MOF, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 136: MFU spm. om kommentar til debatindlægget Ministeren misinformerer om naturnationalparker, Jyllands-Posten, den 9. oktober 2021, til miljøministeren

Miljø- og Fødevareudvalget 2021-22
MOF Alm.del
Offentligt

The regional assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY AND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND

CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

MOF, Alm.del - 2021-22 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 136: MFU spm. om kommentar til debatindlægget Ministeren misinformerer om naturnationalparker, Jyllands-Posten, den 9. oktober 2021, til miljøministeren

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE IPBES REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY

AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

ISBN No: 978-3-947851-03-4

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:

Shutterstock_J Steber / Shutterstock_N Klenova /

Shutterstock_L Ivanova / Shutterstock_Cybercrisi

P. 3:

IISD_S Wu (Sir

R T Watson)

P.4-5: UNEP

(E Solheim) /

UNESCO

(A Azoulay) /

FAO

(J Graziano

da Silva) /

UNDP

(Achim Steiner)

P. 6:

Clemens Stachel

(Mark Rounsevell) /

Markus Bürki

(Markus

Fischer)

P. 8-9:

Shutterstock_A De Maddalena

P. 11:

A Molnar / D Grumo / A Molnar / A Molnar / M Elbakidze

/ I Smelansky

P. 13:

Shutterstock_Damsea / A Molnar / M Elbakidze

P. 16-17:

Shutterstock_W Xerez

P. 44-45:

Shutterstock_J Dunckley

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 Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia. 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 on maps

The designations employed and the presentation of material on the

maps used in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy

Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems 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

Amor Torre-Marin Rando

André Mader

Graphic Design

MOABI / Maro Haas, Art direction and layout

Zoo, designers graphiques, Figures design

Yuka Estrada, SPM figures

SUGGESTED CITATION:

IPBES (2018): Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central

Asia of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre-Marin

Rando, A. Mader, A. Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P.A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martín-López, I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa

Pinto, P. Visconti, N.E. Zimmermann and M. Christie (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 48 pages.

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

Ruslan Novitsky, Marie Stenseke (Multidisciplinary Expert Panel); Senka Barudanovic, Robert T. Watson (Bureau).

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

The regional assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY AND

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND

CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

AUTHORS:

Markus Fischer (co-chair, Switzerland, Germany), Mark Rounsevell (co-chair, United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland/Germany).

Amor Torre-Marin Rando (IPBES), André Mader (IPBES); Andrew Church (United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland), Marine Elbakidze (Ukraine, Sweden), Victoria Elias (Russian Federation), Thomas Hahn (Sweden),

Paula A. Harrison (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Jennifer Hauck (Germany), Berta Martín-

López (Spain/Germany), Irene Ring (Germany), Camilla Sandström (Sweden), Isabel Sousa Pinto (Portugal), Piero

Visconti (Italy/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Niklaus E. Zimmermann (Switzerland), Mike

Christie (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

EXPERTS HAVING PROVIDED SUPPORT TO AUTHORS OF THE SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS:

Sandra Brucet (Spain), Rodolphe Gozlan (France), Aveliina Helm (Estonia), Sandra Lavorel (France), Oksana Lipka

(Russian Federation), Matthias Schröter (Germany), Mark Snethlage (the Netherlands/Switzerland), Vigdis Vandvik

(Norway), Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven (the Netherlands).

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.

FOREWORD

The Regional Assessment Report on Biodiversity and

Ecosystem Services for Europe and Central Asia produced

by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) provides a

critical analysis of the state of knowledge regarding the

importance, status, and trends of biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people. The assessment analyses the

direct and underlying causes for the observed changes

in biodiversity and in nature’s contributions to people,

and the impact that these changes have on the quality of

life of people. The assessment, finally, identifies a mix of

governance options, policies and management practices

that are currently available to reduce the loss of biodiversity

and of nature’s contributions to people in that region.

The assessment addresses terrestrial, freshwater, and

coastal biodiversity and covers current status and trends,

going back in time several decades, and future projections,

with a focus on the 2020-2050 period.

The present document, the Summary for Policymakers of

the Assessment Report, was approved by the sixth session

of the Plenary of IPBES (Medellín, Colombia, 18-24 March

2018). It is based on a set of chapters which were accepted

at this same Plenary session. The chapters are available as

document IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1 (www.ipbes.net).

he objective of IPBES, the Intergovernmental

Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services, is to provide

Governments, the private sector, and

civil society with scientifically credible and

independent up-to-date assessments of

available knowledge to make informed decisions at the

local, regional and international levels.

This regional and subregional assessment of biodiversity

and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia has

been carried out by 111 selected authors and 6 early career

fellows, assisted by 149 contributing authors, primarily from

this region, who have analyzed a large body of knowledge,

including about 4750 scientific publications and other

knowledge sources. It represents the state of knowledge

about the Europe and Central Asia region and subregions.

The chapters and their executive summaries were accepted,

and the summary for policymakers was approved, by the

129 Member States of IPBES at the sixth session of the

IPBES Plenary (18 to 24 March, 2018, Medellín, Colombia).

This report provides a critical assessment of the full range

of issues facing decision makers, including the importance,

status, trends and threats to biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people, as well as policy and management

response options. Establishing the underlying causes

of the loss of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to

people provides policymakers with the information needed

to develop appropriate response options, technologies,

policies, financial incentives and behavior changes.

The assessment concludes that nature’s contributions to

people are critically important for a good quality of life, but

are not evenly experienced by people and communities

within the region, and are under threat due to the strong

ongoing decline of biodiversity. While sustainability and

conservation policies and actions have contributed to

reversing some of the negative biodiversity trends, this

FOREWORD

progress remains insufficient. The assessment

also notes the reliance on imports of renewable

resources from outside the region.

The major driver of the loss of biodiversity and

ecosystem services to date has been land-use

change, caused in part by production-based subsidies that

led to unsustainable intensification of agricultural practices.

However, the assessment notes that the impact of human-

induced climate change is increasing and is likely to be one

of the most important drivers in the future. The assessment

also found that economic growth has, in general, not been

decoupled from environmental degradation.

A continuation in past and present trends in the drivers

that cause the loss of biodiversity is projected to

inhibit the widespread achievement of the Sustainable

Development Goals, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the

Paris Agreement on climate change. Long-term societal

transformations that focus on achieving a balanced

supply of nature’s contributions to people, coupled with

participatory decision-making processes, are likely to be the

most effective for moving towards a sustainable future.

The assessment identifies a mix of governance options,

policies and management practices that is currently available

to reduce the loss of biodiversity and nature’s contributions

to people, but recognizes that further commitment is

needed to adopt and implement them. Most important is to

include the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,

and the provision of nature’s contributions to people, into all

sectoral policies (e.g. agriculture, energy, health, industry,

transportation), plans, programmes, strategies and practices

- an objective known as “mainstreaming biodiversity”.

We would like as Chair and Executive Secretary of IPBES,

to recognize the excellent and dedicated work of the co-

chairs, Professors Markus Fischer (Switzerland) and Mark

Rounsevell (UK and Germany) and of 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 Amor Torre-

Marin Rando and André Mader, from the technical support

unit located at the University of Bern, Switzerland, as well

as Felice van der Plaat, coordinator of the implementation of

the regional assessments, because without their dedication

this report would not have been possible. We would also

like to thank the Government of Switzerland for their

generous support. Our thanks also go to members of the

IPBES MEP and Bureau who provided guidance as part of

the management committee for this report.

This regional assessment provides invaluable information for

policymakers in Europe and Central Asia to make informed

decisions regarding the conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity, the promotion of access to genetic

resources, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits

arising from their use. It also provides valuable information

for the ongoing IPBES global assessment, to be released in

May 2019 and is expected to inform discussions regarding

the post-2020 global biodiversity framework under the

Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as to inform

action on implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Sir Robert T. Watson

Chair of IPBES

Anne Larigauderie

Executive Secretary of IPBES

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

STATEMENTS FROM

KEY PARTNERS

The Sustainable Development

Goals aim to “leave no one

behind”. If we don’t protect and

value biodiversity, we will never achieve

this goal. When we erode biodiversity, we

impact food, water, forests and

livelihoods. But to tackle any challenge

head on, we need to get the science right

and this is why UN Environment is proud

to support this series of assessments.

Investing in the science of biodiversity

and indigenous knowledge, means

investing in people and the future we

want.

Erik Solheim

Executive Director,

United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP)

Biodiversity is the living fabric of

our planet - the source of our

present and our future. It is

essential to helping us all adapt to the

changes we face over the coming years.

UNESCO, both as a UN partner of IPBES

and as the host of the IPBES Technical

Support Unit on Indigenous and Local

Knowledge, has always been committed

to supporting harmony between people

and nature through its programmes and

networks. These four regional reports are

critical to understanding the role of

human activities in biodiversity loss and

its conservation, and our capacity to

collectively implementing solutions to

address the challenges ahead.

Audrey Azoulay

Director-General,

United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

The regional assessments

demonstrate once again that

biodiversity is among the earth’s

most important resources. Biodiversity is

also key to food security and nutrition.

The maintenance of biological diversity is

important for food production and for the

conservation of the ecological

foundations on which rural livelihoods

depend. Biodiversity is under serious

threat in many regions of the world and it

is time for policy-makers to take action at

national, regional and global levels.

José Graziano da Silva

Director-General,

Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO)

Tools like these four regional

assessments provide scientific

evidence for better decision

making and a path we can take forward

to achieve the Sustainable Development

Goals and harness nature’s power for our

collective sustainable future. The world

has lost over 130 million hectares of

rainforests since 1990 and we lose

dozens of species every day, pushing the

Earth’s ecological system to its limit.

Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it

supports are not only the foundation for

our life on Earth, but critical to the

livelihoods and well-being of people

everywhere.

Achim Steiner

Administrator,

United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP)

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

hree years of intense work have resulted

in the IPBES Regional Assessment of

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services for

Europe and Central Asia. This has been a

pressured, but also highly enjoyable process

thanks to everyone who has contributed

to this important collective effort. As Co-Chairs we were

privileged to work with so many outstanding experts from

Europe and Central Asia. We warmly acknowledge the

first-rate intellectual contributions and immense investment

of time by all of our authors, review editors, and early-

career fellows, as well as the various types of support

from their respective funding organizations, institutions

and Governments, which facilitated their participation. This

Assessment would also not have been possible without

the generous commitment of several other key individuals.

We would first like to recognize the invaluable contributions

of the two members of our Technical Support Unit (TSU),

Amor Torre-Marin Rando and André Mader, whose

enthusiasm, professionalism and dedication facilitated

every aspect of the process. We also thank Eva Spehn of

the Swiss Biodiversity Forum for helping to get us started

by acting as a provisional TSU. We thank the IPBES Chair,

Bob Watson, and the IPBES Executive Secretary, Anne

Larigauderie, for their wise guidance and enormous support

to the assessment team, with the other members of our

assessment management committee, Senka Barudanovic,

Ruslan Novitsky, Marie Stenseke as well as Felice van der

Plaat, from the IPBES secretariat, and other members of the

IPBES Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) and Bureau. We

thank the IPBES secretariat as a whole for excellent support

and collaboration throughout the process.

In addition, we thank all expert reviewers from Governments,

stakeholders and the scientific community for their time,

perspectives and valuable comments, which markedly

improved the quality of both the Summary for Policymakers

(SPM) and the chapters. On the technical side, we also

thank our data visualization experts, Yuka Estrada and

Maro Haas and team, for their work on the assessment

figures and diagrams, and Mark Snethlage for his many

contributions to data analysis and visualisation.

Our sincere appreciation is extended to the Swiss

Government’s Federal Office for the Environment for

funding the TSU and to the University of Bern for

hosting it. We also thank the Swiss Federal Office for the

Environment for co-funding our lead author meetings

in Engelberg (Switzerland), Zadar (Croatia) and Prague

(Czech Republic). We would further like to thank the

Indigenous and Local Knowledge TSU of IPBES for

organizing the “Europe and Central Asia Dialogue

Workshop on Indigenous and Local Knowledge” in Paris

(France) in 2016 and the IPBES Capacity Building TSU

who supported the “Capacity Development Writing

Workshop for IPBES Experts from Central Europe, Eastern

Europe and Central Asia” held in Antalya (Turkey), in 2016

and a regional dialogue meeting in Vácrátót (Hungary) in

2017. We are also very grateful to the many publishers, too

numerous to list here, who freely provided figures.

We acknowledge and appreciate the members and

observers of the IPBES Plenary, whose suggestions

during the 6

session of the Plenary, held in Medellín,

Colombia, in March 2018 led to significantly increased

clarity and accessibility of the SPM. Finally, we express

our sincere gratitude to Bureau members Ivar Baste and

Senka Barudanovic for chairing the contact group at

the 6th session of the IPBES Plenary with extraordinary

professionalism, patience and sensitivity.

As we deliver the important results of this work, we are

confident that the investment of so much time, passion,

expertise and resources will pay exceptional dividends –

informing better policies, decisions and action to protect the

invaluable natural assets of our beautiful region for all the

people of Europe and Central Asia.

Markus Fischer

Co-Chair

Mark D.A. Rounsevell

Co-Chair

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

page 2

FOREWORD

page 4

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

page 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

page 9

KEY MESSAGES

A. A precious asset: nature and its contributions to people’s quality of life in

Europe and Central Asia

B. The biodiversity of Europe and Central Asia is unique but threatened

C. Drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in

Europe and Central Asia

D. Futures for Europe and Central Asia

E. Promising governance options for Europe and Central Asia

page 16

BACKGROUND

A. Nature and its contributions to people’s quality of life in Europe and Central Asia

B. Trends in biodiversity and attribution to direct drivers

C. Drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in

Europe and Central Asia

D. Futures for Europe and Central Asia

E. Promising governance options for Europe and Central Asia

page 45

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Communication of the degree of confidence

APPENDIX 2

Nature’s contributions to people

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

KEY

MESSAGES

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

KEY

MESSAGES

A. A PRECIOUS ASSET: NATURE

AND ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO

PEOPLE’S QUALITY OF LIFE IN

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Nature’s contributions to people, which embody

ecosystem services, are critically important for

livelihoods, economies and a good quality of life, and

are therefore vital to sustaining human life on earth.

Nature has considerable economic and cultural values for

societies. Nature also benefits, for example, human health

through its role in medicines, the provision of food for varied

diets and support to mental and physical health through

green spaces. The knowledge and customary practices of

indigenous peoples and local communities also enhance

people’s quality of life by fostering cultural heritage and

identity. In Europe and Central Asia, which has an area of

31 million square kilometres, the regulation of freshwater

quality has a median value of $1,965 per hectare per

year. Other important regulating services include habitat

maintenance ($765 per hectare per year); the regulation of

climate ($464 per hectare per year); and the regulation of air

quality ($289 per hectare per year).

Nature’s contributions to people are under threat due

to the continuing loss of biodiversity.

Sustaining nature’s

contributions to people requires the maintenance of high

levels of biodiversity. The continuing decline in biodiversity

has had negative consequences for the delivery of many

ecosystem services over the last decades. These include

habitat maintenance, pollination, regulation of freshwater

quantity and quality, soil formation and regulation of floods.

These declines have occurred in part because of the

intensive agriculture and forestry practices used to increase

the provision of food and biomass-based fuels.

The region of Europe and Central Asia partially relies

on net imports of renewable resources from outside

the region.

The population of Europe and Central Asia

consumes more renewable natural resources than are

produced within the region in spite of the increase since

the 1960s in the production of food and biomass-based

fuels. Central and Western Europe depends on food and

feed imports equivalent to the annual harvest of 35 million

hectares of cropland (2008 data), a land area the size

of Germany.

Across Europe and Central Asia, nature’s

contributions are not evenly experienced by people

and communities.

In Europe and Central Asia, a

combination of food provision and imports means that

the region is currently food secure but, in some areas of

Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, food security

is threatened by exports arising from large-scale land

acquisitions mainly by entities from both Western Europe

and outside the region. Water security, which relies partially

on nature’s regulation of water quality and quantity, also

varies across the region, with 15 per cent of people in

Central Asia lacking access to safe drinking water. The

decline of indigenous and local knowledge has negatively

impacted on the heritage and identity of indigenous peoples

and local communities.

B. THE BIODIVERSITY OF EUROPE

AND CENTRAL ASIA IS UNIQUE

BUT THREATENED

The biodiversity of Europe and Central Asia is in

continuous strong decline.

The extent of natural

ecosystems has declined, e.g., wetland extent has declined

by 50 per cent since 1970 and natural and semi-natural

grasslands, peatlands and coastal marine habitats have

been degraded. Ecosystems have considerably declined

in terms of species diversity. Of the assessed species

living exclusively in Europe and Central Asia, 28 per cent

are threatened. Among all the assessed groups of species

living in the region, particularly threatened are mosses

and liverworts (50 per cent), freshwater fish (37 per cent),

freshwater snails (45 per cent), vascular plants (33 per cent)

and amphibians (23 per cent). Landscapes and seascapes

have become more uniform in their species composition and

thus their diversity has declined.

In recent years, national and international

sustainability and conservation policies and actions

have contributed to reversing some negative

biodiversity trends.

More sustainable management of

fisheries and reduction of eutrophication has led to an

increase in some fish stocks in areas such as the North Sea.

Endangered habitats, such as Macaronesian woodlands,

and species such as the Iberian lynx and European

bison, have recovered substantially because of targeted

conservation efforts.

Overall, progress towards healthy ecosystems is

still insufficient.

While some progress has been made

in improving the status of biodiversity by safeguarding

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

ecosystems, species and genetic diversity, biodiversity

status and trends remain negative overall. Increasing

conservation efforts and the sustainability of the use of

biodiversity would enhance the chances of meeting national

and international biodiversity targets.

C. DRIVERS OF CHANGE IN

BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE’S

CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE IN

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Land-use change is the major direct driver of the

loss of both biodiversity and ecosystem services in

Europe and Central Asia.

Production-based subsidies

have led to intensification in agriculture and forestry, and,

together with urban development, have led to biodiversity

decline. Increasing intensity often impinges on traditional

land use. Ceasing traditional land use has reduced

semi-natural habitats of high conservation value and

associated indigenous and local knowledge, practices and

culture across the region. Although protected areas have

expanded in the region, protected areas alone cannot

prevent biodiversity loss. Only where protected areas are

managed effectively can they contribute to the prevention of

biodiversity loss.

The impact of climate change on biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people is increasing

rapidly and is likely to be one of the most important

drivers in the future. Trends in natural resource

extraction, pollution and invasive alien species have

led to considerable declines in biodiversity and

ecosystem services, and are likely to continue to pose

considerable threats, particularly in combination with

climate change.

Natural resource extraction is still a major

pressure on biodiversity. Furthermore, despite effective

regulations, pollution continues to pose a major threat to

biodiversity and human health. Invasive alien species have

increased in number – for all taxonomic groups across all

the subregions of Europe and Central Asia – and this has

severe effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The individual and combined effects of all the direct drivers

have chronic, prolonged and delayed consequences for

biodiversity and the provision of nature’s contributions to

people owing to considerable time-lags in the response of

ecological systems.

Economic growth is generally not decoupled from

environmental degradation. This decoupling would

require a transformation in policies and tax reforms

across the region.

Economic growth, as measured

through traditional gross domestic product (GDP), across

Europe and Central Asia has indirectly reinforced drivers

of biodiversity loss, which in turn has reduced nature’s

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

contributions to people. Across the region, a range of

policies, including environmental taxation, have been

implemented to decouple economic growth from detrimental

drivers. Furthermore, there still exist policy instruments,

such as harmful agricultural and fishing subsidies, which

continue to impede transitions towards a sustainable future.

Decoupling would be assisted by new indicators that

incorporate well-being, environmental quality, employment

and equity, biodiversity conservation and nature’s ability to

contribute to people.

E. PROMISING GOVERNANCE

OPTIONS FOR EUROPE AND

CENTRAL ASIA

D. FUTURES FOR EUROPE AND

CENTRAL ASIA

The continuation of past and present trends in

drivers to, and beyond, 2030 (as represented

in business-as-usual scenarios) will inhibit the

widespread achievement of goals similar to and

including the Sustainable Development Goals.

Future scenarios that focus on achieving a balanced

supply of nature’s contributions to people and that

incorporate a diversity of values are more likely to

achieve the majority of such goals.

Trade-offs are

indicated between different ecosystem services under

different future scenarios for Europe and Central Asia.

Ways of resolving these trade-offs depend on political and

societal value judgements. Scenarios that include proactive

decision-making on environmental issues, environmental

management approaches that support multifunctionality,

and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors,

are generally more successful in mitigating trade-offs than

isolated environmental policies. Scenarios that include

cooperation between countries or regions are expected

to be more effective in mitigating undesirable cross-scale

impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Long-term societal transformation through continuous

education, knowledge-sharing and participatory

decision-making characterize the most effective

pathways for moving towards sustainable futures.

These pathways promote resource-sparing lifestyles and

emphasize community actions and voluntary agreements

supported by social and information-based instruments as

well as rights-based approaches. They support regulating

ecosystem services and highlight a diverse range of values

in comprehensively considering biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people across sectors, and across spatial

and temporal scales. Other actions, such as technological

innovation, ecosystem-based approaches, land sparing

or land sharing, could support and pave the way for these

more transformational solutions.

A mix of governance options, policies and

management practices is available for public and

private actors in Europe and Central Asia, but further

commitment is needed to adopt and effectively

implement them to address the drivers of change,

to safeguard biodiversity and to ensure nature’s

contributions to people for a good quality of life.

Well-designed, context-specific mixes of policy instruments

building on, for example, ecosystem-based approaches,

have been effective in the governance of biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people. While legal and regulatory

instruments are the backbone of policy mixes, economic,

financial, social and information-based instruments

provide additional incentives to trigger behaviour change.

Developing rights-based instruments would fully integrate

the fundamental principles of good governance, equalizing

power relations and facilitating capacity-building for

indigenous peoples and local communities. The mobilization

of sufficient financial resources would strengthen institutional

capacities to support research, training, capacity-building,

education and monitoring activities. The removal of harmful

subsidies in various sectoral policies, such as agriculture,

fisheries and energy, in Europe and Central Asia, reduces

negative impacts on biodiversity and allows for a more cost-

effective use of public funds.

Mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use

of biodiversity and the sustained provision of nature’s

contributions to people into all sectoral policies,

plans, programmes, strategies and practices could

be achieved with more proactive, focused and goal-

oriented approaches to environmental action.

Partial

progress has been made in tackling the underlying drivers of

biodiversity loss, by mainstreaming across government and

society. Mainstreaming could be harnessed in a three-step

process by: first, raising awareness of the dependence

of good quality of life on biodiversity; second, defining

policy objectives concerning the ecological, economic and

sociocultural needs for achieving sustainable development;

and, third, designing instruments and policy mixes to

support the implementation of effective, efficient and

equitable policy and decision-making for nature and a good

quality of life.

Better integration across sectors to coordinate

biodiversity governance and the sustainable

delivery of nature’s contributions to people would

avoid negative outcomes for nature and people.

Improved coordination would enable better consideration

of biodiversity and ecosystem services, taking trade-

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

offs between different policy and economic sectors into

account. There is, for example, ample room for further

exploiting this potential for the agriculture, forestry and

fisheries sectors and urban planning. Regarding an

economy-wide perspective, this includes measuring

national welfare beyond current economic indicators that

take account of the diverse values of nature. Ecological

fiscal reforms would provide integrated incentives and

provide leverage to redirect activities that support

sustainable development.

Increasing participation and stakeholder involvement

will help to integrate various forms of knowledge in

policymaking and decision-making while promoting

shared responsibility.

The importance of the effective

involvement of different actors is recognized in Western

and Central Europe and increasingly also in Eastern Europe

and Central Asia. This involvement can be strengthened by

careful monitoring and evaluation, taking various values into

consideration, including those of indigenous peoples and

local communities.

Box SPM

Region of Europe and Central Asia.

Table SPM

Subregions and countries of Europe and Central Asia according to decision

IPBES-3/1, annex VII.

COUNTRIES

Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,

Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden,

Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

SUBREGION

WESTERN EUROPE

CENTRAL EUROPE

Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,

Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Ukraine

EASTERN EUROPE

CENTRAL ASIA

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Box SPM

Region of Europe and Central Asia.

economies, ecoregions and sectors. The seas of the region

are heterogeneous in terms of temperatures, currents, nutrient

availability, depths and mixing regimes. There are great

differences in data monitoring and availability across the region.

The Europe and Central Asia region encompasses 54 countries

(Table SPM.1)

in four subregions

(Figure SPM.1).

These

countries vary greatly in size, including the largest and smallest

on Earth, and have diverse governance structures, cultures,

Figure SPM

Region of Europe and Central Asia with the four IPBES subregions and

regional oceans and seas.

North East

Atlantic

Ocean

ing

ctic

cea

Chukchi

Sea

ibe

Celt

Central

Europe

Blac

Eastern Europe

Sea

Okhotsk

pia

Central Asia

ECA SUBREGIONS AND SEAS

500 1,000

2,000

3,000 km

Projection: North Asia Lambert Conformal Conic

Source: Natural Earth www.naturalearthdata.org

aci

fic

Ocean

Ber

Kar

Norwegian

Sea

retnts

ter

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Box SPM

Nature’s contributions to people.

contributions

(Figure SPM.2)

{2.1.1}. The context-specific

perspective includes geographical and cultural aspects of

indigenous and local knowledge systems. The grading of green

and brown colours in

Figure SPM.2

indicates whether nature’s

contributions to people are associated more with natural or

with cultural systems. Instrumental values refer to the value

attributed to something as a means to achieve a particular end.

Relational values are positive values assigned to “desirable

relationships”, such as those among people and between

people and nature.

The regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia considers

ecosystem services through the lens of nature’s contributions

to people (see appendix 2), which embodies both the scientific

concept of ecosystem goods and services, and the notion of

nature’s gifts from indigenous and local knowledge systems.

Nature’s contributions can be beneficial or detrimental to

people, depending on the cultural context, and are assessed

from two complementary perspectives: one generalizing

in nature and the other context-specific. The generalizing

perspective includes 18 categories organized into three partially

overlapping groups: regulating, material and non-material

Figure SPM

Nature’s contributions to people and their relation to quality of life in terms

of instrumental and relational values.

NATURE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE

QUALITY OF LIFE

Learning and

inspiration

Food and feed

Physical, mental and

emotional health

Food, energy and

water security

INSTRUMENTAL

Habitat maintenance

Pollination

Regulation of air

quality

Regulation of climate

Regulation of ocean

acidiﬁcation

Regulation of

freshwater quantity

Regulation of

freshwater quality

Formation of soils

Regulation of hazards

Regulation of organisms

detrimental to humans

REGULATING

MATERIAL

Medicinal resources

Energy

Physical and

psychological

experiences

Materials and

assistance

Supporting

identities

Cultural heritage,

identity and

stewardship

Maintenance of

options

Environmental

justice and equity

RELATIONAL

NON-MATERIAL

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

BACK-

GROUND

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

BACKGROUND

A. Nature and its contributions

to people’s quality of life in

Europe and Central Asia

Nature provides valuable material (e.g., food),

regulating (e.g., climate regulation and pollination) and

non-material contributions to people (e.g., learning

and inspiration)

(Figure SPM.2).

These contributions

are essential for people’s quality of life as they have

substantial economic, social and cultural values

(well

established)

{2.3.5}.

The highest valued regulating contributions to people in

Europe and Central Asia include: the regulation of freshwater

and coastal water quality (estimated to have a median value

of $1965

per hectare per year)

(established but incomplete);

habitat maintenance ($765 per hectare per year)

(unresolved);

the regulation of climate ($464 per hectare

per year); and the regulation of air quality ($289 per hectare

per year)

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.5.2}. Monetary

values for regulating contributions to people, however, are

site-specific and vary significantly across the Europe and

Central Asia region depending on location, habitat, extent of

contribution and valuation method used.

Nature’s material contributions to people have important

values that are partly reflected in conventional market prices.

Agricultural production across the 28 member States of

the European Union generates profits ranging from $233

per hectare per year (cereals) to $916 per hectare per year

(mixed crops), while wood supply from forests generates

profits of $255 per hectare per year {2.3.5.1}.

Nature’s non-material contributions to people, which include

physical and psychological experiences linked to tourism

and recreation, are estimated to have a median monetary

value of $1,117 per hectare per year

(unresolved)

{2.3.5.2}.

Other non-material contributions, such as cultural heritage

and identity, may be valued using non-monetary approaches

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.3}. Such values

2. For explanation of confidence terms, see appendix 1.

3. These monetary values have been standardized to a common currency

(the international dollar – $) and base year (2017). The standardization

procedure adjusts values elicited in a particular currency and year to a

standard currency and year using appropriate gross domestic product

deflators and purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates.

are indicated through people’s engagement with nature for

leisure and tourism, spiritual and aesthetic experiences,

learning, developing indigenous and local knowledge, and

by their desire to conserve areas and iconic species

(well

established)

{2.2.3}.

Nature and its contributions to people have value for

human health

(well established)

{2.3.2}, including their

role in contemporary and traditional medicine, dietary

diversity

(well established)

{2.2.2.4, 2.3.2} and urban green

spaces

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.2}. Unsustainable

exploitation threatens the survival of, for instance some

medicinal plants

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.2.4}.

Indigenous peoples and local communities hold distinct

knowledge about nature and its contributions to people

that have significant value for many local communities

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.3}. There has been,

however, a loss of indigenous and local knowledge about

ecosystems and species

(well established)

{2.2.3.1.2,

2.3.3} as well as declining trends of linguistic diversity (a

proxy for indigenous and local knowledge)

(well established)

{2.2.3.1.2, 2.3.3}.

There is a range of monetary and non-monetary approaches

to capture the multiple values of natures contributions

to people. Novel approaches enable these values to be

integrated into decision-making to maximize economic,

social and quality-of-life benefits.

There are negative trends for the majority of

nature’s regulating, and some non-material,

contributions to people in the Europe and Central Asia

region between 1960 and 2016

(well established)

{2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5}. This has resulted partly from

intensive agriculture and forestry practices used to

increase the production of food and biomass-based

fuels, which have had a negative impact on many

regulating services, such as soil formation, pollination

and the regulation of freshwater quality

(well

established)

{2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5}. This continuing

decline in regulating contributions can have

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM

Trends in nature’s contributions to people (1960–2016) for Europe and Central

Asia and the subregions.

Trends are based on the evidence from publications and indicators reporting increasing, decreasing, constant or variable trends

for each ecosystem service {2.2.5}. The higher level of confidence for the region of Europe and Central Asia compared with the

subregions is the result of the extra publications that addressed the region as a whole.

Abbreviations:

WE = Western Europe,

CE = Central Europe, EE = Eastern Europe, CA = Central Asia, ECA = Europe and Central Asia

(Sustainable consumption)

TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUTIONAL (Environmental proactivity)

CLIMATE CHANGE (Temperature)

LAND USE CHANGE (Landscape homogeneity)

ECA

Habitat maintenance

Pollination

Regulation of air quality

Regulation of climate

R E G U L AT I N G

N AT U R E ’S

C ON T R I B U T I O N S

T O PE OP LE

Regulation of ocean acidification

Regulation of freshwater quantity

Regulation of freshwater quality

Formation and protection of soils

Regulation of coastal and fluvial floods

Regulation of organisms (removal of carcasses)

M AT E R I AL

N AT U R E ’ S

C ON T R I B U T I O N S

T O PE OP LE

Food

Biomass-based fuels

Materials (wood and cotton)

N ON - M AT E RI AL

N AT U R E ’S

C ON T R I B U T I O N S

T O PE OP LE

Learning derived from indigenous and local knowledge

Physical and psychological experiences

Supporting identities

Stable

Variable

Lack of evidence

Conﬁdence level

Well established

Established but incomplete/

unresolved

Inconclusive

Increase

Decrease

detrimental consequences for quality of life

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.5,

2.2.1.6, 2.2.1.7, 2.2.1.8, 2.2.2.1, 2.2.3.1}.

A total of 7 out of the 16 assessed nature’s contributions

to people are known to be declining in Europe and

Central Asia, in particular regulating contributions and

learning derived from indigenous and local knowledge

(well established)

{2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5}. These trends are

consistent across the subregions of Europe and Central

Asia

(Figure SPM.3)

(well established)

{2.2.5}. Habitat

maintenance, pollination

(established but incomplete),

regulation of freshwater quantity and quality, formation and

protection of soils and regulation of floods are declining

because of land-use intensification designed to increase the

production of crops, livestock, aquaculture, forest biomass

and cotton, as well as urban development

(well established)

{2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5}. Trade-offs between material and

regulating contributions have compromised food and water

security in some areas {2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5}.

The Europe and Central Asia region is currently food secure

because of food production in the region and trade, despite

the degradation of several of nature’s regulating contributions

and loss of food-related indigenous and local knowledge

(well established)

{2.3.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.1.7, 2.2.1.8,

2.2.2.1, 2.2.3.1}. Soil erosion has affected 25 per cent of

agricultural land in the European Union and 23 per cent in

Central Asia. Combined with a decline in soil organic matter,

this might compromise food production

(well established)

{2.2.1.8}. At the same time, between 2000 and 2010, erosion

control increased by 20 per cent on arable land in Western

and Central Europe {2.2.1.8}. Since 1961, Mediterranean

and Central Asian countries have increased their dependence

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

on pollination by producing more pollinator-dependent

fruits

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.1.2}. At the same

time, however, the diversity and abundance of wild insect

pollinators have declined since the 1950s and severe losses

of the western honeybee have occurred in Europe since

1961

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.1.2}. Continuing rural

depopulation across the region and the loss of indigenous

and local knowledge about traditional land use affects

food availability, especially in remote areas

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.3.1.2, 2.2.3.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 4.5.5}. Wild

fish catches have decreased since the 1990s, with more

sustainable management practices being introduced only

recently. Fish production from aquaculture increased by 2.7

per cent since 2000

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.2.1.2}.

Water security depends partially on the regulation of

water quality and quantity by ecosystems, which is

impaired by pollution, decreasing floodplain and wetland

area, overexploitation of freshwater bodies, and climate

change

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.1.6, 2.2.1.7}.

Nevertheless, 95 per cent of the people in Europe and

Central Asia have access to safe drinking water, despite a

15 per cent decrease in water availability per capita since

1990

(well established)

{2.3.1.3}.

inequity as today’s generations are benefiting from nature’s

contributions to people at the expense of future provision

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.3.4}.

The population of Europe and Central Asia uses

more renewable natural resources than are produced

within the region

(Figure SPM.4)

(well established)

{2.2.4}. The region depends on net imports of both

renewable natural resources and material contributions

of nature to people

(well established)

{2.2.4}. Some of

these imports to Europe and Central Asia negatively

affect biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and

food security in other parts of the world

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.4, 2.3.4}.

Measures of ecological footprint

and “biocapacity”

show

that Central and Western Europe import more of nature’s

contributions to people than Eastern Europe and Central

Asia

(well established)

{2.2.4}

(Figure SPM.4).

While most

of Western and Central Europe and Central Asia have a

“biocapacity” deficit, in Eastern Europe and northern parts of

Western and Central Europe high footprints are offset by even

higher biocapacities

(well established)

{2.2.4}. This negatively

affects biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and food

security both within Europe and Central Asia and other parts

of the world

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.4, 2.3.4}. For

instance, according to the technical report 2013-063 funded

by the European Commission, 10 per cent of the world’s

annual deforestation was the result of consumption by the

then 27 member States of the European Union

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.4.1}.

Western Europe’s ecological footprint is 5.1 global hectares

per person and its “biocapacity” 2.2 hectares per person;

Central Europe’s footprint is 3.6 hectares per person and

its “biocapacity” 2.1 hectares per person; Eastern Europe’s

footprint is 4.8 hectares per person and its “biocapacity”

5.3 hectares per person; and Central Asia’s footprint is 3.4

hectares per person and its “biocapacity” 1.7 hectares per

person

(well established)

{2.2.4}

(Figure SPM.4).

Food availability in Central and Western Europe relies

significantly on imports from countries, both outside and

4. Ecological footprint has a variety of definitions, but is defined by the

Global Footprint Network as “a measure of how much area of biologically

productive land and water an individual, population or activity requires

to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it

generates, using prevailing technology and resource management

practices.” The ecological footprint indicator used in this report is based

on the Global Footprint Network unless otherwise specified.

5. The definition that follows is for the purpose of this assessment only:

“Biocapacity” has a variety of definitions, but is defined by the Global

Footprint Network as “the ecosystems’ capacity to produce biological

materials used by people and to absorb waste material generated

by humans, under current management schemes and extraction

technologies.” The “biocapacity” indicator used in this report is based

on the Global Footprint Network unless otherwise specified.

6. A global hectare is a biologically productive hectare with world average

biological productivity for a given year and depends on the land type.

Nature’s contributions to people, and their

influence on quality of life, are not always equally

experienced across different locations and social

groups in Europe and Central Asia

(established but

incomplete)

{2.3.4}.

Intra-regional equity in access to food and a balanced diet

is largely achieved

(well established)

{2.3.1.1} as indicated

by, for example, the average dietary energy supply, which

ranges from 137 per cent in Western Europe to 121 per cent

in Central Asia of the average dietary energy requirement for

the population of the region {2.3.1.1}. However, large-scale

land acquisitions in Central and Eastern Europe and Central

Asia by entities from outside and within the region, mainly

from Western Europe, may compromise the opportunities

for certain groups of people to influence their own food

systems

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.1.1}. Nature’s

contributions to people are factors in influencing the situation

in which some 15 per cent of people in Central Asia, but

only 1 per cent in Western Europe, lack access to safe

drinking water

(well established)

{2.3.1.3, 2.3.4.2}. Within

cities, inhabitants have unequal access to green spaces with

consequences for public health and well-being

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.3.2, 2.3.4.2}. For example, residents

in cities in the south of the European Union have less

access to green space than residents of northern, western

and central cities. Public access to forests for recreation is

uneven across countries, with a high level of access (98–100

per cent) in Nordic and some Baltic countries and lower

levels (under 50 per cent) in some other Western European

countries

(well established)

{2.3.4.2}. There is also temporal

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM

Difference between “biocapacity” (on average 2.9 global hectares per person in

the region) and the ecological footprint of consumption (4.6 global hectares per

person; average deﬁcit 1.7 global hectares per person).

The ecological footprint quantiﬁes the area needed to produce on a sustainable basis the renewable resources it consumes and thus

can be used as a proxy for the use of certain of nature’s material or regulating contributions to people and the area needed to

assimilate CO

and other waste sustainably. “Biocapacity” refers to the capacity of a certain area to generate an ongoing supply of

renewable resources and thus is a proxy for ecosystem productivity. A positive value (green) indicates a “biocapacity” reserve; a

negative value (red) indicates a deﬁcit. A deﬁcit derives from the overuse of local renewable resources or the net import of renewable

resources for consumption. Countries shaded in green have high “biocapacity”, so they have a reserve despite having a higher

ecological footprint than many other countries. Source: Based on Global Footprint Network (2017).

1,000 2,000

4,000 km

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIOCAPACITY AND ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT OF CONSUMPTION FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA (ECA)

GLOBAL HECTARES PER PERSON

COUNTRIES IN ECA

WITHOUT DATA

COUNTRIES OUTSIDE ECA

–11.5

–9.2

–6.9

–4.6

–2.4

–0.1

2.2

4.4

6.6

within the region, of the product of 35 million hectares

of cropland harvested per year (2008 data), particularly

from Argentina, Brazil, China and the United States

(well

established)

{2.2.4}. Western Europe became less

self-sufficient in crop production between 1987 and 2008,

while the rest of Europe and Central Asia became more

self-sufficient

(well established)

{2.2.4}. Seafood exports

from Europe and Central Asia increased over the period

1976–2009, with Norway, Spain and the Russian Federation

being the main exporters

(well established)

{2.2.4}. Over the

period 1997–2012, there was a stable pattern of imports

to Western Europe of roundwood and wood products from

Central and Eastern Europe

(well established)

{2.2.4}.

Asia. Higher biodiversity therefore increases the capacity

of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems to provide

nature’s contributions to people, such as soil formation,

pollination, regulation of hazards, regulation of air and water

quality, or the provision of materials, learning and inspiration

(well established)

{3.2.1, 3.2.2}. Higher biodiversity also

stabilizes ecosystem functioning and improves capacity for

evolutionary adaptation

(well established)

{3.2.3, 3.2.4}. The

higher the number of nature’s contributions to people to be

provided, and the longer the time span and the larger the

area of their provision, the more biodiversity is required

(well

established)

{3.2.5}.

Ecosystem functioning is affected by genetic and

phenotypic biodiversity within species, and by functional,

taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity between species

(well

established)

{3.2.4}. At the landscape and larger spatial

scales, the increasing similarity of the sets of organisms

found at different places, e.g., owing to the application

of similar and intensive land use over large spatial scales,

reduces nature’s overall contributions to people

(established

but incomplete)

because different sets of organisms

contribute to different contributions of nature to people

(well established)

{3.2.5}. Thus, the supply of multiple

contributions of nature to people requires the maintenance

and promotion of high biodiversity at the landscape level

(established but incomplete)

{3.2.5}.

Biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functioning

and, hence, nature’s contributions to people

(well

established)

{3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3}. The sustained delivery

of these contributions requires the maintenance of

different levels of biodiversity, i.e., genetic diversity,

species diversity, and the diversity of ecosystems and

of landscapes and seascapes

(well established)

{3.2.4}. At each of these levels, the sustained delivery

of multiple contributions generally requires higher

diversity than the delivery of single contributions

(well

established)

{3.2.5}.

Different organisms, species and communities differ in their

contributions to ecosystem processes in Europe and Central

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

B. Trends in biodiversity

and attribution to direct drivers

Of the assessed marine habitats and species, a

high percentage are threatened

(established but

incomplete),

varying between marine areas

(well established)

{3.3.4.1–7}

(Figure SPM.6).

The

abundance, range and habitat size of many marine

species is shrinking under human pressures, including

overfishing, climate change, pollution and invasive

alien species

(well established)

{3.3.4.1–7, 3.4.6.1}.

Figure SPM

Extinction risk of species in Europe and Central Asia according to the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species in 2015.

EX: extinct, CR: critically endangered, EN: endangered, VU: vulnerable, NT: near threatened, DD: data deﬁcient, LC: least concern.

Species in categories CR, EN, VU are considered threatened. The blue bar is the best estimate of the proportion of threatened and

extinct species, assuming that the same proportion of DD species is threatened or extinct as of species with sufﬁcient data (i.e., EX,

CR, EN, VU, NT, LC). Only species in comprehensively assessed taxonomic groups are considered. Source: IUCN (2017).

STRUCTURE OF THE IUCN RED LIST CATEGORIES

Extinct (EX)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Threatened categories

Adequate data

Evaluated

Critically Endangered (CR)

Endangered (EN)

Vulnerable (VU)

Near Threatened (NT)

All species

Least Concern (LC)

Data De cient (DD)

Not Evaluated (NE)

Western

Europe

ALL EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

0.2% (EX)

10%

Total #

of species

2,493

71%

10%

51%

336

13%

28%

13%

(estimate of

threatened

species)

13%

Extinction risk

Total species

Endemic species

EASTERN EUROPE

0.2% (EX)

10%

1,224

39%

35%

24%

Eastern Europe

Central

Europe

Central Asia

80%

Total species

Endemic species

CENTRAL AND WESTERN EUROPE

0.2% (EX)

13%

12%

CENTRAL ASIA

11%

21%

44%

17%

11%

71%

1,886

46%

199

17%

772

86%

14%

35%

22%

Total species

Endemic species

Total species

Endemic species

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM

Trend in Red List Indices of species survival weighted by the fraction of the

distribution of each species within the region.

The position on the vertical axis indicates the aggregate risk of extinction, the closer to one the lower the aggregate extinction risk.

The slope indicates how rapidly this extinction risk is changing. For the region, the risk of extinction of species has increased over the

last 20 years. Each line represents the most likely Red List Index value, considering uncertainty in the number of species threatened.

The shading around each line represents the extremes, if all data deﬁcient species were threatened with extinction (above the line), or

if none of them were (below the line). Only birds, mammals and amphibians are considered here, as these are the only groups that

have been comprehensively assessed at least twice. Source: IUCN, Red List of Threatened Species, version 2017-3.

1.00

RED LIST INDEX OF SPECIES SURVIVAL

0.95

0.90

ECA

ECA region

0.85

Western

Europe

(CWE)

Central

Europe

0.75

1993

1995

Eastern Europe

(EE)

Central Asia

CWE

0.80

Central

Asia (CA)

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

EXTREMES

MOST

LIKELY

VALUE

1997

1999

Present positive trends, mainly due to improved

fishing practices, the establishment of marine

protected areas and a reduction in eutrophication,

include increases in some fish stocks in the North Sea

and in plankton diversity in the Black Sea

(well

established)

{3.3.4.1, 3.3.4.4}. However, monitoring

data are generally missing for most marine habitats

and species

(well established)

{3.3.4}.

In all, 53 per cent of the benthic shallow habitats in Western

and Central Europe are data deficient. The corresponding

figure is 87 per cent in the Black Sea, 60 per cent in the

North East Atlantic, 59 per cent in the Mediterranean Sea

and 5 per cent in the Baltic Sea

(well established)

{3.3.4.1–

7}. Of the assessed benthic habitats, 38 per cent are

classified as threatened (critically endangered, endangered

or vulnerable), most of them in the Black Sea (67 per cent)

and Mediterranean Sea (74 per cent), followed by the North

East Atlantic (59 per cent) and the Baltic Sea (8 per cent)

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.4.1–7}. In the European

Union, among assessments of the conservation status of

species and habitat types of conservation interest covered

by the European Union Habitats Directive, only 7 per cent

of marine species and 9 per cent of marine habitat types

show a “favourable conservation status”. Moreover 27 per

cent of species and 66 per cent of assessments of habitat

types show an “unfavourable conservation status” and the

7. Available from

www.iucnredlist.org.

remainder are categorized as “unknown”

(established but

incomplete)

{3.3.4}.

In Europe and Central Asia, 26 per cent of the marine fish

species have known trend data. Of those, 72 per cent

are stable, 26 per cent have declining populations and 2

per cent have been increasing over the last decade

(well

established)

{3.4.6.1}. Seabirds, marine mammals and

turtles, and habitat formers, such as seagrasses and kelps,

also declined in abundance

(well established)

{3.4.2–4}.

The distribution or phenology of marine phytoplankton,

zooplankton, algae, benthic invertebrates, fishes, seabirds

and mammals has shifted

(well established)

{3.3.4.1}. In all,

48 per cent of marine animal and plant species with known

population trends (436 decreasing, 59 increasing, 410

stable) have been declining in the last decade, increasing

the extinction risk of monitored species

(Figure SPM.5)

(established but incomplete)

{3.4.1}. Most of these present

trends are consistent with the individual and combined

effects of mainly overfishing, climate change, pollution and

invasive alien species

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.4.1–

7}. The impact of pollution by microplastics on ecosystems

was not known until recently, and evidence of those impacts

is only now being assessed {3.3.4}.

Freshwater species and inland surface water

habitats are particularly threatened in Europe and

Central Asia

(well established).

A total of 53 per cent

of the European Union’s rivers and lakes achieved

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

good ecological status in 2015 as defined by the

European Union Water Framework Directive. Similarly

30 per cent of water samples in the Russian

Federation were above water quality standards

(well

established).

A total of 73 per cent of the assessments

of the European Union’s freshwater habitat types

Figure SPM

Assessment of past (~1950–2000) and current (~2001–2017) trends in biodiversity

status of marine, inland surface water and terrestrial ecosystems for the four

subregions and the whole of Europe and Central Asia.

The figure summarizes the trends in biodiversity status of the assessed units of analysis (habitat types). Biodiversity status represents

the expert assessment of available indicators of habitat intactness, species richness and the status of endangered species. The

trends are presented by unit of analysis and subregion for terrestrial and inland surface-water ecosystems, and by sea or ocean area

for marine ecosystems {3.3; Box 3.3}.

Abbreviations:

WE = Western Europe, CE = Central Europe, EE = Eastern Europe,

CA = Central Asia, ECA = Europe and Central Asia

PAS T

(Sustainable consumption)

TECHNOLOGY

PRESENT

ECA

LAND USE CHANGE (Landscape homogeneity)

NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION

INSTITUTIONAL (Environmental proactivity)

CLIMATE CHANGE (Temperature)

POLLUTION

ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

ECA

Agroecosystems

Alpine and subalpine systems

Boreal peatlands

Deserts

Forest-steppe, steppe and

other southern peatlands

Mediterranean forests and scrubs

TERRESTRIAL

Permafrost peatlands

Snow and ice-dominated systems

Subterranean habitats

Temperate and boreal forests

and woodlands

Temperate grasslands

Temperate peatlands

Tropical and subtropical dry

and humid forests

Tundra

Urban ecosystems

Aral Sea

Caspian Sea

Inland surface water

Saline lakes

North East

Atlantic

Baltic Sea

Mediterranean Black and Azov

Sea

Seas

Arctic Ocean

North West

Paciﬁc Ocean

ECA

deep-sea

•

INLAND

SURFACE WATER

•

MARINE

PA S T

P RE S E N T

Strong and consistent

increase in indicator

Strong and consistent

decrease in indicator

Moderate and consistent

decrease in indicator

Stable indicator

Variable trend in

indicator

Conﬁdence level

Not applicable

Well established

Established but

incomplete/unresolved

Inconclusive

Moderate and consistent

increase in indicator

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

show an unfavourable conservation status

(well

established)

{3.3.3.1}. Across Europe and Central Asia,

lakes, ponds and streams are altered and

disappearing as a consequence of agricultural

intensification, irrigation and urban development

combined with climate change

(well established)

{3.3.3.1}. Notable is the case of the Aral Sea, once the

fourth largest lake in the world, which has now almost

disappeared owing to water abstraction for crop

cultivation. The extent of wetlands in Western, Central

and Eastern Europe has declined by 50 per cent from

1970, while 71 per cent of fish and 60 per cent of

amphibians with known population trends have been

declining over the last decade {3.3.3.1, 3.4.5, 3.4.6.2}.

Over 75 per cent of catchment areas in Europe and Central

Asia are heavily modified and subject to multiple pressures.

In 2015, good chemical status, as defined by the European

Union Water Framework Directive, was not achieved for

surface water bodies by 22 European Union member

States and only 53 per cent of rivers and lakes had good

ecological status as defined by the European Union Water

Framework Directive despite some improvements {3.3.3.1}.

In Western and Central Europe and the western parts of

Eastern Europe

at least 37 per cent of freshwater fish and

about 23 per cent of amphibians are currently threatened

with extinction. In the same area, freshwater invertebrates

are also threatened, with the most threatened group among

those that are well monitored being gastropods (45–70 per

cent of species threatened depending on whether or not

data deficient species are considered threatened), followed

by bivalves (20–26 per cent) and dragonflies (15–19 per

cent)

(established but incomplete)

{3.4.5, 3.4.6.2, 3.4.8}.

Freshwater biodiversity trends are primarily driven by habitat

destruction and modification caused by infrastructure

for hydropower, navigation, flood protection, agriculture,

urban development and water abstraction; pollution

from agriculture and industry; the introduction of invasive

alien species and their pathogens; and climate change

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.4, 3.3.3.5.2}.

Progress has been made in water protection in the

European Union part of Western and Central Europe, in

particular because of the European Union Water Framework

Directive. The rate of natural habitat loss (e.g., wetlands) has

slowed in Western, Central and Eastern Europe due to the

implementation of binding nature conservation policies or

the designation of conservation areas (e.g., Ramsar sites),

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.3.1}.

to land-use change, for example unsustainable

agriculture and forest management, infrastructure,

urban development or mining, causing habitat loss,

modification and fragmentation, and due to climate

change

(well established)

{3.3.2, 3.4}. The conservation

status of some habitats and species that benefit from

targeted conservation actions (e.g., large felids or

some species listed in the European Union Birds

Directive) has improved in recent years

(established

but incomplete)

{3.4.13}.

Across Europe and Central Asia, 14 out of 15 habitat types

have been declining in extent and biodiversity status since

the 1950s

(Figure SPM.6)

{3.3.2.5}. These declines are

continuing, albeit at a slower rate, with some exceptions

in the Macaronesian and Atlantic Boreal regions of

Western and Central Europe, where recoveries in habitat

conservation status have been reported. Grasslands, tundra,

mires and bogs have been the most affected habitats since

the 1950s

(established but incomplete)

{3.3.2}.

Systematic assessments of habitat conservation status

exist only for the European Union. There, 16 per cent of

terrestrial habitat assessments in the period 2007–2012 had

favourable conservation status; 3 per cent had unfavourable,

but improving trends; 37 per cent had unfavourable, but

stable trends; 29 per cent had unfavourable and declining

trends; and 15 per cent had unknown or unreported trends

relative to the period 2001–2006

(well established)

{3.3.2}.

Since the 1950s, various biodiversity indicators have

shown a decline in response to both abandonment of,

and intensified use of, agricultural land (well

established

for Western Europe and Central Europe;

established but

incomplete

for Eastern Europe and Central Asia) {3.3.2.9}.

From 1980 to 2013, the abundance of farmland common

bird species decreased by 57 per cent in Western and

Central Europe

(well established)

{3.4.3}. The species

diversity of arable crops has decreased by 20 per cent since

1950 in Western and Central Europe, and the abundance

of rare arable plants has also decreased

(established but

incomplete).

The genetic diversity of plants cultivated in

situ declined until the 1960s, owing to the replacement of

landraces by modern cultivars, and no further reduction

or increase of diversity was observed after the 1980s

(well

established).

Europe and Central Asia has over half of

all known breeds of domesticated mammals and birds,

but 75 per cent of local bird breeds and 58 per cent of

local mammal breeds are threatened with extinction. The

numbers of at-risk breeds have declined slightly since

1999, but exact quantification is hampered by the changing

number of documented local breeds

(established but

incomplete)

{3.4.13}.

Across Europe and Central Asia, 42 per cent of

terrestrial animal and plant species with known trends

Terrestrial species and habitats have long-term

declining trends in population size, range, habitat

intactness and functioning. This decline is mainly due

8. The geographical scope here is continent-wide, extending from Iceland in

the west to the Urals in the east, and from Franz Josef Land in the north

to the Canary Islands in the south. The Caucasus region is not included.

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

have declined in population size over the last decade,

increasing the extinction risk of monitored species

(established but incomplete)

(Figure SPM.5).

The main

causes of this decline are habitat loss, degradation and

pollution due primarily to unsustainable agriculture and

forest management, natural resource extraction and

invasive alien species

(established but incomplete)

{3.4,

3.3.2}. Monocultures, and all forms of homogenization

of landscapes, such as the conversion of grasslands

to crops, and agricultural intensification (especially the

conversion of natural and semi-natural grassland to more

intensively used pastures) have caused homogenization of

ecological communities by supporting generalist species

and impacting habitat specialists

(well established).

Climate

change is accelerating changes in species composition

and local extinctions in all habitat types

(well established),

contracting glaciers, shifting the nival belt to higher altitudes

(well established),

replacing polar deserts with tundra

(well

established),

expanding arid areas, and causing shifts in

forest habitat types

(well established)

{3.3.2}. National and

international conservation efforts have shown the potential

to reverse these trends. The long-term population trends

of 40 per cent of the breeding bird taxa in Annex I of the

European Union Birds Directive are increasing, compared

with 31 per cent for all breeding bird taxa {3.4.13}.

Charismatic mammalian megafauna, such as the Amur

tiger, Far-Eastern leopard, Iberian lynx, and European bison,

are all recovering from the brink of extinction because of

dedicated conservation efforts {3.4.3, 3.4.13}.

C. Drivers of change

in biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people in Europe

and Central Asia

Land-use change, as one of the major direct

drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia, is

often posing substantial risks for human well-being

(well established)

(4.2.1). There are examples of

sustainable agricultural and forestry practices that are

beneficial to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to

people in the region. However, the major trend is

increasing intensity of conventional agriculture and

forestry that lead to biodiversity decline

(well

established).

Ceasing traditional land use reduces

semi-natural habitats of high conservation value

(well

established)

and associated indigenous and local

knowledge and practices

(well established)

{4.5.1,

4.5.5}. Protected areas have expanded, but this alone

cannot prevent biodiversity loss

(well

established)

{4.5.4}.

Despite the development of more sustainable agricultural

policies and practices in recent years in some countries,

such as organic farming, conventional intensive agriculture,

especially related to the excessive use of agrochemicals

{4.5.1.1} reduces natural and semi-natural habitats, with

severe negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem

function

(well established)

{4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.5}. This

jeopardizes the sustainable management of land and food

production

(established but incomplete)

(Figure SPM.8)

{4.5.1, 4.5.2}. Agri-environmental schemes, ecological

restoration and sustainable approaches to agriculture,

such as agroecology and agroforestry, mitigate some of

the adverse effects of intensive agriculture

(established

but incomplete)

{4.5.1, 4.5.2}. The efficiency of such

measures depends also on the inclusion of traditional and

local knowledge, and the consideration of biophysical and

social-cultural contexts

(established but incomplete)

{4.5.1,

4.5.2, 4.5.3}.

Production-based subsidies have driven growth in

agriculture, forestry and natural resource extraction, but

this often impinges on traditional land users

(established

but incomplete)

{4.5.1, 4.5.5}. The loss of traditionally

managed semi-natural habitats has resulted in a decline

and loss of associated biodiversity and ecosystem

functions. Demographic trends, including urbanization,

continue to diminish indigenous and local communities,

with concomitant negative impacts on traditional land-

use knowledge, culture and identities

(established but

incomplete)

(4.5.5). The economic viability of indigenous

and local communities can be supported by green tourism,

demand for products derived from traditional practices and

subsidies for traditional land uses

(well established)

{4.5.5}.

There are examples of sustainable forestry and agroforestry

practices, however, the major trend across the region

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM

Trends in the proportion of key biodiversity areas completely covered by protected

areas in Europe and Central Asia.

There are two types of key biodiversity areas, Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) and Alliance for Zero Extinctions sites (AZEs).

% KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS COMPLETELY COVERED

BY PROTECTED AREAS IN THE ECA REGION

1900

1903

1906

1909

1912

1915

1918

1921

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

2011

2014

Alliance for Zero Extinctions sites

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas

Figure SPM

Trends in direct drivers of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in the

last 20 years.

The figure summarizes the trends in the five direct drivers for each of the assessed units of analysis (habitat types). The trends are

presented by unit of analysis and subregion {see 4.2.1, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9.2}.

Abbreviations:

WE = Western Europe,

CE = Central Europe, EE = Eastern Europe, CA = Central Asia

Land use change

(Sustainable consumption)

TECHNOLOGY

Climate change

LAND USE CHANGE (Landscape homogeneity)

Invasive alien species

Pollution

Extraction

INSTITUTIONAL (Environmental proactivity)

CLIMATE CHANGE (Temperature)

Temperate and boreal

forests

Mediterranean forests

Cold grasslands

Temperate and boreal

grasslands

Mediterranean

grasslands and scrubs

Drylands and deserts

Wetlands, peatlands,

mires and bogs

Urban and semi-urban

systems

Cultivated areas

Inland freshwaters

Deep marine waters

Coastal marine waters

Stable

Variable

Well established

Established but

incomplete/unresolved

Inconclusive

•

Strong increase

Increase

Strong decrease

Decrease

Not applicable

Conﬁdence level

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

is intensification of forest management that reduces

biodiversity and many of nature’s material and non-material

contributions to people

(Figure SPM.8).

Logging of

intact forests continues across the region

(established but

incomplete)

{4.5.3}. The trade-offs between the increasing

intensity of forestry and delivery of multiple ecosystem

services are recognized as a major challenge for forestry in

Europe and Central Asia

(Table SPM.2).

Protected areas now cover 10.2 per cent of the region,

13.5 per cent of its terrestrial area and 5.2 per cent of its

marine area

(well established)

{4.5.4} and their coverage of

key biodiversity areas has been increasing

(Figure SPM.7).

The prioritization and implementation of adequate legal

frameworks for protected area development has largely

been driven by the adoption of international agreements,

as well as increasing public environmental awareness. The

perceived trade-offs with economic development goals,

however, have in many cases delayed the development

of, or weakened, adequate nature conservation policies

although this is variable across the region

(well established).

The efficacy, connectivity and representativeness of

protected areas are as important as their coverage,

however, and conservation would also require fostering

biodiversity outside protected areas

(well established)

{4.5.4, 3.3}. Eastern Europe and the Balkans have recently

experienced armed conflicts, which negatively affect nature

and its contributions to people {4.5.4.2}.

established)

{4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.3}. Many species will not

migrate or adapt fast enough to keep pace with projected

rates of climate change

(established but incomplete)

{4.7.1}. Droughts decrease biomass productivity, increase

biodiversity loss and net carbon flux to the atmosphere,

and decrease water quality in aquatic systems

(established

but incomplete)

{4.7.1.2, 5.2}. Climate change causes

ocean acidification, rising sea levels and changes ocean

stratification, reducing biodiversity, growth and productivity,

impairing fisheries and increasing CO

release into the

atmosphere

(established but incomplete)

{4.7.1.1, 4.7.1.3}.

Global economic growth is the main indirect driver of

greenhouse gas emissions and hence climate change

(well established)

{4.7.3}. In contrast to global trends,

primary energy consumption and fossil CO

emissions

within the region have declined since 1990. Small increases

in GDP growth with simultaneously decreasing energy

production and CO

emissions from 2011 to 2014 suggest

the decoupling of CO

emissions from GDP growth

(well

established)

{4.7.3}. These apparent decreases may

be explained, however, by increased transportation-

related emissions in other regions and their inter-regional

flows to Europe and Central Asia

(inconclusive)

{4.7.3}

(Table SPM.2).

Natural resource extraction, pollution and

invasive alien species continue to reduce biodiversity

and nature’s contributions to people, and they

increase with GDP and global trade. Recent policy

intervention has reversed some negative impacts of

these direct drivers.

Extraction of biotic and abiotic natural resources has

continued to reduce biodiversity and nature’s contribution

to people both within Europe and Central Asia and beyond.

For biotic resources, the demand for fish in Western and

Central Europe, coupled with the European Union Common

Fisheries Policy that restricts extraction, contributes to

unsustainable fishing practices and resource depletion

outside Western and Central Europe. While awareness of

local resource shortages, such as fish in Europe, would be

expected to be prompted by price increases, displacement

from interregional imports masks these feedbacks

(established but incomplete)

{4.2.5, 4.3.1, 4.4.1}.

As an example for abiotic resources, trade liberalization and

increasing world market prices have increased extraction of

mineral resources in Central Asia. Although this has resulted

in the mining industry being one of the largest contributors to

GDP in the subregion, this has led to the depletion of mineral

resources and the loss of ecosystem services important to

human health and well-being

(well established)

{4.4.4.2}.

These examples demonstrate that the depletion of natural

resources may not be immediately apparent, due to factors

The impact of climate change on biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people is increasing rapidly

and is likely to be among the most important drivers in

the future, in particular in combination with other

drivers

(established but incomplete)

{4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.9.2}.

The region’s climate is expected to be on average 1°C –3°C

warmer in 2041–2060 than in 1986–2005, with larger

increases in the north of the region

(well established)

{4.7.2.1}. Summers will be drier in the south of the region

and winters wetter in the north, with increasing risks of

extreme climatic events such as droughts and storms

(established but incomplete)

{4.7.1.2}

(Figure SPM.8).

Indirect climate change effects, such as increased fire and

flood risks and loss of permafrost, are already affecting

biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

(well

established)

{4.7.1.3, 4.7.2.5}. The extent of near-surface

permafrost at high latitudes could decrease by between

37 and 81 per cent by 2100

(established but incomplete)

{4.7.2.4}. In Arctic and alpine regions, permafrost melting

will cause large greenhouse gas emissions, while short-term

heat waves reduce biomass productivity and food availability

for wildlife and livestock

(unresolved)

{4.7.1}.

Climate change shifts seasonal timing, growth and

productivity, species ranges and habitat location, which

affects biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries

(well

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Table SPM

Impact of indirect drivers (rows) on direct drivers (columns) of biodiversity loss

and nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia.

The colour shows the impact of an indirect driver on a direct driver’s effect on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people along a gradient

from negative to positive effects.

Abbreviations:

WE = Western Europe, CE = Central Europe, EE = Eastern Europe, CA = Central Asia

LAND USE CHANGE

Agricultural land use

INSTITUTIONAL

ECONOMIC

DEMOGRAPHIC

CULTURAL

TECHNOLOGICAL

Forestry

Traditional land use

Protected area

development

Climate change

INSTITUTIONAL

ECONOMIC

DEMOGRAPHIC

CULTURAL

TECHNOLOGICAL

Negative

Both ways

Positive

Pollution

Natural resource

extraction

Invasive alien species

Lack of evidence

such as global trade, which then masks or delays effective

policy responses. In addition, harmful subsidies in the

fishing and mineral industries reduce extraction prices and

accelerate extraction levels despite declining stocks

(well

established)

{4.4.1, 4.4.4}. The European Union and the

Russian Federation continue to pay in total about $6 billion

annually in such fishing subsidies

(well established)

{4.4.1.3}.

Recent regulations have reduced some pollution (for

example, sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and heavy

metals), but other pollution (ammonia, organic pollution and

pesticides) and time-lag effects of pollution still threaten

biodiversity. In Western and Central Europe terrestrial

acidification has decreased since 1990 (from 30 per cent to

3 per cent of areas exceeding critical loads, while terrestrial

eutrophication has decreased from 78 per cent to 55 per

cent of areas exceeding critical loads

(well established)

{4.6.1, 4.6.3}. Marine and coastal eutrophication has

decreased, but the proportion of marine dead zones due

to oxygen depletion from nutrient and organic pollutants

has increased markedly, reaching, for example, about 100

sites around Western European shores alone

(established

but incomplete)

{4.6.1, 4.6.2}. Numbers of invasive alien

species have increased for all taxonomic groups

(well

established)

{4.8.2.1}. In Western and Central Europe,

invasive alien species are increasing, although the recently

adopted European Union regulation on invasive alien

species could curb the trend in the future {4.8.2, 4.8.3}. In

Eastern Europe and Central Asia, rates of invasion are lower

than in Western and Central Europe, but are expected to

increase with increasing GDP and trade

(established but

incomplete)

{4.8.1, 4.8.2}

(Table SPM.2).

As direct drivers

can have chronic, prolonged and delayed consequences

for biodiversity and ecosystem services, owing to time lags

in ecosystem response

(well established)

{4.5.1, 4.9.1},

phosphorous and nitrogen (except ammonia) pollution is

decreasing but, owing to time lags, many lakes, rivers and

coastal areas in Western and Central Europe still do not

have a good ecological status {4.6.1, 4.6.2}. Time lags

also occur between the initial introduction of invasive alien

species and their impact

(well established)

{4.8.1}.

Economic growth is generally not decoupled

from environmental degradation. This decoupling

would require a transformation in policies and tax

reforms across the region

(established but

incomplete)

{4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4}.

There is evidence of growth in GDP across Europe and

Central Asia

(well established).

For example, since 2000,

gross domestic material consumption has increased across

European Union member States, much of which has

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

been driven by growth-oriented policies

(well established)

{4.3.2}. However, this economic growth has indirectly

reinforced drivers of biodiversity loss, which in turn has

reduced nature’s contributions to people. Such drivers

have included land-use change, climate change, natural

resource extraction, pollution and invasive alien species

(Table SPM.2).

Awareness of sustainability challenges has led to some

institutional change in the region, including policies on

climate agreements and a range of environmental policies.

Furthermore, recent policy initiatives have suggested a

focus on decoupling economic growth from environmental

degradation {4.3.2, 4.3.4}. This decoupling would require

a transformation in policies and tax reforms at the global

and national levels. Across the region, a range of policies for

resource efficiency, including environmental taxation, have

been implemented. The total revenue from environmental

taxes in the European Union has declined from 6.8 per

cent of the total revenues derived from all taxes and social

contributions in 2002 down to 6.3 per cent in 2016

(well

established)

{4.3.1, 4.3.2}. Furthermore, there still exist policy

instruments, such as harmful agricultural and fishing subsidies,

which continue to impede transitions towards a sustainable

future

(established but incomplete).

Decoupling would be

assisted by new indicators that incorporate well-being,

environmental quality, employment and equity, biodiversity

conservation and nature’s ability to contribute to people.

D. Futures for

Europe and Central Asia

Scenario studies for Europe and Central Asia, with

time horizons up to 2100, show trade-offs between

different ecosystem services with implications for

biodiversity

(Box SPM.3, Figure SPM.9)

{2.2.6, 3.5, 5.3.3,

5.3.4}. Political and societal value judgements

embedded within scenarios will determine how these

trade-offs are resolved. Scenarios that assume

proactive, environmental decision-making; promote

environmental management approaches that support

multifunctionality; and mainstream environmental

issues across sectors, can mitigate undesirable

trade-offs

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3}.

Moreover, scenarios that assume cooperation between

countries or regions are more effective in mitigating

negative impacts across geographic scales

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3}. Such scenarios

project more positive impacts across a broad range of

indicators of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to

people and good quality of life than others

(established

but incomplete)

{5.3.3, 5.6.1}.

Scenario studies (see

Box SPM.3

on scenario archetypes)

suggest that reactive approaches to environmental issues

will have mixed impacts.

Economic optimism

scenarios

Box SPM

Scenario archetypes.

by environmentally aware citizens. A proactive attitude to

environmental management prevails, but poor international

collaboration obstructs coordination to solve global

environmental issues.

• Global sustainable development

assumes an increasingly

proactive attitude by policymakers and the public

towards environmental issues, a high level of international

cooperation and strong regulation.

• Inequality

assumes increasing economic, political and social

inequalities with power concentrated in a relatively small

political and business elite who invest in green technology.

Each scenario archetype consists of different assumptions

about future changes in direct and indirect drivers as shown in

Table SPM.3.

The scenario and modelling studies in the literature {5.2.3,

5.3.3.} were mapped to six existing scenario archetypes {5.2.2;

Box 5.3}, which represent diverse plausible futures for Europe

and Central Asia:

• Business-as-usual

assumes the continuation of past and

current trends in indirect and direct drivers.

• Economic optimism

assumes global developments steered

by economic growth, resulting in a strong dominance of

international markets with a small degree of regulation.

• Regional

competition

assumes an increasingly fragmented

world with a growing gap between rich and poor; increasing

problems with crime, violence and terrorism; and strong

trade barriers.

• Regional

sustainability

assumes a shift towards local

and regional decision-making that is strongly influenced

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Table SPM

Trends in indirect and direct drivers assumed in six scenario archetypes covering

time horizons up to 2100.

Arrows in the table represent the expert interpretation of the magnitude of trends in drivers across all scenarios found within the

archetypes. Colour coding represents the expert interpretation of the impact of the trend on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to

people {5.2.3}

INDIRECT DRIVERS

CULTURAL

(Sustainable consumption)

INSTITUTIONAL

(Environmental proactivity)

ECONOMIC

(Gross domestic product)

DIRECT DRIVERS

INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES

LAND USE CHANGE

(Landscape homogeneity)

Scenario archetype

DEMOGRAPHIC

(Population)

TECHNOLOGY

Scenario archetype

NATURAL RESOURCE

EXTRACTION

CLIMATE CHANGE

(Temperature)

(Sustainable consumption)

TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUTIONAL (Environmental proactivity)

CLIMATE CHANGE (Temperature)

LAND USE CHANGE (Landscape homogeneity)

NATURAL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION

POLLUTION

ALIEN INVASIVE SPECIES

Business-as-usual

Economic optimism

Regional competition

Regional sustainability

Global sustainable

development

Inequality

Strong increase

Positive

Increase

Neutral

Negative

Stable

Decrease

Not interpreted in terms of impacts

Strong decrease

Lack of evidence

generally lead to declines in biodiversity and regulating

ecosystem services, but to increases in provisioning

ecosystem services

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3,

5.6.1}.

Regional competition

scenarios lead to the most

negative impacts, particularly for non-material nature’s

contributions to people and indicators of good quality

of life

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3, 5.6.1}. In

both types of scenarios, development is driven by

economic growth, leading to strong positive effects for

nature’s contributions to people with market values and

negative effects for contributions without market values

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3, 5.6.1}. For example,

scenarios for Western and Central Europe, which prioritize

increases in food provision through agricultural expansion

or intensification, lead to trade-offs with regulating

contributions to people and biodiversity. Likewise, scenarios

for Eastern Europe that focus on timber extraction lead to

highly managed forests with decreased climate regulation

and value for cultural or recreational purposes.

Sustainability-focused scenarios (e.g.,

global sustainable

development

regional sustainability)

assume a proactive

approach to environmental issues that anticipates change

and thereby minimizes adverse impacts and capitalizes on

opportunities {5.1.1}. Such scenarios cause increases in most

of nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life, but

have mixed biodiversity trends

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3, 5.6.1}. Trade-offs occur in these scenarios, especially

involving land and water use (such as the effects of reduced

agricultural intensity or of increases in bioenergy cropland, on

other land uses and biodiversity) {5.3.3, 5.6.1}.

Impacts under

business-as-usual

scenarios are highly

variable regionally. In general, the impacts on biodiversity,

nature’s contributions to people and good quality of

life are more positive than for

economic optimism

and

regional competition,

but more negative than for

regional

sustainability

and

global sustainable development

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3, 5.6.1}.

Scenarios considering climate change indicate increases

in agricultural production for food, feed and bioenergy in

the northern part of the European Union, but decreases

in agricultural and timber production in the southern part

(Figure SPM.10).

Major water shortages are projected in the

9. Here the term “regional” is not meant to denote “IPBES regions”, but

reflects a more general meaning across the assessed literature, where it

is used with reference to subnational, national or larger areas.

POLLUTION

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Figure SPM

Projected future impacts on biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and good

quality of life according to six scenario archetypes for Europe and Central Asia up

to 2100 (see Box SPM.3 for details of the scenario archetypes) {2.2.6, 3.5, 5.3.3}.

Green symbols with upward arrow indicate an increase, purple symbols with horizontal arrow a stable trend, and orange symbols with

downward arrow a decrease. Thick arrows indicate evidence from the literature based on ten or more model indicators per scenario

archetype, thin arrows indicate evidence based on fewer than ten.

Regional sustainability

Regional competition

Economic optimism

Global sustainable

development

Business-as-usual

(Sustainable consumption)

TECHNOLOGY

INSTITUTIONAL (Environmental proactivity)

CLIMATE CHANGE (Temperature)

LAND USE CHANGE (Landscape homogeneity)

N AT U R E

Biodiversity, biophysical assemblages and processes

Pollination

Regulation of air quality

Regulation of climate

R E G U L AT I N G

N AT U R E ’S

C ON T R I B U T I O N S

T O PE OP LE

Regulation of freshwater quantity

Regulation of freshwater quality

Formation of soils

Regulation of hazards

Regulation of organisms detrimental to humans

M AT E RI AL

N AT U R E ’ S

C O N T R I BU T I ON S

T O P E O P LE

Food and feed

Materials (forest products)

Water resources

Learning and inspiration

Physical and psychological experiences

Supporting identities

Education and knowledge

N ON - M AT E R I AL

N AT U R E ’ S

C ON T RI BU T I O NS

T O PE OP LE

G OO D QU A LI TY

O F LI F E

Physical, mental and emotional health

Security and livelihoods

Increase > 50%

Decrease > 50%

Stable >50%

Variable

(no one class > 50%)

Lack of evidence

Conﬁdence level

n>=10

n<10

long term for Central Asia, parts of Central Europe, and the

Mediterranean, leading to key trade-offs for water use and

management in different sectors, including the maintenance

of environmental flows

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.3}.

Trade-offs depend on scenario assumptions about

lifestyle and consumption, which affect the demand for

nature’s contributions to people, and policies affecting the

management and governance of resources. For example,

global sustainable development

scenarios assume changes

in dietary preferences towards reducing meat consumption,

behavioural changes to save water and energy, and the

implementation of integrated and sustainable land and water

management practices. These lead to positive outcomes

for biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and good

quality of life. Scenarios that assume strong international or

Inequality

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM

Trends in impacts on biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and good quality

of life indicators that are consistent across most scenario archetypes (see Box

SPM.3 for details of the scenario archetypes) {5.3.3}.

The Western European region has been divided into four parts (northern, Atlantic, Alpine and southern), in view of the greater number

of available studies.

WESTERN EUROPE

• Northern

Biodiversity

Food and feed

Energy

Materials (forest products)

EASTERN EUROPE

Regulation of hazards (wildﬁres)

Food and feed (ﬁsheries)

• Atlantic

Regulation of climate

Food and feed (marine)

Materials (forest products)

• Alpine

Regulation of climate

Physical and psychological

experiences

• Southern /Mediterranean

Biodiversity

Food and feed

Materials (forest products)

Water resources

Physical and psychological

experiences

CENTRAL EUROPE

Regulation of climate

Regulation of freshwater quality

Food and feed

Materials (forest products)

Water resources

CENTRAL ASIA

Regulation of freshwater quality

Food and feed

Water resources

Security and livelihoods

Increase

Stable to decrease

Decrease

transboundary coordination of adaptive measures between

multiple stakeholders lead to more sustainable solutions

across scales and regions. Scenario assumptions in

inequality

scenarios also affect how different social groups

appropriate nature’s contributions to people

(established but

incomplete)

{5.2.3, 5.3.3}.

Future impacts on biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people are underestimated because

most scenarios consider only a few drivers, notably

climate change

(well established)

{5.2.2, 5.3.2}.

Single-driver scenarios also fail to capture driver

interactions

(well established)

{5.2.2, 5.3.2}.

Single-driver and single-sector approaches are likely

to misrepresent the direction, magnitude or spatial

pattern of impacts on biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people, leading to poor management

or policy decisions

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.1}.

Many scenarios consider climate change as a single driver

(well established).

The few multi-driver scenarios are largely

based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and,

hence, focus on long-term climate change issues (to 2100).

Pollution and invasive alien species are poorly represented

in scenarios

(well established)

{5.2.2}. Land-use change

is rarely considered as a direct driver of biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people because land-use change

scenarios focus more on the effects of indirect drivers

(e.g., policy, social preferences and economics) on land use

per se

(established but incomplete)

{5.2.1}. There are fewer

scenarios of future land-use change impacts on biodiversity

and nature’s contributions to people than empirical studies

of past trends

(established but incomplete).

Single-driver

scenarios fail to capture feedbacks and synergies between

and amongst indirect and direct drivers operating across

different scales

(established but incomplete)

{5.3.4}.

Integrated scenarios and models are explicit about nature

and cover multiple drivers, sectors and scales. This

enhances the understanding of complex interdependencies

between human and environmental systems to support

coordinated decision-making {5.2.2, 5.3.1}.

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Figure SPM

Summary of the extent to which goals similar to the Sustainable Development

Goals are expected to be achieved under the scenario archetypes up to 2100 and

pathways to sustainability up to 2050 for Europe and Central Asia {5.3.4, 5.5.4}.

Part

shows that the scenario archetypes

regional sustainability

and

global sustainable development

project a widespread

achievement of goals (see

Box SPM.3

for description of the scenario archetypes). Part

introduces pathways that support the

achievement of goals albeit to a different extent. This is exempliﬁed in part

where the wedges indicate the extent to which the

pathways address each goal (see D3 for description of the pathways).

orange = widespread failure in the achievement of goals; green = widespread achievement of goals; grey = mixed achievement of

goals.

darker shades of green indicate a greater number of goals are addressed by the pathways.

two examples of pathways

with smaller and greater number of goals addressed.

Achievement of goals similar to the

Sustainable Development Goals

SCENARIO ARCHETYPES

Business-as-usual

Economic optimism

Regional competition

Regional sustainability

Global sustainable development

Inequality

Number of goals similar to the Sustainable Development

Goals addressed

PATHWAYS

Transition movements – resource sparing

Transition movements – collaboration

Number of Sustainable

Development Goals addressed

Green economy – land sharing

Low carbon – innovation

Greater

Widespread achievement of goals

Mixed achievement of goals

Widespread failure in the achievement of goals

Green economy – innovation

Low carbon – regional multifunctionality

Ecotopian – innovation

Ecotopian – local multifunctionality

Green economy – land sparing

Smaller

Examples of pathways

Green economy – land sparing

Transition movements – resource sparing

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Pathways propose coherent sets of actions

towards the sustainable futures envisioned for the

region

(established but incomplete)

{5.1.2, 5.4.3, 5.5.2}.

The most effective pathways stress longterm societal

transformation (behavioural change) through

education, knowledge sharing and participatory

decision-making. These pathways emphasize nature’s

regulating contributions to people and the importance

of considering diverse values

(established but

incomplete)

{5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4}.

Four types of pathways are specified. Two types of

pathways do not challenge the economic growth paradigm

(green economy

and

low carbon transformation

pathways).

They include actions related to technological innovation,

land sparing or land sharing, and focus on combinations of

top-down legal and regulatory instruments and economic

and financial instruments. These pathways do not fully

mitigate trade-offs and may not be able to achieve

sustainable futures

(established but incomplete)

{5.5.2,

5.5.4, 5.6.1}. The third type of pathways focus on radical

social innovation to achieve local food and energy

selfsufficiency and local supply of nature’s contributions

to people

(ecotopian solutions).

They emphasize local

multifunctionality, green infrastructure, urban design and

food production

(established but incomplete)

{5.5.2, 5.5.4,

5.6.1}. The fourth type of pathways emphasize a change

towards diverse values, promoting resource-sparing

lifestyles, continuous education and innovative forms of

agriculture where different knowledge systems combine

with technological innovation

(transition movements).

They

achieve transformation using social and information-based

policy instruments focusing on participatory processes,

community actions and voluntary agreements. Rights-based

instruments and customary norms, including indigenous

and local knowledge, are used in combination with legal,

regulatory and economic instruments

(established but

incomplete)

{5.5.3, 5.6.1}. Actions proposed in all of

the pathways can be combined. For example, short-

term, incremental actions in

green economy

and

low

carbon transformation

pathways may pave the way for

more transformative

transition movements

pathways

(established but incomplete)

{5.5.4}. Despite distinct

differences, all pathways stress some of the governance

options highlighted in section E, including mainstreaming,

integrated approaches that cut across sectoral boundaries,

awareness-raising tools, education and participation

to facilitate multi-actor governance

(established but

incomplete)

{5.5.3}.

Box SPM

Evidence from this regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia relevant in the

context of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals.

for conservation could also improve progress towards Target 3

(harmful incentives eliminated, positive incentives developed

and applied)

(Table SPM.4)

{6.2, 6.4.1}. Several countries

have implemented ecological fiscal reforms, with mixed results

(established but incomplete)

{6.2, 6.4.1, 6.4.2}, but some policy

instruments continue to have negative environmental impacts

(well established)

{4.3.1}. Without complementary strategies

for reducing the impacts of consumption and production,

more efficient resource use alone is unlikely to render current

production and consumption patterns sustainable (Target 4

- sustainable consumption and production)

(Table SPM.4)

{6.5.4, 6.6.2, 6.6.3.2}.

Pressure from direct drivers on biodiversity is unlikely

to be reduced

(established but incomplete)

and the use

of biodiversity is not yet sustainable

(well established)

(Strategic Goal B).

The evidence base in Europe and

Central Asia related to the global Aichi Biodiversity Target 5

(habitat loss halved or brought close to zero) shows negative

trends in biodiversity in agricultural areas {3.3.2.9}, important

ecosystems such as seagrass beds {3.3.4}, and many fish

stocks {4.4.1}(established

but incomplete).

Target 5 (habitat

loss halved or brought close to zero) could, however, be

achieved for terrestrial biodiversity in all subregions through,

inter alia, effective and representative protected areas

(see Target 11), mainstreaming biodiversity considerations

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, including

its 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets under five Strategic Goals,

provides a framework for the United Nations system, including

national Governments and others, for management and policy

development on biodiversity. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

Development, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, sets

out the broader strategy towards global sustainability for the

United Nations. This assessment summarizes the progress that

the literature has reported towards these goals, as far as they

pertain to the region and as far as there is sufficient evidence.

Evidence relevant in the context of the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets

Evidence suggests progress in addressing the underlying

causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity

across government and society (Strategic Goal A)

(established but incomplete),

although subsidies with

negative impacts have not yet been reformed

(well

established).

Public awareness about the importance

of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Aichi Biodiversity

Target 1) appears to be increasing. Progress has also been

reported in integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into

planning processes and national accounting in Western and

Central Europe (Target 2)

(established but incomplete)

{6.6.2}.

Substantial reforms could reduce the negative impacts of

subsidies

(Table SPM.4)

{4.4.1}. Increasing positive incentives

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

into and across all sectors and policies and integrated

conservation management

(established but incomplete).

Contributions toward Targets 6 (sustainable management

of marine living resources) and 10 (pressures on vulnerable

ecosystems reduced) for the deep-sea are hampered by

increased habitat degradation, and declines in biodiversity and

ecosystem functioning. More effective fisheries management

and increasing protected areas could improve this situation

(well established)

{3.3.4, 6.5.3}. Current trends in freshwater

and terrestrial biodiversity suggest that it is highly unlikely

that Europe and Central Asia will be able to fully contribute to

Targets 7 (sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and forestry), 8

(pollution reduced) and 9 (invasive alien species prevented and

controlled)

(well established)

{3.4.3}.

Progress has been made toward improving the status of

biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and

genetic diversity (Strategic Goal C) through protected

areas

(well established).

The extinction risk of domestic

breeds is increasing and the genetic diversity of

cultivated plants is decreasing, in spite of measures to

counter this

(well established).

Overall trends in biodiversity

are still negative, however. Europe and Central Asia appears to

achieve protected area coverage of 17 per cent of its terrestrial

surface (Target 11) {3.2.9}, notwithstanding great variability in

the level of protection. The European Union already protects

about 25 per cent of its terrestrial surface. There has been a

general increase in the number and extent of marine protected

areas in the region. In 2017, 15 countries protected more

than 10 per cent of their marine waters, and 12 per cent of

the Baltic Sea area is protected

(well established)

{3.3.4.7}.

Other marine systems, especially those further from the

coast, are less protected

(well established).

The ecological

representativeness, connectivity and management of protected

areas have improved, but most still lack management measures

to protect biodiversity, such as no-take zones

(well established)

{3.3.4}. In spite of some progress, current trends in biodiversity

make it highly unlikely that the region will be able to contribute

fully to achieving Targets 10, 11 and 12 (extinction prevented)

{3.4, 3.5}. Downward trends in the Red List Index (increasing

aggregate extinction risk) and Living Planet Index (decreasing

population trends) also indicate that Europe and Central

Asia will not be able to fully contribute to meeting Target 12.

Europe and Central Asia are contributing to Target 13 (genetic

diversity maintained) through the development of safeguards

for rare domestic breeds and germplasms of cultivated

plants. The extinction risk of domestic animal breeds is

increasing, however, and there is evidence of the genetic

erosion of cultivated plants under modern production systems

(established but incomplete).

The Europe and Central Asia region has not advanced in

enhancing the benefits to all people from biodiversity and

ecosystem services (Strategic Goal D), as a consequence

of the deterioration of nature’s capacity to provide

certain contributions to people

(well established)

{2.2.5}

and the unequal distribution of nature’s contributions

(established but incomplete)

{2.3.4}.

Owing to biodiversity

trends in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems,

it is highly unlikely that Europe and Central Asia will fully

contribute to achieving Target 14 (ecosystems and essential

services safeguarded) {3.3}

(Figure SPM.6).

Progress is

being made towards contributing to Target 16 (Nagoya

Protocol in force and operational). By 2014, when 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 entered into force, eight

parties to the Protocol (15 per cent) in Europe and Central Asia

had ratified the Protocol, while by 2017, the number had grown

to 25 (46 per cent), including the European Union {6.4.1}.

Enhanced implementation through participatory

planning, knowledge management and capacity-building

(Strategic Goal E) has been positive where the Aichi

Biodiversity Targets have informed the development

of national-level targets. This has not been achieved,

however, where indigenous and local knowledge and

practices have declined or not been fully respected in

relation to traditional land use

(well established).

The

Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been translated into national-

level targets in all but 13 countries in the region. This suggests

progress towards Target 17 (national biodiversity strategies

and action plans adopted as policy instruments) {6.4.1}. The

practices and knowledge of indigenous peoples and local

communities in Western and Central Europe have continued

to decline since the 1960s and have often not been fully

respected or even marginalized, in contrast to Target 18

(traditional knowledge respected)

(well established).

Evidence

suggests that the further mobilization of financial resources

(Target 20) is key for increasing the success of policy to achieve

biodiversity conservation objectives

(well established)

{6.3.2,

6.3.3, 6.4.1, 6.5.4, 6.6.2, 6.6.4}.

Evidence relevant in the context of the Sustainable

Development Goals

Progress in contributing towards achieving the

Sustainable Development Goals has generally been

positive in Europe and Central Asia in terms of

environmental protection, human health, food security

and water security (particularly in Europe) {2.3.1, 2.3.2}

(well established).

Nature offers various contributions to good

quality of life, supporting the achievement of Goal 3 (good

health and well-being)

(well established)

{2.3.2}. Conversely,

the consumption of natural resources in Western Europe has

increased large-scale land acquisition in other parts of the

world, including Eastern Europe and Central Asia

(established

but incomplete)

{2.2.4, 2.3.1.1}. This may contribute to

not achieving Goal 2 (zero hunger), Goal 7 (affordable and

clean energy) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and

production). The erosion of indigenous and local knowledge

and the associated decline in sustainable traditional land use

threatens the region’s contribution to accomplishing Goal 2

and Goal 4 (quality education)

(established but incomplete)

{2.2.3.1.2}. Future climate and land-use change will decrease

water security (Goal 6 - clean water and sanitation), with the

number of water-stressed countries in Europe and Central

Asia expected to increase by 2030

(well established)

{2.3.1.2}.

Some advances have been made towards accomplishing

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

environmental protection goals (Goals 14 – life below water

and 15 – life on land), but the negative trend of biodiversity

especially in agricultural areas currently restricts progress

towards contributing to Goal 15 {3.3.2.9}. Despite some recent

progress, the conservation of at least 10 per cent of coastal

and marine areas by 2020, a target under Goal 14, has not

been reached for all marine systems

(well established),

although

it has already been surpassed in some coastal areas of the

North and Baltic Seas and by 15 countries

(well established).

Beyond the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and

Sustainable Development Goals

Looking beyond the 2030 timescale of the Sustainable

Development Goals up to 2100, scenario analysis

highlights that the continuation of past and current

trends in drivers (as represented in

business-as-usual

scenarios) will inhibit the region from contributing to the

widespread achievement of goals similar to and including

the Sustainable Development Goals. In contrast,

scenarios which focus on achieving a balanced supply

of nature’s contributions to people and incorporate

a diversity of values are more likely to contribute to

achieving the majority of such goals

(established

but incomplete).

A continuation of the business-as-usual

approach in Europe and Central Asia is expected to result

in failure to contribute to achieving most of the Sustainable

Development Goals (contribution to achieving 4 out of 17), and

Aichi Biodiversity Targets (contribution to achieving 8 out of 20)

(established but incomplete).

Scenarios of

economic optimism

are expected to enable the region to contribute to achieving

8 of the Goals, but only 4 of the 20 Targets. Scenarios of

regional competition

are expected to enable the region to

contribute to achieving only two of the Goals and only one of

the Targets

(established but incomplete).

By contrast, scenarios

sustainability

are expected to enable the region to contribute

to achieving the majority of the Goals (14) and Targets (14)

(established but incomplete)

{5.4, 5.6.}. A more comprehensive

visual summary is provided in

Figure SPM.11.

E. Promising governance options

for Europe and Central Asia

Mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable

use of biodiversity and the sustained provision of

nature’s contributions to people into policies, plans,

programmes, strategies and practices of public and

private actors could be achieved with more proactive,

focused and goal-oriented environmental action,

including quantitative goals

(well established)

{6.1, 6.3,

6.4, 6.5, 6.6; Figure 6.15}.

The conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in

the more than 80 per cent of landscapes and seascapes

outside protected areas would benefit from embedding

biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and

practices of public and private actors that impact or rely

on biodiversity {Table 6.1; Figure 6.2, Figure 6.15}. These

considerations are equally important inside protected areas.

Although progress has been made towards mainstreaming

by setting up, reviewing and updating biodiversity strategies

and action plans at multiple levels, existing legislation

in all economic sectors could be implemented more

effectively {6.3, 6.4.1}

(Table SPM.4).

Mainstreaming the

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity would

benefit environmental policies {6.4.2}, economic sectors and

business actors depending on, or influencing, biodiversity

{6.4.1, 6.5, 6.6; Table 6.10}

(Table SPM.4).

Opportunities

to successfully mainstream biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people, in public and private policy and

decision-making

(Table SPM.4)

{6.6, 6.6.1; Figure 6.13},

could be harnessed by: first, raising awareness of the

dependence of good quality of life on nature, enhancing

capacity-building and strengthening participation of

affected actors in decision processes; second, defining

policy objectives concerning the ecological, economic

and sociocultural needs for achieving sustainable living,

taking account of the diverse values of nature for different

stakeholder groups; and, third, designing instruments and

policy mixes to support the implementation of effective,

efficient and equitable policy and decision-making for nature

and a good quality of life {6.6, 6.6.1}. Taking the European

Union Common Agricultural Policy as an example, a number

of factors would increase the effectiveness, efficiency and

equity of related policy instruments. These factors include

a better definition of clear and coherent objectives for the

Common Agricultural Policy, simultaneously addressing

multiple ecosystem services; a more defined focus on

biodiversity conservation and the delivery of nature’s

contributions to people at the landscape level; a more

explicit disclosure of trade-offs and synergies between

different objectives; and more balanced and transparent

funding between the production of agricultural commodities

and the delivery of public goods {6.5.1.3}.

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Table SPM

Policy options and opportunities for mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

and the sustained provision of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia.

Building on three key steps of mainstreaming, options and opportunities for mainstreaming are provided for seven policy and economic sectors. The

evidence shows that biodiversity and nature conservation will beneﬁt from being mainstreamed in environmental policies and all economic sectors and

their policies and that nature’s contributions to people will beneﬁt from being mainstreamed in all economic sectors, as well as the conservation sector.

The table synthesizes those policy options and opportunities from the sectoral analyses in chapter 6 that are relevant to all sectors. It can be used by

Sectors

STEPS

STEP 1:

Raising

awareness

OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Encourage education, joint learning and common understanding

Promote information sharing, transparency, knowledge management and training

Make trade-offs and tipping points visible at the relevant spatial scales

Encourage participation and dialogue among different actors

Make diverse values visible through national and business accounting

Mainstream recognition of need for profound societal transformation towards

sustainability

STEP 2:

Defining

policy

objectives

Adopt and translate international and regional targets and standards into

national and local strategies and action plans

Improve integration and coherence of legislation, sectoral policies and planning

processes, to account for trade-offs and synergies

Develop context appropriate targets and objectives to stimulate positive change

Increase transparency and participation of a wide range of actors including

indigenous peoples and local communities in decision making

STEP 3:

Designing

instruments

and policy

mixes

Legal and regulatory instruments

Define and ensure property and access rights and responsibility

Set up, adjust and enforce legal and regulatory standards to sustain biodiversity

and nature’s contributions to people

Set up areas to protect biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

Economic and ﬁnancial instruments

Phase out harmful subsidies

Tax and charge negative environmental impacts

Redistribute public revenues considering ecological objectives

Reward socio-economic activities delivering public goods

Secure conservation financing

Foster sustainable technological and social innovation

Social and information-based instruments

Promote eco-labelling and certification schemes and improve their transparency

and accountability

Promote voluntary agreements and partnerships for responsible management,

which include self-enforcement mechanisms

Promote sense of agency and efficacy through the enhancement of public

participation

Support social norms that promote sustainable lifestyles and practices

Rights-based approaches and customary norms

Strengthen the use of indigenous and local knowledge and practices

Strengthen the consideration of cultural properties and heritage in protecting

sites and landscapes

Strengthen the use of Social License to Operate or similar approaches to

recognize the needs of indigenous peoples and local communities

1. Include the following policy areas: Marine and freshwater quality and quantity, flood management, air and wider environmental pollution (including eutrophication and

acidification), waste management, mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, soil management and land degradation. Options and opportunities in rows left blank have

been covered by the other sectors, also in relation to their environmental outcomes.

2. Include the following policy areas: Energy, mining, manufacturing.

3. Include the following policy areas: Health, education and research, transport, tourism, finance.

CONSERVATION

ENVIRONMENT

Subregions

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

policymakers of the subregions as a checklist to identify potential for improvement and for new policy instruments not yet initiated within the subregion.

Although they have scope for improvement, legal and regulatory instruments are the most widely applied policy instrument category in all sectors and

subregions, emphasizing their role as the backbone of policy mixes. Social and information-based instruments have been partly implemented in some

subregions. There is also considerable scope for new or improved economic and ﬁnancial instruments. Rights-based approaches and customary

norms are the least developed and applied instrument category, indicating knowledge gaps (see

Box SPM.5)

or possibly a lack of attention or even

acknowledgement to indigenous and local knowledge and practices.

AGRICULTURE

FORESTRY

FISHERIES

EXTRACTIVE &

MANUFACTURING

SERVICES

WE =

WESTERN EUROPE

CE =

CENTRAL EUROPE

EE =

EASTERN EUROPE

CA =

CENTRAL ASIA

NOT ASSESSED

= NOT APPLICABLE

EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED

IMPLEMENTED WITH SCOPE FOR IMPROVEMENT

UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR STARTED

NOT YET INITIATED

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

Developing integrated approaches across sectors

would enable more systematic consideration of

biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people by

public and private decision makers

(well established)

{6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6.4.1; Figure 6.2}. This includes

further options to measure national welfare beyond

current economic indicators, taking account of the

diverse values of nature {6.6.3.1}. Ecological fiscal

reforms would provide an integrated set of incentives

to support the shift to sustainable development

(established but incomplete)

{4.3–4.8, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.2}.

Conventional sectoral approaches are insufficient to tackle

interlinked environmental, economic and social challenges.

Actions in one sector may affect other sectors, because

policy design, instrument choice, or policy implementation

rarely consider trade-offs {6.2, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6, 6.6.4.1,

6.6.4.2; Box 6.1, Box 6.9}. Without coordination between,

and sustainable management practices within, sectors,

there is evidence that agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining,

energy, manufacturing and the services sector may exert

negative impacts on biodiversity, on nature’s contributions

to people and on the livelihoods of indigenous peoples

and local communities {4.2.2, 6.4.2, 6.5.1–6.5.5, 6.6.4.1;

Table 6.6}. Taking individual sectors as an example, a

mismatch has been detected between the low degree

of forest sector integration with other policy sectors

on the one hand, and on the other its high potential to

contribute to policy integration {6.5.2.3}. While some

instruments of the European Union Common Agricultural

Policy support extensive management practices, others

are less well suited to, or implemented by, particularly,

Central European countries of the European Union, to

support indigenous and local knowledge and practices

of small and semi-subsistence farms in high nature value

farmland {6.5.1.2}. With regard to economy-wide policy

integration, reflecting the real changes in the diverse values

of nature’s contributions to people in national income

accounts is one option to provide better information and

help to mitigate trade-offs {6.6.3.1}. Another option would

be complementing national income accounts with satellite

accounts containing information on the costs of ecosystem

degradation. Ecological fiscal reform that creates an

integrated set of incentives by redirecting taxation from

labour to environment, including ecological indicators in

intergovernmental fiscal relations and by greening public

expenditure programmes, could support the shift to

sustainable development {6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.2}. Designing,

implementing and assessing instruments in relation to

their role in the overall policy mix would help to mitigate

conflicting policy goals and trade-offs {6.2, 6.4.1, 6.5.5,

6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.6.4.1, 6.6.5.5; Box 6.1}. The use of proactive

strategies, tools and methodologies to account for diverse

values and criteria, and of participatory processes can

support trade-off analyses and facilitate policy integration

{6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.4, 6.6.5}.

Effective governance of biodiversity and nature’s

contributions to people would benefit from well-

designed mixes of policy instruments, suited to the

context

(well established).

Legal and regulatory

instruments are the backbone of policy mixes, and

economic, financial, social and information-based

instruments provide additional incentives for

Governments, businesses, non-governmental

organizations and citizens. Further efforts would help

to develop better rights-based approaches {6.2, 6.3,

6.4, 6.5, 6.6; Figure 6.2; Boxes 6.2, 6.4}

(Table SPM.4).

key factor constraining the effectiveness of existing

policy mixes is limited enforcement owing, for

example, to a lack of human resources, institutional

capacity and financial means, or corruption

(well

established)

{6.3.1, 6.4.1, 6.4.2}.

Where legal and regulatory instruments are concerned,

the ratification and implementation of international treaties

and transboundary agreements provide strong impetus for

improving national and subnational policies in all sectors

{6.3}. Marine protected areas, however, need more attention

{4.5.4, 6.4.1}. For freshwater ecosystems, the European

Union Water Framework Directive is of particular importance

for achieving a good status for surface and groundwater

{6.3.2.3, 6.4.2, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.5.3, 6.5.4, 6.6.3, 6.6.5.5},

although integration and implementation of such novel

governance approaches often remain incomplete, and

ineffective when member States retain existing structures

and procedures without transferring responsibilities and

power to the river basin authorities {6.4.2}. Similar structures

have been developed in non-European Union countries,

such as Ukraine, which share river basins with European

Union countries {6.4.2}. Targeted spatial and urban planning

integrated across sectors and scales can support the

conservation of biodiversity and nature’s contributions

to people, and enhance the quality of life of urban

dwellers {6.6.4.2}.

Economic and financial instruments complement regulatory

and other policy instruments by balancing conservation

benefits and costs between actors and regions

(well

established)

{5.5.3, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6}. Improving

existing policies and developing and implementing new

policies could help to avoid biodiversity loss and ecosystem

degradation

(established but incomplete)

{6.2, 6.4.1,

6.4.2, 6.5, 6.6.2, 6.6.5.2; Tables 6.5, 6.6}

(Table SPM.4).

Since markets undervalue nature’s contributions to people,

economic and financial instruments aim to change the

behaviour of businesses, land users, citizens and public-

sector actors, through incentives and disincentives to

correct price signals. Environmental taxes, charges and

fees make environmental pollution and habitat degradation

more expensive, thereby making the polluter pay, whereas

payments for ecosystem services or compensation

payments reward conservation-friendly behaviour that is

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

otherwise not profitable or affordable {6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.5.2}.

Reforming environmentally harmful subsidies in sectors that

negatively affect ecosystems (e.g., agriculture, fisheries,

energy) would support more cost-effective use of public

funds in reaching conservation objectives. Innovative

economic and financial instruments include biodiversity

offsets and habitat banking, tax reliefs, ecological fiscal

transfers and integrated funding for biodiversity and climate-

change adaptation {5.5.3, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.5.1–6.5.5, 6.6.2,

6.6.3.2, 6.6.5.2}. Economic and financial instruments are

more effective if customized to relevant scales, from global

to national and local conditions in achieving conservation

targets, while considering social impacts {6.2, 6.4,

6.6.2, 6.6.5}.

Social and information-based policy instruments have the

capacity to integrate environmental concerns and to trigger

behavioural change at the local, national and international

levels, and to include consumers and producers in policy

development

(established but incomplete)

{6.2, 6.3,

6.4, 6.5, 6.6.5.3; Table 6.5, Table 6.6}

(Table SPM.4).

Enhanced consumer awareness, media coverage, business

commitment and sustainable government procurement

have increased the market shares of certified products

{6.6.5.3}. Progress with certification is more advanced in

countries with developed market economies and less so in

countries in economic transition

(Table SPM.4).

Owing to

the lack of compliance mechanisms and clearly assigned

responsibilities, there is a trade-off between the effectiveness

of certification schemes and their accountability and impact.

Efforts to change social norms through education and

information-based campaigns promoting pro-environment

behaviour have also been important {4.5.3, 5.5.3, 6.2, 6.4.1,

6.4.2.3, 6.5.1.2, 6.5.2–6.5.5, 6.6.5.3}.

Rights-based instruments and customary norms are

increasingly supported and promoted by a wide range of

multilateral environmental agreements, and by human rights

(established but incomplete)

{6.2, 6.3, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.2.6,

6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6.5.4} (Table SPM.4). Those instruments

integrate rights, norms, standards, and principles into policy,

planning, implementation and evaluation, and offer ways

to reconcile biodiversity conservation and human rights

standards {6.2; Table 6.2}. While decisions by multilateral

environmental agreements are implemented at the national

level, the recognition of human rights, and in particular the

rights of indigenous peoples, in relation to sustainable use

of biodiversity varies considerably between countries in

Europe and Central Asia

(Table SPM.4).

Further efforts

would be required for the full integration of the fundamental

principles of good governance; equalizing power relations

and facilitating capacity building.

For all these instruments and their combination in policy

mixes, ecosystem-based approaches, such as successfully

implemented in the Norwegian system of fisheries

management {Box 6.11}, the concept of nature-based

solutions, as promoted by the European Union, or the idea

of a circular economy adopt a more systemic perspective to

environmental problems rather than addressing single issues

{2.2.1.7, 6.4.2.1}.

A wide range of actors and stakeholders is

increasingly integrated into governance processes.

This can have a positive effect on biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people if the effectiveness,

efficiency and equity implications of such integration

are carefully monitored, evaluated and improved

(well

established)

{6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6}. Lack of adequate

financing is a major constraint on efforts to achieve

biodiversity conservation and ecosystem restoration

(well established)

{6.4.1}.

The role of multi-actor environmental governance is

recognized in Western and Central Europe, and increasingly

also in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In parallel to

top-down governance, decision-making concerning

biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is

increasingly devolved to public-private partnerships, co-

management arrangements or even private governance,

involving many stakeholders {6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6; Tables 6.1,

6.8}. Promising developments include the establishment

of new protected areas, and the protection of cultural

landscapes through the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World

Heritage Convention, the European Landscape Convention,

and the International Union for Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) protected landscape approach, where various

forms of knowledge are integrated into management.

Assessing the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of

promising governance arrangements and taking power

relationships and asymmetries into consideration require

careful evaluation and monitoring {6.2, 6.4.2.2, 6.5.1.2,

6.5.1.5, 6.5.1.6, 6.2.2.2; Table 6.8; Boxes 6.7, 6.11}.

This holds especially true for environmental governance

in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia with

their rapid transformation processes since the early 1990s,

moving from hierarchical, state-dominated processes to

more collaborative governance processes {6.4.2; 6.5.1.4}.

Another key challenge for policy success is posed by

sufficient mobilization of financial resources. Increased

funding from both public and private sources, together with

innovative financing mechanisms, such as ecological fiscal

transfers, would help to strengthen institutional capacities; to

invest in research, training, capacity-building and education;

to employ necessary staff; and to secure monitoring

activities {6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.4.1, 6.5.4, 6.6.2, 6.6.4}.

Dealing with change is a matter of societal

choice (see D1). The way in which we choose to

organize our societies and institutions, in both public

and private spheres, is key to the realization of

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

pathways towards the sustainable future envisioned

by a diverse range of actors in Europe and Central

Asia

(well established)

{6.6.6}.

The design of promising governance options and smart

institutional arrangements supports the effective involvement

of different actors in policy and decision-making with the aim

of promoting shared responsibility for our common future.

Developing pathways and corresponding experiments in

a participatory manner, including all relevant stakeholder

groups and indigenous peoples and local communities,

enables the inclusion of a diversity of perspectives and

promotes the necessary deliberation of strategic planning

and agenda-setting {5.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.6, 5.6.2}.

Governing direct and indirect drivers in complex adaptive

systems, a process which often includes various forms

of incomplete knowledge, would benefit from limiting

institutional failures and promoting policy processes

that stimulate adaptation and learning. Hence, policies,

programmes and strategies may be seen as experiments

that require governance and management for – rather

than against – change, and systematic monitoring and

evaluation. This can be achieved incrementally through

adaptive governance and management and the systematic

improvement of policy implementation, or via transition

governance and management, and the organization of

evolutionary processes of societal change {6.2, 6.4.2,

6.6, 6.6.6}.

Box SPM

Key knowledge gaps.

better assess the status and trends for the whole region.

Monitoring ecosystem functioning and species interactions

is necessary to better understand the cascading effects of

biodiversity changes and anticipate ecological tipping points.

• Gaps in our understanding of drivers of biodiversity

change:

A better understanding is needed of ways in

which combinations of interacting indirect and direct drivers

influence biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

in various contexts. Furthermore, it is critical to understand

time lags in the effect of drivers on biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people to comprehend their real

impact. In addition, there is a key gap in the identification,

quantification and assessment of trends in drivers over time

owing to their high spatial and temporal variability. There are

also gaps in understanding the impact of climate change in

combination with context-specific drivers on biodiversity and

ecosystem services, especially with respect to tipping points

and planetary boundaries. Moreover, there are gaps in

understanding of the effects of interregional flows, especially

the effects of global trade on ecological footprints and

invasive alien species {4.7.1, 5.6.2}.

• Lack of integrated scenario and modelling studies:

Scenarios rarely account for effects of multiple drivers and

their interactions on impacts on the different components

of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and a good

quality of life {5.6.2}. There is also a significant gap in

terms of exploring the full range of synergies and trade-offs

between the multiple aspects of biodiversity, ecosystem

services and a good quality of life under different scenario

archetypes and across different scales. It is also important

to develop and couple process-based models of ecosystem

functioning with the human dimensions of socioecological

systems and to thoroughly evaluate these models, including

the assessment of uncertainties {5.6.2}.

In the course of conducting this assessment, key information

and data were not always available. Knowledge gaps are

especially acute in the subregions of Central Asia and Eastern

Europe, and in the Balkan countries in Central Europe {1.3,

1.6.1, 3.6, 5.6.2}. If future assessments are to provide a more

comprehensive account of the status and trends in nature and

its contributions to people, the following knowledge gaps would

need to be addressed:

• Gaps in our understanding of nature’s contributions

to people:

There is a need for better understanding,

quantification and integrated monitoring of the diverse values

of nature’s contributions to people. Moreover, there is limited

understanding of how these diverse values are endorsed by

different social groups and genders. Indigenous and local

knowledge systems and scientific knowledge could co-

produce such understanding in the future {2.5}. There is also

a lack of understanding about how biodiversity contributes

to ecosystem services, especially in marine systems.

• Gaps in our understanding of the contribution of

indigenous and local knowledge:

Little research has

been conducted on the integration of indigenous and

local knowledge into national and international policy

frameworks and initiatives to create synergies across

knowledge systems. These knowledge gaps exist not only

for biodiversity, but also in sectors of direct relevance to

biodiversity, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, water and

climate change {6.4.1.3, 6.4.2.4, 6.6.2}.

• Gaps in our understanding of the status and trends of

nature:

These gaps include habitat extent and intactness,

and species conservation status and trends for the whole

region, but critically for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In

addition, systematic and integrated biodiversity monitoring

of fungi, non-vascular plants, invertebrates, marine and

freshwater species and soil organisms are required to

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

• Gaps in the quantification and timing of pathways

towards desired futures:

Pathways and envisioning

studies are often not supported by modelling and, so,

lack detailed quantification of goals and actions. Detailed

description and sequencing of actions within pathways is

rare, as is information on combinations of policy instruments

to implement specific actions {5.6.2}. The incorporation of

combinations of exemplary

transition movements

pathways

into large-scale scenario exercises and into participatory

scenario development is suggested as a way forward

for better resolving trade-offs and for scaling-up local or

sectoral solutions {5.6.2}.

• Inadequate understanding of how to mainstream

policy objectives within different sectors and integrate

them across sectors and scales:

This requires a better

understanding of the interaction between different policy

instruments in existing policy mixes, not just the optimization

of single instruments. More knowledge is needed about

the effectiveness and efficiency of policy instruments that

also consider institutional contexts, social impacts and how

equity can be improved. There are further knowledge gaps

on the effects of policy instruments on behaviour (e.g.,

of households and of companies) and on the economic

and social systems within which these stakeholders

operate {6.6.5}.

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

APPENDICES

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

APPENDIX

Communication

of the degree of confidence

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).

High

LEVEL OF AGREEMENT

Inconclusive

Unresolved

Low

Robust

Low

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

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.A1).

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).

The summary terms to describe the evidence are:

Well established:

comprehensive meta-analysis

or other synthesis or multiple independent studies

that agree.

Established but incomplete:

general agreement

although only a limited number of studies exist; no

comprehensive synthesis and/or the studies that exist

address the question imprecisely.

Unresolved:

multiple independent studies exist but

conclusions do not agree.

Inconclusive:

limited evidence, recognizing major

knowledge gaps.

10. 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 from www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/spm_

deliverable_3a_pollination_20170222.pdf.

CERTAINTY SCALE

Established

but incomplete

Well established

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

APPENDIX

Nature’s contributions

to people

This appendix describes the evolving concept of nature’s

contributions to people and its relevance to this IPBES

regional assessment.

Nature’s contributions to people are all the contributions,

both positive and negative, of living nature (i.e., diversity

of organisms, ecosystems and their associated ecological

and evolutionary processes) to the quality of life of people.

Beneficial contributions from nature include such things as

food provision, water purification, flood control and artistic

inspiration, whereas detrimental contributions include

disease transmission and predation that damages people or

their assets. Many of nature’s contributions to people may

be perceived as benefits or detriments depending on the

cultural, temporal or spatial context.

The concept of nature’s contributions to people is intended

to broaden the scope of the widely-used ecosystem

services framework by more extensively considering

views held by other knowledge systems on human-nature

interactions. It is not intended to replace the concept of

ecosystem services. The concept of nature’s contributions

to people is intended to engage a wide range of social

sciences and humanities through a more integrated cultural

perspective on ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services has always included a cultural

component. For example, the Millennium Assessment

defined four broad groups of ecosystem services:

Supporting services (now part of “nature” in the IPBES

Conceptual Framework)

Provisioning services

Regulating services

Cultural services

At the same time, there has been a long-standing debate

in the ecosystem services science community, and in policy

circles, about how to deal with culture. The social science

community emphasizes that culture is the lens through

which ecosystem services are perceived and valued. In

addition, the groups of ecosystem services have tended to

be discrete, while nature’s contributions to people allow for

a more fluid connection across the groups. For example,

food production, traditionally considered to be a provisioning

service, can now be categorized both as a material and a

non-material contribution by nature to people. In many – but

not all – societies, people’s identities and social cohesion are

strongly linked to growing, gathering, preparing and eating

food together. It is thus the cultural context that determines

whether food is a material contribution by nature to people,

or one that is both material and non-material.

The concept of nature’s contributions to people was

developed to address the need to recognize the cultural

and spiritual impacts of biodiversity, in ways that are not

restricted to a discrete cultural ecosystem services category,

but instead encompass diverse world views of human-

nature relations. Nature’s contributions to people also make

it possible to consider negative impacts or contributions,

such as disease.

There are 18 categories of nature’s contributions to

people, many of which closely map onto classifications

of ecosystem services, especially for provisioning and

regulating services. These 18 categories of nature’s

contributions to people are illustrated in

Figure SPM.2.

The 18 categories fall into one or more of three broad

groups of nature’s contributions to people regulating,

material and non-material.

11. Díaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martín-López, B., Watson, R.T.,

Molnár, Z., Hill, R., Chan, K.M.A., Baste, I.A., Brauman, K.A., Polasky,

S., Church, A., Lonsdale, M., Larigauderie, A., Leadley, P.W., van

Oudenhoven, A.P.E., van der Plaat, F., Schröter, M., Lavorel, S.,

Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Bukvareva, E., Davies, K., Demissew, S.,

Erpul, G., Failler, P., Guerra, C.A., Hewitt, C.L., Keune, H., Lindley,

S., Shirayama, Y., 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people.

Science 359, 270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826.

12. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

Ecosystems and human

well-being.

(Island Press, Washington, D.C.).

THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

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 851034