiversity to

efforts to achieve the Zero Hunger

objective and meet the Sustainable

Development Goals. Together,

assessments undertaken by IPBES,

FAO, CBD and other organizations

point to the urgent need for action

to better conserve and sustainably

use biodiversity and to the

importance of cross-sectoral and

multidisciplinary collaboration

among decision-makers and other

stakeholders at all levels.

José Graziano da Silva

Director-General,

Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO)

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Across cultures, humans

inherently value nature.

The magic of seeing

fireflies flickering long into the night

is immense. We draw energy and

nutrients from nature. We find

sources of food, medicine,

livelihoods and innovation in

nature. Our well-being

fundamentally depends on nature.

Our efforts to conserve biodiversity

and ecosystems must be

underpinned by the best science

that humanity can produce. This is

why the scientific evidence

compiled in this IPBES Global

Assessment is so important. It will

help us build a stronger foundation

for shaping the post 2020 global

biodiversity framework: the ‘New

Deal for Nature and People’; and

for achieving the SDGs.

Achim Steiner

Administrator,

United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP)

The IPBES’ 2019 Global

Assessment Report on

Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services comes at a

critical time for the planet and all its

peoples. The report’s findings —

and the years of diligent work by the

many scientists who contributed—

will offer a comprehensive view of

the current conditions of global

biodiversity. Healthy biodiversity is

the essential infrastructure that

supports all forms of life on earth,

including human life. It also provides

nature-based solutions on many of

the most critical environmental,

economic, and social challenges

that we face as human society,

including climate change,

sustainable development, health,

and water and food security. We are

currently in the midst of preparing

for the 2020 UN Biodiversity

Conference, in China, which will

mark the close of the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets and set the

course for a post 2020 ecologically

focused sustainable development

pathway to deliver multiple benefits

for people, the planet and our global

economy. The IPBES report will

serve as a fundamental baseline of

where we are and where we need

to go as a global community to

inspire humanity to reach the 2050

Vision of the UN Biodiversity

Convention “Living in harmony with

nature”. I want to extend my thanks

and congratulations to the IPBES

community for their hard work,

immense contributions and

continued partnership.

Dr. Cristiana Paşca Palmer

Executive Secretary

Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD)

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

he co-chairs of the IPBES Global Assessment

Report of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

wish to thank the people and institutions that

helped to make the Report possible.

We are first indebted to the hundreds of

experts in biophysical and social sciences, policymakers

and practitioners, as well as representatives of Indigenous

Peoples and Local Communities, who generously

contributed their time and knowledge, as lead authors,

chapter scientists, resource person, and/or review editors

(listed below), and to all contributing authors. We are

fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with such an

engaged, collegial and superb group of authors.

We are grateful to the members of the IPBES secretariat,

particularly Executive Secretary Anne Larigauderie, the

IPBES Chair (Robert Watson), representatives of member

States, the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and Bureau

and other resource persons for their dedication, strategic

vision, constructive comments and continued advice.

The Global Assessment would not have been possible

without the titanic effort of its technical support unit (Hien

T. Ngo and Maximilien Guèze) during the whole process,

including the long and challenging seventh session of the

IPBES Plenary (#IPBES7), which resulted in the approval

of this Summary for Policymakers and the acceptance

of the underlying chapters. In addition, we are thankful

for the support of several IPBES technical support

units, and their host institutions at different stages of the

process: Knowledge and data technical support unit

(NIE, Republic of Korea), indigenous and local knowledge

technical support unit (UNESCO), scenarios and models

technical support unit (PBL, Netherlands), and the capacity

building technical support unit (NEA, Norway). We also

thank the data visualization specialist and the graphic

designer for their skillful work. We would like to thank the

IPBES communications team, for their outstanding work

communicating the main messages to the general public.

We are also grateful to all supportive Governments but in

particular the Governments of Germany, South Africa, Norway,

the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands as well as

to the Córdoba Province (Argentina), who generously hosted

our chapter and/or author meetings. The co-chairs would

especially like to acknowledge the support of their home

institutions and governments: the Helmholtz Centre for

Environmental Research – UFZ (Germany), iDiv (the German

Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research), Universidad

Nacional de Córdoba and CONICET (Argentina), and Indiana

University-Bloomington (USA). Finally, our gratitude goes

to the Government of France for hosting #IPBES 7 and to

UNESCO for providing the venue and support. The dedication

and contributions of all of the governments, organizations

and people above made the Global Assessment possible and

impactful and for that we are deeply indebted and appreciative.

Sandra Díaz, Josef Settele, Eduardo S. Brondízio

Co-Chairs

We are grateful to the following lead authors, fellows and chapter scientists of the IPBES Global Assessment:

C. Adams, J. Agard, A. P. D. Aguiar, D. Armenteras, A. Arneth, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, X. Bai, P. Balvanera, T. Bekele Gode, E. Bennett, Y. A. Boafo,

A. K. Boedhihartono, P. Brancalion, K. Brauman, E. Bukvareva, S. Butchart, K. Chan, N. Chettri, W. L. Cheung, B. Czúcz, F. DeClerck, E. Dulloo,

B. Gabrielyan, L. Galetto, K. Galvin, E. García Frapolli, L. Garibaldi, A. P. Gautam, L. R. Gerber, A. Geschke, J. Gutt, S. Hashimoto, A. Heinimann,

A. Hendry, G. C. Hernández Pedraza, T. Hickler, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, S. A. Hussain, K. Ichii, M. Islar, U. Jacob, W. Jetz, J. Jetzkowitz, Md S. Karim,

E. Kelemen, E. Keskin, P. Kindlmann, M. Kok, M. Kolb, Z. Krenova, P. Leadley, J. Liu, J. Liu, G. Lui, M. Mastrangelo, P. McElwee, L. Merino, G. F. Midgley,

P. Miloslavich, P. A. Minang, A. Mohammed, Z. Molnár, I. B. Mphangwe Kosamu, E. Mungatana, R. Muradian, M. Murray-Hudson, N. Nagabhatla,

A. Niamir, N. Nkongolo, T. Oberdorff, D. Obura, P. O’Farrell, P. Osano, B. Öztürk, H. Palang, M. G. Palomo, M. Panahi, U. Pascual, A. Pfaff, R. Pichs

Madruga, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, V. Reyes-García, C. Rondinini, R. Roy Chowdhury, G. M. Rusch, O. Saito, J. Sathyapalan,

T. Satterfield, A. K. Saysel, E. R. Selig, R. Seppelt, L. Shannon, Y. J. Shin, A. Simcock, G. S. Singh, B. Strassburg, S. Subramanian, D. Tarkhnishvili,

E. Turnhout, M. Verma, A. Viña, I. Visseren-Hamakers, M. J. Williams, K. Willis, H. Xu, D. Xue, T. Yue, C. Zayas, L. Balint, Z. Basher, I. Chan, A. Fernandez-

Llamazares, P. Jaureguiberry, M. Lim, A. J. Lynch, A. Mohamed, T. H. Mwampamba, I. Palomo, P. Pliscoff, R. Salimov, A. Samakov, O. Selomane,

U. B. Shrestha, A. Sidorovich, R. Krug, J.H. Spangenberg, E. Strombom, N. Titeux, M. Wiemers, and D. Zaleski.

Review editors:

M. Carneiro da Cunha, G. Mace, H. Mooney, R. Dirzo, S. Demissew, H. Arceo, S. Asah, E. Lambin, J. Mistry, T. Brooks, F. Berkes, M. Chytry, K. Esler,

J. Carabias Lillo and J. Plesnik.

The IPBES Management Committee for the Global Assessment and resource persons:

R. T. Watson, I. A. Baste, A. Larigauderie, P. Leadley, U. Pascual, D. Cooper, B. Baptiste, S. Demissew, L. Dziba, G. Erpul, A. Fazel, M. Fischer,

A. M. Hernández, M. Karki, V. Mathur, T. Pataridze, I. Sousa Pinto, M. Stenseke, K. Török and B. Vilá.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

page 2

FOREWORD

page 4

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

page 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

page 9

KEY MESSAGES

A. Nature and its vital contributions to people

B. Direct and indirect drivers of change

C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability

D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably

page 21

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

BACKGROUND

A. Nature and its vital contributions to people

B. Direct and indirect drivers of change

C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability

D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably

page 49

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Conceptual framework and definitions

APPENDIX 2

Communication of the degree of confidence

APPENDIX 3

Knowledge gaps

APPENDIX 4

Draft table of knowledge gaps

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

KEY

MESSAGES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

KEY

MESSAGES

A. Nature and its vital contributions

to people, which together embody

biodiversity and ecosystem

functions and services, are

deteriorating worldwide.

Nature embodies different concepts for

different people, including biodiversity,

ecosystems, Mother Earth, systems of life

and other analogous concepts. Nature’s

contributions to people embody different

concepts, such as ecosystem goods and

services and nature’s gifts. Both nature and

nature’s contributions to people are vital for

human existence and good quality of life

(human well-being, living in harmony with

nature, living well in balance and harmony

with Mother Earth, and other analogous

concepts). While more food, energy and

materials than ever before are now being

supplied to people in most places, this is

increasingly at the expense of nature’s ability

to provide such contributions in the future,

and frequently undermines nature’s many

other contributions, which range from water

quality regulation to sense of place. The

biosphere, upon which humanity as a whole

depends, is being altered to an unparalleled

degree across all spatial scales. Biodiversity

– the diversity within species, between

species and of ecosystems – is declining

faster than at any time in human history.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

energy needs, an estimated 4 billion people rely primarily on

natural medicines for their health care and some 70 per cent

of drugs used for cancer are natural or are synthetic

products inspired by nature. Nature, through its ecological

and evolutionary processes, sustains the quality of the air,

fresh water and soils on which humanity depends,

distributes fresh water, regulates the climate, provides

pollination and pest control and reduces the impact of

natural hazards. For example, more than 75 per cent of

global food crop types, including fruits and vegetables and

some of the most important cash crops, such as coffee,

cocoa and almonds, rely on animal pollination. Marine and

terrestrial ecosystems are the sole sinks for anthropogenic

carbon emissions, with a gross sequestration of

5.6 gigatons of carbon per year (the equivalent of some

60 per cent of global anthropogenic emissions). Nature

underpins all dimensions of human health and contributes to

non-material aspects of quality of life – inspiration and

learning, physical and psychological experiences, and

supporting identities – that are central to quality of life and

cultural integrity, even if their aggregated value is difficult to

quantify. Most of nature’s contributions are co-produced

with people, but while anthropogenic assets – knowledge

and institutions, technology infrastructure and financial

capital – can enhance or partially replace some of those

contributions, some are irreplaceable. The diversity of nature

maintains humanity’s ability to choose alternatives in the

face of an uncertain future.

Nature’s contributions to people are often

distributed unequally across space and time and

among different segments of society. There are

often trade-offs in the production and use of

nature’s contributions.

Benefits and burdens associated

with co-production and use of nature’s contributions are

distributed and experienced differently among social groups,

countries and regions. Giving priority to one of nature’s

contributions to people, such as food production, can result

in ecological changes that reduce other contributions. Some

of these changes may benefit some people at the expense

of others, particularly the most vulnerable, as may changes

in technological and institutional arrangements. For

example, although food production today is sufficient to

satisfy global needs, approximately 11 per cent of the

world’s population is undernourished, and diet-related

disease drives 20 per cent of premature mortality, related

both to undernourishment and to obesity. The great

expansion in the production of food, feed, fibre and

bioenergy has occurred at the cost of many other

contributions of nature to quality of life, including regulation

of air and water quality, climate regulation and habitat

provision. Synergies also exist, such as sustainable

agricultural practices that enhance soil quality, thereby

improving productivity and other ecosystem functions and

services, such as carbon sequestration and water

quality regulation.

Nature is essential for human existence and

good quality of life. Most of nature’s contributions

to people are not fully replaceable, and some are

irreplaceable.

Nature plays a critical role in providing food

and feed, energy, medicines and genetic resources and a

variety of materials fundamental for people’s physical

well-being and for maintaining culture. For example, more

than 2 billion people rely on wood fuel to meet their primary

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Since 1970, trends in agricultural production,

fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of

materials have increased, but 14 of the 18

categories of contributions of nature that were

assessed, mostly regulating and non-material

contributions, have declined.

The value of agricultural

crop production ($2.6 trillion in 2016) has increased

approximately threefold since 1970 and raw timber harvest

has increased by 45 per cent, reaching some 4 billion cubic

metres in 2017, with the forestry industry providing about

13.2 million jobs. However, indicators of regulating

contributions, such as soil organic carbon and pollinator

diversity, have declined, indicating that gains in material

contributions are often not sustainable. Currently, land

degradation has reduced productivity in 23 per cent of the

global terrestrial area, and between $235 billion and

$577 billion

in annual global crop output is at risk as a

result of pollinator loss. Moreover, loss of coastal habitats

and coral reefs reduces coastal protection, which increases

the risk from floods and hurricanes to life and property for

the 100 million to 300 million people living within coastal

100-year flood zones.

Nature across most of the globe has now been

significantly altered by multiple human drivers, with

the great majority of indicators of ecosystems and

biodiversity showing rapid decline.

Seventy-five per

cent of the land surface is significantly altered, 66 per cent of

2. Value adjusted to 2015 United States dollars, taking into account

inflation only.

the ocean area is experiencing increasing cumulative

impacts, and over 85 per cent of wetlands (area) has been

lost. While the rate of forest loss has slowed globally since

2000, this is distributed unequally. Across much of the highly

biodiverse tropics, 32 million hectares of primary or

recovering forest were lost between 2010 and 2015. The

extent of tropical and subtropical forests is increasing within

some countries, and the global extent of temperate and

boreal forests is increasing. A range of actions – from

restoration of natural forest to planting of monocultures

– contributes to these increases, but these actions have very

different consequences for biodiversity and its contributions

to people. Approximately half the live coral cover on coral

reefs has been lost since the 1870s, with accelerating losses

in recent decades due to climate change exacerbating other

drivers. The average abundance of native species in most

major terrestrial biomes has fallen by at least 20 per cent,

potentially affecting ecosystem processes and hence

nature’s contributions to people; this decline has mostly

taken place since 1900 and may be accelerating. In areas of

high endemism, native biodiversity has often been severely

impacted by invasive alien species. Population sizes of wild

vertebrate species have tended to decline over the last

50 years on land, in freshwater and in the sea. Global trends

in insect populations are not known but rapid declines have

been well documented in some places.

Human actions threaten more species with

global extinction now than ever before.

An average of

around 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

groups are threatened

(Figure SPM.3),

suggesting that

around 1 million species already face extinction, many within

decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity of

drivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will be

a further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction,

which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher

than it has averaged over the past 10 million years

(Figure SPM.4).

B. Direct and indirect drivers of

change have accelerated during

the past 50 years.

The rate of global change in nature during

the past 50 years is unprecedented in

human history. The direct drivers of change

in nature with the largest global impact

have been (starting with those with most

impact): changes in land and sea use; direct

exploitation of organisms; climate change;

pollution; and invasion of alien species.

Those five direct drivers result from an array

of underlying causes – the indirect drivers of

change – which are in turn underpinned by

societal values and behaviours that include

production and consumption patterns,

human population dynamics and trends,

trade, technological innovations and local

through global governance. The rate of

change in the direct and indirect drivers

differs among regions and countries.

Globally, local varieties and breeds of

domesticated plants and animals are disappearing.

This loss of diversity, including genetic diversity,

poses a serious risk to global food security by

undermining the resilience of many agricultural

systems to threats such as pests, pathogens and

climate change.

Fewer and fewer varieties and breeds of

plants and animals are being cultivated, raised, traded and

maintained around the world, despite many local efforts,

which include those by indigenous peoples and local

communities. By 2016, 559 of the 6,190 domesticated

breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture (over 9 per

cent) had become extinct and at least 1,000 more are

threatened. In addition, many crop wild relatives that are

important for long-term food security lack effective

protection, and the conservation status of wild relatives of

domesticated mammals and birds is worsening. Reductions

in the diversity of cultivated crops, crop wild relatives and

domesticated breeds mean that agroecosystems are less

resilient against future climate change, pests and pathogens.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems,

Biological communities are becoming more

similar to each other in both managed and

unmanaged systems within and across regions.

This human-caused process leads to losses of local

biodiversity, including endemic species, ecosystem

functions and nature’s contributions to people.

land-use change has had the largest relative

negative impact on nature since 1970, followed by

the direct exploitation, in particular

overexploitation, of animals, plants and other

organisms, mainly via harvesting, logging, hunting

and fishing. In marine ecosystems, direct

exploitation of organisms (mainly fishing) has had

the largest relative impact, followed by land-/

sea-use change.

Agricultural expansion is the most

widespread form of land-use change, with over one third of

the terrestrial land surface being used for cropping or animal

husbandry. This expansion, alongside a doubling of urban

area since 1992 and an unprecedented expansion of

infrastructure linked to growing population and

consumption, has come mostly at the expense of forests

(largely old-growth tropical forests), wetlands and

grasslands. In freshwater ecosystems, a series of combined

threats that include land-use change, including water

extraction, exploitation, pollution, climate change and

invasive species, are prevalent. Human activities have had a

large and widespread impact on the world’s oceans. These

include direct exploitation, in particular overexploitation, of

fish, shellfish and other organisms, land- and sea-based

pollution, including from river networks, and land-/sea-use

change, including coastal development for infrastructure

and aquaculture.

Human-induced changes are creating

conditions for fast biological evolution – so rapid

that its effects can be seen in only a few years or

even more quickly. The consequences can be

positive or negative for biodiversity and

ecosystems, but can create uncertainty about the

sustainability of species, ecosystem functions and

the delivery of nature’s contributions to people.

Understanding and monitoring these biological evolutionary

changes is as important for informed policy decisions as it is

in cases of ecological change. Sustainable management

strategies then can be designed to influence evolutionary

trajectories so as to protect vulnerable species and reduce

the impact of unwanted species (such as weeds, pests or

pathogens). The widespread declines in geographic

distribution and population sizes of many species make

clear that, although evolutionary adaptation to human-

caused drivers can be rapid, it has often not been sufficient

to mitigate them fully.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Climate change is a direct driver that is

increasingly exacerbating the impact of other

drivers on nature and human well-being.

Humans are

estimated to have caused an observed warming of

approximately 1.0°C by 2017 relative to pre-industrial levels,

with average temperatures over the past 30 years rising by

0.2°C per decade. The frequency and intensity of extreme

weather events, and the fires, floods and droughts that they

can bring, have increased in the past 50 years, while the

global average sea level has risen by between 16 and 21 cm

since 1900, and at a rate of more than 3 mm per year over

the past two decades. These changes have contributed to

widespread impacts in many aspects of biodiversity,

including species distribution, phenology, population

dynamics, community structure and ecosystem function.

According to observational evidence, the effects are

accelerating in marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems

and are already impacting agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries

and nature’s contributions to people. The compounding

effects of drivers such as climate change, land-/sea-use

change, overexploitation of resources, pollution and invasive

alien species are likely to exacerbate the negative impacts

on nature, as seen in different ecosystems including coral

reefs, the Arctic systems and savannas.

86 per cent of marine turtles, 44 per cent of seabirds and

43 per cent of marine mammals. This can affect humans

through food chains. Greenhouse gas emissions, untreated

urban and rural waste, pollutants from industrial, mining and

agricultural activities, oil spills and toxic dumping have had

strong negative effects on soil, freshwater and marine water

quality and on the global atmosphere. Cumulative records of

alien species have increased by 40 per cent since 1980,

associated with increased trade and human population

dynamics and trends. Nearly one fifth of the Earth’s surface

is at risk of plant and animal invasions, impacting native

species, ecosystem functions and nature’s contributions to

people, as well as economies and human health. The rate of

introduction of new invasive alien species seems higher than

ever before and shows no signs of slowing.

In the past 50 years, the human population has

doubled, the global economy has grown nearly

fourfold and global trade has grown tenfold,

together driving up the demand for energy and

materials.

A variety of economic, political and social factors,

including global trade and the spatial decoupling of

production from consumption, have shifted the economic

and environmental gains and losses of production and

consumption, contributing to new economic opportunities,

but also to impacts on nature and its contributions to people.

Levels of consumption of material goods (food, feed, timber

and fibre) vary greatly, and unequal access to material goods

can be associated with inequity and may lead to social

conflict. Economic exchange contributes to aggregate

economic development, yet often is negotiated between

Many types of pollution, as well as invasive

alien species, are increasing, with negative

impacts for nature.

Although global trends are mixed, air,

water and soil pollution have continued to increase in some

areas. Marine plastic pollution in particular has increased

tenfold since 1980, affecting at least 267 species, including

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

actors and institutions of unequal power, which influences the

distribution of benefits and long-term impacts. Countries at

different levels of development have experienced different

levels of deterioration of nature for any given gain in economic

growth. Exclusion, scarcity and/or the unequal distribution of

nature’s contributions to people may fuel social instability and

conflict in a complex interaction with other factors. Armed

conflicts have an impact on ecosystems beyond their

destabilizing effects on societies, and a range of indirect

impacts, including the displacement of people and activities.

Economic incentives have generally favoured

expanding economic activity, and often

environmental harm, over conservation or

restoration. Incorporating the consideration of the

multiple values of ecosystem functions and of

nature’s contributions to people into economic

incentives has, in the economy, been shown to

permit better ecological, economic and social

outcomes.

Local, national, regional and global governance

initiatives have improved outcomes in this way by supporting

policies, innovation and the elimination of environmentally

harmful subsidies, introducing incentives in line with the value

of nature’s contribution to people, increasing sustainable

land-/sea-use management and enforcing regulations,

among other measures. Harmful economic incentives and

policies associated with unsustainable practices in fisheries,

aquaculture, agriculture (including fertilizer and pesticide use),

livestock management, forestry, mining and energy (including

fossil fuels and biofuels) are often associated with land-/

sea-use change and overexploitation of natural resources, as

well as inefficient production and waste management. Vested

interests may oppose the removal of subsidies or the

introduction of other policies. Yet policy reforms to deal with

such causes of environmental harm offer the potential to

both conserve nature and provide economic benefits,

including when policies are based on more and better

understanding of the multiple values of nature’s contributions.

manage significant areas under various property and access

regimes. Among the local indicators developed and used by

indigenous peoples and local communities, 72 per cent

show negative trends in nature that underpin local

livelihoods and well-being. The areas managed (under

various types of tenure and access regimes) by indigenous

peoples and local communities are facing growing resource

extraction, commodity production, mining and transport and

energy infrastructure, with various consequences for local

livelihoods and health. Some climate change mitigation

programmes have had negative impacts on indigenous

peoples and local communities. The negative impacts of all

these pressures include continued loss of subsistence and

traditional livelihoods resulting from ongoing deforestation,

loss of wetlands, mining, the spread of unsustainable

agriculture, forestry and fishing practices and impacts on

health and well-being from pollution and water insecurity.

These impacts also challenge traditional management, the

transmission of indigenous and local knowledge, the

potential for sharing of benefits arising from the use of, and

the ability of indigenous peoples and local communities to

conserve and sustainably manage, wild and domesticated

biodiversity that are also relevant to broader society.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

C. Goals for conserving and

sustainably using nature and

achieving sustainability cannot

be met by current trajectories,

and goals for 2030 and beyond

may only be achieved through

transformative changes

across

economic, social, political and

technological factors.

Past and ongoing rapid declines in

biodiversity, ecosystem functions and many

of nature’s contributions to people mean that

most international societal and environmental

goals, such as those embodied in the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets and the 2030 Agenda

for Sustainable Development, will not be

achieved based on current trajectories.

These declines will also undermine other

goals, such as those specified in the Paris

Agreement adopted under the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.

4. A fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic

and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.

Nature managed by indigenous peoples and

local communities is under increasing pressure.

Nature is generally declining less rapidly in

indigenous peoples’ land than in other lands, but is

nevertheless declining, as is the knowledge of how

to manage it. At least a quarter of the global land

area is traditionally owned, managed

, used or

occupied by indigenous peoples.

These areas include

approximately 35 per cent of the area that is formally

protected, and approximately 35 per cent of all remaining

terrestrial areas with very low human intervention. In

addition, a diverse array of local communities, including

farmers, fishers, herders, hunters, ranchers and forest users,

3. These data sources define land management here as the process of

determining the use, development and care of land resources in a manner

that fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood

activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting, pastoralism

and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The negative trends in biodiversity and

ecosystem functions are projected to

continue or worsen in many future scenarios

in response to indirect drivers such as rapid

human population growth, unsustainable

production and consumption and associated

technological development. In contrast,

scenarios and pathways that explore the

effects of low-to-moderate population

growth, and transformative changes in the

production and consumption of energy,

food, feed, fibre and water, sustainable

use, equitable sharing of the benefits

arising from use and nature-friendly climate

adaptation and mitigation will better support

the achievement of future societal and

environmental objectives.

relating to nature and the protection of the global

environment are demonstrably on track to be met. For nearly

one third of the goals of these conventions, there has been

little or no progress towards them or, instead, movement

away from them.

Nature is essential for achieving the

Sustainable Development Goals. However, taking

into consideration that the Sustainable

Development Goals are integrated, indivisible, and

nationally implemented, current negative trends in

biodiversity and ecosystems will undermine

progress towards 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of the

assessed targets of Goals related to poverty,

hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and

land (Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11,

13, 14, and 15).

Important positive synergies between

nature and the Goals related to education, gender equality,

reducing inequalities and promoting peace and justice

(Sustainable Development Goals 4, 5, 10 and 16) were

found. Land or resource tenure insecurity, as well as

declines in nature, have greater impacts on women and

girls, who are most often negatively impacted. However, the

current focus and wording of the targets of these Goals

obscures or omits their relationship to nature, thereby

preventing their assessment here. There is a critical need for

future policy targets, indicators and datasets to more

explicitly account for aspects of nature and their relevance

to human well-being in order to more effectively track the

consequences of trends in nature on the Sustainable

Development Goals. Some pathways chosen to achieve the

Goals related to energy, economic growth, industry and

infrastructure, and sustainable consumption and production

(Sustainable Development Goals 7, 8, 9 and 12), as well as

the targets related to poverty, food security and cities

(Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2 and 11), could have

substantial positive or negative impacts on nature and

therefore on the achievement of the other Sustainable

Development Goals.

The implementation of policy responses and

actions to conserve nature and manage it more

sustainably has progressed, yielding positive

outcomes relative to scenarios of no intervention,

but progress is not sufficient to stem the direct and

indirect drivers of nature deterioration. It is

therefore likely that most of the Aichi Biodiversity

Targets for 2020 will be missed.

Some of the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets will be partially achieved, for example

those related to policy responses, such as the spatial extent

of terrestrial and marine protected areas, the identification

and prioritization of invasive alien species, national

biodiversity strategies and action plans, and the Nagoya

Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and

Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to

the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, while

protected areas now cover 15 per cent of terrestrial and

freshwater environments and 7 per cent of the marine realm,

they only partly cover important sites for biodiversity and are

not yet fully ecologically representative and effectively or

equitably managed. There has been significant growth in

official development assistance in support of the Convention

on Biological Diversity and in funding provided by the Global

Environment Facility, with biodiversity aid flows reaching

$8.7 billion annually. However, current resource mobilization

from all sources is not sufficient to achieve the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets. In addition, only one in five of the

strategic objective and goals across six global agreements

5. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and

Natural Heritage, International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations

Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing

Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, and Convention

on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Areas of the world projected to experience

significant negative effects from global changes in

climate, biodiversity, ecosystem functions and

nature’s contributions to people are also home to

large concentrations of indigenous peoples and

many of the world’s poorest communities.

Because

of their strong dependency on nature and its contributions

for subsistence, livelihoods and health, those communities

will be disproportionately hard-hit by those negative

changes. Those negative effects also influence the ability of

indigenous peoples and local communities to manage and

conserve wild and domesticated biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people. Indigenous peoples and local

communities have been proactively confronting such

challenges in partnership with each other and with an array

of other stakeholders, through co-management systems

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

and local and regional monitoring networks and by

revitalizing and adapting local management systems.

Regional and global scenarios lack an explicit consideration

of the views, perspectives and rights of indigenous peoples

and local communities, their knowledge and understanding

of large regions and ecosystems, and their desired future

development pathways.

Except in scenarios that include transformative

change, negative trends in nature, in ecosystem

functions and in many of nature’s contributions to

people are projected to continue to 2050 and

beyond, due to the projected impacts of increasing

land-/and sea-use change, exploitation of

organisms and climate change.

Negative impacts

arising from pollution and invasive alien species will likely

exacerbate these trends. There are large regional differences

in the projected patterns of future biodiversity and

ecosystem functions and in the losses and changes in

nature’s contributions to people. These differences arise

from the direct and indirect drivers of change, which are

projected to impact regions in different ways. While regions

worldwide face further declines in biodiversity in future

projections, tropical regions face particular combined risks

of declines due to the interactions between climate change,

land-use change and fisheries exploitation. Marine and

terrestrial biodiversity in boreal, subpolar and polar regions is

projected to decline mostly because of warming, sea ice

retreat and enhanced ocean acidification. The magnitude of

the impacts and the differences between regions are much

greater in scenarios with rapid increases in consumption or

human population than in scenarios based on sustainability.

Acting immediately and simultaneously on the multiple

indirect and direct drivers has the potential to slow, halt and

even reverse some aspects of biodiversity and

ecosystem loss.

Climate change is projected to become

increasingly important as a direct driver of

changes in nature and its contributions to people

in the next decades. Scenarios show that meeting

the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2050

Vision for Biodiversity depends on taking into

account climate change impacts in the definition

of future goals and objectives.

The future impacts of

climate change are projected to become more pronounced

in the next decades, with variable relative effects

depending on scenario and geographic region. Scenarios

project mostly adverse climate change effects on

biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, which worsen, in

some cases exponentially, with incremental global

warming. Even for global warming of 1.5°C to 2°C, the

majority of terrestrial species ranges are projected to shrink

dramatically. Changes in ranges can adversely affect the

capacity of terrestrial protected areas to conserve species,

greatly increase local species turnover and substantially

increase the risk of global extinctions. For example, a

synthesis of many studies estimates that the fraction of

species at risk of climate-related extinction is 5 per cent at

2°C warming and rises to 16 per cent at 4.3°C warming.

Coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to climate change

and are projected to decline to 10 to 30 per cent of former

cover at 1.5°C warming and to less than 1 per cent of

former cover at 2°C warming. Therefore, scenarios show

that limiting global warming to well below 2°C plays a

critical role in reducing adverse impacts on nature and its

contributions to people.

D. Nature can be conserved,

restored and used sustainably

while other global societal goals

are simultaneously met through

urgent and concerted efforts

fostering transformative change.

Societal goals, including those related

to food, water, energy, health and the

achievement of human well-being for all,

mitigating and adapting to climate change

and conserving and sustainably using

nature, can be achieved in sustainable

pathways through the rapid and improved

deployment of existing policy instruments

and new initiatives that more effectively

enlist individual and collective action for

transformative change. Since current

structures often inhibit sustainable

development and actually represent the

indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such

fundamental, structural change is called

for. By its very nature, transformative

change can expect opposition from those

with interests vested in the status quo,

but such opposition can be overcome

for the broader public good. If obstacles

are overcome, a commitment to mutually

supportive international goals and targets,

supporting actions by indigenous peoples

and local communities at the local level, new

frameworks for private sector investment

and innovation, inclusive and adaptive

governance approaches and arrangements,

multi-sectoral planning, and strategic policy

mixes can help to transform the public and

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

private sectors to achieve sustainability at

the local, national and global levels.

The global environment can be safeguarded

through enhanced international cooperation and

linked, locally relevant measures. The review and

renewal of internationally agreed environment-

related goals and targets, based on the best

available scientific knowledge and the widespread

adoption and funding of action on conservation,

ecological restoration and sustainable use by all

actors, including individuals, are key to this

safeguarding.

Such widespread adoption implies

advancing and aligning local, national and international

sustainability efforts and mainstreaming biodiversity and

sustainability across all extractive and productive sectors,

including mining, fisheries, forestry and agriculture, so that

together, individual and collective actions result in a reversal

of the deterioration of ecosystem services at the global level.

Yet these bold changes to the direct drivers of the

deterioration of nature cannot be achieved without

transformative change that simultaneously addresses the

indirect drivers.

Five main interventions (“levers”) can

generate transformative change by tackling the

underlying indirect drivers of the deterioration of

nature: (1) incentives and capacity-building;

(2) cross-sectoral cooperation; (3) pre-emptive

action; (4) decision-making in the context of

resilience and uncertainty; and (5) environmental

law and implementation.

Using these levers will involve

the following: (1) developing incentives and widespread

capacity for environmental responsibility and eliminating

perverse incentives; (2) reforming sectoral and segmented

decision-making to promote integration across sectors and

jurisdictions; (3) taking pre-emptive and precautionary

actions in regulatory and management institutions and

businesses to avoid, mitigate and remedy the deterioration

of nature, and monitoring their outcomes; (4) managing for

resilient social and ecological systems in the face of

uncertainty and complexity, to deliver decisions that are

robust in a wide range of scenarios; and (5) strengthening

environmental laws and policies and their implementation,

and the rule of law more generally. All five levers may require

new resources, particularly in low-capacity contexts, such

as in many developing countries.

The character and trajectories of

transformation will vary across contexts, with

challenges and needs differing, among others, in

developing and developed countries. Risks related

to the inevitable uncertainties and complexities in

transformations towards sustainability can be

reduced through governance approaches that are

integrative, inclusive, informed and adaptive.

Such

approaches typically take into account the synergies and

trade-offs between societal goals and alternative pathways

and recognize a plurality of values, diverse economic

conditions, inequity, power imbalances and vested interests

in society. Risk-reducing strategies typically include learning

from experience that is based on a combination of

precautionary measures and existing and emerging

knowledge. These approaches involve stakeholders in the

coordination of policies across sectors and in the creation of

strategic, locally relevant mixes of successful policy

instruments. The private sector can play a role in partnership

with other actors, including national and subnational

governments and civil society; for example, public-private

partnerships in the water sector have been an important

vehicle for financing investments to meet the Sustainable

Development Goals. Some effective policy measures include

the expansion and strengthening of ecologically

representative, well-connected protected-area networks and

of other effective area-based conservation measures; the

Transformations towards sustainability are

more likely when efforts are directed at the

following key leverage points, where efforts yield

exceptionally large effects

(Figure SPM.9):

(1) visions of a good life; (2) total consumption and

waste; (3) values and action; (4) inequalities;

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

(5) justice and inclusion in conservation;

(6) externalities and telecouplings; (7) technology,

innovation and investment; and (8) education and

knowledge generation and sharing.

Specifically, the

following changes are mutually reinforcing: (1) enabling

visions of a good quality of life that do not entail ever-

increasing material consumption; (2) lowering total

consumption and waste, including by addressing both

population growth and per capita consumption differently in

different contexts; (3) unleashing existing, widely-held values

of responsibility to effect new social norms for sustainability,

especially by extending notions of responsibility to include

the impacts associated with consumption; (4) addressing

inequalities, especially regarding income and gender, which

undermine the capacity for sustainability; (5) ensuring

inclusive decision-making and the fair and equitable sharing

of benefits arising from the use of and adherence to human

rights in conservation decisions; (6) accounting for nature

deterioration from local economic activities and

socioeconomic and environmental interactions over

distances (telecouplings), including, for example,

international trade; (7) ensuring environmentally friendly

technological and social innovation, taking into account

potential rebound effects and investment regimes; and

(8) promoting education, knowledge generation and the

maintenance of different knowledge systems, including in

the sciences and indigenous and local knowledge, regarding

nature, conservation and its sustainable use.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

protection of watersheds; and incentives and sanctions to

reduce pollution

(Table SPM.1).

Recognizing the knowledge, innovations,

practices, institutions and values of indigenous

peoples and local communities, and ensuring their

inclusion and participation in environmental

governance, often enhances their quality of life and

the conservation, restoration and sustainable use

of nature, which is relevant to broader society.

Governance, including customary institutions and

management systems and co-management regimes

that involve indigenous peoples and local

communities, can be an effective way to safeguard

nature and its contributions to people by

incorporating locally attuned management systems

and indigenous and local knowledge.

The positive

contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities

to sustainability can be facilitated through national

recognition of land tenure, access and resource rights in

accordance with national legislation, the application of free,

prior and informed consent, and improved collaboration, fair

and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use, and

co-management arrangements with local communities.

example, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries

management, spatial planning, effective quotas, marine

protected areas, protecting and managing key marine

biodiversity areas, reducing run-off pollution into oceans and

working closely with producers and consumers

(Table

SPM.1).

It is important to enhance capacity-building for the

adoption of best fisheries management practices; adopt

measures to promote conservation financing and corporate

social responsibility; develop new legal and binding

instruments; implement and enforce global agreements for

responsible fisheries; and urgently take all steps necessary

to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and

unregulated fishing.

Land-based climate change mitigation

activities can be effective and support

conservation goals

(Table SPM.1).

However, the

large-scale deployment of bioenergy plantations

and afforestation of non-forest ecosystems can

come with negative side effects for biodiversity

and ecosystem functions.

Nature-based solutions with

safeguards are estimated to provide 37 per cent of climate

change mitigation until 2030 needed to meet the goal of

keeping climate warming below 2°C, with likely co-benefits

for biodiversity. Therefore, land-use actions are

indispensable, in addition to strong actions to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and other

industrial and agricultural activities. However, the large-

scale deployment of intensive bioenergy plantations,

including monocultures, replacing natural forests and

subsistence farmlands, will likely have negative impacts on

biodiversity and can threaten food and water security as

well as local livelihoods, including by intensifying

social conflict.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Feeding humanity and enhancing the

conservation and sustainable use of nature are

complementary and closely interdependent goals

that can be advanced through sustainable

agriculture, aquaculture and livestock systems, the

safeguarding of native species, varieties, breeds

and habitats, and ecological restoration.

Specific

actions include promoting sustainable agricultural and

agroecological practices, such as multifunctional landscape

planning and cross-sectoral integrated management, that

support the conservation of genetic diversity and the

associated agricultural biodiversity. Further actions to

simultaneously achieve food security, biodiversity protection

and sustainable use are context appropriate climate change

mitigation and adaptation; incorporating knowledge from

various systems, including the sciences and sustainable

indigenous and local practices; avoiding food waste;

empowering producers and consumers to transform supply

chains; and facilitating sustainable and healthy dietary

choices. As part of integrated landscape planning and

management, prompt ecological restoration, emphasizing

the use of native species, can offset the current degradation

and save many endangered species, but is less effective

if delayed.

Nature-based solutions can be cost-effective

for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals in

cities, which are crucial for global sustainability.

Increased use of green infrastructure and other ecosystem-

based approaches can help to advance sustainable urban

development while reinforcing climate mitigation and

adaptation. Urban key biodiversity areas should be

safeguarded. Solutions can include retrofitting green and

blue infrastructure, such as creating and maintaining green

spaces and biodiversity-friendly water bodies, urban

agriculture, rooftop gardens and expanded and accessible

vegetation cover in existing urban and peri-urban areas and

new developments. Green infrastructure in urban and

surrounding rural areas can complement large-scale “grey

infrastructure” in areas such as flood protection, temperature

regulation, cleaning of air and water, treating wastewater

and the provision of energy, locally sourced food and the

health benefits of interaction with nature.

Sustaining and conserving fisheries and

marine species and ecosystems can be achieved

through a coordinated mix of interventions on land,

in freshwater and in the oceans, including

multilevel coordination across stakeholders on the

use of open oceans.

Specific actions could include, for

D10

A key component of sustainable pathways is

the evolution of global financial and economic

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

systems to build a global sustainable economy,

steering away from the current, limited paradigm of

economic growth.

That implies incorporating the

reduction of inequalities into development pathways,

reducing overconsumption and waste and addressing

environmental impacts, such as externalities of economic

activities, from the local to the global scales. Such an

evolution could be enabled through a mix of policies and

tools (such as incentive programmes, certification and

performance standards) and through more internationally

consistent taxation, supported by multilateral agreements

and enhanced environmental monitoring and evaluation. It

would also entail a shift beyond standard economic

indicators such as gross domestic product to include those

able to capture more holistic, long-term views of economics

and quality of life.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

BACK-

GROUND

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

BACKGROUND

A. Nature and its vital contributions to people, which

together embody biodiversity and ecosystem functions and

services, are deteriorating worldwide.

Nature underpins quality of life by providing

basic life support for humanity (regulating), as well

as material goods (material) and spiritual inspiration

(non-material)

(well established)

{2.3.1, 2.3.2}. Most

of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) are

co-produced by biophysical processes and

ecological interactions with anthropogenic assets

such as knowledge, infrastructure, financial capital,

technology and the institutions that mediate them

(well established)

{2.3.2}

(Appendix I).

For example,

marine and freshwater-based food is co-produced by the

combination of fish populations, fishing gear, and access to

fishing grounds {2.3.3} There is unequal access to nature’s

contributions and unequal impact of nature’s contributions

on different social groups

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.5}. Furthermore, increases in the production of some of

nature’s contributions cause declines in others

(Figure

SPM.1)

{2.3.2, 2.3.5}, which also affects people differently

(well established).

For example, clearing of forest for

agriculture has increased the supply of food, feed, (NCP 12)

and other materials important for people (such as natural

fibres and ornamental flowers: NCP 13), but has reduced

contributions as diverse as pollination (NCP 2), climate

regulation (NCP 4), water quality regulation (NCP 7),

opportunities for learning and inspiration (NCP 15) and the

maintenance of options for the future (NCP 18). However,

very few large-scale systematic studies exist on those

relationships {2.3.2}. Land degradation has reduced

productivity in 23 per cent of the global terrestrial area, and

between $235 billion and $577 billion in annual global crop

output is at risk as a result of pollinator loss {2.3.5.3}

(established but incomplete).

Many of nature’s contributions to people are

essential for human health (well

established)

and their

decline thus threatens a good quality of life

(established

but incomplete)

{2.3.4}.

Nature provides a

broad diversity of nutritious foods, medicines and clean

water

(well established)

{2.3.5.2, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2

(Sustainable Development Goal 3)}; can help to regulate

disease and the immune system {2.3.4.2}; can reduce levels

of certain air pollutants

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.4.2,

3.3.2.2}; and can improve mental and physical health

through exposure to natural areas

(inconclusive),

among

other contributions {2.3.2.2, 2.3.4.2, 3.3.2.2 (Sustainable

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Development Goal 3)}. Nature is the origin of most infectious

diseases (negative impact), but also the source of medicines

and antibiotics for treatment (positive contribution)

(well

established).

Zoonotic diseases are significant threats to

human health, with vector-borne diseases accounting for

approximately 17 per cent of all infectious diseases and

causing an estimated 700,000 deaths globally per annum

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.2.2}. Emerging infectious

diseases in wildlife, domestic animals, plants or people can be

exacerbated by human activities such as land clearing and

habitat fragmentation

(established but incomplete)

or the

overuse of antibiotics driving rapid evolution of antibiotic

resistance in many bacterial pathogens

(well established)

{3.3.2.2}. The deterioration of nature and consequent

disruption of benefits to people has both direct and indirect

implications for public health

(well established)

{2.3.5.2} and

can exacerbate existing inequalities in access to health care or

healthy diets

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.4.2}. Shifting

diets towards a diversity of foods, including fish, fruit, nuts

and vegetables, significantly reduces the risk of certain

preventable non-communicable diseases, which are

currently responsible for 20 per cent of premature mortality

globally

(well established)

{2.3.4.2, 2.3.5.2 (NCP 2 and 12)}.

Most of nature’s contributions are not fully

replaceable, yet some contributions of nature are

irreplaceable (well

established).

Loss of diversity, such

as phylogenetic and functional diversity, can permanently

reduce future options, such as wild species that might be

domesticated as new crops and be used for genetic

improvement {2.3.5.3}. People have created substitutes for

some other contributions of nature, but many of them are

imperfect or financially prohibitive {2.3.2.2}. For example,

high-quality drinking water can be realized either through

ecosystems that filter pollutants or through human-

engineered water treatment facilities {2.3.5.3}. Similarly,

coastal flooding from storm surges can be reduced either by

coastal mangroves or by dikes and sea walls {2.3.5.3}. In

both cases, however, built infrastructure can be extremely

expensive, incur high future costs and fail to provide

synergistic benefits such as nursery habitats for edible fish

or recreational opportunities {2.3.5.2}. More generally,

human-made replacements often do not provide the full

range of benefits provided by nature {2.3.2.2}

(Figure SPM.1).

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Nature’s contribution to people

REGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES

1 Habitat creation and

maintenance

2 Pollination and dispersal

of seeds and other

propagules

3 Regulation of air quality

4 Regulation of climate

5 Regulation of ocean

acidification

6 Regulation of freshwater

quantity, location and timing

7 Regulation of freshwater

and coastal water quality

8 Formation, protection and

decontamination of soils

and sediments

9 Regulation of hazards and

extreme events

10 Regulation of detrimental

organisms and biological

processes

50-year global trend

Directional trend

across regions

Selected indicator

• Extent of suitable habitat

• Biodiversity intactness

• Pollinator diversity

• Extent of natural habitat in agricultural

areas

• Retention and prevented emissions of

air pollutants by ecosystems

• Prevented emissions and uptake of

greenhouse gases by ecosystems

• Capacity to sequester carbon by

marine and terrestrial environments

• Ecosystem impact on

air-surface-ground water partitioning

• Extent of ecosystems that filter or add

constituent components to water

• Soil organic carbon

• Ability of ecosystems to absorb and

buffer hazards

• Extent of natural habitat in agricultural

areas

• Diversity of competent hosts of

vector-borne diseases

• Extent of agricultural land—potential

land for bioenergy production

• Extent of forested land

• Extent of agricultural land—potential

land for food and feed production

• Abundance of marine fish stocks

• Extent of agricultural land—potential

land for material production

• Extent of forested land

• Fraction of species locally known and

used medicinally

• Phylogenetic diversity

• Number of people in close proximity to

nature

• Diversity of life from which to learn

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

N O N - M A T E R I A L MA T ERIAL S AN D AS SISTA NC E

11 Energy

12 Food and feed

13 Materials and assistance

14 Medicinal, biochemical

and genetic resources

15 Learning and inspiration

16 Physical and psychological

experiences

17 Supporting identities

• Area of natural and traditional

landscapes and seascapes

• Stability of land use and land cover

• Species’ survival probability

18 Maintenance of options

• Phylogenetic diversity

Decrease

Global trends:

Increase

Well established

DIRECTIONAL

TREND

Across regions:

Consistent

Variable

LEVELS OF

CERTAINTY

Established but incomplete

Unresolved

Figure SPM

Global trends in the capacity of nature to sustain contributions to good quality of

life from 1970 to the present, which show a decline for 14 of the 18 categories of

nature’s contributions to people analysed.

Data supporting global trends and regional variations come from a systematic review of over 2,000 studies {2.3.5.1}. Indicators were

selected on the basis of availability of global data, prior use in assessments and alignment with 18 categories. For many categories of

nature’s contributions, two indicators are included that show different aspects of nature’s capacity to contribute to human well-being

within that category. Indicators are defined so that an increase in the indicator is associated with an improvement in nature’s contributions.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Humanity is a dominant global influence on life

on earth, and has caused natural terrestrial,

freshwater and marine ecosystems to decline (well

established)

{2.2.5.2}

(Figure SPM.2).

Global indicators of

ecosystem extent and condition have shown a decrease by

an average of 47 per cent of their estimated natural

baselines, with many continuing to decline by at least 4 per

cent per decade

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.1}.

On land, particularly sensitive ecosystems include old-

growth forests, insular ecosystems, and wetlands; and only

around 25 per cent of land is sufficiently unimpacted that

ecological and evolutionary processes still operate with

minimal human intervention

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.3.4.1, 2.2.5.2.1}. In terrestrial “hotspots” of endemic

species, natural habitats have generally undergone greater

reductions to date in extent and condition, and tend to be

experiencing more rapid ongoing decline, on average than

other terrestrial regions {2.2.5.2.1}. Globally, the net rate of

forest loss has halved since the 1990s, largely because of

net increases in temperate and high latitude forests;

high-biodiversity tropical forests continue to dwindle, and

global forest area is now approximately 68 per cent of the

estimated pre-industrial level

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.1}. Forests and natural mosaics sufficiently

undamaged to be classed as “intact” (defined as being

larger than 500 km

where satellites can detect no human

pressure) were reduced by 7 per cent (919, 000 km

)

between 2000 and 2013, shrinking in both developed and

developing countries {2.2.5.2.1}. Inland waters and

freshwater ecosystems show among the highest rates of

decline. Only 13 per cent of the wetland present in 1700

remained by 2000; recent losses have been even more

rapid (0.8 per cent per year from 1970 to 2008)

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.7.9}.

Marine ecosystems, from coastal to deep sea,

now show the influence of human actions, with

coastal marine ecosystems showing both large

historical losses of extent and condition as well as

rapid ongoing declines (established

but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.1, 2.2.7.15}

(Figure SPM.2).

Over 40 per cent of

ocean area was strongly affected by multiple drivers in 2008,

and 66 per cent was experiencing increasing cumulative

impacts in 2014. Only 3 per cent of the ocean was

described as free from human pressure in 2014

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.1, 3.2.1}. Seagrass meadows

decreased in extent by over 10 per cent per decade from

1970 to 2000

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.1}. Live

coral cover on reefs has nearly halved in the past 150 years,

the decline dramatically accelerating over the past two or

three decades due to increased water temperature and

ocean acidification interacting with and further exacerbating

other drivers of loss

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.1}. These

coastal marine ecosystems are among the most productive

systems globally, and their loss and deterioration reduce

their ability to protect shorelines, and the people and

species that live there, from storms, as well as their ability to

provide sustainable livelihoods

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.1,

2.3.5.2}. Severe impacts to ocean ecosystems are

illustrated by 33 per cent of fish stocks being classified as

overexploited and greater than 55 per cent of ocean area

being subject to industrial fishing

(established but

incomplete)

{2.1.11.1, 2.2.5.2.4, 2.2.7.16}.

The global rate of species extinction is already at

least tens to hundreds of times higher than the

average rate over the past 10 million years and is

accelerating (established

but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}

(Figure SPM.3).

Human actions have already driven at least

680 vertebrate species to extinction since 1500, including

the Pinta Giant Tortoise in the Galapagos in 2012, even

though successful conservation efforts have saved from

extinction at least 26 bird species and 6 ungulate species,

including the Arabian Oryx and Przewalski’s Horse {3.2.1}.

The threat of extinction is also accelerating: in the best-

studied taxonomic groups, most of the total extinction risk

to species is estimated to have arisen in the past 40 years

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. The proportion of

species currently threatened with extinction according to the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List

criteria averages around 25 per cent across the many

terrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate, invertebrate

and plant groups that have been studied in sufficient detail

to support a robust overall estimate

(established but

incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4, 3.2}. More than 40 per cent of

amphibian species, almost a third of reef-forming corals,

sharks and shark relatives and over a third of marine

mammals are currently threatened {2.2.5.2.4, 3}. The

proportion of insect species threatened with extinction is a

key uncertainty, but available evidence supports a tentative

estimate of 10 per cent

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. Those proportions suggest that, of an estimated

8 million animal and plant species (75 per cent of which are

insects), around 1 million are threatened with extinction

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. A similar picture

also emerges from an entirely separate line of evidence.

Habitat loss and deterioration, largely caused by human

actions, have reduced global terrestrial habitat integrity by

30 per cent relative to an unimpacted baseline; combining

that with the longstanding relationship between habitat area

and species numbers suggests that around 9 per cent of

the world’s estimated 5.9 million terrestrial species – more

than 500,000 species – have insufficient habitat for

long-term survival, and are committed to extinction, many

within decades, unless their habitats are restored

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. Population declines

often give warning that a species’ risk of extinction is

increasing. The Living Planet Index, which synthesises

trends in vertebrate populations, shows that species have

declined rapidly since 1970, with reductions of 40 per cent

for terrestrial species, 84 per cent for freshwater species

and 35 per cent for marine species

(established but

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

DRIVERS

EXAMPLES OF DECLINES IN NATURE

ECOSYSTEM EXTENT AND CONDITION

47%

Natural ecosystems have

declined by

47 per cent

on average, relative to their

earliest estimated states.

SPECIES EXTINCTION RISK

Approximately

25 per cent of species are

already threatened with extinction

most animal and plant groups studied.

ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES

Biotic integrity—the abundance of naturally-

present species—has

declined by 23 per

cent

on average in terrestrial communities.*

BIOMASS AND SPECIES ABUNDANCE

The global biomass of wild mammals has

fallen by 82 per cent.*

Indicators of

vertebrate abundance have declined

rapidly since 1970

NATURE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

72 per cent of indicators developed by

indigenous peoples and local communities

show

ongoing deterioration

of elements

of nature important to them

Since prehistory

INDIRECT DRIVERS

DIRECT DRIVERS

Demographic

and

sociocultural

Terrestrial

Economic

and

technological

Freshwater

Institutions

and

governance

Conﬂicts

and

epidemics

100%

Va l u e s a n d b e h a v i o u r s

25%

23%

Marine

82%

Land/sea use change

Direct exploitation

Climate change

Pollution

Invasive alien species

Others

72%

Figure SPM

The direct drivers (land-/sea-use change; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species)

result

from an array of underlying societal causes

. These causes can be demographic (e.g., human population dynamics), sociocultural

(e.g., consumption patterns), economic (e.g., trade), technological, or relating to institutions, governance, conflicts and epidemics.

They are called indirect drivers

and are underpinned by societal values and behaviours. The colour bands represent the relative

global impact of direct drivers, from top to bottom, on terrestrial, freshwater and marine nature, as estimated from a global systematic

review of studies published since 2005. Land- and sea-use change and direct exploitation account for more than 50 per cent of the

global impact on land, in fresh water and in the sea, but each driver is dominant in certain contexts {2.2.6}. The circles illustrate the

magnitude of the negative human impacts on a diverse selection of aspects of nature over a range of different time scales based on a

global synthesis of indicators {2.2.5, 2.2.7}.

incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. Local declines of insect populations

such as wild bees and butterflies have often been reported,

and insect abundance has declined very rapidly in some

places even without large-scale land-use change, but the

global extent of such declines is not known

(established but

incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4}. On land, wild species that are

endemic (narrowly distributed) have typically seen larger-

than-average changes to their habitats and shown faster-

than-average declines

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.3, 2.2.5.2.4}.

6 7 8

The number of local varieties and breeds of

domesticated plants and animals and their wild

relatives has been reduced sharply as a result of land

6. The classification of direct drivers used throughout this assessment is in

{2.1.12 - 2.1.17}.

7. The interactions among indirect and direct drivers are addressed in {2.1.11,

2.1.18}.

8. The classification of indirect drivers used throughout this assessment is in

{2.1.3 - 2.1.10}.

use change, knowledge loss, market preferences and

large-scale trade (well established) {2.2.5.2.6,

2.2.5.3.1}.

Domestic varieties of plants and animals are the

result of natural and human-managed selection,

sometimes over centuries or millennia, and tend to show a

high degree of adaptation (genotypic and phenotypic) to

local conditions

(well established)

{2.2.4.4}. As a result, the

pool of genetic variation which underpins food security has

declined

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.6}. Ten per cent of

domesticated breeds of mammals were recorded as

extinct, as well as some 3.5 per cent of domesticated

breeds of birds

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.6}. Many

hotspots of agrobiodiversity and crop wild relatives are also

under threat or not formally protected. The conservation

status of wild relatives of domesticated livestock has also

deteriorated. These wild relatives represent critical

reservoirs of genes and traits that may provide resilience

against future climate change, pests and pathogens and

may improve current heavily depleted gene pools of many

crops and domestic animals {2.2.3.4.3}. The lands of

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Examples of global declines in nature, emphasizing declines in biodiversity, that

have been and are being caused by direct and indirect drivers of change.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Current global extinction risk in different species groups

Estimate of percentage threatened

Bony fishes***

Gastropods***

Birds*

Dragonﬂies**

Ferns and relatives**

Monocots**

Reptiles**

Mammals*

Crustaceans***

Sharks and rays*

Corals (reef-forming)*

Conifers*

Dicots***

Amphibians*

Cycads*

Total number of extant

assessed species

2,390

633

10,966

1,520

972

1,026

1,500

5,593

2,872

IUCN Red List categories

Data Deficient

Non-threatened

Least Concern

Near Threatened

Threatened

Vulnerable

Greater extinction risk

1,091

845

607

1,781

6,576

307

Endangered

Critically Endangered

Extinct in the Wild

Comprehensive

Sampled

***

Selected

100

PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES IN EACH CATEGORY

Extinctions since 1500

2.5

Declines in species survival since 1980

(Red List Index)

1.0

Better

Cumulative % of species driven extinct

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Worse

Red list index of species survival

Cumulative % of species based on

on background rate of 0.1-2

extinctions per million species per year

Amphibians

0.9

Corals

Birds

Mammals

2.0

Mammals

1.5

Birds

0.8

Amphibians

0.7

1.0

Reptiles

Fishes

0.5

Better

0.6

Cycads

Worse

0.5

1980 1985

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2018

1990 1995

2000 2005 2010

2015

YEAR

Figure SPM

A substantial proportion of assessed species are threatened with extinction and

overall trends are deteriorating, with extinction rates increasing sharply in the

past century.

Percentage of species threatened with extinction in taxonomic groups that have been assessed comprehensively, or through a

‘sampled’ approach, or for which selected subsets have been assessed, by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Red List of Threatened Species. Groups are ordered according to the best estimate for the percentage of extant species considered

threatened (shown by the vertical blue lines), assuming that data deficient species are as threatened as non-data deficient species.

Extinctions since 1500 for vertebrate groups. Rates for reptiles and fishes have not been assessed for all species.

Red List

Index of species survival for taxonomic groups that have been assessed for the IUCN Red List at least twice. A value of 1 is equivalent

to all species being categorized as Least Concern; a value of zero is equivalent to all species being classified as Extinct. Data for all

panels derive from www.iucnredlist.org (see Chapter 3 Figure 3.4 and Chapter 2 Figure 2.7).

indigenous peoples and local communities, including

farmers, pastoralists and herders, are often important

areas for

in situ

conservation of the remaining varieties and

breeds

(well established)

{2.2.5.3.1}. Available data

suggest that genetic diversity within wild species globally

has been declining by about 1 per cent per decade since

the mid-19

century; and genetic diversity within wild

mammals and amphibians tends to be lower in areas

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

where human influence is greater

(established but

incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.6}.

Human-driven changes in species diversity

within local ecological communities vary widely,

depending on the net balance between species

loss and the influx of alien species, disturbance-

tolerant species, other human-adapted species or

climate migrant species (well

established)

{2.2.5.2.3}.

Even though human-dominated landscapes are sometimes

species-rich, their species composition is markedly altered

from that in natural landscapes

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.3,

2.2.7.10, 2.2.7.11}. As a result of human-caused changes

in community composition, naturally occurring species in

local terrestrial ecosystems worldwide are estimated to

have lost at least 20 per cent of their original abundance on

average, with hotspots of endemic species tending to have

lost even more

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.3}. The

traits of species influence whether they persist or even

thrive in human-modified ecosystems

(well established)

{2.2.3.6, 2.2.5.2.5}. For example, species that are large,

grow slowly, are habitat specialists or are carnivores – such

as great apes, tropical hardwood trees, sharks and big cats

– are disappearing from many areas. Many other species,

including those with opposite characteristics, are becoming

more abundant locally and are spreading quickly around the

world; across a set of 21 countries with detailed records,

the numbers of invasive alien species per country have

risen by some 70 per cent since 1970 {2.2.5.2.3}. The

effects of invasive alien species are often particularly severe

for the native species and assemblages on islands and in

other settings with high proportions of endemic species

(well established)

{2.2.3.4.1, 2.2.5.2.3}. Invasive alien

species can have devastating effects on mainland

assemblages as well: for example, a single invasive

pathogen species,

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis,

is a

threat to nearly 400 amphibian species worldwide and has

already caused a number of extinctions

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.3}. Many drivers add already widespread species

to ecological communities in many places; and many

drivers cause endemic species to decline in many places.

These two processes have contributed to the widespread

erosion of differences between ecological communities in

different places, a phenomenon known as biotic

homogenization or the “anthropogenic blender”

(well

established)

{2.2.5.2.3}. The consequences of all these

changes for ecosystem processes and hence nature’s

contributions to people can be very significant. For

example, the decline and disappearance of large herbivores

and predators has dramatically affected the structure, fire

regimes, seed dispersal, land surface albedo and nutrient

availability within many ecosystems

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.1}. However, the consequences of changes often

depend on details of the ecosystem, remain hard to predict

and are still understudied

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.3}.

Many organisms show ongoing biological

evolution so rapid that it is detectable within only a

few years or even more quickly – in response to

anthropogenic drivers

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.5,

2.2.5.2.6}. Management decisions that take those

evolutionary changes into account will be noticeably

more effective (established

but incomplete)

{Box 2.5}.

This human-driven contemporary evolution, which has long

been recognized in microbes, viruses, agricultural insect

pests and weeds

(well established),

is now being observed

in some species within all major taxonomic groups

(animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms). Such changes

are known to occur in response to human activities or

drivers, such as hunting, fishing, harvesting, climate

change, ocean acidification, soil and water pollution,

invasive species, pathogens, pesticides and urbanization

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.5}. However,

management strategies typically assume that evolutionary

changes occur only over much longer time periods and

thus ignore rapid evolution. These policy considerations

span many spheres in which management actions

designed to slow or speed evolution can dramatically

change outcomes, as the following examples indicate.

Insects, weeds and pathogens evolve resistance to

insecticides, herbicides and other control agents, yet

management strategies such as refuges, crop rotation, and

crop diversity can dramatically slow that undesirable

evolution

(well established)

{Box 2.5}. Commercial fish

populations have evolved to mature earlier under intensive

harvesting, which sometimes can be minimized by

mandating changes in fishing gear or fish size limits

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.5}. Climate change

favours the evolution of seasonally earlier reproduction in

many organisms, which can in principle be facilitated

through the introduction of individuals from populations

already adapted to such conditions

(established but

incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.5}. Mosquitoes rapidly evolve

resistance to efforts to control them, but evolutionarily

informed management actions can dramatically slow that

undesirable evolution

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.5}. Contemporary evolution is thus relevant to

many policy concerns. Understanding and working with

contemporary evolution can address important concerns

surrounding pollination and dispersal, coral persistence in

the face of ocean acidification, water quality, pest

regulation, food production and options for the future

(established but incomplete).

The specific actions taken will

typically be case-specific and therefore will require careful

assessment of evolutionary potential and consequences. In

many cases, the best strategy could be to simply maintain

the ability of natural populations to respond evolutionarily

on their own – rather than through direct human

manipulation of evolution.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

B. Direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated

during the past 50 years.

Today, humans extract more from the Earth and

produce more waste than ever before

(well

established).

Globally, land-use change is the direct

driver with the largest relative impact on terrestrial

and freshwater ecosystems, while direct exploitation

of fish and seafood has the largest relative impact in

the oceans (well

established)

(Figure SPM.2)

{2.2.6.2}.

Climate change, pollution and invasive alien species

have had a lower relative impact to date but are

accelerating (established

but incomplete)

{2.2.6.2, 3.2,

4.2}.

Although the pace of agricultural expansion into intact

ecosystems {2.1.13} has varied from country to country,

losses of intact ecosystems have occurred primarily in the

tropics, home to the highest levels of biodiversity on the

planet (for example, 100 million hectares of tropical forest

from 1980 to 2000), due to cattle ranching in Latin America

(~42 million ha) and plantations in South-East Asia

(~7.5 million hectares, 80 per cent in oil palm) among others

{2.1.13}, noting that plantations can also increase total

forest area. Within land-use change, urban areas have more

than doubled since 1992. In terms of direct exploitation,

approximately 60 billion tons

of renewable and non-

renewable resources {2.1.2} are being extracted each year.

That total has nearly doubled since 1980, as population has

grown considerably while the average per capita

consumption of materials (e.g., plants, animals, fossil fuels,

ores, construction material) has risen by 15 per cent since

1980

(established but incomplete)

{2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.14}.

This activity has generated unprecedented impacts: since

1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled {2.1.11,

2.1.12}, raising average global temperatures by at least

0.7 °C {2.1.12}, while plastic pollution in oceans has

increased tenfold {2.1.15}. Over 80 per cent of global

wastewater is being discharged back into the environment

without treatment, while 300–400 million tons of heavy

metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from

industrial facilities are dumped into the world’s waters each

year {2.1.15}. Excessive or inappropriate application of

fertilizer can lead to run-off from fields and enter freshwater

and coastal ecosystems, producing more than 400 hypoxic

zones that affected a total area of more than 245,000 km

as early as 2008 {2.1.15}. In some island countries, invasive

alien species have a significant impact on biodiversity, with

introduced species being a key driver of extinctions.

Land-use change is driven primarily by

agriculture, forestry and urbanization, all of which are

associated with air, water and soil pollution.

Over one

third of the world’s land surface and nearly three-quarters of

9. All references to “tons” are to metric tons.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

available freshwater resources are devoted to crop or

livestock production {2.1.11}. Crop production occurs on

some 12 per cent of total ice-free land. Grazing occurs on

about 25 per cent of total ice-free lands and approximately

70 per cent of drylands {2.1.11}. Approximately 25 per cent

of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions come from land

clearing, crop production and fertilization, with animal-based

food contributing 75 per cent of that. Intensive agriculture

has increased food production at the cost of regulating and

non-material contributions from nature, though

environmentally beneficial practices are increasing. Small

landholdings (less than 2 hectares) contribute approximately

30 per cent of global crop production and 30 per cent of the

global food caloric supply, using around a quarter of

agricultural land and usually maintaining rich agrobiodiversity

{2.1.11}. Moving to logging, between 1990 and 2015,

clearing and wood harvest contributed to a total reduction

of 290 million hectares in native forest cover, while the area

of planted forests grew by 110 million hectares {2.1.11}.

Industrial roundwood harvest is falling within some

developed countries but rising on average in developing

countries {2.1.11}. Illegal timber harvests and related trade

supply 10–15 per cent of global timber, and up to 50 per

cent in certain areas, hurting revenues for state owners and

livelihoods for the rural poor. All mining on land has

increased dramatically and, while still using less than 1 per

cent of the Earth’s land, has had significant negative impacts

on biodiversity, emissions of highly toxic pollutants, water

quality and water distribution, and human health {2.1.11}.

Mined products contribute more than 60 per cent of the

GDP of 81 countries. There are approximately 17,000 large-

scale mining sites in 171 countries, with the legal sites

mostly managed by international corporations, but there is

also extensive illegal and small-scale mining that is harder to

trace, and both types of sites are often in locations relevant

for biodiversity {2.1.11}.

In marine systems, fishing has had the most

impact on biodiversity (target species, non-target

species and habitats) in the past 50 years alongside

other significant drivers

(well established)

{2.1.11,

2.2.6.2}

(Figure SPM.2).

Global fish catches have been

sustained by expanding fishing geographically and

penetrating into deeper waters

(well established)

{3.2.1}. An

increasing proportion of marine fish stocks are overfished

(33 per cent in 2015), including stocks of economically

important species, while 60 per cent are maximally

sustainably fished and only 7 per cent are underfished

(well

established)

{Box 3.1}. Industrial fishing, concentrated in a

few countries and corporations {2.1.11}, covers at least

55 per cent of the oceans, largely concentrated in the

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

northeast Atlantic, the northwest Pacific and upwelling

regions off South America and West Africa

(established but

incomplete)

{2.1.11}. Small-scale fisheries account for more

than 90 per cent of commercial fishers (over 30 million

people), and nearly half of global fish catch

(established but

incomplete).

In 2011, illegal, unreported or unregulated

fishing represented up to one third of the world’s reported

catch

(established but incomplete)

{2.1.11}. Since 1992,

regional fisheries bodies have been adopting sustainable

development principles. For instance, more than

170 members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO) adopted the Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fisheries in 1995, and as of 1 April 2018,

52 countries and one member organization had become

Parties to the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent,

Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

Fishing, in order to address the depletion of marine fisheries

(established but incomplete)

{2.1.11}, reduce by-catch {3,

box 3.3} and lower damage to seabeds and reefs. In

addition, the set of established marine protected areas has

been growing

(well established)

{2.1.11.1, 2.2.7.16}.

The direct driver with the second highest relative

impact on the oceans is the many changes in the uses

of the sea and coastal land (well

established)

(Figure

SPM.2)

{2.2.6.2}.

Coastal habitats, including estuaries and

deltas critical for marine biota and regional economies, have

been severely affected by sea-use changes (coastal

development, offshore aquaculture, mariculture and bottom

trawling) and land-use changes (onshore land clearance and

urban sprawl along coastlines, plus pollution of rivers).

Pollution from land sources is already a major driver of

negative environmental change. Ocean mining, while

relatively small, has expanded since 1981 to ~ 6,500 offshore

oil and gas installations worldwide in 53 countries (60 per

cent in the Gulf of Mexico by 2003) and likely will expand into

the Arctic and Antarctic regions as the ice melts {2.1.11}.

Ocean acidification from increased carbon dioxide levels

largely affects shallow waters, with the ecosystems of the

subarctic Pacific and western Arctic Ocean particularly

affected. Plastic microparticles and nanoparticles are

entering food webs in poorly understood ways {2.1.15.3}.

Coastal waters hold the highest levels of metals and

persistent organic pollutants from industrial discharge and

agricultural run-off, poisoning coastal fish harvests. Severe

effects from excess nutrient concentrations in certain

locations include damage to fish and seabed biota. The

dynamics of ocean and airborne transport of pollutants mean

that the harm from inputs of plastics, persistent organic

pollutants, heavy metals and ocean acidification is felt

worldwide, including with consequences for human health.

Climate change is already having an impact on

nature, from genes to ecosystems. It poses a growing

risk owing to the accelerated pace of change and

interactions with other direct drivers (well

established)

Unsustainable use of the Earth’s resources is

underpinned by a set of demographic and economic

indirect drivers that have increased, and that

furthermore interact in complex ways, including

through trade (well

established)

{2.1.6}.

The global

human population has increased from 3.7 to 7.6 billion since

1970 unevenly across countries and regions, which has

strong implications for the degradation of nature. Per capita

consumption also has grown, and also is unequal, with wide

variations in lifestyles and access to resources across and

within regions, plus consequences for nature that are

distributed globally through trade. Total gross domestic

product is four times higher and is rising faster in developed

than in least developed countries. Approximately 821 million

people face food insecurity in Asia and Africa, while 40 per

cent of the global population lacks access to clean, safe

drinking water. Generally, environmentally-based health

burdens, such as air and water pollution, are more prevalent

in least developed countries {2.1.2, 2.1.15}.

Due to expansions of infrastructure, extensive

areas of the planet are being opened up to new

threats (well

established)

{2.1.11}.

Globally, paved road

lengths are projected to increase by 25 million kilometres by

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

{2.1.12, 2.1.18, 2.2.6.2}.

Shifts in species distribution,

changes in phenology, altered population dynamics and

changes in the composition of species assemblage or the

structure and function of ecosystems, are evident {2.2.5.3.2,

2.2.5.2.3, 2.2.6.2} and accelerating in marine, terrestrial and

freshwater systems

(well established)

{2.2.3.2}. Almost half

(47 per cent) of threatened terrestrial mammals, excluding

bats, and one quarter (23 per cent) of threatened birds may

have already been negatively affected by climate change in

at least part of their distribution (birds in North America and

Europe suggest effects of climate change in their population

trends since the 1980s)

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.6.2}. Ecosystems such as tundra and taiga and regions

such as Greenland, previously little affected by people

directly, are increasingly experiencing the impacts of climate

change

(well established)

{2.2.7.5}. Large reductions and

local extinctions of populations are widespread

(well

established)

{2.2.6.2}. This indicates that many species are

unable to cope locally with the rapid pace of climate

change, through either evolutionary or behavioural

processes, and that their continued existence will also

depend on the extent to which they are able to disperse, to

track suitable climatic conditions, and to preserve their

capacity to evolve

(well established)

{2.2.5.2.5}. Many of

these changes can have significant impacts on a number of

important economic sectors, and cascading effects for other

components of biodiversity. Island nations, in particular

those in East Asia and the Pacific region, will be most

vulnerable to sea-level rise (1m) as projected by all climate

change scenarios, {2.1.1.7.1} which will displace close to

40 million people {2.1.1.7.1, 2.2.7.1.8}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

2050, with nine tenths of all road construction occurring

within least developed and developing countries. The

number of dams has increased rapidly in the past 50 years.

Worldwide, there are now about 50,000 large dams (higher

than 15 metres) and approximately 17 million reservoirs

(larger than 0.01 hectares or 100m

) {2.1.11}. The

expansions of roads, cities, hydroelectric dams and oil and

gas pipelines can come with high environmental and social

costs, including deforestation, habitat fragmentation,

biodiversity loss, land grabbing, population displacement

and social disruption, including for indigenous peoples and

local communities

(established but incomplete).

Yet

infrastructure can generate positive economic effects and

even environmental gains, based on efficiency, innovation,

migration, and urbanization, depending on where and how

investment is implemented and governed

(well established)

{2.1.11}. Understanding this variation in impacts is critical.

Long-distance transportation of goods and

people, including for tourism, have grown dramatically

in the past 20 years, with negative consequences for

nature overall (established

but incomplete).

The rise in

airborne and seaborne transportation of both goods and

people, including a threefold increase in travel from

developed and developing countries in particular, has

increased pollution and significantly increased the presence

of invasive alien species

(well established)

{2.1.15}. Between

2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose

40 per cent to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide, and overall,

8 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions are from

tourism-related transportation and food consumption

{2.1.11, 2.1.15}. The demand for nature-based tourism or

ecotourism has also risen, with mixed effects on nature and

local communities, including some potential for contributions

to local conservation, in particular when carried out at a

smaller scale {2.1.11}.

Distant areas of the world are increasingly

connected, as consumption, production, and

governance decisions increasingly influence

materials, waste, energy, and information flows in

other countries, generating aggregate economic gains

while shifting economic and environmental costs,

which can link to conflicts (established

but

incomplete)

(Figure SPM.4).

As per capita consumption

has risen, developed countries and rapidly growing

developing countries {2.1.2, 2.1.6}, while at times

supporting efficient production for exports, often reduce

water consumption and forest degradation nationally {2.1.6,

2.1.11} by importing crops and other resources, mainly from

developing countries {2.1.6}. The latter, as a result, see

declines in nature and its contributions to people (habitat,

climate, air and water quality) different from the exported

food, fibre and timber products

(Figures SPM.1 and 5).

Reduced, declining and unequal access to nature’s

contributions to people may, in a complex interaction with

other factors, be a source of conflict within and among

countries

(established but incomplete).

Least developed

countries, often rich in and more dependent upon natural

resources, have suffered the greatest land degradation,

have also experienced more conflict and lower economic

growth, and have contributed to environmental outmigration

by several million people {2.1.2, 2.1.4}. When indigenous

peoples or local communities are expelled from or

threatened on their lands, including by mining or industrial

logging for export, this too can spark conflict – often

between actors with different levels of power, as today a few

actors can control large shares of any market or capital

asset rivalling those of most countries {2.1.6}, while funds

channelled through tax havens support most vessels

implicated in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

More than 2,500 conflicts over fossil fuels, water, food and

land are currently occurring across the planet, and at least

1,000 environmental activists and journalists were killed

between 2002 and 2013 {2.1.11, 2.1.18}.

Governance has at many levels moved slowly to

further and better incorporate into policies and

incentives the values of nature’s contributions to

people. However, around the globe, subsidies with

harmful effects on nature have persisted (well

established)

{2.1, 3, 5, 6.4}.

The incorporation by society of

the value of nature’s contributions to people will entail shifts

in governance even within private supply chains, for instance

when civil society certifies and helps to reward desired

practices, or when States block access to markets because

of undesirable practices {2.1.7}. Successful local governance

supported by recognition of local rights has often

incorporated knowledge of how nature contributes to human

wellbeing to motivate such behaviours {2.1.8}. National

agencies have also promoted land management strategies

that are more sustainable and introduced regulations, among

other policy measures {2.1.9.2}, and have coordinated with

other nations on global agreements to maintain nature’s

contributions to people {2.1.10}. Economic instruments that

may be harmful to nature include subsidies, financial

transfers, subsidized credit, tax abatements, and prices for

commodities and industrial goods that hide environmental

and social costs. Such instruments favour unsustainable

production and, as a consequence, can promote

deforestation, overfishing, urban sprawl, and wasteful uses of

water. In 2015, agricultural support potentially harmful to

nature amounted to $100 billion in countries belonging to the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,

although some subsidy reforms to reduce unsustainable

pesticide uses and adjust several other consequential

development practices have been introduced {2.1.9.1,

6.4.5}. Fossil fuel subsidies valued at $345 billion result in

global costs of $5 trillion when including the reduction of

nature’s contributions (coal accounts for about half of these

costs, petroleum for about one third and natural gas for

about one tenth {2.1.9.1.2}). In fisheries, subsidies to

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Trillion US$ (2010 constant $)

Gross domestic product (GDP)

Domestic material consumption

Extraction of living biomass

(domestic consumption and exports)

Total million tons / year

Mean Kg / ha of arable land

Average tons / capita

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Protection of Key Biodiversity

Areas (KBAs)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Average mean annual exposure

to fine particles (μg / m

Air pollution

Fertilizer use

800

Average % of KBAs

covered by protected areas

600

400

200

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

*Fine

particles: < 2.5 micrograms

Developed

Figure SPM

Developing

Least developed

World

Development pathways since 1970 for selected key indicators of human-

environment interactions, which show a large increase in the scale of global

economic growth and its impacts on nature, with strong contrasts across

developed, developing, and least developed countries.

Countries are classified according to the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects (https://www.un.org/development/

desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-2019/). Global gross domestic product has risen fourfold in real

terms, with the vast majority of growth occurring in developed and developing countries

. Extraction of living biomass (e.g., crops,

fish) to meet the demand for domestic consumption and for export is highest in developing countries and rising rapidly

. However,

material consumption per capita within each country (from imports and domestic production) is highest in developed countries. Overall

protection of Key Biodiversity Areas is rising, being highest within developed countries

. Air pollution is highest in least developed

countries

, while the challenges of non-point-source pollution from the use of fertilizers are highest in developing countries.

Data sources:

: www.data.worldbank.org;

: www.materialflows.net;

www.keybiodiversityareas.org, www.

protectedplanet.net.

increase and maintain capacity, which in turn often lead to

the degradation of nature, constitute perhaps a majority of

the tens of US$ billions spent on supports {5.3.2.5}.

Much of the world’s terrestrial wild and

domesticated biodiversity lies in areas traditionally

managed, owned, used or occupied by indigenous

peoples and local communities (well

established)

(Figure SPM.5)

{2.2.4}. In spite of efforts at all levels,

although nature on indigenous lands is declining less

rapidly than elsewhere, biodiversity and the

knowledge associated with its management are still

deteriorating (established

but incomplete)

{2.2.4,

2.2.5.3}.

Despite a long history of resource use,

conservation conflicts related to colonial expansion and

land appropriation for parks and other uses {3.2}

(well

established),

indigenous peoples and local communities

have often managed their landscapes and seascapes in

ways that were adjusted to local conditions over

generations. These management methods often remain

compatible with, or actively support, biodiversity

conservation by “accompanying” natural processes with

anthropogenic assets

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.4,

2.2.5.3.1}

(Figure SPM.5).

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

D O M E S T I C AT I O N

C R E AT I N G N E W E C O S Y S T E M S

Domesticating and

maintaining crops…

… and animal breeds

Creating cultural landscapes

with enhanced habitat

heterogeneity

Developing production

systems with a multitude of

domestic and wild species

PROTECTION

2) Formally designated

protected

areas

Approx. 35% of area 2)

Approx. 35%

of area 3)

1) Land areas

traditionally owned,

managed, used, or

occupied by

indigenous peoples

3) Remaining terrestrial

areas with very low

human intervention

(areas with <4

Footprint Index)

CONCEPTS

Preventing forest loss

S U S T A I N A B L E U S E , M A N A G E M E N T, A N D M O N I T O R I N G

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Alternative values and

worldviews

Habitat management

Wild species management

Restoration

Figure SPM

Contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the enhancement

and maintenance of wild and domesticated biodiversity and landscapes.

Indigenous and local knowledge systems are locally based, but regionally

manifested and thus globally relevant.

A wide diversity of practices actively and positively contributes to wild and domestic biodiversity through “accompanying” natural

processes with anthropogenic assets (knowledge, practices and technology). Indigenous peoples often manage the land and coastal

areas based on culturally specific world views, applying principles and indicators such as the health of the land, caring for the country

and reciprocal responsibility. As lifestyles, values and external pressures change with globalization, however, unsustainable practices

are becoming increasingly common in certain regions

. The image in the centre of the above figure shows the global overlap between

1) land areas traditionally owned, managed

, used, or occupied by indigenous peoples; 2) formally designated protected areas;

and 3) remaining terrestrial areas with very low human intervention (areas that score <4 on the Human Footprint Index

). Circles and

overlapping sections are proportional in area. Land areas traditionally owned, managed

, used, or occupied by indigenous peoples

overlap with approximately 35 per cent of the area that is formally protected, and approximately 35 per cent of all remaining terrestrial

areas with very low human intervention. The topics and pictures in the figure aim to illustrate, not represent, the types and diversity of

the following contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to biodiversity:

domestication and maintenance of locally

adapted crop and fruit varieties (potatoes, Peru) and

animal breeds (rider and sheep, Kyrgyzstan) {2.2.4.4};

creation of species-

rich habitats and high ecosystem diversity in cultural landscapes (hay meadows, Central Europe) {2.2.4.1-2};

identification of useful

plants and their cultivation in high-diversity ecosystems (multi-species forest garden, Indonesia) {2.2.4.3};

and

management

and monitoring of wild species, habitats and landscapes for wildlife and for increased resilience (

- Australia,

- Alaska) {2.2.4.5-

6};

restoration of degraded lands (Niger) {3.2.4};

prevention of deforestation in recognized indigenous territories (Amazon basin,

Brazil) {2.2.4.7};

offering alternative concepts of relations between humanity and nature (Northern Australia).

10 11

10. In Stephen Garnett

et al.,

“A spatial overview of the global importance of

Indigenous lands for conservation”,

Nature Sustainability,

Vol. 1 (July 2018)

pp. 369–374.

11. These data sources define land management here as the process of

determining the use, development and care of land resources in a manner

that fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood

activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting,

pastoralism, and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

12. Venter, O.

et al.

Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009.

Sci. Data 3, sdata201667 (2016).

Photos credits: (a) ©FAO/Sandro Cespoli, (b) ©FAO/Vyacheslav Oseledko, (c) ©Daniel Babai, (d) G. Michon et al. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art1/,

(e) ©Rebecca Bliege Bird, (f) Vadeve, (g) ©Rodrigo Ordonez/GLF, (h) Google Maps (i) ©Daniel Rockman Jupurrurla.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

At least one quarter of the global land area is traditionally

managed

, owned, used or occupied by indigenous

peoples. These areas include approximately 35 per cent

of the area that is formally protected, and approximately

35 per cent of all remaining terrestrial areas with very

low human intervention

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.3.1}. Community-based conservation institutions

and local governance regimes have often been effective,

at times even more effective than formally established

protected areas, in preventing habitat loss

(established but

incomplete).

Several studies have highlighted contributions

by indigenous peoples and local communities in limiting

deforestation, as well as initiatives showing synergies

between these different mechanisms

(well established)

{6.3.2, 2.2.5.3}. In many regions, however, the lands of

13. These data sources define land management here as the process of

determining the use, development and care of land resources in a manner

that fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood

activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting,

pastoralism, and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

indigenous peoples are becoming islands of biological

and cultural diversity surrounded by areas in which nature

has further deteriorated

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.3}. Among the local indicators developed and used

by indigenous peoples and local communities, 72 per cent

show negative trends in nature that underpinned local

livelihoods

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.3.2}. Major

trends include declining availability of resources – due

in part to legal and illegal territory reductions, despite

expanding indigenous populations – as well as declining

health and populations of culturally important species;

new pests and invasive alien species as climate changes;

losses in both natural forest habitats and grazing lands;

and declining productivity in remnant ecosystems. A more

detailed global synthesis of trends in nature observed by

indigenous peoples and local communities is hindered by

the lack of institutions that gather data for these locations

and then synthesize them within regional and global

summaries {2.2.2}.

There has been good progress towards the

components of 4 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets

under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.

Moderate progress has been achieved towards some

components of 7 more targets, but for 6 others, poor

progress has been made towards all components.

There is insufficient information to assess progress

towards some or all components of the remaining

3 targets (established

but incomplete)

{3.2}. Overall,

the state of nature continues to decline (12 of 16

indicators show significantly worsening trends) (well

established)

{3.2}

(Figure SPM.6).

By 2015, greater progress had been made in implementing

policy responses and actions to conserve biodiversity for

drivers with an impact on coral reefs and other ecosystems

vulnerable to climate change

(established but incomplete)

{3.2}.

Anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity loss, including

habitat loss as a result of land-use and sea use change

(addressed by Aichi Target 5), unsustainable agriculture,

aquaculture and forestry (Aichi Target 7), unsustainable

fishing (Aichi Target 6), pollution (Aichi Target 8), and invasive

alien species (Aichi Target 9) are increasing globally, despite

14. A fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic

and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.

national efforts to meet the Aichi Targets

(established but

incomplete)

{3.2}.

Conservation actions, including protected

areas, efforts to manage unsustainable use and

address the illegal capture and trade of species, and

the translocation and eradication of invasive species,

have been successful in preventing the extinction of

some species (established

but incomplete).

For

example, conservation investment during the period

between 1996 and 2008 reduced the extinction risk for

mammals and birds in 109 countries by a median value of

29 per cent per country, while the rate of decrease in

extinction risk for birds, mammals and amphibians would

have been at least 20 per cent higher without conservation

action in recent decades. Similarly, it is likely that at least

6 species of ungulate (e.g., the Arabian Oryx and

Przewalski’s Horse) would now be extinct or surviving only

in captivity without conservation measures. At least 107

highly threatened birds, mammals and reptiles (e.g., the

Island Fox and the Seychelles Magpie-Robin) are estimated

to have benefited from invasive mammal eradication on

islands {3.2.2}. Although still few and spatially localized,

such cases show that with prompt and appropriate action, it

is possible to reduce human-induced extinction rates

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature

and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current

trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only

be achieved through transformative changes across

economic, social, political and technological factors.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Goal

A. Address the underlying drivers

B. Reduce direct pressures

Target

Target element (abbreviated)

1.1 Awareness of biodiversity

1.2 Awareness of steps to conserve

2.1

Biodiversity integrated into poverty reduction

2.2 Biodiversity integrated into planning

2.3 Biodiversity integrated into accounting

2.4 Biodiversity integrated into reporting

3.1 Harmful subsidies eliminated and reformed

3.2 Positive incentives developed and implemented

4.1 Sustainable production and consumption

4.2 Use within safe ecological limits

5.1 Habitat loss at least halved

5.2 Degradation and fragmentation reduced

6.1 Fish stocks harvested sustainably

6.2 Recovery plans for depleted species

6.3 Fisheries have no adverse impact

7.1 Agriculture is sustainable

7.2 Aquaculture is sustainable

7.3 Forestry is sustainable

8.1 Pollution not detrimental

8.2 Excess nutrients not detrimental

9.1 Invasive alien species prioritized

9.2 Invasive alien pathways prioritized

9.3 Invasive species controlled or eradicated

9.4 Invasive introduction pathways managed

10.1 Pressures on coral reefs minimized

10.2 Pressures on vulnerable ecosystems minimized

11.1 10 per cent of marine areas conserved

11.2 17 per cent of terrestrial areas conserved

Progress towards the Aichi Targets

Poor

Moderate

Good

Unknown

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Unknown

C. Improve biodiversity status

D. Enhance

benefits to all

E. Enhance implementation

11.3 Areas of importance conserved

11.4 Protected areas, ecologically representative

11.5 Protected areas, effectively and equitably managed

11.6 Protected areas, well-connected and integrated

12.1 Extinctions prevented

12.2 Conservation status of threatened species improved

13.1 Genetic diversity of cultivated plants maintained

13.2 Genetic diversity of farmed animals maintained

13.3 Genetic diversity of wild relatives maintained

13.4 Genetic diversity of valuable species maintained

13.5 Genetic erosion minimized

14.1 Ecosystems providing services restored and safeguarded

14.2 Taking account of women, IPLCs, and other groups

15.1 Ecosystem resilience enhanced

15.2 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems restored

16.1 Nagoya Protocol in force

16.2 Nagoya Protocol operational

17.1 NBSAPs developed and updated

17.2 NBSAPs adopted as policy instruments

17.3 NBSAPs implemented

18.1 ILK and customary use respected

18.2 ILK and customary use integrated

18.3 IPLCs participate effectively

19.1 Biodiversity science improved and shared

19.2 Biodiversity science applied

20.1 Financial resources for Strategic Plan

increased

Unknown

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Abbreviations:

ILK: indigenous and local knowledge; IPLCs: indigenous peoples and local communities;

NBSAPs: national biodiversity strategies and action plans.

Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.

Figure SPM

Summary of progress towards the Aichi Targets.

Scores are based on a quantitative analysis of indicators, a systematic review of the literature, the fifth National Reports to the

Convention on Biological Diversity and the information available on countries’ stated intentions to implement additional actions by

2020. Progress towards target elements is scored as “Good” (substantial positive trends at a global scale relating to most aspects

of the element); “Moderate” (the overall global trend is positive, but insubstantial or insufficient, or there may be substantial positive

trends for some aspects of the element, but little or no progress for others; or the trends are positive in some geographic regions, but

not in others); “Poor” (little or no progress towards the element or movement away from it; or, despite local, national or case-specific

successes and positive trends for some aspects, the overall global trend shows little or negative progress); or “Unknown” (insufficient

information to score progress).

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.5.2.4, 4}. There are,

however, few other counterfactual studies assessing how

trends in the state of nature or pressures upon nature would

have been different in the absence of conservation efforts

(well established)

{3.2}.

Biodiversity and ecosystem functions and

services directly underpin the achievement of several

of the Sustainable Development Goals, including

those on water and sanitation, climate action, life

below water and life on land (Sustainable

Development Goals 6, 13, 14 and 15),

(well

established)

{3.3.2.1}. Nature also plays an important

and complex role in the achievement of the

Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty,

hunger, health and well-being and sustainable cities

(Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 3 and 11)

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.2.2}

(Figure SPM.7).

Several examples illustrate the interdependencies between

nature and the Sustainable Development Goals. For

example, nature and its contributions may play an important

role in reducing vulnerability to climate-related extreme

events and other economic, social and environmental

shocks and disasters, although anthropogenic assets are

also involved

(established but incomplete).

Nature’s

underpinning of specific health targets varies across regions

and ecosystems, is influenced by anthropogenic assets and

remains understudied. The relationship can be positive or

negative, as in the case of certain aspects of biodiversity

and infectious diseases (see paragraph 2 of the present

document). Nature directly underpins the livelihoods of

indigenous peoples and local communities and the rural and

urban poor, largely through direct consumption or through

the income generated by trade in material contributions

such as food (see paragraphs 2 and 36 of the present

document) and energy

(well established).

Such contributions

are generally underrepresented in poverty analyses

(established but incomplete).

Nature and its contributions

are also relevant to the Goals for education, gender equality,

reducing inequalities and promoting peace, justice and

strong institutions (Sustainable Development Goals 4, 5, 10

and 16), but the current focus and wording of the related

targets obscures or omits their relationship to nature

(established but incomplete).

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity, future targets are

likely to be more effective if they take into account the

impacts of climate change

(well established)

{3.2, 3.3}.

For example, climate change is projected to greatly increase

the number of species under threat, with fewer species

expanding their ranges or experiencing more suitable

climatic conditions than the number of species experiencing

range contraction or less suitable conditions

(established

but incomplete)

{4.2, 3.2}. The impact of climate change on

the effectiveness of protected areas calls for a re-evaluation

of conservation objectives; meanwhile, there are currently

few protected areas whose objectives and management

take climate change into account

(established but

incomplete).

The Sustainable Development Goals for

poverty, health, water and food security, and sustainability

targets are closely linked through the impacts of multiple

direct drivers, including climate change, on biodiversity and

ecosystem functions and services, nature and nature’s

contributions to people and good quality of life. In a

post-2020 global biodiversity framework, placing greater

emphasis on the interactions between the targets of the

Sustainable Development Goals {4.6, 3.7} may provide a

way forward for achieving multiple targets, as synergies (and

trade-offs) can be considered. Future targets are expected

to be more effective if they take into account the impacts of

climate change, including on biodiversity, and action to

mitigate and adapt to climate change {4.6, 3.7}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

The adverse impacts of climate change on

biodiversity are projected to increase with increasing

warming, so limiting global warming to well below 2°C

would have multiple co-benefits for nature and nature’s

contributions to people and quality of life; however, it is

projected that some large-scale land-based mitigation

measures to achieve that objective will have

significant impacts on biodiversity

(established but

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Selected Sustainable

Development Goals

Selected targets (abbreviated)

Recent status and trends in

aspects of nature and nature’s

contributions to people that

Uncertain

support progress towards target * relationship

Poor/Declining

Partial support

support

1.1 Eradicate extreme poverty

No poverty

1.2 Halve the proportion of people in poverty

1.4 Ensure that all have equal rights to economic resources

1.5 Build the resilience of the poor

2.1 End hunger and ensure access to food all year round

2.3 Double productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers

Zero hunger

2.4 Ensure sustainable food production systems

2.5 Maintain genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed

animals

3.2 End preventable deaths of newborns and children

Good

health and

well-being

3.3 End AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases

3.4 Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases

3.9 Reduce deaths and illnesses from pollution

6.3 Improve water quality

Clean

water and

sanitation

6.4 Increase water use and ensure sustainable withdrawals

6.5 Implement integrated water resource management

6.6 Protect and restore water-related ecosystems

11.3 Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization

Sustainable 11.4 Protect and safeguard cultural and natural heritage

11.5 Reduce deaths and the number of people affected by disasters

cities and

communities 11.6 Reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

11.7 Provide universal access to green and public spaces

13.1 Strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards

13.2 Integrate climate change into policies, strategies and planning

Climate

action

13.3 Improve education and capacity on mitigation and adaptation

13a Mobilize US$100 billion/year for mitigation by developing

countries

13b Raise capacity for climate change planning and management

14.1 Prevent and reduce marine pollution

14.2 Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal

ecosystems

Life below

water

14.3 Minimize and address ocean acidi cation

14.4 Regulate harvesting and end over shing

14.5 Conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas

14.6 Prohibit subsidies contributing to over shing

14.7 Increase economic bene ts from sustainable use of marine

resources

15.1 Ensure conservation of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems

15.2 Sustainably manage and restore degraded forests and halt

deforestation

15.3 Combat deserti cation and restore degraded land

15.4 Conserve mountain ecosystems

15.5 Reduce degradation of natural habitats and prevent extinctions

Life on land 15.6 Promote fair sharing of bene ts from use of genetic resources

15.7 End poaching and trafficking

15.8 Prevent introduction and reduce impact of invasive alien species

15.9 Integrate biodiversity values into planning and poverty reduction

15a Increase nancial resources to conserve and sustainably use

biodiversity

15b Mobilize resources for sustainable forest management

Unknown

There were no targets that were scored as good/positive status and trends

Figure SPM

Summary of recent status and trends in aspects of nature and nature’s

contributions to people that support progress towards achieving selected targets

of the Sustainable Development Goals.

The targets selected are those where the current evidence and wording of the target make it possible to assess the consequences of

the trends in nature and nature’s contribution to people as they relate to the achievement of the target. Chapter 3, Section 3.3 provides

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

an assessment of the evidence of the links between nature and the Sustainable Development Goals. The scores for the targets are

based on a systematic assessment of the literature and a quantitative analysis of the indicators, where possible. None of the targets

scored “Full support” (that is, having a good status or substantial positive trends on a global scale). Consequently, the score of “Full

support” was not included in the table. “Partial support” means that the overall global status and trends are positive, but still insubstantial

or insufficient; or there may be substantial positive trends for some relevant aspects, but negative trends for others; or the trends are

positive in some geographic regions, but negative in others. “Poor/Declining support” indicates poor status or substantial negative trends

at a global scale. “Uncertain relationship” means that the relationship between nature and/or nature’s contributions to people and the

achievement of the target is uncertain. “Unknown” indicates that there is insufficient information to score the status and trends.

The magnitude of the impacts on biodiversity and

ecosystem functions and services and the differences

between regions are smaller in scenarios that focus on

global or regional sustainability (well

established)

(Figure SPM.8).

Sustainability scenarios that explore

moderate and equitable consumption result in substantially

lower negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems due

to food, feed and timber production

(well established)

{4.1.3,

4.2.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.5.3}. The general patterns at the global level

– namely, declines in biodiversity and regulating contributions

versus increases in the production of food, bioenergy and

materials – are evident in nearly all subregions {4.2.2, 4.2.3,

4.2.4, 4.3.3}. For terrestrial systems, most studies indicate

that South America, Africa and parts of Asia will be much

more significantly affected than other regions, especially in

scenarios that are not based on sustainability objectives (see

Figure SPM.8

as an example). That is due in part to regional

climate change differences and in part to the fact that

scenarios generally foresee the largest land use conversions

to crops or bioenergy in those regions {4.1.5, 4.2.4.2}.

Regions such as North America and Europe are expected to

have low conversion to crops and continued reforestation

{4.1.5, 4.2.4.2}.

Biodiversity and nature’s regulating contributions

to people are projected to decline further in most

scenarios of global change over the coming decades,

while the supply and demand for nature’s material

contributions to people that have current market value

(food, feed, timber and bioenergy) are projected to

increase (well

established)

{4.2, 4.3}

(for example, see

Figure SPM.8).

These changes arise from continued human

population growth, increasing purchasing power, and

increasing per capita consumption. The projected effects of

climate change and land use change on terrestrial and

freshwater biodiversity are mostly negative, increase with the

degree of global warming and land use change, and have an

impact on marine biodiversity through increased

eutrophication and deoxygenation of coastal waters

(well

established)

{4.2.2.3.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4}. For instance, a

synthesis of many studies estimates that the fraction of

species at risk of extinction due to climate change is 5 per

cent at 2°C warming, rising to 16 per cent at 4.3°C warming

{4.2.1.1}. Climate change and business-as-usual fishing

scenarios are expected to worsen the status of marine

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

incomplete)

{4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5}.

All climate model

trajectories show that limiting human-induced climate

change to well below 2°C requires immediate, rapid

reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or a reliance on

substantial carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere.

However, the land areas required for bioenergy crops (with

or without carbon capture and storage), afforestation and

reforestation to achieve the targeted carbon uptake rates

are projected to be very large {4.2.4.3., 4.5.3}. The

biodiversity and environmental impact of large-scale

afforestation and reforestation depends to a large degree on

where these occur (prior vegetation cover, state of

degradation), and the tree species planted

(established but

incomplete).

Likewise, large bioenergy crop or afforested

areas are expected to compete with areas set aside for

conservation, including restoration, or agriculture

(established but incomplete).

Consequently, large-scale

land-based mitigation measures may jeopardize the

achievement of other Sustainable Development Goals that

depend on land resources

(well established)

{4.5.3}. In

contrast, the benefits of avoiding and reducing deforestation

and promoting restoration can be significant for biodiversity

(well established)

and are expected to have co-benefits for

local communities

(established but incomplete)

{4.2.4.3}.

biodiversity

(well established)

{4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.3.1}. Climate

change alone is projected to decrease ocean net primary

production by between 3 and 10 per cent, and fish biomass

by between 3 and 25 per cent (in low and high warming

scenarios, respectively) by the end of the century

(established

but incomplete)

{4.2.2.2.1}. Whether or not the current

removal of nearly 30 per cent of anthropogenic carbon

dioxide emissions by terrestrial ecosystems continues into the

future varies greatly from one scenario to the next and

depends heavily on how climate change, atmospheric carbon

dioxide and land-use change interact. Important regulating

contributions of nature, such as coastal and soil protection,

crop pollination and carbon storage, are projected to decline

(established but incomplete)

{4.2.4, 4.3.2.1}. In contrast,

substantial increases in food, feed, timber and bioenergy

production are predicted in most scenarios

(well established)

{4.2.4, 4.3.2.2}. Scenarios that include substantial shifts

towards sustainable management of resource exploitation

and land use, market reform, globally equitable and moderate

animal protein consumption, and reduction of food waste and

losses result in low loss or even recovery of biodiversity

(well

established)

{4.2.2.3.1, 4.2.4.2, 4.3.2.2, 4.5.3}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Scenarios

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Central and

Eastern Europe

Central Asia

Western Europe

ASIA

Western Asia

South Asia

South-East Asia

North-East Asia

OCEANIA

Oceania

Global

sustainability

Regional

competition

Economic

optimism

Indicator

Species richness

Material NCP

Regulating NCP

NORTH AMERICA

CENTRAL AND

WESTERN EUROPE

EASTERN EUROPE

CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Change between

2015 and 2050

NORTH EAST ASIA

SOUTH ASIA

NORTH AFRICA

WESTERN ASIA

MESOAMERICA CARIBBEAN

WEST AFRICA

SOUTHEAST ASIA

EAST AFRICA

CENTRAL

AND

AFRICA

ADJACENT

SOUTH AMERICA

ISLANDS

SOUTHERN

AFRICA

AMERICAS

AFRICA

Caribbean

North Africa

West Africa

Central Africa Southern Africa

East Africa and

adjacent islands

OCEANIA

Scenarios

North America

Mesoamerica

South America

Global

sustainability

Regional

competition

Economic

optimism

Figure SPM

Projections of the impacts of land use and climate change on biodiversity and

nature’s material and regulating contributions to people between 2015 and 2050.

This figure illustrates three main messages: i) the impacts on biodiversity and on nature’s contributions to people (NCP) are the lowest

in the “global sustainability” scenario in nearly all sub-regions, ii) regional differences in impacts are high in the regional competition

and economic optimism scenario, and iii) material NCP increase the most in the regional competition and economic optimism

scenarios, but this comes at the expense of biodiversity and regulating NCP. Projected impacts are based on a subset of the Shared

Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories (RCP) developed in support of Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change assessments. This figure does not cover the scenarios that include transformative change that are

discussed in Chapter 5.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

• The

“Global sustainability”

scenario combines proactive environmental policy and sustainable production and consumption with

low greenhouse gas emissions (SSP1, RCP2.6; top rows in each panel);

• The

“Regional competition”

scenario combines strong trade and other barriers and a growing gap between rich and poor with

high emissions (SSP3, RCP6.0; middle rows); and

• The

“Economic optimism”

scenario combines rapid economic growth and low environmental regulation with very high

greenhouse emissions (SSP5, RCP8.5; bottom rows).

Multiple models were used with each of the scenarios to generate the first rigorous global-scale model comparison estimating the

impact on biodiversity (change in species richness across a wide range of terrestrial plant and animal species at regional scales;

orange bars), material NCP (food, feed, timber and bioenergy: purple bars) and regulating NCP (nitrogen retention, soil protection,

crop pollination, crop pest control and ecosystem carbon storage and sequestration: white bars). The bars represent the normalized

means of multiple models and the whiskers indicate the standard errors. The global means of percentage changes in individual

indicators can be found in Figure 4.2.14.

D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably

while simultaneously meeting other global societal

goals through urgent and concerted efforts fostering

transformative change.

The Sustainable Development Goals and the

2050 Vision for Biodiversity cannot be achieved

without transformative change, the conditions for

which can be put in place now (well

established)

{2, 3,

5, 6.2}

(Figure SPM.9).

Increasing awareness of

interconnectedness in the context of the environmental crisis

and new norms regarding interactions between humans and

nature would support that change

(well established)

{5.3,

5.4.3}. In the short term (before 2030), all decision makers

could contribute to sustainability transformations, including

through enhanced and improved implementation and

enforcement of effective existing policy instruments and

regulations, and the reform and removal of harmful existing

policies and subsidies

(well established).

Additional

measures are necessary to enable transformative change

over the long term (up to 2050) to address the indirect

drivers that are the root causes of the deterioration of nature

(well established),

including changes in social, economic

and technological structures within and across nations {6.2,

6.3, 6.4}

(SPM Table.1).

Sustainability transformations call for cross-

sectoral thinking and approaches

(Figure SPM.9).

Sectoral policies and measures can be effective in

particular contexts, but often fail to account for

indirect, distant and cumulative impacts, which can

have adverse effects, including the exacerbation of

inequalities (well

established).

Cross-sectoral

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Climate change impacts also play a major role in

regionally-differentiated projections of biodiversity

and ecosystem functioning in both marine and

terrestrial systems. Novel communities, where

species will co-occur in historically unknown

combinations, are expected to emerge (established

but incomplete)

{4.2.1.2, 4.2.4.1}

Substantial climate

change-driven shifts of terrestrial biome boundaries, in

particular in boreal, subpolar and polar regions and in (semi-)

arid environments, are projected for the coming decades; a

warmer, drier climate will reduce productivity in many places

(well established)

{4.2.4.1}. In contrast, rising atmospheric

carbon dioxide concentrations can be beneficial for net

primary productivity and can enhance woody vegetation

cover, especially in semi-arid regions

(established but

incomplete)

{4.2.4.1}. For marine systems, impacts are

expected to be geographically variable, with many fish

populations projected to move poleward due to ocean

warming, meaning that local species extinctions are

expected in the tropics

(well established)

{4.2.2.2.1}.

However, that does not necessarily imply an increase in

biodiversity in the polar seas, because of the rapid rate of

sea ice retreat and the enhanced ocean acidification of cold

waters

(established but incomplete)

{4.2.2.2.4}. Along

coastlines, the upsurge in extreme climatic events, sea level

rise and coastal development are expected to cause

increased fragmentation and loss of habitats. Coral reefs are

projected to undergo more frequent extreme warming

events, with less recovery time in between, declining by a

further 70–90 per cent at global warming of 1.5°C, and by

more than 99 per cent at warming of 2°C, causing massive

bleaching episodes with high coral mortality rates

(well

established)

{4.2.2.2.2}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

approaches, including landscape approaches, integrated

watershed and coastal zone management, marine spatial

planning, bioregional scale planning for energy, and new

urban planning paradigms offer opportunities to reconcile

multiple interests, values and forms of resource use, provided

that these cross-sectoral approaches recognize trade-offs

and uneven power relations between stakeholders

(established but incomplete)

{5.4.2, 5.4.3, 6.3, 6.4}.

Transformative change is facilitated by

innovative governance approaches that incorporate

existing approaches, such as integrative, inclusive,

informed and adaptive governance. While such

approaches have been extensively practised and

studied separately, it is increasingly recognized that

together, they can contribute to transformative

change (established

but incomplete)

{6.2}.

They help to

address governance challenges that are common to many

sectors and policy domains and create the conditions for

implementing transformative change. Integrative

approaches, such as mainstreaming across government

sectors, are focused on the relationships between sectors

and policies and help to ensure policy coherence and

effectiveness

(well established).

Inclusive approaches help to

reflect a plurality of values and ensure equity

(established

but incomplete),

including through equitable sharing of

benefits arising from their use and rights-based approaches

(established but incomplete).

Informed governance entails

novel strategies for knowledge production and co-

production that are inclusive of diverse values and

knowledge systems

(established but incomplete).

Adaptive

approaches, including learning from experience, monitoring

and feedback loops, contribute to preparing for and

managing the inevitable uncertainties and complexities

associated with social and environmental changes

(established but incomplete)

{6.2, 5.4.2}.

A summary of the evidence related to the

components of pathways to sustainability suggests

that there are five overarching types of management

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

I ND IRE CT

D RIVERS

Va l u e s a n d b e h a v i o u r s

Demographic

and

sociocultural

Economic and

technological

HUMAN

ACTIVITIES

EXAMPLES:

DIRE CT

DRIVE RS

Land/sea-use

change

Fisheries

Agriculture

Energy

Forestry

Mining

Tourism

Infrastructure

Integrative, adaptive, informed and inclusive

governance approaches including smart policy

mixes, applied especially at leverage points

Direct

exploitation

Climate change

Pollution

MULTI ACTOR

GOVERNANCE INTERVENTIONS

(LEVERS)

Institutions and

governance

Conﬂicts and

epidemics

Conservation

Invasive species

Others

etc.

• Incentives and capacity building

• Cross-sectoral cooperation

• Pre-emptive action

• Decision-making in the context of

resilience and uncertainty

• Environmental law and

implementation

LEVERAGE POINTS

•

Embrace

diverse

visions

of a good life

•

Reduce

total consumption and waste

•

Unleash

values and action

•

Reduce

inequalities

Iterative

learning loop

•

Practice

justice and inclusion in conservation

•

Internalize

externalities and telecouplings

•

Ensure

environmentally friendly technology, innovation and investment

•

Promote

education and knowledge generation and sharing

Figure SPM

Transformative change in global sustainability pathways.

Collaborative implementation of priority governance interventions (levers) targeting key points of intervention (leverage points) could

enable transformative change from current trends towards more sustainable ones. Most levers can be applied at multiple leverage

points by a range of actors, such as intergovernmental organizations, governments, non-governmental organizations, citizen and

community groups, indigenous peoples and local communities, donor agencies, science and educational organizations, and the

private sector, depending on the context. Implementing existing and new instruments through place-based governance interventions

that are integrative, informed, inclusive and adaptive, using strategic policy mixes and learning from feedback, could enable global

transformation.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

interventions, or levers, and eight leverage points that

are key for achieving transformative change

(Figure

SPM.9;

D3 and D4 above) {5.4.1, 5.4.2}. The notion of

levers and leverage points recognizes that complex global

systems cannot be managed simply, but that in certain

cases, specific interventions can be mutually reinforcing and

can generate larger-scale changes towards achieving

shared goals

(well established)

(Table SPM.1).

For

example, changes in laws and policies can enable and

underpin changes in resource management and

consumption, and in turn, changes in individual and

collective behaviour and habits can facilitate the

implementation of policies and laws {5.4.3}.

Changes towards sustainable production and

consumption and towards reducing and transforming

residues and waste, particularly changes in

consumption among the affluent, is recognized by

some individuals and communities worldwide as

central to sustainable development and reducing

inequalities. While actual reductions have been

limited, actions already being taken at different levels

can be improved, coordinated and scaled up

(well

established).

Those include introducing and improving

standards, systems and relevant regulations aimed at

internalizing the external costs of production, extraction and

consumption (such as pricing wasteful or polluting practices,

including through penalties); promoting resource efficiency

and circular and other economic models; voluntary

environmental and social certification of market chains; and

incentives that promote sustainable practices and

innovation. Importantly, they also involve a change in the

definition of what a good quality of life entails – decoupling

the idea of a good and meaningful life from ever-increasing

material consumption. All those approaches are more

effective when they are mutually reinforcing. Actions that

help to voluntarily unleash existing social values of

responsibility in the form of individual, collective and

organizational actions towards sustainability can have a

powerful and lasting effect in shifting behaviour and

cultivating stewardship as a normal social practice

(established but incomplete)

{5.4.1.2, 5.4.1.3, 6.4.2, 6.4.3}.

Expanding and effectively managing the current

network of protected areas, including terrestrial,

freshwater and marine areas, is important for

safeguarding biodiversity (well

established),

particularly in the context of climate change.

Conservation outcomes also depend on adaptive

governance, strong societal engagement, effective

and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms, sustained

funding, and monitoring and enforcement of rules

(well

established)

{6.2, 5.4.2}.

National Governments play

a central role in supporting primary research, effective

conservation and the sustainable use of multi-functional

landscapes and seascapes. This entails planning

Integrated landscape governance entails a mix of

policies and instruments that together ensure nature

conservation, ecological restoration and sustainable

use, sustainable production (including of food,

materials and energy), and sustainable forest

management and infrastructure planning, and that

address the major drivers of biodiversity loss and

nature deterioration (well

established)

{6.3.2, 6.3.6}.

Policy mixes that are harmonized across sectors, levels of

governance and jurisdictions can account for ecological and

social differences across and beyond the landscape, build

on existing forms of knowledge and governance and

address trade-offs between tangible and non-tangible

benefits in a transparent and equitable manner

(established

but incomplete).

Sustainable landscape management can

be better achieved through multifunctional, multi-use,

multi-stakeholder and community-based approaches

(well

established),

using a combination of measures and

practices, including: (a) well-managed and connected

protected areas and other effective area-based conservation

measures; (b) reduced impact logging, forest certification,

payment for ecosystem services, among other instruments,

and reduced emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation; (c) support for ecological restoration;

(d) effective monitoring, including public access and

participation as appropriate; (e) addressing illegal activities;

(f) the effective implementation of multilateral environmental

agreements and other relevant international agreements by

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

ecologically representative networks of interconnected

protected areas to cover key biodiversity areas and

managing trade-offs between societal objectives that

represent diverse worldviews and multiple values of nature

(established but incomplete)

{6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.3}. Safeguarding

protected areas into the future also entails enhancing

monitoring and enforcement systems, managing

biodiversity-rich land and sea beyond protected areas,

addressing property rights conflicts and protecting

environmental legal frameworks against the pressure of

powerful interest groups. In many areas, conservation

depends on building capacity and enhancing stakeholder

collaboration, involving non-profit groups as well as

indigenous peoples and local communities to establish and

manage marine protected areas and marine protected area

networks, and proactively using instruments such as

landscape-scale and seascape-scale participatory scenarios

and spatial planning, including transboundary conservation

planning

(well established)

{5.3.2.3, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.3}.

Implementation beyond protected areas includes combating

wildlife and timber trafficking through effective enforcement

and ensuring the legality and sustainability of trade in wildlife.

Such actions include prioritizing the prosecution of wildlife

trafficking in criminal justice systems, using community-

based social marketing to reduce demand and

implementing strong measures to combat corruption at all

levels

(established but incomplete)

{6.3.2.3}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

their parties; and (g) promoting sustainable, biodiversity-

based food systems

(well established)

{6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.3,

6.3.2, 6.3.2.4}.

Feeding the world in a sustainable manner,

especially in the context of climate change and

population growth, entails food systems that ensure

adaptive capacity, minimize environmental impacts,

eliminate hunger, and contribute to human health and

animal welfare

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.2.1,

6.3.2.1}. Pathways to sustainable food systems entail

land-use planning and sustainable management of

both the supply/producer and the demand/consumer

sides of food systems (well

established)

{5.3.2.1,

6.3.2.1, 6.4}.

Options for sustainable agricultural production

are available and continue to be developed, with some

having more impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem

functions than others {6.3.2.1}. These options include

integrated pest and nutrient management, organic

agriculture, agroecological practices, soil and water

conservation practices, conservation agriculture,

agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, irrigation management,

small or patch systems and practices to improve animal

welfare. These practices could be enhanced through

well-structured regulations, incentives and subsidies, the

removal of distorting subsidies {2.3.5.2, 5.3.2.1, 5.4.2.1,

6.3.2}, and – at landscape scales – by integrated landscape

planning and watershed management. Ensuring the

adaptive capacity of food production entails the use of

measures that conserve the diversity of genes, varieties,

cultivars, breeds, landraces and species, which also

contributes to diversified, healthy and culturally-relevant

nutrition. Some incentives and regulations may contribute to

positive changes at both the production and consumption

ends of supply chains, such as the creation, improvement

and implementation of voluntary standards, certification and

supply-chain agreements (e.g., the Soy Moratorium) and the

reduction of harmful subsidies. Regulatory mechanisms

could also address the risks of co-option and lobbying,

where commercial or sectoral interests may work to

maintain high levels of demand, monopolies and continued

use of pesticides and chemical inputs {5.3.2.1}. Non-

regulatory alternatives are also important, and potentially

include technical assistance – especially for small-holders –

and appropriate economic incentive programs, for example,

some payment for ecosystem services programmes and

other non-monetary instruments {5.4.2.1}. Options that

address and engage other actors in food systems (including

the public sector, civil society, consumers and grassroots

movements) include participatory on-farm research, the

promotion of low-impact and healthy diets and the

localization of food systems. Such options could help

reduce food waste, overconsumption, and the demand for

animal products that are produced unsustainably, which

could have synergistic benefits for human health

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.2.1, 6.3.2.1}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Ensuring sustainable food production from the

oceans while protecting biodiversity entails policy

action to apply sustainable ecosystem approaches to

fisheries management; spatial planning (including the

implementation and expansion of marine protected

areas); and more broadly, policy action to address

drivers such as climate change and pollution (well

established)

{5.3.2.5, 6.3.3}.

Scenarios show that the

pathways to sustainable fisheries entail conserving, restoring

and sustainably using marine ecosystems, rebuilding

overfished stocks (including through targeted limits on

catches or fishing efforts and moratoria), reducing pollution

(including plastics), managing destructive extractive

activities, eliminating harmful subsidies and illegal,

unreported and unregulated fishing, adapting fisheries

management to climate change impacts and reducing the

environmental impact of aquaculture

(well established)

{4,

5.3.2.5, 6.3.3.3.2}. Marine protected areas have

demonstrated success in both biodiversity conservation and

improved local quality of life when managed effectively and

can be further expanded through larger or more

interconnected protected areas or new protected areas in

currently underrepresented regions and key biodiversity

areas

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.2.5; 6.3.3.3.1}. Due

to major pressures on coasts (including from development,

land reclamation and water pollution), implementing marine

conservation initiatives, such as integrated coastal planning,

outside of protected areas is important for biodiversity

conservation and sustainable use

(well established)

{6.3.3.3}. Other measures to expand multi-sectoral

cooperation on coastal management include corporate

social responsibility measures, standards for building and

construction, and eco-labelling

(well established)

{6.3.3.3.2,

6.3.3.3.4}. Additional tools could include both non-market

and market-based economic instruments for financing

conservation, including for example payment for ecosystem

services, biodiversity offset schemes, blue-carbon

sequestration, cap-and-trade programmes, green bonds

and trust funds and new legal instruments, such as the

proposed international, legally binding instrument on the

conservation and sustainable use of marine biological

diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(established but incomplete)

{6.3.3.2, 6.3.3.1.3,

5.4.2.1, 5.4.1.7}.

Sustaining freshwater in the context of climate

change, rising demand for water extraction and

increased levels of pollution involves both cross-

sectoral and sector-specific interventions that

improve water-use efficiency, increase storage,

reduce sources of pollution, improve water quality,

minimize disruption and foster the restoration of

natural habitats and flow regimes (well

established)

{6.3.4}.

Promising interventions include practising integrated

water resource management and landscape planning across

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

scales; protecting wetland biodiversity areas; guiding and

limiting the expansion of unsustainable agriculture and

mining; slowing and reversing the de-vegetation of

catchments; and mainstreaming practices that reduce

erosion, sedimentation, and pollution run-off and minimize

the negative impact of dams

(well established)

{6.3.4.6}.

Sector-specific interventions include improved water-use

efficiency techniques (including in agriculture, mining and

energy), decentralized rainwater collection (for example,

household-based), integrated management of surface and

groundwater (e.g., “conjunctive use”), locally-developed

water conservation techniques, and water pricing and

incentive programmes (such as water accounts and

payment for ecosystem services programmes) {6.3.4.2,

6.3.4.4}. With regard to watershed payment for ecosystem

services programmes, their effectiveness and efficiency can

be enhanced by acknowledging multiple values in their

design, implementation and evaluation and setting up

impact evaluation systems

(established but incomplete)

{6.3.4.4}. Investment in infrastructure, including in green

infrastructure, is important, especially in developing

countries, but it can be undertaken in a way that takes into

account ecological functions and the careful blending of built

and natural infrastructure {5.3.2.4, 6.3.4.5}.

Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals in

cities and making cities resilient to climate change

entails solutions that are sensitive to social, economic

and ecological contexts. Integrated city-specific and

landscape-level planning, nature-based solutions and

built infrastructure, and responsible production and

consumption can all contribute to sustainable and

equitable cities and make a significant contribution to

the overall climate change adaptation and mitigation

effort.

Urban planning approaches to promote sustainability

include encouraging compact communities, designing

nature-sensitive road networks and creating low-impact

infrastructure and transportation systems (from an emissions

and land-use perspective), including active, public and

shared transport {5.3.2.6, 6.3.5}. However, given that most

urban growth between now and 2030 will take place in the

Global South, major sustainability challenges include

creatively and inclusively addressing the lack of basic

infrastructure (water, sanitation and mobility), the absence of

spatial planning, and the limited governance capacity and

financing mechanisms. Those challenges also offer

opportunities for locally-developed innovation and

experimentation, which will create new economic

opportunities. A combination of bottom-up and city-level

efforts through public, private, community and Government

partnerships, can be effective in promoting low-cost and

locally-adapted solutions to maintaining and restoring

biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services.

Nature-based options include combining grey and green

infrastructure (such as wetland and watershed restoration

and green roofs), enhancing green spaces through

restoration and expansion, promoting urban gardens,

maintaining and designing for ecological connectivity, and

promoting accessibility for all (with benefits for human

health). Additional solutions include disseminating new,

low-cost technologies for decentralized wastewater

treatment and energy production and creating incentives to

reduce over-consumption {6.3.5}. Integrating cross-sectoral

planning at the local, landscape and regional levels is

important, as is involving diverse stakeholders

(well

established).

Particularly important at the regional scale are

policies and programmes that promote sustainability-

minded collective action {5.4.1.3}, protect watersheds

beyond city jurisdictions and ensure the connectivity of

ecosystems and habitats (e.g., through green belts). At the

regional scale, cross-sectoral approaches to mitigating the

impact of infrastructure and energy projects entail support

for comprehensive environmental impact assessments and

strategic environmental assessments of local and regional

cumulative impacts {6.3.6.4, 6.3.6.6}.

Decision makers have a range of options and

tools for improving the sustainability of economic and

financial systems

(well established)

{6.4}. Achieving a

sustainable economy involves making fundamental

reforms to economic and financial systems and

tackling poverty and inequality as vital parts of

sustainability (well

established)

{6.4}.

Governments

could reform subsidies and taxes to support nature and its

contributions to people, removing perverse incentives and

instead promoting diverse instruments such as payments

linked to social and environmental metrics, as appropriate

(established but incomplete)

{6.4.1}. At the international

level, options for reacting to the challenges generated by the

displacement of the impacts of unsustainable consumption

and production on nature include both rethinking

established instruments and developing new instruments to

account for long-distance impacts. Trade agreements and

derivatives markets could be reformed to promote equity

and prevent the deterioration of nature, although there are

uncertainties associated with implementation

(established

but incomplete)

{6.4.4}. Alternative models and measures of

economic welfare (such as inclusive wealth accounting,

natural capital accounting and degrowth models) are

increasingly considered as possible approaches to

balancing economic growth and the conservation of nature

and its contributions and to recognizing trade-offs, the

pluralism of values, and long-term goals

(established but

incomplete)

{6.4.5}. Structural changes to economies are

also key to shifting action over long timescales. Such

changes include technological and social innovation regimes

and investment frameworks that internalize environmental

impacts, such as the externalities of economic activities,

including by addressing environmental impacts in socially

just and appropriate ways

(well established)

{5.4.1.7}.

Although such market-based policy instruments as

payments for ecosystem services, voluntary certification and

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

biodiversity offsetting have increased in use, their

effectiveness is mixed, and they are often contested; thus,

they should be carefully designed and applied to avoid

perverse effects in context

(established but incomplete)

{5.4.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.6.3}. The widespread

internalization of environmental impacts, including

externalities associated with long-distance trade, is

considered both an outcome and a component of national

and global sustainable economies

(well established)

{5.4.1.6, 6.4}.

Table SPM

Approaches for sustainability and possible actions and pathways for achieving

them.

The appropriateness and relevance of different approaches varies according to place, system, decision-making process and

scale. The list of actions and pathways in the following table is illustrative rather than exhaustive and uses examples from the

assessment report.

Approaches for

sustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,

CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=

science and educational organizations, P=private sector)

•

Implementing

cross-sectoral approaches

that consider linkages and interconnections between sectoral

policies and actions (e.g., IG, G, D, IPLC) {6.2} {D1}.

•

Mainstreaming biodiversity

within and across different sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining,

tourism) (e.g., IG, G, NGO, IPLC, CG, P, D) {6.2, 6.3.5.2} {D5}.

•

Encouraging integrated planning and management for sustainability at the landscape and seascape

levels

(e.g., IG, G, D) {6.3.2} {D5}.

Enabling integrative

governance to ensure

policy coherence and

effectiveness

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

•

Incorporating environmental and socioeconomic impacts,

including externalities, into public and private

decision-making (e.g., IG, G, P) {5.4.1.6} {B5}.

•

Improving existing policy instruments

and using them

strategically and synergistically

in smart policy

mixes (e.g., IG, G) {6.2, 6.3.2, 6.3.3.3.1, 6.3.4.6, 6.3.5.1, 6.3.6.1} {D4}.

Promoting inclusive

governance

approaches

through stakeholder

engagement and

the inclusion of

indigenous peoples

and local communities

to ensure equity and

participation

•

Recognizing and enabling the expression of different value systems and diverse interests

while

formulating and implementing policies and actions (e.g., IG, G, IPLCs, CG, NGO, SO, D) {6.2} {B5, D5}.

•

Enabling the inclusion and participation

of indigenous peoples and local communities, and women and girls

in environmental governance and

recognizing and respecting the knowledge, innovations, and practices,

institutions and values

of indigenous peoples and local communities, in accordance with national legislation

(e.g., G, IPLC, P) {6.2, 6.2.4.4} {D5}.

•

Facilitating national recognition for land tenure, access and resource rights

in accordance with national

legislation, and the application of

free, prior and informed consent and fair and equitable benefit-sharing

arising from their use

(e.g., G, IPLC, P) {D5}.

• Improving

collaboration and participation among

indigenous peoples and local communities, other

relevant stakeholders, policymakers and scientists to generate novel ways of conceptualizing and achieving

transformative change towards sustainability (e.g., G, IG, D, IPLC, CG, SO) {D5}.

Practicing informed

governance for

nature and nature’s

contributions to people

•

Improving the documentation of nature

(e.g., biodiversity inventory and other inventories)

and the

assessment of the multiple values of nature, including the valuation of natural capital

by both private and

public entities (e.g., SO, D, G, IG, P) {6.2} {D2}.

•

Improving the monitoring and enforcement

of existing laws and policies through

better documentation and

information-sharing

and

regular, informed and adaptive readjustments

to ensure transparent and enhanced

results as appropriate (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, P) {D2}.

• Advancing knowledge co-production and

including and recognizing different types of knowledge,

including indigenous and local knowledge and education, that enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness of

environmental policies (e.g., SO, IG, G, D) {B6, D3}.

Promoting adaptive

governance and

management

•

Enabling locally tailored choices

about conservation, restoration, sustainable use and development

connectivity that account for uncertainty in environmental conditions and scenarios of climate change (e.g., G,

IPLC, CG, P) {D3}.

• Promoting public access to relevant information as appropriate

in decision-making and responsiveness

to assessments by improving monitoring, including setting goals and objectives with multiple relevant

stakeholders, who often have competing interests (e.g., IG, G).

• Promoting awareness-raising activities

around the principles of adaptive management, including through

using short, medium and long-term goals that are regularly reassessed towards international targets (e.g., IG, G,

SO, CG, D) {D4}.

•

Piloting and testing

well-designed policy innovations

that experiment with scales and models (e.g., G, D, SO,

CG, IPLC) {D4}.

•

Increasing the

effectiveness of current and future international biodiversity targets and goals

(such as

those of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and of the Sustainable Development Goals), (e.g., IG, G,

D) {6.2, 6.4}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Approaches for

sustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,

CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=

science and educational organizations, P=private sector)

Managing sustainable and multifunctional landscapes and seascapes and some of the actions they may entail

Producing and

consuming food

sustainably

•

Promoting sustainable agricultural practices,

including good agricultural practices, agroecology, among

others, multifunctional landscape planning and cross-sectoral integrated management {6.3.2}.

•

Sustainable use of genetic resources in agriculture,

including by conserving gene diversity, varieties,

cultivars, breeds, landraces and species (e.g., SO, IPLC, CG) {6.3.2.1} {A6}.

•

Promoting the use of biodiversity-friendly management practices

in crop and livestock production, forestry,

fisheries and aquaculture, including, where relevant, the use of traditional management practices associated

with indigenous peoples and local communities {6.3.2.1} {D6}.

•

Promoting areas of natural or semi-natural habitat

within and around production systems, including those

that are intensively managed, and restoring or reconnecting damaged or fragmented habitats where necessary

{6.3.2.1} {D6}.

• Improving

food market transparency

(e.g., traceability of biodiversity impacts, transparency in supply chains)

through tools such as labelling and sustainability certification.

•

Improving equity in food distribution and in the localization of food systems,

where appropriate and where

beneficial to nature or nature’s contributions to people (NCP).

•

Reducing food waste from production to consumption.

• Promoting

sustainable and healthy diets

{6.3.2.1} {D6}.

Integrating multiple

uses for sustainable

forests

• Promoting

multifunctional, multi-use and multi-stakeholder approaches and improving community-based

approaches

to forest governance and management to achieve sustainable forest management (e.g., IG, G, CG,

IPLC, D, SO, P) {6.3.2.2} {A4}.

• Supporting the

reforestation and ecological restoration

of degraded forest habitats with appropriate species,

giving priority to native species (e.g., G, IPLC, CG, D, SO) {6.3.2.2} {A4}.

•

Promoting and strengthening community-based management and governance, including customary

institutions and management systems, and co-management regimes involving

indigenous peoples and

local communities (e.g., IG, G, CG, IPLC, D, SO, P) {6.3.2.2} {D5}.

•

Reducing the negative impact of

unsustainable

logging

by improving and implementing sustainable forest

management, and

addressing illegal logging

(e.g., IG, G, NGO, P) {6.3.2.2} {D1}.

•

Increasing efficiency in forest product use,

including incentives for adding value to forest products (such

as sustainability labelling or public procurement policies), as well as promoting intensive production in well-

managed forests so as to reduce pressures elsewhere (e.g., P, D, NGO) {6.3.2.2} {B1}.

Conserving, effectively

managing and

sustainably using

terrestrial landscapes

•

Supporting, expanding and promoting effectively managed and ecologically representative networks

of well-connected protected areas and other multifunctional conservation areas, such as other effective area-

based conservation measures (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, D) {3.2.1, 6.3.2.3} {C1, D7}.

•

Using extensive, proactive and participatory landscape-scale spatial planning

to prioritize land uses that

balance and further safeguard nature and

to protect and manage key biodiversity areas

and other important

sites for present and future biodiversity (e.g., IG, G, D) {B1, D7}.

• Managing and restoring biodiversity beyond protected areas, (e.g., IG, G, CG, IPLC, P, NGO, D) {B1}.

•

Developing robust and inclusive decision-making processes

that facilitate the positive contributions of

indigenous peoples and local communities to sustainability by incorporating locally-attuned management

systems and indigenous and local knowledge {B6, D5}.

•

Improving and expanding the levels of financial support

for conservation and sustainable use through a

variety of innovative options, including through partnerships with the private sector {6.3.2.5} {D5, D7, D10}.

•

Prioritizing land-based adaptation and mitigation measures that do not have negative impacts on

biodiversity

(e.g., reducing deforestation, restoring land and ecosystems, improving the management of

agricultural systems such as soil carbon, and preventing the degradation of wetlands and peatlands) {D8}.

•

Monitoring the effectiveness and impacts of protected areas

and other effective area-based conservation

measures.

Promoting sustainable

governance and

management of

seascapes, oceans

and marine systems

• Promoting shared and

integrated ocean governance, including for biodiversity, beyond national

jurisdictions

(e.g., IG, G, NGO, P, SO, D) {6.3.3.2} {D7}.

•

Expanding, connecting and effectively managing marine protected area networks

(e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG

{5.3.2.3} {D7}, including protecting and managing priority marine key biodiversity areas and other important

sites for present and future biodiversity, and

increasing protection and connectivity.

•

Promoting the conservation and/or restoration of marine ecosystems

through rebuilding overfished stocks;

preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; encouraging ecosystem-based

fisheries management; and controlling pollution through the removal of derelict gear and through addressing

plastics pollution (e.g., IG, G, P, IPLC, CG, SO, D) {B1, D7}.

•

Promoting ecological restoration, remediation and the multifunctionality of coastal structures,

including

through marine spatial planning (e.g., IG, G, NGO, P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.

• Integrating

ecological functionality concerns into the planning phase of coastal construction

(e.g., IG, G,

NGO, P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.

•

Expanding multi-sectoral cooperation

by increasing and improving corporate social responsibility measures

and regulation in building and construction standards, and eco-labelling and best practices (e.g., IG, G, NGO,

P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Table SPM

(continued)

Approaches for

sustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,

CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=

science and educational organizations, P=private sector)

Promoting sustainable

governance and

management of

seascapes, oceans

and marine systems

•

Encouraging effective fishery reform strategies

through incentives with positive impacts on biodiversity and

through the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies (e.g., IG, G) {6.3.3.2} {D7}.

•

Reducing the environmental impacts of aquaculture

by voluntary certification and by using best practices in

fisheries and aquaculture production methods (e.g., G, IPLC, NGO, P) {6.3.3.3.2, 6.3.3.3.5} {B1, D7}.

•

Reducing point and nonpoint source pollution,

including by managing marine microplastic and macroplastic

pollution through effective waste management, incentives and innovation (e.g., G, P, NGO) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.

•

Increasing ocean conservation funding

(e.g., G, D, P) {6.3.3.1.3} {D7}.

Improving freshwater

management,

protection and

connectivity

•

Integrating water resource management and landscape planning,

including through increased protection

and connectivity of freshwater ecosystems, improving transboundary water cooperation and management,

addressing the impacts of fragmentation caused by dams and diversions, and incorporating regional analyses

of the water cycle (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, NGO, D, SO, P) {6.3.4.6, 6.3.4.7} {B1}.

•

Supporting inclusive water governance,

e.g., through developing and implementing invasive alien species

management with relevant stakeholders (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, NGO, D, SO, P) {6.3.4.3} {D4}.

•

Supporting co-management regimes for collaborative water management

and

to foster equity

between

water users (while maintaining a minimum ecological flow for the aquatic ecosystems), and engaging

stakeholders and using transparency to minimize environmental, economic and social conflicts {D4}.

• Mainstreaming practices that

reduce soil erosion, sedimentation and pollution run-off

(e.g., G, CG, P)

{6.3.4.1}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

•

Reducing the fragmentation of freshwater policies

by coordinating international, national and local

regulatory frameworks (e.g., G, SO) {6.3.4.7, 6.3.4.2}.

•

Increasing water storage

by facilitating groundwater recharge, wetlands protection and restoration, alternative

storage techniques and restrictions on groundwater abstraction. (e.g., G, CG, IPLC, P, D) {6.3.4.2} {B1, B3}.

•

Promoting investment in water projects

with clear sustainability criteria (e.g., G, P, D, SO) {6.3.4.5} {B1, B3}.

Building sustainable

cities that address

critical needs while

conserving nature,

restoring biodiversity,

maintaining and

enhancing ecosystem

services

• Engaging

sustainable urban planning

(e.g., G, CG, IPLC, NGO, P) {6.3.5.1} {D9}.

•

Encouraging densification for compact communities,

including through brownfield development and other

strategies {6.3.5.3}.

•

Including biodiversity protection, biodiversity offsetting, river basin protection, and ecological restoration

in regional planning

{6.3.5.1}.

•

Safeguarding urban key biodiversity areas

and ensuring that they do not become isolated through

incompatible uses of surrounding land {6.3.5.2, SM 6.4.2}.

•

Promoting biodiversity mainstreaming through stakeholder engagement and integrative planning

(e.g., G,

NGO, CG, IPLC) {6.3.5.3}.

•

Encouraging alternative business models and incentives for urban conservation

{6.3.2.1}.

•

Promoting sustainable production and consumption

{6.3.6.4}.

•

Promoting nature-based solutions

(e.g., G, NGO, SO, P) {6.3.5.2} {D8, D9}.

•

Promoting, developing, safeguarding or retrofitting green and blue infrastructure

(for water management)

while improving grey (hard) infrastructure to address biodiversity outcomes, {6.3.5.2}.

•

Promoting ecosystem-based adaptation within communities

{3.7, 5.4.2.2}.

• Maintaining and designing for

ecological connectivity within urban spaces,

particularly with native species

{6.3.5.2, SM 6.4.1}.

•

Increasing urban green spaces and improving access to them

{6.3.2}.

•

Increasing access to urban services for low-income communities,

with priorities for sustainable water

management, integrated sustainable solid waste management and sewage systems, and safe and secure

shelter and transport (e.g., G, NGO) {6.3.5.4} {D9}.

Promoting sustainable

energy and

infrastructure projects

and production

• Developing

sustainable strategies, voluntary standards and guidelines

for sustainable renewable energy

and bioenergy projects (e.g., G, SO, P) {6.3.6} {D8}.

• Strengthening and promoting

biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessments,

laws and guidelines

{6.3.6.2} {B1}.

•

Mitigating environmental and social impacts

where possible and

promoting innovative financing

and restoration

when necessary (e.g., G, P, NGO, D) {6.3.6.3} {B1}, including by redesigning

incentive

programmes and policies

to promote bioenergy systems that optimize trade-offs between biodiversity loss

and benefits (e.g., through life cycle analysis) {D8}.

•

Supporting community-based management and decentralized

sustainable energy production (e.g., G, CG,

IPLC, D) {6.3.6.4, 6.3.6.5} {D9}.

•

Reducing energy demands

so as to reduce the demand for biodiversity-impacting infrastructure (e.g., through

energy efficiency, new clean energy and reducing unsustainable consumption) (e.g., G, P) {B1}.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Approaches for

sustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,

CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=

science and educational organizations, P=private sector)

Improving the

sustainability of

economic and financial

systems

•

Developing and promoting incentive structures

to protect biodiversity (e.g., removing harmful incentives)

(e.g., IG, G) {6.4} {D10}.

• Promoting

sustainable production and consumption,

such as through: sustainable sourcing, resource

efficiency and reduced production

impacts,

circular and other economic models, corporate social

responsibility, life-cycle assessments that include biodiversity, trade agreements and public procurement

policies (e.g., G, CA, NGO, SO) {6.4.3, 6.3.2.1} {D10}.

•

Exploring alternative methods of economic accounting

such as natural capital accounting and Material and

Energy Flow Accounting, among others (e.g., IG, G, SO) {6.4.5} {D10}.

•

Encouraging policies that combine poverty reduction

with measures to increase the provision of nature’s

contributions and the conservation and sustainable use of nature (e.g., IG, G, D) {3.2.1} {C2}.

•

Improving market-based instruments,

such as payment for ecosystem services, voluntary certification and

biodiversity offsetting, to address challenges such as equity and effectiveness (e.g., G, P, NGO, IPLC, CG,

SO) {B1}.

•

Reducing consumption

(e.g., encouraging consumer information to reduce overconsumption and waste, using

public policies and regulations and internalizing environmental impacts) (e.g., G, P, NGO) {B4, C2}.

•

Creating and improving supply-chain models

that reduce the impact on nature {D3}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

APPENDICES

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

APPENDIX

Conceptual framework and

deﬁnitions

Global

Good quality of life

Human wellbeing

Living in harmony with nature

Living-well in balance

and harmony with Mother Earth

Interacting across spatial scales

IPBES Scope

National

Local

IPBES level of resolution

Nature’s contributions

to people

Ecosystem goods

and services

Nature’s gifts

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Anthropogenic assets

Direct drivers

Natural drivers

Institutions

and governance

and other

indirect drivers

Anthropogenic

drivers

Nature

Biodiversity and ecosystems

Mother Earth

Systems of life

Intrinsic values

Changing over time

Baseline-Trends-Scenarios

Figure SPM

The IPBES conceptual framework. Source: Díaz

et al.

(2015).

Figure SPM A1. The IPBES Conceptual Framework

a highly simplified model of the complex interactions

between the natural world and human societies.

The

model identifies the main elements (boxes within the main

panel outlined in grey), together with their interactions (arrows

in the main panel), that are most relevant to the Platform’s

goal. “Nature”, “nature’s contributions to people” and “good

quality of life” (indicated as black headlines and defined in

each corresponding box) are inclusive categories that were

identified as meaningful and relevant to all stakeholders

involved in IPBES during a participatory process, including

various disciplines of the natural and social sciences and

the humanities, and other knowledge systems, such as

those of indigenous peoples and local communities. Text in

green denotes scientific concepts, and text in blue denotes

concepts originating in other knowledge systems. The solid

arrows in the main panel denote influence between elements,

and dotted arrows denote links that are acknowledged as

important, but that are not the main focus of the Platform. The

thick coloured arrows below and to the right of the central

panel indicate the scales of time and space, respectively.

This conceptual framework was accepted by the Plenary in

decision IPBES-2/4, and the Plenary took note of an update

presented in IPBES/5/INF/24 and in decision IPBES-5/1.

Further details and examples of the concepts defined in the

box can be found in the glossary and in Chapter 1.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Nature,

in the context of the Platform, refers to the natural

world, with an emphasis on biodiversity. Within the context

of science, it includes categories such as biodiversity,

ecosystems, ecosystem functioning, evolution, the

biosphere, humankind’s shared evolutionary heritage, and

biocultural diversity. Within the context of other knowledge

systems, it includes categories such as Mother Earth

and systems of life. Other components of nature, such

as deep aquifers, mineral and fossil reserves, and wind,

solar, geothermal and wave power, are not the focus of

the Platform. Nature contributes to societies through the

provision of contributions to people.

Anthropogenic assets

refers to built-up infrastructure,

health facilities, knowledge (including indigenous and local

knowledge systems and technical or scientific knowledge,

as well as formal and non-formal education), technology

(both physical objects and procedures), and financial assets,

among others. Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted

to emphasize that a good life is achieved by a co-production

of benefits between nature and societies.

Nature’s contributions to people

refers to all the

contributions that humanity obtains from nature. Ecosystem

goods and services, considered separately or in bundles,

are included in this category. Within other knowledge

systems, nature’s gifts and similar concepts refer to the

benefits of nature from which people derive good quality

of life. Aspects of nature that can be negative to people

(detriments), such as pests, pathogens or predators, are

also included in this broad category.

Nature’s regulating contributions

to people refers

to functional and structural aspects of organisms and

ecosystems that modify the environmental conditions

experienced by people, and/or sustain and/or regulate the

generation of material and non-material contributions. For

example, these contributions include water purification,

climate regulation and the regulation of soil erosion.

Nature’s material contributions

to people refers to

substances, objects or other material elements from

nature that sustain people’s physical existence and the

infrastructure (i.e. the basic physical and organizational

structures and facilities, such as buildings, roads, power

supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.

They are typically physically consumed in the process of

being experienced, such as when plants or animals are

transformed into food, energy, or materials for shelter or

ornamental purposes.

Nature’s non-material contributions

to people refers to

nature’s contribution to people’s subjective or psychological

quality of life, individually and collectively. The entities that

provide these intangible contributions can be physically

consumed in the process (e.g., animals in recreational

or ritual fishing or hunting) or not (e.g., individual trees or

ecosystems as sources of inspiration).

Drivers of change

refers to all those external factors that

affect nature, anthropogenic assets, nature’s contributions

to people and good quality of life. They include institutions

and governance systems and other indirect drivers, and

direct drivers (both natural and anthropogenic).

Institutions and governance systems and other

indirect drivers

are the ways in which societies

organize themselves and the resulting influences on

other components. They are the underlying causes of

environmental change that are exogenous to the ecosystem

in question. Because of their central role, influencing all

aspects of human relationships with nature, they are key

levers for decision-making. “Institutions” encompasses

all formal and informal interactions among stakeholders

and the social structures that determine how decisions

are taken and implemented, how power is exercised, and

how responsibilities are distributed. To varying degrees,

institutions determine the access to and control, allocation

and distribution of the components of nature and of

anthropogenic assets and their contributions to people.

Examples of institutions are systems of property and

access rights to land (e.g., public, common-pool or private),

legislative arrangements, treaties, informal social norms

and rules, including those emerging from indigenous and

local knowledge systems, and international regimes such

as agreements against stratospheric ozone depletion or

for the protection of endangered species of wild fauna and

flora. Economic policies, including macroeconomic, fiscal,

monetary or agricultural policies, play a significant role in

influencing people’s decisions and behaviour and the way

in which they relate to nature in the pursuit of benefits.

However, many of the drivers of human behaviour and

preferences, which reflect different perspectives on a good

quality of life, work largely outside the market system.

Direct drivers,

both natural and anthropogenic, affect

nature directly. “Natural drivers” are those that are not

the result of human activities and are beyond human

control. These include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and

tsunamis, extreme weather or ocean-related events such

as prolonged drought or cold periods, tropical cyclones

and floods, the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation

and extreme tidal events. The direct anthropogenic

drivers are those that are the result of human decisions,

namely, of institutions and governance systems and other

indirect drivers. Anthropogenic drivers include habitat

conversion, e.g., degradation of land and aquatic habitats,

deforestation and afforestation, exploitation of wild

populations, climate change, pollution of soil, water and

air and species introductions. Some of these drivers, such

as pollution, can have negative impacts on nature; others,

as in the case of habitat restoration, or the introduction

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

of a natural enemy to combat invasive species, can have

positive effects.

Good quality of life

is the achievement of a fulfilled human

life, a notion which varies strongly across different societies

and groups within societies. It is a context-dependent state

of individuals and human groups, comprising access to

food, water, energy and livelihood security, and also health,

good social relationships and equity, security, cultural

identity, and freedom of choice and action. From virtually

all standpoints, a good quality of life is multidimensional,

having material as well as immaterial and spiritual

components. What a good quality of life entails, however, is

highly dependent on place, time and culture, with different

societies espousing different views of their relationships

with nature and placing different levels of importance on

collective versus individual rights, the material versus the

spiritual domain, intrinsic versus instrumental values, and

the present time versus the past or the future. The concept

of human well-being used in many western societies and its

variants, together with those of living in harmony with nature

and living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth,

are examples of different perspectives on a good quality

of life.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

APPENDIX

Communication

of the degree of conﬁdence

High

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT

Inconclusive

Unresolved

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Low

Robust

Low

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

Figure SPM

The four-box model for the qualitative communication of confidence.

Confidence increases towards the top-right corner as suggested by the increasing strength of shading. Source: IPBES (2016).

In this assessment, the degree of confidence in each main

finding is based on the quantity and quality of evidence

and the level of agreement regarding that evidence

(Figure

SPM.A2).

The evidence includes data, theory, models

and expert judgement. Further details of the approach

are documented in the note by the secretariat on the

information on work related to the guide on the production

of assessments (IPBES/6/INF/17).

Well established:

there is a comprehensive meta-

analysis or other synthesis or multiple independent

studies that agree.

Established but incomplete:

there is general

agreement, although only a limited number of studies

exist; there is no comprehensive synthesis, and/or the

studies that exist address the question imprecisely.

Unresolved:

multiple independent studies exist but

their conclusions do not agree.

15. IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of

the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production.

S.G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H. T. Ngo, J. C. Biesmeijer, T. D.

Breeze, L. V. Dicks, L. A. Garibaldi, R. Hill, J. Settele, A. J. Vanbergen,

M. A. Aizen, S. A. Cunningham, C. Eardley, B. M. Freitas, N. Gallai,

P. G. Kevan, A. Kovács-Hostyánszki, P. K. Kwapong, J. Li, X. Li, D.

J. Martins, G. Nates-Parra, J. S. Pettis, R. Rader, and B. F. Viana

(eds.)., secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, 2016. Available

at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2616458.

Inconclusive:

there is limited evidence and a

recognition of major knowledge gaps.

CERTAINTY SCALE

Established

but incomplete

Well established

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

APPENDIX

Knowledge gaps

In the course of conducting this assessment key information needs were identified. See draft table Appendix IV.

Data, inventories and monitoring on nature and the drivers of change

Gaps on biomes and units of analysis

Taxonomic gaps

NCP-related gaps

Links between nature, nature’s contributions to people and drivers with respect to targets and goals

Integrated scenarios and modelling studies

Potential policy approaches

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Indigenous peoples and local communities

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

APPENDIX

Draft table of knowledge gaps

Disclaimer:

This table of knowledge gaps was prepared by the experts of the Global Assessment and presented to and considered by a working

group established by the Plenary at its seventh session. The Plenary did not approve this table as part of the summary for policymakers. It is

therefore included in draft form, which does not imply working group or Plenary approval.

Sector

Knowledge gaps (in data, indicators, inventories, scenarios)

Data, inventories and

monitoring on nature

and the drivers of

change

•

Data on ecosystem processes (including rates of change) that underpin nature’s contributions to people and

ecosystem health

•

Data from monitoring of ecosystem condition (generally less well represented than ecosystem extent)

•

Data on changing interactions among organisms and taxa

•

Impacts of increasing CO

upon the total Net Primary Production of marine systems, and consequences for

ecosystem function and nature’s contributions to people

•

Syntheses of how human impacts affect organismal traits and global patterns and trends in genetic composition

•

Data on extinction risks and population trends, especially for insects, parasites and fungal and microbial

species

•

Indicators on the global extent and consequences of biotic homogenization, including genetic homogenization

•

Global spatial datasets on key threats, e.g., data on patterns in the intensity of unsustainable exploitation of

species and ecosystems

•

More comprehensive understanding of how human-caused changes to any Essential Biodiversity Variable class

(e.g., ecosystem structure) have impacts on others (e.g., community composition) and on nature’s contributions

to people

•

Data gaps in key inventories: World Database on Protected Areas, the World Database of Key Biodiversity

Areas™, red lists of threatened species and ecosystems, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility

•

Monitoring of many listed species in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora.

•

Monitoring of the long-term effects of dumped waste, especially radioactive material and plastics

•

Data on the impacts of war and conflict on nature and nature’s contributions to people

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Gaps on biomes and

units of analysis

Taxonomic gaps

•

Inventories on under-studied ecosystems: freshwater, Arctic, marine/ocean, seabed, and wetlands

•

Inventories in soil, benthic and freshwater environments, and the implications for ecosystem functions

•

Basic data on many taxa (86 per cent of existing species on Earth and 91 per cent of species in the ocean still

await description)

•

Extinction risks and population trends for the following taxonomic groups: insects, fungal species, microbial

species (microorganisms) and parasites

•

Data on the genetic diversity and conservation status of breeds of farmed and domestic plants and animals

NCP-related gaps

•

Data on the status of species and nature’s contributions to people linked to specific ecosystem functions

•

Systematic indicators to report the status and trends for categories of nature’s contributions to people

•

Data on the impacts and extent of nature’s contributions to people on quality of life, by major user group (also

lacking an agreed typology on major user groups)

•

Data on the interrelationships between gender equality, nature and nature’s contributions to people

•

Data and information on NCP 10: regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes (populations

of vectors and vector-borne diseases) and overlaps with vulnerable human populations and ecosystem

interactions

•

Data and information on NCP 9: the role of nature and nature’s contributions to people in mitigating or reducing

vulnerability to disasters

16. This list of knowledge gaps in the IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is not exhaustive.

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Sector

Knowledge gaps (in data, indicators, inventories, scenarios)

Links between nature,

nature’s contributions

to people and drivers

with respect to targets

and goals

•

Understanding on how nature contributes to achieving targets (the positive and negative relationships between

nature and targets/goals like the Sustainable Development Goals)

•

Disaggregated data on the impacts that nature has on good quality of life, particularly across regions, societies,

governance systems, and ecosystems

•

Need for indicators for some Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets (e.g., Aichi

Biodiversity Target 15 on ecosystem resilience and contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks and Target 18

on integration of traditional knowledge and effective participation of indigenous and local communities)

•

Better quantitative data to assess the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Targets where qualitative

indicators havebeen dominant (9 out of 44 targets under the Sustainable Development Goals reviewed)

•

Data on the benefits to human mental health from exposure to natural environments

•

Indicators that reflect the heterogeneity of indigenous peoples and local communities

Integrated scenarios

and modelling studies

•

Regional and global socioeconomic scenarios explicitly considering the knowledge, views and perspectives of

indigenous peoples and local communities

•

Regional and global ssocioeconomic scenarios developed for, by and in collaboration with indigenous peoples

and local communities and their associated institutions

•

Quantitative data showing how nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life interact and change

in time along different pathways

•

Scenarios of the future of biodiversity which quantify the possible co-benefits related to nature’s contributions

to people

•

Scenarios about nonmaterial benefits to people compared to material benefits and regulating benefits

•

Integrated scenarios for areas projected to experience significant impacts and possible regime shifts (e.g.,

Arctic, semi-arid regions, and small islands)

•

Knowledge about the interaction, feedback and spill-overs among regions within future global scenarios

•

Assessment of nature’s contributions to people across scenario archetypes with robust knowledge and

quantitative estimates

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Potential policy

approaches

•

Data to analyse the effectiveness of many policy options and interventions, including:

a) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different area-based conservation mechanisms (e.g., protected

areas, other effective area-based conservation measures) in conserving nature and nature’s contributions to

people and contributing to good quality of life

b) Indicators of the effectiveness of different restoration methodologies and to assess restoration progress over

time (including values)

c) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different processes of access and benefit sharing to ensure

fairness and equity

d) Better data on the global extent and forms of wildlife trafficking and its impacts on nature and nature’s

contributions to people

e) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different models for reconciling bioenergy and biodiversity

conservation

f) Data on the effectiveness of different schemes and models for payment for ecosystem services (PES),

particularly the trade-offs that arise between policy goals, the integration of multiple values in PES, data

on the profiles of PES participants and long-term monitoring of relational and behavioural implications of

participation

g) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different models of marine governance relating to conservation

•

Data on the extent of the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in environmental

governance

•

Indicators on the impacts of environmentally harmful subsidies and trends and effectiveness of their removal at

the global level

•

Data on areas of uncertainty in applying the precautionary principle

•

Data on the monitoring of policy effectiveness to adapt and adjust policies and to share lessons

•

Data on the impacts of resource mobilization, using robust program evaluation methods (e.g., examples

of successful use of funding including impacts of donor funding for conservation and impacts of specific

biodiversity financing projects)

•

Data on the impacts of climate change on marine and coastal governance regimes

•

Data on the impacts of mainstreaming of biodiversity across sectors

•

Better data to develop biodiversity and environmental quality standards

Indigenous

Peoples and Local

Communities

•

Agreed-upon methods to enable systematic processes of knowledge generation, collection and synthesis

regarding indigenous and local knowledge (for assessments and elsewhere) and participation of indigenous

peoples and local communities in this process

•

Syntheses of indigenous and local knowledge about the status and trends in nature

•

Data to assess how progress in achieving goals and targets affects indigenous peoples and local communities,

either in positive or in negative ways

•

Trends in relation to the socioeconomic status of indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., noting the

lack of data differentiation in aggregate statistics)

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

MOF, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 326: Invitationer fra miljøministeren til møder om natur og biodiversitet + rapporter

The Intergovernmental Science-

Policy Platform on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

is the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and

ecosystem services, in response to requests from Governments, the private

sector and civil society.

The mission of IPBES is to strengthen the science-policy interface for

biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable

development.

IPBES has a collaborative partnership arrangement with UNEP, UNESCO,

FAO and UNDP. Its secretariat is hosted by the German government and

located on the UN campus, in Bonn, Germany.

Scientists from all parts of the world contribute to the work of IPBES on a

voluntary basis. They are nominated by their government or an organisation,

and selected by the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) of IPBES. Peer

review forms a key component of the work of IPBES to ensure that a range

of views is reflected in its work, and that the work is complete to the highest

scientific standards.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM

ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (IPBES)

IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus

Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany

Tel. +49 (0) 228 815 0570

[email protected]

www.ipbes.net

9 783947 851133