UNITED

NATIONS BES
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Distr.: General
22 June 2018
Platform on Biodiversity and
English only
Ecosystem Services

Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy

Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Sixth session
Medellin, Colombia, 18–24 March 2018
Agenda item 6 (d)
Regional and subregional assessments of biodiversity and
ecosystem services: regional and subregional assessment
for Europe and Central Asia

Chapters of the regional and subregional assessment of

biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central
Asia
Note by the secretariat
1. In paragraph 2 of section III of decision IPBES-3/1, the Plenary of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) approved the undertaking
of four regional and subregional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, the
Americas, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia (hereinafter referred to as regional
assessments) in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of the Platform’s deliverables set
out in annex I to decision IPBES-3/3, the generic scoping report for the regional assessments of
biodiversity and ecosystem services set out in annex III to decision IPBES-3/1, and the scoping reports
for each of the four regional assessments (decision IPBES-3/1, annexes IV–VII).
2. In response to decision IPBES-3/1, a set of six chapters (IPBES/6/INF/3–6), together with a
summary for policymakers (IPBES/6/4–7), were produced for each of the regional assessments by an
expert group, in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of the Platform’s deliverables, for
consideration by the Plenary at its sixth session.
3. In paragraph 7 of section IV of decision IPBES-6/1, the Plenary approved the summary for
policymakers of the regional assessment for Europe and Central Asia (IPBES/6/15/Add.4) and
accepted the chapters of the assessment, on the understanding that the chapters would be revised
following the sixth session as document IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1 to correct factual errors and to ensure
consistency with the summary for policymakers as approved. The annex to the present note, which is
presented without formal editing, sets out the final set of chapters of the assessment for Europe and
Central Asia including their executive summaries.
A laid-out version of the final regional assessment report of biodiversity and ecosystem services for
Europe and Central Asia (including a foreword, statements from key partners, acknowledgements, a
preface, the summary for policymakers, the revised chapters and annexes setting out a glossary and
lists of acronyms, authors, review editors and expert reviewers) will be made available on the website
of the Platform prior to the seventh session of the Plenary.

K1801493 060718
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Annex

Chapters 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

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.

2
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
Preface............................................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene ................................................................................................................... 9
2 Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life ........................................................... 86
3 Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature’s
contributions to people ............................................................................................................................... 267
4 Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people ..
............................................................................................................................................................. 549
5 Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and society .......................................... 810
6 Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors.......................... 927
Annex I: Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 1130
Annex II: Acronyms.................................................................................................................................... 1149

3
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Preface
What is an assessment?
An assessment is a critical evaluation of information, to inform decisions on a complex, public issue
(MEA, 2005). An assessment does not generate new data, but seeks to create new understanding
through summary, sorting and synthesis using different methods to manage complexity. It includes
academic and grey literature, as well as insights from indigenous and local knowledge (ILK).
The IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia was conducted by a group of experts with
a broad range of knowledge and skills, most of whom were nominated by Governments, and the
remainder by organizations. The Assessment is supported by evidence, not based on advocacy, and
relates to a particular time period (usually 1950-2050, but earlier or later where appropriate) and to
the geographical domain of Europe and Central Asia.

The IPBES context for the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
Objective 2(b) of the IPBES work programme is to “strengthen the science-policy interface on
biodiversity and ecosystem services at and across subregional, regional and global levels by producing
“regional/subregional assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services” for: Africa, the Americas,
Asia-Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia (Decision IPBES-3/1: Work programme for the period 2014–
2018: Annex IV-VII). The implementation of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
followed a scoping study that responded to requests by Governments, multilateral environmental
agreements and other stakeholders in the formulation of key policy questions. These policy questions
included: a) general questions relevant to all IPBES regional assessments and, b) questions specific to
the Europe and Central Asia region. The scoping study resulted in a generic scoping report (Decision
IPBES-3/1: Work programme for the period 2014–2018, Annex III: Generic scoping report for the
regional and subregional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services (deliverable 2 (b))) and
scoping reports for each of the four regions, which have guided the implementation of the Regional
Assessment for Europe and Central Asia according to the timetable outlined in Figure 1. The IPBES
Plenary approved the summary for policymakers, and accepted the chapters of the Assessment
Report, at its sixth session in March 2018.
Each of the four regional IPBES assessments share the same generic policy questions and follow the
same chapter structure, which maps onto the IPBES conceptual framework. All regional assessments
also integrate relevant aspects of the IPBES thematic and methodological assessments (outlined
below) and consider trans-regional teleconnections in nature, nature’s contributions to people 1 and
good quality of life, and in the underlying drivers. While the Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia focuses on the regional scale, it also considers subregional or finer scales where
necessary. Many examples of drivers, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and good quality of life concern
national to local scales. Moreover, the local scale often offers the best opportunity for the integration
of indigenous and local knowledge and other knowledge systems. Thus, the general coarse-scale focus
of this assessment is rooted in a synthesis of information across a range of scales from local to the
Europe and Central Asia region as a whole. The outcomes of the regional assessments are stand-alone

1 Nature’s contributions to people encompass the positive contributions, or benefits, and occasionally negative
contributions, losses or detriments, that people obtain from nature. The term resonates with the original use of the term
ecosystem services in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and goes further by
explicitly embracing concepts associated with other worldviews on human–nature relations and knowledge systems.

4
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

products that also inform the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(deliverable 2c).

The assessment process

The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia was undertaken by an expert team of 118
individuals comprising two assessment co-chairs, a further 12 coordinating lead authors, 85 lead
authors, six fellows and 13 review editors. The experts were selected in 2015 by the co-chairs;
representatives of the IPBES Bureau and multidisciplinary expert panel (MEP) from the region; and the
IPBES secretariat, from nominations by Governments and organizations, to cover a spectrum of
disciplines including indigenous and local knowledge. The selected expert team was supported by
numerous contributing authors. The 13 review editors assessed the adequacy of author responses to
reviewer comments. The evidence presented in the assessment was derived from the peer-reviewed
and publicly available literature or correctly cited and publicly available grey literature, as well as
indigenous and local knowledge (Roué and Molnár, 2016).

5
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Implementation of the assessment followed eight procedural steps. A first draft of the report chapters
was prepared by the author team (1). This draft was peer reviewed in an open and transparent process
by Governments, other stakeholders and all interested experts who responded to an invitation by the
IPBES Executive Secretary by registering and submitting review comments (2). This facilitated
stakeholder engagement and provided a broad set of comments through which the assessment’s
legitimacy was enhanced. A second draft of the report chapters and first draft summary for
policymakers (SPM) were prepared by the author team under the guidance of the review editors and
the multidisciplinary expert panel, considering comments from the review (3). These two documents
were reviewed a second time by Governments, and other stakeholders (4), leading to the preparation
of the final draft of the report chapters and summary for policymakers by the author team under the
guidance of the review editors and the multidisciplinary expert panel (5). The summary for
policymakers was then translated into the six official languages of the United Nations, checked for
accuracy by the author team, and prepared in formats suitable for indigenous and local knowledge
holders (6). The final draft of the report chapters and summary for policymakers were made available
to, and reviewed by, Governments who provided written comments (7), culminating in the review and
approval of the summary for policymakers, and the acceptance of the report chapters at the 6th
session of the IPBES Plenary in Medellín in March 2018 (8).

The relationship between the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia and the
other IPBES assessments
Besides the four regional assessments, the IPBES work programme (see Figure 1) encompasses
completed or ongoing assessments including the Thematic Assessment on Pollinators, Pollination and
Food Production; the Methodological Assessment on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services; the Thematic Assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration; and the Global
Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. These assessments report at the regional to
global scales, and also provide important case studies at the landscape scale. The summary for
policymakers of the Thematic Assessment on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production, was
approved and its chapters accepted at the 4th meeting of the Plenary of IPBES in 2016 (IPBES, 2016).
It assessed the role of, and status and trends in, animal pollinators and pollination networks and
changes in pollination that underpins food production. The assessment informs policy responses to
declines and deficits in pollination and contributes to Aichi Biodiversity Target 14 on safeguarding and
restoring ecosystems that provide essential contributions to people. The Thematic Assessment on
Land Degradation and Restoration provides information to support decision-makers in reducing the
negative environmental, social and economic consequences of land degradation, and in restoring
degraded land to enhance nature’s contributions to people). The assessment identifies areas of
concern and the potential solutions to the challenges posed by land degradation as well as highlighting
critical knowledge gaps and priority areas for research and investment (Decision IPBES-3/1, Annex VIII:
Scoping for a thematic assessment of land degradation and restoration (deliverable 3 (b) (i))). The
IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services synthesizes evidence based on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (IPBES/4/INF/9: Guide on the production and
integration of assessments from and across all scales (deliverable 2 (a))) from across the Earth. It is
based strongly on the outcomes of the four regional and subregional assessments, but also reports on
literature that uses methods applied at the global scale. Where appropriate and necessary,
information elaborated during the progress toward these other IPBES assessments also contributed
to the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia.

6
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The policy context

Almost all countries in Europe and Central Asia use (agreed-upon) relevant international frameworks
to guide national strategy and action. The IPBES assessment of Europe and Central Asia was, hence,
and as requested by the scoping document, undertaken in the context of the United Nations 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development and Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. The assessment
examines progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets of the Strategic Plan. Its time frame covers current and projected trends
corresponding with timelines for the 2030 Agenda (2030), and the Strategic Plan (2020) and its 2050
vision. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, in particular, exists in the broader context of the
United Nations Decade on Biodiversity. In 2010, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
invited the United Nations General Assembly to consider declaring 2011-2020 the United Nations
Decade on Biodiversity (CBD, 2010), which the General Assembly did in a resolution in the same year,
"with a view to contributing to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the period
2011-2020" (United Nations, 2011).

The involvement of different stakeholders

Stakeholders can be considered in two groups, based on how they engaged with the Regional
Assessment of Europe and Central Asia (Decision IPBES-3/4: Communications, stakeholder
engagement and strategic partnership, Annex II: Stakeholder engagement strategy (deliverable 4 (d))):
1. Contributors - scientists, knowledge holders including indigenous and local knowledge
holders, practitioners and others;
2. End users - regional governments, national Governments and multilateral environmental
agreements, subnational and local governments, United Nations agencies, inter-
governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), other practitioners
within the private sector and the public.

As stakeholder engagement is an important element for the relevance, effectiveness, credibility and
overall success of IPBES, stakeholder values, needs and concerns were embedded within the
assessment process from the start. The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia has engaged
with the broader stakeholder community to better understand and communicate the causes of the
loss of nature and nature's contributions to people, including the role of humans and the
consequences for human well-being. Involving stakeholders is important in recognising their diverse
conceptualisations of values, adding societal aspects when assessing drivers and scenarios and
evaluating policy support tools. Although different stakeholders may have different priorities, they all
aim to have their knowledge, views and values considered within the IPBES process, including its
assessments. Stakeholders can bring complementary perspectives to those of Government, which also
helps to identify and prioritize the most relevant knowledge gaps. Different stakeholder organizations
can play an important role in the engagement of IPBES with different sectors of society. For these
reasons, IPBES provides an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute to informing decision-making.

7
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

References
CBD. (2010). Decision X/8. United Nations decade on biodiversity 2011-2020.
IPBES. (2016). 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, & B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends, Volume 1. Washington DC,
USA: Island Press.
Roué, M., & Molnar, Z. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
United Nations. (2011). Resolution 65/161. Convention on Biological Diversity.

8
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Mark Rounsevell (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Germany), Markus Fischer
(Germany/Switzerland)

Lead Authors:
Sander Jacobs (Belgium), Inge Liekens (Belgium), Alexandra Marques (Portugal), Zsolt Molnár
(Hungary), Jana Osuchova (Czech Republic), Anton Shkaruba (Belarus/Hungary), Mark Whittingham
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), András Zlinszky (Hungary)

Fellow:
Fanny Boeraeve (Belgium)

Contributing authors:
Sandra Brucet (Spain), Sholpan Davletova (Kazakhstan), Hilde Eggermont (Belgium), Christine Fürst
(Germany), Matthew Grainger (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Walter Jetz
(Germany/United States of America), Boris Leroy (France), Oksana Lipka (Russian Federation), Frances
Lucy (Ireland), Martin Schlaepfer (Switzerland), Mark Snethlage (The Netherlands/Switzerland), Isabel
Sousa Pinto (Portugal), Frédérique Viard (France), Penelope Whitehorn (United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland/Germany/), Meriwether Wilson (United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland)

Review editors:
Tuija Hilding-Rydevik (Sweden), László Podmaniczky (Hungary)

This chapter should be cited as:

Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Boeraeve, F., Jacobs, S., Liekens, I., Marques, A., Molnár, Z., Osuchova, J.,
Shkaruba, A., Whittingham, M. and Zlinszky, A. Chapter 1: Setting the scene. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES
regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia.
Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services, Bonn, Germany,
pp. xx-xx.

9
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene ........................................................................................................... 9
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15
1.1.1 The purpose of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia.......................... 15
1.1.2 Why is this assessment important? ................................................................................ 16
1.1.3 Review of previous assessments ..................................................................................... 16
1.1.4 Why another assessment? The added value of the Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia ................................................................................................................................... 19
1.1.5 The IPBES conceptual framework ................................................................................... 21
1.2 Relevant stakeholders.............................................................................................................. 24
1.2.1 Who does this assessment concern? .............................................................................. 24
1.2.2 Which benefits are available to stakeholders? ............................................................... 25
1.2.3 Policy instruments for different stakeholders ................................................................ 26
1.3 Description of the region ......................................................................................................... 28
1.3.1 Overview of the region.................................................................................................... 28
1.3.2 Marine areas of Europe and Central Asia ....................................................................... 34
1.3.3 Marine and inland surface water units of analysis of the Europe and Central Asia region
......................................................................................................................................... 35
1.3.4 Subregion descriptions of Europe and Central Asia ........................................................ 36
1.3.5 Relationships between Europe and Central Asia subregions.......................................... 45
1.3.6 Global connections and issues ........................................................................................ 46
1.4 The global and regional policy context .................................................................................... 46
1.4.1 The Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals ....................... 46
1.4.2 The relationship between the Europe and Central Asia policy questions, the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets, the Sustainable Development Goals, and other biodiversity policies ........ 47
1.4.3 Other environmental and non-environmental policies and governance ....................... 50
1.5 Methods and approaches used in the assessment.................................................................. 51
1.5.1 The assessment procedure ............................................................................................. 51
1.5.2 The approach to values used in the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia 52
1.5.3 Overview of methods and approaches used in the Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia ................................................................................................................................... 56
1.5.4 Consideration of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) ................................................. 57
1.5.5 Data and indicators ......................................................................................................... 58
1.5.6 The role of scenarios and models in the assessment ..................................................... 59
1.6 Challenges in conducting the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia................... 61

10
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.6.1 State of knowledge ......................................................................................................... 61

1.6.2 Methodological limitations ............................................................................................. 64
1.6.3 Issues beyond the scope of this assessment................................................................... 66
1.7 Roadmap to the assessment .................................................................................................... 67
1.7.1 What each of the six chapters covers ............................................................................. 67
1.7.2 How do the chapters address the policy-relevant questions?........................................ 68
1.7.3 What will the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia lead to? ..................... 69
1.8 References ............................................................................................................................... 71

11
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive summary

The IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia critically evaluates and summarizes the
available knowledge on the status and trends of nature and its contributions to people. Nature is
protected for its diverse values and because it is essential for sustaining human life. To conserve the
planet's variety of life - including the human species - and to ensure that people benefit from nature’s
contributions now and into the future, effective policies and actions are required, based on a broad
understanding of what is happening and why. The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
supports decision-making processes by identifying options, opportunities and trade-offs building upon
the best available data and information in compiling policy-relevant knowledge (1.1).
Assessing new knowledge is highly relevant and timely. More than 50 previous international and
national assessments demonstrate that biodiversity and ecosystems have intrinsic value and are
essential for human life. Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, there
are now four times as many scientific papers on biodiversity and ecosystem services, their drivers and
their consequences for people, and on related options for decision-making. To support decision-
making it is necessary to synthesize the most recent scientific literature in combination with the grey
literature and indigenous and local knowledge (1.1).
The assessment responds to requests from Governments. In requesting this assessment,
Governments have recognized the problems arising from the loss of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people and the potential of relevant information for future decision-making.
Governments posed a number of policy-relevant key questions that underpin the Regional Assessment
for Europe and Central Asia. Questions in common with the other IPBES regional assessments concern
the dynamics of, and interplay between, nature’s contributions to people, the underlying biodiversity
and ecosystems, the drivers of change in biodiversity and ecosystems, their diverse values and
relevance for human well-being. Further policy-relevant questions are specific to the Europe and
Central Asia region. How can ecosystems be protected through investments, regulations and
management regimes for terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine systems? What are the effects of
production, consumption and economic development on biodiversity and ecosystem services and
their contributions to human well-being? How can sectoral policies and new policy instruments
encourage opportunities arising from the contributions of biodiversity and ecosystem services to
human well-being? The assessment seeks to inform policy, public and private decisions, to raise public
awareness and to initiate new research (1.1, 1.2).
Answering the region-specific key questions offers important knowledge concerning progress
toward the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the Sustainable Development Goals, and national policies.
The questions specific to Europe and Central Asia map directly onto the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and
are relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Goals 14 and 15 address biodiversity and
ecosystems explicitly and correspond closely with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Beyond Goals 14 and
15, several Sustainable Development Goals address the broader importance of biodiversity and
ecosystems for human well-being. The European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2020 aims to halt
biodiversity loss in the European Union, restoring ecosystems where possible, and stepping up efforts
to avert global biodiversity loss. This underpins the European Union’s commitment to the Convention
on Biological Diversity and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by integrating policies on the ecosystem
services approach into member States' economies and planning. Non-European Union countries
contribute to the implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets through national strategies, plans
or programmes. Most Europe and Central Asia countries have developed a national biodiversity
strategy and a corresponding action plan (1.2, 1.4).

12
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia also takes account of the requests and
knowledge of actors other than Governments and provides information for them. Identifying the
existing and potential links between nature, nature’s contributions to people, and human well-being
supports the actions of a wide range of stakeholders in addition to Governments. Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), academic organizations and private businesses can protect and enhance
biodiversity and ecosystem services through a number of actions, including management practices,
education and awareness raising. The assessment provides relevant evidence upon which
stakeholders can base such actions, which involved consulting stakeholders throughout the
assessment process (1.2, 1.4).
Europe and Central Asia is characterised by strong differences in terms of industrialization and
governance that have a high impact on the state of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people. There is large variability between the Europe and Central Asia subregions in governance
systems, cultures, economies, ecoregions and sectors, as well as data monitoring and availability.
Europe and Central Asia also has a long history of land management with major human intervention
arising from high population densities in the west, but less intervention in the east. Europe and Central
Asia faces many important transboundary issues, for example for water resources, pollution, and
invasive species, which cut across the subregional divisions (1.3).
Processes within Europe and Central Asia have a large influence on the rest of the world, and Europe
and Central Asia depends strongly on other world regions. Such influences include teleconnections
via global markets that can displace impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems from Europe and Central
Asia to other parts of the world, leading to a large ecological footprint elsewhere. Dependencies
include the import of food, feed, fibre and other goods. Western and Central Europe’s consumption,
in particular, has impacts on land, water and biodiversity in other regions of the world (1.3).
The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia addresses the interactions between nature
and people through the IPBES conceptual framework, accounting for the different worldviews and
values that exist within the region. To guide the assessment process, IPBES has developed and applied
a conceptual framework, an integrated valuation approach and a strategy that integrates information
from different knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. A number of actions
were implemented to base the assessment on multiple worldviews and value systems, including the
knowledge of local practitioners such as farmers and foresters. Thus, the assessment accounts for
different worldviews and values, which underpins its credibility, legitimacy and relevance (1.1, 1.5).
The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia communicates confidence in its findings using
qualitative self-assessment in line with the standardised IPBES confidence terms. The need for
confidence language arises from the differences in the availability of evidence across subregions,
across taxa, and over time. Confidence levels for key messages and findings as well as knowledge gaps
are used systematically, including a traceable account of their supporting information and data, to
facilitate comparison and interpretation towards policy. Data-related and method-related limitations
and issues beyond the scope of this assessment are clearly stated (1.5, 1.6).
The evidence base contains inevitable biases in coverage of the different components and values of
nature. Only a small proportion of species are studied to any degree. Out of about 8 million species
that exist globally, the 2016 Red List of Threatened Species assessed 82,954 of the estimated 1.64
million species that have been described. Within Europe and Central Asia, only 2,493 species were
described on the Red List in 2016. Of the studied species some groups have complete coverage (all
known bird and mammal species), while other groups have far less known about them (e.g. only 7%
of known plants and <1% of fungi). Answering the policy-relevant questions requires knowledge about
the three dimensions of values of nature: nature's values (i.e. biodiversity), nature's contributions to
people (i.e. ecosystem services) and aspects of good quality of life. While the assessment covers these

13
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

three dimensions equally, better supporting evidence on nature's contributions to people and good
quality of life would improve the assessment's capacity to answer the policy-relevant questions (1.1,
1.6).

14
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 The purpose of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
The conservation and sustainable use of nature matter for its intrinsic value (Batavia & Nelson, 2017)
and because it provides the basis for livelihoods, economies and the good quality of life of people
throughout the world (Decision IPBES-5/1, Annex IV: Scoping report for a thematic assessment on the
sustainable use of wild species: deliverable 3 (b) (iii)). Effective and urgent action is required to halt
the loss of biodiversity to secure the planet's variety of life, which includes human life (CBD, 2010;
Tittensor et al., 2014; United Nations, 2015). These actions require a strong knowledge base, good
communication between scientists and decision-makers, and the will to act.
The IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia is based on a request from Governments,
multilateral environmental agreements and other stakeholders to investigate the key policy questions
outlined in Box 1.1. IPBES member States have recognized the dependence of quality of life and the
economy on nature, and have requested new knowledge about the importance of nature for the
human species. Hence, the assessment critically evaluates and summarizes the available knowledge
on the status and trends of nature (including biodiversity) and nature’s contributions to people 2
(including ecosystem services) and how they support good quality of life. The assessment also
evaluates the underlying causes and consequences of change in the past, present and future in
support of governance towards sustainability and good quality of life. Section 1.7.2. describes how the
policy-relevant questions structure the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia.
Box 1.1: Policy-relevant question.

General questions
1. How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food
security, and good quality of life in the regions, and what are the interdependences among them?
2. What are the status, trends and potential future dynamics of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem
services that affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-being in the regions?
3. What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions,
ecosystem services and good quality of life in the regions?
4. What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of
biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food
security and good quality of life in the regions?
5. What gaps in knowledge need to be addressed in order to better understand and assess drivers, impacts and
responses of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services at the regional level?
Questions specific to Europe and Central Asia
6. How can ecosystems that provide ecosystem services, such as those underpinning ecosystem-based
adaptation to climate change and nature-based solutions to sustainable development, be protected through
investments, regulations and management regimes for terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine systems?
7. What are the effects of production, consumption and economic development on biodiversity and ecosystem
services and their contribution to human well-being? Major links with other regions will be assessed;

2 Nature’s contributions to people encompass the positive contributions, or benefits, and occasionally negative
contributions, losses or detriments, that people obtain from nature. The term resonates with the original use of the term
ecosystem services in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and goes further by
explicitly embracing concepts associated with other worldviews on human–nature relations and knowledge systems.

15
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

8. How can sectoral policies and new policy instruments encourage opportunities arising from the contribution
of biodiversity and ecosystem services to human well-being?

End of Box 1.1

1.1.2 Why is this assessment important?

Nature and its contributions to people are fundamental to the existence of humans as a species and
for our societies and their future development. Nature and its contributions to people are, however,
continuing to decline, largely because of human actions. Of 2,493 species assessed in Europe and
Central Asia, 13% are included on the Red List of Threatened Species of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which constitutes 6.5% of the total number of the species included on
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, globally (IUCN, 2017). The IPBES Regional Assessment for
Europe and Central Asia responded to the need to establish a broader understanding of nature and
its contributions to people for the past, present and future through an evidence base in support of
effective options for policies and actions to maintain ecosystem integrity. The assessment analyses
the relationship between nature and people for the region, based on the latest knowledge and the
inclusive IPBES approach. It informs future decisions through a comprehensive analysis of the
dynamics of, and interplay between, biodiversity and ecosystems (or nature), their drivers, and their
contributions to people. It also identifies opportunities for sustainable development and good quality
of life arising from nature.

1.1.3 Review of previous assessments

Previous global assessments on the status of nature and its contributions to people showed that the
levels or quality of both are declining (Leadley et al., 2013; MEA, 2005). Over the past 50 years, humans

16
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

have changed ecosystems more rapidly than ever before; 60% of ecosystems are degraded and often
overexploited, and pressures on nature are increasing despite the growing number of responses to
tackle biodiversity loss (Butchart et al., 2010; Leadley et al., 2013; MEA, 2005; Tittensor et al., 2014).
Effective responses can be achieved by mainstreaming nature, and its importance to good quality of
life, at all societal levels, as in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2012-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity
Targets (CBD, 2010).
Overall, the state of nature (biodiversity and ecosystems) is deteriorating in Western, Central and
Eastern Europe (see for example: European Commission, 2015b; EEA, 2015b). Approximately, 60% of
the European Union-level species assessments and 77% of the European Union-level habitat
assessments indicate an unfavourable or deteriorating status (EEA, 2015b; European Commission,
2015b). Nevertheless, some species are returning to Western, Central and Eastern Europe after long
periods of absence, for example, the European bison and the Eurasian beaver (Batbold et al., 2016;
European Commission, 2015b; Olech, 2008).
The state of nature is also deterioriating in Central Asia (Appleton et al., 2012; Zoi International
Network, 2011) (Figure 1.2). Its most distinctive species are, and have been, heavily impacted. For
example, the last tigers in the region are thought to have been killed in the 1950s; the snow leopard
is extremely rare; and the saiga antelope is critically endangered (Mallon, 2008; Zoi International
Network, 2011). Some positive signs are, however, observed in the development of policies for
conservation and the expansion of protected areas (Figure 1.2).
Of the 54 countries in Europe and Central Asia, only one has not submitted a fifth national report 3 to
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Other national biodiversity or ecosystem assessments are
available for the majority of the Europe and Central Asia countries with an updated list of current
assessments available through IPBES (see http://catalog.ipbes.net/).

3The fifth national reports provide, among other aspects, an update on the national status and trends of, and threats to,
biodiversity, using national biodiversity indicators and also an assessment of the progress towards the Aichi Biodiverity
Targets and the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

17
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Since the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), the body of scientific knowledge on nature and its
contributions to people has quadrupled by the end of 2016 (based on a Scopus search using
“biodiversity” and “ecosystem services” as search terms). The Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia covers previous and new knowledge in a synthetic assessment of the region. Scientific
and societal debate on the valuation of nature and its contributions to people has generated new
insights. For example, publications about “human well-being” increased rapidly after the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment concluded in 2005 and continued to rise after the publishing of the initial “The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB) reports in 2010 (see Figure 1.3).

18
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.1.4 Why another assessment? The added value of the Regional Assessment for Europe
and Central Asia
The Europe and Central Asia assessment aims to be broad and inclusive, builds on previous
assessments and takes into account not only new research, but also evolved insights. Previous
assessments covered various aspects of nature, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of
life. Some of these assessments were more inclusive in terms of world views and diverse values than
others, but this was done implicitly (e.g., MEA, 2005). Nature has mainly been linked with a limited set
of instrumental values (e.g., TEEB, 2010a). Although the valuation field has been developing rapidly,
most assessments have emphasized traditional economic (monetary) valuation approaches (e.g. TEEB,
2010a). More recent regional assessments (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2016) and research projects (e.g.,
OPERAs, 2017; OpenNESS, 2017) have been more inclusive of stakeholders and diverse values. The
Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia explicitly covers the diverse values connected to
nature, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life (see Figure 1.4) according to the
IPBES conceptual framework (see Section 1.1.5) (Díaz et al., 2015; Pascual et al., 2017). These values
range from values of nature itself (individual organisms, biophysical assemblages, biophysical
processes); regulating, material and non-material contributions of nature to people; new options for
nature's contributions to people; and good quality of life from cultural, societal and individual
perspectives.

19
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The policy questions summarising Government requests (see Section 1.1.1) require these diverse
values to be addressed, with a main focus on nature’s contributions to people and to good quality of
life (Figure 1.4). Based on the conceptual framework, the Europe and Central Asia assessment aims to
have a balanced representation of these different values. This responds more closely to policy
demands and is a novelty of IPBES compared with previous assessments.

IPBES assessments are the first assessments on nature and its contributions to people to have been
through a formal process to establish political legitimacy and to respond directly to requests from
Governments. Of the 54 countries in Europe and Central Asia, 38 are members of IPBES. Moreover,
many stakeholders from the region are part of IPBES’s stakeholder network, including learned
societies, NGOs, and representatives of indigenous and local communities. The assessment also uses
a broad variety of knowledge and evidence sources beyond the natural sciences. All chapters consider

20
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

indigenous and local knowledge (ILK). The assessment is therefore a legitimate and credible analysis
relevant to all levels of governance and decision-making, from multinational organizations, through
national Governments to the local level, and relevant to a broad audience.

1.1.5 The IPBES conceptual framework

IPBES has developed and approved a conceptual framework to summarize the components of the
system comprised of people and nature, and the relationships between them (Díaz et al., 2015; IPBES,
2014). Figure 1.5 is a simplified version of the conceptual framework as adopted by the second
meeting of the IPBES Plenary. It retains all the essential elements, but some of the detailed wording
for each of the elements has been removed from the boxes to improve readability.
The IPBES conceptual framework provides structure and comparability to the assessments that IPBES
is producing at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. It was developed
through a transparent and participatory process and explicitly considers diverse scientific disciplines,
stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. It is essential for
interpreting the finding of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia and links strongly to
the diverse values discussed in Section 1.5.2. The framework also provides common terminology for
use across IPBES assessments. The six chapters of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central
Asia map onto the conceptual framework as indicated in Table 1.1.
Integrative, but explicit conceptual frameworks are particularly useful tools in fields requiring
interdisciplinary collaboration. They help to cope with complexity by clarifying and focusing thinking
about relationships, and supporting communication across disciplines and knowledge systems and
between knowledge and policy. The main elements of the IPBES conceptual framework are:
• Nature: the natural world with an emphasis on the diversity of living organisms and their
interactions among each other and with their environment.
• Anthropogenic assets: including knowledge, technology, work, financial assets, and built
infrastructure that, together with nature, are essential in the co-production of nature’s
contributions to people.
• Nature’s contributions to people: all the contributions of nature, both positive and negative, to
the quality of life of humans as individuals and societies.
• Drivers of change: all external factors that affect nature, and, consequently, the supply of nature’s
contributions to people. The conceptual framework includes drivers of change as two of its main
elements: institutions, governance systems and other indirect drivers on the one hand and direct
drivers on the other:
o Institutions and governance systems are among the root causes of the direct anthropogenic
drivers that affect nature. They include systems of access to land, legislative arrangements,
international regimes (such as agreements for the protection of endangered species) and
economic policies.
o Direct drivers, both natural and anthropogenic, affect nature directly. Direct anthropogenic
drivers result from institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers. They
include human-caused habitat conversion and climate change, pollution, exploitation of
ecosystems and species, and species introductions. Direct natural drivers also directly affect
anthropogenic assets and quality of life (e.g. a volcanic eruption can destroy roads and
cause human deaths), but these impacts are not the main focus of IPBES.
• Good quality of life: the achievement of a fulfilled human life. It is a highly values-based and
context-dependent element comprising multiple factors such as access to food, water, health,
education, security, and cultural identity, material prosperity, spiritual satisfaction, and freedom

21
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of choice. A society’s achievement of good quality of life and the vision of what this entails directly
influences institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers and, through them, all
other elements in the conceptual framework.

22
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The inclusive nature of the conceptual framework, in terms of contributions, stakeholders, knowledge
systems and worldviews, necessarily requires the consideration of diverse value systems. Value
systems vary among individuals, within groups, and across groups at various temporal and spatial

23
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

scales. For example, some nations tend to be more dominated by value systems that prioritize
individual rights and others by value systems that prioritize collective and community-level values
(Díaz et al., 2015). The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia covers the diverse values of
nature, including non-anthropocentric, instrumental and relational values. This involves a range of
different data and information sources that typically are not found within a single assessment, such
as biophysical and socio-ecological models, socio-economic and socio-cultural valuation and
qualitative data such as that based on discursive accounts and social elicitation methods. Accounting
for the differences in data availability, and their representativeness for, and acceptance by, different
disciplines is challenging both in synthesizing findings and in attributing confidence to these findings.

Table 1.1: How the IPBES conceptual framework maps onto the chapters of the Europe and Central
Asia assessment.

Chapter Conceptual framework boxes and fluxes

Chapter 1: Setting the scene All the boxes and fluxes of the conceptual
framework

Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and “Nature’s contributions to people” and their
quality of life relation to “good quality of life”
Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of “Nature” and its relation to
biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning
“Nature’s contributions to people”
nature’s contributions to people
Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change “Institutions and governance and other indirect
in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to drivers” and their relation to “direct drivers”
people
Chapter 5: Current and future interactions All the boxes and fluxes of the conceptual
between nature and society framework
Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision- “Institutions and governance and other indirect
making across scales and sectors drivers” and their effects on all other boxes of
the conceptual framework

1.2 Relevant stakeholders

1.2.1 Who does this assessment concern?

Governments and multilateral environmental agreements requested that the Regional Assessment for
Europe and Central Asia be conducted. It is therefore directly relevant to Governments, as it answers
their specific policy questions (see Section 1.1.1). Nevertheless, nature’s contributions to people have
effects not only at different ecological scales, but also at different organizational scales, from the
individual to the community, and administrative scales from the local to the international. For
instance, material contributions may be of interest to indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g.
timber), but the same source can also be of interest at higher institutional levels (e.g. carbon
sequestration). Furthermore, national or global stakeholders and indigenous and local communities
may differ in their emphasis on the conservation of nature and sustainable use, and the enhancement

24
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of the aesthetic, cultural heritage, natural and recreational quality of their living environment. In
addition, especially for indigenous peoples and local communities, ecosystems may also be a places
of rituals and a point of reference in cultural and spiritual narratives (Hein, 2006; Reyers et al., 2013;
Raudsepp-Hearne & Peterson, 2016).
Many stakeholder groups were directly or indirectly involved in the production of the Regional
Assessment for Europe and Central Asia - directly through data and knowledge sharing and reviewing
drafts, and indirectly by encouraging, facilitating and supporting the participation of scientists and
knowledge holders within the assessment (see also the preface for the assessment procedure and
Section 1.5). The assessment experts obtained stakeholder knowledge, views and values through
discussions at IPBES stakeholder days, IPBES Plenary meetings and by stakeholders reviewing drafts.
In addition, grey literature was analysed and knowledge holders were consulted as experts. By
including different knowledge and data sources and values, and allowing for a transparent process, an
assessment gains credibility, legitimacy and relevance (Cash et al., 2003).

1.2.2 Which benefits are available to stakeholders?

Stakeholder incentives and benefits associated with involvement in the assessment include the
opportunity to contribute to the IPBES process, the inclusion of stakeholder-derived data and the
acquisition of knowledge. Consequently, the capability to develop partnerships and to learn from
insights from other disciplines increases as well as the potential for capacity building, identified from
an IPBES stakeholder analysis survey (IPBES/5/INF/16: Implementation of the stakeholder
engagement strategy). Stakeholder groups have specific information needs, but also derive different
benefits from the insights and knowledge contained within the assessment (see discussion below).
Stakeholders acknowledge that the IPBES process in general, and the Regional Assessment for Europe
and Central Asia in particular, bring together different disciplines and stakeholder groups. In doing so,
the participants gain insights into diverse conceptualisations of values and social and political contexts
leading to the building of partnerships.
Regional (supra-national) Governments and national Governments. The questions posed by
Governments are outlined in Section 1.1.1. The assessment offers insight into the best indicators to
assess the status and trends of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, as well as pinpointing
data gaps. It also highlights the necessary responses and the potential opportunities and differences
between countries.
Subnational governments: Subnational and local public actors have an interest in opportunities for
investment in nature that leads to social and economic benefits. They request independent sources
of information about how nature can help society to cope with future challenges such as water
scarcity, climate change or air pollution and to enhance the living standards of citizens.
Multilateral environmental agreements and United Nations agencies: United Nations agencies have
a range of scientific advisory processes in addition to being responsible for multilateral environmental
agreements. Information provided through the assessment can contribute substantially to informing
these processes. Multilateral environmental agreements have subsidiary bodies or other mechanisms
to consider scientific and technical evidence. The information provided by the assessment contributes
to some of these subsidiary bodies and mechanisms as a means of improving their effectiveness.

25
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Intergovernmental organizations: Policy-relevant information provided by the assessment is also an

important source of information about nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life, for
broader intergovernmental organizations.
Practitioners and implementers: Many organizations, including NGOs, and individuals involved in the
operational management of nature and its contributions to people in practice can access IPBES
products, such as policy support tools, and learn how these can be applied to conservation and
sustainable use of nature (Decision IPBES-3/4: Communications, stakeholder engagement and
strategic partnerships). The assessment provides examples and case studies for the use of such tools.
The scientific community: The assessment supports the scientific community in gathering information
from different data sources and regions to highlight knowledge gaps and provide evidence to fill these
gaps.
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Indigenous peoples and local communities are the main
users and caretakers of nature and its contributions to people over large areas of Europe and Central
Asia. Their understanding of nature, drivers, futures and policies can help to develop subregional or
local actions and policies that are more relevant and acknowledge indigenous rights. The assessment
serves as an important forum for discussion and knowledge co-production, which is urgently needed
to improve the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Private Sector: Business is often based on the use of natural resources and frequently has an impact
on ecosystems, but the private sector can also find opportunities by aligning business activities with
benefits to nature. To achieve this, the private sector requires insight into how to align their actions
with goals of conservation and sustainable use by better recognizing and responding to
interdependencies and impacts on nature (TEEB, 2010b). Businesses are also decision-makers and
have an important role to play in the conservation, use and management of biodiversity and
ecosystems upon which they depend. The information within the assessment supports the
implementation of sustainable solutions that avoid, minimize or offset impacts on ecosystems and
identifies the interdependencies between business and ecosystems.
The general public: “The people who are affected and those who provide resources are increasingly
asking for evidence that interventions improve ecosystem services and human well-being.” (Carpenter
et al., 2009). The assessment provides the general public with an independent source of knowledge.

1.2.3 Policy instruments for different stakeholders

An important function of the IPBES process is to support policy formulation and implementation by
identifying policy relevant tools and methodologies. Stakeholders have a number of options and
instruments available to protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services. Policy instruments
may take many different forms including environmental standards and regulation, economic
incentives, education, capacity building and awareness raising (a non-exhaustive list is found in
IPBES/4/INF/14: Information on work related to policy support tools and methodologies (deliverable
4 (c))). Policy instruments are often referred to as being designed by public authorities, but IPBES
embraces design by all stakeholders including citizen organizations and indigenous peoples and local
communities (IPBES/4/INF/14).

26
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Four different categories of policy instruments for different actors have been identified in Chapter 6
(adapted from IPBES/4/INF/14):
1. Legal and regulatory instruments, for example implementing and articulating laws and
regulations, planning instruments;
2. Economic and financial instruments or price-based instruments, for example fiscal instruments,
and quantity-based instruments such as tradeable permits;
3. Social and information-based instruments with an emphasis on the intertwined relationship
between ecosystems and socio-cultural dynamics, including: (i) information related instruments
such as eco-labelling, and environmental education; (ii) self-regulation and corporate social
responsibility; and (iii) enhancement of the collective actions of local communities;
4. Rights-based instruments and customary norms, that integrate rights, norms, standards and
principles into policy, planning and implementation, for example by reconciling conservation and
human rights standards, e.g. the rights and institutions of indigenous peoples, and heritage sites.
Various public and private actors can choose from a wide range of policy instruments to achieve their
objectives. Traditionally, centralised and decentralised Governments have shaped environmental and
biodiversity conservation policies, largely building on legal and regulatory instruments. Such
hierarchical decision-making has increasingly been complemented by other governance modes
addressing and involving private actors through economic, financial, social and information-based
instruments. Furthermore, rights-based instruments and customary norms offer ways to reconcile
human rights standards, and to foster complementarity with human well-being (IPBES/4/INF/14). The
latter category is especially important to help develop regionally and locally relevant actions and
policies for indigenous peoples and local communities. In practice, policy instruments are usually
applied in combination in policy mixes (see Chapter 6).
Capacity building is another important function of the IPBES process. As Figure 1.6 illustrates, capacity
building typically represents the development and strengthening of human and institutional resources
through the ability to perform functions, to solve problems, and to achieve objectives at individual,
societal and institutional levels (United Nations, 2006). Addressing both public and private sectors
plays a key role in successful capacity building processes. The Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia supports capacity building through new knowledge generation, particularly in the
identification and quantification of nature’s contributions to people and to good quality of life (Díaz
et al. 2015). New knowledge can result, for example from long-term biomonitoring on permanent
plots, from comparative studies or from experiments. Such records have the potential to contribute
to more informed assessments of future changes in biodiversity patterns. By raising awareness at the
individual level, such information facilitates appropriate strategies, plans and programmes developed
at higher institutional levels.

27
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Education also plays an important role in supporting societal choices that affect biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Stakeholders can promote the work done in the assessment through local and
region-wide networks and help by disseminating information to relevant communities. In this way,
the assessment will raise awareness for important biodiversity and ecosystem issues across
stakeholder groups, and across geographic locations.

1.3 Description of the region

This section introduces the basic characteristics of the Europe and Central Asia region, including the
geographic area, the subregional structure, the geographical characteristics including the region’s
main ecosystem types (units of analysis), together with their most important societal trends in recent
history. The basic facts necessary for interpreting the findings of later chapters are introduced.

1.3.1 Overview of the region

Europe and Central Asia encompasses four subregions (see Figure 1.7) and 54 countries (see Table
1.2). These countries vary greatly in size, including the largest and smallest on Earth, have diverse
geography and history, but also common properties in terms of geography and climate, history and
social systems. The region shares many cultural norms and historical features reflected in some
similarities in land use, environmental history, and nature and its contributions to people.
Nevertheless, the region encompasses high heterogeneity in natural and socio-cultural aspects. The
seas that surround the region are also very heterogeneous in terms of temperatures, currents,
nutrient availability, depths and mixing regimes.
In the assessment, we refer to the IPBES subregions where the data fully covers one or more of them.
However, the data shown often represents other divisions, mainly the European Union or “Continental
Europe” (sensu European Environment Agency). This includes Western and Central Europe, excluding
Anatolia and Israel, and Eastern Europe to a eastern border following the Ural mountains, the river
Ural to the Caspian Sea, and a southern board to the Manych valley to the Sea of Azov and the Black
Sea, and the Bosporus. When referring to Europe we therefore refer to the geography just illustrated,

28
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

recognizing that not all data sources will perfectly match this geography. Otherwise we refer to IPBES
subregions (Figure 1.7).
Table 1.2: The subregions and countries covered by the Europe and Central Asia assessment.

Subregion Countries

Western Europe 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
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
Eastern Europe Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova (Republic of), Russian
Federation, Ukraine
Central Asia Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

Europe and Central Asia’s climatic zones range from polar through temperate to subtropical (Peel et
al., 2007). In terms of area, large parts of the region lie in the subarctic and humid continental climate
zones, but most of the human population lives in temperate (oceanic, Mediterranean or continental)
climates (European Commission, 2017a). Large-scale climate zonation is influenced by many factors
from cold and warm ocean currents at the continental scale, to elevation, slope or urban climate

29
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

islands at the local scale. A large portion of Europe and Central Asia is highly fragmented in terms of
geomorphology by mountain ranges and lake and sea coasts and major river systems. Most of Eastern
Europe and Central Asia are lowlands or plateaus; while highly variable local conditions create a fine
mosaic of land use and habitat types for most of Western and Central Europe (van Asselen & Verburg,
2012), including diverse cultural landscapes. Across large areas of sparsely-inhabited land in Eastern
Europe and in Central Asia, ecosystems are less modified by local human activity, but nevertheless
affected by global change and natural resource extraction (Hansen et al., 2013). The main ecosystems
and land use types (known as units of analysis) are described in Table 1.3 and shown in Figure 1.8.
These units of analysis are used throughout the assessment as a means of simplifying, through
classification, the complexity of nature.
Table 1.3: Main units of analysis for the purpose of the IPBES assessments and comments specific
to the Europe and Central Asia region.

Main type Name Description

Snow and ice Glaciers Areas where the terrain surface is constantly
dominated covered in ice
ecosystems
Nival belt Areas in mountains with an extremely short growing
season (<10 days) and low average annual
temperature (<3.5°C)
Polar deserts Vegetation covers less than half of the soil surface,
dominated by mosses, lichens, algae and rarely
vascular plants
Tundra and Tundra Areas with permafrost, with conditions too adverse
mountain grasslands for forest growth. Dominated by mosses, grasses or
dwarf shrubs
Alpine belt Not permanently snow or ice covered, low
vegetation dominated by grasses, sedges and forbs
Subalpine belt Transition between alpine zone and forests or
grasslands. High grass meadows, dwarf shrubs,
heathlands or short grasslands, subalpine
thinned/crooked forests
Temperate and Broad-leaved, Vegetation dominated by tall trees
boreal forests and mixed and
woodlands coniferous forest
Mediterranean Highly seasonal vegetation with water stress during
forests and scrubs part of the year, dominated by needle-leaved or
sclerophyllous trees and/or shrubs
Tropical and Subtropical climate, dominated by deciduous,
subtropical dry or evergreen or mixed trees
humid forest
Temperate Dry or seasonally wet, non-coastal areas with more
grasslands than 30% vegetation cover, mainly grasses and
herbs. Self-sustaining due to fire, aridity or grazing;
or secondary, sustained by mowing or grazing

30
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Main type Name Description

Deserts Precipitation less than 250 mm/year. Can be cold
(with snow cover) or warm (very dry and hot in
summer, no snow)
Peatlands Organic matter accumilation in soil due to limited
decomposition, water abundant, specific soil
Urban habitats Natural and artificial habitats within or close to
human settlement. Suburban (with abundant green
space), or urban (dominated by built structures and
sealed soil surfaces)
Agricultural areas Human management of vegetation and soil. High,
medium or low intensity
Special systems Heathlands Dwarf shrub dominated areas in Atlantic, Subboreal
or Continental climate. Developed due to human
land use in historic times
Caves and other Lack of light, trophic dependence on aboveground
subterranean systems, stable temperature, high humidity, limited
habitats supply of organic material. Terrestrial or aquatic,
epikarst and endokarst
Marine and Deep seas benthic Deep sea benthic habitats and species inside the
freshwater habitats habitats exclusive economic zones and deeper than 200 m,
Shelf and water All non-enclosed seas with benthic habitats
column shallower than 200 m and pelagic habitats
Enclosed seas and Brackish to hypersaline enclosed water bodies, both
saline lakes temporary and permanent
Freshwater lakes Water bodies with salt content below 0.1 g/l
and streams

31
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

32
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Europe and Central Asia is characterised by major human intervention arising from continuous high
population densities and a long history of unbroken land management (Ellis et al., 2013). This has led
to the most populated parts of the region being strongly modified by people, including the creation of
cultural landscapes based on traditional management approaches (Plieninger et al., 2014). Within the
subregions there is a large variability in human population density, with a broad trend of less intensive
human impact in the eastern parts of the region (Figure 1.9, Table 1.4). Moreover, the subregions
have different time lines of human intervention arising from very different histories (Jepsen et al.,
2015). This also reflects heterogeneity in cultures, natural heritage, governance structures, politics,
and the implementation of environmental legislation. Small-scale heterogeneity and a high level of
fragmentation both in a geographical and a cultural sense is probably the most important difference
between most of Europe and Central Asia and some other continental regions. Partial coordination of
governance across parts of this region is the role of the European Union and also of the various
international treaties.

Table 1.4: Indicators of land use in Europe and Central Asia. Source: data.worldbank.org.

Indicator Western Central Eastern Central

Europe Europe Europe Asia
Area (km2) 3,837,700 2,238,000 20,785,800 4,008,000
Population 421,446,000 200,486,000 217,576,000 69,052,000

33
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Average population density 110 90 10 17

(people/km2)
Urban population% 78 66 71 40
Agricultural land% 37 48 21 75
Forested land % 39 27 43 3

1.3.2 Marine areas of Europe and Central Asia

In terms of marine areas, this assessment focuses on the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the
countries in the region, therefore mainly marine areas within 200 nautical miles from the shores
(unless interrupted by land) are discussed. Since marine units typically bridge several subregions, here
they are presented followed by a description of their main habitat types (units of analysis) in an order
that is independent of the subregions (see Figure 1.7).
North East Atlantic. The European part of the Atlantic Ocean (sensu lato, i.e. including North Sea, Irish
Sea, English Channel, Iberian coast and Macaronesean Islands) encompasses large latitudinal
gradients, extending from the sub-tropics (e.g. Gibraltar at approximately 36°N) to the upper latitudes
of Svalbard in the Arctic (e.g. 77°N) and bridging several biogeographic provinces from Arctic to warm
temperate systems (Spalding et al., 2007). It includes highly diverse and complex benthic habitats such
as hyderothermal vents, seagrass meadows, kelp forests and biogenic reefs (Prather et al., 2013;
Smale et al., 2013; Worm et al., 2006). The North East Atlantic is influenced by transcontinental ship
traffic in addition to climate change, pollution, fisheries and aquaculture. Shore areas have also been
widely altered by human activities in the past, including the building of shorewalls, drainage and
infilling of coastal wetlands and pollution via inflowing rivers. Coastal areas are hotspots of
urbanization, with about 40% of the Western European population living in coastal areas.
Baltic Sea. The Baltic sea is relatively shallow and brackish, has almost no tide, and experiences intense
seasonality in temperature and inflow. It holds both marine and freshwater species, with relatively
low species diversity, also influenced by industrialization mainly in its southern part. Human influence
is similar or even more intensive than in the North East Atlantic.
Mediterranean Sea. The Mediterranean Sea is one of the largest of the marine units in the Europe
and Central Asia region. It is microtidal, oligotrophic, homothermic and highly saline. The
Mediterranean is composed of four sub-units, and has its own zonation predominantly influenced by
vast watersheds and rivers that flow into them, resulting in a wide diversity of conditions and high
biodiversity (Lejeusne et al., 2010).
Black Sea (including Azov sea). The Black sea is a medium-sized tideless inland sea with an outlet to
the Mediterranean. It is extremely stratified, resulting in a lack of oxygen in the deeper strata. The
depth of the thermocline and the anoxic layer depends on seasonality, with changes resulting in major
losses of biota. It is a highly sensitive ecosystem dominated by mediterranean species (although less
diverse than the mediterranean itself).
Arctic Ocean. The Arctic Ocean has a large area, and is characterized by ice-associated ecosystems.
Climate change (especially changes in sea ice) is rapidly changing the situation in the Arctic Ocean, and
opening up new opportunities for natural resource exploration and shipping, which are however
expected to strongly affect local biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Species diversity is largely
unexplored (Belikov et al., 2011).

34
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

North West Pacific. The seas linked to the Russian Far East include a continental shelf, but also very
deep basins which have their own circulation, partially connected to the Pacifc Ocean. As one of the
most highly productive regions of the global ocean (Antonov et al., 2016), these are important fishing
areas with high biodiversity, threatened by recent hydrocarbon exploration. Marine mammal diversity
is especially important (Artyukhin & Burkanov, 1999; Burdin et al., 2009; Geptner et al., 1976; Hunt et
al., 2000; Sokolov, 1986; Yablokov et al., 1972).

1.3.3 Marine and inland surface water units of analysis of the Europe and Central Asia
region
Shelf and water column. This unit of analysis includes all the benthic habitats down to 200m depth
and all the water column within the exclusive economic zone of the Europe and Central Asia region.
This unit was sub-divided geographically into the different seas and ocean areas described above.
Many of the policies regarding the marine environment, e.g. the European Union Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (European Union, 2008) as well as regional cooperation agreements (e.g.
HELCOM, 2017; OSPAR, 2017) consider the seas and oceans separately.
Deep Sea benthic habitats. All benthic habitats inside the Exclusive Economic Zones of Europe and
Central Asia countries that are deeper than 200m fall into this category. This is the most widespread
habitat type on Earth with rich diversity, but it is not well known or understood. Deep sea habitats and
biodiversity contribute important regulating functions and services on a global scale.
Enclosed seas and saline lakes. Saline lakes range from several thousand square kilometers (Caspian
Sea) to small ephemeral habitats. Based on their salt content, saline lakes are classified as brackish
(salt content in the range 0.1-3.5 g/l), saline (above 3.5 g/l) or hypersaline (above 50 g/l) lakes. The
Caspian is large and brackish with high biodiversity and many endemisms. The Aral Sea is now
extremely saline and mostly dried up. Smaller saline lakes are typical in endorheic basins and lowland
areas mainly in the Mediterranean (Čížková et al., 2013) and continental regions (Comin & Alonso,
1988; EEA, 2002; Izmailova, n.d.; Kazanci et al., 2004; Kortekaas & Vayá, 2009; Kotova et al., 2016;
Kulagin et al., 1990; Montes & Martino, 1987; Orlov et al., 2011; Örmeci & Ekercin, 2005; Government
of Turkey, 2014; Stenger-Kovács et al., 2014; Williams, 1981; Zektser, 2000). They are fed by rain and
groundwater, with highly variable salinity conditions depending on inflow and evaporation. Brackish
lakes can be highly diverse while very saline lakes usually hold only a less diverse flora and fauna,
including unique and highly valuable extremophile bacterial diversity (Oren, 2006). Both salinity and
ionic composition control species richness and biodiversity, but this is also influenced by ionic
composition (Balushkina et al., 2009; Boros et al., 2013; Brucet et al., 2012; Oren, 2006; Ventosa &
Arahal, 2009). Both large permanent and small ephemeral saline lakes are important habitats for
migratory birds.
Freshwater lakes and streams. Freshwater habitats include both standing and running water, with
the Europe and Central Asia region holding almost 60% of the global freshwater volume (Messager et
al., 2016). Many lakes are found in the sub-boreal and boreal zone as relicts of glacial activity. Central
and Eastern Europe hold vast drainage basins that feed a system of large rivers (compared with
Western Europe, where watersheds are more fragmented, and Central Asia, where the climate is more
arid). The overall diversity of freshwater species in Europe and Central Asia was routinely reported to
increase towards lower latitudes (Hof et al., 2008). River and lake systems often sustain coastal
wetlands which are hotspots of biological production and diversity in the landsape mosaic. Therefore,
freshwater habitats contribute importantly to green corridors and networks.

35
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.3.4 Subregion descriptions of Europe and Central Asia

Western Europe
Western Europe has highly fragmented and diverse landscapes of peninsulas, islands, mountain
ranges and riverbasins. The subregion includes a wide range of climatic zones from from polar deserts
on Svalbard and Iceland to the most extreme desert, the Negev Desert in Israel, and to subtropical
island forests. The climate is typically favourable for agricultural production, except at northern
latitudes and in some parts of the Mediterranean, where water is limiting. Hence, agro-ecosystems
and forests dominate the landscape. Agro-ecosystems are maintained by human activity, and include
croplands, orchards, horticultural systems and managed grasslands. Except for extensive grasslands,
these habitats have low species diversity. Agriculture includes intensive cropland production and
livestock production on grassland that ranges from intensive pasture to extensive rangelands and
mountain meadows. Soils are often over-used in intensive agricultural areas and degraded due to
erosion and salinization (Montgomery, 2007; Pimentel, 2006). Forests mainly dominate the high
latitudes and altitudes, and can be both managed and semi-natural. Boreal forests have high diversity
and provide important services (e.g. carbon sequestration), but are also very sensitive to climate
change and management. Temperate forests have a long history of human influence in the region and
maintain high biodiversity. Mediterranean forests grow in areas of cool wet winters and hot summers,
and are typically evergreen or hard-leaved. These range from forests through shrublands to semi-open
heaths depending on climate and disturbance. Mediterranean forests and scrubs have extremely high
species richness (ca. 25,000 vascular plant species) with high endemism in spite of being heavily
modified in historic times. Alpine and sub-alpine meadows, heaths and shrublands occur in the upland
areas, with the actual treeline heavily modified by human activity. These habitats are very diverse with
a high level of endemism. Urban and semi-urban areas with sealed surfaces also occupy large areas in
the densely populated countries of Western Europe, which also contain two (the London and Paris
metropolitan areas) of the four megacities - with more than 10 million inhabitants - in Europe and
Central Asia. These ecosystems have high levels of disturbance and pollution, but especially residual
habitats such as parks can conserve relics of local natural vegetation and may be relatively diverse. In
peat bogs, water-saturated soils result in incomplete decomposition of organic matter, leading to an
accumulation of organic-rich soils. These habitats have many specialist species, and are common in
the oceanic, sub-boreal and boreal zone, but more rare towards the continental and mediterranean
regions. Wetlands connected to lakes and rivers are often significantly diminished and modified by
water regime regulations. Subterranean habitats are dark systems, which depend trophically on
above-ground systems. They have many endemic species that are not well studied, but are extremely
sensitive to environmental change.
The historic transition from self-sustaining agricultural systems to industrialized monocultures with
high inputs (chemical and mineral inputs, energy and machinery) has led to the transformation of
mosaic landscapes into homogeneous agricultural areas where nature and its contributions to people
have relatively low value (Mazoyer & Roudart, 2006). The industrial revolution starting in the 18th
century, and associated rapid urbanization, have also had a profound impact on the landscapes of
much of Western Europe (Jepsen et al., 2015). More recent land use trends have seen a reduction in
agricultural area, especially for cropland, and increases in forest areas. This has happened because of
the productivity gains of the green revolution, but also because of increasing imports of food and
other commodities causing land use change in other parts of the world (Meyfroidt et al., 2010).
Western Europe is the most densely populated subregion of Europe and Central Asia, with half of the
total population of the subregion living on approximately 10% of its terrestrial surface. Worldviews
and value systems are highly diverse. Many countries in the subregion are deeply rooted in democracy

36
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

where individual human rights are at the centre of those worldviews and values. During the 20th
century relatively multi-cultural societies developed with diverse, often contrasting worldviews
among citizens. Very large ecological footprints led to a strong increase in environmental awareness.
Lifestyles and consumption are rapidly globalizing, but local products and local cultural keystone
places are gaining increasing recognition. Traditional lifestyles have almost disappeared, but there are
movements toward a new generation of farmers who are more conscious of sustainability.
Fifteen of the 24 countries within Western Europe are members of the European Union; the others
retain strong cultural and trade links to the European Union. Hence, environmental policy in this
subregion is dominated by European Union legislation, although European Union member States
determine how European Union directives are implemented at the national scale, and non-member
States define their own environmental policies, albeit influenced by the European Union approach.
There is a strong political will within the European Union to use policy to conserve natural and cultural
heritage. This is demonstrated by the large number of ecologically-oriented European Union policies,
including the Biodiversity Strategy, the Habitats Directive, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
and the Water Framework Directive, amongst others. However, some other European Union sectoral
policies have had negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the past, such as the
Common Agricultural Policy’s subsidising of intensive agriculture. In addition to the strong political
will, there is strong public support for, and interest in, biological conservation across Western
European societies.
The Western European region supports a wide range of conservation measures and marine protected
areas driven largely by the European Union Habitats Directive. The European Environment Agency
2015 State of the Seas report (EEA, 2015c), estimates that, as of 2012, about 4% of European Union
marine areas were part of the Natura 2000 Network. However, given the vast biogeographic and
geopolitical scope of Western Europe, there is a range of long-standing cumulative environmental
pressures (e.g. centuries of coastal habitat alteration and fishing), to more emerging challenges, in
particular those associated with climate change. Key examples, within Western Europe include:
changes in sea-surface temperature (Philippart et al., 2011) and poleward species migrations, as well
as declining polar sea-ice and the opening of Arctic shipping areas (Wassmann & Reigstad, 2011).
Various countries provide ongoing regional management plans for respective seas, e.g. Norway for
the Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea (Government of Norway, 2012).
Western Europe has many countries with high levels of development that is commensurate with high
levels of consumption, in terms of both the amount of consumption, e.g. Alexander et al. (2016a), and
the variety of products consumed. This has had a profound effect on the ecosystems of Western
Europe, which are all under strong human influence (see Figure 1.10). The general trend of habitat
loss and deterioration (Birdlife Europe and Central Asia, 2015; European Commission, 2015b) has also
reached Alpine and sparsely-populated Arctic areas, but even these are under pressure from tourism,
natural resource exploitation and global change. Meanwhile, there is an increasing trend towards
restoring natural habitats, with many successful examples. Western Europe is a net “ecological
debtor” (with the exception of Sweden, Norway and Finland) being dependent on the import of
external resources, therefore causing environmental impacts elsewhere. The human appropriation of
net primary productivity (HANPP) embodied in the European Union’s consumption is strongly
dependent on the appropriation of biological productivity outside of Western Europe (Kastner et al.,
2015), with increasing reliance on Latin America as a main supplier. Moreover, deforestation
embodied in European Union consumption is almost entirely due to imports, as deforestation within
the European Union is negligible (EEA, 2015b).

37
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Europe
Central Europe is mostly a continental biogeographical region with segments of Alpine, Boreal,
Pannonian, and Steppic landscapes, and also comprises Mediterranean and, in Turkey, subtropical
ecosystems, and many subterranean cave habitats, especially in the Balkans. It includes a wide variety
of landforms and geographical conditions. Low elevation moraine landscapes prevail around the Baltic
coast (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, central and northern Poland), and are dissected by rivers, lakes and
wetland systems following glacial landforms (Metzger, et al., 2012). Geographically, these areas
belong to the eastern periphery of the Eastern European Plain. Farming dominates these landscapes,
but one of Central Europe’s largest primeval forests, Białowieza forest, is also located here, as well as
large wetland areas in north-eastern Poland and Estonia. At the westernmost edge of the steppe zone,
both semi-natural and natural grasslands occur, maintained by soil conditions, fire, aridity, and
nowadays to a lesser extent herbivore pressure. These are some of the most diverse habitats of the
region. Further south, lowland basins dominate the landscape separated by sub-alpine mountain
ranges, including the Carpathian basin (with its sub-basins, the small and large Hungarian Plain and
the Transsylvanian Plain), the Czech basin (drained by the Elbe, Vltava and Morava rivers) and the
Wallachian Plain of the lower Danube. Mountain ranges and hills dissect the Balkan area (the main
watercourses being the Danube and Sava rivers) which lacks extensive lowlands. The Anatolian
Peninsula is surrounded by mountain ranges around the semi-arid Anatolian plateau. Although highly
variable within small areas, climatic and edaphic conditions in Central Europe are favourable for
agriculture, except in some water-deficient areas in the Anatolian plateau, and agriculture and forestry

38
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

are the most widespread land use types. Relatively large, but fragmented, forests exist mainly in
boreal areas, while unmanaged forests are rare. Except for Białowieza forest in Poland, Romanian old-
growth forests are unique in continental Europe. To safeguard the remnants of primeval forests, the
world heritage list of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has recently
been expanded (in July 2017), to include the Primeval Beech forests of the Carpathians, which stretch
over Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine.
The political borders within Central Europe have been highly dynamic throughout history. This was
caused by changes in political regimes from self-sustaining kingdoms to empires (Austria-Hungary,
Prussia, the Ottoman Empire), two world wars in the 20th century, and finally by the dissolution of
the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. Since the 1990s, most of Central Europe has been through
important political and socio-economic transformations. This determined the nature of governance
structures, affecting environmental protection and the management of natural resources, which
currently remain of secondary importance to economic growth. Traditional practices and indigenous
and local knowledge that are important for local nature conservation often survive in marginal cultural
landscapes.
Although geopolitical transformations had different effects in different countries, the basic economic
processes were similar as a consequence of the preparation of accession to the European Union
(Bański, 2008). The semi-enclosed seas of the subregion have been influenced by eutrophication due
to urbanization and fertilizer use, and the shore areas are increasingly under pressure from tourism.
Invasive species are particularly a problem in the Black Sea and the mediterranean sea (Blenckner et
al., 2015). Large patches of wetlands exist attached to floodplain river deltas and freshwater lake
systems, but are influenced by water level regulation, infilling, pollution and drainage (Hein et al.,
2016).
Central Europe is home to about 20% of the population of Europe and Central Asia on 6% of its land
area, with population densities comparable to Western Europe. Many people live in rural areas in
Central Europe, and there is only one megacity - Istanbul (out of 4 megacities located in Europe and
Central Asia). However, with the exception of Albania, the added value of agriculture to the GDP of
Central Europe is minor and economies are built on services and industry (The World Bank Group,
2016). Worldviews and value systems are highly diverse, partly as a consequence of this diverse
history. Top-down determination of worldviews and values became stronger during the 20th century
causing considerable change. During the Soviet era many community-level structures and informal
regulations were deliberately dismantled. After 1989, a strong cultural revival was typical in many
countries, together with an increase in national identity. Traditional values and lifestyles survive and
are being adapted to the new socio-economic environment in thousands of semi-subsistence villages
in marginal areas throughout Central Europe.
Central Europe is characterised by rapid economic and social development and urbanization in recent
decades that increasingly resembles Western Europe together with relatively large areas of more
intact nature in the form of cultural landscapes. The green corridors throughout such areas are of
critical importance. These networks of landscape features dominated by near-natural vegetation
enhance landscape connectivity, facilitating migration and dispersal of species. These existing
resources raise the challenge of an alternative economic development pathway that can conserve
natural capital while consumption patterns appear to continue to adjust to Western European norms.
While local value systems are close to Western Europe, due to a similar long-term history, the
ecological, economic and cultural heritage is different in many ways, influenced by divergent historical
pathways in the 20th century. Environmental policy in Central Europe is strongly influenced by the

39
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

European Union since all Central European countries are either members of, or closely associated
with, the European Union.
During the 20th century, many ecosystems were impaired by water and air pollution, such as acid rain,
industrial waste, and production intensification. In Western Europe, protected areas cover on average
25% of the land surface, while in Central Europe the equivalent area is only 21% and in Eastern Europe
7% (The World Bank Group, 2016). However, biodiversity is often on average richer than in most parts
of Western Europe. For example, some of the most species-rich grasslands in the world are found in
Estonia and Romania (Wilson et al., 2012). There is increasing public support for, and interest in,
nature conservation across Central European societies. Natural areas are seen as resources providing
ecosystem services, supporting environmental resilence and facilitating adaptation to, and mitigation
of, climate change (EEA, 2012). Climate change observations and projections indicate that Central
Europe faces increasing risk of droughts and warm temperature extremes (EEA, 2015b) and, especially
in the Mediterranean Sea, increasing sea temperatures and ocean acidification (Gambaiani et al.,
2009).
Eastern Europe
Most of the IPBES subregion of Eastern Europe is geographically located in Asia: only Belarus, Moldova,
Ukraine and the western part of Russia are completely within what is commonly known as Europe,
while most of Russia is beyond the Urals, and Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia are beyond the Greater
Caucasus, which are traditionally set as the geographic divides between Europe and Asia.
Most of this “European” part of Eastern Europe is occupied by the Eastern European Plain, spanning
from the Black Sea and Caucasus to the Arctic Ocean, and from the easternmost European Union
borders to the Urals. The Plain contains the basins of some of Europe’s longest rivers, such as the
Volga, Dnepr and Pechora. Being a vast mountain-free space with an average elevation of only 170 m,
the Plain shows a uniquely gradual and continuous change of climatic zones and biogeographic
regions, from Arctic deserts and tundra to boreal taiga, and then to mixed and deciduous continental
forests and forested steppes, steppes and semi-deserts of the steppic zone. Arctic deserts have
negligible vegetation productivity due to the extreme cold and the short growing season, and are
dominated by algae, mosses, lichens and only a few vascular plants (ca. 100 species), covering about
half of the ground surface altogether. Tundra habitats also have permanently frozen subsoils and
environmental conditions that do not allow for forest growth (temperature, wind, precipitation).
Vegetation is composed of a grass and a moss layer with sparse bushes, inter-laced with open soil,
including lichen and moss or alternatively shrub tundra. Such habitats have relatively low species
diversity (totalling ca. 500 vascular plants). Only continental, and northern and middle steppic regions
are dominated by croplands (with steppe soils often heavily overused and degraded), while the boreal
taiga region is mostly forested, except the areas around major cities. The forests are mostly natural
and semi-natural, and managed only towards the southern part of the taiga region and further to the
south. The south-eastern segment of the steppic and semi-desert and desert strip (especially within
the Caspian Depression) contains vast arid rangelands (Isachenko, 1985). Several old industrial areas
(notably Donbass in Ukraine) are densely populated, while elsewhere, except the south-western part
of the plain, population density drops to less than 10-15 people/km2. The region contains the Moscow
metropolitan area, one of the four in the region with more than 10 million inhabitants . Many areas in
western Russia have been rapidly losing their rural population over several decades (Alekseev &
Safronov, 2015). In addition, the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986 led to the relocation of hundreds
of thousands of people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia (Hostert, et al., 2011).
There are several mountain systems on the edge of the Eastern European Plain: the eastern
(Ukrainian) Carpathians, Urals, Crimean Mountains, the Greater Caucasus and Khibiny. All of these,

40
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

especially the Greater Caucasus can be regarded as very important for biodiversity and, in general,
their ecosystems are better preserved than the surrounding areas, except for some mining and
industrial areas in the central and southern Urals, and the edges (especially in the south) of the
Crimean Mountains and the Greater Caucasus, which are densely populated. The Greater Caucasus
features a broad range of ecosystems, from dry steppes, semi-boreal forests, alpine meadows and
glaciers to humid subtropical forests (Isachenko, 1985). Some of its peaks, including seven peaks over
5,000 m, are Europe’s highest.
The geographically Asian part of Russia (Siberia and the Far East) stretches for over 5,000 km from the
Urals to the Pacific coast, and for over 3,000 km from the Arctic Ocean to Mongolia and China. It
consists of the flat and swampy (except the southern steppic part) Western Siberian Lowland, the hilly
and sometimes low mountainous Central Siberian Plateau, the Southern Siberian (Altai, Sayany) and
Transbaikalian Mountains limiting the lowlands and the plateau in the south, and the extremely
complex topography of the almost entirely mountainous Russian Far East. Most of the area is covered
by boreal taiga, except for tundra and Arctic deserts in the extreme north and in Arctic archipelagos,
while in the south, the taiga changes to semi-steppes and steppes. There is an area of semi-deserts
between the Sayany mountains and Mongolia. The mountains (except those located in high latitudes)
are mostly forested and recognised as important global and regional biodiversity hotspots. Taiga
forests are not managed sustainably. There, control and protection cannot prevent forest fires and
illegal logging and the area of burnt forests is larger than the area of logging reported by the Russian
Forest Agency (Minprirody of Russia, 2016). Most of the steppe and semi-steppe landscapes have
been converted to croplands and pastures, except saline areas and some broken terrains. The Russian
Far East is richer in biodiversity than Siberia, especially its south-eastern part, which is covered with
deciduous and mixed monsoon forests (this also includes the southern part of the Kuril Islands)
(Gvozdeckii & Mikhailov, 1978). Siberia and the Far East are drained by some of Asia’s largest rivers,
such as Lena, Yenisei, Ob’ and Amur; Lake Baikal located at the south-eastern edge of the Central
Siberian Plateau is the world’s largest (in terms of volume of water) and deepest (up to 1,642m)
freshwater body and a unique habitat to many endemic species. Human population density is
extremely low in most of Siberia and the Far East, and everywhere except the southern steppic
edge and some industrial and mining areas, is below 1 person/km2. In the areas north of the
relatively inhabited strip, most settlements are in river valleys. The industrial areas are often
heavily polluted. Climate change is an important threat to the nature of Siberia and the Far East,
especially given that most of the region has permafrost, while the ecosystems in the Arctic Ocean
are sensitive to sea ice dynamics.
The Transcaucasia region contains the flat and wet Kolkhida Depression open to the Black Sea, the dry
Kura-Aras Depression open to the Caspian Sea, the Lesser Caucasus Highlands between and to the
south of the Lowlands, and the Greater Caucasus in the north. The coastal lowland areas are home to
the only humid and semi-humid subtropical forests of the subregion, with high levels of endemism
and quite high diversity (several thousand vascular plant species). The Kolkhida Depression is densely
populated (mostly by over 100 people per km2) and dominated by croplands, with only very small
fragments of subtropical wetlands remaining by the seashore. The Kura-Aras Depression is located in
the zones of subtropical steppes, subtropical forests and semi-deserts, and most of it is converted to
croplands and pastures, except some saline and broken lands; the population density is sparser in
general (50-100 people per km2) than in Kolkhida, although next to major cities it can be as high. The
Lesser Caucasus is a system of relatively low mountain ridges, mostly deforested and heavily eroded,
occupied by pastures and with high-density populations in the valleys. It is an important regional
biodiversity hotspot.

41
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The common historical legacy of Eastern Europe is closely tied to the history of the Soviet Union, which
has led to a gradual and challenging political and socio-economic transition. During the Soviet era,
many social and economic institutions, especially those related to self-organization, enterpreneurship
and religion, were destroyed or severely damaged. This also had a strong and clearly visible impact on
patterns of rural settlements. In Belarus and Ukraine, whose western parts only became Soviet in
1939, the pre-war border of the USSR can be traced even on topographic maps, where dense networks
of small villages and farms suddenly change to patterns dominated by large villages with vast empty
spaces surrounding them. This divider can also be found in many behavioural patterns and cultural
preferences including attitudes towards nature and livelihoods. It is generally noted that more
traditional ways have been preserved in the Caucasus, some other mountain systems (e.g.
Carpathians) and the northern parts of Eastern Europe. The trend in recent decades has been a
growing interest in traditional values combined with rapidly globalizing lifestyles and consumption.
Environmental awareness is generally growing, but is still a somewhat low priority.
The core of the system of protected areas was established by the USSR, although it has significantly
expanded since then, inspite of conservation programmes being underfunded in most countries. The
countries of Eastern Europe maintain hierarchical political systems, limiting public participation in the
development of nature conservation mechanisms and with different degrees of involvement of the
public and of non-govermental organizations in the establishment and management of proteced
areas; corruption is also considered to be a serious concern in some countries, and can result in illegal
deforestation, land-grabbing, soil degradation and environmental pollution (Newell & Simeone, 2014;
Richardson, 2015). All Eastern European countries, except Belarus, are involved in local armed
conflicts that have led to substantial biodiversity losses (Burns et al. 2017). Eastern European countries
have well-integrated environmental legislation, initially based on common USSR legislation. More
recently, some countries have started to harmonize their environmental legislation with European
Union directives and best practices, but compliance standards are rather low in most instances
(Ermolin & Svolkinas, 2016; Malets, 2015). All Eastern European countries report to the Convention
on Biological Diversity.
Nevertheless, the emerging multilevel biodiversity governance arrangements, such as the European
Diploma for Protected Areas or forest certification schemes, work towards more transparent and
accountable nature conservation regimes (Otto et al., 2011).
Central Asia
The five countries constituting Central Asia were all former Soviet republics, located between the
Caspian Sea and China. The subregion has a harsh continental climate, and is dominated by steppic
landscapes in the north changing to deserts in central and southern parts. Its deserts have warm or
cold climates with precipitation less than 250mm/year (according to the Köppen-Geiger classification,
or 150mm according to the IPBES land degradation assessment), with specific soil types and
vegetation (Asian Development Bank, 2010). They have moderate species richness, for example
comprising a total of 1,000-1,500 recorded vascular plant species). Most of Central Asia consists of
plains or hilly uplands, which are delimited by mountain systems on the eastern and southern
peripheries. The main geographical subdivisions of Central Asia are central Kazakhstan (subdivided
into the Turgay Plateau and Kazakh Uplands) and the vast desert plain to the south that contains
numerous plateaus, uplands and lowlands. In the geographic literature, this plain is often divided into
two: the region of northern deserts and the region of southern deserts (Gvozdeckii & Mikhailov, 1978).
Central Asia is limited in the east and south by large mountain systems with extensive glacier and nival
ecosystems. Such habitats have low temperatures and a short growing season (< 10 days) (Körner et
al., 2011). Central Asia also includes the southernmost parts of the Eastern Siberian Lowlands, the

42
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Urals (Mugodzhar Hills), Altai and the Eastern European Plain. Croplands in Central Asia are irrigated
everywhere except at their northern edge and in some mountainous areas and, therefore, most
settlements and the highest density of rural population are found in river valleys and similar irrigated
areas. The vast areas between these settlements are almost uninhabited and mostly used for animal
husbandry (usually nomadic), often based on indigenous and local knowledge. All the rivers in the
central and southern parts of the subregion belong to endorheic basins (closed basins or internal
drainage systems), and water overuse due to irrigation has led to severe downstream water quantity
and quality issues, the most famous being the dessication of the Aral Sea, which was one of the largest
inland lakes of the world in terms of surface area.
The Caspian Depression geographically belongs to the Eastern European Plain and is a flat lowland
(Gvozdeckii & Mikhailov, 1978). Its southern part is dominated by rangelands with sandy and salty
deserts, salt marshes and salty lakes, while in the central part and further towards the north the
landscapes change to desert and then to dry steppes. Croplands are found only on the northern edge
of the depression, while the rest is used for sheep husbandry, mostly nomadic. The south-east of the
depression is an old oil production area with soil and water pollution widespread. The Eastern Siberian
Lowland within Central Asia is a steppic landscape that changes to dry steppes in the south, often with
salty soils, marshlands and numerous salty lakes towards the south-east (Isachenko, 1985). It is
dominated by croplands, with rangelands mostly occurring in salty landscapes.
The Mugodzhar Hills and Central Kazakhstan are dominated by dry steppes in the north and semi-
deserts towards the south. The steppes are mostly cultivated, while the semi-deserts are used for
sheep husbandry. The Mugodzhar Hills reach 657m; the Turgay Plateau is a system of plateaus slightly
elevated over surrounding areas (up to 310m); while the Kazakh Uplands is a hilly area with strongly
eroded residual mountain ridges (the highest peak is 1,565m), thousands of small lakes, and relict pine
forests on northern slopes (Gvozdeckii & Mikhailov, 1978). A large area in the north-eastern segment
of the Uplands (over 18,500 km2) was used from 1949 to 1991 as a test site for nuclear weapons, and
is still heavily contaminated. Central Kazakhstan is limited in the east by the westernmost ranges of
the Altai and the Saur and Tarbagatai Mountains. The core of Altai is in Russia, while peripheral parts
are also found in China and Mongolia. The Altai Mountains are dominated by coniferous forests. Alpine
and subalpine meadows are less common. The Kazakh part of Altai is an important mining area with
large-scale non-ferrous metal production that causes heavy environmental pollution.
The region of the northern deserts is located in southern Kazakhstan, northern and western
Uzbekistan, and northern Turkmenistan, and includes a small portion of Kyrgyzstan in the valley of the
Chu River. It is characterised by low winter temperatures, with January averages from -4⁰C in the south
to -16⁰C towards the north (Asian Development Bank, 2010). The most prominent landforms of the
region of northern deserts are the Plateaus of Ustyurt (raising from 150 to 365m) and Mangyshlak
(555m); the rest is a rather extensive plain with a few residual mountain ridges, gradually raising from
about 5m under the cliff of Plateaus of Ustyurt to 300-500m in the east, next to the Dzungarian Gate,
connecting the plain with the Dzungarian Depression in China. This plain is dominated by sandy deserts
in the western (Kyzylkum, Aralian Karakum, Barsuki) and eastern parts (Saryesik-Atyrau), while the
central part is mostly stony and clay desert (Betpak-Dala). The plain contains several large lakes,
including the remnants of the Aral Sea, and the Lake of Balkhash (half of which is salty, while the other
half is fresh water), and is crossed by a few major rivers with large deltas, such as the rivers of Syr
Darya and Amu Darya that used to be tributaries of the Aral Sea, the Ili that is a tributary of the
Balkhash, and the Chu disappearing into the desert. Due to intensive irrigation, the rivers’ discharge
is continuously dropping which, in addition to the loss of the Aral Sea, threatens the existence of the
Lake of Balkhash. Surface irrigation also leads to soil salinisation, especially in clay deserts, such as

43
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Betpak-Dala. Most of the area is rangeland, used for animal husbandry. Croplands such as cereal and
cotton are found in river valleys and irrigated areas fed by the rivers. Remnants of riparian forests
(also known as “tugai”) can be found in the deltas of the Amu Darya and the Ili, and along the along
the Syr Darya. These have high productivity and moderate species diversity (ca. 600 vascular plants)
with many endemics, and serve as habitats for many iconic mammal species (Milkov, 1977) (Sokolov
& Syroyechkovskiy, 1990).
The region of southern deserts includes most of Turkmenistan (except the extreme north and the
south-western mountain part), central Uzbekistan, and the southernmost part of Kazakhstan. January
average temperatures are 0⁰C or higher, while July averages are the highest in the Europe and Central
Asia region exceeding +32⁰C in southern Turkmenistan (Asian Development Bank, 2010). Most of the
region is a rather monotonous plain gently raising from -28m at the shore of the Caspian Sea to 200-
300m in the east. The prevailing landscape is sandy deserts (Karakum, southern Kyzylkum) with salty
marshes and clay deserts occurring by the Caspian Sea (especially by the Bay of Garabogazköl) and in
local depressions. The most important rivers are the Syr Darya, the Amu Darya, the Zeravshan and the
Murghab (the latter two with deltas disappearing into deserts); all heavily utilised in large-scale
irrigation projects. The most important project was the Karakum Canal, constructed in 1954-1988
to promote cotton production in Turkmenistan. It is 1,375km-long, and carries over 13km3 of
water annually from the Amu Darya, which arguably led to the disappearance of the Aral Sea. Due to
its high water losses the canal also causes soil salinization along its route. Deserted rangelands
dominate the region of southern deserts and are mostly used for sheep and camel husbandry, often
nomadic.
The mountain peripheries of Central Asia are often divided into three areas, which are
distinctively different in terms of geomorphology and climatic characteristics (Gvozdeckii &
Mikhailov, 1978): (1) the Central Asian Mountains (Saur, Tarbagatai, Dzungarian Alatau, northern
Tian Shan), (2) south-eastern Tian-Shan and Pamir, and (3) Kopet Dag. All of these areas are
important for biodiversity. The Central Asian Mountains consist of high ranges (Dzungarian Alatau
reaches 4,464m, and northern Tian Shan reaches 7,439 m), which usually stretch latitudinally. The
mountains are dominated by steppes, shrubs and dry meadows, while lower ranges are covered by
shrubs and arid woodlands. The foothils and intermountain depressions are mountain deserts,
which are often irrigated and densely populated; the most important depressions (also known
as “valleys”), such as Fergana and Gissar, and contain a large proportion of Central Asia’s population.
The Central Asian Mountains include several large lakes, notably Issyk-Kul, which is a habitat for
many endemic species. Primary wild walnut-fruit forests are a specific feature of the Central Asian
Mountains, occuring on mountain slopes around 1,000 m above sea level wherever precipitation is
sufficient (Shukurov, 2016; Shukurov et al., 2005). They are dominated by walnut (Juglans regia),
maple, juniper and wild variants of many cultivated fruit trees, thus representing an extremely
important genetic reserve. With about 300 species of vascular plants, these forests are not
particularly diverse, but have a large number of tree and shrub species, with many endemics and
rare species (Ashimov, 2014; Government of Tajikistan., 2014; Shukurov, 2016). South-eastern
Tian-Shan and Pamir is a complex junction of the Central Asian mountain ranges. Its highest
peak in Central Asia is 7,495m. The prevailing landscapes are high-mountain plateaus, valleys
and ridges covered with dry meadows and mountain steppes. There are many glaciers, including
the Fedchenko Glacier that is the world’s longest outside of the polar regions. Most of Pamir is
sparsely populated; the valleys are used for seasonal pastures. Kopet Dag is recognised as
the northern extension of the Iranian Uplands. It is a relatively low mountain range reaching
2,940m and covered with shrubs and low woodlands, which are mostly used for sheep
husbandry.

44
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Asia experienced attempts at rapid industrialisation and socio-economic change during the
Soviet era, followed by massive migration from the western parts of the USSR, while local ethnic
communities maintained many traditional ways and practices, especially in the countryside, and
remained almost unchanged in remote areas, such as the mountain periphery. The exceptions include
northern Kazakhstan dominated by migrants from western parts of the USSR, and some large cities.
After the dissolutioon of the Soviet Union in 1991, the significance of traditional cultural and religious
views and practices grew considerably, although to varying extents across the region. Environmental
disasters, such as the drying out of the Aral Sea and large scale soil salinisation, as well as conflicts
over water resources, keep environmental awareness relatively high and well represented in policy
agendas, although much oriented towards resource availability and quality of life.
When Central Asia was part of the Soviet Union, many large-scale irrigation and hydropower projects
were launched that led to water management problems. With the end of the Soviet era these issues
became transboundary in nature, but with Central Asian countries rebuilding their economies, the
preservation of natural resources was often assigned a low priority. In the 21st century, the transition
to a green economy and more resource-conscious agriculture was initiated in several Central Asian
countries. Programmes for conserving agro-biodiversity, wetland habitats and CO2 sequestration have
been put in place, and indigenous and local knowledge continues to contribute to land management,
especially in areas where semi-nomadic and transhumance livelihoods prevail. The natural
contributions provided by these large steppe areas are important at the global level, especially for
climate regulation, water regulation and soil formation. Many Central Asian States are interested in
the transition to a green economy and have the natural capital to support this, but the prospect of
rapid economic development based on the export of resources also has strong potential.

1.3.5 Relationships between Europe and Central Asia subregions

Transboundary connections within and beyond Europe and Central Asia are briefly introduced here,
and are dealt with more extensively in Chapter 2. Europe and Central Asia has a number of
transboundary issues that broadly fall into 3 categories: 1) transboundary governance systems, 2)
transboundary nature and its contributions to people, and 3) links to other regions of the world. The
European Union is economically the largest of the trans-boundary governance structures, and a major
player in ecological protection in the region. However, other important transboundary governance
structures exist, such as the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,
and Switzerland, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Moldova, and
the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Although
these associations are broadly based on economic criteria, they provide opportunities for cultural
exchange and shared interests across a range of topics, potentially including the protection of natural
capital.
A major transboundary issue for nature and its contributions to people concerns water as a resource
and as a habitat, especially along major rivers, with the impact of dams, hydroelectric plants and water
abstraction for irrigation from lakes, rivers and inland seas. Effects can be far-reaching from source to
sea inlet and often bridge several subregions. Furthermore, air pollution can have widespread
geographic impacts on habitat quality, especially nitrogenous compounds. Resources, products,
pollution and waste are also transported across the boundaries within Europe and Central Asia, which
impacts on ecosystems in multiple ways, including eutrophication and invasive species. However,
green corridors (mountain ranges, river floodplains, the former Iron Curtain) provide a more positive
benefit of transboundary interactions across Europe and Central Asia.

45
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.3.6 Global connections and issues

Europe and Central Asia has many links and teleconnections with the rest of the world, notably
through global trade and the transport of goods (Kastner et al., 2015). Transport supports the
movement of invasive species that impact directly on ecosystem quality within the region (Hulme,
2009). The import of food and other goods has the effect of displacing the environmental pressures
exerted by Europe and Central Asia’s regional consumption to other parts of the world (Cuypers et al.,
2013), while Europe and Central Asia is dependent on these imported goods. Moreover, there is some
evidence to suggest that Western Europe has been responsible for overfishing in waters beyond its
jurisdiction (e.g. Akiba, 1997). Cultural links with regions outside of Europe and Central Asia are
important in transforming human livelihoods, consumption patterns, value systems and attitudes
towards nature, which also affect local nature and its contributions to people.China is an important
emerging power that has an influence from outside the Europe and Central Asia region (Tracy et al.,
2017). China-led political, security and economic initiatives, such as the Silk Road Economic Belt or the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization are increasingly visible in the region, in particular in Eastern
Europe, and even more so in Central Asia. The implications for nature are not entirely clear yet, but
impacts may arise from the further growth of international trade, and possibly with large-scale
infrastructural developments in regions bordering China (Tracy et al., 2017).

1.4 The global and regional policy context

1.4.1 The Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development Goals
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. In 2010, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, encompassing a long-term vision and a shorter-term mission
(see Box 1.2). The 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, divided among five Strategic Goals, are part of the
Strategic Plan and an essential tool for its implementation (CBD, 2010). To determine whether
progress is being made toward halting biodiversity loss and ensuring that ecosystems are resilient and
provide essential services for good quality of life, requires an assessment of current states, and an
understanding of past and future trends. Tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
allows an evaluation of the progress towards the accomplishment of both the vision and mission of
the Strategic Plan.
Box 1.2: The vision and mission of Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

“Living in harmony with nature”- The vision of the Strategic Plan

“By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services,
sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.”
The mission of Strategic Plan
“take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are
resilient and continue to provide essential services, thereby securing the planet’s variety of life, and
contributing to human well-being, and poverty eradication. To ensure this, pressures on biodiversity are
reduced, ecosystems are restored, biological resources are sustainably used and benefits arising out of
utilization of genetic resources are shared in a fair and equitable manner; adequate financial resources are
provided, capacities are enhanced, biodiversity issues and values mainstreamed, appropriate policies are
effectively implemented, and decision-making is based on sound science and the precautionary approach.”

46
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Convention on Biological Diversity 2010)

End of Box 1.2

Sustainable Development Goals. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015)
form the key component of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and are a
re-affirmation of the world’s commitment to move towards sustainable development. There are 17
Sustainable Development Goals with 169 targets covering a wide-range of areas, from ending poverty
to empowering women and protecting the environment. The Sustainable Development Goals
(together with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets) provide a global framework within which to tackle the
biodiversity crisis. Goals 14 and 15 address biodiversity and ecosystems (nature) explicitly. However,
the broader importance of nature to quality of life makes the Europe and Central Asia assessment
relevant for several Sustainable Development Goals. Table 1.5 maps the Europe and Central Asia
questions onto the Goals.
The fifth national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity provided an important source of
information for the mid-term review of progress towards the implementation of the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The fifth national reports have also
contributed to the development of the fourth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (CBD, 2014).

1.4.2 The relationship between the Europe and Central Asia policy questions, the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets, the Sustainable Development Goals, and other biodiversity
policies
Since the formulation of the general questions, and those specific to Europe and Central Asia,
responded to requests by Governments, multilateral environmental agreements and other
stakeholders, they are relevant to policy agendas encapsulated within the Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Table 1.5 maps the Europe
and Central Asia policy questions onto the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development
Goals. The following sections describe how different parts of the Europe and Central Asia region
contribute to achieving these policy goals.
Table 1.5: How the Europe and Central Asia policy questions relate to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
and Sustainable Development Goals (see Section 1.1.1 for an overview of the Europe and Central
Asia questions).

Policy-relevant questions Aichi Biodiversity Sustainable

Targets Development
Goals
1. Importance of nature to humans 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,
11, 13, 14, 15
2. Current change of nature (ecosystems and 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15
biodiversity) and its consequences 15, 18, 19
3. Causes of this change 3, 4, 8, 9, 10 12, 13, 14, 15
4. Opportunities for policies and interventions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
5. Identification of knowledge gaps 18, 19 6, 12, 13, 14, 15

47
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Policy-relevant questions Aichi Biodiversity Sustainable

Targets Development
Goals

6. Opportunities to apply investment, regulation and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,

management instruments for protection of important 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17
ecosystems and management of their contribution to 17, 18, 19, 20
people and good quality of life
7. Impacts of production, consumption and economic 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 10, 12, 13, 14, 15
development on nature and nature’s contributions,
including effects in other regions
8. How policy sectors and instruments can encourage 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11,
opportunities for good quality of life related to 12, 13, 14, 15
biodiversity and ecosystems (nature)

European Union Countries. The European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2020 emerged from the Birds
and Habitats Directive, as the cornerstone of European Union biodiversity protection policy (adopted
in May 2011). The aim of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020 is to halt biodiversity loss in the European
Union, restoring ecosystems where possible, and stepping up efforts to avert global biodiversity loss.
The European Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 sets six targets addressing the main pressures on
nature and ecosystem services in the European Union and beyond (Birdlife Europe and Central Asia,
2015; European Commission, 2011). As such, the European Union has laid down a commitment to
various biodiversity-related conventions and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Table 1.6 shows the links
between the European Union Strategy targets and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which integrate the
concept of ecosystem services as an approach to ecosystem conservation and restoration. For
example, at the European Union level, policies already integrate the ecosystem services approach into
member States' economy and planning, for example in the new rural development policy for 2014-
2020, the European Union's regional and cohesion policy, and the blueprint to safeguard the future of
its waters by 2015 (Maes et al., 2012).
Table 1.6: Comparison of the targets of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Source: Based on BISE (2015); CBD (2015).

European Union Biodiversity Targets Aichi Biodiversity

Targets*
Target 1: Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives 1, 11, 12
Target 2: Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services 15, 14, 8, 10
Target 3: Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to 7, 5, 13
maintaining and enhancing biodiversity
Target 4: Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources 6, 7, 10
Target 5: Help combat invasive alien species 5
Target 6: Help avert global biodiversity loss 2, 3, 16, 17, 20
*The three missing Aichi Biodiversity Targets, particularly Target 4 (partnership for biodiversity), and
Targets 18 and 19 (building on the biodiversity knowledge base) are cross-cutting issues.

48
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Non-European Union countries. Countries outside the European Union contribute to the
implementation of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets through national strategies, plans or programmes (in
line with Article 6 of the Convention on Biological Diversity). Currently, almost all Parties to the
Convention (189 out of 196) and all countries in Europe and Central Asia with the exception of Cyprus,
Monaco and San Marino, have developed national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs).
NBSAPs are instruments for the effective implementation of the Convention at the national level, with
the expectation of leading to the successful fulfilment of the Convention. Parties have different levels
of NBSAP completion. Only 10 Europe and Central Asia countries completed a revision of the NBSAPs
prior to the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, when the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets were adopted. By August 2017, most of the Europe and Central Asia countries had
a revised version of the NBSAP, but for the others, revisions are still underway (Table 1.7).
Countries of Europe and Central Asia are signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and so,
have committed to change their biodiversity strategy to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The
Europe and Central Asia key questions reflect this engagement in responding to current needs and
requests by diverse stakeholders from governments to local communities.

49
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.4.3 Other environmental and non-environmental policies and governance

European Union countries. In addition to the European Union Biodiversity Strategy 2020, there are a
number of other sectoral polices within the European Union that affect biodiversity and ecosystems.
The Water Framework Directive aims to ensure the “good ecological status” of European water bodies
(European Union, 2000). The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been expanded from its food
production focus to consider the broader implications of farm management for the environment,
through a range of agri-environmental schemes targeting ecological infrastructure (e.g. Batáry et al.,
2015). The Common Agricultural Policy also supports rural development and the continuation of
traditional agricultural practices of high nature value (EEA, 2015a). At the national and local level,
European Union countries have implemented a number of land use planning policies to support green
space (Kabisch et al., 2016), and to use the ecosystem services concept for improved nature

50
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation. There are also many listed conservation areas, implemented through national policy or
as part of the European Union Natura2000 network of protected areas (European Commission, 2008).
The Common Fisheries Policy has become increasingly concerned with the management of fish stocks,
although more action is needed to ensure the sustainability of all European Union fisheries. The
European Union has developed Sea Basin Management Plans for the Mediterranean (Adriatic and
Ionian Seas), the Black Sea, the North Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean (European
Commission, 2017b). It also implemented the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 2008
(European Union, 2008), a Directive for maritime spatial planning (European Union, 2014), and set out
a Blue Growth Agenda (European Commission, 2015a).
Non-European Union countries. Most of the non-European Union countries of Europe and Central
Asia are either involved in European Union- led initiatives, such as the European Environment Agency
(EEA, n.d.), or European Union association agreements (all the non-European Union Western and
Central European countries except for Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), non-European
Union organizations such as The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (EFTA, n.d.), or in post-USSR,
organizations led by Russia, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) (CIS, n.d.) or the
Eurasian Economic Union (EEU, n.d.). The countries involved in European Union-related initiatives are
converging their biodiversity governance frameworks with that of the European Union. Post-USSR
initiatives do not promote policies or institutions with direct implications for nature. Essentially, they
are trade and customs agreements, although with ambitions of expanding to other sectors. The
indirect impacts include, for example, the orientation of the agricultural sectors of the Commonwealth
of Independent States and Eurasian Economic Union countries towards exports to the Russian market.
Most of the countries in the region have signed and ratified all the major multilateral environmental
agreements dealing with nature and related trade and production issues. Private governance
arrangements play an increasing role in national and international biodiversity governance regimes. A
prime example is forest and fisheries certification, such as those by the Forest Stewardship Council
and the Marine Stewardship Council. Although their fit to purpose and role in protecting species and
habitats is heavily criticised, there is a consensus that the overall impact is positive (Elbakidze et al.
2011). In the case of the Forest Stewardship Council, this is often observed in countries with top-down
governance systems (Niedziałkowski & Shkaruba, in press).

1.5 Methods and approaches used in the assessment

1.5.1 The assessment procedure

The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia synthesizes knowledge from the scientific
literature and grey literature and captures indigenous and local knowledge. The assessment operates
at the border of scientific terra incognita, dealing with large knowledge gaps, potential scientific
disagreement and multiple evidence types. Interactions between humans and the natural
environment are complex. To allow decision-makers to make informed decisions, experts need to
communicate not only the findings in which they have a high level of confidence, but also those
requiring further investigation. Confidence refers to the extent to which experts are assured of their
findings. Low confidence describes incomplete knowledge and preventing a full explanation of an
outcome or a reliable prediction of a future outcome; whereas high confidence conveys extensive
knowledge and he ability to explain an outcome or predict a future outcome with much greater
certainty. The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia communicates confidence through
the use of uncertainty statements (Seppelt et al., 2012), qualitative self-assessment (Crossman et al.,

51
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2013) and standardized confidence reporting (Jacobs et al., 2015). By following a common approach
to applying confidence langauge within an assessment, authors are able to increase consistency and
transparency.
For every key finding in the assessment report, the supporting evidence and the level of scientific
agreement was evaluated and qualified with confidence statements, including validation and
evaluation by holders of indigenous and local knowledge (see 1.5.4). Confidence statements for
qualitative evidence were applied using a four-box model (see Figure 1.11). For any of these
statements, a reference is included from the key finding to the section in the main assessment report,
where the the expert team treated the corresponding issue.

1.5.2 The approach to values used in the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central
Asia
Valuation is central to assessments of nature. In this section, we explain how IPBES, and specifically
the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia, deals with valuation, which is essential to fully
understand its findings. The design of governance, institutions and policies rarely takes account of the
diverse values of nature. Valuation, if carried out in a way that is open to diverse perspectives, is a
significant resource for a range of decision-makers, including governments, civil society organizations,
and indigenous people and local communities. Therefore, value diversity is fully embodied within the
IPBES conceptual framework. The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia recognises
culturally different worldviews, visions and approaches to achieving good quality of life, following the
assessment guidelines on valuation (IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse
conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services (deliverable 3 (d))).

52
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

IPBES considers three main value dimensions: (1) values directly linked to nature itself (including
biodiversity and ecosystem structure and functioning); (2) values derived from nature’s contributions
to people (including ecosystem services); and (3) values more directly linked to good quality of life
(see Table 1.8). For each value dimension, the Europe and Central Asia assessment applied specific
assessment methods. Basic understanding of the valuation methods used is important since these
strongly influence the outcomes of each valuation (IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding
diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and
ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3 (d))).
In each of the three main value dimensions, different foci and targets of valuation were distinguished
as they relate to different policy arenas and societal decision-making. For example, concern for
individual living beings is expressed by animal welfare movements and policies, whereas concerns for
genetic diversity are expressed in the Cartagena Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity. As
there is overlap between different foci and their significance varies in different contexts, Table 1.8 -
rather than being a rigid classification - is a tool to structure research and the analysis of diverse values
across different worldviews. In the detailed value targets, differences may occur between chapters,
but these are mostly minor and do not affect findings concerning the value foci or dimensions.
Table 1.8: The diverse values addressed in the Europe and Central Asia assessment, based on
document IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values
of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable
3 (d)) and accommodated following the wording of “nature’s contributions to people” for the
purposes of Europe and Central Asia.

53
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Value Dimension Value Type Value Focus* IPBES-Valuation Targets Further examples and clarifications
N1 Individual organisms Individual organisms Living beings (biocentrism), sentient beings (animal welfare/rights)...

anthropocentri
NATURE N2 Biophysical assemblages Biophysical assemblages Populations, communities, ecosystems, biomes, the biosphere, Gaia, Pachamama, Mother Earth...

Non-

c
N3 Biophysical processes Biophysical processes Evolution, ecosystem functions and processes, ecological resilience ...
N4 Biodiversity** Biodiversity Genetic, functional, taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity, uniqueness, vulnerability...
C1 Options for NCP 18 Maintenance of options
1 Habitat creation and maintenance
2 Pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules
NATURE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE***

3 Regulation of air quality

4 Regulation of climate
Anthropocentric- instrumental

5 Regulation of ocean acidification

C2 Regulating NCP
6 Regulation of freshwater quantity, flow and timing
7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality
8 Formation, protection and decontamination of soils and sediments
9 Regulation of hazards and extreme events
10 Regulation of organisms detrimental to humans
11 Energy
12 Food and feed
C3 Material NCP
13 Materials and assistance
14 Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources
15 Learning and inspiration
C4 Non-material NCP 16 Physical and psychological experiences
17 Supporting identities
Stewardship, relationships and interactions between people and nature inherently entwined as systems of
Living well in harmony with nature life, as also indicated by time spent for managing ecosystems, conservation activities, contemplation of
nature...
Q1 Cultural
Anthropocentric - Relational

Identity and Autonomy Sense of place, sense of community, historical values, agency, self-determination...
GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE

Spirituality and Religions Sacred sites, totemic beings, spiritual well-being…

Art and Cultural heritage Inspiration, artistic creation...
Sustainability and Resilience Social-ecological resilience, social, economic and ecological sustainability...
Q2 Societal Diversity and Options Biocultural diversity, diversity of current and future options …
Governance and Justice Environmental justice, intra-generational equity, inter-generational equity...
Health and Wellbeing Physical, mental, holistic health, biophilia...
Education and Knowledge Inspiration, education, experience, learning space...
Q3 Individual
Good social relations Community cohesion, social resilience, conviviality...
Security and Livelihoods Physical security, political stability, food and water security, energy security, livelihood security...
*: The categorisation in the "value focus" collumn strictly serves as an aid for balanced aggregation and depiction of the diverse value dimensions, rather than mutually exclusive categories
**: In the ECA assessment, the term "biodiversity" is used in different senses, from its scientific sense of biological diversity up till its more encompassing sense of the natural environment in general (see also Mace et al 2012)
***: In the ECA assessment, both terms "nature contributions to people" and "ecosystem services" are used. The latter is used where refering to literature dealing with specific ecosystem services, while "nature contributions to people"
is applied to convey statements refering to the broader category of anthropocentric values (which includes ecosystem services).

54
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The following provides definitions applied in the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia for
the main value components. The definitions are based on the IPBES valuation guidance documents
that are slightly adapted to the Europe and Central Asia context where needed.
Nature: In this assessment, the concept of “nature” refers to nature at large, encompassing a
continuum from nature as an autonomous functioning and evolving system to nature involving
domesticated plants and animals. Within the context of science, it includes categories such as
biodiversity 4, ecosystems, ecosystem functioning, evolution, the biosphere, humankind’s shared
evolutionary heritage, and biocultural diversity. Within the context of other knowledge systems,
nature also includes different beliefs and concepts held around the world by indigenous peoples and
local communities , such as “Mother Earth” and “systems of life” (Díaz et al., 2015).
Non-anthropocentric values. These include the values that people attribute to living beings, species,
ecosystems or regions that are not centred exclusively on humans and contributions to good quality
of human life. Some of these values can be assessed using quantitative measures of biological diversity
and ecological integrity that involve studies on biodiversity, individual organisms, biophysical
assemblages and ecological processes at different levels.
• Intrinsic values are independent of any human experience or evaluation. Since intrinsic value
can be recognized, but not quantified, by humans it is not the target of any valuation process
(Pascual et al., 2017) (see also Batavia & Nelson, 2017). However, intrinsic values are one of
the main motivations for nature conservation and for conducting this assessment.
Anthropocentric values. These are values centred on humans. An assessment of anthropocentric
values must consider how they relate to the current state and potential changes in nature, nature’s
contributions to people, and good quality of life. The two main types of anthropocentric values
considered in IPBES are instrumental and relational values:
• Instrumental values refer to the value attributed to something as a means to achieve a
particular end for humans, and in IPBES these are referred to as nature´s contributions to
people (see below).
• Relational values are the positive values assigned to “desirable relationships”, such as those
among people and between people and nature (Díaz et al., 2015). Relational values refer to
both desirable human-human interactions and human-nature interactions. “Living in harmony
with nature”, “living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth” and “human well-
being” are examples of different perspectives on what in the IPBES context is referred to as
good quality of life.
Nature’s contributions to people. Defined by Pascual et al. (2017) as “all the positive contributions,
or benefits, and occasionally negative contributions, losses or detriments, that people obtain from
nature. It resonates with the original use of the term ecosystem services 5 in the Millenium Ecosystem
Assessment (2005), and goes further by explicitly embracing concepts associated with other

4 In the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia, the term “biodiversity” is used in different senses, from its scientific
sense of biological diversity to its more encompassing sense of the natural environment in general and the concept of
intrinsic value (see also Mace et al., 2012).
5 The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia uses both the terms "nature’s contributions to people" and

"ecosystem services". The latter is used when refering to literature dealing with specific ecosystem services, while "nature’s
contributions to people" is applied to convey statements refering to the broader category of anthropocentric values (which
include ecosystem services).

55
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

worldviews on human–nature relations and knowledge systems (e.g. “nature’s gifts” in many
indigenous cultures) (Díaz et al., 2015)”. They can be assessed in many different ways, including
economic, social and biophysical valuation methods. Each of these methods elicits different values
and, so, requires a broad set of approaches (Boeraeve et al., 2014; Jacobs et al., 2016).
Good quality of life. The achievement of a fulfilled human life, the criteria for which may vary greatly
across different societies and groups within societies. It is a context-dependent state of individuals
and human groups, comprising aspects such as access to food, water, energy and livelihood security,
and also health, good social relationships and equity, security, cultural identity, and freedom of choice
and action (Díaz et al., 2015). These values are assessed using various methods. A valuation that looks
at the social-ecological system as a whole is essential for fully understanding relational values. Such
valuation combines data from, for example, narratives, preference assessments, participatory
geographical analyses, historical studies and biophysical models. First-hand information from
individuals holding relational values is essential.
Integrated valuation. Some valuation methods are appropriate at eliciting a wide range of values (e.g.
cultural and social methods) while others are limited to specific value types (e.g. monetary valuation)
(Jacobs et al., 2016). Values are not necessarily independent of one another and can co-exist. Human
decisions are ideally made by weighing and summarizing different values that are highly dependent
on socio-economic, biophysical and governance contexts (Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2014). Most policy
decisions de facto include diverse values implicitly and are rarely based on economic, ecological or
social impacts alone. Integrated valuation has been increasingly developed as a methodology or
practice to achieve a more transparent approach in combining diverse values (Dendoncker et al., 2014;
Jacobs et al., 2016). Integrated valuation was therefore put forward in the IPBES guidelines to achieve
fair, reliable and policy relevant valuation (IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse
conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services (deliverable 3 (d))).
IPBES includes integrated valuation directly within the assessment process. In the Europe and Central
Asia assessment, integrated valuation was realized through several initiatives supported by a technical
support unit established to address these issues. A workshop of valuation experts, the values liaison
group for the Regional Assesment for Europe and Central Asia, provided feedback, concrete
suggestions and support to the assessment authors, facilitated by the technical support unit for the
assessment and the technical support unit on values.

1.5.3 Overview of methods and approaches used in the Regional Assessment for Europe
and Central Asia
Each chapter of the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia implemented a comprehensive
literature review for a wide range of information sources, from primary information (map archives,
databases) to peer-reviewed, academic literature as well as grey literature and knowledge from
stakeholders, and indigenous peoples and local communities. The literature reviews adopted a
systematic approach to evaluate the large body of information using specific key word searches in
English, Russian and Ukrainian. The analysis also used supplementary sources of information, including
indicators of relevance to the Convention on Biological Diversity, to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, to
the Sustainable Development Goals, and to regional biodiversity targets (e.g. the IUCN Red List

56
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

species 6, UNstats 7, Sustainable Development Goal indicators 8, European Environment Agency

indicators 9). The literature reviews formed the basis of expert judgements by the author team
including the attribution of confidence statements. Chapter 5 developed scenario archetypes to
summarise plausible and consistent future developments for Europe and Central Asia. The archetypes
synthesize impacts and identify the key sustainability issues facing policy and society across a wide
range of scenarios found in the literature.
The assessment followed common guidelines to ensure consistency across chapters. This included the
conceptual framework (see Section 1.1.5) introduced in the IPBES guide to assessments
(IPBES/4/INF/9: Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and across all scales
(deliverable 2 (a))), a glossary specific to the Europe and Central Asia assessment, a list of indicators
(IPBES, 2017), a classification of the units of analysis (see Table 1.3), a typology of nature’s
contributions to people (Pascual et al., 2017) and the confidence statements (see Section 1.5.1).

1.5.4 Consideration of indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)

Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems in IPBES are dynamic bodies of integrated, holistic,
social-ecological knowledge, and practices and beliefs about the relationships between living beings,
including humans, and their environment. Indigenous and local knowledge is highly diverse, and
produced in a collective manner at the interface between the diversity of ecosystems and human
cultural systems. It is continuously evolving through the interaction of experiences and different types
of knowledge (written, oral, tacit, practical, and scientific) among indigenous peoples and local
communities.
Taking indigenous and local knowledge into account in nature-related assessments improves both the
social robustness and the accuracy of the outcomes, i.e. outcomes are closer to the studied context
(Cowling et al. 2008; Donovan et al. 2009; Flint et al. 2013). This follows from the recognition that
many of the remaining biodiversity-rich regions of the world are also homelands to indigenous peoples
and local communities (cf. Convention on Biological Diversity). Indigenous and local knowledge
holders can represent complementary sources of knowledge, often working at different scales of time
and space, addressing different kinds of issues, and informing areas that science has not investigated
see e.g. Kalkanbekov & Samakov (2016). As indigenous peoples retain within their knowledge systems
an inter-generational memory of fluctuations, trends and exceptional events in relation to the local
environment, they can contribute importantly to understanding processes of change, whether these
are long-term, global transformation processes or circumscribed local events.
Indigenous and local knowledge is partly available in the published scientific literature, which reports
observations from indigenous peoples and local communities about ecosystem characteristics and
trends, and drivers of change. However, the integration of indigenous and local knowledge into
mainstream science often implies the application of a validation process, which may not be an
appropriate way of treating knowledge holders (Agrawal, 2002; Danielsen et al., 2014; Huntington et
al., 2002; Kalkanbekov & Samakov, 2016; Nadasdy, 1999). An increasing amount of scientific literature
now seeks to produce and co-produce knowledge relevant to local conditions and actors by integrating
the complex contextual and socio-ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities

6 http://www.iucnredlist.org/
7 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm
8 https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/
9 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators#c5=&c0=10&b_start=0

57
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(e.g. Fagerholm et al. 2012; Fontaine et al. 2014; Sillitoe 2006). IPBES seeks to progress this approach
by bringing indigenous and local knowledge into IPBES assessments from the outset. IPBES developed
guidance for the integration of indigenous and local knowledge into its assessments that respects not
only the diversity and value of this knowledge, but also the rights of indigenous and local communities
to share the benefits of knowledge gained from the assessments. IPBES integrates indigenous and
local knowledge into its assessments through the appointment of experts with expertise in the
subject.In the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia, indigenous and local knowledge was
integrated through several initiatives supported by a task force on indigenous and local knowledge. A
workshop of indigenous and local knowledge holders and experts provided releant case studies and
white and grey literature to the assessment authors. It also introduced the assessment to indigenous
and local knowledge holders at an early stage. Subsequently, these knowledge holders and experts
co-produced the workshop proceedings (Roué & Molnár, 2017) to provide indigenous and local
knowledge-relevant information to the assessment. Authors of the assessment, represented by a
liaison group on indigenous and local knowledge, reviewed relevant literature, supported by the task
force. Furthermore, the assessment report drafts were made available to indigenous peoples and local
communities through the external review process.

1.5.5 Data and indicators

Current knowledge on nature and its contributions to people is expanding rapidly (see Figure 1.12 for
a bibliographic search on biodiversity and ecosystem services), but is far from complete (see Section
1.6.1 which outlines differences in temporal, taxonomic and spatial coverage across Europe and
Central Asia) (Cardinale et al., 2012). Regional and global publically available datasets present
opportunities to expand this knowledge (e.g. the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Key Biodiversity
Areas (specifically Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs], and Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)
sites), Protected Planet, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility). Many efforts have been made to
combine data into metrics or indicators that provide aggregate information about status and trends
of nature and of pressures. For instance, data such as observations and measurements are used as the
basis for deriving indicators, or several measurements can be combined to derive an index.
IPBES uses indicators in conducting its assessments. Indicators are defined here as data aggregated in
a manner – quantitative or qualitative - that reflect the status, cause or outcome of an object or
process, especially towards targets such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets or those included under the
Sustainable Development Goals. Meaningful indicators require long-term monitoring data. Indicators
can help to simplify the enormous complexity of datasets, variables, frameworks and approaches
available to IPBES assessments. Complementing other forms of information and knowledge,
standardized indicators have the potential to provide a common thread and quantitative point of
comparison among assessments. They facilitate the synthesis envisioned for the IPBES global
assessment, and ensure comparability and coherence across the regional assessments and between
the regional or land degradation and restoration assessments on the one hand, and the global
assessment on the other hand. They are useful tools for communicating the results of assessments
and are a popular policy support tool used at multiple scales in tracking performance, exploring
progress towards policy targets, and understanding the consequences of particular decisions,
interventions or even future scenarios (Layke et al, 2012).
Following the IPBES conceptual framework, the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
distinguishes indicators of nature (e.g. biomass), of nature’s contributions to people (e.g. production
of commercial crops), of contributions to good quality of life (e.g. amount of calories) and of values

58
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(e.g. market or cultural values). The assessment has devoted efforts to fully referencing and
documenting data sources to allow independent recalculation of indicators and indices and to allow
tracing back to their component measures (Ash et al., 2010). It is, however, important to recognize
the limitations of a given set of indicators in capturing the complexities of the “real world”, since
indicators are restricted to what can be measured and for which there are available data. Notably,
these limitations are especially significant when it comes to assessing the non-material contributions
of nature to people and in quality of life. Moreover, the choice of indicators relates to diverse cultural
perspectives. Hence, in IPBES assessments, indicators are subject to critical analysis and review from
a diversity of experts. IPBES has consulted widely in arriving at a comprehensive list of biophysical and
socio-ecological indicators that cover the conceptual framework (IPBES, 2017).

1.5.6 The role of scenarios and models in the assessment

As other environmental studies have shown (e.g. IPCC 2014; UK NEA 2011; UNEP 2012; MEA 2005),
models and scenarios represent effective means of addressing relationships between nature, its
contributions to people, and good quality of life for the past, present and future. “Models” are
qualitative or quantitative descriptions of key components of a system and of the relationships
between those components. “Scenarios” are representations of possible futures for one or more
components of a system, especially for the drivers of change in nature and its contributions, including
alternative policy or management options (Rounsevell & Metzger, 2010). A scenario archetype
describes a group of futures that are deemed “similar” according to the purpose of a specific analysis
(Boschetti et al., 2016).

59
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

One of the key objectives in using scenarios and models is to move away from a reactive mode of
decision-making, in which society responds to the degradation of nature and its contributions to
people in an uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion. A proactive mode allows society to anticipate change
and thereby to minimize adverse impacts and capitalize on important opportunities through
thoughtful adaptation and mitigation strategies. The goals of using scenarios and models in
assessments of nature and its contributions to people, are to better understand and synthesize a
broad range of data (i) to assess future impacts of global changes, and (ii) to explore the implications
of alternative social-ecological development pathways and policy options in support of decision-
making (IPBES, 2016b) (see Figure 1.13).

Scenarios and models allow research questions to be addressed for which observational evidence is
lacking (e.g. model applications across geographic space) or unavailable (e.g. scenarios of the future)
(IPBES, 2016b). They allow “what if?” studies to be conducted that cannot be undertaken in empirical
experiments, and to explore alternative pathways toward visions or goals for the future (Rounsevell
& Metzger, 2010). Thus, scenarios can be exploratory by projecting different pathways from the
present situation, or normative by analysing the pathways required to achieve future desired states
or goals. The Europe and Central Asia assessment reports on both of these approaches. However, the
importance of scenarios extends beyond the scientific or policy arenas. These tools can help to focus
investments and technology development, induce societal change, and support engagement with key
stakeholders (UNEP, 2012). For example, the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia has
access to a large literature base derived from social surveys and participatory scenario development
exercises that provide insight into local knowledge (Gramberger et al., 2015; Kok et al., 2015). This
involves engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, including primary producers (e.g. farmers,

60
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

foresters, fishermen) and individuals supporting decision processes (e.g. civil servants, government
officials).
Scenarios and models support an understanding of the connections between all aspects of the IPBES
conceptual framework. Scenarios and models can be used independently or in combination. An
example of a combined use of both are integrated assessment models. Integrated assessment models
allow linkages between system components to be explored in interconnected, social-ecological
systems (Harrison et al. 2016; van Vuuren et al. 2012). An economic dimension to biodiversity loss
enhances social and ecological considerations and the consequent impacts on the availability of
ecosystem services. Thus, integrated assessment models allow experimentation and analysis of co-
evolving processes within the social-ecological system across spatial and temporal scales. Particularly,
by synthetizing various pieces of disciplinary scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge,
models help to qualitatively or quantitatively analyse the cause-effect relationships of, for example,
biodiversity loss, and provide outputs for policy-oriented applications (MEA, 2005).

1.6 Challenges in conducting the Regional Assessment for Europe and

Central Asia

1.6.1 State of knowledge

Data gaps and uncertainties. The Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia draws on many
different types of data and expert knowledge. Examples include large-scale quantitative data derived
from remote sensing, data collected from field sampling of taxa at a range of scales and qualitative
data collected by interviewing people. The challenge has been to combine such data into meaningful
syntheses while acknowledging the differences in accuracy both within similar methods (in terms of
sampling effort) and between methods. Complicating factors include: (i) the fact that the definition of
biodiversity is often unclear (Cardinale et al., 2012) and there is a bias towards easily studied taxa
(Maier & Feest, 2015); (ii) difficulty in quantifying the different types of anthropogenic and non-
anthropogenic values (Pearson, 2016); and (iii) capturing knowledge from regions with little
underlying scientific information (although this can be offset in part by the integration of indigenous
and local knowledge).
Data collection as an ongoing process. Long-term and widespread data collection both for nature and
its contributions to people can be expensive. Although citizen science offers exciting opportunities, it
requires the potentially unjustified assumption that volunteers will engage in such projects and that
data is of sufficient quality. That said, Europe and Central Asia has a number of ongoing data gathering
exercises that can support the improvement of databases in the near term. These include the
European Union’s project Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services, which
encourages European Union member States to collect and map spatial data for a number of ecosystem
service indicators (biodiversity.europa.eu/maes). The European Environment Agency has created the
Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) (http://biodiversity.europa.eu) and Water
Information System for Europe (WISE) (http://water.europa.eu/) databases that are continually
updated. The European Commission has also funded the development of the Oppla web platform
(www.oppla.eu) that is engaging with communities of practice across the science-policy-practice
nexus to provide tested methods, data and case study examples of the operationalisation of natural
capital and ecosystem services. Oppla is supporting the IPBES process by contributing towards the
development of the catalogue of policy support tools on the IPBES website (www.ipbes.net). There is
also a range of global data collection exercises for biodiversity that can generate data relevant to

61
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Europe and Central Asia (e.g. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species) and which, in some cases, already
have explicit derivatives (e.g.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/).
Outside of the European Union, the most consistent peer-reviewed activity for making inventories of
the conservation status of endangered species is the development and maintenance of national red
lists, while the current trends are usually reported in annual assessments of the state of environment
and natural resources (e.g. see Government of Belarus, n.d.; Minprirody of Russia, 2016). Such
assessments are based on the outcomes of national programmes of biodiversity monitoring, which
are typically run by research institutes of national academies of science or national ministries of
environments (or their equivalents). National red lists are based on national lists of endangered
species and published as Red Books. The Red Book of Belarus is published about every 10 years (in
1981, 1993, 2006 and the new edition is pending as of 2017 (Government of Belarus, n.d.). Others are
one-off publications, such as the Red Book of Russia, published in 2001, while the actual red lists can
be available as online databases. In Russia, red lists are kept (and subsequently published as a Red
Book) by most of the members of the Federation (FSBI AARI, n.d.-b). In addition, national academies
of science or botanical and zoological NGOs or agencies of ministries of environment, maintain
national inventories of plant or animal species (e.g. Herbarium of CBG NASB MSKH, n.d.) or of the
biodiversity of protected areas (e.g. FSBI AARI, n.d.-a). The initiatives driven by the non-governmental
sector are usually less comprehensive, although some ambitious projects should not be overlooked,
e.g. BIODAT in Russia (Biodat, 2017) or biodiversity monitoring in the Ukraine (Biodiversity Monitoring
in Ukraine, n.d.).
Heterogeneity of data and knowledge across the region. Knowledge of biodiversity is not spread
evenly across taxa and there is considerable bias in the coverage of different broad-level taxonomic
groups both globally and within Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 1.14 and Figure 1.15). Whilst over
1.64 million species have been described on Earth (Catalogue of Life, 2016) out of a global total of
about 8 million (Mora et al., 2011), only 82,954 have been assessed by 31 October 2016 on the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. At more detailed scales, full assessments have been made of smaller
subsets of species within some groups including the following taxonomic groups: amphibians, reef-
building corals, chameleons, seasnakes, sharks and rays, tarpons and ladyfishes, parrotfishes and
surgeonfishes, groupers, tunas and billfishes, hagfishes, angelfishes, blennies, butterflyfishes, picarels,
porgies, pufferfishes, seabreams, sturgeon, wrasses, freshwater caridean shrimps, cone snails,
freshwater crabs, freshwater crayfish, lobsters, cacti, conifers, cycads, seagrasses and plant species
occurring in mangrove ecosystems (Brooks et al., 2016). However, some groups have far less coverage,
for example plants (7.1%), fungi and protists (<0.001%) and invertebrates (1.4%) (IUCN, 2017).
Europe and Central Asia supports 2,493 species that have been assessed on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Of this group 13% are classified as threatened (Brooks et al., 2016). Of the taxa
classified on the global-scale IUCN Red List of Threatened Species the Europe and Central Asia region
holds 6.5% (see Figure 1.16). There are fewer data available in Central Asia than in the other three
subregions. Although there is background knowledge of the role of many taxa in ecosystem
functioning, there is far less known about their individual roles in systems; about what would happen
if they were removed from food webs; and about the services they provide as individual species. While
there is some literature in this area, most is focused on plant studies, e.g. see Cardinale et al. (2012);
Schwartz et al. (2000).

62
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

63
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.6.2 Methodological limitations

Model and scenario uncertainty. Models as tools for quantitative or qualitative descriptions of nature,
its contributions to people, and the intra and interrelationships therein, are simplifications of a
complex reality. Hence, the limitations of representing complex realities and interactions are
embedded within model uncertainty. A number of model inter-comparison exercises have sought to
quantify model uncertainty for some components of the natural world (e.g. Alexander et al., 2016b;
Prestele et al., 2016). Scenarios, as descriptions of possible futures, contain the inherent uncertainties
associated with socio-political, economic, technological and cultural drivers of change that affect
nature. Dealing with scenario uncertainties is often done by creating different storylines that cover a

64
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

range of possible futures, based on different sets of assumptions about future trajectories of key
factors (e.g. population, income, technology development or consumption patterns (Rounsevell &
Metzger, 2010). Both models and scenarios also share the uncertainty associated with the input data
upon which they are based, although the use of confidence intervals can help to make uncertainty
more transparent.
Uncertainties in model and input data can often be greater than the differences between the scenarios
themselves (Alexander et al. 2016b; Dendoncker et al. 2008; Prestele et al. 2016) leading to
conclusions about the need to run multiple ecosystem impact models to capture the full range of
model uncertainties. Specific types of models such as integrated assessment models, have additional
uncertainties associated with the propagation of errors through coupled sub-modules (e.g. Brown et
al., 2015; Dunford et al., 2014). There has been increased interest in moving from scenarios to
probabilistic futures of natural and socio-ecological system change, but these methods are in their
infancy. Moreover, ascribing probabilities to future events is extremely difficult in practice, in spite of
being desirable within a risk management framework. An approach that combines scenarios with
likelihoods is based on conditional probabilistic futures (Engström et al., 2016), in which future
estimations of the likelihood of different future drivers are conditional on a scenario storyline
(Rounsevell & Metzger, 2010).
Scale (temporal/spatial/institutional). Assessing diverse values of nature over spatial, temporal and
institutional scales is challenging, since these three scale types are interconnected. Spatial scales range
from the interactions between the entire Europe and Central Asia region with other global regions,
over aggregated large patterns and gradients within Europe and Central Asia down to local
communities or smaller. Different organisms operate at different spatial scales, which makes the
potential management of different taxa a challenge. Temporal scales involved in the Regional
Assessment for Europe and Central Asia also vary: from the overarching sustainability principle
spanning across generations, over the assessment of temporal data range (1950-2050, see 1.6.1),
down to the varying ranges of data collected over multiple-year sampling campaigns or seasonal
variations. A similar trade-off appears between aggregating comparable data for longer periods to
capture broad and longer-term trends and the higher precision and specificity of short-term
variations.
Institutional scales are a key issue in IPBES. Values will vary greatly between the perspectives of the
general public, subnational governments, national Governments, supra-national institutions, NGO’s,
and businesses (see 1.3.1). Depending on the institutional scale, an assessment may find conflicting
or contradicting valuations, with one not necessarily more valid than another. Whether nature,
contributions of nature, or good quality of life are considered, different values between scales persist,
as do interactions across scales. This suggests caution when synthesizing and interpreting findings of
the assessment from a specific spatial, temporal and institutional context.
Difficulties in harmonizing data and indices, limitations of indices, knowledge types, and data types.
Given the logistical and resource challenges in monitoring biodiversity or nature and its contributions
to people (see Section 1.6) it is not surprising that indicators are commonly used to represent a wider
suite of organisms or contributions. Such approaches are common in the Regional Assesment for
Europe and Central Asia and, hence, it is important to mention general issues when interpreting such
data. There are limitations in the use of ecological, economic and social indicators (e.g. Selomane et
al., 2015; Stephens et al. 2015; Uuemaa et al., 2013), which are important to recognise. Moreover, as
the assessment draws upon a very diverse range of sources from many different places, harmonizing
them across the whole of the region was a major challenge.

65
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Gathering indigenous and local knowledge and integrating this knowledge within the assessment.
A major challenge is the difference in scale between the regional scope of the assessment and the
nature of indigenous and local knowledge, which is grounded in local territories. Hence, seeking
representativeness of the highly heterogeneous and complex indigenous and local knowledge covered
by the scale of the assessment was a substantial challenge. The Regional Assessment for Europe and
Central Asia sought to resolve this scale issue by collating messages from individual publications on
indigenous and local knowledge and by utilising available reviews (e.g. Hernández-Morcillo et al.,
2014) in highlighting common aspects of the interlinkages between nature, its contributions to people
and good quality of life. The indigenous and local knowledge produced from a specific IPBES dialogue
workshop (Roué & Molnár, 2017) aimed to illustrate, not represent, the complexity of understanding,
values and worldviews held by indigenous and local knowledge holders in the Europe and Central Asia
region. For these reasons, the indigenous and local knowledge available for the Europe and Central
Asia assessment remained at an early stage of methodological development.
Epistemology and expert judgement (by authors) in the assessment process. IPBES assessments use
a four-box model of confidence attributed to their key findings (see Section 1.5.1) based on evidence
and agreement and summarised in four main confidence terms. This ensures consistency in the
communication of confidence across chapters and assessments. However, the use of confidence terms
depends strongly on the author team’s expert judgement as to the quantity and quality of supporting
evidence and on the level of scientific agreement. This is why a reference to the chapter section is also
provided with each key finding.

1.6.3 Issues beyond the scope of this assessment

Emerging questions beyond the scope of the assessment. While the assessment presents the best
available information on nature and its contributions to people, it does not analyse available datasets
to test new hypotheses or to validate existing ones. During the development of the assessment, new
natural or human impacts on nature may have emerged. As the assessment process involves the use
of current information, however, any new aspects cannot form part of this regional assessment.
Time cut-off for evidence/published literature. The literature and evidence sourced for this
assessment has a standard timeframe, extending from 1950 to the end of April 2017.
Intrinsic values. The IPBES conceptual framework, unlike the ecosystem services concept, includes
intrinsic values. The term intrinsic value has many different meanings (Batavia & Nelson, 2017). For
this assessment, we follow the definition provided by Jacobs et al. (2016) and Pascual et al. (2017),
which refers to inherent value, i.e. the value something has independent of any human experience or
evaluation. Since intrinsic value can be recognized, but not quantified, by humans it is not the target
of any valuation process or assessment.
Disclaimer and liability - drawing inferences from general patterns. It is important to recognise that,
while broad patterns exist, their exact nature in specific contexts may differ. For example, while
general patterns of increased ecosystem functioning with increased biodiversity have been widely
reported, mostly from experimental botanical and zoological studies, exceptions to this general rule
also need to be considered (Hector & Bagchi, 2007; Cardinale et al., 2012; Schwartz et al., 2000).
Moreover, many of the relationships reported between drivers, nature (biodiversity) and nature’s
contributions to people (including ecosystem services) in the literature are associative (e.g.
correlative) and thus, in contrast to experimental evidence, not necessarily causal. Particular caution
is needed when applying existing knowledge to novel situations, because extrapolating outside of the

66
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

bounds of where data were collected, might be misleading. It is worth noting, however, that methods
that formally acknowledge uncertainty (e.g. scenario testing and modelling) are useful in this respect.

1.7 Roadmap to the assessment

1.7.1 What each of the six chapters covers

Chapter 1 sets the scene. Chapter 1 offers a roadmap to all chapters of the Europe and Central Asia
assessment. It explains how the assessment has been developed and introduces both the purpose of
the assessment and the geographical characteristics of the region. The chapter also provides an
overview of the content, and introduces the most important concepts and methods used in the
following chapters.
Chapter 2 shows how nature contributes to people’s quality of life. Chapter 2 addresses trends in
nature’s contributions to people and the interactions between natures contributions to people and
their quality of life. It assesses the status, trends and future dynamics of nature’s contributions to
people including material, regulating and non-material contributions. It also assesses the different
impacts of changes in these contributions to the quality of life of people in terms of instrumental and
relational values.
Chapter 3 provides insight into the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functiong and
sevices, and into the dynamics of the major ecosystems of Europe and Central Asia. Chapter 3
assesses the existing knowledge on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
and ecosystem services, and on the status, trends and future dynamics of nature and the processes
underpinning nature’s contributions to people. It deals with the entire scope of biodiversity including
varying functional characteristics of taxa as well as interactions among living organisms in terrestrial
and marine systems and trends in important ecosystem functions. It provides a synthetic analysis of
the impact of drivers on the major ecosystems (units of analysis) and taxa.
Chapter 4 documents the drivers of change. Chapter 4 documents the status and trends in both direct
and underlying indirect drivers of change that affect nature and its contributions to people across
subregions and units of analysis.
Chapter 5 explores possible futures. Chapter 5 provides an integrated and cross-scale analysis of
interactions of the natural world and human society. It explores plausible futures that take account of
different values through scenario archetypes. It also assesses visions for the future and provides an
analysis of the pathways that could lead to realising these visions.
Chapter 6 indicates opportunities in governance and policy. Chapter 6 explores governance options
and institutional arrangements for better consideration of nature and nature’s contributions to people
in public and private decision-making. It also considers the opportunities for a wide range of actors
and sectors for the conservation and sustainable use of nature, and the sustained provision of nature’s
contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia. It highlights areas for successful integration and
assesses major categories of policy instruments.

67
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.7.2 How do the chapters address the policy-relevant questions?

The five general IPBES policy questions on: urgent worldwide knowledge demands on the importance
of nature for the human species (Question 1); the current change of nature and its consequences
(Question 2); the causes of this change (Question 3); opportunities for policies and interventions
(Question 4); and the identification of related knowledge gaps (Question 5) are addressed in Chapters
2 to 5 of this assessment. Questions 1 to 4 guide Chapters 2 to 5, and question 5 on knowledge gaps
is addressed as a sub-section in each of Chapters 2-5. Chapter 6 provides governance options for
private and public actors based on the findings of Chapters 2 to 5, and it addresses the Europe and
Central Asia specific questions on nature-based solutions (Question 6), and how sectoral policies and
innovative policy instruments encourage opportunities arising from the contributions of nature to
good quality of life (Question 8). Question 7 on the effects of production and consumption and cross-
regional linkages is covered by Chapters 2 (see e.g. 2.2.4), 4 (indirect drivers), 5 (scenarios) and 6
(governance options) (see Figure 1.17).
The responses to these questions, reflecting the requests of different stakeholders, are highlighted
within each section in the key findings. Chapter 1 sets the scene for the different chapters by
introducing the important issues discussed in the other chapters, which lead to the assessment’s main
messages. Transparently presenting the broad evidence base for these main messages and key
findings is considered essential for not only the credibility, but also the legitimacy and reliability, of
the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia.

68
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.7.3 What will the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia lead to?
Scientifically sound assessment reports review, summarize and evaluate the evidence related to a
specific problem, and provide conclusions that are accessible not only across different disciplines of
science, but also for decision-makers and the general public. Previous examples have shown the
importance of such assessments. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, for
example, have played a major role in securing international consensus for the Paris climate agreement
and the Sustainable Development Goals. The IPBES pollination assessment has resulted in a
substantial rise in public awareness of the loss of pollinators and has received significant policy
interest. Both of these assessments have identified important knowledge gaps and have, therefore,
increased research (and funding) interest in scientific studies address these gaps. Since the IPBES
Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia responds to a direct request from the Governments

69
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of IPBES member States, it aspires to inform decision-makers at local, national and international levels,
to raise public awareness and to stimulate new research.

70
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1.8 References

Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science
Journal, 54(173), 287–297. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00382
Akiba, O. (1997). International Law of the Sea: The Legality of Canadian seizure of the Spanish trawler
(Estai). Natural Resources Journal, 37, 809–828.
Alekseev, A. I., & Safronov, S. G. (2015). Transformation trends of Russia’s rural settlement patterns
in the late soviet and post-soviet periods (1970–2010). Regional Research of Russia, 5(2), 193-
201. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970515020021
Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016a). Human appropriation
of land for food: The role of diet. Global Environmental Change, 41, 88–98.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.09.005
Alexander, P., Prestele, R., Verburg, P. H., Arneth, A., Baranzelli, C., Batista e Silva, F., Brown, C., Butler,
A., Calvin, K., Dendoncker, N., Doelman, J. C., Dunford, R., Engström, K., Eitelberg, D., Fujimori,
S., Harrison, P. A., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Holzhauer, S., Humpenöder, F., Jacobs-Crisioni, C.,
Jain, A. K., Krisztin, T., Kyle, P., Lavalle, C., Lenton, T., Liu, J., Meiyappan, P., Popp, A., Powell, T.,
Sands, R. D., Schaldach, R., Stehfest, E., Steinbuks, J., Tabeau, A., van Meijl, H., Wise, M. A., &
Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016b). Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Global Change
Biology, 23, 767–781. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13447
Antonov, N. P., Klovatch, N. V., Orlov, A. M., Datsky, A. V., Lepskaya, V. А., Kuznetsov, V. V.,
Yarzhombek, A. A., Abramov, A. A., Alekseyev, D. O., Moiseyev, S. I., Evseeva, N. V., & Sologub,
D. O. [Антонов, Н. П., Кловач Н. В., Орлов, А. М., Датский, А. В., Лепская, В. А., Кузнецов, В.
В., Яржомбек, А. А., Абрамов, А. А., Алексеев, Д. О., Моисеев, С. И., Евсеева, Н. В., & Сологуб,
Д. О.]. (2016). Рыболовство в Дальневосточном рыбохозяйственном бассейне в 2013 г.
[Fishing in the Russian Far East fishery basin in 2013]. Труды ВНИРО [Proceedings of VNIRO],
160, 133–211.
Appleton, M. R., Dinu, A., Liscakova, N., Panchenko, N., & Vergeichik, M. (2012). Biodiversity:
Delivering results in Europe and the CIS. Bratislava, Slovakia: Global Environment Facility and
United Nations Development Programme.
Artyukhin, Y. B., & Burkanov, V. N. [Артюхин, Ю. Б., & Бурканов, В. Н.]. (1999). Морские птицы и
млекопитающие Дальнего Востока России: полевой определитель [Marine birds and
mammals of the Russian Far East: A field guide]. Moscow, Russian Federation: АСТ [AST].
Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., Henrichs, T., Lucas, N., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Simpson, R. D.,
Scholes, R., Tomich, T. P., Vira, B., & Zurek, M. (Eds.). (2010). Ecosystems and human well-being:
A manual for assessment practitioners. In Human Well-Being (p. 285). Washington DC, USA:
Island Press. Retrieved from https://www.unep-wcmc.org/resources-and-data/ecosystems-and-
human-wellbeing--a-manual-for-assessment-practitioners
Ashimov, K. S. [Ашимов, К. С.]. (2014). Состояние орехово-плодовых лесов южной Киргизии [State
of nut-fruit forests of Southern Kyrgyzstan]. Вестник Кыргызского Национального Аграрного
Университета Имени К.И.Скрябина [Herald of Kyrgyz National Agrarian University of
Skryabin], 1(30)), 267–270.
Asian Development Bank. (2010). Central Asia atlas of natural resources. Retrieved
from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27508/central-asia-atlas.pdf

71
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Balushkina, E.V., Golubkov, S.M., Golubkov, M.S., Litvinchuk, L. F., & Shadrin, N.V. [Балушкина Е. В.,
Голубков С. М., Голубков, М. С., Литвинчук, Л. Ф., & Шадрин, Н. В.]. (2009). Влияние
абиотических и биотических факторов на структурно-функциональную организацию
экосистем соленых озер Крыма [Effect of abiotic and biotic factors on the structural and
functional organization of the saline lake ecosystems in Crimea]. Журнал Общей Биологии
[Journal of General Biology], 70(6), 504–514.
Bański, J. (2008). Agriculture of Central Europe in the period of economic transformation. In J. Bański
& M. Bednarek (Eds.), Contemporary changes of agriculture in East-Central Europe (pp. 7-20).
Warsaw, Poland: Polish Geographical Society and Polish Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from
http://rcin.org.pl/Content/101/WA51_209_r2008-vol15_SOW.pdf
Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). The role of agri-environment schemes in
conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1006–1016.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536
Batavia, C., & Nelson, M. P. (2017). For goodness sake! What is intrinsic value and why should we care?
Biological Conservation, 209, 366–376. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.03.003
Batbold, J., Batsaikhan, N., Shar, S., Hutterer, R., Kryštufek, B., Yigit, N., Mitsain, G., & Palomo, L.
(2016). Castor fiber. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved December 18, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T4007A22188115.en
Belikov, S. E., Gavrilo, M. V., Gorin, S. L., Ivanov, A. N., Krasnova, E. D., Krasnov, Y. V., Kulangiev, A. O.,
Lashmanov, F. I., Makarov, A. V., Nikolaeva, N. G., Popov, A. V., Sergienko, L. A., Shroeders, M.
A., & Spiridonov VA. (2011). Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic.
V. A. Spiridonov, M. V. Gavrilo, E. D. Krasnova, & N. G. Nikolaeva (Eds.). Moscow, Russian
Federation: WWF Russia. Retrieved from http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/book/eng/500
Biodat. (2017). Retrieved December 8, 2017, from http://biodat.ru
Biodiversity Monitoring in Ukraine [Моніторинг біорізноманіття в Україні]. (n.d.). Biodiversity
Monitoring in Ukraine [Моніторинг біорізноманіття в Україні]. Retrieved December 8, 2017,
from http://biomon.org/
Birdlife Europe and Central Asia. (2015). Halfway there? Mid-term assessment of the progress of the
EU2020 Biodiversity Strategy.
BISE. (2015). EU biodiversity targets and related global Aichi targets. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from
http://biodiversity.europa.eu/policy/target-1-and-related-aichi-targets
Blenckner, T., Llope, M., Möllmann, C., Voss, R., Quaas, M. F., Casini, M., Lindegren, M., Folke, C., &
Stenseth, N. C. (2015). Climate and fishing steer ecosystem regeneration to uncertain economic
futures. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1803), 20142809.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2809
Boeraeve, F., Dendoncker, N., Jacobs, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Dufrêne, M. (2014). How (not) to
perform ecosystem service valuations: pricing gorillas in the mist. Biodiversity and Conservation,
24(1), 187–197. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0796-1
Boros, E., Ecsedi, Z., & Oláh, J. (2013). Ecology and management of soda pans in the Carpathian Basin.
Balmazújváros, Hungary: Hortobágy Environmental Association.
Boschetti, F., Price, J., & Walker, I. (2016). Myths of the future and scenario archetypes. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 76–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.009

72
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Brooks, T. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Juffe-
Bignoli, D., Kingston, N., MacSharry, B., Parr, M., Perianin, L., Regan, E. C., Rodrigues, A. S. L.,
Rondinini, C., Shennan-Farpon, Y., & Young, B. E. (2016). Analysing biodiversity and conservation
knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.7
Brown, C., Brown, E., Murray-Rust, D., Cojocaru, G., Savin, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2015). Analysing
uncertainties in climate change impact assessment across sectors and scenarios. Climatic
Change, 128(3–4), 293–306. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1133-0
Brucet, S., Boix, D., Nathansen, L. W., Quintana, X. D., Jensen, E., Balayla, D., Meerhoff, M., & Jeppesen,
E. (2012). Effects of temperature, salinity and fish in structuring the macroinvertebrate
community in shallow lakes: Implications for effects of climate change. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e30877.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030877
Burdin, A. M., Filatova, O. A., & Khoit, E. [Бурдин, А. М., Филатова, О. А., & Хойт, Э.]. (2009). Морские
млекопитающие России [Marine mammals of Russia]. Kirov, Russian Federation: Volga-Vyatka
Publishing House.
Burns, S. L., Krott, M., Sayadyan, H., & Giessen, L. (2017). The World Bank improving environmental
and natural resource policies: Power, deregulation, and privatization in (post-Soviet) Armenia.
World Development, 92, 215-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.030
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A, Baillie,
J. E. M., Bomhard, Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.
M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi,
P., Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J. F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.
A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M. H. , Oldfield, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga,
C., Sauer, J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney,
M., Tyrrell, T. D., Vie, J. C., & Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines.
Science, 328(5982), 1164–1168. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, M.
M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M., Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A.,
Srivastava, D. S., & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486,
59–67. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah.
A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., &
Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
106(5), 1305–1312. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B.
(2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086–8091.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Catalogue of Life. (2016). 2016 Annual Checklist. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from
http://www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2016/info/ac
CBD. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
CBD. (2014). Global biodiversity outlook 4: A mid-term assessment of progress towards the

73
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

CBD. (2015). Find National Targets. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/targets/
CIS [СНГ]. (n.d.). Исполнительный Комитет Содружества Независимых Государств [The Executive
Committee of the Commonwealth of Independent States]. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from
http://www.cis.minsk.by
Čížková, H., Květ, J., Comín, F. A., Laiho, R., Pokorný, J., & Pithart, D. (2013). Actual state of European
wetlands and their possible future in the context of global climate change. Aquatic Sciences,
75(1), 3–26. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0233-4
Comin, F., & Alonso, M. (1988). Spanish salt lakes: Their chemistry and biota. Hydrobiologia, 158, 237–
245.
Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Roux, D. J., Welz, A., &
Wilhelm-Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for
implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 105(28), 9483–9488. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706559105
Crossman, N. D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E. G., Martín-
Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M. B., & Maes, J. (2013).
A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 4, 4–14.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.02.001
Cuypers, D., Geerken, T., Gorissen, L., Lust, A., Peters, G., Karstensen, J., Prieler, S., Fisher, G., Hizsnyik,
E., & Van Velthuizen, H. (2013). The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive
analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/1. Report analysis of impact.pdf
Danielsen, F., Jensen, P. M., Burgess, N. D., Coronado, I., Holt, S., Poulsen, M. K., Rueda, R. M., Skielbou,
T., Enghoff, M., Hemmingsen, L. H., Sørensen, M., & Pirhofer-Walzl, K. (2014). Testing focus
groups as a tool for connecting indigenous and local knowledge on abundance of natural
resources with science-based land management systems. Conservation Letters, 7(4), 380–389.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12100
Dendoncker, N., Keune, H., Jacobs, S., & Gomez-Baggethun, E. (2014). Inclusive ecosystem service
valuation. In S. Jacobs, N. Dendoncker, & H. Keune (Eds.), Ecosystem services: Global issues, local
practices (pp. xix–xxviii). New York, USA: Elsevier.
Dendoncker, N., Schmit, C., & Rounsevell, M. (2008). Exploring spatial data uncertainties in land‐use
change scenarios. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(9), 1013–1030.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13658810701812836
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S.,
Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E.,
Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G. M., Martin-Lopez,
B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E. S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.
J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z. A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh,
Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, L. A., Caillaux, J.,
Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A. M. M.,
Fu, B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W. A.,
Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J. P., Mikissa, J. B., Moller, H.,
Mooney, H. A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., ApauOteng-Yeboah, A., Pataki, G., Roué,

74
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang,
Y., & Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework - connecting nature and people.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Donovan, S. M., Looney, C., Hanson, T., de León, Y. S., Wulfhorst, J. D., Eigenbrode, S. D., Jennings, M.,
Johnson-Maynard, J., & Bosque Pérez, N. A. (2009). Reconciling social and biological needs in an
endangered ecosystem: The Palouse as a model for bioregional planning. Ecology & Society,
14(1), 1–24. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02736-140109
Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2014). Exploring scenario and model uncertainty
in cross-sectoral integrated assessment approaches to climate change impacts. Climatic Change,
132(3), 417–432. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1211-3
EEA. (n.d.). Countries. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/countries-and-
regions
EEA. (2002). Europe’s biodiversity - biogeographical regions and seas. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909
EEA. (2012). Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012: An indicator-based report.
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications
EEA. (2015a). High nature value (HNV) farmland. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/data/high-nature-value-farmland
EEA. (2015b). SOER 2015 - The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Retrieved November
20, 2015, from http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
EEA. (2015c). State of Europe’s seas. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-
of-europes-seas
EEU. (n.d.). Eurasian Economic Union. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from
http://www.eaeunion.org/?lang=en
EFTA. (n.d.). European Free Trade Association. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from http://www.efta.int
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Nordberg, M. & Pautov, Y. (2011). How does forest
certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden
and NW Russia. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(11), 1983-
1995. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040
Ellis, E. C., Kaplan, J. O., Fuller, D. Q., Vavrus, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2013). Used
planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 110(20), 7978–7985. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217241110
Engström, K., Olin, S., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Brogaard, S., Van Vuuren, D. P., Alexander, P., Murray-
Rust, D., & Arneth, A. (2016). Assessing uncertainties in global cropland futures using a
conditional probabilistic modelling framework. Earth System Dynamics, 7, 893–915.
http://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-893-2016
Ermolin, I., & Svolkinas, L. (2016). Who owns sturgeon in the Caspian? New theoretical model of social
responses towards state conservation policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(14), 2929-
2945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1211-x
European Commission. (2008). Natura2000. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en

75
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

European Commission. (2011). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. http://doi.org/10.2779/39229

European Commission. (2015a). Blue Growth: Opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable
growth. http://doi.org/10.2771/43949
European Commission. (2015b). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council - The mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Retrieved from
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/eaa9f17e-68ea-11e5-9317-
01aa75ed71a1
European Commission. (2017a). GHSL - Global Human Settlement Layer. Retrieved December 7, 2017,
from http://ghslsys.jrc.ec.europa.eu
European Commission. (2017b). Sea basin strategy: Seas around Europe’s outermost regions.
Retrieved December 6, 2017, from
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/outermost_regions_en
European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy.
European Union. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy.
European Union. (2014). Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23
July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning.
Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., & Khamis, M. (2012). Community stakeholders’ knowledge
in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators, 18,
421–433. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004
Flint, C. G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y., & Penker, M. (2013). Exploring empirical typologies of
human–nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 120, 208–217. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Fontaine, C. M., Dendoncker, N., De Vreese, R., Jacquemin, I., Marek, A., Van Herzele, A., Devillet, G.,
Mortelmans, D., & François, L. (2014). Towards participatory integrated valuation and modelling
of ecosystem services under land-use change. Journal of Land Use Science, 9(3), 278–303.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2013.786150
FSBI AARI [ФГБУ «ААНИИ»]. (n.d.-a). База биоразнообразия [Biodiversity database]. Retrieved
December 8, 2017, from http://oopt.aari.ru/bio
FSBI AARI [ФГБУ «ААНИИ»]. (n.d.-b). Красные книги. Законодательство в сфере охраны животного
и растительного мира [The red books. The legislation in the sphere of protection of flora and
fauna]. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from http://oopt.aari.ru/rbdata
Gambaiani, D. D., Mayol, P., Isaac, S. J., & Simmonds, M. P. (2009). Potential impacts of climate change
and greenhouse gas emissions on Mediterranean marine ecosystems and cetaceans. Journal of
the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 89(1), 179-201.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315408002476
Geptner, V. G., Chapskiy, K. K., Arseniev, V. A., & Sokolov, V. E. [Гептнер, В. Г., Чапский, К. К.,
Арсеньев, В. А., & Соколов, В. E.]. (1976). Млекопитающие Советского Союза. Том 2/3.
Ластоногие и зубатые киты [Mammals of The Soviet Union. Volume 2/3. Pinnipeds and
toothed whales].

76
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Gómez-baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Barton, D., Braat, L., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M.,
Saarikoski, H., & van den Bergh, J. (2014). State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of
ecosystem services. Retrieved from http://www.openness-
project.eu/sites/default/files/Deliverable%204%201_Integrated-Valuation-Of-Ecosystem-
Services.pdf
Government of Belarus [Правительство Беларуси]. (n.d.). Environmental Bulletin for 2015
[Экологический бюллетень за 2015 год]. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from
http://www.minpriroda.gov.by/ru/ecoza2015/
Government of Norway. (2012). First update of the integrated management plan for the marine
environment of the Barents Sea−Lofoten area. Retrieved from
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/db61759a16874cf28b2f074c9191bed8/en-
gb/pdfs/stm201020110010000en_pdfs.pdf
Government of Turkey. (2014). Fifth national report. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Gramberger, M., Zellmer, K., Kok, K., & Metzger, M. J. (2015). Stakeholder integrated research (STIR):
a new approach tested in climate change adaptation research. Climatic Change, 128, 201–214.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1225-x
Gvozdeckii, N. A. & Mikhailov, N. I. [Гвоздецкий, Н. А., & Михайлов, Н. И.]. (1978). Физическая
география СССР, Азиатская часть [Physical Geography of USSR, the Asian Part].
Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D.,
Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O.,
Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change.
Science, 342(6160), 850–853. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693
Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Climate change impact
modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 885-890.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3039
Hector, A., & Bagchi, R. (2007). Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature, 448(7150), 188–
190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature05947
Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and
the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005
Hein, T., Schwarz, U., Habersack, H., Nichersu, I., Preiner, S., Willby, N., & Weigelhofer, G. (2016).
Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River. Science of the
Total Environment, 543, 778–790. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.073
HELCOM. (2017). Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission – Helsinki Commission. Retrieved
December 6, 2017, from http://www.helcom.fi/about-us
Herbarium of CBG NASB MSKH [Гербарий ЦБС НАН Беларуси MSKH]. (n.d.). Растения Беларуси
[Plants of Belarus]. Retrieved December 8, 2017, from http://hbc.bas-net.by/plantae/
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Hoberg, J., Oteros-Rozas, E., Plieninger, T., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-
García, V. (2014). Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: Status quo and insights for the
environmental policy agenda. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
56(1), 3–17. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2014.861673

77
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hof, C., Brändle, M., & Brandl, R. (2008). Latitudinal variation of diversity in European freshwater
animals is not concordant across habitat types. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 17(4), 539–
546. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2008.00394.x
Hostert, P., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A., Sieber, A., Lambin, E. F., & Radeloff, V. C. (2011). Rapid
land use change after socio-economic disturbances: the collapse of the Soviet Union versus
Chernobyl. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 045201. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/6/4/045201
Hulme, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of
globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1), 10–18. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2008.01600.x
Hunt, G. L., Katō, H., & McKinnell, S. M. (2000). PICES Scientific Report No. 14: Predation by marine
birds and mammals in the subarctic North Pacific Ocean.
Huntington, H. P., Brown-Schwalenberg, P. K., Frost, K. J., Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Norton, D. W.,
& Rosenberg, D. H. (2002). Observations on the workshop as a means of improving
communication between holders of traditional and scientific knowledge. Environmental
Management, 30(6), 0778–0792. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2749-9
IPBES. (2014). IPBES/2/17: Report of the second session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. (2016a). IPBES/4/INF/9: Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and
across all scales (deliverable 2 (a)). Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-4-
plenary
IPBES. (2016b). Methodological assessment report of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. S.
Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. Cheung,
V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. Pereira, G.
Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. H. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. Wintle (Eds.). Bonn, Germany:
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services.
IPBES. (2017). Indicators and data for IPBES assessments. Retrieved December 7, 2017, from
https://www.ipbes.net/indicators-data-ipbes-assessments
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team,
R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Isachenko, A. [Исаченко, A.]. (1985). Ландшафты СССР [Landscapes of USSR].
IUCN. (2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-3. Retrieved December 6, 2017,
from http://www.iucnredlist.org
Izmailova A.V. [Измайлова А. В.]. (n.d.). Эльтон озеро [The Elton lake]. Retrieved from http://water-
rf.ru/Водные_объекты/193/Эльтон
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F.,
McGrath, F. L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K. J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P.,
Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R. H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R.,

78
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K. S.-H. Phelan, A., Rincón, A. R., Rogers, S. H., Turkelboom, F., Van
Reeth, W., van Zanten, B. T., Wam, H. K., & Washbourn, C.-L. (2016). A new valuation school:
Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22,
213–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007
Jacobs, S., Spanhove, T., De Smet, L., Van Daele, T., Van Reeth, W., Van Gossum, P., Stevens, M.,
Schneiders, A., Panis, J., Demolder, H., Michels, H., Thoonen, M., Simoens, I., Peymen, J. (2015).
The ecosystem service assessment challenge: Reflections from Flanders-REA. Ecological
Indicators, 61, 715–727. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.023
Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J. P., Andrič,
M., Antrop, M., Austrheim, G., Björn, I., Bondeau, A., Bürgi, M., Bryson, J., Caspar, G., Cassar, L.
F., Conrad, E., Chromý, P., Daugirdas, V., Van Eetvelde, V., Elena-Rosselló, R., Gimmi, U.,
Izakovicova, Z., Jančák, V., Jansson, U., Kladnik, D, Kozak, J., Konkoly-Gyuró, E., Krausmann, F.,
Mander, U., McDonagh, J., Pärn, J., Niedertscheider, M., Nikodemus, O., Ostapowicz, K., Pérez-
Soba, M., Pinto-Correia, T., Ribokas, G., Rounsevell, M., Schistou, D., Schmit, C., Terkenli, T. S.,
Tretvik, A. M., Trzepacz, P., Vadineanu, A., Walz, A., Zhllim, E., Reenberg, A., & Reenberg, A.
(2015). Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use
Policy, 49, 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003
Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Urban green space availability in
European cities. Ecological Indicators, 70, 586–596.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.029
Kalkanbekov, S., & Samakov, A. (2017). Sacred sites and biocultural diversity conservation in
Kyrgyzstan: Co-production of knowledge between traditional practitioners and scholars. In M.
Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local knowledge of
biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 126-134). Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., & Haberl, H. (2015). Global human appropriation of net primary production for
biomass consumption in the European Union, 1986-2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5),
825–836. http://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12238
Kazanci, N., Girgin, S., & Dügel, M. (2004). On the limnology of Salda Lake, a large and deep soda lake
in southwestern Turkey: Future management proposals. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 14(2), 151–162. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.609
Kok, K., Bärlund, I., Flörke, M., Holman, I., Gramberger, M., Sendzimir, J., Stuch, B, & Zellmer, K. (2015).
European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and
models. Climatic Change, 128, 187–200. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1143-y
Körner, C., Paulsen, J., & Spehn, E. M. (2011). A definition of mountains and their bioclimatic belts for
global comparisons of biodiversity data. Alpine Botany, 121(2), 73–78.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-011-0094-4
Kortekaas, K. H., & Vayá, J. F. C. (2009). Biodiversity of inland saltscapes of the Iberian Peninsula.
Natural Resources and Environmental Issues, 15, 163–171.
Kotova, I., Kayukova, E., & Kotov, S. (2016). Peloids of Crimean salt lakes and the Dead Sea: controls
on composition and formation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 1207.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5999-1
Kulagin V.M., Markov P.A., & Tishkov A.A. [Кулагин, В. М., Марков, П. А., & Тишков, А. А.]. (1990).

79
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Иссык-Кульский заповедник [Issyk-Kul strict natural reserve]. In Заповедники Средней Азии и

Казахстана. Заповедники СССР [Strict natural reserves of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Strict
natural reserves of the USSR] (pp. 362-375). Moscow, Russian Federation: Мысль [Mysl].
Layke, C., Mapendembe, A., Brown, C., Walpole, M., & Winn, J. (2012). Indicators from the global and
sub-global Millennium Ecosystem Assessments: An analysis and next steps. Ecological Indicators,
17, 77–87. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.025
Leadley, P. W., Krug, C. B., Alkemade, R., Pereira, H. M., Sumaila, U. R., Walpole, M., Marques, A.,
Newbold, T., Teh, L.S.L, van Kolck, J., Bellard, C., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., & Mumby, P. J. (2013).
Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An assessment of biodiversity trends, policy
scenarios and key actions. CBD technical series 78. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-
78-en.pdf
Lejeusne, C., Chevaldonné, P., Pergent-Martini, C., Boudouresque, C. F., & Pérez, T. (2010). Climate
change effects on a miniature ocean: the highly diverse, highly impacted Mediterranean Sea.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(4), 250–260. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.009
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered
relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(1), 19–26.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J. P., Grizzetti, B., Drakou, E. G.,
LaNotte, A., Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Paracchini, M. L., Braat, L., & Bidoglio, G. (2012). Mapping
ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem
Services, 1(1), 31–39. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.06.004
Maier, D. S., & Feest, A. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework: An unhelpful start. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), 327–347. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10806-015-9584-5
Malets, O. (2015). When transnational standards hit the ground: Domestic regulations, compliance
assessment and forest certification in Russia. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning,
17(3), 332-359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.947922
Mallon, D. P. (2008). Saiga tatarica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved December 18,
2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T19832A9021682.en
Mazoyer, M., & Roudart, L. (2006). A History of World Agriculture: From the Neolithic Age to the
Current Crisis. New York, USA: Monthly Review Press.
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends, Volume 1. Washington DC,
USA: Island Press.
Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I., & Schmitt, O. (2016). Estimating the volume and age
of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nature Communications, 7,
13603. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13603
Metzger, M.J., Shkaruba, A.D., Jongman, R.H.G., & Bunce, R. G. H. (2012). Descriptions of the European
Environmental Zones and Strata. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra.
Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T. K., & Lambin, E. F. (2010). Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement
of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
107(49), 20917-20922. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014773107

80
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Milkov, F.N. [Мильков, Ф. Н. (1977). Natural Zones of USSR [Природные зоны СССР]. Moscow, USSR:
Mysl’ [Мысль].
Minprirody of Russia [Минприроды России]. (2016). Государственный доклад «О состоянии и об
охране окружающей среды Российской Федерации в 2015 году» [State report “The status of
environment of the Russian Federation in 2015”]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Минприроды
России [Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Russia]. Retrieved from
http://www.mnr.gov.ru/upload/iblock/62f/dokl2015.pdf
Montes, C., & Martino, P. (1987). Las lagunas salinas españolas [Spanish salt lakes]. In Bases Cientficas
para la protección de los humedales en España (pp. 95–145). Madrid, Spain: Real Academia de
Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.
Montgomery, D. R. (2007). Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(33), 13268–13272.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0611508104
Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there
on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001127.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127
Moss, R., & Schneider, S. (2000). Uncertainties. In R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi, & K. Tanaka (Eds.),
Guidance papers on the cross cutting issues of the third assessment report of the IPCC (pp. 33–
52). Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Nadasdy, P. (1999). The politics of TEK: Power and the “integration” of knowledge. Arctic
Anthropology, 36(1/2), 1–18.
Newell, J., & Simeone, J. (2014). Russia’s forests in a global economy: how consumption drives
environmental change. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(1), 37-
10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2014.926254
Niedziałkowski, K., & Shkaruba, A. (in press). Governance and legitimacy of the Forest Stewardship
Council certification in the national contexts – A comparative study of Belarus and Poland. Forest
Policy and Economics.
Olech, W. (2008). Bison bonasus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved December 18,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T2814A9484719.en
OPERAs. (2017). Ecosystem science for policy and practice. Retrieved December 6, 2017, from
http://operas-project.eu
OpenNESS. (2017). Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved December
6, 2017, from http://www.openness-project.eu
Oren, A. (2006). Life at high salt concentrations. In E. Rosenberg, E. F. DeLong, S. Lory, E. Stackebrandt,
& F. Thompson (Eds.), The Prokaryotes (pp. 421–440). New York, USA: Springer.
Orlov, A.A., Chechevishnikov, A.L., Chernyavskii, S.I., Alekseenkova, E.S., Borishpolets, K.P., Krylov, A.
V., Kudeneeva, Yu. S., Mizin, V. I., Nikitin, A. I., Fedorchenko, A. V. [Орлов А. А., Чечевичников
А. Л., Чернявский С. И., Алексеенкова Е. С., Боришполец К. П., Крылов А. В., Куденеева Ю.
С., Мизин, В. И., Никитин, А. И., & Федорченко, А. В.]. (2011). Проблема пресной воды.
Глобальный контекст политики России [Problem of fresh water. Global context of Russian
politics]. Moscow, Russian Federation: МГИМО-Университет [MGIMO-University].
Örmeci, C., & Ekercin, S. (2005). Water quality monitoring using satellite image data: A case study

81
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

around the Salt Lake in Turkey. In Proc. SPIE 5977, Remote Sensing of the Ocean, Sea Ice, and
Large Water Regions 2005, 59770K (October 20, 2005). http://doi.org/10.1117/12.628558
OSPAR. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.ospar.org
Otto, I. M., Shkaruba, A., & Kireyeu, V. (2011). The rise of multilevel governance for biodiversity
conservation in Belarus. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(1), 113–132.
http://doi.org/10.1068/c09196
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Diaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E.,
Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.
Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J. Bullock, C., Cáceres,
D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D.,
Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue,
W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.
B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., & Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to
people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pearson, R. G. (2016). Reasons to Conserve Nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31(5), 366–371.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.005
Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L., & McMahon, T. A. (2007). Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger
climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 11, 1633-1644.
http://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-4-439-2007
Philippart, C. J. M., Anadón, R., Danovaro, R., Dippner, J. W., Drinkwater, K. F., Hawkins, S. J., Oguz, T.,
O'Sullivan, G., & Reid, P. C. (2011). Impacts of climate change on European marine ecosystems:
Observations, expectations and indicators. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
400, 52–69. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.02.023
Pimentel, D. (2006). Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 8(1), 119–137. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-1262-8
Plieninger, T., van der Horst, D., Schleyer, C., & Bieling, C. (2014). Sustaining ecosystem services in
cultural landscapes. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 59. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06159-190259
Prather, C. M., Pelini, S. L., Laws, A., Rivest, E., Woltz, M., Bloch, C. P., Del Toro, I., Ho, C.-H., Kominoski,
J., Newbold, T. A. S., Parsons, S., & Joern, A. (2013). Invertebrates, ecosystem services and
climate change. Biological Reviews, 88(2), 327–348. http://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12002
Prestele, R., Alexander, P., Rounsevell, M., Arneth, A., Calvin, K., Doelman, J., Eitelberg, D. A.,
Engstrom, K., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Humpenoder, F., Jain, A. K., Krisztin, T., Kyle,
P., Meiyappan, P., Popp, A., Sands, R. D., Schaldach, R., Schungel, J., Stehfest, E., Tabeau, A., Van
Meijl, H., Van Vliet, J., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). Hotspots of uncertainty in land use and land cover
change projections: a global scale model comparison. Global Change Biology, 22(12), 3967-3983.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13337
Raudsepp-Hearne, C., & Peterson, G. D. (2016). Scale and ecosystem services: how do observation,
management, and analysis shift with scale — lessons from Québec. Ecology and Society, 21(3),
16. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08605-210316
Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Cumming, G. S., Elmqvist, T., Hejnowicz, A. P., & Polasky, S. (2013). Getting the
measure of ecosystem services: a social-ecological approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 11(5), 268-273. http://doi.org/10.1890/120144

82
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Richardson, T. (2015). On the limits of liberalism in participatory environmental governance: Conflict

and conservation in Ukraine's Danube Delta. Development and Change 46(3), 415-441.
http://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12156
Roué, M., & Molnár, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Developing qualitative scenario storylines for
environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4). 606-
619. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.63
Schwartz, M. W., Brigham, C. A., Hoeksema, J. D., Lyons, K. G., Mills, M. H., & Van Mantgem, P. J.
(2000). Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology.
Oecologia, 122(3), 297–305. http://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050035
SEDAC. (2017). Retrieved December 6, 2017, from http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu
Selomane, O., Reyers, B., Biggs, R., Tallis, H., & Polasky, S. (2015). Towards integrated social-ecological
sustainability indicators: Exploring the contribution and gaps in existing global data. Ecological
Economics, 118, 140–146. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.024
Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J. L., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert, P. Hotes., S.,
Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P. H., & Van Oudenhoven, A. P. E. (2012). Form follows function?
Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies.
Ecological Indicators, 21, 145–154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003
Shukurov, E. Dj. [Шукуров, Э. Дж.]. (2016). Зоогеография Кыргызстана [Zoogeography of
Kyrgyzstan]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: БИОМ [BIOM]. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-central-
1.amazonaws.com/biom/work/pub/zoogeo.pdf
Shukurov E.Dj., Mitropolsky O.V., Talskykh V.N., Zhodubaeva L.Y., & Shevchenko V.V. [Шукуров, Э.
Дж., Митропольский, О. В., Тальских, В. Н., Жолдубаева, Л. Ы., & Шевченко, В. В.]. (2005).
Атлас биологического разнообразия Западного-Тянь-Шаня [Atlas of biological diversity of
western Tien Shan]. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-central-
1.amazonaws.com/biom/lib/book/atlas_biodiv_west_tian_shan.pdf
Sillitoe, P. (2006). Knowing the land: soil and land resource evaluation and indigenous knowledge. Soil
Use and Management, 14(4), 188–193. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.1998.tb00148.x
Smale, D. A., Burrows, M. T., Moore, P., O’Connor, N., & Hawkins, S. J. (2013). Threats and knowledge
gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: A northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology
and Evolution, 3(11), 4016–4038. http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.774
Sokolov, V. E. [Соколов, В. Е.]. (1986). Редкие и исчезающие животные. Млекопитающие [Rare
and endangered animals. Mammals]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Высшая школа [Higher
School].
Sokolov, V. E., & Syroyechkovskiy, E. E. [Соколов, В. Е., & Сыроечковский, Е. Е.] (Eds.). (1990).
Заповедники СССР. Заповедники Средней Азии и Казахстана [Nature Reserves of USSR.
Nature Reserves of Middle Asia and Kazakhstan]. Moscow, USSR: Мысль [Mysl’].
Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. a., Finlayson, M., Halpern, B. S., Jorge,
M. A., Lombana, A., Lourie, S. A., Martin, K. D., McManus, E., Molnar, J., Cheri A. Recchia, C. A.,
& Robertson, J. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf

83
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

areas. BioScience, 57(7), 573-583. http://doi.org/10.1641/B570707

Stenger-Kovács, C., Lengyel, E., Buczkó, K., Tóth, F., Crossetti, L., Pellinger, A., Doma, Z. Z., & Padisák,
J. (2014). Vanishing world: alkaline, saline lakes in Central Europe and their diatom assemblages.
Inland Waters, (4(4)), 383–396. http://doi.org/10.5268/IW-4.4.722
Stephens, P. A., Pettorelli, N., Barlow, J., Whittingham, M. J., & Cadotte, M. W. (2015). Management
by proxy? The use of indices in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(1), 1–6.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12383
TEEB. (2010a). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and
recommendations of TEEB. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2010b). TEEB for business - Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
The World Bank Group. (2016). Terrestrial protected areas (% of total land area). Retrieved May 12,
2016, from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.LND.PTLD.ZS/countries/1W?display=default
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M.,
Leadley, P. W ., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., Baumung, R., Bellard, C., Bouwman, L., Bowles-
Newark, N. J., Chenery, A. M., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Cooper, H. D., Crowther, A. R.,
Dixon, M. J. R., Galli, A., Gaveau, V., Gregory, R. D., Gutierrez, N. L., Nicolas G. L., Hirsch, T. L.,
Hoft, R., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Karmann, M., Krug, C. B., Leverington, F. J., Loh, J., Lojenga,
R. K., Malsch, K., Marques, A., Morgan, D. H. W., Mumby, P. J., Newbold, T., Noonan-Mooney, K.,
Pagad, S. N., Parks, B. C., Pereira, H. M., Robertson, T., Rondinini, C., Santini, L., Scharlemann, J.
P. W., Schindler, S., Sumaila, U. R., Teh, L. S. L., van Kolck, J., Visconti, P., & Ye, Y. (2014). A mid-
term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science, 346(6206), 241–244.
Tracy, E. F., Shvarts, E., Simonov, E., & Babenko, M. (2017). China’s new Eurasian ambitions: The
environmental risks of the Silk Road Economic Belt. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 58, 56–
88. http://doi.org/10.1080/15387216.2017.1295876
UK NEA. (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge, UK:
UNEP-WCMC.
UNEP. (2012). GEO-5 - Environment for the future we want. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/geo/
United Nations. (2006). E/C.16/2006/4: Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance
and public administration.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Uuemaa, E., Mander, Ü., & Marja, R. (2013). Trends in the use of landscape spatial metrics as
landscape indicators: A review. Ecological Indicators, 28, 100–106.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.018
van Asselen, S., & Verburg, P. H. (2012). A land system representation for global assessments and land-
use modeling. Global Change Biology, 18(10), 3125–3148. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2012.02759.x
van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M. T. J., Girod, B., Lucas, P. L., & de Vries, B. (2012). Scenarios in global
environmental assessments: Key characteristics and lessons for future use. Global Environmental
Change, 22(4), 884–895. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.001
Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P.,
Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., Levy, M. A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Global terrestrial

84
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

human footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Scientific Data, 3, 160067.
http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.67
Ventosa, A., & Arahal, D. R. (2009). Physico-chemical characteristics of hypersaline environments and
their biodiversity. In C. Gerday (Ed.), Extremophiles (pp. 247–262). Oxford, UK: EOLSS
Publications.
Wassmann, P., & Reigstad, M. (2011). Future Arctic Ocean seasonal ice zones and implications for
pelagic-bethic coupling. Oceanography, 24(3), 220–231.
http://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2011.74
Williams, W. D. (1981). Inland salt lakes: An introduction. In W. D. Williams (Ed.), Salt lakes.
Developments in hydrobiology, vol 5 (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8665-7_1
Wilson, J. B., Peet, R. K., Dengler, J., & Pärtel, M. (2012). Plant species richness: the world records.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 23(4), 796–802. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-
1103.2012.01400.x
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H.
K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K. A., Stachowicz, J. J., & Watson, R. (2006). Impacts
of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787–90.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294
Yablokov, A. V., Belkovich, V. M., & Borisov, V. I. [Яблоков, А. В., Белькович, В. М., & Борисов, В. И.].
(1972). Киты и дельфины [Whales and dolphins]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Наука
[Science].
Zektser, I. S. (2000). Groundwater and the environment: Applications for the global community. Boca
Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Zoi International Network. (2011). Biodiversity in Central Asia: A visual synthesis.

85
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2 Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Berta Martín-López (Spain/Germany), Andrew Church (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland)

Lead Authors:
Esra Başak Dessane (Turkey), Pam Berry (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Claire
Chenu (France), Mike Christie (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Magali Gerino
(France), Hans Keune (Belgium), Elisa Oteros-Rozas (Spain), Sandrine Paillard (France), Axel G.
Rossberg (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Germany), Matthias Schröter
(Germany), Alexander P. E. van Oudenhoven (The Netherlands)

Fellow:
Elena Osipova (Russian Federation)

Contributing authors:
Armağan Aloe Karabulut (Turkey), Başak Avcıoğlu Çokçalışkan (Turkey), Adem Bilgin (Turkey), Tom
Breeze (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Elena Bukvareva (Russia), Pierre Duez
(Belgium), Daniel P. Faith (Australia), Ilse Geijzendorffer (The Netherlands/France), Arjan Gosal
(United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), L. Jamila Haider (Austria/Sweden), Conor
Kretsch (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Jorge Lozano (Spain/Germany),
Patrick Meire (Belgium), Jasmin Mena Sauterel (Germany), Markus Meyer (Germany), Marcos Moleón
(Spain), Zebensui Morales-Reyes (Spain), Bram Oosterbroek (The Netherlands), Simon G. Potts (United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Vitalija Povilaityte-Petri (Lithuania/Belgium), Adriana
Ruiz Almeida (Spain), José A. Sánchez-Zapata (Spain), Stefanie Sievers-Glotzbach (Germany), Ewa
Siwicka (Poland/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Alexey Sorokin (Russian
Federation), Isabel Sousa Pinto (Portugal), Erik Stange (Norway), Pawel Szymonczk (Poland/United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Marija Vugdelic (Montenegro)

Review editors:
Francis Turkelboom (Belgium), Mimi Urbanc (Slovenia)

This chapter should be cited as:

Martín-López, B., Church, A., Başak Dessane, E., Berry, P., Chenu, C., Christie, M., Gerino, M., Keune,
H., Osipova, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Paillard, S., Rossberg, A. G., Schröter, M. and van Oudenhoven, A. P.
E. Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional
assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Rounsevell,
M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services, Bonn, Germany, pp. xx-xx.

86
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
2 Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life ................................................... 86
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... 90
Foreword to Chapter 2...................................................................................................................... 97
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 98
2.1.1 How this Chapter 2 relates to the IPBES conceptual framework.................................... 98
2.1.2 Contextual dimensions of nature’s contributions to people within the IPBES Regional
Assessment for Europe and Central Asia ...................................................................................... 99
2.2 Status and trends of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia .............. 101
2.2.1 Status and trends of nature’s regulating contributions to people ............................... 102
2.2.1.1 Habitat creation and maintenance ................................................................................... 102
2.2.1.1.1 Nurseries ...................................................................................................................... 102
2.2.1.1.2 Breeding and overwintering areas for migratory species ............................................ 105
2.2.1.2 Pollination ......................................................................................................................... 105
2.2.1.3 Regulation of air quality .................................................................................................... 107
2.2.1.4 Regulation of climate ........................................................................................................ 111
2.2.1.5 Regulation of ocean acidification ...................................................................................... 115
2.2.1.6 Regulation of freshwater quantity and flow ..................................................................... 116
2.2.1.7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality ......................................................... 119
2.2.1.8 Formation and protection of soils ..................................................................................... 121
2.2.1.8.1 Soil functioning: soil quality.......................................................................................... 122
2.2.1.8.2 Erosion control ............................................................................................................. 124
2.2.1.9 Regulation of natural hazards and extreme events .......................................................... 128
2.2.1.10 Regulation of detrimental processes: removal of animal carcasses ................................. 130
2.2.2 Status and trends of nature’s material contributions to people .................................. 133
2.2.2.1 Food and feed ................................................................................................................... 133
2.2.2.1.1 Food and feed from terrestrial ecosystems ................................................................. 133
2.2.2.1.2 Wild capture and cultured aquatic food production .................................................... 142
2.2.2.2 Energy................................................................................................................................ 144
2.2.2.2.1 Woodfuel ...................................................................................................................... 144
2.2.2.2.2 Provision of biofuels ..................................................................................................... 146
2.2.2.3 Materials and assistance ................................................................................................... 148
2.2.2.3.1 Provision of wood ......................................................................................................... 149
2.2.2.3.2 Cotton and other vegetal materials.............................................................................. 151
2.2.2.3.3 Materials from marine ecosystems .............................................................................. 152
2.2.2.3.4 Assistance of livestock protection and guard dogs ...................................................... 153
2.2.2.4 Provision of medicinal resources ...................................................................................... 154
2.2.3 Status and trends of nature’s non-material contributions to people ........................... 156

87
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.3.1 Learning and knowledge generation ................................................................................. 156

2.2.3.1.1 Formal learning and knowledge generation................................................................. 156
2.2.3.1.2 Indigenous and local knowledge .................................................................................. 157
2.2.3.2 Physical and psychological experiences ............................................................................ 160
2.2.3.2.1 Recreational experiences ............................................................................................. 160
2.2.3.2.2 Aesthetic experiences................................................................................................... 163
2.2.3.3 Supporting identities ......................................................................................................... 163
2.2.3.3.1 Protected areas ............................................................................................................ 164
2.2.3.3.2 Emblematic, symbolic or iconic species or ecosystems................................................ 165
2.2.3.3.3 Attitudes towards nature ............................................................................................. 165
2.2.3.3.4 Spiritual experiences .................................................................................................... 165
2.2.3.4 Maintenance of options .................................................................................................... 166
2.2.4 Interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people: dependency of Europe and
Central Asia on ecosystems of other regions.............................................................................. 168
2.2.4.1 Introduction: interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people ............................. 168
2.2.4.2 Ecological footprint ........................................................................................................... 169
2.2.4.3 Status and trends of interregional flows for selected nature’s contributions to people .. 170
2.2.5 Summary of trends of nature’s contributions to people .............................................. 173
2.2.6 Future trends in nature’s contributions to people ....................................................... 175
2.2.6.1 Regulating contributions ................................................................................................... 176
2.2.6.2 Material contributions from nature to people .................................................................. 177
2.2.6.3 Nature’s non-material contributions to people ................................................................ 180
2.3 Effects of trends in nature’s contributions on quality of life in Europe and Central Asia ..... 181
2.3.1 Contributions to food-energy-water security ............................................................... 181
2.3.1.1 Food security ..................................................................................................................... 181
2.3.1.2 Energy security .................................................................................................................. 188
2.3.1.3 Water security ................................................................................................................... 191
2.3.1.4 Food-energy-water security nexus .................................................................................... 194
2.3.2 Contributions to physical, mental and social dimensions of health ............................. 195
2.3.3 Cultural heritage, identity and stewardship ................................................................. 197
2.3.3.1 Value through use ............................................................................................................. 197
2.3.3.2 Value through protection and beyond use ....................................................................... 200
2.3.4 Environmental equity and justice ................................................................................. 202
2.3.4.1 Framing equity and justice ................................................................................................ 202
2.3.4.2 Intra-generational distributive equity and justice............................................................. 203
2.3.4.3 Intergenerational distributive equity and justice .............................................................. 204
2.3.4.4 Procedural equity and justice ............................................................................................ 205
2.3.5 Valuing nature’s contributions to people ..................................................................... 205
2.3.5.1 Market-based monetary values ........................................................................................ 206

88
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.3.5.2 Non-market monetary values ........................................................................................... 207

2.3.5.3 Non-monetary values ........................................................................................................ 209
2.3.5.4 Integrating values into policy ............................................................................................ 210
2.4 Relevance to Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goals ...................... 211
2.5 Knowledge gaps ..................................................................................................................... 213
2.5.1 The unevenness of knowledge of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central
Asia ....................................................................................................................................... 213
2.5.2 The challenges of knowledge generation on nature’s contributions to people ........... 215
2.6 References ............................................................................................................................. 217

89
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive summary

Nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia have changed markedly since the 1950s,
promoting changes in the quality of life of its societies (well established). The ecosystems of Europe
and Central Asia are currently delivering multiple contributions, although there is evidence of
negative trends between 1960 and 2016 in the majority of regulating and some non-material
contributions (well established) (2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5). Of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and
Central Asia, about 44% have been assessed as declining, particularly regulating contributions and
learning derived from indigenous and local knowledge (well established) (2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5). The
increasing trends in the delivery of specific material contributions, such as food and biomass-based
fuels, have come at the expense of the long-term deterioration of regulating contributions (well
established) (2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.5). Some key regulating contributions, such as habitat maintenance,
pollination, regulation of freshwater quantity, regulation of freshwater quality, formation and
protection of soils, and regulation of floods decreased due to intensified management practices
designed to produce more crops, livestock, aquaculture, woodfuels and cotton. Furthermore, the
increasing demand in Western and Central Europe for food, wood products and biofuels is causing the
impairment of ecosystems and nature’s contributions to people in other regions of the world
(established but incomplete) (2.2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.3.4).
Trends of nature’s contributions to people are consistent across the subregions of Europe and Central
Asia. Declining trends are reported in Central Europe (61% of the scientific evidence), Western Europe
(55%), Eastern Europe (54%) and Central Asia (48%). Increasing trends are mostly reported for
Western Europe (35% of scientific evidence) (established but incomplete) (2.2.5).
Across all subregions of Europe and Central Asia, continuing declines in nature’s capacity to provide
regulating contributions to people since the 1960s are of particular concern, especially in the cases
of nursery habitats of fish species and breeding and overwintering areas for migratory species,
pollination, freshwater flow regulation, freshwater quality regulation, regulation of floods, soil
quality and erosion control (well established) (2.2.1). However, since the 1990s an improvement in
some of these and other regulating contributions from nature to people (i.e. air quality regulation
and removal of animal carcasses) in Western and Central Europe occurred due to the implementation
of European Union policies (established but incomplete) (2.2.1). Since the 1960s, the impacts of land-
use change on natural ecosystems and inappropriate management practices in agriculture and fisheries
have caused declines in pollinators (2.2.1.2), in regulation of freshwater quality (2.2.1.7), in erosion
control and soil quality (2.2.1.8) and in fluvial flood regulation (2.2.1.9) in the four subregions (well
established). The increases in forest area since the 1960s across parts of Europe and Central Asia have
increased carbon storage in those areas, contributing to climate regulation. Increased urban green
infrastructure improved the regulation of air temperature in cities and air quality regulation (2.2.1.3,
2.2.1.4). The declines of seagrass beds and kelp forests due to global warming, fishing pressure and
marine pollution in the Atlantic, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas have negative consequences for the
provision of nursery habitats for fish (2.2.1.1) and regulation of ocean acidification (2.2.1.5) (established
but incomplete). Nevertheless, these marine habitats may increase in the Arctic Ocean led by seawater
warming and will possibly enhance the regulation of ocean pH in the future (2.2.1.5) (established but
incomplete). After the sharp declines of vultures since the 1950s, the recent recovery of vertebrate
scavengers mainly due to natural recovery of populations and also the reintroduction and conservation
programmes in Western Europe, has enhanced the removal of animal carcasses (2.2.1.5) (established
but incomplete).

90
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nature’s material contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia are highly diverse, including
food, energy supply, materials that enter industrial processes, and medicinal resources (well
established) (2.2.2.1). There are inherent trade-offs amongst those material contributions derived
from different forms of land use and management. Trends in the use of material contributions
reflect socio-economic change and market forces, but also limits to natural capacity (2.2.2.1)
(established but incomplete). Intensification of management practices, technology, and investment
have led to higher production levels for particular material contributions with high market value,
including food and biofuels (2.2.2, 2.3.5). The production of some products has experienced
substantial growth in the region, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including maize,
cereals, fruits and vegetables, and meat (well established) (2.2.2.1.1). Capture of marine wild fish in
the region reached a peak in the 1990s and since then has reduced by about 30% to permit recovery
of stocks (established but incomplete) (2.2.2.1.2). This reduction was compensated for by a rapid
expansion of aquaculture (well established) (2.2.2.1.2). Intensive extraction of food and materials
combined with policy failures has driven the decline of natural resources, particularly of wild fish and
maerl (2.2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.3.3). Also, the loss of indigenous and local knowledge has affected the use of
medicinal plants and guard dogs for protecting livestock (2.2.2.3.4, 2.2.2.4). As a result of management
for sustainable use, wood production in Europe and Central Asia has been stable since the 2000s and
currently about 23% of this production is used as woodfuel (2.2.2.2). Production of biofuel and
biodiesel remains small relative to woodfuel and the potential for expansion is limited due to impacts
on ecosystems (established but incomplete) (2.2.2.2).
Nature’s non-material contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia have implications for
quality of life by providing opportunities for learning, inspiration, identity development, and
physical and psychological experiences (well established) (2.2.3). Different measures for these
contributions show contrasting trends and geographical unevenness across Europe and Central Asia
(well established) (2.2.3). There are contrasting trends in measures for learning and inspiration.
Informal learning based on interactions with nature has expanded partly due to increases in recreation
and tourism linked to sustainable environmental management that promotes knowledge of nature
(well established) (2.2.3.1.1). Other forms of informal learning and knowledge are in decline and can
be linked to a loss of indigenous and local knowledge and linguistic diversity which is the basis of
different forms of indigenous and local knowledge relating to nature. Across Europe and Central Asia,
12% of all languages are categorized as critically endangered and 14% as vulnerable (well established)
(2.2.3.1.2). The overall evidence for physical and psychological experiences indicates an increasing
trend. The demand for nature-based recreation and leisure has grown in Western Europe and in 2015
31% of European Union adults surveyed indicated that nature is their main reason for going on holiday,
up from under 10% in 2008 (well established) (2.2.3.2, 2.3.3). Thirty-eight per cent of the European
Union is characterized by a high outdoor recreation potential, but the places that can be used for
nature-based recreational and aesthetic experiences in Western Europe are becoming fewer due to
land use changes including urbanization, land-use intensification, rural abandonment, disappearance
of common lands and water pollution (well established) (2.2.3.2). The support of identities relates to
virtues and principles rather than to enjoyment resulting from physical and psychological experiences,
but it is not possible to identify clear trends for this contribution from nature (well established)
(2.2.3.3). Nevertheless, it is reflected in attitudes towards nature and, in the European Union, 76% of
people agreed with the statement that “we have a responsibility to look after nature” (well
established) (2.2.3.2). In support of their identities, people attribute an existence value to species and
ecosystems, especially iconic and emblematic species (well established) (2.2.3.3). Species found in
European and Central Asian forests, such as moose; and in marine waters, such as whales, are
particularly highly valued (established but incomplete) (2.2.3.3). The maintenance of options is a

91
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

contribution that depends on the existence of biodiversity, and its status and trends are reflected by
those of biodiversity measures, including phylogenetic diversity. Society’s appreciation of
maintenance of options is only moderate, as indicated by previous assessments of Europe and Central
Asia, and by the recent call for greater appreciation of maintenance of options from conservation
NGOs (established but incomplete) (2.2.3.4).
Europe and Central Asia is currently food secure despite a decline in pollination; degradation of
agricultural soils; decreases in water availability; increases in floods and droughts; decreases in wild
fish catch; competition from agriculture with other land uses such as forests and urbanization; and
loss of supporting farmer identity and 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). This has been possible
because of the mechanization and intensification of agriculture and because the region depends
partly on imports of food and agricultural inputs as well as on large-scale land acquisition abroad
(established but incomplete) (2.3.1.1). Food availability depends on different contributions from
nature, particularly food production, protection of soils, regulation of water quantity and pollination.
Food production from agriculture in Europe and Central Asia increased by 56% between the 1960s
and the 1990s until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Yugoslav wars and the MacSharry reform
of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. Because of efforts to reduce surplus production
in Western Europe between the 1960s and the 1990s, agricultural production has declined by 33%
since the 1990s (well established) (2.2.2.1.1). This has been offset by an increase in imports from
outside of Europe and Central Asia, primarily from South America and Africa (2.2.2.1.2, 2.2.4) and by
large-scale acquisition of land in other regions of the world (0.63% of croplands worldwide, 0.57%
acquired by countries from Western Europe) (2.3.1.1). There has also been a decrease in wild fish
catches since the 1990s, partly due to more sustainable management practices. This decrease was
compensated by an increase of 2.7% in fish production from aquaculture since 2000 (established but
incomplete) (2.2.2.1.2).
Food quantity and quality depend upon soil quality, regulation of water flows and floods, pollination
and food-related indigenous and local knowledge. Erosion of agricultural soil affects about 25% of
agricultural land in Europe and Central Asia, and a decline of organic matter in agricultural soils has
triggered decreased productivity in Central Asia (established but incomplete) (2.2.1.8). However,
between 2000 and 2010, erosion control in the EU-27 increased by an average of 9.5%, and by 20%
for arable lands, partly due to agricultural practices promoted by the Common Agricultural Policy
(2.2.1.8). Since 1980, frequency and severity of floods have increased across Europe and Central Asia
due to heavy precipitation events and decreased capacity to regulate fluvial floods (established but
incomplete) (2.2.1.9), thus impacting crop productivity. Since 1961, Mediterranean and Central Asian
countries have become more pollinator dependent due to their substantial production of highly
pollinator-dependent fruits (established but incomplete) (2.2.1.2). However, the diversity, occurrence
and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined since the 1950s and severe losses of western
honey bee populations have occurred in many Western European countries and former-USSR
countries since 1961 (established but incomplete) (2.2.1.2). The loss of indigenous and local knowledge
related to farming can affect food security by undermining intergenerational knowledge exchange
within farming communities and contributing to the depopulation of rural areas (established but
incomplete) (2.2.3.1.2, 2.2.3.2.1, 2.3.1.1).
Nature contributes in a range of ways to safe drinking water that is currently ensured for 95% of the
people in Europe and Central Asia, despite a 15% decrease in water availability per capita since 1990
(well established) (2.3.1.3). Access to clean water depends strongly on the regulation of both water
quality and water quantity. These two regulating contributions have been impaired by pollution and

92
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

overexploitation of freshwater bodies and the decrease in the areal extent of floodplains and
wetlands (well established) (2.2.1.6, 2.2.1.7). However, the rate of decrease in water quality has
lessened in the last decade in Western Europe, due to the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive (established but incomplete) (2.3.1.3, 2.2.1.7). Access to drinking water is currently
sufficient in Western and Central Europe (>99% of people), while Eastern Europe (95%) and Central
Asia (85%) have had lower, but increasing, access to drinking water since 1995 (well established)
(2.3.1.3). Water extraction as a percentage of renewable water resources decreased from 30 to 15%
between 1993 and 2012 (well established) (2.3.1.3). However, overall water availability per capita has
decreased by 15% since 1990, while this decrease was 42% since 1960 in Western Europe (well
established) (2.2.1.5). Water scarcity in most countries of the European Union has decreased slightly
since the 1990s, but over-exploitation still threatens freshwater resources (established but
incomplete) (2.3.1.3). The Mediterranean region is facing scarcity of water (established but
incomplete) (2.3.1.3).
Access to sufficient quantities of clean water also depends on water quality and water flow regulation
(well established) (2.2.1.6, 2.2.1.7). Water quality regulation has decreased in the region since the
1950s, due to the declining naturalness of freshwater ecosystems and areal extent of wetlands (well
established) (2.2.1.7). Between 2009 and 2015, the coverage of water bodies in the European Union
with a “good ecological status” decreased from 43% to 32% (2.2.1.7). However, water quality in
Western Europe has improved during the last decade due to the implementation of the Nitrates and
Water Framework Directives (well established) (2.2.1.7). In Central and Eastern Europe, water quality
is decreasing (well established) due to increased water pollution and the conversion of natural
ecosystems (2.2.1.7). Water flow regulation shows mixed, but generally decreasing trends for the
region, particularly in Western and Central Europe between 2000 and 2011 (established but
incomplete) (2.2.1.6).
Some areas of research into linkages between nature and health have illustrated the value of
biodiversity and most of nature’s contributions to people for human health (well established)
(2.3.2). These linkages include the contribution of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
to contemporary and traditional medicine, and to healthy nutrition through dietary diversity and
support for food security (well established) (2.2.2.4, 2.3.2, 2.3.2). Dietary diversity, however, is not
necessarily a good indicator of healthy nutrition: a relatively high diversity of unhealthy diets in
Western Europe through increases in fat and protein supply can contribute to increases in obesity
rates (well established) (2.3.1.1). Other linkages between nature and health include the influence of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people on infectious disease risk (unresolved) (2.3.2.2),
and the value of green spaces in promoting mental health and physical fitness (established but
incomplete) (2.3.2.1). There has been a decline in indigenous and local medical knowledge across
Europe and Central Asia (well established) (2.2.2.4), but medicinal plants have been increasingly used
in complementary and alternative medicine outside of local and indigenous communities in recent
decades (established but incomplete). Unsustainable patterns of exploitation threaten the survival of
some medicinal plants (established but incomplete) (2.2.2.4).
Urban dwellers across Europe and Central Asia value green spaces for health, psychological well-being
and emotional attachment (well established) (2.2.3.2). Increased urbanization poses significant
challenges for human health – including a rise in non-communicable diseases associated with modern
lifestyles, such as obesity, cardiovascular diseases, depression and anxiety disorders, and diabetes
(2.3.2). Efforts to increase access of urban dwellers to green space and open countryside may help
address some of these health issues through beneficial physical and psychological experiences
(established but incomplete), though more research is needed into differentials between communities

93
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and social groups in terms of access to greenspace and the health benefits obtained from them
(unresolved) (2.3.2).
The value of nature’s contributions to cultural heritage, identity and stewardship is indicated
through people’s engagement with nature for leisure and tourism, spiritual and aesthetic
experiences, gathering of wild food, learning, developing indigenous and local knowledge and also
by the desire of people, social groups and governments to protect and conserve areas and iconic
species even when they do not use them (well established) (2.2.3). There has been a loss in
knowledge of ecosystems and species linked to a marked general decline in indigenous and local
knowledge and linguistic diversity (well established) (2.2.3.1.2). Protected areas, as indicators of
valued and iconic places, have grown in number and extent so that globally the proportion of the
Earth’s surface protected has risen from 8% in 1990 to 14.7% in 2016 (well established) (2.2.3.2). The
designation of protected areas, however, is geographically uneven in Europe and Central Asia with
relatively few areas in Central Asia (2.2.3.3, 2.3.4) (well established). Protected areas and other green
spaces have increasingly been used since 1950 for tourism, leisure, formal and informal learning with
outdoor learning often providing additional value for skill and knowledge development for teachers
and learners (well established) (2.2.3.1, 2.3.3). In some countries interactions between material and
non-material contributions to cultural practices enhance identity, such as berry and mushroom picking
(well established) (2.3.3). Shepherds attach considerable identity value to guard dogs, especially to
breeds associated with particular geographical areas (well established) (2.2.2.3.4). The belief systems
of many peoples are strongly influenced by spiritual and religious interactions and ecosystems are
viewed as alive in many indigenous and local knowledge systems in Europe and Central Asia (well
established) (2.3.3). The decline in linguistic diversity weakens indigenous peoples’ stewardship,
heritage and identity especially among young members of these communities as it results in a loss of
knowledge of ecosystems and species (well established) (2.2.3.1.2, 2.3.3.). Indigenous and local
knowledge has significant value for some local communities in Europe and Central Asia contributing
to land rights claims, fisheries management and economic development linked to visitors consuming
local products and experiencing lifestyles linked to indigenous and local knowledge (established but
incomplete) (2.3.3).
Nature in Europe and Central Asia is important for delivering a wide range of contributions, which
are valued by people. These values are expressed in multiple dimensions, including through
economic markets, willingness to pay or cultural preferences (well established) (2.3.5). Integrated
valuation approaches demonstrate that nature’s contributions have substantial monetary and non-
monetary values that can inform policy goals (well established) (2.3.5). Regulating and non-material
contributions are as important in terms of value as material contributions (established but
incomplete) (2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.3). Traditionally, nature’s material contributions have been valued based
on market prices and in this assessment monetary values are standardized to a common currency and
base year (International $ 2017). Mean net profits of nature’s material contributions to people from
agricultural production across EU-28 countries ranged from $233 / ha / yr (cereals) to $916 / ha / yr
(mixed crops), while wood supply from forests was $255 / ha / yr (established but incomplete)
(2.3.5.1). Evidence from Europe and Central Asia demonstrates that nature’s regulating contributions
to people also have significant non-market monetary values and these are higher than non-market
values for material and non-material contributions (established but incomplete) (2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.3). For
example, habitat creation and maintenance is estimated to have a median value of (2017)
International $ 765 / ha / yr (unresolved) and regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality is
estimated at (2017) International $ 1965 / ha / yr (established but incomplete) (2.3.5.2). Nature’s non-
material contributions to people, such as physical and psychological experiences have a median value
of (2017) International $ 1117 / ha / yr (unresolved), while other non-material contributions were

94
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

demonstrated to be the most valued contributions by people in social-cultural valuations (established

but incomplete) (2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.3). The (often large) ranges in values of nature’s contributions reflect
heterogeneity of preferences across regions, social groups, local contexts and methodological
differences (established but incomplete) (2.3.5.2, 2.3.5.3). This assessment has demonstrated the
importance of nature’s contributions to people in terms of their market, non-market monetary and
socio-cultural values. Hence, there is strong evidence to support the inclusion of the plurality of values
in policy goals such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goals (2.3.5.4).
Nature’s contributions to quality of life of societies in Europe and Central Asia are not equally
experienced across different locations and social groups across the region, resulting in distributional
inequity (established but incomplete) (2.3.4). The benefits derived from nature’s contributions and
the harm from a loss of nature’s contributions are geographically uneven, which creates distributional
inequity as the impacts on quality of life of changes in ecosystems are linked to where beneficiaries
live (established but incomplete) (2.3.4). There is also a time component as ecosystem service
utilization today may destroy the basis for future service provision (established but incomplete)
(2.2.3.4). 15% of people in Central Asia lack access to safe drinking water compared to only 1% in
Western Europe (well established) (2.3.1.3, 2.3.4.2). However, intra-regional equity in the access to
food and a balanced diet is increasing (well established) (2.3.1.1). Equal access to food can be
threatened by large scale land-acquisition mainly by organizations from both Western European and
outside the region in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia as it compromises the right of
people in these areas to control their own food systems (established but incomplete) (2.3.1.1). In the
European Union, access to green spaces is not equally distributed among the inhabitants of cities
(established but incomplete) (2.2.3.2, 2.3.4.2). Public access to forests for recreational experiences is
uneven across the countries of Europe and Central Asia with high levels of access to 98-100% of forest
and other wooded land in Nordic and some Baltic countries as well as in several Central Europe
countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia. Lower levels of access are found in
some Western Europe countries such as UK (46%) and France (25%) (well established) (2.3.4.2).
Europe and Central Asia uses more renewable natural resources than are produced within the
region, either through overuse or net import, as indicated by the negative difference (deficit)
between biocapacity (production) and ecological footprint (consumption) (well established) (2.2.4).
The region depends on net flow imports of renewable natural resources and material contributions
from nature (well established) (2.2.4). Western and Central Europe and Central Asia have a
biocapacity deficit while Eastern Europe has a reserve (well established) (2.2.4). Western Europe’s
ecological footprint is 5.1 global hectares per person, while its biocapacity is 2.2 hectares. Central
Europe’s footprint is 3.6 hectares (2.1 ha biocapacity); Eastern Europe’s is 4.8 hectares (5.3 ha
biocapacity) and Central Asia’s is 3.4 hectares (1.7 hectares biocapacity) (well established) (2.2.4). The
regions footprint negatively affects biodiversity, food security and other contributions from nature to
people in other parts of the world (established but incomplete) (2.2.4, 2.3.4). Human appropriation of
net primary productivity (HANPP) is a measure that assesses biomass extraction from ecosystems for
food, fodder, fibres and bioenergy and for large parts of Western Europe, HANPP is lower than HANPP
embodied in consumption indicating a reliance on regions outside of Western Europe (well
established) (2.2.4). HANPP for Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia is similar or slightly higher
than HANPP embodied in consumption, but the European Union has been increasingly importing
embodied HANPP especially from South America (well established) (2.2.4). There are significant
differences in interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people across subregions: Central and
Western Europe import more contributions than Eastern Europe and Central Asia (well established)
(2.2.4). Food availability in Central and Western Europe relies significantly on land for crop production
in Brazil, Argentina, China and the United States of America (well established) (2.2.4). Central and

95
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

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. Western Europe became less self-
sufficient in crop production between 1987 and 2008, while the rest of Europe and Central Asia has
become more self-sufficient (well established) (2.2.4).

96
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Foreword to Chapter 2

“This is like home, you can’t tell it. It has to be felt. This is the single sentence you can say. You don’t
have to add anything else. In springtime when you go out and smell the fresh air, it cannot be told, the
feeling of how wonderful it is.” (Sandor Barta, cattle herder, in Kis et al., 2017).
In this chapter, we provide an assessment of each of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) and to
the quality of life of societies in Europe and Central Asia. We recognize that these contributions are
diverse, reflecting the multiple societies that inhabit the region and the multiple interlinked
dimensions of nature and society. For that reason, the present chapter seeks to respect and to
represent the multiple values of nature’s contributions to people and to include the different
knowledge systems that provide understanding of our relationship with nature.

97
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 How this Chapter 2 relates to the IPBES conceptual framework

This chapter addresses the boxes of the IPBES conceptual framework “nature’s contributions to
people” (NCP) and “good quality of life” and the interactions between them. Therefore, it assesses the
status, trends and future dynamics of nature’s material, regulating and non-material contributions to
people (IPBES, 2017a). We use the term “ecosystem services” when referring to the literature that
uses this term, and “nature’s contributions to people” when synthesizing, summarizing and assessing
information. This chapter also assesses the implications of changes in nature’s contributions to people
for the quality of life of people in terms of instrumental and relational values (see Section 1.5.2),
including food, energy and water security, health, cultural heritage, identity and stewardship, and
equity (Figure 2.1). The chapter also examines the multiple values of nature’s contributions to people
by presenting an integrated valuation, including monetary and non-monetary valuation. Assessing the
link between nature’s contributions to people and quality of life requires diverse valuation methods
that include market-based and non-market monetary methods as well as socio-cultural valuation
methods (Jacobs et al., 2017; Pascual et al., 2017). In this chapter, we provide an assessment of
nature’s contributions to people and their relationships with values and quality of life in Europe and
Central Asia, bringing together scientific, technical and indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems.

98
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.1.2 Contextual dimensions of nature’s contributions to people within the IPBES

Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia
In this assessment, three generic social and ecological dimensions of nature’s contributions to people
are distinguished –capacity, use and value-, and different indicators assigned to them. The aim was
not a systematic assessment of indicators for all dimensions, but rather to provide an overview of
indicators of nature’s contributions to people that relate to one of these dimensions. Table 2.1 gives
an overview of which particular dimension of nature’s contributions to people is assessed in this
chapter for each contribution.
The first dimension is ecosystem service capacity - the potential of a system to make a particular
contribution to people. The second dimension is ecosystem service use - the actual appropriation or
appreciation of nature’s contributions to people by a beneficiary. The third dimension is ecosystem
service value - the importance attached to contributions by different groups of beneficiaries. While
nature’s contributions to people can be valued in different ways (Jacobs et al., 2017; Pascual et al.,
2017), the presence of such values determines to which elements in nature, e.g. a species, a
population or an ecosystem, they are attributed.
Table 2.1: Indication of which dimension is assessed in this chapter per contributions from nature
to people.
Nature’s Ecosystem service capacity Ecosystem service use Ecosystem service value
contributions
to people
1 Habitat • Nursery capacity of habitats • Breeding and overwintering • Non-market monetary values
creation and • Surface of habitats with areas for migratory species • Non-monetary values
maintenance nursery function
2 Pollination • Wild insect pollinators • Agriculture’s dependence • Annual market value of
diversity and occurrence on pollinators production that is directly linked
• IUCN red lists status for wild • % supply of honey bees with pollination services
pollinators relative to demand • Non-market monetary values
• Number of honey bee • Non-monetary values
colonies
3 Regulation of • Reduction in concentration of • Reduction in concentration • Non-market monetary values
air quality the pollutant by nature of the pollutant • Non-monetary values
• Balance between emissions • Premature deaths due to air
and vegetation capture pollution
• NO2 and other pollutants • Years of life lost due to air
removed by ecosystems pollution
4 Regulation of • Carbon storage and • CO2 (and greenhouse gas) • Non-market monetary values
climate sequestration by different concentrations • Non-monetary values
land uses
• Temperature decrease
(reduced heat stress)
5 Regulation of • Marine vegetated habitats • Increases in ocean pH
ocean (e.g. seagrasses, kelp • Existence of refugia for
acidification forests) surface and calcifying organisms
performance
• Rates of pelagic primary
production
6 Regulation of • Freshwater quantity • Freshwater extraction • Non-market monetary values
freshwater regulation • Surface water extraction • Non-monetary values
quantity and • Freshwater availability (for • Freshwater use
flow human use)
• Freshwater flow regulation
• Water retention
• Water regulation
• Stream flow, base flow
7 Regulation of • Surface of floodplains and • Concentration of nitrogen • Non-market monetary value
freshwater wetlands and phosphorous in inland • Non-monetary values
quality • Ecological status of water freshwater ecosystems
bodies • Quality of drinking water
• Nitrate removal rate in a river and bathing water

99
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

• Winter means of dissolved

inorganic nitrogen (nitrate +
nitrite + ammonium),
oxidized nitrogen (nitrate +
nitrite) and phosphate
concentrations in seas
8 Formation and • Capacity of ecosystems to • Erosion rates • Non-market monetary value
protection of avoid erosion: C factor of • Non-monetary values
soils USLE erosion model
• Soil fertility
• Maintenance of soil structure
• Soil organic carbon content
• Available nutrients, available
organic contaminants
9 Regulation of • Habitats designated for flood • Number and intensity of • Non-market monetary value
hazards and protection coastal and fluvial flood • Non-monetary values
extreme • Flood mitigation capacity of events
events wetlands • Damage caused by flood
• Flood regulation events
10 Removal of • IUCN red lists status for • Amount of animal and • Avoided costs
carcasses vertebrate scavengers livestock carcasses • Non-market monetary value
• Population trends of removed by vertebrate
vertebrate scavengers scavengers
• Emissions of CO2 resulted
by the substitution of natural
scavenging with artificial
removal of carcasses
11 Food and feed • Agriculture area per capita • Production of cereals, fruit, • Market values
• Cultivated area per vegetables, maize • Non-market monetary value
agricultural population • Production of crops • Non-monetary values
• Organic agricultural area processed: olive oil,
rapeseed oil, sunflower oil,
wine
• Livestock primary
production: eggs, meat, milk
• Marine wild capture seafood
• Inland wild fish captures
• Aquaculture production
12 Energy • Woodfuel production stocks • Market value of woodfuel
• Annual production of biofuel • Non-market monetary value
• Biodiesel and ethanol • Non-monetary values
production
• Woodfuel consumption
stocks
• Trade balance of biofuels
• Trade balance of biodiesel
and ethanol
13 Materials and • Density of timber stocks • Production of roundwood • Market value of some materials
assistance • Surface of cork oak forests • Production of cotton • Non-market monetary value
• Status of mearl bed habitats • Cork harvested • Non-monetary values
• Production of turpentine,
resin and rosins
• Production of kelp
• Extraction of maerl
14 Medicinal, • Number of medicinal plants • Use of medicinal plants • Non-market monetary value of
biochemical • Endangered status of genetic resources
and genetic medicinal plants • Non-monetary values
resources
15 Learning and • Protected areas and outdoor • Linguistic Diversity Index • Non-market monetary value
inspiration spaces used for learning • Level of endangerment of • Non-monetary values
languages
• Transmission of indigenous
and local knowledge
16 Physical and • Surface of Protected Areas • Nature as the main reason • Market value of mushrooms
psychological • Recreational potential index for going on holidays • Market value of berries
experiences • Percentage of forest area • Number of marine and • Non-market monetary value
designated or managed for freshwater anglers • Non-monetary values
recreation purposes • Participant rates (%) in
• Richness of species nature-based recreation
collected for wild food or activities
hunted

100
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

17 Supporting • Protected Areas (IUCN • Species appearance in • Non-market monetary value

Identities categories Ia Strict Nature news articles • Non-monetary values
Reserve, Ib Wilderness Area, • Attitudes towards nature
II National Park and IV preservation
Habitat/species management
area)
• Sacred Natural Sites per
country
• Forest area primarily
designated or managed for
spiritual or cultural values
(Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United
Nations)
18 Maintenance • Total number of endemic • Use of genetic diversity by • Avoided costs of unanticipated
of options species pharmaceutical companies benefits from biodiversity
• Phylogenetic diversity • Recent and unanticipated
benefits from biodiversity

2.2 Status and trends of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and

Central Asia

This section assesses the status (from 2011 to 2016) and trends (from 1950) of nature’s contributions
to people in Europe and Central Asia based on a systematic literature review conducted in three main
stages: (i) generation of search strings (see supporting material Appendix 2.1); (ii) systematic search
of primarily published peer-reviewed scientific articles, grey literature and indigenous and local
knowledge; and (iii) the extraction of information from 25 relevant papers per contribution in each
subregion of Europe and Central Asia. The assessment also included indicators available at regional
and subregional levels and indigenous and local knowledge derived from a Europe and Central Asia
“ILK dialogue workshop” held in January 2016 in Paris (Roué & Molnar, 2017) (see supporting material
Appendix 2.2). We report on the general status and trends in Europe and Central Asia and in its
subregions of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, and Central Asia; however, a detailed list of
references can be found in supporting material Appendix 2.3.
It is important to point out that, across the region, there are many examples where indigenous and
local knowledge is essential for preserving nature’s contributions to people, for example in the case
of transhumance shepherds (see Box 2.1). Other examples of the relevance of indigenous and local
knowledge to the maintenance of nature’s contributions to people, such as pollination, habitat
maintenance, food and feed, medicinal resources and physical and psychological experiences are
those derived from the management of cultural landscapes, such as “dehesas”, “montados” or
“bocages” (Box 2.1).
Box 2.1: The role of indigenous and local knowledge of transhumance shepherds for preserving
some of nature’s contributions to people.

Transhumance is a traditional farming practice of moving livestock from one grazing ground to another in a
seasonal cycle. It is based on indigenous and local knowledge that has proven to be a determinant for the
provision of nature’s regulating contributions to people (seed dispersal, fire prevention or soil fertility), as well
as nature’s material and non-material contributions to people, such food, wood, ecotourism or local identity
(Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013a; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2014). The use, conservation and transmission of transhumance-
related local knowledge has been shown to be mostly linked with the practice of transhumance on foot.
Transhumance on foot would not be possible without ancestral knowledge and collaborative practices. Drove
roads, maintained for and by transhumant shepherds through the migration of their herds, are biodiversity
reservoirs (Azcarate et al., 2013) as well as corridors contributing to landscape connectivity (Galvin, 2008). Seeds

101
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

can be dispersed along hundreds of kilometres by transhumant sheep on their migration (Manzano & Malo,
2006).
In Spanish “dehesas” (open woodlands resulting from the clearing of original evergreen oak woodland and
shrubland areas), shepherds’ seasonal management of grasslands allows for holm oak regeneration in a context
where tree ageing is a major challenge for biodiversity conservation and overall sustainability (Carmona et al.,
2013). Fire prevention, as a result of livestock consumption of flammable biomass has also been tightly linked
with transhumance management (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013a; Zumbrunnen et al., 2012). The customary practice
of “redileo” and the enclosure of animals in changing resting areas along the drove roads, contribute to soil
fertility (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2012).
End of Box 2.1

2.2.1 Status and trends of nature’s regulating contributions to people

2.2.1.1 Habitat creation and maintenance
2.2.1.1.1 Nurseries
Habitat as a nursery for juveniles of a particular species refers to where “its contribution per unit area
to the production of individuals that recruit to adult populations is greater, on average, than
production from other habitats in which juveniles occur” (Beck et al., 2001). An overview of the
nursery function as a contribution from nature to people is provided by Liquete et al. (2016a) who
conclude that it is a concrete benefit to people, especially through food provision or recreation. For
example, a positive effect has been demonstrated between the presence of nursery habitat and fish
stocks of sole (Solea solea) in the Seine estuary in France (Cordier et al., 2011). The importance of
conserving nursery areas has also been demonstrated for commercially important invertebrate
species, such as queen scallops (Aequipecten opercularis), soft-shell clam (Mya arenaria) and sea
urchin (Psammechinus miliaris). The importance of nursery habitat for juveniles is also relevant in the
cases of maerl grounds, kelp forests, Cystoseira forests, seagrass meadows and reefs, among others.
Maerl beds harbour significantly higher numbers of juveniles of these species than impacted areas
(Kamenos et al., 2004). However, maerl beds have been undergoing a decline in condition and extent
across most of their range in European Union (Hall-Spencer et al., 2008; JNCC, 2007; OSPAR, 2010),
mainly due to commercial extraction (see Section 2.2.2.3), as well as negative impacts of mussel
farming, dredging for scallops and bivalves, aquaculture and eutrophication (Grall & Hall-Spencer,
2003; Hall-Spencer & Bamber, 2007; Hall-Spencer et al., 2008; JNCC, 2007).
In the European Union marine environment, kelp forests also provide important habitat for a wide
range of species (Araújo et al., 2016; Smale et al., 2013), including commercially important ones such
as European lobster (Homarus gammarus). They also act as nurseries for invertebrates and fish, such
as Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), as well as key mating and feeding grounds for many North Atlantic
fish species, such as Ballan Wrasse (Labrus bergylta) and Goldsinny Wrasse (Ctenolabrus rupestris)
(Bertocci et al., 2015; Casal et al., 2011; Smale et al., 2013). While knowledge gaps exist in terms of
demonstrating the actual effect of kelp forest abundance and density on associated fisheries, most
studies show a positive kelp-fisheries relationship (Bertocci et al., 2015). Recent studies show a
dominant decreasing trend in kelp forest distribution and abundance across parts of Western, Central
and Eastern Europe due to global warming, sea urchin grazing, harvesting, pollution and fishing
pressure (see Figure 2.2) (Araújo et al., 2016; Casal et al., 2011). Distribution and abundance of some
kelp species is predicted to further change in response to ocean warming in the Atlantic (see Table
2.2) (Smale et al., 2013) (see Section 2.2.1.5).

102
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 2.2: Kelp species in UK and Irish waters and their predicted change in abundance or range of
each species in response to continued environmental change. Source: Smale et al. (2013).

Species Distribution Depth range Length (m) Lifespan Predicted

(m) (years) change
Laminaria Arctic- 0-30 1-3 5-18 Decrease
hyperborea Portugal
Laminaria Arctic-France 0-15 1-2 4-6 Decrease
digitata
Laminaria UK-Morocco 0-30 1-3 5-18 Increase
ochroleuca
Saccharina Arctic-France 0-30 1-3 2-4 Decrease
latissima
Alaria Arctic-France 0-35 1-2 4-7 Decrease
esculenta
Saccorhiza Norway- 0-35 2-3 1 Increase
polyschides 10 Morocco
Undaria Global NIS 0-15 1-3 1 Increase
pinnatifida

10 S. polyschides is not a true kelp of the order Laminariales (being of the order Tilopteridales), but is included as this

“pseudokelp” can perform a similar ecological role as the dominant canopy former.

103
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Cystoseira brown algae also provide biogenic structure, food and shelter for many organisms including
fish. These habitats have, however, been declining or disappearing throughout the Mediterranean Sea
due to a decrease in water quality and building development on the coast (Cheminée et al., 2013;
Mangialajo et al., 2013). In Corsica, the depletion of large and continuous forests of C. balearica with
a surface area of more than 2,500 m2 could result in a significant loss of Wrasse (Symphodus spp.)
juveniles, which are dependent on this habitat (Cheminée et al., 2013).
Also in the Mediterranean Sea, many commercial fish species rely on seagrass beds which provide
permanent habitat, allowing full life cycle completion and providing temporary nurseries for juvenile
development, feeding areas for various life cycle stages and refuge from predation (Jackson et al.,
2001). Eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows play a similar role in the Baltic and North Atlantic (Boström
et al., 2014). Seagrasses have declined worldwide and particularly in the Mediterranean, Baltic and
Atlantic Seas, with negative consequences for the provision of nursery habitats (Boström et al., 2014;
Mccloskey & Unsworth, 2015; Waycott et al., 2009).
Biogenic reefs, i.e. reefs where structure is created by the animals themselves, are also important fish
habitats, as their complex structures provide refuge for fish and substrate for benthic fauna and
macroalgal forests which, in turn, provide refuge and feeding areas for fish species (Støttrup et al.,
2014). A positive relationship between reef habitats and fish species abundance was demonstrated
by a study on reef restoration in Denmark on the example of commercially important species cod and
saithe (Støttrup et al., 2014). Many biogenic reef habitats on the European coasts of the Atlantic Ocean
and the North Sea have been in decline due to various anthropogenic pressures (OSPAR, 2010).
Other nursery and spawning habitats have also been reported in national assessments. For example,
in Finland the most important nursery habitats include bladderwrack (Fucus vesiculosus) and common

104
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows for fish species, wooded mires for many forest grouse species and
spawning rivers for salmon (Boström et al., 2014; Jäppinen & Heliölä, 2015). The state of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) spawning rivers in the Baltic Sea has also been assessed by the Helsinki
Commission, showing that the number of salmon spawners had increased since the mid-1990s in some
rivers of the Bothnian Bay (ICES, 2013).

2.2.1.1.2 Breeding and overwintering areas for migratory species

A number of scientific publications discuss population declines in a range of migratory species,
including migratory birds of Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Berthold et al., 1998; Sanderson et
al., 2006). This includes European breeding birds wintering in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sanderson et al.,
2006). Over half (50.4%) of fully migratory species were reported to be in decline between 1990 and
2000, falling, however, to 35.7% between 2000 and 2012 (Gilroy et al., 2016). Despite this decline in
wintering populations, overall waterbirds show an increasing trend in the European Union, being
higher for those listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive (Figure 2.3) (Wetlands International, 2015).

2.2.1.2 Pollination
Pollination by animals plays a vital role as a regulating contribution from nature to people with the
majority of wild flowering plant species (Ollerton et al., 2011) and crop types (Klein et al., 2007)
benefitting from it, at least in part. Both wild and managed pollinators play significant roles in crop
pollination, and crop yield or quality depend on both the abundance and diversity of pollinators (IPBES,
2016). Pollinator diversity contributes to crop pollination even when managed species are abundant,
and a diverse community of pollinators generally provides more effective and stable crop pollination
than any single species.
Pollinators provide a wide range of material contributions, such as the food, fibre, building materials,
medicines and other products derived from pollinator-dependent plants (see Section 2.2.2). Other

105
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

products are directly produced by some species of bees such as honey, pollen, wax, propolis, resin,
royal jelly and bee venom (IPBES, 2016). These are important for nutrition, health, medicine,
cosmetics, religion and cultural identity and so contribute to a good quality of life (IPBES, 2016).
Since the 1950s wild insect pollinators in Europe and Central Asia have declined in diversity and
occurrence, and also in abundance for some taxa where data are available (see Chapter 3). IUCN Red
Lists for continental Europe (here extending from Iceland in the west to the Urals in the east) show
that 37% of bee and 31% of butterfly species have declining populations (excluding data deficient
species) and 9% of both taxa are classified as threatened (Nieto et al., 2014; Van Swaay et al., 2010).
Severe losses of managed colonies of the western honey bee have been reported in many Western
European countries and former-USSR countries since 1961 (Aizen & Harder, 2009).
Agriculture in Europe and Central Asia has become more pollinator dependent since 1961, with
Mediterranean and Central Asian countries being the most reliant on pollination services for crop
production, due to the substantial production of highly pollinator-dependent fruits (see Figure 2.4).
The potential capacity of managed honey bees in Western, Central and Eastern Europe to supply
pollination services to pollinator-dependent crops is insufficient to meet demand in many countries
and the shortfall has increased between 2005 and 2010 because of changes in crop markets (see
Figure 2.5; Breeze et al., 2014). This suggests a high and increasing reliance on wild insects for crop
pollination services. Without a systematic monitoring scheme, however, it is not possible to accurately
assess the importance of wild pollinators at a local scale (e.g. April et al., 2016). Although some
attempts have been made to model available pollinator natural capital (e.g. Schulp et al., 2014a), to
date they have not considered pollinator behaviour. More suitable models have been developed
(Olsson et al., 2015; Ricketts & Lonsdorf, 2013) but have not yet been applied beyond case study or
hypothetical sites. In addition, a variety of indicators have been used for mapping pollination,
however, almost all are based on very indirect (e.g. land cover variables) or relative measures of
pollination and lack empirical validation of reliable representation of pollination delivery.

106
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pollination contributes to a good quality of life through: the role of pollinators underpinning the
productivity of many of the world’s crops which contribute to healthy diets; beekeeping, pollinator-
dependent plant products and honey which support livelihoods; and pollinator-dependent landscapes
which help provide a rich and meaningful cultural and spiritual life (IPBES, 2016). Throughout Europe
and Central Asia there has been a 14% increase in honey production (from 314,874 to 358,191 tonnes
per year) between 1992 and 2012. This change has, however, been uneven between regions,
presenting a decline of 27% in Western Europe and 63% in Central Asia, while an increase of 29% in
Eastern Europe and 31% in northern Central Europe (FAO, 2017). In addition to honey and other direct
calorific value of products derived from pollinator-dependent food crops, these products also benefit
human health via supply a major proportion of micronutrients such as vitamin A, Iron and Folate; the
fractional dependency of these micronutrient production on pollination is particularly high in southern
areas of Western and Central Europe (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2014).

2.2.1.3 Regulation of air quality

The regulation of air quality by ecosystems is complex, depending on the atmospheric pollutant in
question, emission levels, scale, and ecosystem characteristics. The contribution of vegetation varies
according to multiple plant factors including species, leaf area, height, presence of wax or hair,
evergreen versus deciduous lifeform and surface roughness. This needs to be balanced against their
pollution resilience, as well as their potential to decrease air quality by trapping pollutants, emitting
gases including biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC) and methane (Janhäll, 2015; Sæbø et al.,
2012), and producing allergens (Asam et al., 2015). In many countries, greenhouse gas emissions are
decreasing as countries seek to comply with commitments (EEA, 2015a) and the European Union Air
Quality Directive (Directive 2008/50/EC) 11, but trends in air quality regulation by ecosystems vary
according to the balance between emissions and capture by vegetation. Between 2000 and 2010, in
the European Union, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) removal by urban green areas increased by 0.8%
(European Commission, 2015b). In Spain air quality has slightly decreased overall, but air quality
regulation by forests improved between 1960 and 2010 as forest area increased due to land

11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0050

107
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

abandonment, with mountain areas showing mixed trends of forest area and rivers, lakes and
wetlands showing decreases of forest area (Spanish NEA, 2013).
Three aspects of the regulation of air quality by ecosystems are briefly reviewed here: (i) the broad
contribution of different ecosystems; (ii) the impacts of parks and trees at the local scale in cities; and
(iii) ecosystem contributions to emissions. Forests and trees are particularly important at both the
regional and local level, especially in cities, for capturing pollutants through both wet and dry
deposition. A simple estimation of air pollution capture and removal, based only on dry deposition
velocity 12 (as a measure of capacity of removal by vegetation) shows that for nitrogen oxides (NOx),
mountains with forests and natural grassland have a high capacity (primarily due to the higher level
of pollutant capture by forests), while forests in Sweden and Finland and vegetation in parts of Central
and Western Europe have intermediate capacity (Figure 2.6 A). When combined with local pollution
concentrations in urban and peri-urban areas, it shows that trees in southern Scandinavia and parts
of Central and Southern Western Europe are particularly important (Figure 2.6 B). However, this can
vary according to factors including pollutant (type and emission level), topography and location. For
example, in Limburg Province, Netherlands, the vertical capture of PM10 13 (mean kg km−2 yr−1) was
estimated as: heath 2056, forest 2001, peat 968, cropland 956 and urban 535 (Remme et al., 2014),
with heaths capturing more than forests, as they are closer to the emission sources.

12 Rate of deposition of particles and gases (in this case) on vegetation

13 PM10 is particulate matter 2.5 to 10 micrometers in diameter

108
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The total net benefit of vegetation in cities for capturing pollutants can be small relative to total
emissions. For example, urban forests in Barcelona in 2008 removed 305.6t of air pollutants and
19,036 t CO2eq, representing 2.66 % of PM10 (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter),
0.43 % of NO2, and 0.47 % of CO2eq of emissions (Baró et al., 2014). The tree canopy in Greater London
is estimated to remove between 0.7% and 1.4% of PM10 from the urban boundary layer (Tallis et al.,

109
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2011). Measurements of NO2, anthropogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particle
deposition in two Finnish cities suggest that urban vegetation removes little pollution in northern
areas (Setälä et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the amounts locally removed can be very important.
Several studies demonstrating the removal of different pollutants by trees or parks in cities of the
European Union show similar patterns, although quantitative results are mostly not directly
comparable since the studies use different units. Studies of different Italian cities showed that
generally evergreen broadleaved forests capture more ozone (O3) than coniferous forest, followed by
mixed broadleaved and coniferous forest, with deciduous broadleaved forest capturing the least (e.g.
Bottalico et al., 2016; Manes et al., 2016). For PM10 the sequence decreases from mixed broadleaved
and coniferous forest, to coniferous forest, evergreen broadleaved forest and deciduous broadleaved
forest (Manes et al., 2016). Seasonal differences include deciduous trees capturing more PM10 and O3
in summer when in leaf (e.g. Manes et al., 2016; Marando et al., 2016), while evergreens captured
more in autumn and winter (Marando et al., 2016). Research on European urban trees found that
Quercus and Platanus spp. have the highest PM removal efficiency (Grote et al., 2016). Thus, the
selection of species planted can affect air quality regulation. In cities, trees can also reduce the
dispersion of pollutants, leading to increased local concentrations (Janhäll, 2015).
Ecosystems can be sources or precursors of gases, which affect air quality. For example ammonia and
methane are involved in the photochemical formation of O3, with agricultural fertilizer application and
livestock contributing to ammonia emissions and livestock and wetlands to methane emissions
(Kayranli et al., 2010). Trees can emit biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), especially
isoprenes, as well as allergens such as pollen (Grote et al., 2016). Modelling of BVOC emissions shows
particularly high levels in parts of southern parts of Western Europe due to a combination of species
and high temperatures, while in Scandinavia it is a result of the forest cover (Figure 2.7). Air pollution
can also indirectly affect ecosystems, through soil and water acidification, eutrophication, or crop and
vegetation damage from O3 (EEA, 2016a), which all can reduce the ability of ecosystems to cope with
particulate and gaseous pollutants. For example, in forests the critical O3 level (20,000 μg/m3/h during
the summer season) was exceeded in 2013 in 66% of the 33 member countries of the European
Environment Agency (EEA) (except in Turkey), with more northern countries in that area falling below
this level, while in southern parts of Western Europe the critical level may be exceeded by a factor of
four or five (EEA, 2016a).
Air quality impacts quality of life, especially human health in cities (Queenan, 2017). For example, for
40 countries of Western and Central Europe in 2012, exposure to PM2.5 14, O3 and NO2 was responsible
for 432,000, 75,000 and 17,000 premature deaths, respectively. The highest rates of years of life lost
per 100,000 inhabitants due to PM2.5 were in Central and Eastern European countries, and for O3 the
Western Balkans, Hungary and Italy (EEA, 2015a). Its direct and indirect impacts on processes, such as
eutrophication and acidification, affect ecosystem health and species composition (Jones et al., 2014),
which can influence their ability to supply other contributions from nature to people.

14 PM2.5 is particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter

110
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.1.4 Regulation of climate

Ecosystems are important in climate regulation as they affect greenhouse gas fluxes, contributing both
to emissions and storage, which could enhance climate warming or climate mitigation, respectively.
Nearly all countries in Europe and Central Asia have submitted “intended nationally determined
contributions” under the Paris Agreement, with ecosystems playing a role in their mitigation plans.
Ecosystems can also influence heat transfers by reflecting or absorbing incoming solar radiation and
moisture transfers through modifying water flows and evapotranspiration, as well as affecting
microclimate, primarily through reducing temperature extremes (Edmondson et al., 2016).
There is considerable uncertainty about the changes in carbon flux and balance. It has been estimated
that, between 1950 and 2007, increased carbon biomass stocks in Europe’s forests represented 10%
of the EU-15 15 cumulated fossil fuel emissions (Ciais et al., 2008), while between 1990 and 2012 there
was a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)
changes due to increased carbon storage (Figure 2.8), primarily as a result of increases in forest area,
with 87% of the positive balance coming from Eastern Europe, 19% from Central Europe and 9% from
Western Europe. It has been estimated, based on models and observations, that in continental Europe
between 2000 and 2005, the balance of greenhouse gases was –29 ± 194 TgC yr–1 for croplands, forests
and grasslands, as CO2 taken up mostly by forests and grasslands nearly balanced CH4 and N2O
emissions (mostly from cropland), while for the 25 member States of the European Union at that stage
the balance showed emissions of 34 ± 99 TgC yr–1 (Schulze et al., 2009). In Central Asia, net removals
of greenhouse gases by land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) between 1992 and 2012
increased from -5.3 to -25.1 Tg CO2eq (FAO, 2017), mostly due to increased area of grasslands.

15 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal,

Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom

111
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Net increases in emissions and decreases in carbon storage could have several causes, including
wetland drainage, loss of wetlands and forests due to urban expansion, agricultural intensification,
other land use changes, and emissions from northern peatlands due to climate change. In nearly all
countries of Europe and Central Asia, forests are the most important net carbon sink and carbon stocks
in living forest biomass between 1990 and 2015 were increasing or stable (see Figure 2.9). For some
countries, however, wetlands can be more important in regulating climate but, given the decrease in
wetland area in many parts of continental Europe (Dixon et al., 2016; EEA, 2016c) (see Section 2.2.1.6),
they may not be able to maintain this contribution from nature to people into the future. In Russia,
vegetation (primarily boreal forests and peatlands) and soils hold 16% (336 Gt) of the world’s carbon
stores, with soils making the greater contribution. With climate change, the tundra zone could become
a net emitter, especially of methane (Bukvareva et al., 2015).

112
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In Europe and Central Asia, soils represent a large carbon stock (Jones et al., 2012; Schulze et al., 2010),
but the storage capacity varies depending on land use and soil type. Peat soils are undergoing major
carbon losses due to drainage and cultivation (Akker et al., 2016). Cropland soil organic carbon is also
declining in many areas of Europe and Central Asia (see Section 2.2.1.7), but agricultural soils
represent a large potential sink if appropriate management practices are applied (Lugato et al., 2014).
Figures vary for the area of cropland abandoned following the dissolution of the USSR (Schierhorn et
al., 2013), but authors agree that this led to major carbon sequestration in soils (Kurganova et al.,
2015). A process-driven ecosystem model (Vuichard et al., 2008) estimated that the conversion of 20
million ha of cropland to grassland resulted in an accumulated carbon sink of 64 TgC between 1991
and 2000. Estimates vary, however, due to the use of different methods and data and allowing for the
conversion to forests, with the range being from −64 to −694 TgC sequestered (Dolman et al., 2012).
Schierhorn et al. (2013), using a different process-based model, estimated that between 1990 to 2009
the 31 million ha of abandoned cropland in Western Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus combined, provided
a net carbon sink of 470 TgC. In Central Asia, between 1982 and 2000, there was a decrease of soil
organic carbon stocks of about 828 TgC, mainly due to the conversion of native rangelands into
agricultural land, and to a lesser extent (5% of carbon losses) due to rangeland degradation (Sommer
& de Pauw, 2011). Nitrogen deposition can increase terrestrial carbon sequestration and its effect is
greatest in Central Europe, although across all subregions of Europe this effect is decreasing due to
reduced deposition (Zaehle et al., 2011).

113
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ecosystems, especially in urban areas, can be effective in microclimate regulation, through reducing
local surface temperatures by shading, and air temperatures by evaporative cooling and albedo

114
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

effects. Local climate regulation has been estimated for 301 large urban zones in the EU-27, using the
amount of energy emitted by a surface (surface emissivity) and an approximation of the evaporation
potential of the land surface (f-evapotranspiration) to calculate the effect of different land covers on
urban air temperatures (Larondelle et al., 2014). Climate regulation was found to be low across most
of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, but high in Sweden, Finland and some cities in Spain, France
and Italy, with a more heterogeneous pattern elsewhere (see Figure 2.10). This primarily reflects the
percentage of forest and tree cover in the core urban area and its hinterland.

A global meta-analysis of the cooling potential of urban parks found an average reduction of ambient
daytime temperature by 0.94°C and of nighttime temperature by 1.15°C (Bowler et al., 2010),
although a few studies found small increases in temperature. The magnitude of the effects varies
according to climatic region, size of park or forest (Bowler et al., 2010) and the species involved (e.g.
Leuzinger et al., 2010). For example, a comparison of temperatures in a street and the National Garden
in Athens, Greece, found the greatest differences at night of up to 6.3oC cooling by the park (Zoulia &
Santamouris, 2008), while in Manchester, UK, tree shading was found to reduce air temperatures by
1–2oC (Armson et al., 2012) and in an intra-urban park in Moscow, winter temperatures can be 0.74oC
higher and summer temperatures 1.64oC lower than in the city centre (Shahgedanova et al., 1997).
Climate regulation by ecosystems contributes to other contributions from nature to people (e.g.
habitat maintenance (Section 2.2.1.1), erosion control (Section 2.2.1.8), water quality (Section
2.3.1.6)), while carbon sequestration in soils can increase food security (Section 2.3.1.1). Furthermore,
the reduction of urban temperatures in hot weather (Section 2.3.2) can lower rates of heat-related
mortality and morbidity, especially in elderly and chronically ill individuals and socially vulnerable
people and those with respiratory diseases (Hajat et al., 2010). A study of 12 Western and Central
European cities suggested that this is particularly important in the Mediterranean region (Michelozzi
et al., 2009).

2.2.1.5 Regulation of ocean acidification

Ocean acidification has been shown to affect marine organisms, having especially negative effects in
calcifying organisms such as bivalves, brittle stars, sea urchins, coralline algae and corals (Cornwall et
al., 2017; Cornwall et al., 2015; Kroeker et al., 2013) and on the contributions they provide to people

115
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Lemasson et al., 2017). Some of these organisms live in or nearby coastal vegetated ecosystems,
which have been shown to regulate atmospheric CO2 concentrations and seawater pH (Cornwall et
al., 2013; Hendriks et al., 2014) with effects on calcification processes of marine organisms important
to humans (e.g. corals, bivalves or sea urchins) (IPBES, 2017a). Marine macrophytes, such as large
brown macroalgae and seagrasses, are net CO2 consumers, and their metabolism creates pH
fluctuations in seagrass meadows and kelp forests where they are dominant species and very
abundant. This regulation of pH can entail increases of 1 pH unit during the day (Middelboe & Hansen,
2007). This up-regulation can depend on many factors, such as plant biomass and structure,
hydrodynamics, irradiance and day-length (Krause-Jensen et al., 2016). Vegetated habitats may,
therefore, contribute to regulating ocean acidification and creating refugia for calcifying organisms
(Hurd, 2015; Krause-Jensen et al., 2016). There is increasing evidence that pH increase can lead to an
overall buffering of ocean acidification (Buapet et al., 2013; Hendriks et al., 2014; Krause-Jensen et al.,
2015; Krause-Jensen et al., 2016). Nevertheless, pH in these habitats typically fluctuates, with higher
pH during daytime due to CO2 uptake by photosynthesis and lower pH at night due to respiration and
release of CO2. In fact, some studies postulate that macrophytes may amplify the negative effects of
ocean acidification, at least for some organisms (Pettit et al., 2015; Roleda et al., 2015). The potential
role of regulating ocean acidification of marine vegetated habitats may depend on the balance
between positive effects in the daytime and negative effects during the night (Krause-Jensen et al.,
2016). For example, long days in the Arctic vegetated habitats have been shown to promote the
provision of refugia for calcifying organisms during summer (Krause-Jensen et al., 2015; Krause-Jensen
et al., 2016), when organisms reproduce and are most vulnerable to ocean acidification (Kroeker et
al., 2013; Lemasson et al., 2017). However, the long polar nights should result in a down-regulation of
pH, potentially amplifying negative effects of ocean acidification during winter. However, calcifying
organisms are likely less susceptible to low pH in the later conditions (Kroeker et al., 2013).
Despite the importance of marine vegetated habitats, declines of seagrass beds and kelp forests have
been reported in many parts of Europe and Central Asia (Araújo et al., 2016; Boudouresque et al.,
2009) (see Sections 2.2.1.1. and 3.3.2.3) For example, decline of the seagrass Posidonia oceanica has
been reported across the entire Mediterranean Sea, and during the last 50 years between 11 and 52%
of the documented surface area originally occupied by the species has been lost, with many existing
meadows deteriorating (Telesca et al., 2015). It is predicted that this trend will continue and the
functional extinction of P. oceanica meadows is foreseen by the middle of this century (Jorda et al.,
2012), even if seagrasses are likely to benefit from increased CO2 worldwide (Zimmerman et al., 2017).
Therefore, organisms associated with seagrass communities that are deteriorating may be exposed in
the future to lower pH regimes due to the loss of pH-buffering capacity (Hendriks et al., 2014). By
contrast, these marine vegetated habitats may increase in the Arctic Ocean, led by warming of
seawater (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2014). The predicted poleward expansion of macrophytes with
seawater warming and reduced sea-ice cover (Jueterbock et al., 2013) may increase the potential for
pH up-regulation during summer in Arctic marine systems (Krause-Jensen et al., 2016). Similarly,
increased pelagic primary production, as forecast for parts of the Arctic Ocean, may also create local
niches of high pH (Arrigo et al., 2008; Popova et al., 2012).

2.2.1.6 Regulation of freshwater quantity and flow

This contribution from nature to people involves the contribution of ecosystems to the regulation of
the quantity and flow of surface and groundwater used for drinking, irrigation, and industrial
purposes. Besides contributing to direct use, ecosystems can also regulate water flow to water-
dependent natural habitats that in turn affect people downstream, including via floods and droughts.

116
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

See supporting material Appendix 2.2 with quotes from indigenous and local knowledge holders
describing this contribution, in relation to seasonal water flows.
This section distinguishes between freshwater provision and water flow regulation. Freshwater supply
describes freshwater available for human use. Water flow regulation, on the other hand, is described
in terms of supply through the indicators of water retention, stream flow and base flow.
The general trend in freshwater supply in Europe and Central Asia, taking into account renewable
internal freshwater resources per capita provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO, 2016), shows an overall decrease since 1992 (Figure 2.11). Freshwater demand,
taking into account water use and water abstraction, shows a mixed but overall decrease for all
subregions of Europe and Central Asia (EEA, 2015e; FAO, 2013) since the 1990s. Between 2000 and
2011, water abstraction has decreased for countries in the European Union (European Commission,
2015b).

Generally mixed but mostly decreasing trends in water flow regulation were found for parts of
Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Stahl et al., 2010; UNEP & UNECE, 2016). Between 2000 and
2011, water flow regulation decreased for most ecosystems in the European Union (European
Commission, 2015b). Regions with increased or stable water flow regulation are characterized by large
areas of natural vegetation or extensive agriculture (Sturck et al., 2014).
Water supply in Western Europe, measured in freshwater availability, has been decreasing since the
1980s (FAO, 2016) (Figure 2.11). Decreased freshwater availability was also reported for Spanish
riparian areas and rivers (Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez & Suárez Alonso, 2013). Mixed trends for water
availability were found for Germany and Austria (Karabulut et al., 2016). Water demand in Western
Europe, taking into account water use and surface water abstraction, has decreased since the early
1990s, although current trends are mixed (EEA, 2015e; Eurostat, 2016b). Water use has remained
stable in the southern part but has decreased in the western part of Western Europe (EEA, 2015e).
Groundwater extraction in Mediterranean river basins in France, Greece and Spain was reported to
have increased (Skoulikidis et al., 2017), while overall groundwater extraction in Spain has decreased

117
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez & Suárez Alonso, 2013). Mixed trends for water use were found for the
Danube basins in Germany and Austria (Karabulut et al., 2016) as well as water provision in the
Llobregat basin in Spain. Mixed but predominantly increasing stream flow was found for Western
Europe, although large differences exist between the north and the south (Stahl et al., 2010).
Decreasing stream flow in the last decades was reported for the Mediterranean countries as well as
Austria and Germany (Skoulikidis et al., 2017; Stahl et al., 2012). Decreased water flow regulation was
reported for Spanish riparian areas (Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez & Suárez Alonso, 2013). Mixed trends for
stream flow were found in Switzerland (Lutz et al., 2016). Increased stream flow was found for the
majority of the northern countries of Western Europe (Stahl et al., 2010, 2012), as well as in the Hula
Wetland, Israel.
Water supply in Central Europe, measured in freshwater availability, has decreased since the 1990s,
although this trend has been mixed in the past decade (FAO, 2016) (Figure 2.11). Mixed trends in
water availability were discerned for Central European countries within the Danube basin (Karabulut
et al., 2016). Water demand, taking into account water use and surface water abstraction in Central
Europe, has declined sharply since the early 2000s, but this trend has been mixed in the past decade
(EEA, 2015e; Eurostat, 2016b). Mixed trends for water abstraction have been reported for Central
European Mediterranean river basins (Karabulut et al., 2016), whereas water abstraction in Cyprus
has increased (Skoulikidis et al., 2017). Mixed but predominantly increasing stream flow was found
for Central Europe (Stahl et al., 2010). Decreasing water flow during recent decades was reported for
Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the Sava River in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania (Lutz et al., 2016; Skoulikidis et al., 2017; Stahl et al.,
2010). Stable water flow and ground water levels in the past were found in Slovenia and Poland.
Water supply in Eastern Europe, measured in freshwater availability, has increased since the 1990s
and this trend has stabilized in the past decade (FAO, 2016) (Figure 2.11). Information on water
demand in Eastern Europe is limited to a few countries, however, freshwater abstraction in the
Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Moldova is reported to have decreased steadily over recent
decades. A mixed trend for water demand was reported in the Eastern European countries of the
Danube basin (Karabulut et al., 2016). Stream flow has decreased in most parts of Eastern Europe
(Stahl et al., 2012). Water flow regulation in Russia was found to have increased between 1990 and
2015 (Miura et al., 2015).
Water supply in Central Asia, measured in freshwater availability, shows a mixed, but generally
decreasing trend since the 1990s, and has continued to decrease over the past decade (FAO, 2016;
SAEPF et al., 2012) (Figure 2.11). Water availability per capita has decreased in Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan, while stable water availability was reported for the Aral Sea basin (Uzbekistan). Total
water withdrawal in Central Asia has been stable in the past, while water withdrawal by agriculture,
industry and cities has decreased (Alexander & West, 2011; FAO, 2013). There is some evidence of on-
going stable water use in Uzbekistan (Aral Sea basin), as well as excess water use for irrigation on a
local scale (Conrad et al., 2016). Mixed trends for water use were reported for Uzbekistan, due to
strong regulation in response to droughts. Water extraction in the Kyrgyz Republic has decreased,
although recent trends are mixed. Water use and availability have decreased in Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan (FAO, 2013). Water flow regulation throughout Central Asia shows a mixed trend,
following patterns in precipitation and drought occurrences (FAO, 2013; SAEPF et al., 2012).
Regulation of freshwater quantity and flow mostly contributes to quality of life by supporting water
and food security (Section 2.3.1). Water security, which is furthermore underpinned by water quality
regulation (Section 2.2.1.7) and other contributions from nature to people, is mostly sufficient and has
increased in Europe and Central Asia since the late 1980s. More mixed trends and insufficient water

118
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

security, notably in rural areas, are reported for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Europe and Central
Asia as a whole is food secure but food security is affected by, among others, decreasing water
availability and excessive water withdrawal.

2.2.1.7 Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality

This contribution from nature to people refers to nature’s ability to remove or break down excess
nutrients and other pollutants. The combination of physical, chemical and ecological processes in
rivers, wetlands and marine ecosystems acts as a natural filter removing substances such as sediments
and nutrients linked to nitrogen and phosphorus. Water quality regulation, therefore, depends on
both the emission of pollutants into the water, and on the capacity of the natural systems to process
or transform these substances and physically block them by sediments. For example, natural, restored
and constructed wetlands in the European Union are estimated to remove 75% of the nitrate from
agricultural runoff via denitrification (Blackwell & Pilgrim, 2011). Nature-based solutions associated
with artificial wetlands and restoration of riparian zones have been demonstrated as cost effective
measures for water quality improvement in Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Belgium and the UK (e.g.
Kumar et al., 2017; MWO, 2012; Zedler & Kercher, 2005). The capacity of ecosystems to deliver this
contribution to people shows sharp local variations along the rivers inside watersheds. If upland
riverbeds are well conserved and pollution is limited, water quality can be well regulated.
Downstream, rivers are often impacted by land use intensification, riparian wetlands reduction,
overexploitation of water resources and alteration of the river bed morphology. In the latter case, the
capacity of rivers to regulate water quality is diminished.
The capacity to provide this contribution in Europe and Central Asia has reduced over recent decades
due to the conversion and habitat loss of rivers, wetlands and coastal systems (see Section 3.2.2.2),
leading to a 60% decrease in the areal extent of floodplains and wetlands and loss of watersheds’
ecological integrity (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017). In 2017 it was estimated that 38% of rivers’ surface
in the European Union have good or high ecological status, 42% moderate state and 20% poor or bad
status (Grizzetti et al., 2017). In 2009, 43% of water bodies still showed a good or high ecological status
(EEA 16), indicating a reduction of rivers with good status over the past eight years.
Despite the loss of ecological integrity and areal extent of floodplains and wetlands, the water quality
of rivers in the European Union has been improving since the 1990s as a result of the reduction of
pollutants (due to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) and European Union Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EEC)) or as a result of transnational efforts such as the Convention on the
Protection of the Rhine. The improvement in water quality is, therefore, the consequence of
reductions in pollution, rather than an enhancement of the ecosystems’ capacity to provide this
contribution from nature to people. The quality of drinking water and bathing water, and the
effectiveness of wastewater treatment, continue to improve across the European Union (EEA, 2016e).
For example, the percentage of bathing water sites meeting the minimum water quality standards has
increased to 96.1 % in 2015.
In Western Europe, the capacity to regulate water quality has been diminished since 1990. For
example, in Spain and Germany, it is considered the most degraded regulating contribution from
nature to people (Spanish NEA, 2013). In the Mediterranean basin, the regulation of water quality by
wetlands has been jeopardized by the decreasing ecological integrity and scarce water availability
(Geijzendorffer et al., in press; MWO, 2012). However, in other areas, water quality regulation by

16 https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/freshwater

119
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

ecosystems has remained stable (e.g. England) (UK NEA, 2011) or has increased (e.g. Netherlands) (de
Knegt, 2014). Despite this general negative trend, water quality in Western Europe has improved due
to pollution reduction. After the adoption of the European Union Nitrates Directive and Water
Framework Directive, water pollution showed a downward-trend. Still, many water bodies remain
affected by dissolved inorganic nutrients and pesticides (EEA, 2015d).
In Central Europe, the overall decreasing trend, due to increased pollution and conversion of
floodplains and wetlands, is illustrated in Turkey, Austria, Hungary, Romania and the Danube
floodplain (e.g. Hainz-Renetzeder et al., 2015; Karadeniz et al., 2009; Pehlivanov et al., 2014). In
addition, the demand for water purification is increasing due to agriculture and urban expansion. In
Eastern Europe, water quality currently displays a downward trend due to nitrogen surpluses from
intensive agriculture or the conversion of natural ecosystems (e.g. Bouraoui & Grizzetti, 2014). In
Russia, the capacity to regulate water quality by forests and tundra of Siberia and eastern Russia has
remained stable in the past (Stolbovoi, 2002). However, in the southern regions of Russia, the
Southern Urals and Western Siberia, this capacity was found to be lower (Stolbovoi, 2002). For Central
Asia, published data is not available.
Regarding the regulation of water quality in coastal and marine waters, the concentrations of
dissolved inorganic nitrogen, oxidized nitrogen and orthophosphate have remained stable between
1985 and 2012 in Seas of Europe (Figure 2.12) (EEA, 2015c). Monitoring stations in the southern area
of the North Sea (historically affected by eutrophication) show a decreasing trend in nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations (Figure 2.12). The Baltic Sea, which is also affected by eutrophication,
shows a decreasing trend in nitrogen concentration, but an increase in phosphate concentrations
(Figure 2.12) (EEA, 2015c). The adoption of national marine strategies fostered by the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) has supported the improvement of water quality in coastal and
marine waters of the European Union.
The contributions of water quality regulation to quality of life are manifold, with particular interest for
water security (Section 2.3.1.3), health (Section 2.3.2), and the enjoyment of recreational experiences
in nature (Section 2.2.3.2). The restoration and construction of wetlands, together with the Nitrates,
Water Framework the Marine Strategy Framework Directives of the European Union, are driving the
decrease in water pollution. However, the loss of areal extent of wetlands and floodplains can
jeopardize the future delivery of this contribution from nature to people.

120
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.1.8 Formation and protection of soils

This contribution from nature to people relates to: (i) the central role of soils, which have high levels
of biodiversity and which are crucial to several other contributions such as food and feed provision,
freshwater quantity and quality regulation, climate regulation, hazards regulation; and (ii) the control

121
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of erosion. In addition, threats to soil such as erosion, loss of organic matter and biodiversity
contamination, salinization, compaction, acidification and sealing) can severely decrease the ability of
soils to deliver this contribution (FAO, 2015b).

2.2.1.8.1 Soil functioning: soil quality

Soil’s essential functions are to capture, store and release carbon, nutrients and water; detoxify
contaminants and purify water; degrade and recycle wastes; control pests; host a wide diversity of
organisms; and create habitat for roots, fungi and invertebrates. The capacity of soil to perform these
functions is called soil quality (Karlen et al., 1997). Soil’s quality depends on its inherent physical,
biological and chemical properties. Soil biota play a major role in this regard (European Commission,
2016b).
Several indicators are used for soil quality (Karlen et al., 1997; European Commission, 2014b), soil
fertility (e.g., Burkhard et al., 2014; Mueller et al., 2014; Tóth et al., 2013), and for soil’s ability to
naturally attenuate contaminants (e.g., Makó et al., 2017; Stone et al., 2016; Van Wijnen et al., 2012).
Soil organic carbon content, a widely used and frequently available indicator of soil quality (Lorenz &
Lal, 2016) is used here.
Most cultivated soils of Europe and Central Asia are intrinsically fertile except the drylands of Central
Asia and salinized soils of Central Asia and Mediterranean Europe (FAO, 2015b; UNEP & UNECE, 2016)
(Figure 2.13). The organic carbon content of soils is very variable across land uses and soil types in
Europe and Central Asia, generally low in cultivated soil, and high in forest and permanent grassland.
Trends also vary with land use. While most grassland soils and forest soils accumulate carbon,
cultivated soils tend to loose carbon due to previous conversion from grassland or forest to intensive
and continuous arable land and to drainage (Jones et al., 2012). This loss has been widely documented
in Western Europe (e.g. Capriel, 2013; Goidts & Wesemael, 2007; Heikkinen et al., 2013), in Central
Europe where about 70% of Turkish agricultural soils are losing soil organic matter (FAO, 2015b), in
Eastern Europe (Sychev et al., 2016) where more than 56 million ha of agricultural mineral soils are
losing organic matter (FAO, 2015b), and in Central Asia (Causarano et al., 2011; Sommer & de Pauw,
2011) where the cultivation of virgin lands in Kazakhstan between 1982 and 2000 resulted in the loss
of approximately 570 million tonnes of carbon from soils (FAO, 2015b; Sommer & de Pauw, 2011).
When alternative cropping practices such as conservation agriculture, organic agriculture or
agroforestry are implemented, soil organic carbon loss is reversed, along with soil quality (e.g. Torralba
et al., 2016).

122
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Land use changes occurring in Europe and Central Asia since 1990, such as afforestation and large-
scale abandonment of cropland in the former USSR, resulted in increases in soil carbon content (Fuchs
et al., 2016; Kurganova et al., 2015). A recent trend regarding the maintenance of fertile soils in Europe
and Central Asia is the net loss of soil due to urbanization and sealing that occurs predominantly in
Western Europe (Montanarella et al., 2015; EEA 2015) and preferentially at the expense of cropland
(Figure 2.14) (EEA, 2015b).

123
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.1.8.2 Erosion control

Soil erosion is the accelerated removal of soil from the land surface by water, wind or tillage. It
threatens the sustainability of agriculture and forestry because of the loss of fertile topsoil, as well as
causing damages off-site to settlements and infrastructure and affects the quality of surface waters.
The severity of water erosion depends mainly on slope, soil erodibility, and soil cover by plants and
litter (Lal, 2001b). Wind erosion depends on soil erodibility and soil cover (Lal, 2001a). Erosion,
therefore, takes place mainly on vegetation-free surfaces and, therefore, primarily affects arable land.
Soil erodibility depends particularly on soil texture and soil organic matter content (Le Bissonnais &
Arrouays, 1997).

124
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Erosion is the main soil degradation process in Europe and Central Asia (Stolte et al., 2015). Water
erosion dominates and affects a quarter of the EU-27 surface area (Jones et al., 2012; Panagos et al.,
2015b), 26% of agricultural land in Russia (or 3.5% of total land (FAO, 2015b) and about 30% of
agricultural land in Moldova and Ukraine (FAO, 2015b). Wind erosion is less important in Western and
Central Europe, affecting 10% of surface area (Borrelli et al., 2014; Jones et al., 2012), but dominates
in Central Asia, where 23% of agricultural land is affected - nearly 80% of that in Uzbekistan (FAO,
2015b).

Erosion control can be defined as the erosion avoided due to the vegetation cover or to a well-
aggregated soil (Guerra et al., 2016). The soil cover factor (C) of the “universal soil loss equation”
model for water erosion or its revised version, accounting for the effect of vegetation on water
erosion, is used as an indicator of the capacity to control erosion (European Commission, 2014b;
Panagos et al., 2015a). In the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services project, erosion control
by vegetation was estimated as: (i) the difference of eroded soil with and without vegetation; and (ii)
the capacity of ecosystems to avoid erosion (European Commission, 2015b).
Vegetation cover is very heterogeneous in the EU-27 (Figure 2.15) (Panagos et al., 2015a) and in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Figure 2.16) in relation to climate. With a lower C factor, the capacity
of ecosystems to avoid soil erosion is thus lower in Mediterranean areas of Europe and Central Asia
(Figure 2.17) (Kulikov et al., 2016). Vegetated soil cover has decreased in many areas of Europe and
Central Asia in relation to intensive cultivation, rangeland degradation and desertification (FAO,
2015b; Gupta et al., 2009; Le et al., 2014). Management practices such as conservation agriculture,
cover crops and residue return, when implemented locally, increased the C factor (Holland, 2004;
Panagos et al., 2016; Panagos et al., 2015a).

125
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Erosion control decreased on agricultural land over the last two decades in Europe and Central Asia
and is still decreasing in many areas of Central Asia (FAO, 2015b; Gupta et al., 2009) and the East
European plain in Eastern Europe (FAO, 2015b; Golosov et al., 2011; Sorokin et al., 2016). By contrast,
erosion control has increased in the EU-27 between 2000 and 2010 by an average of 9.5%, and by 20%
for arable lands (Panagos, et al., 2015b) and in Mediterranean Europe between 2001 and 2013 (Guerra
et al., 2016). Common Agricultural Policy intervention measures, promoting practices such as reduced
tillage, residue return, cover crops, conservation agriculture, contour farming and grass strips can
explain this trend (Panagos, et al., 2015b). In Central Asia, the surface area of cropland under

126
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation agriculture, albeit very small, has more than doubled between 2007 and 2011 (Buhlmann
et al., 2010; Nurbekov et al., 2016).

127
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.1.9 Regulation of natural hazards and extreme events

The Europe and Central Asia region is exposed to a range of natural hazards, including droughts,
floods, landslides and avalanches, storms and wildfires. In the European Union, floods account for 40%
of the damages by natural hazards and affect 50% of the population (European Commission, 2015c).
With flooding being the most damaging natural hazard, this section focuses on trends of coastal and
fluvial flood regulation, while we first briefly report on the general trends in the regulation of other
natural hazards. Note that information on nature’s capacity to regulate natural hazards is generally
lacking for Europe and Central Asia, while information on the occurrence of natural hazards is more
abundant.
The severity, frequency and persistence of meteorological and hydrological droughts have increased
in Europe and Central Asia since the 1960s, although there are large differences across the region
(EEA, 2016d; EM-DAT, 2017). Drought frequency in south-western and central Mediterranean Europe
has increased, but has decreased in northern parts of Western Europe and parts of Eastern Europe
(EEA, 2016d). The continued degradation and decline of wetland area (Section 2.2.1.7) has contributed
to the reduced capacity to regulate droughts (Kumar et al., 2017).
The severity and frequency of landslides and avalanches have mixed trends for the region (EM-DAT,
2017), while an increase in fatal landslides is observed for Western, Central and Eastern Europe
(Haque et al., 2016). The regulation of landslides is directly related to the amount of protected forest
cover, especially in mountainous areas, and their protection status has changed little in recent
decades (Miura et al., 2015).
The frequency and severity of wildfires has generally increased throughout Europe and Central Asia
(EM-DAT, 2017) and this trend continues, notably in Eastern Europe (Gauthier et al., 2015) and causing
changes in Mediterranean forests (Pausas et al., 2008). The regulation of wildfires depends strongly
on the plant composition of forests, protective forest management, and preservation of forest health,
the latter being negatively affected by climate change.
In coastal areas, floods are caused by storm surges and sea level rise, whereas fluvial flooding
predominantly occurs due to intensive and enduring rainfall within a catchment (Reed, 2002). Nature’s
capacity to attenuate flooding is reported in terms of the extent to which floods are regulated,
whereas the occurrence and severity of floods, as well as the damage caused. The impact of natural
hazards depends on the number of people affected, which is increasing as more people live in risk
prone areas, such as river floodplains or coastal areas (Dawson et al., 2009).
Information on nature’s capacity to regulate floods in Europe and Central Asia is limited and generally
shows a mixed trend. Increasing trends are reported for some countries of the European Union and
Russia since the 2000s (European Commission, 2015b), but decreasing trends are reported for densely
populated areas with intense rainfall and where most floodplain landscapes and wetlands have been
heavily transformed (Heintz et al., 2012; Solín et al., 2011). In addition, the frequency and intensity of
floods increased significantly from the 1980s to 2000, after which the number of floods stabilized at a
high occurrence and severity (EEA, 2016b; EM-DAT, 2017) (see Figure 2.18). Almost 1,500 river floods
have been reported for the European Union since 1980, of which more than half have occurred since
2000 (EEA, 2016b), although this increasing trend has a large inter-annual variability (EEA, 2016b; EM-
DAT, 2017). The increasing number of severe floods is related to higher frequency of heavy
precipitation events and decreased capacity to regulate fluvial floods.

128
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Although there are reported increasing trends for flood regulation for some Western European
countries since the 2000s (European Commission, 2015b), general trends are mixed and not well
established. However, the number of coastal and river floods in Western Europe has increased since
the 1980s, with a strong peak in 2000, and has remained stable but fluctuating in the last decade (EEA,
2016b; EM-DAT, 2017). The strongest increase in number of floods was reported for the southern part
of Western Europe, while this number has decreased for most of the northern countries in this
subregion (EM-DAT, 2017). The number of severe and very severe floods follows the same trend, with
the sharpest increases reported for Spain, Germany and France (EEA, 2016b). Western European
countries, such as Germany and France, are ranked among the 20 countries world-wide most affected
by weather-related catastrophes in the past 20 years, including floods or landslides after heavy rains
(Kreft et al., 2016). The most affected countries in the period 1995-2014 in terms of deaths caused by
these climate-change events were Italy, Spain and France (Kreft et al., 2016).
In Central Europe, increasing trends for flood regulation since the 2000s are reported (European
Commission, 2015b), but general trends are mixed. Studies in Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland
demonstrated decreased flood regulation over time, in addition to increases in precipitation (Acreman
et al., 2007; Mrozik, 2016; Pehlivanov et al., 2014). The number of floods in Central Europe has
increased significantly since the 1980s, and this trend has continued in the last decade (EEA, 2016b;
EM-DAT, 2017). The number of severe river floods follows the same trend, with the sharpest increase
reported for Bulgaria, Poland and Slovenia (EEA, 2016b). Periodic overload of drainage systems and
local inundations were reported for Poland, as a result of transformation of areas of permeable
surfaces (arable land) into impermeable areas (built-up areas) (Mrozik, 2016). Mixed trends of flood
frequency were reported for Slovakia, while land cover change negatively affected the capacity to
regulate floods (Solín et al., 2011). In addition, the Central European subregion, particularly Romania
and Slovenia, has suffered higher damage due to climate-change events than Western Europe (Kreft
et al., 2016).
No clear trends in flood regulation have been reported for Eastern Europe. However, the loss of forests
and woodlands is assumed to negatively impact the capacity for natural flood mitigation (Bradshaw
et al., 2007; Schmalz et al., 2016). In the Danube River Basin, the extent of floodplains has been
reduced to 68% of their pre-regulation extent (Hein et al., 2016). Overall, the number and intensity of
floods in Eastern Europe has increased greatly since the 1980s, with a peak in 2000, and has remained
mixed in the last decade (EM-DAT, 2017). Regular severe floods have been reported throughout the

129
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

subregion including for Russia (EM-DAT, 2017). Russia has also been among the most affected
countries in the period 1995-2014 in terms of deaths caused by extreme climatic events (Kreft et al.,
2016).
No clear trends in flood regulation have been reported for Central Asia. The overall number and
intensity of floods in the subregion has increased slightly since the 1990s, but has remained stable
over the past decade (EM-DAT, 2017). Severe floods have been reported almost annually (EM-DAT,
2017).
Global warming and sea level rise are projected to increase the occurrence and frequency of flood
events in large parts of continental Europe (EEA, 2016b; European Commission, 2015c). In addition,
coastal flooding is expected to increase especially on the Mediterranean coast (Buyck et al., 2015;
European Commission, 2015c). People and their quality of life are increasingly exposed as the capacity
to regulate and mitigate floods is likely to continue to decrease with current urbanization trends
(Zedler & Kercher, 2005).

2.2.1.10 Regulation of detrimental processes: removal of animal carcasses

Vertebrate scavengers in Europe and Central Asia are represented by old world vultures, which are
obligate scavengers that depend totally on carrion, and facultative scavengers, i.e. mostly mammalian
carnivores, suids, raptors and corvids, which exploit carrion opportunistically (Moleón et al., 2014).
There are five vulture species in Europe and Central Asia: griffon (Gyps fulvus), Himalayan (G.
himalayensis), cinereous (Aegypius monachus), Egyptian (Neophron percnopterus) and bearded
vulture (Gypaetus barbatus). Vultures and particularly griffons (the most abundant species in the
region) are especially efficient in locating and consuming carcasses (Morales-Reyes et al., 2017c;
Sebastián-González et al., 2015) but, within Europe and Central Asia, their range is limited to the
southern parts of Western, Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Other raptors, particularly
eagles (Aquila spp.) and kites (Milvus spp.), together with corvids (mainly Corvus spp.) are also key
scavengers in Europe and Central Asia. Among mammalian facultative scavengers, canids (e.g., wolves
Canis lupus, jackals C. aureus, and foxes Vulpes spp. and Alopex lagopus), bears (Ursus arctos),
wolverines (Gulo gulo), and wild boars (Sus scrofa) are important for scavenging (Mateo-Tomás et al.,
2015). Empirical evidence suggests that scavenging networks that include obligate scavengers are
more efficient in the removal of carrion, including wild animal and livestock carcasses (Moleón et al.,
2014; Morales-Reyes et al., 2017c; Sebastián-González et al., 2015). In Europe and Central Asia,
vertebrate scavengers remove an important fraction of the carrion biomass available (DeVault et al.,
2003; DeVault et al., 2016; Mateo-Tomás et al., 2015), contribute to pest and disease regulation
(Ogada et al., 2012) and nutrient cycling (Beasley et al., 2015; Wilson & Wolkovich, 2011). Indigenous
and local knowledge holders also describe the role of vertebrate scavengers in providing this
contribution from nature to people: “Even beasts are made by God and have a purpose, even the bad
ones like wolves, they have their own role, they eat the corpses of dead animals, and they cleanse the
landscape.” (Ivascu & Rakosy, 2017) (See supporting material Appendix 2.2).
Most scientific evidence about the role of scavengers in carcass removal is from Western Europe,
coinciding with the largest populations of vultures in this subregion (Margalida et al., 2010). For
example, it has been estimated that the Spanish vulture population removes between 134 and 200
tonnes of bones and between 5,551 and 8,326 tonnes of carrion from the landscape every year
(Margalida & Colomer, 2012). In addition, the artificial removal of extensive livestock carcasses in
Spain imposed by sanitary European Union regulations (Margalida et al., 2010) meant the emission of
over 77,000 tonnes of CO2 eq. to the atmosphere per year and the annual payment of about $50

130
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

million to insurance companies by farmers and administrations (Morales-Reyes et al., 2015). In the
Massif Central (France) alone, up to 33.1 tonnes of CO2 per year could be saved if vultures were
allowed to access livestock carcasses (Dupont et al., 2012). In Central Europe, particularly in Serbia,
jackals annually remove more than 3,700 tonnes of animal remains (Ćirović et al., 2016).
The population of obligate and facultative scavengers determines the capacity for carcasses removal.
Vultures have suffered sharp declines in Europe and Central Asia due to intended and unintended
poisoning (e.g. Mateo-Tomás et al., 2012), electric infrastructures such as wind farms and electric
pylons (Carrete et al., 2009; Sánchez-Zapata et al., 2016) and, occasionally, veterinary drugs such as
diclofenac (Green et al., 2016; Margalida et al., 2014a; Margalida et al., 2014b). In fact, avian
scavengers are the most threatened functional group of birds in Europe and Central Asia (Sekercioglu
et al., 2004). However, the trends of vulture populations vary across Europe and Central Asia (see
Table 2.3, supporting material Appendix 2.4). In Western Europe, where the major strongholds of
vultures exist, particularly in Spain (home to >90% of European vultures; Margalida et al., 2010),
vultures have recovered over recent decades after strong declines since the 1950s (Donázar et al.,
2016) due to reintroduction and conservation programmes (e.g. Eliotout et al., 2007; Xirouchakis,
2010). By contrast, the situation of vultures in Central Europe is critical, although different
conservation programmes seek to recover their populations (e.g. Demerdzhiev et al., 2014; Grubač et
al., 2014; Kirazli & Yamac, 2013). Available information for Eastern Europe and Central Asia is very
scarce for obligate scavengers, while facultative scavengers overall exhibit an increasing trend in
distribution range and population size across these subregions (Chapron et al., 2014; Table 2.3,
supporting material Appendix 2.4).
There are several drivers that can threaten the supply of this contribution from nature to people
including the conflicting policies that might change the capacity of obligate and facultative scavengers
to remove animal carcasses. For example, sanitary policies might restrict the access of scavengers to
the carcasses of domestic and wild ungulates (Margalida et al., 2010; Margalida & Moleón, 2016). The
implementation of sanitary regulations after the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
the European Union (Donázar et al., 2009) had a negative impact on vulture conservation (Margalida
& Colomer, 2012) and the functional role of facultative scavengers such as kites and wolves (Blanco,
2014; Lagos & Bárcena, 2015). Nevertheless, recent changes in the European Union sanitary regulation
have largely improved this situation (Morales-Reyes et al., 2017b). In addition, the intensification in
livestock raising and the decline of traditional farming practices may threaten the removal of carcasses
by scavengers (Olea & Mateo-Tomás, 2009). Finally, farmers’ perceptions and their conflicting
relations with facultative scavengers due to livestock predation can influence their tolerance towards
these animals (Morales-Reyes et al., 2017a).
Table 2.3: Conservation status (according to IUCN Red List categories) and population trend of main
scavenger species (species selection based on Mateo-Tomás et al., 2015) per subregion of Europe
and Central Asia. Trends are reported as: increasing (+); decreasing (–); stable (0); fluctuating (F);
heterogeneous trend within the subregion (mixed; see supporting material Appendix 2.4 for
additional details of avian scavengers) or unknown (?). NA: data not available (i.e., there are no
populations). Conservation status: EN: endangered; VU: vulnerable; NT: near threatened; LC: least
concern. Source: Own representation based on Chapron et al. (2014); Deinet et al. (2013); Wilson et
al. (2009); IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1. www.iucnredlist.org; BirdLife
International http://datazone.birdlife.org/info/euroredlist.

Common name Scientific Scavenger Functional Conserv Current Western Central Eastern Central
name group group ation population Europe Europe Europe Asia
status trend

131
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bearded vulture Gypaetus Vulture Obligate NT – mixed mixed mixed ?

barbatus scavenger
Griffon vulture Gyps fulvus Vulture Obligate LC + + mixed mixed ?
scavenger
Himalayan Gyps Vulture Obligate NT 0 NA NA NA ?
vulture himalayensis scavenger
Egyptian vulture Neophron Vulture Obligate EN – mixed mixed mixed ?
percnopteru scavenger
s
Cinereous Aegypius Vulture Obligate NT – + mixed mixed ?
vulture monachus scavenger
Golden eagle Aquila Apex Facultative LC 0 mixed mixed mixed ?
chrysaetos predator scavenger
Spanish imperial Aquila Apex Facultative VU + + NA NA NA
eagle adalberti predator scavenger
Black kite Milvus Generalists Facultative LC ? mixed mixed mixed ?
migrans scavenger
Red kite Milvus Generalists Facultative NT – mixed mixed mixed NA
milvus scavenger
Common Buteo buteo Generalists Facultative LC 0 mixed mixed mixed ?
buzzard scavenger
Western marsh Circus Predator Facultative LC + mixed mixed mixed ?
harrier aeruginosus scavenger
Raven Corvus corax Corvids Facultative LC + mixed mixed mixed ?
scavenger
Common Pica pica Corvids Facultative LC 0 mixed mixed mixed ?
magpie scavenger
Carrion crow Corvus Corvids Facultative LC + mixed mixed mixed ?
corone scavenger
Eurasian jay Garrulus Corvids Facultative LC 0 mixed mixed mixed ?
glandarius scavenger
Yellow-legged Larus Seabirds Facultative LC + mixed mixed ? NA
gull michahellis scavenger
Grey wolf Canis lupus Apex Facultative LC 0 + + – ?
predator scavenger
Brown bear Ursus arctos Apex Facultative LC 0 + + – ?
predator scavenger
Polar bear Ursus Apex Facultative VU ? – NA – NA
maritimus predator scavenger
Wolverine Gulo gulo Generalists Facultative LC – + NA – NA
scavenger
Golden jackal Canis aureus Generalists Facultative LC + + + ? ?
scavenger
Red fox Vulpes Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 0 0 ?
vulpes scavenger
Arctic Fox Vulpes Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 NA 0 NA
lagopus scavenger
Stone marten Martes foina Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 0 0 ?
scavenger

132
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pine marten Martes Generalists Facultative LC 0 + + + ?

martes scavenger
Common genet Genetta Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 NA NA NA
genetta scavenger
Eurasian badger Meles meles Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 0 0 ?
scavenger
Asian Badger Meles Generalists Facultative LC ? NA NA ? ?
leucurus scavenger
Egyptian Herpestes Generalists Facultative LC 0 0 NA NA NA
mongoose ichneumon scavenger
Wild boar Sus scrofa Omnivore Facultative LC ? + + + ?
scavenger

The removal of carcasses by scavengers contributes to different dimensions of people’s quality of life.
The removal of scavengers may increase the incidence of infectious diseases (Ogada et al., 2012). In
addition, supplanting the ecosystem service provided by scavengers in agroecosystems with artificial
removal of livestock could raise greenhouse gas emissions, with important environmental and
economic costs (see above and Morales-Reyes et al., 2015, 2017b). Vulture declines also have a
negative impact on the cultural identity of farmers and the value they derive from knowing that these
species exist (Morales-Reyes et al., 2017a) (see Section 2.2.3.3).

2.2.2 Status and trends of nature’s material contributions to people

2.2.2.1 Food and feed
2.2.2.1.1 Food and feed from terrestrial ecosystems
Agroecosystems, including croplands, grasslands and agroforestry systems, cover an important area
of Europe and Central Asia, providing crops and animal-derived products that support the region’s
food security (Section 2.3.1.1) and food culture (see Box 2.1 and Box 2.2). FAOSTAT provides extensive
data on the quantity of this contribution delivered nature to people. However, other terrestrial
ecosystems, such as forests and scrublands, also provide food in the form of game, fruits and
mushrooms, for which little quantification is available, but see Section 2.2.3.2. Comprehensive data
on food quality has not been found, but the relationships between food production and the
characteristics of diet and health are explored here and in Sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.2.
Overall the agricultural area per capita has been decreasing in Europe and Central Asia since the 1960s,
particularly in Western Europe, however, the cultivated area per worker in the agriculture sector has
almost tripled in Europe and Central Asia since the 1980s (Table 2.4), a process that goes hand in hand
with the mechanization and intensification of agriculture (Table 2.4, Section 4.5.2). Particularly, in the
Mediterranean basin, quantity and quality of food delivered by agroecosystems is severely influenced
by rural abandonment of mountainous and less productive areas and land-use intensification of fertile
areas (Caraveli, 2000) (Section 4.5.2).
Food production from agriculture in Europe and Central Asia increased by 56% between the 1960s
and the 1990s. It then suffered a decline of 33% until 2014. The three socio-political events that have
most influenced these trends are: the dissolution of the USSR in 1989, affecting mostly Central Asia
and Eastern Europe (Kraemer et al., 2015); the Yugoslav Wars from 1991 to 1999 disturbing mostly

133
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Europe; and the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union and its reforms
(particularly since the MacSharry reform in 1992), influencing trends in Western and Central Europe.

The assessment of different agricultural products shows different trends across subregions. Cereals
were mostly produced in Eastern Europe, where production has suffered fluctuations in recent

134
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

decades (see Figure 2.19). Among cereals, however, maize is experiencing substantial growth (see
Figure 2.20) because of its use for biofuel and feed production (see Sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.3.1.4). Fruit
has been produced mostly in Western Europe, but Central Asia and Eastern Europe have been
increasing their production in the past decade (see Figure 2.19). Countries in Eastern Europe are the
largest producers of vegetables, which has been experiencing growth (from ca. 4.5 million tonnes in
1991 to more than 7 million tonnes in 2012), as rapidly as in Central Asia (from ca. 1 million tonnes in
1991 to more 3.5 tonnes in 2012) (see Figure 2.19). Important crops in Europe are those required for
oil production (with increasing trends) and wine (with decreasing trend) (see Figure 2.19). Areas for
organic agriculture in Western and Central Europe have been increasing since 2005 (in Western
Europe from ca. 4% of the total agricultural area to more than 5%; in Central Europe from almost 1%
to more than 4% ) (see Figure 2.21) (FAO, 2017).

135
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

136
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The production of livestock primary production varies. Meat production increased between 1961 and
1990, when a sharp decline occurred in Eastern and Central Europe due to the dismantling of the
Soviet Union (see Figure 2.22). However, since the early 2000s the trend changed in Eastern Europe
and it is currently producing almost half of the meat in the region. Egg production follows a similar
pattern, except in Eastern Europe with an increasing trend since 1996. Milk production has been
decreasing since the 1990s (largely due to the introduction by the Common Agricultural Policy of the
European Union of milk quotas), except in Central Asia. The countries with the largest production in
the region in 2013 were Russia and Ukraine for eggs, Russia and Germany for meat, and Germany and
Russia for milk. The production of livestock feed in EU-28 has experienced a sharp increase of more

137
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

than 50% over the past three decades, consistent with the intra-regional trade balance of increasing
import of ingredients of these feeding compounds such as soybeans, and with the above-mentioned
intensification of livestock farming in the European Union.

138
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

139
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Cattle represent the largest share of livestock animals in Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 2.23). In
Central Asia, sheep account for about 25% and goats for about 6% of livestock production. In Central
Europe, pigs represent the second largest share (25% in 2013), but this has been decreasing since the
early 2000s. Chicken account for almost 20% in Eastern Europe, with rapid increases in recent decades.
Overall, the trend in the past decade is an increase in chicken production, maintenance of cattle
production, and reduction of pigs, goats and sheep (Figure 2.23).

140
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Forests provide nuts, mushrooms, herbs, spices, aromatic plants and game that have been used not
only as food, but also for health and cultural purposes for millennia. Yet a recent report by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations acknowledges that there is a tendency to
underestimate their role because they are poorly represented in international statistics, as in most

141
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

cases their use and trade are confined to the informal sector (Sorrenti, 2017). However, recent studies
show that non-timber forest products still form the basis of livelihoods and play a significant role in
food, nutrition and as a source of income, particularly in times of deep economic crisis (e.g. Elbakidze
et al., 2007).

2.2.2.1.2 Wild capture and cultured aquatic food production

Fishing has a long, rich tradition in Europe and Central Asia (Ståhlberg & Svanberg, 2011), and is still
an important source of protein for indigenous people (Demeter, 2017). Across Europe and Central
Asia, aquatic ecosystems make an important contribution to people’s diets, directly as food and as
feed for livestock. The largest contribution of aquatic ecosystems is wild-captured seafood, especially
from the highly productive North East Atlantic. Seafood production from this area is 8.9 million tonnes
per year (production data from 2014, if not otherwise stated). Wild capture of seafood from the
Mediterranean and Black Sea area (restricted to Europe and Central Asian fleets) is much smaller (0.5
million tonnes per year), even when taking the smaller size of this area into account. This is largely
due to lower nutrient concentrations in the Mediterranean. In relation to primary production, fisheries
are similarly productive in the Mediterranean and Black Sea as, e.g., in the North Sea (Libralato et al.,
2008). A decline in production since the turn of the millennium (see Figure 2.24) is due to a transition
to more sustainable management practices, after a phase of overexploitation where catch limits larger
than those scientifically advised were regularly set (Carpenter et al., 2016; Hilborn & Ovando, 2014).

Reported production of wild capture food from inland waters in Europe and Central Asia is dominated
by freshwater (67%) and diadromous (31%) fisheries. Compared with marine production, wild capture
food from inland waters is relatively small at 0.4 million tonnes per year, but it plays an important role
especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which are dominated by commercial fisheries (Aps et

142
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

al., 2004). Data prior to 1988 are insufficient for a regional assessment, but, as Figure 2.25 shows,
production of wild capture food from inland waters in Europe and Central Asia fell from 1988 to 2005,
but since then has grown slightly. The decline in production in Eastern Europe since 1988 until the
turn of the millennium (Figure 2.25) has been attributed to the serious depletion of many open access
freshwater fishery resources caused by overfishing and “insufficient control and enforcement (illegal
and unreported catches do not appear in statistics)" (Aps et al., 2004).
Contrasting the situation for wild-capture fisheries, production from aquaculture has continuously
increased since 1950, with the exception of a brief phase of contraction in Eastern Europe after the
socioeconomic transformations around 1990 (see Figure 2.26). According to these data, production
has grown at an average rate of 2.7% per year since 2000 and by 2014 reached 3.0 million tonnes per
year. Salmon farming in northern parts of Western and Central Europe made an important
contribution to this expansion. Overall, diadromous fish now contribute around 63% to total
aquaculture production, followed by molluscs (21%), freshwater fish (10%) and marine (6%) fish.
Despite this continuous rise in aquaculture production, Europe and Central Asia lags behind the global
rate, where the proportion of aquaculture fish production now contributes 40% of production (FAO,
2014a). This indicates the potential for significant further expansion in Europe and Central Asia.
However, as with wild-capture fisheries, aquaculture can have adverse environmental effects that
might offset its benefits (Read & Fernandes, 2003).

143
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.2.2 Energy
Various forms of biomass can serve as fuel including plants, animal dung, and agricultural residues.
Plant matter is used directly or in processed forms such as charcoal and oil. Two forms of biomass-
based energy are particularly relevant in Europe and Central Asia and therefore the focus of the
following sections: woodfuel and biofuels.

2.2.2.2.1 Woodfuel
Woodfuel (including logs, charcoal, chips, bark, and sawdust) has a high energy density (comparative
average values in MJ/kg - woodfuel: 16; charcoal: 28; coal: 30; natural gas: 37 and fuel oil: 4) (IEA,
2004). Its availability, accessibility and renewability make it attractive, especially in rural areas.
According to statistics from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, overall
woodfuel production and consumption has been largely stable since 2000 (see Figure 2.27). Within
Western Europe, woodfuel use is significant especially in Scandinavia. It is unclear whether the
comparatively low woodfuel production in Central Asia according to statistics from the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (see Figure 2.27) (between 2000-2013 it varied
between 190,000 and 1,000,000 m3 p.a.) is due only to biogeographic and climatic differences, or also
due to underreporting.

144
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Driven by the European Union’s legally binding targets in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED -
2009/28/EC), production of renewable energy within the EU-28 almost doubled between 2004 and
2013. Based on Eurostat, in 2013, total biomass (woodfuel and other biomass including municipal
waste) accounted for 65% of the gross inland energy consumption of renewables in the EU-28, of
which wood and wood wastes contributed the highest share with 45%. Around 23% of the EU-
28’s total roundwood production of 425 million m3 in 2014 was used as woodfuel (Eurostat, 2017).
Among the European Union member States, Sweden produced the most roundwood (70 million m3)
in 2014, followed by Finland, Germany and France (each producing between 52 and 57 million m3).
More than half of roundwood produced is used as fuel in Denmark, France and Cyprus (2013 and
2014), while Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Lithuania reported proportions between 32 and 46%.
However, direct woodfuel use by households is not included in these numbers, which is why they are
likely to be underestimates.
In the European Union, woody biomass accounts for almost 50% of renewable energy consumption
(Pelkonen et al., 2014). In some widely forested countries, large proportions of total energy
consumption originate from forest biomass, for example 30% in Sweden (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016)
and 25% in Finland (Jäppinen & Heliölä, 2015). Due to a long-standing tradition of forestry and forest
management in Western and Central Europe, deforestation driven by woodfuel and other wood
product extraction is not currently a threat for the region (UNEP & UNECE, 2016). On the other hand,
dependence on woody biomass as a source of domestic energy continues to be prominent especially
in rural and economically disadvantaged communities in Europe and Central Asia. In Central Asian
countries such as Tajikistan, deforestation continues and overuse of forests for fuel is one of the main
reasons for land degradation (Mustaeva et al., 2015). In the Balkans and the South Caucasus, wood
remains an important affordable energy source (Adeishvili, 2015). In Albania, for instance, firewood
meets one-third or more of the total energy demand for heating and accounts for almost 90% of wood

145
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

use (Markus-Johansson et al., 2010). In certain areas of Europe and Central Asia, restraining economic
conditions lead to considerable illegal woodfuel harvesting. In Turkey, for example, off-the-record
logging for woodfuel (estimated 4,300,000 m3) reached more than half the permissible woodfuel
harvests (7,000,000 m3) in 2010 (Pak et al., 2010). In the Ukraine, the economic recession and the gas
crisis caused by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is reported to have significantly increased firewood
thefts (Roué & Molnar, 2017).
Woody biomass demand from countries with ample forest resources such as Sweden and Finland is
foreseen to increase (Jonsson, 2013) and generally in Western, Central and Eastern Europe the shift
towards a carbon neutral society is expected to further boost the demand for woodfuel (Bostedt et
al., 2016). This intensification of biomass removals from forests may have trade-offs in forest
productivity, biodiversity and soil quality (Bouget et al., 2012; Verkerk et al., 2014).
Historically, woodfuel collection is among the earliest uses of forests by humans (Pelkonen et al.,
2014). Local ecological knowledge related to forest management is just as rooted in Europe and
Central Asia as woodfuel utilization. An example from the communities inhabiting the lowland
landscapes of Transcarpathian region Zakarpats’ka oblast’ in western Ukraine points to a tradition of
accessing firewood as dry wood and during forest logging (Roué & Molnar, 2017). The locals state the
need for young forest stands in addition to old, diverse structured forests: “For firewood we went only
here, on the Lapos. That was the closest, and there was thin, dry wood, which could be broken by
hand.” (ibid) (See supporting material Appendix 2.2).

2.2.2.2.2 Provision of biofuels

The term “biofuel” generally refers to liquid transportation fuels made from biomass materials, such
as ethanol and biodiesel. Biofuel production rose by a factor of ten between 2000 and 2014 in Western
Europe (Figure 2.28). Simultaneously, imports increased both in Central and Western Europe, but the
import dependence was much higher in Central Europe. Central Asia and Eastern Europe had only a
negligible share (Figure 2.28). In terms of energy content, current annual production of biofuel (Figure
2.28) remains small compared to that of woodfuel (140,000,000 m3 correspond to 1,000,000 –
2,400,000 tJ energy).

146
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

An outlook for Europe and Central Asia shows a slight increase in ethanol production until 2020, which
is expected to become stable by 2025 (Figure 2.29). For biodiesel, production is expected to peak by
2019 and to decline until 2025. The EU-28 as major producer is equally a major consumer with a
strongly negative trade balance for both ethanol and biodiesel production. It is expected to roughly
equalize until 2025. Only for Kazakhstan, a continuously negative trade balance for ethanol is
expected. However, impacts of the production of energy crops on the environment and on other
contributions from nature to people limit their use (Meyer & Leckert, 2017). Major concerns exist
concerning the potential of GHG emission offset, regulation of soil quality, water quality and quantity,
biodiversity, and indirect land-use change that displaces ecological impacts outside of the biofuel
production region (Efroymson et al., 2013; McBride et al., 2011). These trade-offs could be considered
in policy by implementing, for instance, stricter rules for biofuel certification that consider the
environmental and social impacts within and beyond the feedstock production region (Meyer et al.,
2016).

147
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In the future, agricultural residues, as one example of second-generation biofuel feedstocks, can also
contribute substantially to energy production. Studies for the European Union consider that around
25 to 60% of agricultural residues could be available for this purpose (Bentsen & Felby, 2012).

2.2.2.3 Materials and assistance

Nature contributes to people’s quality of life by providing materials for construction, clothing,
ornamental purposes, or assistance for herding, guidance and guarding (IPBES, 2017a). For most of
these materials, comprehensive national or sub-national level data do not exist, with the exception of
wood. Here, we present the status and trends of this contribution from nature to people in Europe

148
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and Central Asia associated with the provision of wood, cotton, and other vegetal materials, materials
from marine systems and the assistance of dogs in guarding and protecting livestock.

2.2.2.3.1 Provision of wood

Roundwood is defined as all wood removed with or without bark, including wood removed in its round
form or in other forms (FAO, 2015a). Roundwood can be subdivided into industrial roundwood, used
mainly for construction and in processed timber products, and woodfuel (see Section 2.2.2.2.1). Total
production of roundwood has remained stable in Europe and Central Asia (FAO, 2015a), with a major
impact by the fall of the iron curtain (Figure 2.30) and a slight decline for the period 2005-2014 in
Western Europe (Figure 2.31). Timber standing stock, regardless of use or degree of management, are
largest in some regions of Western and Central Europe: forests of Central Europe, Scandinavia and the
Alps (Figure 2.32).

149
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

150
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.2.3.2 Cotton and other vegetal materials

During the period 1961-2014 cotton lint was mostly produced in Central Asia and Turkey. Production
in Central Asia has fluctuated without a clear trend (Figure 2.33), masking marked technological,
economic and political transformations of the cotton industry (Kandiyoti, 2007).

Reed has traditionally been used in many regions for thatching, but it can be also be utilized in a
number of other ways, including in construction and gardening, in paper, textile and plastic
production, and as fodder and fertilizer (Köbbing et al., 2013). Reed is grown and harvested
throughout the subregions (Köbbing et al., 2013). Mediterranean countries of Europe play an
important role in the provision of cork, as they produce 87% of cork globally, especially the Iberian
Peninsula, which is home to the majority of cork oak (Quercus suber) forests in the world (Acácio &
Holmgren, 2014; APCOR, 2011) and, therefore, also cork extraction (Figure 2.34). About 70% of
harvested cork is used for the production of bottle stoppers. Other products include flooring,
insulation material, clothes and accessories, and decorative objects (Bugalho et al., 2011).

151
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Rosins are solid forms of resins obtained from pine trees and some other conifers. They are extracted
by tapping the tree (Mitchell et al., 2016). Historically used to waterproof ships, they are now used in
the production of chemicals, paints, inks, varnishes, floor coverings and soaps. Sources of rosins in
Europe and Central Asia are Pinus pinaster (Portugal), P. sylvestris (former Soviet Union), P. halepensis
(Greece) and P. brutia (Turkey) (FAO, 1995).
Only a few countries in Europe and Central Asia produce turpentine and resin, with decreasing trends
due to the high costs of labour. Portugal accounts for the majority of world trade in gum turpentine,
but production fell from an average of 110,000 tonnes per year during 1978-1987 to 30,000 tonnes
by 1992 (FAO, 1995). Minor production is also reported in Central and Eastern Europe (FAO, 1995).
Recently, new uses of pine resin in polymers have emerged (Wilbon et al., 2013).

2.2.2.3.3 Materials from marine ecosystems

Marine ecosystems provide a wide range of materials for different uses, including algae maerl,
seaweed fishmeal, fish oil (used in textile production, metallurgy, production of detergents, paints and
resins), shellfish and molluscs for ornamental purposes (Murillas-Maza et al., 2011). Seaweed and kelp
species are used in various ways in Western Europe (Figure 2.35). Kelp is now particularly used for
extraction of alginates, which are used in the food processing industry, as well as in the production of
textiles and pharmaceuticals (Netalgae, 2012; Smale et al., 2013). France and Norway are the main
producers of kelp in Western Europe with annual production of about 50,000 tonnes of Laminaria
digitata in France and about 200,000 tonnes of L. hyperborea in Norway (Smale et al., 2013). In
Western Europe, production of macroalgae has decreased in the last 10 years (Bioforsk, 2012).

152
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Maerl is a collective term for various species of non-jointed coralline red algae (family
Corallinophycidae) that live unattached to the seabed. Maerl has been dredged in the European Union
for use as an agricultural soil conditioner and for use in animal and human food additives, water
filtration systems, and pharmaceutical and cosmetic products. By the 1970s extraction peaked with
about 600,000 tonnes per year in France 17; however, due to their very slow growth, maerl beds have
declined throughout the North East Atlantic and are classified as vulnerable on the European Union
Red List (Gubbay et al., 2016a).

2.2.2.3.4 Assistance of livestock protection and guard dogs

For centuries guard dogs have helped shepherds protect their livestock from predators, specifically
brown bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus), in Central Europe and Central Asia (Gehring et
al., 2010; Linnell & Lescureux, 2015). With the decimation of these predators in Western Europe and
the collectivization of agricultural policy under communist regimes, much of the indigenous and local
knowledge about the use of guard dogs was lost (Gehring et al., 2010; Linnell & Lescureux, 2015).
However, with the recent recovery of large carnivores in continental Europe (Chapron et al., 2014),
guard dog use is being suggested as a means of facilitating human-carnivore coexistence (Linnell &

17 http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/european-red-list-habitats/

153
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Lescureux, 2015). Indeed, more than 1,000 dogs are now used in the Alps for this purpose (Gehring et
al., 2010). Indigenous peoples and local communities value them, as a herder explains: “No, the beasts
are no real problem for us, we have our dogs and sticks, we are not afraid of wolves and bears” (herder;
Ivascu & Rakosy, 2017) (see supporting material Appendix 2.2). Guard dogs in Europe and Central Asia
hold substantial identity value among shepherds and breeds are closely linked to specific areas (Figure
2.36) (Linnell & Lescureux, 2015).

2.2.2.4 Provision of medicinal resources

The value of biodiversity as a resource for the production of medicines is one of the clearest examples
of the relationships between nature and human health. Numerous species of plants, animals and fungi
have been used to produce traditional therapies since ancient times, and wild flora and fauna continue
to support the development of modern pharmaceutical products. This section considers medicinal
plants in Europe and Central Asia, which form part of traditional and local medicinal practices, as well
as medicinal plant products, which are sold commercially, and their use in modern pharmaceutical
development. It covers plants, which are harvested directly from the wild, as well as those that are
grown in home gardens or cultivated commercially. For the assessment of this contribution from
nature to people, in addition to the literature review undertaken in this chapter (supporting material
Appendix 2.1), we also conducted an expert 18 elicitation on the basis of several key messages. The
original key messages and the results of the expert elicitation are provided in supporting material
Appendix 2.5.

18 Eighteen experts from the different biodiversity and health networks (such as the Belgian Community of Practice
Biodiversity & Health (COPBH) and its international connections, Co-operation on Health and Biodiversity (COHAB), ESP
thematic working group on health, Network for Evaluation of One Health (NEOH) and contact authors of publications found
in the literature review conducted for this contribution from nature to people.

154
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nature’s capacity to provide medicinal plant resources depends on the species richness of medicinal
plants. Several areas in Europe and Central Asia are characterized by high medicinal plant species
richness, including the Mediterranean region, the Alps and the Pyrenees, the Massif Central in France,
the Balkan Peninsula, the Crimean Peninsula and the Carpathian Mountains (Figure 2.37) (Allen et al.,
2014). However, some of these medicinal plants are threatened due to unsustainable patterns of
exploitation (Allen et al., 2014). Land development and land use change are the next greatest threats,
with residential and commercial development and agricultural practices also having important
impacts. In Central Asia, intensified agricultural practices, loss of indigenous knowledge, and climate
change have also been identified as significant threats to medicinal plant diversity (e.g. Bocharnikov
et al., 2012; Breckle & Wucherer, 2006; Haslinger et al., 2007) (see supporting material Appendix 2.5).
Consequently, collection of plants from the wild and loss of habitat due to physical development and
land use change are the most significant threats affecting medicinal plants in the region.

Indigenous and local knowledge plays an essential role in creating greater understanding of the
potential contributions of many plant species to human health. The importance of biodiversity-derived
medicines has been widely noted, with a significant number of commercially available pharmaceutical
products being derived from compounds identified in biodiversity (e.g. Bernstein, 2015). The World
Health Organization estimates that 70-80% of the global population depend on some form of
indigenous and local medicinal knowledge for their primary health care (Ekor, 2014). In addition,
indigenous and local knowledge has been a source of interest and inspiration for modern drug
development for several decades (see also Section 2.2.3.4); at the same time, various ethical issues
associated with bioprospecting and biopiracy have been raised. These issues appear to be less
significant in Europe (Efferth et al., 2016) (supporting material Appendix 2.5).
Despite the importance of indigenous and local knowledge, there is a rapid rate of decline of
traditional medical knowledge in Europe and Central Asia. In our fast-changing environment,
especially related to increasing urbanization and changing agricultural practices, many traditions are
disappearing from rural areas, with a profound loss of indigenous and local knowledge, particularly
among the younger generations (see Section 2.2.3.1). This decline has been highlighted by several

155
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

scientific studies (e.g. Quave et al., 2012; Sánchez-Mata et al., 2016). In some regions of Western and
Central Europe, direct links have been identified between disappearing traditional farming systems
and the decline in biodiversity of medicinal plants. On the other hand, there has been renewed
interest in preserving traditional forms of knowledge about medicinal plants in the face of societal
change and globalization as a form of cultural heritage (Pardo-de-Santayana et al., 2010).
Recent decades have also seen an increase in the use of medicinal plants as complementary, non-
conventional or alternative forms of medicine (Barata et al., 2016; Roberti di Sarsina, 2007). Reasons
cited for this increased attention have included public desire for affordable health remedies, and a
perception that “natural” products are somehow safer and more effective than mainstream
medicines. These factors have stimulated a rapid expansion of commercial markets for these remedies
(FAO, 2005; Leonti & Verpoorte, 2017). The commercialization of traditional medicines and medicinal
indigenous and local knowledge has seen many of these remedies moving from traditional practices
to health and other markets.
Migrant populations moving into Europe and Central Asia from other regions have also brought their
own traditional knowledge and related medicinal practices with them. Evidence suggests that these
communities rely largely on plants and plant products imported from their home countries rather than
alternatives that occur naturally in their new home regions (Pieroni et al., 2013; Quave et al., 2012)
(supporting material Appendix 2.5). This raises a number of further issues for conservation and public
health, including those related to the collection, importation, sale and use of plants across borders
outside of normal regulatory frameworks. While it appears that migrants prefer medicinal plants and
related products imported from their home regions to local native alternatives, increasing demand
may see alternative plant species being sought in migrants’ new home environments, presenting a
further challenge for the sustainable exploitation of living resources. Therefore, because of increasing
migration into Europe and Central Asia from other regions, there is an urgent need to increase the
understanding of traditional medicinal practices within national public health care systems.
In addition to their potential role in supporting public health, traditional medicines may provide other
social and economic benefits. Research in Tajikistan and Afghanistan has indicated that the use of
medicinal plant species contributed significantly to local health sovereignty and security (see Section
2.3.2), which was particularly important during a period of social and political instability (Kassam et
al., 2010). From a public health perspective, it appears important to ensure that traditional medicinal
practices, which do not use marketed products but instead rely directly on harvested plants, are
recorded and assessed, and to engage with practitioners to explore and communicate on issues of
safety and efficacy.

2.2.3 Status and trends of nature’s non-material contributions to people

2.2.3.1 Learning and knowledge generation
2.2.3.1.1 Formal learning and knowledge generation
Nature benefits people by contributing to learning processes that inspire people and allow them to
acquire knowledge and to develop skills. These benefits can occur through formal institutions,
informal learning and at all levels of education (Angelstam et al., 2013; Anić et al., 2012; Mocior &
Kruse, 2016). There are contrasting trends across these benefits. Formal learning linked to nature has
increased recently, partly as a result of new learning and knowledge development processes linked to
sustainable environmental management. Informal learning that draws on nature has also expanded
due to the increases in recreation and tourism (see Section 2.2.3.2), especially in protected areas

156
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

promoting education and learning (Angelstam et al., 2013; Smrekar et al., 2016; Zedler, 2017). Some
informal forms of learning and knowledge generation based on nature are in decline, particularly
linguistic diversity which has traditionally been shaped by biodiversity and features of the natural
environment (Section 2.1.1.1.2 Gorenflo et al., 2012; Maffi, 2005). The interactions between language
and nature mean that a decline in linguistic diversity will be accompanied by a reduction in the variety
of ways people communicate about aspects of nature and biodiversity (Harmon & Loh, 2010).
Formal learning in outdoor spaces has grown as national education systems have expanded. Formal
learning provides additional benefits for learners and teachers in terms of cognitive outcomes, critical
thinking, inspiration, observation skills and engagement with nature (Bizikova et al., 2012; Mocior &
Kruse, 2016; Schlegel et al., 2015). Adults who have learned about sustainable development at school,
or informally through activities such as gardening, may perceive their living space in a manner that is
conducive to more sustainable lifestyles (Bendt et al., 2013; Breuste & Artmann, 2015; Fridl et al.,
2009).
People using natural environments for recreational experiences also learn from each other. For
example, a survey of 1,300 marine divers and recreational anglers in the UK showed that the sharing
of knowledge and experience with others was a valued cultural ecosystem service (Jobstvogt et al.,
2014). Learning benefits linked to inspiration from nature were also found in a survey of 291 people
in Turkey (Fletcher et al., 2014). In Spain a survey of 1,400 people revealed that environmental
education was a preferred ecosystem service for a large proportion of respondents and environmental
education was viewed as a more important cultural ecosystem service than aesthetic values and
recreational hunting (Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). Also in Spain, a survey of 198 beneficiaries of the
largest park in Barcelona found that environmental learning was a perceived benefit of the park of
low monetary value, but of high non-monetary value (Langemeyer et al., 2015).

2.2.3.1.2 Indigenous and local knowledge

Local ecological knowledge has been increasingly documented in Western, Central and Eastern
Europe, particularly around its role in sustainable management of nature’s contributions to people,
its contribution to ecosystem restoration and its role in building social-ecological resilience (Carvalho
& Frazão-Moreira, 2011; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2014; Molnár et al., 2016). Overall, local ecological
knowledge in Western, Central and Eastern Europe has eroded in recent decades, something
acknowledged in the scientific literature as well as by the indigenous and local knowledge holders (see
supporting material Appendix 2.2). Significant losses of indigenous and local knowledge were found
in Western Europe in agrobiodiversity management (Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014; Kizos et al., 2013;
Reyes-García et al., 2015), in forest management (Johann, 2007; Rotherham, 2007), and in pastoralist
systems (Fernández-Giménez & Fillat Estaque, 2012; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013b). Evidence of erosion
of indigenous and local knowledge was also found in Central Europe, associated with agrobiodiversity
management (Šmid Hribar & Urbanc, 2016), pastoralism (Lozej, 2013; Otčenášek, 2013) and medicinal
plants and wild food plants (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Pardo-de-Santayana et al., 2010; Pieroni et al., 2013).
However, some research has found stable patterns in indigenous and local knowledge associated with
wild food plants and mushrooms in Central Europe (Łuczaj et al., 2015; Pieroni et al., 2013). In Eastern
Europe, a decline in indigenous and local knowledge has been found in wood-pastures (Varga &
Molnár, 2014), pastoralist systems (Kikvidze & Tevzadze, 2015; Lavrillier et al., 2016), and the
indigenous and local knowledge associated with wild food (Łuczaj et al., 2013).
The erosion of indigenous and local knowledge also involves the loss of linguistic diversity as
indigenous and local languages represent the reservoirs of considerable knowledge about non-human

157
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

species and their relationships with the environment (Nabhan, 2001). The endangerment level of
indigenous and local languages in Europe and Central Asia is critical (see Figure 2.38). While a large
number of these languages are extinct 19 (12% of total languages) or critically endangered 20 (11%), 14%
still remain alive as most children speak the language (vulnerable category). The level of
endangerment varies across subregions (see Figure 2.38). While Central Asia has no languages under
the categories of extinct and critically endangered, 31% and 24% of languages in Eastern Europe and
Central Europe, respectively, are classified as extinct or critically endangered. Despite this level of
threat, it is noticeable that the trends of the Index of Linguistic Diversity for indigenous languages in
Eurasia between 1970 and 2005 is rather stable (with a slight decline from 1990) (see Figure 2.39)
because Western and Central Europe might have lost the majority of its linguistic diversity prior to
1970 (Harmon & Loh, 2010).

19Extinct: There are not speakers

20 Critically endangered: The youngest speakers are grandparents and older, and they speak the language partially and
infrequently

158
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The general loss of indigenous and local knowledge is mainly attributed to the transition from an
agriculturally-based and subsistence-oriented economy to a market-oriented economy (Carvalho &
Morales, 2010; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2014; Pardo-de-Santayana et al., 2010). Changes in culture
that affect shared beliefs, meanings and practices regarding plants and animals or other contributions
from nature to people, are also responsible for the lack of value associated with indigenous and local
knowledge among younger generations, which consider these traditional practices and knowledge as
symbols of poverty or backwardness (Christanell et al., 2010; Hernández-Morcillo et al., 2014; Pardo-
de-Santayana et al., 2010). Gender relations are of special interest in Western Europe, where women
and men have had differentiated roles in preserving indigenous and local knowledge (Pardo-de-
Santayana et al., 2010; Reyes-García et al., 2010). Demographic changes, such as ageing of indigenous
and local knowledge holders, rural abandonment and outmigration of women and younger
generations from rural areas, have also led to a marked decline in generational transmission of
indigenous and local knowledge (Fernández-Giménez & Fillat Estaque, 2012; Molnár, 2014; Oteros-
Rozas et al., 2013b). These factors are also acknowledged by indigenous and local knowledge holders
as powerful drivers of erosion of their knowledge (see also supporting material Appendix 2.2).

159
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Some governmental policies can also support the maintenance of indigenous and local knowledge.
For example, the Common Agricultural Policy reform legislation offers support for “high nature value”
farming, which is characterized by long-established, low-intensity and holistic farming systems highly
adapted to local environmental conditions (Keenleyside et al., 2014). In this sense, high natural value
farming is not only essential if the European Union is to meet its 2020 biodiversity targets, but also to
counteract the decline in indigenous and local knowledge.
There is a proven gap in documentation of indigenous and local knowledge in Central Asia and
therefore more studies are needed on how traditional practices and indigenous and local knowledge
associated with nature could bring important insights into biocultural diversity conservation in the
subregion (Pawera et al., 2016). In addition, although there is some evidence about the role of
indigenous and local knowledge in marine systems (Maynou et al., 2011; Moore, 2003), more research
is needed to report on the status and trends of this knowledge in that context.

2.2.3.2 Physical and psychological experiences

2.2.3.2.1 Recreational experiences
Nature in Europe and Central Asia provides opportunities for recreation such as hiking, trekking,
climbing, running, mountain biking, horseback riding, camping, picnicking, sailing, boating, swimming,
snorkeling or diving, skiing and green care, as well as activities related to species, such as wildlife-
watching, particularly birdwatching. Nature also provides opportunities to perform extractive
recreational activities, such as hunting, fishing and angling, mushroom gathering, berry and fruit
picking (Bell et al., 2007; Schulp et al., 2014a; Seeland & Staniszewski, 2007). Thirty-eight per cent of
the European Union is characterized by high outdoor recreation potential (Paracchini et al., 2014),
particularly coastal and freshwater systems and broadleaved woodlands (Hornigold et al., 2016).
Recreation is a well-recognized contribution from nature to people in broadleaved forests of Western
and Central Europe (e.g. Grilli et al., 2015; Mavsar et al., 2013; Sténs et al., 2016). In freshwater
ecosystems, recreation is more common in rivers with clear water and high flows than rivers with
mud, algae and litter (Eder & Arnberger, 2016; Vesterinen et al., 2010). Marine and coastal systems
also provide the basis for recreational activities, such as recreational fishing, birdwatching, whale-
watching, swimming, diving and snorkeling or other water sports (Ahtiainen et al., 2013; Beaumont et
al., 2007). In the last decades, the capacity for nature-based recreation in the aforementioned
ecosystems has decreased because of land-use change (e.g. Liquete et al., 2016b; Pietilä & Fagerholm,
2016; Roberge et al., 2016).
Green spaces in urban areas provide multiple physical and psychological experiences (Bolund &
Hunhammar, 1999; Kabisch et al., 2016), such as sense of peacefulness and tranquility (Chiesura,
2004) or hiking and walking (Baró et al., 2016; Smrekar et al., 2016). While an overall increase in urban
green spaces was identified in Western Europe from 2000 to 2006, most of the cities of Central and
Eastern Europe experienced a decline in the same period (Kabisch & Haase, 2013). The recreational
experience in urban green spaces depends on different elements, such as the presence of forests and
wetlands or riparian systems (Baró et al., 2016) or high species richness (Fuller et al., 2007). Urban
gardens are increasingly recognized among these elements in Western and Central Europe (Bell, 2016;
Breuste & Artmann, 2015; Camps-Calvet et al., 2015).
Nature-based recreation is in high demand in Europe and Central Asia (e.g. Agbenyega et al., 2009;
García-Llorente et al., 2012; Sténs et al., 2016). For example, 31% of people surveyed in the European
Union gave nature as their main reason for going on holiday. Other reasons were nature related, such

160
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

as beach and sport-related activities (e.g. cycling, boating or diving), which were mentioned by 51%
of people surveyed in the European Union (European Commission, 2016a). In the last decade, nature
as the main reason for holidays has increased in the European Union (Figure 2.40). Participation in
nature-based recreation is not equally distributed between countries due to differences in the number
of protected areas (Table 2.5), forest areas designated for recreational purposes (Figure 2.41), or
accessibility to natural areas (Bell et al., 2007).

161
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nature’s capacity to provide extractive outdoor experiences relies on a variety of species. In the
European Union, 97 species are hunted, while 152 species and 12 genera of mushrooms and 592
edible plant species are reported as being collected (Schulp et al., 2014b). However, this estimation is
incomplete because studies in Turkey showed that at least 2,000 species of mushrooms are edible
(Çağlarirmak, 2011; Kizmaz, 2003). The highest richness of game species is reported in Central Europe,
southern Scandinavia and the Baltic countries, while for edible mushroom and plant species it is the
forested and mountainous areas of Western Europe (Figure 2.42) (Schulp et al., 2014a).

Hunters as a percentage of the European Union population in 2010 varied between 0.17%
(Netherlands) and 12.4% (Italy) (Schulp et al., 2014a). In Central Asia, the flourishing of sport hunting
(Kronenberg, 2014) and the presence of body parts of particular animals (e.g. snow leopard (Uncia
uncia), Asiatic Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus)) in markets suggest both legal and illegal hunting (Cunha,
1997; Haslinger et al., 2007). Recreational fishing is a growing phenomenon in Western Europe
(Toivonen et al., 2004). Collection of mushrooms, truffles, berries, fruits and edible nuts is more
prevalent in Western Europe than Central Europe and Eastern Europe (Figure 2.43) (MCPFE et al.,
2007). However, the diversity of wild plants collected has suffered a decline in recent decades in
Western and Central Europe (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Reyes-García et al., 2015; Rzadkowski & Kalinowski,
2013). This decline coincides with urbanization and loss of natural habitats, rural abandonment,
cultural change, the erosion of indigenous and local knowledge, and industrialization of food
production (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Reyes-García et al., 2015). By contrast, some uses of wild edible plants
are preserved due to a revival of traditions linked with “traditional” cuisine (Reyes-García et al., 2015;
Schulp, et al., 2014b).

162
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.3.2.2 Aesthetic experiences

Nature is a source of aesthetic experiences for people in Europe and Central Asia (e.g. Daniel, 2001;
Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ode et al., 2009; Schirpke et al., 2013). Aesthetic enjoyment is dependent on
perceived naturalness (e.g. Arriaza, 2004; Van den Berg & Koole, 2006), landscape heterogeneity (e.g.
Dramstad et al., 2006; Frank et al., 2013; Schirpke et al., 2013; Sevenant & Antrop, 2009), and high
levels of biodiversity (e.g. Casalegno et al., 2013; Lindemann-Matthies et al., 2010; Tribot et al., 2016).
People in Western and Central Europe prefer natural areas with verdant vegetation over arid
landscapes and urban landscapes (García-Llorente et al., 2012; Sevenant & Antrop, 2009). Landscape
configurations like open forests (Gundersen & Frivold, 2008; Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016) or wood-
pastures are most preferred among verdant natural areas (e.g. Plieninger et al., 2015; Surová et al.,
2013; Van Zanten et al., 2014). However, mosaic landscapes were considered to have higher aesthetic
value than landscapes dominated by forest in Western and Central Europe (e.g. García-Llorente et al.,
2012; Howley, 2011; Howley et al., 2012; Schirpke et al., 2013). Mountains and coastal systems also
provide aesthetic enjoyment, expressed by high numbers of related geotagged photographs (Oteros-
Rozas et al., in press; Van Zanten et al., 2016). Water features also contribute to aesthetic pleasure
(e.g. Kaltenborn & Bjerke, 2002; Tveit et al., 2006; Van Zanten et al., 2016).
The capacity of landscapes to provide aesthetic experience has declined because of urbanization, land-
use intensification, rural abandonment, disappearance of common lands and water pollution (see
Chapter 4) (Šmid Hribar et al., 2015; Hunziker et al., 2008; Ruskule et al., 2013).

2.2.3.3 Supporting identities

Individuals derive a good quality of life from knowing of the mere existence of particular species,
ecosystems or a landscapes, independent of their actual use (Krutilla, 1967; Reyers et al., 2012), but
also from their sense of place, cultural heritage, and from spiritual experiences. In contrast to physical

163
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and experiential values (see Section 2.2.3.2), this contribution from nature to people relates to virtues
and principles (Chan et al., 2012).

2.2.3.3.1 Protected areas

Protected areas indicate where societies have expressed their will to protect species and ecosystems.
Protected areas can take many forms, as distinguished by (IUCN, 2017). Some categories of protected
areas contain core zones, where natural dynamics can take place and which are largely inaccessible to
the public. These categories are: “Ia Strict Nature Reserve”, “Ib Wilderness Area”, “II National Park”
and “IV Habitat/species management area”. The status of these protected areas in Europe and Central
Asia, as reported in the World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2016), was used
as an indicator for “supporting identities” (see Figure 2.44 and Table 2.5). Globally, there has been an
increase in protected areas (all IUCN categories) from about 8% in 1990 to 14.7% in 2016 (UNEP-
WCMC & IUCN, 2016). It should be noted that motivations to establish a protected area differ, so the
chosen indicator does not necessarily reflect particularly important species and ecosystems (Joppa &
Pfaff, 2009).

Table 2.5: Proportion of protected areas in Europe and Central Asia. The table displays strong
protection categories (Ia, Ib, II and IV) in the four subregions. Source: World Database on Protected
Areas (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2016).

Region Ia Ib II IV Total area (in

km2) of categories
Strict nature Wilderness National Park Habitat/species
Ia, Ib, II and IV
reserve [% of area [% of [% of land management
land area] land area] area] area [% of land
area]
Central Europe 0.00 0.27 0.87 0.93 92,284
Western Europe 0.48 2.70 3.16 1.60 1,077,634
Eastern Europe 1.91 0.00 1.02 5.20 6,930,197

164
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Asia 0.68 0.00 0.65 1.04 196,475

2.2.3.3.2 Emblematic, symbolic or iconic species or ecosystems

An existence value can be attributed to emblematic, symbolic or iconic species or ecosystems that are
particularly appreciated for their existence, independent of their actual use for recreation (e.g., bird
watching, game viewing). Certain so-called “flagship species” have drawn wide public interest (Barua,
2011). Many of these species’ habitats occur outside Europe and Central Asia, for example the tiger
(Panthera tigris), gorilla (Gorilla gorilla), giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), orangutan (Pongo
abelii), as well as elephants and seahorses (Barua, 2011). The contribution from nature to people in
these cases is not provided by ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia, but is valued by people within
the region. There is currently a knowledge gap on how iconic and emblematic species that are native
to Europe and Central Asia are perceived across the region. The wolf (Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus
arctos), wolverine (Gulo gulo), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wisent (Bison bonasus) have been framed as
“Europe’s big five” in collaboration with conservation experts (IUCN, 2014). A global meta-analysis
found that species in forest and marine inland waters are particularly highly valued. Of these species,
the moose (Alces alces) and the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (Martín-López et al.,
2008) occur in Europe and Central Asia. Furthermore, there is country-specific evidence of people
assigning particular existence values to species. For instance, people in Sweden value large carnivores,
irrespective of having the possibility to view them (Karlsson & Sjöström, 2008). In Spain, the imperial
eagle (Aquila adalberti) and the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) were among the species for which people
showed the highest preference and willingness-to-pay for their conservation (Martín-López et al.,
2007). In the UK, White et al. (2001) found high conservation interest for the otter (Lutra lutra),
measured through high willingness-to-pay for their conservation. Preferences for the existence of
species, such as willingness-to-pay for marine biodiversity, can differ across the region (Ressurreição
et al., 2012). Willingness-to-pay for conservation has also been shown to be more strongly influenced
by certain marine iconic species that are actively experienced (seals, octopus, birds) than by species
that do not directly have a use value (i.e. are only protected for their existence) (Jobstvogt, 2014).

2.2.3.3.3 Attitudes towards nature

Another indication of this contribution from nature to people is attitudes towards nature
conservation. In the EU-28, 76% of the people totally agree with the statement “We have a
responsibility to look after nature”. This percentage differs regionally, ranging from 65% in Italy to 94%
in Cyprus and Sweden (European Commission, 2015a). See also supporting material Appendix 2.2 with
quotes recognizing a decreasing trend of appreciation of nature by young holders of indigenous and
local knowledge.

2.2.3.3.4 Spiritual experiences

Ecosystems have traditionally served as areas for spiritual or religious rituals and experiences derived
from nature (Groot et al., 2005). Natural areas of special spiritual significance include areas recognized
as sacred by indigenous and traditional peoples as well as by institutionalized religions or faiths as
places for worship and remembrance (Verschuuren et al., 2010). Sacred or holy natural places occur
at a variety of scales in Europe and Central Asia, varying from rock formations or forest patches to
mountains and islands. Supporting material Appendix 2.6 shows a selected list of natural areas
considered as “sacred natural sites” based on IUCN’s Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values of

165
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Protected Areas (Wild & McLeod, 2008) and the Delos Initiative (Mallarch & Papayannis, 2012). Five
sites on this list are located in Central Europe, three in Eastern Europe, 17 in Western Europe and one
in Central Asia. The importance of these sites and other natural areas of spiritual and cultural
significance to the quality of life in Europe and Central Asia is elaborated on in Section 2.3.3.

2.2.3.4 Maintenance of options

The desire to maintain potential options or benefits provided by nature for future generations is an
expression of how people value inter-generational justice (see Section 2.3.4). The capacity of supply
of this contribution from nature to people is indicated by overall patterns in species-level biodiversity
(see Table 2.6, Section 3.2.3). One measure of the unique contribution to this contribution is given by
total number of endemic species, which is low for Europe and Central Asia relatively to Africa, Asia
and Pacific and America regions (see Table 2.6). Phylogenetic diversity (Faith, 1992) over multiple
taxonomic groups is also an informative metric of the capacity of biodiversity to deliver maintenance
of options (Faith, 2016) (also see Chapter 3). An assessment of the phylogenetic diversity of birds and
mammals (see Figure 2.45) (Pollock et al., 2017) identified many high priority areas, such as in
southern Croatia, the Odessa region of Ukraine, and north-western Kazakhstan, for their better
conservation.
Table 2.6: Numbers of classified, endemic and threatened species as proxy for the status of the
maintenance of options of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia relative to
the other three IPBES regions (the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, and Africa). Source: Brooks et al.
(2016), data for taxonomic groups that have been comprehensively assessed using IUCN red list
criteria. Total global number of assessed species, over all these assessed groups, = 32,790. Total
number of these assessed species that are threatened = 6,539.

Europe and Central Asia Average value over the

other 3 IPBES regions
Number of assessed species, over all 2,487 11,840
assessed groups, that are found in
nominated IPBES region
Number of those species endemic to 332 9,681
the region
Number of assessed species that are 302 2,251
threatened and are found in
nominated region
Number of those threatened species 83 2,036
that are endemic to the region

166
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The maintenance of options from biodiversity in Europe and Central Asia (and from outside the region)
can be assessed through the valuation of genetic diversity by pharmaceutical companies (see Section
2.2.2.4). After a period of reduced interest there is a shift back towards natural products, supported
by improved methods to explore species’ DNA to search for useful compounds (Piper, 2017). The
appreciation for this contribution from nature to people is also found in the greater awareness of
recent unanticipated benefits from biodiversity. The State of the World’s Plants (Willis, 2017) provides
examples of benefits from genetic variation. For example, the ash tree (Fraxinus excelsior) is suffering
dieback across northern parts of Western Europe from a fungus; however, whole genome sequencing
has helped characterize the genetic diversity, so that resistant individuals can be identified.
Medicines derived from medicinal plants (see Section 2.2.2.4) and from marine organisms also raise
awareness of biodiversity option values. However, benefits of this contribution from nature to people
also may include other products. For example, it has been found that honeycomb moth caterpillars
can eat through plastic (Bombelli et al., 2017). The caterpillars are beewax-eating pests, but enzymes
from the caterpillars provide an un-expected global benefit. Another example is the recent published
role of golden jackals (C. aureus), long regarded as a pest, as a remover of domestic animal carcasses,
which is saving about two million euros in those countries west of Black Sea with estimated jackal
population size >100 individuals –i.e. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary,
Romania and Serbia- (Ćirović et al., 2016). The appreciation and value of this contribution from nature
to people can also be estimated through the ongoing reporting of surprising discoveries in the popular
press. For example, the golden jackals’ example was widely communicated through a New Scientist

167
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

article 21. Such examples can reinforce people’s relational value, linking biodiversity to future
generations’ quality of life (Faith, 2016). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) concluded that
“the value individuals place on keeping biodiversity for future generations— the option value—can be
significant”. Recently, a consortium of IUCN and global conservation NGOs argued for the value of
biodiversity in maintaining options, providing many examples of past surprising benefits from
biodiversity (Gascon et al., 2015).

2.2.4 Interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people: dependency of Europe and

Central Asia on ecosystems of other regions
2.2.4.1 Introduction: interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people
Nature’s contributions to people being used in Europe and Central Asia are provided by ecosystems
both within and outside the region. Through interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people,
i.e. the active or passive transport of energy, matter or information, differences between the provision
and actual consumption of ecosystem services can be balanced (Liu et al., 2016). Flows of nature’s
contributions to people happen both between subregions of Europe and Central Asia, and between
the region and other parts of the world. Interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people involve
telecoupling, i.e. socioeconomic and environmental interactions over distances (Liu et al., 2016), and
have several consequences. Ecosystem service use in one location can have impacts on ecosystems in
other locations, such as degradation and connected loss of biodiversity (Mayer et al., 2005). For
example, deforestation embodied in final consumption of the EU-27 equated to 732,000 ha (2004). In
other words, 10% of the world’s annual deforestation (7,290,000 ha per year) was the result of
consumption by the EU-27 (see Figure 2.46) (European Commission, 2013).

Furthermore, interregional flows can have effects on quality of life, such as distributional equity, as
discussed in the context of land grabbing (see Section 2.3.1.1) (Rulli et al., 2013). On the other hand,

21 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2090451-invasive-trash-eating-jackals-save-europe-e2-million-a-year/

168
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

interregional flows of nature’s material contributions to people can lead to overall lower costs of food
(Schmitz et al., 2012). Additionally, access to goods from outside the region through trade contributes
to food security (see Section 2.3.1.1) as well as supporting livelihoods in the producing country.

2.2.4.2 Ecological footprint

Ecological footprint is a composite indicator for use of nature’s contributions to people (Borucke et
al., 2013; Kitzes & Wackernagel, 2009) that quantifies the area needed to provide certain material or
regulating contributions and expresses consumption in an area in terms of the area needed to
renewably provide those contributions (Kitzes & Wackernagel, 2009). Ecological footprint includes
proxies for nature’s contributions to people such as crops, grazing land, fish, timber, and carbon
sequestration (Borucke et al., 2013). Biocapacity is another proxy for ecosystem productivity.
Specifically, 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. Data on the ecological footprint
of consumption and on biocapacity (in global hectares per person) are available for most of the
countries within Europe and Central Asia (missing: Andorra, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San
Marino). For Europe and Central Asia in 2013, the ecological footprint (consumption) was 4.6 ha and
biocapacity only 2.9 ha (based on 49 countries) (Global Footprint Network, 2017). This indicates that
the region either overuses or net imports renewable natural resources. Both ecological footprint and
biocapacity differ regionally, and so does the difference between the two measures (Figure 2.47). For
Western Europe (data for 19 of 24 countries), the footprint was 5.1 ha, vs. 2.2 ha biocapacity; for
Central Europe (all 18 countries) the footprint was 3.6 ha, vs. 2.1 ha biocapacity, for Eastern Europe
(all seven countries) the footprint was 4.8 ha, vs. 5.3 ha biocapacity; and for Central Asia (all five
countries) the footprint was 3.4 ha, vs. 1.7 ha biocapacity. This means that Western and Central
Europe and Central Asia have a deficit, while Eastern Europe has a reserve, in terms of biocapacity. A
deficit can be ascribed to overuse of local renewable resources or net import (interregional flows) of
renewable resources for consumption. In Figure 2.47 countries shaded green have high biocapacity,
so they have a reserve despite some also having large ecological footprints.

169
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.4.3 Status and trends of interregional flows for selected nature’s contributions to people
Human appropriation of net primary productivity (HANPP) is a measure that includes biomass
extraction from ecosystems for food, fodder, fibres and bioenergy. For large parts of Western Europe,
HANPP appropriated is lower than HANPP embodied in consumption. For Central and Eastern Europe
and Central Asia, HANPP of the region is about the same as or slightly higher than HANPP embodied
in consumption (Erb et al., 2009a, 2009b). European Union imports embodied HANPP to an increasing
extent, in particular from South America (Kastner et al., 2015) (see Figure 2.48).

170
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

171
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central and Western Europe depend on land elsewhere for crop production to a large degree; Eastern
Europe and Central Asia to a lesser degree. Main sources are Brazil, Argentina, China and the USA (Yu
et al., 2013). In 2008 Western Europe showed relatively low levels of self-sufficiency in terms of crop
production and consumption, while Central and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia showed higher
production than consumption levels (i.e. self-sufficiency ratio larger than 1) (see Figure 2.49) (Kastner
et al., 2014). Figure 2.49 indicates Central and Western Europe depended in 2008 on food and feed
imports equivalent to the annual harvest of 35 million hectares of cropland, a land area the size of
Germany. See Section 2.3.1.1 on food security.

Worldwide median minimum distance from fishing source to place of consumption has increased from
about 500 km in 1950 to about 2,500 km in 2011 (Watson et al., 2015b). Seafood exports from Europe
and Central Asia increased over the period 1976-2009, with Russia, Norway and Spain being the main
exporters. Per capita consumption also increased, with Norway, Iceland, Spain, Portugal and Lithuania
being the countries with the highest per capita consumption (Watson et al., 2015a) (See Section
2.2.2.1).

Interregional flows of roundwood and wood products (t C per year) have changed patterns between
1997 and 2012 (Figure 2.50). The largest flows within Europe and Central Asia are exports from Central
and Eastern Europe to Western Europe (stable between 1997 and 2012). Eastern Europe increased
exports to South Asia. Flows from North America to Western Europe decreased, flows from Latin
America to Western Europe increased.

172
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Interregional flows take place also for carbon sequestration. There is evidence that terrestrial
ecosystems only sequester a small fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions in Europe (defined here
as the landmass between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals, excluding Turkey and the Mediterranean
isles) (Janssens et al., 2003). The rest is sequestered by terrestrial ecosystems in other parts of the
world, by oceans, or adds to the atmospheric carbon stock.

2.2.5 Summary of trends of nature’s contributions to people

The contributions to people from ecosystems in Europe and Central Asia have changed markedly since
the 1950s, promoting changes in the quality of life of its societies (see Section 2.3). Although the
ecosystems of the region are currently delivering multiple contributions to people, there has been
evidence of negative trends in the provision of regulating and some non-material contributions since
the 1960s (see Figure 2.51). Overall, 58% of publications provide evidence of negative trends of
nature’s contributions to people provided between 1960 and 2016, while 28% reported positive
trends (see supporting material Appendix 2.7 for the whole list of references reporting increasing,
constant, decreasing and mixed trends per contribution). This pattern, however, is not consistent
across contributions: while 59% and 66% of the scientific publications reviewed provide evidence of

173
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

declining trends in regulating and non-material contributions, respectively, only 39% of the studies
show negative trends in the delivery of material contributions (Figure 2.51). In fact, of the range of
nature’s contributions to people delivered in Europe and Central Asia, about 44% have been assessed
as declining, particularly regulating and some non-material contributions, such as learning derived from
indigenous and local knowledge. The decreasing trends of learning derived from indigenous and local
knowledge also have consequences for other contributions from nature to people, such as the use of
medicinal plants (Section 2.2.2.4), wild food gathering (Section 2.2.3.2.1), the use of guard dogs for
protecting livestock (Section 2.2.2.3.4) and the cultural identity of peasants, herders and shepherds
(Section 2.3.3, supporting material Appendix 2.2), which have also declined over the assessed period.
Intensification of management practices, technology, manufactured capital and market forces have
promoted increasing trends in the provision of particular material contributions from nature to people,
including food, biomass-based energy and materials (Figure 2.51). The increasing trends in the delivery
of specific material contributions have come at the expense of the long-term deterioration of regulating
contributions. Some key regulating contributions, such as habitat maintenance, pollination, regulation
of freshwater quantity and quality, formation and protection of soils, and regulation of floods, have
been negatively affected since the 1960s by intensified management practices that seek to increase
production of crops, livestock, aquaculture, woodfuels and cotton. In addition, the increasing demand
in Western and Central Europe for nature’s material contributions to people, such as food and biofuels,
is straining the capacity of ecosystems and nature’s contributions to people in other regions of the
world (Sections 2.2.2.3 and 2.2.4).
The improvement found for some of nature’s regulating contributions to people in the last decade in
Western and Central Europe (see Figure 2.51), such as regulation of water quality, protection of soils
and removal of animal carcasses by scavengers, can be explained by the successful implementation of
European Union policies, such as the Nitrates and Water Framework Directives (see Section 2.2.1.7)
and the Common Agricultural Policy (see Section 2.2.1.8) , the implementation of different nature-
based solutions for water quality (see Section 2.2.1.7), as well as different conservation programmes
for vertebrates (see Section 2.2.1.10). In addition, it is worth noting that water-based regulating
contributions from nature to people have improved in Western Europe since the 1990s due to changing
patterns in societal behaviour driven by European Union policies, but not because of an enhancement
in ecosystems’ capacity to provide them. For example, although water quality is improving due to the
aforementioned Union policies and pollution reduction, ecosystems’ capacity to regulate water quality
has been jeopardized by a reduction in the areal extent of wetlands and floodplains (see Section
2.2.1.7). The abstraction and use of freshwater have decreased since the 1990s; however, water
availability per capita has also decreased by 15% since 1990 (see Sections 2.2.1.6, 2.3.1.3). Similarly,
the increasing trends of physical and psychological experiences (see Figure 2.51) can be explained by
the fact that people in the European Union have increasingly demanded nature for recreational
activities, although land-use change has threatened the ecosystems highly valued by people for these
experiences (see Section 2.2.3.2.1).
The pattern of trends in nature’s contributions to people is consistent across the subregions of Europe
and Central Asia (Figure 2.51). Declining trends of these contributions are reported in Central Europe
(61% of the scientific evidence), Western Europe (55%), Eastern Europe (54%) and Central Asia (48%);
while increasing trends are mostly reported for Western Europe (35% of scientific evidence).
Nevertheless, it should be noted that more scientific research (in English language-journals) on
nature’s contributions to people has been conducted in Western and Central Europe than in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia (Boerema et al., 2017), with implications for the levels of confidence about
status and trends of nature’s contributions to people across subregions (Figure 2.51).

174
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.6 Future trends in nature’s contributions to people

This section examines the potential impacts of individual drivers on future trends in nature’s
contributions to people, with trends in direct and indirect drivers covered in Chapter 4 and the impacts
of combined drivers and trade-offs between contributions discussed in Chapter 5, Sections 5.2 and
5.3. A semi-structured literature review (see Section 2.2) was undertaken, with information extracted
into a template to enable comparison across nature’s contributions to people and to facilitate
integration with Chapter 5’s analysis of the impacts of multiple drivers on the status and trends of
contributions (see Section 5.3.3 and 5.3.4). In the allotted time, this search process could only be fully
applied to food and feed, air and climate regulation, and learning and inspiration. Even the targeted

175
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

semi-structured literature review yielded comparatively few articles, except for Western Europe.
Thus, it was not possible to estimate robustly future trends in nature’s contributions to people in
Europe and Central Asia. As in Chapter 4, the most frequently identified driver of trends in
contributions was climate change, followed by land use, land-use change and forestry (LULCC).

2.2.6.1 Regulating contributions

Nature’s regulating contributions to people are likely to show mixed responses to climate change
across Europe and Central Asia (Kovats et al., 2014). Few studies have examined future trends in
pollination or pollinators, but both qualitative and quantitative modelling studies suggest that climate
change is likely to lead to pollinator decline. Modelling shifts in bumblebee distribution showed that,
by 2100, up to 36% are projected to be at high risk from climate change (losing >80% of their current
range), with 41% at risk (losing 50-80% of their current range), depending on the scenario (Kerr et al.,
2015).
Little literature was found for the air regulation as a contribution from nature to people. Tallis et al.
(2011) estimated that the planned increase in tree cover, from 20% to 30% in the Greater London
Authority area, could increase particulate matter (PM10) removal by 18% by 2050, assuming no change
in tree cover types. Papers on past and present trends in urban air quality comment on the importance
of trees and green space in the future (e.g., Baró et al., 2014).
Climate regulation may become more important as countries seek to meet their greenhouse gas
commitments under the Paris Agreement. For example, the Tajikistan government has a national
programme on carbon sequestration (2014-2024), which includes plans for afforestation and
reforestation (Mustaeva et al., 2015). For future carbon budgets, climate and land use, land-use
change and forestry (LULCC) were the most frequently analyzed drivers, with the net balance of their
effects depending on their impact on vegetation, soil storage and decomposition. In the Arctic, global
mean temperature increases could decrease carbon storage in permafrost soils by 2100, despite
increased uptake of carbon by vegetation. In northern parts of Western and Eastern Europe, warming
could increase tree carbon storage (Olchev et al., 2009; Shanin et al., 2011), although it would
decrease if precipitation declines (Olchev et al., 2009), especially in southern areas of the European
Union (Lavalle et al., 2009). Also, forest disturbance from wind, bark beetles and wildfires are
projected to decrease the carbon storage potential of forests in Western and Central Europe by 503.4
TgC between 2021–2030 (Seidl, 2014).
Land use change and fire could have mixed effects on future carbon budgets (Kuemmerle et al., 2011;
Verkerk et al., 2014). Unmanaged woodlands in Western Europe should continue to be a carbon sink
(Allen et al., 2016), while in central Russian forests, fire and management could have a greater
influence than climate on future vegetation and soil carbon stocks, with forests becoming a carbon
source rather than a sink (Shanin et al., 2011). There are similar mixed responses to land use change
and management on formerly abandoned lands in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Causarano et al.,
2011), with afforestation increasing carbon storage, while for biofuel production, using low
intensity/high density grass-legume pastures, it depends on the timing of cultivation, tillage and
climate change, and soil carbon sequestration would increase unless climate change were to decrease
vegetation net primary productivity (Vuichard et al., 2008).
Artificialization and soil sealing are rapidly increasing in the European Union (FAO, 2015b; Jones et al.,
2012) and might affect the formation and protection of soils as a contribution from nature to people
in the near future, while this is not yet a problem in Central Asia due to the vast extent of land (UNEP

176
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

& UNECE, 2016). Hence, the supply of erosion control in the coming decades will mainly depend on
the farming practices and land-use policies implemented.
Changes in climate will affect the demand for, and supply of, hazard regulation. Greater demand could
result from increased glacier melt (Hagg et al., 2006; Sorg et al., 2012; Stoffel & Huggel, 2012); flooding
due to heavy precipitation events in parts of Western and Central Europe (Kovats et al., 2014); and
fire frequency and severity, especially in parts of Russia (Gauthier et al., 2015) and southern Western
Europe, where the annual burned area could increase by a factor of three to five by 2100 under the
IPCC A2 emission scenario (Dury et al., 2011).

2.2.6.2 Material contributions from nature to people

Changes in seasonal, and extremes of, temperature and precipitation, as well as CO2, can affect food
and feed provision, which show mixed trends in yield, depending on the scenario, region and crop.
Global modelling of cereal production in 2050 shows increases in countries in the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development and in countries emerging from the former Soviet Union,
partly as a result of an enhanced CO2 fertilization effect, with cereal consumption possibly increasing
in the former, and increasing in the latter depending on scenario (Alcamo et al., 2005). Zabel et al.
(2014) also suggest that climate change will increase the extent of agriculturally suitable land and food
production in Russia. Food, livestock and fibre production, however, are projected to decrease in parts
of Western and Central Europe, but to increase in the northern parts of these regions (Kovats et al.,
2014). Climate change is projected to cause increased yields of rainfed maize, while rainfed wheat
shows a mixed response across Europe and Central Asia, depending on the climate scenario (Nelson
et al., 2010). It could lead to an overall decrease in daily per capita calories available (Nelson et al.,
2009) and in fodder quality (Quetier et al., 2007). In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, by 2050, yields
of many irrigated crops show a mixed response, but water shortages mean that irrigation is unlikely
to be able to continue at current levels, so yields could decrease by 50% or more (Sutton et al., 2013).
Other studies project decreases in agricultural production from combined effects of climate change
and deteriorating land use practices in the Czech Republic (Lorencova et al., 2013) and across Western
Europe (Haines-Young et al., 2012).
Timber production may decrease in many parts of Central Europe, but with increases predicted in
northern parts of Western Europe. In Finland, forest stand models, in which tree growth is converted
into site and then regional forest growth, calculate that, under an Intergovernmental Platform on
Climate Change SRES B2 scenario (based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)), pine
growth in southern Finland could increase by 16% and in Lapland by 31%, while under a higher (SRES
A2) emissions scenario these figures are 40% and 80% respectively (Forsius et al., 2013).
In the EU-27, demand for biomass-based wood for energy, and wood products are both projected to
increase from 2010 to 2030 under a global markets scenario (Verkerk et al., 2014), but the production
and consumption of wood products is lower and could slow under the regional sustainability scenario
(Jonsson, 2013), with Eastern Europe accounting for a greater proportion of production and
consumption of solid wood, pulp and paper products. The increasing demand, especially for wood-
based energy, means that EU-27 supply may not meet the future demand for raw wood materials.
For fish production, the maximum catch potential could increase in Western Europe, especially in high
latitude seas (>50oN), with an average yield increase of 30-70% (Figure 2.52), depending on
assumptions about the effects of ocean acidification on fish ecophysiology (Cheung et al., 2012).

177
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Within Europe and Central Asia, the main biodiesel and bioethanol producers and consumers are
within the European Union. Based on the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic & Swart,
2000), the scenarios for the spatial allocation of biofuel crops within the EU-27 region showed that by
2030, for different storylines with various political and economic circumstances, some regions are
projected to have a higher share of biofuel crops (Hellmann & Verburg, 2010) (Figure 2.53).

178
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

For 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario, biofuel potential amounts annually to 3.6 EJ (Western
Europe), 6.3 EJ (Central Europe), and 7.9 EJ (Central Asia and Russian Federation) (Haberl et al., 2011).
Figure 2.53 shows that current biofuel production in the subregions is strongly below the future
potential. Western Europe has the lowest potential, but the significantly highest biofuel production.
However, these biofuel potentials do not take changes in population, diets, and climate into account.
The highest unused potentials for biofuels are in Central Asia and Russia.

179
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.2.6.3 Nature’s non-material contributions to people

There are fewer studies on the future of nature’s non-material contributions to people and most of
them relate to learning and inspiration and physical and psychological experiences linked to outdoor
recreation and tourism. In northern Scandinavia and north-western Russia, tourism and recreation
could decrease in winter due to climate change, but increase in summer, while cultural ties to the
landscape and species unique to northern areas could decline (Forsius et al., 2013; Jansson et al.,
2015).
Verkerk et al. (2014) showed that recreational attractiveness (an expert-based index (1–10) of the
preference value for different forest stands for recreation) did not change in Western or Central
Europe in either a reference (business as usual) scenario or wood energy scenario (see above). The
biodiversity scenario, however, could lead to an improvement in the recreational attractiveness index
by 0.5 points (+ 9.4%; range between countries: + 0.2 to +1.0 points). Overall, the changes were quite
small as the index depends on broad age classes of people, which changed relatively slowly between
2010 and 2030.
No clear evidence of future trends in learning and inspiration from nature can be identified, but
knowledge of urban habitats can contribute to future urban greening policy and scenario development
(Camps-Calvet et al., 2015; Colding et al., 2013; Mortberg et al., 2013). Scientific and indigenous and
local knowledge of a range of nature’s contributions to people is a key component of scenario
development used to consider future strategies and options for environmental and conservation
management, such as for transhumance networks in Spain (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013a), forests in
Poland and Sweden (Carlsson et al., 2015; Chmura et al., 2010) and protected areas in Europe
(Mattsson & Vacik, 2017). Emerging forms of learning, using virtual tools to develop environmental
awareness amongst adults and young people will also rely on knowledge of biodiversity and drivers of
change (Harwood et al., 2015; Ulbrich et al., 2015).
For many of nature’s contributions to people, policies can also affect the future demand and supply.
Simulations of how land use changes in the EU-27 could affect a range of contributions under a
business-as-usual scenario and three biodiversity no net loss scenarios were undertaken by Schulp et
al. (2016). The simulations found that while no net loss policies generally led to an improvement in
most of nature’s contributions to people, especially climate regulation and pollination, such policies
would not totally address the loss of biodiversity and of nature’s contributions to people because of
the continued demand for land for human use (Figure 2.54). Food provisioning could also be
negatively affected under no net loss policies, while some of nature’s regulating contributions to
people and recreation could be little affected.

180
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This, and other studies which consider a number of nature’s contributions to people together (e.g.
Kain et al., 2016), highlight that trade-offs between contributions need to be taken into account when
considering both current and future trends (Section 2.3.4.2).

2.3 Effects of trends in nature’s contributions on quality of life in Europe

and Central Asia

2.3.1 Contributions to food-energy-water security

Food, energy and water are essential for human well-being, poverty alleviation and sustainable
development (FAO, 2014b). Food security, water security and energy security represent Sustainable
Development Goals number 2, 6 and 7, respectively (see Section 2.4).

2.3.1.1 Food security

Food security is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,
safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy
life (FAO, 2014b). A condition for the full realization of the right to food is “food sovereignty” (De
Schutter, 2014), defined as “the right of nations and peoples to control their own food systems,
including their own markets, production modes, food cultures and environments” (Wittman et al.,
2010). The situation and trends of food security and sovereignty in Europe and Central Asia have been
mixed in the last century and vary greatly between and within subregions, with the best situation in
Western Europe, and Central Asia showing the largest challenges (all data retrieved from FAOSTAT).

181
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Food availability is adequate across Europe and Central Asia, where the average dietary energy supply
adequacy ranges from 137% in Western Europe to 121% in Central Asia (see Figure 2.55). Food
accessibility and utilization varies between subregions. The domestic food price level showed stability
between 2001 and 2014, but also large inequalities within the region with the lowest price levels in
Western Europe, intermediate levels and decreasing in Central Europe, and three times higher levels
and increasing in Eastern Europe. Undernourishment has been very low in recent decades in Central
and Western Europe; in Eastern Europe, although currently stable around 7%, it reached almost 45%
in the early 1990s; and in Central Asia, it has fluctuated and currently reaches 20%. The percentage of
adults who are underweight increased to almost 4% in Central and Western Europe from the late
1990s to the end of the century. During the recession of 2007-2009 daily nutritional intake and the
consumption of nutritious food declined in Eastern and Central Europe, so that after 2008 the
percentage of households with children unable to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish, or a
vegetable equivalent every second day more than doubled in some countries reaching up to 18% in
Greece in 2012 (UNICEF, 2014). Overall food stability is improving: domestic food price volatility is
quite low and relatively stable in the last decades, except for a peak in Eastern Europe in 2005.
However, the food production variability per capita is increasing since 2010, particularly in Eastern
Europe, which might be considered a threat to food security. A global nutrition transition is affecting
the quality of diet in Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 2.56), with rapid increases in the rates of
obesity and overweight (Popkin et al., 2011), which is linked to inefficiencies and waste in the global
food system. In fact, the average fat supply and protein supply are increasing and the former is almost
double in Western Europe than in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, which instead show the largest
index of diet diversification (see Figure 2.56). The prevalence of food over-acquisition is almost 50%
in Western Europe and, although it is lower in the other subregions, it is increasing for these.

182
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

183
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Food security and food sovereignty are threatened by large-scale control of extended tracts of land
by large investment companies (land deals or land grabs) (van der Ploeg et al., 2015). In 2012 there
were 51 documented cases in Europe and Central Asia occupying a total area of 4.4 million ha (see
Figure 2.57): Russia, Ukraine and Romania are the countries with the largest land-grabbed areas
(GRAIN, 2016). Countries from the region are also grabbing land abroad (0.63% of worldwide
croplands), particularly Western Europe countries (0.57% of worldwide croplands). However, official
statistics do not capture the real dimensions of the phenomenon, which leads to crop production
being intensified and oriented to distant markets other than local needs (TNI, 2016). Finally, both food
security and sovereignty are challenged by the loss of agri-food related indigenous and local
knowledge and agrobiodiversity (see Chapter 3 and Box 2.2).

184
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Box 2.2: Custodians of food, seeds and traditions: biocultural diversity – the diversity exhibited
collectively by natural and cultural systems - of people in the Pamir mountains of Tajikistan.

“Lonely, desolate, and inhospitable as these mountains for the most part are, one may still find secluded valleys
cut deep down into the mountain masses where some hardy hill-men till the ground and form villages.”
The remote plains of the Pamir mountains are a challenging place to transform rock into life-giving soil, primarily
rain-fed. Yet, that is what Pamiri people have done over millennia at between 2,000 and 4,000 metres, nurturing
a centre of origin for grain and fruit varieties which have become staple crops all around the world, along with
domesticated varieties of walnuts, apples, pears, apricots and mulberries.

185
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The rich agrobiodiversity of the Pamirs co-evolved with language, culture and spirituality, and as a result of local
cooking traditions. Food embodies the interconnectedness of sustenance, health, spirituality, and ecosystem
structure and function. Baht, a sweet festive porridge of flour and ice water, that is made in celebration of the
new year, Nawruz, exemplifies these interconnections. The isolated Bartang Valley is well-known for the
sweetest tasting Baht, because of a variety of wheat called rush-kakht, which is grown only in the upper reaches
of the valley with the sole purpose to make baht. Women use small amounts of the flour of rush-kakht to bless
the pillars of the house for a productive new year.

186
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This text box is based on van Oudenhoven & Haider (2015).

End of Box 2.2

187
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.3.1.2 Energy security

Energy security has been defined by the United Nations as “access to clean, reliable and affordable
energy services for cooking and heating, lighting, communications and productive uses” and by the
International Energy Agency as “uninterrupted physical availability (of energy) at a price which is
affordable, while respecting environment concerns”. Energy production was highest in Eastern Europe
and lowest in Central Europe in 2014 (see Figure 2.58). For heating, “energy poverty” affects at least
10% of the population and is more likely for low-income groups in the European Union (see Figure
2.60). Energy poverty is more pronounced in Eastern Europe (Dubois & Meier, 2016).
The highest share of bioenergy (biofuels and waste) relative to the total production in the region is
produced in Western and Central Europe. The highest share of hydropower relative to total
production is produced in Western and Eastern Europe. Western Europe is a net importer of fossil
energy carriers (coal, oil products, and natural gas), whereas Eastern Europe is the largest, and Central
Asia the second largest exporter in the region. The net imports or exports by subregion are negligible
for bioenergy (biofuels and waste) and other renewables compared with other energy carriers (see
Figure 2.59).
At the country levels, the trade balance for biofuels in Central Asia and Eastern Europe are mostly
equalized. Net exporters are mostly found in Western and Central Europe, the biggest being The
Netherlands, Latvia and Germany. Similarly, Western European countries also strongly depend on
imports (Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Austria, and Belgium) (see Figure 2.61).
Currently, biomass supplies in the European Union are mostly based on domestic sources (4% of the
biomass for bioenergy imported) (European Commission, 2014a). In scenarios for 2020 and 2030,
biomass for bioenergy may even fill other supply shortages for industry, replacing coal power plants
(Dafnomilis et al., 2017).
In total, the actual contribution of bioenergy to energy security is weakly captured in existing research
(Popp et al., 2014), as the multitude of biomass sources, energy carriers, and conversion pathways
impede tracking of this renewable energy source. In addition, there are not only rather novel
bioenergy carriers such as biofuels, but also woodfuels, which are extensively used, but roughly
estimated in statistics of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. This is especially a
problem for the numerous countries analyzed in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The countries of
Central Asia have a negligible share of bioenergy in their energy supply (see Figure 2.58). However,
given the difficulties of affordable and reliable access, the use of biomass from traditional sources
such as charcoal is weakly accounted for, which might be an indication that the figures underestimated
nature’s contributions to people from bioenergy (biofuels and waste) in this region (IEA/OECD, 2015).

188
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

189
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

190
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.3.1.3 Water security

Water security is assessed here as people’s capacity to safeguard sustainable access to adequate
quantities of water of acceptable quality (UN-Water, 2013). The indicators “percentage of population
with access to improved drinking water sources” and “freshwater withdrawal as percentage of total
renewable water resources” are used to describe general trends for water security in Europe and

191
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Asia. The former identifies adequate water availability of improved quality (World Bank, 2016),
the latter reveals the extent to which long-term available water resources are exploited (FAO, 2016).
Overall, water security has increased in the region since the late 1980s (Animesh et al., 2016; FAO,
2016; World Bank, 2016). Safe drinking water is secured for 95% of the Europe and Central Asian
population, with higher percentages in Western Europe and Central Europe, while Eastern Europe
(95%) and Central Asia (85%) have lower, but increasing access to improved drinking water since 1995
(see Figure 2.62). The trend in per capita water consumption has increased in all regions, due to
increased population, except in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Kummu et al., 2016). On-going water
pollution, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, continues to threaten the availability of safe
drinking water, while decreased water levels in natural reservoirs have led to increased water pollution
(UN-Water, 2011). Freshwater extraction as a percentage of total renewable water resources
decreased between 1993 and 2012 for the Europe and Central Asia region, most notably for Western
Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 2.62). It coincides with a 15% decrease in water availability per
capita since 1990 (see Section 2.2.1.5).
Although water is generally abundant in the European Union, droughts and over-exploitation have led
to seasonal water scarcity in some water basins, especially in densely populated and agricultural areas
(EEA, 2015e, 2016f; Karabulut et al., 2016). Water stress in most countries of the European Union has
decreased slightly since the 1990s, but many areas are considered close to being water scarce (EEA,
2011). In winter, around 6% of the European Union’s population live under waterstressed conditions,
while the figure is 14% in summer (EEA, 2016f). Around 20 river basin districts, including the Danube
basin but mainly in the Mediterranean region, face structural water stress issues (EEA, 2016g), due to
climate change and unsustainable water extraction (Skoulikidis et al., 2017). The spatial coverage of
freshwater ecosystems in the European Union with a good ecological quality, which are crucial for
providing clean water, has decreased from 42% to 32% (see Section 2.2.1.6).

192
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Water security in Western Europe and Central Europe has remained stable since the late 1980s,
despite a 40% and 5% decrease, respectively, in per capita freshwater availability since the 1960s (see
Section 2.2.1.5) and a slight increase in water quality but on-going decrease in water quality regulation
(see Section 2.2.1.6). Water security in Eastern Europe shows mixed but generally increasing trends
since the late 1980s, while per capita freshwater availability has increased by 10% since the 1990s.
Several Danube river sub-basins in Eastern Europe were highlighted as being at risk of becoming
waterscarce (Karabulut et al., 2016).
Central Asia is considered to be facing water scarcity and shows mixed trends since the early 1990s
(Animesh et al., 2016; UNEP & UNECE, 2016). Access to safe drinking water has increased since 1994-
2007, while recent trends for freshwater extraction as a percentage of available water are mixed and
even decreasing (Alexander & West, 2011). This coincides with a mixed, but recent decrease in per
capita freshwater availability since the 1990s (see Section 2.2.1.5). Ensuring water security in Central
Asia depends on the distribution of, and access to, water resources, especially between different

193
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

countries (Abdolvand et al., 2014; Conrad et al., 2016; FLERMONECA, 2015).

2.3.1.4 Food-energy-water security nexus

Water, food and energy systems are characterized by complex interrelations. Energy is required to
process and distribute water; water is central to nearly all forms of energy production; and both
energy and water are key to any food enterprise (Harvey & Pilgrim, 2011; Hussey & Pittock, 2012;
Karabulut et al., 2016). Pursuing one particular security objective (either food or water or energy
security) is sometimes achieved to the detriment of another, reflecting competing claims over limited
natural resources and nature’s contributions to people.
Agriculture intensification in Europe and Central Asia since the early 1950s has contributed
significantly to an increase in the provision of food and feed (see Section 2.2.2.1) and to enhancing
food security (see Section 2.3.1.1). However, it has had severe adverse effects on water security in
many parts of the region (see the example of the Aral Sea in Box 2.3). Intensive agriculture has been
one of the main causes of the pollution (eutrophication and contamination) and overexploitation of
freshwater bodies and the decrease in the extent of floodplains and wetlands (UNEP & UNECE, 2016).
These trends have impaired water quality and quantity regulation (see Sections 2.2.1.6 and 2.2.1.7).
In addition, many of nature’s other regulating contributions to people, especially pollination, erosion,
soil formation and functioning, regulation of flood control; and non-material contributions, such as
traditional farming knowledge, have been negatively impacted by agriculture intensification. Another
major trade-off associated with agricultural intensification concerns climate. Intensive agriculture is
characterized by a loss of carbon in agricultural soil, which impairs its climate regulation capacity and
other contributions from nature to people associated with soil (see Section 2.2.1.4 and Section
2.2.1.8). It also entails increasing emissions of fossil carbon used for mechanization and fertilizer
production, and of greenhouse gases from cattle and nitrogenous fertilizers (see Section 2.2.1.3 and
Section 2.2.1.4). However, over the last 25 years, agricultural intensification has triggered the
abandonment, reforestation and afforestation of former agricultural land, especially in Western
Europe (see Chapter 4). An increase in forest areas was the main cause of a net increase in greenhouse
gas storage in ecosystems in Western, Eastern and Central Europe between 1990 and 2012 (see
Section 2.2.1.4).
Biofuels also pose major potential trade-offs between security objectives. Over the past 15 years, the
European Union policy for renewable energy and its biofuels blending target for transportation fuel
(set at 10% by 2020 in the European Union Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)), have fostered
the production and consumption of biofuel in Western and Central Europe (Sections 2.2.2.2.2 and
2.3.1.2). Biofuel production carries the risk of competing with food production, increasing food prices,
intensifying agricultural land and water use, and harming biodiversity and other contributions from
nature to people (De Fraiture et al., 2008; Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2012; Rulli et al., 2013; Rulli et al.,
2016). Moreover, the potential of biofuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be offset by the
contribution of their production to emissions arising from fertilizers, machinery, and especially land
conversion. Projected change in cropland area within the EU-28 caused by compliance with the 10%
blending target mainly takes the form of less land abandonment (Valin et al., 2015). Nevertheless, the
adverse effects of biofuels vary spatially and depend on the choice of biofuel crop (de Vries et al.,
2010; Eggers et al., 2009; Valin et al., 2015). Biofuel derived from properly managed feedstocks with
much lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels, and which do not compete with food
production (mainly biofuel produced from ligno-cellulosic materials), do not entail negative impacts
on land and water use, biodiversity, or greenhouse gas emissions (Havlík et al., 2011; Tilman et al.,
2009). However, biofuel production in north-western Europe is currently mainly produced from wheat

194
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and maize (for bioethanol), and sugar beet and rapeseed (for biodiesel), which perform rather poorly
for nearly all environmental indicators, as well as for greenhouse gas emissions (de Vries et al., 2010).
Moreover, the European Union 2020 biofuel mandate impacts ecosystems, water and food security
globally through European Union imports. In the scenarios developed by Valin et al. (2015), most of
the land use change resulting from the European Union 10% blending target occurs outside the EU-
28, especially through conversion to oil palm in Southeast Asia.
Box 2.3: The Aral Sea disaster.

The Aral Sea provides clear evidence of how the pursuit of one security objective can be to the detriment of
others. During the Soviet era, pressure on the water resource in the Aral Sea region was mainly due to the
massive development of irrigation for rice and cotton production. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
cotton production was reduced but remained key for generating currency revenues. Besides, irrigated winter
wheat production grew rapidly to gain grain self-sufficiency (Jalilov et al., 2016). In Central Asia as a whole, the
areas under irrigation increased from 4.51 million ha in 1960 to 6.92 million ha in 1980, and to 7.85 million ha in
2000 (Rakhmatullaev et al., 2010). Irrigation systems in the region are highly inefficient with almost half of the
water diverted for irrigation lost before reaching the field. Over 50% of the irrigated soils of the region are
salinized and waterlogged, due to long-term surface irrigation practices (Qi et al., 2012). Changes in the
hydrological cycle caused by the massive irrigation led to a significant decrease of river runoff, changes in the
area of lakes, and rise of groundwater levels. Hydrological changes, including desiccation of the Aral Sea, basin-
wide land-use and land-cover changes, as well as the degradation of the Aral Sea have strongly contributed to
climate change in the region (Lioubimtseva, 2015; Micklin, 2007). Dust storms, with dust contaminated by
fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, and other chemicals; water and wind erosion; widespread land degradation;
water pollution; and frequent droughts have negatively impacted populations’ health (Jensena et al., 1997;
Wiggs et al., 2003), agricultural productivity and economic development in the area (Cai et al., 2003;
Lioubimtseva, 2015). In Central Asia as a whole, access to improved drinking water declined from 57 % in 1990
to 50 % in 2013 (Abdullaev & Rakhmatullaev, 2016). Cai and co-authors (2003) estimate that thirty-five million
people have lost access to the lake’s water, fish, reed beds, and transport functions.
End of Box 2.3

2.3.2 Contributions to physical, mental and social dimensions of health

The recent state of knowledge review coordinated by the World Health Organization and the
Convention on Biological Diversity (WHO & CBD, 2015) provides a detailed global assessment of the
interlinkages between biodiversity and human health. The review explores the evidence base across
three broad areas of human health outcomes – non-communicable diseases, communicable (i.e.
infectious) diseases, and injury – and considers the value of biodiversity to medical science WHO &
CBD, 2015). The role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in supporting human health, and the
health risks arising as a result of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation are also highlighted
by the review.
The linkages between nature and health are of increasing research and policy interest. While research
efforts are increasingly interdisciplinary, there is still a need for greater integration of different fields
of expertise and recognition of the importance of accounting for different forms of knowledge, as with
other aspects of biodiversity policy (Pullin et al., 2016). With this perspective in mind, in addition to
following the literature review methodology of this chapter we also engaged in a process of IPBES-
approved expert elicitation to strengthen the quality of the assessment and literature review. This also
supports a key aim of IPBES, which is to build capacity in this rapidly growing field. The expert
elicitation was based on the consideration of the World Health Organization and Convention on

195
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Biological Diversity literature review and key messages by an expert panel. Further details are
provided in the supporting material Appendix 2.8.
The importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to human health is well established in some
areas of health research, for example with regards to the contribution of biodiversity to contemporary
and traditional medicine (Heinrichs & Jäger, 2015; Payyappallimana & Subramanian, 2015), to food
and nutrition security (Hillel & Rosenzweig, 2008; Hodgkin-Hunter, 2015), and through linkages to
infectious disease risk (Karesh & Formenty, 2015). Traditional medicinal practice has long been based
on preparations derived from wild or domesticated species, and the value of biodiversity is recognized
in contemporary medicinal research, with the development of new pharmaceuticals supported by
bioprospecting and often based on lessons from traditional knowledge (Newman & Cragg, 2016). The
evidence regarding the contribution of biodiversity to food and nutrition security is also well
established. Globally, diets rich in biodiversity (cultivated varieties as well as wild sources such as fish,
fruit, fungi, invertebrates and bushmeat) help to support good nutrition, with many communities
relying heavily on wild biodiversity as a primary source of energy, protein and micronutrients; for
Europe and Central Asia data are limited, but some work has highlighted the cultural and economic
significance of wild foods (Fuchs et al., 2016; Łuczaj et al., 2012; Schulp et al., 2014b). Schulp et al.
(2014b) identified 38 species of game, 27 species of mushrooms, and 81 species of vascular plants that
are regularly hunted, collected and consumed in the European Union, with over 100 million European
Union citizens consuming wild food each year, and argue for greater attention to be given to wild foods
in ecosystem service assessments. There is evidence that dietary diversity may help to reduce the risks
associated with certain non-communicable diseases, though this is moderated by effects of lifestyle
and other socio-economic factors (Hunter-Burlingame-Remans, 2015; Johnston et al., 2014).
Ecosystem change and degradation of natural habitats are identified as risk factors for disease
emergence, though the precise contribution of biodiversity, or its loss, to risk of infectious disease
outbreaks in wildlife, livestock or humans is generally less certain (Ostfeld & Keesing, 2012; Wood et
al., 2017). Biodiversity may reduce disease rise through a phenomenon known as the “dilution effect”,
whereby, in ecosystems where hosts of an infectious agent vary in their ability to transmit an infection,
increased diversity of potential hosts may reduce the risk of disease outbreak. This concept remains
controversial, and any such effect is likely to be highly specific to pathogen, location or geographic
scale (e.g. Randolph & Dobson, 2012; Wood & Lafferty, 2013). Some evidence for the dilution effect in
at least some local contexts has been presented from several studies, mostly from Western Europe
(e.g. Bolzoni et al., 2012; Kedem et al., 2014; Khalil, 2016; Ruyts et al., 2016).
Another area where the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystems and health may be highly
variable is the impact which exposure to nature can have on mental and physical well-being (Horwitz
& Kretsch, 2015; Lee & Maheswaran, 2011; Van Den Berg et al., 2015). The ways in which health is
affected by biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is determined by the nature of specific
social-ecological systems, including the degree and types of interactions between people or their
communities and the natural environment. This highlights the importance of social, economic and
cultural factors in determining the strength and direction of linkages between health and biodiversity
(Clark et al., 2014; WHO, 2017; European Commission, 2016b).
Increased urbanization in Europe and Central Asia poses significant challenges for human health
including a rise in non-communicable diseases associated with modern lifestyles, including obesity and
diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, depression and anxiety disorders, and diseases associated with
pollution (Benziger et al., 2016). Efforts to increase access of urban dwellers to green space and open
countryside may help to address some of these health issues. Scientific review literature shows there
are many potential pathways between exposure to nature or natural spaces and positive health status.

196
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

However, these pathways do not necessarily exist for all persons within any given community, even
where different social groups (differentiated by, for example, age, gender, ethnicity, income level, or
education) have access to, or utilize, common areas of natural space (Hartig et al., 2014; Jackson et al.,
2013; Myers & Patz, 2009). Again, several social, cultural and economic factors are likely to be at play,
and more research is needed in this regard (Clark et al., 2014).
Differentials in the ways in which some communities or groups within wider society (e.g., indigenous
groups, refugees, women, the elderly or poor) experience and interact with biodiversity and
ecosystems may result in differences in the influence of biodiversity and ecosystems on their health
status. There is, thus, potential for group-specific or community-specific dependencies and risks (WHO,
2017; Horwitz & Kretsch, 2015; Jay et al., 2012). Individual groups within a community (defined by, for
example, gender, age, ethnicity, infirmity, engagement in cultural practices) may experience greater
or lesser health benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services, or be at greater or lesser risk of ill
health associated with biodiversity loss and ecosystem change, than others, as a result of a range of
moderating social, economic and cultural factors. Any relationships which can be drawn between
health outcomes and biodiversity or ecosystem services are, therefore, likely to be dependent upon
the ways in which groups or individuals understand, acknowledge or experience their relationship with
the natural environment (Clark et al., 2014).
There is well established evidence from multiple studies that a healthy immune system is supported
by exposure to biodiversity (Rook & Knight, 2015). Exposure to environmental microbiota has been
associated with reduced risks of allergy, chronic inflammation and certain other autoimmune diseases.
A growing body of evidence suggests that interactions between wild microbes and the human
microbiome - the diverse community of microbes present in the intestinal, respiratory and urogenital
tracts, and on our skin – may be key to healthy immune function. Conversely, loss of diversity in human
microbiota, which may be associated with decreased exposure to wild microbes, has been linked to
increased risk of a range of non-communicable diseases, including inflammatory diseases, diabetes
and allergies (Hanski et al., 2012; Ruokolainen et al., 2017).
With so many significant linkages identified between health and biodiversity, and with increased
knowledge of the health risks posed by ecosystem change and biodiversity loss, numerous
opportunities exist for development of integrated policies and practical strategies to realize benefits
for both biodiversity and human health and well-being. Biodiversity conservation provides
opportunities to secure and enhance those ecosystems and ecosystem services that are of particular
relevance to human health outcomes (Romagosa et al., 2015; ten Brink et al., 2016). A review of
national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (see supporting material Appendix 2.8)
examined the extent to which countries in Europe and Central Asia consider nature–human health
linkages. Almost all countries involved in the analysis (covering 93% of those in the region) explicitly
recognized the importance of nature–human health linkages. Only 8% mentioned these linkages in
general terms, while the majority considered key details such as the diversity of linkages, local
specificities, challenges, opportunities and actions. Some countries also mentioned local practice
examples regarding application of health-relevant insights. Most (63%) mentioned both human health
benefits and risks of nature-human linkages, while 6% mentioned only risks and 27.5% only benefits.

2.3.3 Cultural heritage, identity and stewardship

2.3.3.1 Value through use
For different social groups in Europe and Central Asia, nature contributes to cultural heritage, identity
and stewardship through providing opportunities for good quality of life beyond mere survival. It offers

197
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

opportunities for leisure and tourism, maintaining indigenous and local knowledge, and being exposed
to learning, inspiration and spiritual experiences. Evidence suggests that these contributions from
nature to people show increasing trends (see Section 2.2.3).
Nature is in high demand for nature-based recreation activities by people in many parts of the region
(see Section 2.2.3.2.1) (Hausner et al., 2014; Martín-Lopez et al., 2012; Rall et al., 2017) and
preferences for holidays of people in the European Union in the last decade, show an increasing
interest in nature-based tourism (European Commission, 2016a). In addition, the number of visitors to
protected areas increased between 1995 and 2009 in some Western European countries, such as
Spain, Finland and the UK (Figure 2.63).

Recreation and leisure are recognized by urban people as the most important benefits derived from
urban green spaces. Other motivations to visit urban greenspaces include health, psychological well-
being and emotional attachment to the site (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999; Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013;
Haase et al., 2012). Green spaces and ecosystems are also used for formal learning by schools and
universities in many countries in Europe and Central Asia, where outdoor learning provides additional
value for learners and teachers in terms of knowledge and skill acquisition (Mocior & Kruse, 2016).
Indigenous and local knowledge has significant value for some local communities in Europe and Central
Asia. A review of studies in Arctic regions argues that this knowledge plays an important role in land
rights claims (Davis & Wagner, 2003). An in-depth study of resource-users and local organizations
involved in a local fishery in Sweden shows how indigenous and local knowledge can contribute to fish
management and conservation (Olsson & Folke, 2001). Co-production of knowledge by traditional
herders and national park rangers for adaptive nature conservation management of wood-pastures
and salt steppes can also lead to new occupations, like the so-called “conservation herders” (Molnár
et al. 2016). Furthermore, the conservation of indigenous and local knowledge and related landscapes
can support the economic development of rural areas by fostering tourism and consumption of local
products, and contributing to the quality of life of people (Fernández-Giménez & Fillat Estaque, 2012;
Parrotta & Agnoletti, 2007).
However, in many areas of Europe and Central Asia the value of local ecological knowledge has been
eroded with a decline in indigenous and local knowledge. Studies comparing the UK to developing

198
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

countries have argued that indigenous and local knowledge declines as nations become wealthier and
ecological knowledge becomes less valued (Pilgrim et al., 2008). Changes in culture are partly
responsible for the devaluation of indigenous and local knowledge among younger generations, which
consider these traditional practices and knowledge as symbols of poverty or backwardness.
The use of some of nature’s material contributions to people is also strongly connected to values
arising from non-material contributions, which contribute to cultural practices that enhance identity
(see Sections 2.2.3.2 and 2.2.3.3). For example, in many Central and Western European countries,
mushroom collecting is a part of culture and tradition (Hansen & Malmaeus, 2016; Martínez de Aragón
et al., 2011; Stoyneva-Gärtner, 2015). Recreational berry picking is also often a family and cultural
tradition, which has been kept alive during recent decades (Schulp et al., 2014b), mostly in
Scandinavian countries (Kangas & Markkanen, 2001). It has been estimated that 56-58% of households
in Scandinavian countries collect berries for domestic purposes (Jonsson et al., 2002).
Belief systems are a fundamental aspect of people’s culture that strongly influence their engagement
with nature (Groot et al., 2005). Religious or spiritual interactions with nature have been shaped over
decades or centuries, and influence human endeavour directly or indirectly (IPBES, 2015). Many
traditional knowledge systems in Europe and Central Asia depict ecosystems as fully alive,
incorporating spirits of animals and other natural objects and spirits of human ancestors (Berkes et al.,
1998). Pre-monotheistic belief systems integrated elements of nature to give meaning to the world
and humans’ place in it (Verschuuren, 2006). Similarly, myths and related rites have existed in Europe
and Central Asia since the dawn of humanity (see Box 2.4). For a number of local and indigenous
communities in Europe and Central Asia, especially those that have pagan, animistic or shamanistic
roots, land is alive and full of various kinds of energies or life forces and nature's organizing principles
are depicted as entities, spirits or natural law (UNEP, 1999).
Box 2.4: The Cult of Hızır as an Expression of Revering Nature’s cycles.

Seasonal changes are important components of folk calendars throughout the world. In the Turkic world
(including Yakuts, Mongols, Kalmyks, Buryats and Tungusic people in Central Asia), Hıdrellez (known as Ruz-ı Hızır
or day of Hızır) is one of the most important seasonal celebrations and represents the revival of the warm and
productive summer days (Uca, 2007). Based on folk calendar traditions, the year is divided into two, the summer
known as “Days of Hızır” and the winter, known as “Days of Kasım”. Hıdrellez Day falls on May 6 and is the day
on which Prophets Hızır and Ilyas met on the seashore between dry land and water (Artun, 1990).
The awakening of nature is actively celebrated throughout the Turkic world on Hıdrellez day with rites that are
dependent on water (Walker & Uysal, 1973). These ceremonies generally take place in nature, near sources of
water, or near tombs and shrines. In rituals before sunrise on that day, Turks construct, in their gardens, models
of the things they wish for most such as good health, or write their wishes on pieces of paper which are then
either released into rivers and other water bodies or hung on trees (Walker & Uysal, 1973).

199
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Tahtacı Turkmen villagers in the northern Aegean Kaz Mountains line up to wash their face in the early morning
of Hıdrellez to receive health and bounty from the river waters.
Photo: Solmaz Karabaşa
End of Box 2.4

2.3.3.2 Value through protection and beyond use

Different social groups indicate the value of their relationship with nature by expressing their desire to
conserve and protect areas and iconic species that they do not use directly. People can express this
form of value through willingness-to-pay and indications of other preferences for the protection of
species irrespective of actual aesthetic or recreational use (see Section 2.2.3.4).
Protected areas are increasingly valued for their use and recreation potential. European Union people
increasingly acknowledge their importance for eco-tourism and nature-related recreational
experiences and 43% of European Union citizens identified this role of protected areas as very
important (European Commission, 2015a). In addition, visitors to protected areas and UNESCO World
Cultural Heritage Sites around Western and Central Europe have expressed substantial willingness to
pay to enjoy the recreational services provided (Martín-Lopez et al., 2009;), including in Turkey (Gürlük
& Rehber, 2008) and Albania (Seidl, 2014).
A further value of tangible and intangible protected heritage associated with nature is that it helps to
maintain cultural meanings and a sense of identity (Klinar & Geršič, 2014; Tengberg et al., 2012). This
can be based on the tangible material outcomes of cultural activities on landscapes (e.g., wood
pastures, viticulture terraces) as well as individual species that are linked to intangible heritage such
as through myths, legends, and religious practices (Daniel et al., 2012).

200
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The value placed on the protection of tangible heritage linked to nature is shown in UNESCO’s World
Heritage List in 2015, comprising 1,031 properties of which 22% were natural sites (Osipova et al.,
2014). Currently, 23.5% of these protected natural sites are located in Europe and Central Asia, with
an unequal distribution among subregions (see Figure 2.64). Tangible heritage linked to cultural
landscapes in Western, Central and Eastern Europe is also recognized in UNESCO’s “list of cultural
landscapes” (Besio, 2003). 51% of the landscapes in the UNESCO list (i.e. 49 landscapes) are situated
in Europe and Central Asia, but again with uneven distribution among subregions (see Figure 2.65).

Yet, tangible heritage linked to European cultural landscapes is increasingly threatened by land-use
intensification and abandonment (Tieskens et al., 2017) that derive from cultural, political and
economic drivers of change (see Chapter 4) (Plieninger et al., 2016). The decreasing trends of the
cultural and local identity associated with these landscapes, as well as the emotional attachment of
Western and Central European people to these landscapes, is also acknowledged by indigenous and
local knowledge holders (supporting material Appendix 2.2).

201
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is the international agreement
that aims to acknowledge and protect intangible heritage Out of 130 elements of intangible heritage
from countries in Europe and Central Asia currently inscribed on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage
(UNESCO, 2003), 53 are directly linked to nature. They are linked to both the direct use of animals (e.g.
falconry, and horse-riding games) and plants, or draw on the natural environment as a source of
inspiration for songs, poetry and handicrafts.
Despite the value and protection of intangible and tangible heritage linked to nature, it continues to
be threatened. In Western, Central and Eastern Europe, 30% of natural World Heritage sites are of
significant concern (Osipova et al., 2014) and five protected sacred natural sites in Europe and Central
Asia are threatened (one in Central Europe, one in Eastern Europe, two in Western Europe and one in
Central Asia).

2.3.4 Environmental equity and justice

2.3.4.1 Framing equity and justice
Aspects of equity and justice associated with nature’s contributions to people relate to questions of
who benefits from them (Daw et al., 2011; McDermott et al., 2013), who bears the costs of a change
in the provision of these contributions due to trade-offs (Bennett et al., 2009; Howe et al., 2014), who
decides how societies influence the provision of the contributions (Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016), who
is recognized in these decisions (Martin et al., 2016; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017) and whose needs are
fulfilled by nature’s contributions to people (Chan et al., 2012; Jax et al., 2013). Equity is associated
with fairness and justice (Konow, 2003; McDermott et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2010). Fairness is often
defined as the shared, dynamically constructed view of a given social group of distributive justice

202
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Pascual et al., 2010; Schokkaert & Devooght, 2003). The term justice refers here to fundamental moral
rights and obligations. The term equity is used to evaluate comparatively the relationships between
particular groups in society.
Distributive equity and justice focuses on the fair allocation, among individuals within a social group or
among stakeholders, of costs (see Box 2.5) and benefits resulting from any management decision or
action (McDermott et al., 2013). Procedural equity and justice, in the context of the present
assessment, relates to the procedural aspects of decisions on ecosystem management. It is assessed
in terms of the degree of recognition, representation, involvement and inclusiveness in decision-
making of different societal groups, determined e.g. by cultural identities, level of education and
gender (Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016; McDermott et al., 2013; Pascual et al., 2010; Pascual et al., 2014).
Distributive justice and equity regarding the benefits derived from nature’s contributions to people
and harms from a loss of these contributions have a spatial component, as changes in ecosystems
providing them will have uneven geographical impacts linked to where beneficiaries live (Liu et al.,
2016), see Section 2.1.2. There is also a temporal component (Jax et al., 2013) as ecosystem service
utilization today may destroy the basis for future service provision (Section 2.2.3.4).

2.3.4.2 Intra-generational distributive equity and justice

Nature’s material contributions to people are often commodities traded in (global) markets. On the
one hand, distributional equity and justice reflects the distribution of access to markets (UNEP, 2004).
On the other hand, distributive equity and justice are influenced by global patterns in the distribution
of benefits and costs from the production and consumption of nature’s material contributions (such
as biofuels, soy for animal feed, timber, pharmaceutical products from wild and domesticated
biodiversity) (Section 2.2.4).
Whereas access to safe and adequate drinking water is generally well secured in Europe, people in
Central Asia, especially children, bear disproportionate environmental threats to their health due to a
lack of access to safe drinking water – with the Aral Sea region and rural areas in Tajikistan being
specific problem areas (see Section 2.3.1.3) (Carpenter et al., 2006).
Urban green space can provide different regulating contributions such as prevention of urban heat
islands, air quality regulation and noise reduction (Konijnendijk et al., 2013). Its distribution has been
shown to differ across a city resulting in lower access in residential areas with specific ethnic groups
(Comber et al., 2008) or a high proportion of immigrants (Kabisch & Haase, 2014).
Regarding flood regulation and flood protection measures (Section 2.2.1.6), a socio-economic
investigation within the flood plains of England and Wales revealed significant inequalities in the
distribution of flooding risk between the middle classes and less privileged groups (working classes,
unemployed classes) – with inequality being especially influential in exposure to flooding risk within
the tidal flood plains and in the Eastern regions of England (Benzie, 2014; Fielding, 2007, 2012; Walker
& Burningham, 2011).
Nature’s non-material contributions to people, in particular recreation, can be distributed unevenly
across social groups. In the UK protected areas are largely enjoyed by older people and men, while
minorities are underrepresented in the use of protected areas, and hence the more privileged people
benefit (Booth et al., 2010). Access to green space in cities provides opportunities for recreational
experiences, but urban green space is distributed unequally within cities, leading to potential injustice
(Comber et al., 2008; Kabisch & Haase, 2014). Access to green space in cities differs across Europe,
with more green space available to residents in cities in northern, western and central parts of the
European Union than in cities in the south (Kabisch et al., 2016). Access to green recreational areas

203
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

reduced inequality in mental well-being in the Europe Union (Mitchell et al., 2015). In Europe and
Central Asia national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity, several countries mention how
health equality is influenced by human interactions with nature’s contributions and biodiversity see
supporting material Appendix 2.8).
In several countries in Europe and Central Asia, people have public access to forests that provide
recreational experiences, but the uneven distribution of access raises justice issues. A high level (98-
100%) of forests and wooded land were reported in 2010 as available for recreational purposes in
Nordic and some Baltic countries as well as in several Central Europe countries including Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia. Lower levels of availability are found in some Western European
countries such as UK (46%) and France (25%) (Forest Europe, 2015). The free use of some non-timber
forest products is mostly allowed in Nordic countries as well as some other countries with high forest
cover, and allowed to some extent in other countries. In some cases permission or payment is required
(e.g. private forests in Croatia, France, UK, Turkey) (Bauer et al., 2004).
Box 2.5: Human-wildlife conflicts (additional references can be found in supporting material
Appendix 2.3).

Certain species cause human-wildlife conflicts and raise justice concerns in terms of the distribution of their
damages (Jacobsen & Linnell, 2016). Human-wildlife conflicts in Europe and Central Asia are reported related to
carnivores, mainly wolves (Canis lupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos) and European lynxes (Lynx lynx) (e.g. Imbert
et al., 2016; Knarrum et al., 2006; Mattisson et al., 2015; Rigg et al., 2011), although conflicts with meso-
carnivores (e.g. European badgers (Meles meles) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)) are also reported in Western
Europe (Baker et al., 2008; Delibes-Mateos et al., 2013). The most frequent conflicts in Eastern, Central and
Western Europe (no available data for Central Asia) are those related with damage to livestock and domestic
animals (Kovařík et al., 2014), damage to game species (Lozano et al., 2013) and attacks on humans (Sahlén et
al., 2015). Other mammal species, such as moose (Alces alces) and wild boars (Sus scrofa), cause damage to
agriculture and forest plantations (Horne & Petäjistö, 2003; Schley et al., 2008). Many alien insect and mite
species cause nuisances as pests of agriculture, horticulture, stored products and forestry (Kenis & Branco, 2010;
Roques et al., 2009).
End of Box 2.5

2.3.4.3 Intergenerational distributive equity and justice

Intergenerational equity and justice require the maintenance of resilient and productive ecosystems
for the future provision of nature’s contributions to people (Davidson, 2012; Glotzbach &
Baumgärtner, 2012; Jax et al., 2013). This capacity of ecosystems, “maintenance of options”, is
considered an overarching contribution category. Regarding intergenerational equity there are
philosophical and practical arguments for an absolute sufficientarian threshold (Page, 2007), which
defines a minimum level of ecosystem services that every future person is presumed to need for good
quality of life. Regarding intergenerational equity in the distribution of beneficial contributions from
nature to people, the sufficientarian threshold can be translated into a criterion for society to keep a
constant stock of intact ecosystems (Ekins et al., 2003) and a dynamic criterion of ecosystem resilience.
The first criterion has been operationalized by general principles of sustainability (Daly, 1992) and
specified principles, such as sufficiency, efficiency and persistence for the context of nature’s
contributions to people (Schröter et al., 2017). The ecosystem resilience criterion captures the
reliability of future provision of (life-sustaining) contributions. It has been operationalized into policy-
relevant principles for enhancing the resilience of desired contributions, such as maintaining
biodiversity and redundancy (Biggs et al., 2012) and into the concept of safe operating space in the
global context (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). An example of putting intergenerational

204
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

equity into policy practice is the Swedish generational goal which was adopted by the Swedish
Parliament in 2010 (Government of Sweden, 2014). The goal is to pass on to the next generation a
society in which the major environmental problems have been solved, ensuring that ecosystems
recover, biodiversity and the natural and cultural environment are preserved, promoted and used
sustainably.

2.3.4.4 Procedural equity and justice

Distributive justice regarding nature’s contributions to people and biodiversity is linked to historical
injustices, i.e. historically determined unequitable distribution of property rights on which access rights
to nature’s contributions are frequently based (Berbés-Blázquez et al., 2016). Historically, certain
societal groups have been absent from decision-making arenas. Indigenous and local knowledge
holders, such as farmers, indigenous communities, elders and women, are frequently among those
whose participation is not sought or whose perceptions of nature-society relationships might differ
from those who formulate and implement policy. This “procedural inequity” can result in trade-offs
between nature’s contributions to people that contribute to the well-being of some at the expense of
others’ (e.g. Daw et al., 2015). The fact that certain social agents such as indigenous and local
knowledge holders are not represented in decision-making can entail distributional inequity in the
access and use of nature’s contributions to people (Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015) and can result in social
conflicts (Kovács et al., 2015).
The Aarhus convention on access to environmental information promotes public participation in
decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, which can be supportive to procedural
empowerment granted to NGOs (De Santo, 2011). There are, however, large differences in terms of
access to information and participation in decision-making, both nationally and regionally, with
Western Europe being the most advanced (Mauerhofer, 2016). A UK case study shows the importance
of early stakeholder participation: planning proposals not involving stakeholders at an early stage came
to a halt and had to be changed due to stakeholder objections (Lange & Hehl-Lange, 2011).
Procedural justice is also influenced by levels of empowerment defined as “enhancing an individual’s
or group’s capacity to make effective choices, effective in the sense of enabling them to transform
those choices into desired actions and outcomes” (Alsop & Heinsohn, 2005). Key elements of
empowerment are personal agency (the capacity to make meaningful choices) and opportunity
structure (the formal and informal institutional contexts within which actors operate). Ecosystem
management approaches have been shown to contribute to the empowerment of marginalized groups
through increased knowledge and gaining a political voice (Charron, 2012). Deer management in
Scotland through collaborative governance has the potential to help reconcile statutory obligations
with stakeholder empowerment (Davies & White, 2012). In Poland the institutional context of urban
greening has led to social empowerment failures: society perceives other issues as more pressing, trees
are perceived as a problem, and there is a lack of knowledge on the possibilities of preventing tree
damage (Kronenberg, 2015).

2.3.5 Valuing nature’s contributions to people

The importance of nature’s contributions to people can be measured from different value framings,
including economic and socio-cultural value domains (Martín-López et al., 2014; Pascual et al., 2017).
A range of valuation tools can be used to elicit the different aspects of the value of nature’s
contributions to people (Jacobs et al., 2017). Economic approaches are capable of eliciting the

205
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

monetary value of these contributions through market-based approaches (e.g. market pricing) and
non-market approaches (e.g. travel cost method, hedonic pricing or stated preference methods).
Other approaches avoid using monetary calculations and instead elicit both instrumental and
relational values in socio-cultural metrics (e.g. preference assessment, narratives or time use method)
(Jacobs et al., 2017). While economic valuation is often framed in the so-called “total economic value”
framework that captures use and non-use values (Pearce & Moran, 1994), social dominated valuation
examines the importance, preferences or needs expressed by people towards nature (Chan et al.,
2012). IPBES adheres to value pluralism recognizing the multiple and often conflicting valuation
languages to show the multiple ways nature contributes to human well-being (Gómez-Baggethun &
Martín-López, 2015; IPBES 2016). Below, we provide a synthesis of the plurality of values of nature’s
contributions to people across Europe and Central Asia by reviewing value evidence published over
the last decade. In doing so, we advocate a value assessment framework that extends beyond
conventional market-based monetary approaches to also incorporate non-market monetary and non-
monetary socio-cultural values.

2.3.5.1 Market-based monetary values

Market-based monetary values are predominantly focused on nature’s material contributions to
people, for which a value can usually be estimated based on market prices. For example, net profits
from agricultural production (across EU-28 countries) range from $233 / ha / yr (cereals) to $916 / ha
/ yr (mix crop), while the annual gross value added from wood supply in forests was $255 / ha / yr
(Table 2.7). Other market-based monetary values include avoided costs, replacement costs, mitigation
costs, which may also be used to assess a wider range of nature’s contributions to people.
Table 2.7: Values for agriculture and forestry production.

Land Use Measure Mean Min Max

$ (2017) / ha $ (2017) / ha $ (2017) / ha

Cereals1 Net profit 233 5 759

Dairy1 Net profit 718 14 6,443

Mixed crop1 Net profit 916 243 2,870

Sheep and Goats1 Net profit 434 79 8,438

Specialist cattle1 Net profit 381 55 1,320

Forestry (wood supply)2 Gross value added 255 14 891

Notes:

1: Source: Farm Accountancy Data Network (2017) http://www.farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/benchmarking/Default.aspx?module=FADN.

Original data were converted to $ (2017) using appropriate GDP deflators and the average £ to $ exchange rate (2015)

2: Source: Eurostat (2016a). Forests, forestry and logging. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/File:Economic_indicators_for_forestry_and_logging,_2005_and_2013.png#file. Original data were converted to $
(2017) using appropriate GDP deflators and the average € to $ exchange rate (2013).

206
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.3.5.2 Non-market monetary values

Studies reporting the non-market monetary values of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and
Central Asia (supporting material Appendix 2.9) are predominantly focused on Western Europe, with
very little evidence found for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Figure 2.66). There was some evidence
that people in Central Europe have higher (standardized Int $) 22 values for contributions from nature
to people than those from Western Europe (supporting material Appendix 2.9).

Across all countries in Europe and Central Asia, nature’s regulating contributions to people were
generally the most highly valued by people for their non-market benefits (Table 2.8). Regulation of
organisms detrimental to humans (median value = (2017) Int $ 149 / person / yr), regulation of air
quality (2017 Int $127 / person / yr) and regulation of hazardous and extreme events (2017 Int $112 /
person / yr) achieved the highest values. Material and non-material contributions tended to have lower
non-market values, with the exception of material and assistance (2017 Int $171 / person / yr).
Analysis also explored non-market values on a per hectare basis (Table 2.9), although fewer data were
available for these. Again, the highest values were found for nature’s regulating contributions to
people. Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality (2017 Int $1,965 / ha / yr) and habitat
creation and maintenance (2017 Int $765 / Ha / yr). Non-material contributions, such as physical and

22Following the approach adopted by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (TEEB, 2010), we standardized
NCP monetary values to a common currency and base year (International $ 2017). The standardization procedure adjusts
values elicited in a particular currency and year to a standard currency and year using appropriate GDP deflators and
purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates.

207
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

psychological experiences were also highly valued (2017 Int $1,117 / Ha / yr. Across units of analysis,
freshwater systems (2017 Int $867 / Ha / yr) and mountains (2017 Int $603 / Ha / yr) were most highly
valued (supporting material Appendix 2.9).
It should be noted that there was a wide range in the non-market values found for each of nature’s
contributions to people (Table 2.8 and Table 2.9). The range in values reflects differences in both the
scope and size of the contribution evaluated and differences in the methods used to assess the values.
Caution is therefore advised with respect to directly transferring the reported values to other policy
contexts, particularly where the valuation is based on fewer than five observations.
Table 2.8: Value per person of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia (2017 Int
$ / person / year).

All of Europe and Central

Asia Mean Median Minimum Maximum N

1 Habitat creation and maintenance 114.17 41.56 1.88 913.58 59

Pollination and dispersal of seeds

2 53.23 53.23 53.23 53.23 1
and other propagules

3 Regulation of air quality 112.94 127.5 30.37 189.86 9

4 Regulation of climate 104.74 26.41 0.82 420.11 12

5 Regulation of ocean acidification - - - 0

Regulation of freshwater quantity,

REGULATING

6 151.49 46.13 0.19 528.25 8

location and timing
Regulation of freshwater and
7 104.16 65.66 0.15 938.3 51
coastal water quality
Formation, protection and
8 decontamination of soils and 11.81 4.03 0.03 48.33 9
sediments
Regulation of hazards and extreme
9 121.63 112.34 15.07 304.58 8
events
Regulation of organisms
10 144.31 149.91 1.18 281.85 3
detrimental to humans

11 Energy 165.02 75.29 0.78 614.08 10

12 Food and feed 63.26 20.81 0.95 327.35 15

MATERIAL

13 Materials and assistance 280.13 171.41 0.31 777.37 4

Medicinal, biochemical and

14 138.24 33.88 4.45 844.96 11
genetic resources

15 Learning and inspiration 43.16 43.16 43.16 43.16 1

NON-MATERIAL

Physical and psychological

16 111.44 13.57 1.35 1,314.79 51
experience

17 Supporting identities 127.07 53.09 1.06 1,399.6 32

18 Maintenance of options 109.66 79.39 4.34 960.13 53

Supporting material appendix 2.9 provides a list of data sources.

208
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 2.9: Value per hectare of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia (2017 Int
$ / Ha / year).

All of Europe and Central

Asia Mean Median Minimum Maximum N

1 Habitat creation and maintenance 1,387.5 765.98 0.23 15,955.53 22

Pollination and dispersal of seeds

2 . . . . 0
and other propagules

3 Regulation of air quality 289.43 289.43 289.43 289.43 1

4 Regulation of climate 464.53 464.53 61.67 867.38 2

5 Regulation of ocean acidification 0

Regulation of freshwater quantity,

REGULATING

6 27.13 30.71 10.5 40.18 3

location and timing
Regulation of freshwater and
7 3,202.54 1,965.22 1,546.62 6,095.77 3
coastal water quality
Formation, protection and
8 decontamination of soils and 32.32 32.32 4.75 59.89 2
sediments
Regulation of hazards and extreme
9 . . . . 0
events
Regulation of organisms
10 . . . . 0
detrimental to humans

11 Energy . . . . 0

12 Food and feed 112.84 9.63 1.53 327.35 3

MATERIAL

13 Materials and assistance 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 1

Medicinal, biochemical and

14 . . . . 0
genetic resources

15 Learning and inspiration 7.47 7.47 4.62 10.31 2

NON-MATERIAL

Physical and psychological

16 1,473.5 1,117.25 22.33 3,767.95 6
experience

17 Supporting identities 684 658.77 0.71 1,392.52 3

18 Maintenance of options 0.8 0.8 0.65 0.95 2

Supporting material appendix 2.9 provides a list of data sources.

2.3.5.3 Non-monetary values

Studies reporting social-cultural values of nature’s contributions to people in Western Europe and
Central Europe (see supporting material Appendix 2.7) show that non-material contributions (including
physical and psychological experiences and supporting identities) are considered among the most
important contributions by people in Western and Central Europe in non-monetary terms. Food and
feed, an important category of material contributions, is also highly valued in social terms. Among
regulating contributions, habitat maintenance and regulation of freshwater quantity and quality are
also important (Figure 2.67). The highest proportion of research in social valuation of nature’s

209
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

contributions to people in Western and Central Europe was undertaken in mountain grassland areas,
followed by urban and semi-urban areas, cultivated areas and Mediterranean and temperate forests.

2.3.5.4 Integrating values into policy

Nature in Europe and Central Asia is important for making a wide range of contributions to people, to
which they attach value. These values are expressed in multiple dimensions. Conventionally, nature’s
material contributions to people have been valued through market prices. Evidence from Europe and
Central Asia demonstrates that regulating contributions have significant non-market monetary values,
while non-material contributions were demonstrated to be the most valued by people in social-cultural
terms.
Assessments of nature’s contributions to people (for example to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
Sustainable Development Goals should account for this plurality of values. This conclusion goes beyond
the recommendations of TEEB (2010), which focused on the inclusion of non-market monetary values
and concurs with ideas developed in the UK NEA (2011) and IPBES, which highlight the need to include
social, cultural and shared values in decision-making through, for example, deliberation with various
stakeholders (Kenter et al., 2015).
We demonstrate that alternative components of values of nature’s contributions to people are
expressed in different units, and therefore may not be directly compared through, for example,
conventional benefit-cost analysis. Thus, researchers and policymakers require novel approaches to

210
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

integrate value plurality into decision-making (Christie et al., 2012; IPBES, 2016; Kenter et al., 2016; UK
NEA, 2011). One such approach is multi-stakeholder spatial decision analysis (Cerreta & Panaro, 2017).
Good data on the plurality of values of nature’s contributions to people exist for Western Europe, but
are lacking for Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. There needs to be a greater focus on
reporting more standardized per unit values for these contributions, where the units are clearly
specified and can be compared across contributions, as this will facilitate (i) the assessment of the
trade-offs of contributions between competing land uses, and (ii) the aggregation of values of
contributions across the region.

2.4 Relevance to Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development

Goals

Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets can be
evaluated through the nature’s contributions to people concept (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017).
Considering the frequency with which specific contributions are mentioned in the strategies that
contain these two sets of targets and goals, the direct relevance of all contributions is clear (see Figure
2.68). The top 25% most cited contributions across both strategies are the non-material contributions
supporting identities (existence of species and ecosystems, and symbolic meaning of nature), the
material contributions food and feed, and the regulating contributions habitat creation and
maintenance and regulation of water quality (see Figure 2.68) (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017). For
assessing progress towards policy goals and targets, especially Goal 2 (zero hunger) and Goal B of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote
sustainable use) information is required mainly on material contributions, with the latter also requiring
information on regulating contributions. Information on non-material contributions are more equally
needed over a range of goals and targets (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017).
To interpret whether these sustainability goals are likely to be achieved, Figure 2.68 combines the
information depicted with the assessment of each contribution from nature to people (Section 2.2.5).
According to this analysis, Europe and Central Asia is not advancing in enhancing the benefits to all
people from biodiversity and ecosystem services (Strategic Goal D of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020) because of the deteriorating status of many regulating and non-material contributions
from nature to people (Section 2.2.5) and because the unequal access and distribution of contributions
within the region (Section 2.3.4). Finally, because the practices and knowledge of indigenous peoples
and local communities in Western and Central Europe have been eroded since the 1960s, the
achievement of Strategic Goal E of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (enhance
implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building) is
threatened. However, it is worth noting that by including indigenous and local knowledge, the IPBES
Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia respects, and thus contributes to, the achievement
of Aichi Biodiversity Target 18 (traditional knowledge respected).
Regarding the interlinkages between the status and trends of nature’s contributions to people and the
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, it seems that some advances have been made to
accomplish those related to environmental protection (Goals 13-15). Furthermore, the active
contribution of multiple contributions from nature to health is supporting the achievement of Goal 3
(good health and well-being). However, the impact of biofuels and agriculture expansion on increasing
land grabbing rates in other regions of the world and in Eastern Europe and Central Asia due to
Western European consumption (Sections 2.2.4 and 2.3.1.1) jeopardizes the possibility of achieving

211
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Goal 2 (zero hunger), Goal 7 (affordable and clean energy) and Goal 12 (responsible consumption and
production) in Europe and Central Asia. Further, future climate and land-use change are likely to
exacerbate the decrease of water security (Goal 6). In fact, the number of water-stressed countries in
Europe and Central Asia is projected to increase by 2030. Finally, the erosion of indigenous and local
knowledge prevents some people from acquiring the relevant knowledge and skills needed to foster
sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles and, thus, threatens the accomplishment of Goal 4
(quality education).

212
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.5 Knowledge gaps

2.5.1 The unevenness of knowledge of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and

Central Asia
An important conclusion of this chapter’s assessment of the status and trends of nature’s contributions
to people and their influence on quality of life is that, although there are thousands of publications
and reports that are relevant to these contributions in Europe and Central Asia, a much smaller set of
documents actually assess the status and trends of contributions. Furthermore, even fewer consider
relationships between nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life. The studies that do
exist on the status and trends of nature’s contributions to people are also uneven in their coverage of
the different contributions. There are more accurate data on status and trends for material
contributions, especially food and feed, than some regulating and non-material contributions. National
ecosystem assessments often seek to analyze a range of contributions, but many publications and
reports focus on individual ones. Western Europe has the most published literature on the status of
nature’s contributions to people and trends and their influence on the quality of life, contrasting with
a very limited literature for Central Asia. Furthermore, very limited information on the status and
trends in contributions is available for making comparisons between units of analysis since studies
tend to focus on one or a small number of units of analysis. This conclusion, however, should be
considered with caution as this chapter mostly reviewed English-language literature. The uneven
coverage in the existing literature of the different contributions for nature to people and subregions of
Europe and Central Asia represents a key knowledge gap identified by the chapter.
The limited availability of indicators for certain of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and
Central Asia is also a significant knowledge gap. Existing literature suggests indicator development for
monitoring nature’s contributions to people should cover the different components of these
contributions (i.e. capacity, use and value; Section 2.1.2), provide data at multiple scales and address
differences in contributions use based on societal characteristics (Balvanera et al., 2017). However,
according to existing studies the kind of information and indicators that are recommended for
monitoring progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets indicates a bias towards information
related to capacity of nature’s contributions to people (Geijzendorffer et al., 2017). To implement
regional and global assessment programmes of nature’s contributions to people, existing studies
highlight the need for indicator data at national scale for several contributions (Balvanera et al., 2017).
However, there are few indicators suitable and with available data to monitor contributions properly
at the national scale (IPBES, 2017b). This chapter as a whole also confirms there is a knowledge gap
regarding indicators on the use of nature’s contributions to people, demand and governance, which
are less developed for the Europe and Central Asia region than capacity indicators.
Even when data are available, a further knowledge gap is that data and indicators focus on certain
points in time, and evidence on long-term historical and future trends is missing for many of nature’s
contributions to people. For example, for physical and psychological experiences of nature, little
information exists on temporal trends of recreationists and visitors to the different ecosystems and
their related recreational benefits, particularly in marine systems (Jobstvogt et al., 2014; Ruiz-Frau et
al., 2011) and forests (Turtiainen & Nuutinen, 2012). To be able to establish future trends in nature’s
contributions to people, more work on quantitative (e.g. modelling) and qualitative projections of the
impacts of different drivers is needed and a consistency of methods and scenarios would facilitate
comparison, within and across Europe and Central Asia subregions (Section 2.2.6).
Existing analyses of monitoring and indicator development for nature’s contributions to people
identify that this should also take place at the local scale, but local indicators must be consistent with

213
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

those at the regional and international scale in a manner that is integrated with efforts at higher levels
(Balvanera et al., 2017). For particular contributions, such as spiritual experiences or medicinal
resources, methodological development and assessment may fit best to the local scale, due to the
importance of local differences. This chapter has identified that at the local level indigenous and local
knowledge on the interactions between nature’s contributions to people and quality of life should be
considered alongside scientific knowledge and used for setting future management policies. There is a
knowledge gap, however, relating to the recording of indigenous and local knowledge and such
information needs to be collected before it disappears (see Section 2.2.3.1) for its own value and
because it has a role to play in guiding societies towards sustainability.
This chapter has also identified specific knowledge gaps in terms of the availability of indicator data
for status and trends for the following aspects of nature’s contributions to people:
• Indicators of the trends in habitat creation and maintenance; a number of indicators can be
used to evaluate its current state such as some key migratory and breeding species and their
habitat and indigenous and local knowledge can also be used to assess the status and trends
of this contribution from nature to people (see supporting material Appendix 2.2).

• The relationship between water use and water availability; indicator data for freshwater
quantity for Eastern Europe and Central Asia is also lacking.
• Soil quality; encompassing its physical, chemical and biological components.
• Carcass removal by vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers and marine organisms (Donázar et
al., 2016; Martín-Vega & Baz, 2011; Moleón & Sánchez-Zapata, 2015).

• The use of medicinal resources and plants; ethnobotanical research is central to a better
understanding of the medicinal potential of medicinal plants and national measures and
indicators need to become comparable on an international scale, regarding health, ecological,
cultural, legal or socio-economic aspects.

• Wildlife-based tourism; a data gap exists about accurate statistical information on the number
of users developing recreational activities around wildlife (i.e. whale-watching, bird-watching).
• Supporting identities; there is a lack of consensus on suitable indicators but these could be
developed using attitudes towards nature protection and species or ecosystem attributes or
characteristics that are particularly valued for their existence (e.g. iconic, emblematic,
symbolic species)
• Interregional flows of nature’s regulating and non-material contributions to people; especially
between Europe and Central Asia and other regions of the world.
This chapter also highlights some significant knowledge gaps regarding the influence of nature’s
contributions to people on quality of life. In particular, despite a large number of studies on the health
aspects of nature’s contributions to people in Western Europe, there are still knowledge gaps on
nature-human health linkages in Europe and Central Asia and other regions. The current evidence base
needs expanding to illuminate the scope and complexity of biodiversity-health relationships and their
importance to health outcomes. More knowledge is needed on the degree to which social, cultural
and economic factors influence the relationship between biodiversity, nature’s contributions to
people, and human health outcomes including the ways in which socio-economic status, age, gender
and ethnicity can mediate health risks and benefits of nature. Such research can help to illuminate how

214
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

health-biodiversity relationships are framed or understood by different communities or vulnerable

groups.
The analysis of the relationships between nature’s contributions to people and environmental equity
and justice across Europe and Central Asia has to address the different understandings in countries
and communities as to what constitutes equity and justice. Partly because of these differences there
is limited understanding of the plural values of nature’s contributions to people endorsed by different
societal groups and genders. Moreover, there is even less empirical evidence about the inequities
emerging from the different control over and access to these contributions (Bennett et al., 2015). This
knowledge is essential to understand fully how these contributions are likely to contribute to the
quality of life of different societal groups and regions.

2.5.2 The challenges of knowledge generation on nature’s contributions to people

This chapter has indicated that if status and trends in nature’s contributions to people and their impact
on quality of life are to be better understood across Europe and Central Asia, four key changes are
required in approaches to knowledge generation on these contributions.
First, there is a need for agreed methods that allow comparison of results and syntheses. Each of
nature’s contributions to people is often studied and described in different ways and for different units
of analysis, which makes it challenging to summarize status and trends for a region. For example, for
the regulation of water quality, the large uncertainty in measurements and the absence of consensus
on the most appropriate methods for its quantification make its assessment difficult (Clec’h et al.,
2016; Grizzetti et al., 2012).
Second, there is a need for integrative approaches that assess the multiple benefits derived from a
particular contribution from nature to people. For example, it is widely recognized that pollinators and
animal-pollinated plants provide benefits not only as food and feed, but also through medicinal and
symbolic plants, fibres (e.g. cotton), construction materials (e.g. some timbers), aesthetically
significant landscapes (e.g. flower meadows), musical instruments (e.g. bees wax used for violins), and
as sources of inspiration for art, music, literature, traditions, education and technology throughout
Europe and Central Asia (IPBES, 2016). This information on pollinators was compiled for a specific IPBES
assessment on the topic, and such evidence is not available for many other contributions from nature
to people.
Third, there is limited empirical evidence on how individual contribution from nature s to people can
contribute to the different dimensions of quality of life. For example, there is only empirical evidence
in Western Europe about how nature-based tourism can contribute to physical and mental health, but
comprehensive information about its contributions to food security, cultural heritage and identity is
missing for the whole of Europe and Central Asia.
Finally, there is a need for more integrated approaches to the development of knowledge regarding
nature’s contributions to people that involve multiple social actors, including indigenous and local
knowledge holders. For example, in the case of medicinal resources, there is a need for a much more
rigorous multidisciplinary science-driven approach to local and traditional medicines, which also
empowers the local keepers of this knowledge and their users (Leonti & Casu, 2013). More integrated
research approaches would be beneficial to better explore the knowledge and health potential of
medicinal plants. It is essential to ensure that bioprospecting preserves traditional knowledge systems,
and works with local communities in a manner that protects those values and protects habitats and
species. Involving communities in the sustainable use of biodiversity may also provide important

215
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

opportunities for local enterprise, and support the continuance of local cultural traditions. This
requires direct engagement and collaboration between community organizations, biotech and
pharmaceutical industries, national institutes of health and medicine, conservationists, and research
funding agencies.

216
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2.6 References

Abdolvand, B., Mez, L., Winter, K., Mirsaeedi-Gloßner, S., Schütt, B., Rost, K. T., & Bar, J. (2014). The
dimension of water in Central Asia: Security concerns and the long road of capacity building.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(2), 897–912. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3579-9
Abdullaev, I., & Rakhmatullaev, S. (2016). Setting up the agenda for water reforms in Central Asia: Does
the nexus approach help? Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 870. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-
016-5409-8
Acácio, V., & Holmgren, M. (2014). Pathways for resilience in Mediterranean cork oak land use systems.
Annals of Forest Science, 71, 5–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0197-0
Acreman, M., Fisher, J., Stratford, C., Mould, D., & Mountford, J. (2007). Hydrological science and
wetland restoration: Some case studies from Europe. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11,
158–169. http://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-158-2007
Adeishvili, M. (2015). Regional-level analysis of the outcomes of the TEEB scoping studies for the
forestry sectors of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P. J., Cook, M., & Morris, J. (2009). Application of an ecosystem function
framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy, 26(3), 551–557.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011
Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M., Hasler, B., Hasselström, L., Hyytiäinen, K., Meyerhoff, J., Smart
J. C. R, Söderqvist, T., Zimmer, K., Khaleeva, J., Rastrigina, O., Tuhkanen, H. (2013). Public
preferences regarding use and condition of the Baltic Sea - An international comparison informing
marine policy. Marine Policy, 42, 20–30. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.011
Aizen, M. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Cunningham, S. A., & Klein, A. M. (2009). How much does agriculture
depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production. Annals of Botany
103(9), 1579–1588. http://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcp076
Aizen, M. A., & Harder, L. D. (2009). The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower
than agricultural demand for pollination. Current Biology, 19(11), 915–918.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.03.071
Akker, J. van den, Berglund, K., & Berglund, O. (2016). Decline in organic matter in peatsoils. In J. Stolte,
M. Tesfai, L. Øygarden, S. Kværnø, J. Keizer, F. Verheijen, P. Panagos, C. Ballabio, & R. Hessel
(Eds.), Soil threats in Europe. Status, methods, drivers and effects on ecosystem services (pp.39-
54). Luxemburg: JRC Technical Reports.
Alcamo, J., van Vuuren, D., Ringler, C., Cramer, W., Masui, T., Alder, J., & Schulze, K. (2005). Changes in
nature’s balance sheet: Model-based estimates of future worldwide ecosystem services. Ecology
and Society, 10(2), 19.
Alexander, K., & West, J. (2011). Water. In P. Storer, J. Cribb, & K. Hosking (Eds.), Resource efficiency in
Asia and the Pacific (pp 85-104). Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Environment Programme.
Allen, D., Bilz, M., Leaman, D. J., Miller, R. M., Timoshyna, A., & Window, J. (2014). European red list of
medicinal plants. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2779/907382
Allen, K. A., Lehsten, V., Hale, K., & Bradshaw, R. (2016). Past and future drivers of an unmanaged
carbon sink in European temperate forest. Ecosystems, 19(3), 545–554.

217
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9950-1
Alsop, R., & Heinsohn, N. (2005). Measuring empowerment in practice: Structuring analysis and
framing indicators. Retrieved from https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-
3510#
Angelstam, P., Grodzynskyi, M., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Khoroshev, A., Kruhlov, I.,
& Naumov, V. (2013). Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of
ecosystem services: Landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. Ambio, 42(2), 129–145.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0368-0
Anić, I., Meštrović, S., & Matić, S. (2012). Important events in the history of forestry in Croatia. Sumarski
List, 136(3–4), 169–177.
Animesh, K. G., Carlo, G., & Yoshihide, W. (2016). Measuring global water security towards sustainable
development goals. Environmental Research Letters, 11(12), 124015.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124015
APCOR. (2009). Anuário. Yearbook. Retrieved from http://www.apcor.pt/en/portfolio-posts/apcor-
year-book-2009/
April, W. G., Carvell, A. C., Isaac, N., Jitlal, M., Peyton, J., Powney, G., Roy, D., Vanbergen, A., O’Connor,
R., Jones, C., Kunin, B., Breeze, T., Garratt, M., Potts, S., Harvey, M., Ansine, J., Comont, R., Lee,
P., Edwards, M., Roberts, S., Morris, R, Musgrove, A., Brereton, T., Hawes, C, & Roy, H. (2016).
Design and testing of a national pollinator and pollination monitoring framework.
Aps, R., Sharp, R., & Kutunova, T. (2004). Freshwater fisheries in Central and Eastern Europe: overview
report. R. Aps, R. Sharp, & T. Kutunova (Eds.). Warsaw, Poland: IUCN.
Araújo, R. M., Assis, J., Aguillar, R., Airoldi, L., Bárbara, I., Bartsch, I., Bekkby, T., Christie, H., Davoult,
D., Derrien-Courtel, S., Fernandez, C., Fredriksen, S., Gevaert, F., Gundersen, H., Le Gal, A.,
Lévêque, L., Mieszkowska, N., Norderhaug, K. M., Oliveira, P., Puente, A., Rico, J. M., Rinde, E.,
Schubert, H., Strain, E. M., Valero, M., Viard, F, & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2016). Status, trends and drivers
of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(7), 1319–1348.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1141-7
Armson, D., Stringer, P., & Ennos, A. R. (2012). The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe
temperatures in an urban area. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(3), 245–255.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.05.002
Arriaza, M., Cañas-Ortega, J. F., Cañas-Madueño, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual
quality of rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 115–125.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.029
Arrigo, K. R., van Dijken, G., & Pabi, S. (2008). Impact of a shrinking Arctic ice cover on marine primary
production. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(19), L19603.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL035028
Artun, E. (1990). Tekirdağ’da Hıdrellez Geleneği. Halk Kültüründen Derlemeler [The Hidrellez Tradition
in Tekirdağ. Collections from Folk Culture]. Hıdrellez Özel Sayısı [Hıdrellez Special Issue], 1–23.
Asam, C., Hofer, H., Wolf, M., Aglas, L., & Wallner, M. (2015). Tree pollen allergens - An update from a
molecular perspective. Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 70(10),
1201–1211. http://doi.org/10.1111/all.12696
Azcarate, F. M., Robleño, I., Seoane, J., Manzano, P., & Peco, B. (2013). Drove roads as local biodiversity

218
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

reservoirs: effects on landscape pattern and plant communities in a Mediterranean region.

Applied Vegetation Science, 16, 480–490. http://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12003
Baker, S. E., Ellwood, S. A., Slater, D., Watkins, R. W., & Macdonald, D. W. (2008). Food aversion plus
odor cue protects crop from wild mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(3), 785–791.
http://doi.org/10.2193/2005-389
Balmford, A., Green, J. M. H., Anderson, M., Beresford, J., Huang, C., Naidoo, R., Walpole, M., & Manica,
A. (2015). Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas.
PLoS Biology, 13(2), e1002074. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074
Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Karp, D. S., Ash, N., Bennett, E. M., Boumans, R., Brown, C., Chan, K. M. A.,
Chaplin-Kramer, R., Halpern, B. J., Honey-Rosés, J., Kim, C.-K., Cramer, W., Martínez-Harms, M. J.,
Mooney, H., Mwampamba, T., Nel, J., Polasky, S., Reyers, B., Roman, J., Turner, W., Scholes, R. J.,
Tallis, H., Thonicke, K., Villa, F., Walpole, M., & Walz, A. (2017). Ecosystem services. In M. Walters
& R. J. Scholes (Eds.), The GEO handbook on biodiversity observation networks (pp. 39–78). Cham:
Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27288-7_3
Barata, A. M., Rocha, F., Lopes, V., & Carvalho, A. M. (2016). Conservation and sustainable uses of
medicinal and aromatic plants genetic resources on the worldwide for human welfare. Industrial
Crops and Products, 88, 8–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.02.035
Baró, F., Chaparro, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Langemeyer, J., Nowak, D. J., & Terradas, J. (2014).
Contribution of ecosystem services to air quality and climate change mitigation policies: The case
of urban forests in Barcelona, Spain. Ambio, 43(4), 466–479. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-
0507-x
Baró, F., Palomo, I., Zulian, G., Vizcaino, P., Haase, D., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2016). Mapping
ecosystem service capacity, flow and demand for landscape and urban planning: A case study in
the Barcelona metropolitan region. Land Use Policy, 57, 405–417.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.006
Barua, M. (2011). Mobilizing metaphors: The popular use of keystone, flagship and umbrella species
concepts. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(7), 1427–1440. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-
0035-y
Bauer, J., Kniivilä, M., & Schmithüsen, F. (2004). Forest legislation in Europe: How 23 countries
approach the obligation to reforest, public access and use of non-wood forest products. Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations.
Beasley, D. W. C., McAuley, A. J., & Bente, D. A. (2015). Yellow fever virus: Genetic and phenotypic
diversity and implications for detection, prevention and therapy. Antiviral Research, 115, 48–70.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2014.12.010
Beaumont, N. J., Austen, M. C., Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T. P., Derous, S., Holm,
P., Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A. H., Starkey, D. J., Townsend, M., & Zarzycki, T. (2007).
Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine
biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(3), 253–265.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.003
Beck, M. W., Heck, K. L., Able, K. W., Childers, D. L., & Eggleston, D. B., Gillanders, B. M., Halpern, B.,
Hays, C. G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T. J., Orth, R. J., Sheridan, P. F., & Weinstein, M. P. (2001). The
identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and
invertebrates: A better understanding of the habitats that serve as nurseries for marine species

219
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and the factors that create site-specific variability in nursery quality will improve conservation
and management of these areas. Bioscience, 51(8), 633-641. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2
Bell, S., Fox-Kämper, R., Keshavarz, N., Benson, M., Caputo, S., Noori, S., & Voigt. A. (Eds.). (2016).
Urban allotment gardens in Europe. London, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.
Bell, S., Tyrväinen, L., Sievänen, T., Pröbstl, U., & Simpson, M. (2007). Outdoor recreation and nature
tourism: A European perspective. Living Reviews in Landscape Research, 1(2).
http://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-2
Bendt, P., Barthel, S., & Colding, J. (2013). Civic greening and environmental learning in public-access
community gardens in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 18–30.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.003
Bennett, E. M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Cundill, G., Díaz, S., Egoh, B. N., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Krug, C.
B., Lavorel, S., Lazos, E., Lebel, L., Martín-López, B., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H. A., Nel, J. L., Pascual,
U., Payet, K., Harguindeguy, N. P., Peterson, G. D., Prieur-Richard, A. -H., Reyers, B., Roebeling,
P., Seppelt, R., Solan, M., Tschakert, P., Tscharntke, T., Turner, B. L., Verburg, P. H., Viglizzo, E. F.,
White, P. C. L., & Woodward, G. (2015). Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-
being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 14, 76–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple
ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394–1404. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-
0248.2009.01387.x
Bentsen, N. S., & Felby, C. (2012). Biomass for energy in the European Union - a review of bioenergy
resource assessments. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 5, 25. http://doi.org/10.1186/1754-6834-5-25
Benzie, M. (2014). Social justice and adaptation in the UK. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 39.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06252-190139
Benziger, C. P., Roth, G. A., & Moran, A. E. (2016). The global burden of disease study and the
preventable burden of NCD. Global Heart, 11(4), 393–397.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gheart.2016.10.024
Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach
that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134–
143. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003
Berkes, F., Kislalioglu, M., Folke, C., & Gadgil, M. (1998). Exploring the basic ecological unit: Ecosystem-
like concepts in traditional societies. Ecosystems, 1(5), 409–415.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900034
Bernstein, A. (2015). Biodiversity and biomedical discovery. In WHO & CBD, Connecting global
priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 164-169).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Berthold, P., Fiedler, W., Schlenker, R., & Querner, U. (1998). 25-year study of the population
development of Central European songbirds: A general decline, most evident in long-distance
migrants. Naturwissenschaften 85, 350–353. http://doi.org/10.1007/s001140050514
Bertocci, I., Araújo, R., Oliveira, P., & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2015). Potential effects of kelp species on local
fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1216–1226. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12483

220
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Besio, M. (2003). Conservation planning: The European case of rural landscapes. In Cultural landscapes:
The challenges of conservation (pp. 60–68). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T. M., Evans,
L. S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A. M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Robards, M. D.,
Schoon, M. L., Schultz, L., & West, P. C. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of
ecosystem services. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 421–448.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836
Bioforsk. (2012). The Norwegian seaweed industry.
Bizikova, L., Nijnik, M., & Kluvankova-Oravska, T. (2012). Sustaining multifunctional forestry through
the developing of social capital and promoting participation: A case of multiethnic mountain
communities. Small-Scale Forestry, 11(3), 301–319. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9185-8
Blackwell, M. S. A., & Pilgrim, E. S. (2011). Ecosystem services delivered by small-scale wetlands.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(8), 1467–1484. http://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.630317
Blanco, G. (2014). Can livestock carrion availability influence diet of wintering red kites? Implications
of sanitary policies in ecosystem services and conservation. Population Ecology, 56(4), 593–604.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-014-0445-2
Bocharnikov, V., Laletin, A., Angelstam, P., Domashov, I., Elbakidze, M., Kaspruk, O., Sayadyan, H.,
Solovyi, I., Shukurov, E., Urushadze, T. (2012). Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. In
J. Parrotta & R. Trosper (Eds.), Traditional forest-related knowledge (pp. 251–279). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2144-9_7
Boerema, A., Rebelo, A. J., Bodi, M. B., Esler, K. J., & Meire, P. (2017). Are ecosystem services
adequately quantified? Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(2), 358-370. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12696
Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29(2),
293–301. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00013-0
Bolzoni, L., Rosà, R., Cagnacci, F., & Rizzoli, A. (2012). Effect of deer density on tick infestation of
rodents and the hazard of tick-borne encephalitis. II: Population and infection models.
International Journal for Parasitology, 42(4), 373–381.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpara.2012.02.006
Bombelli, P., Howe, C. J., & Bertocchini, F. (2017). Polyethylene bio-degradation by caterpillars of the
wax moth Galleria mellonella. Current Biology, 27(8), R292–R293.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.060
Booth, J. E., Gaston, K. J., & Armsworth, P. R. (2010). Who benefits from recreational use of protected
areas? Ecology and Society, 15(3), 19.
Borrelli, P., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., & Montanarella, L. (2014). Wind erosion susceptibility of European
soils. Geoderma, 232–234, 471–478. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.06.008
Borucke, M., Moore, D., Cranston, G., Gracey, K., Iha, K., Larson, J., Lazarus, E., Morales, J. C.,
Wackernagel, M., & Galli, A. (2013). Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere’s
regenerative capacity: The national footprint accounts’ underlying methodology and framework.
Ecological Indicators, 24, 518–533. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.005
Bostedt, G., Mustonen, M., & Gong, P. (2016). Increasing forest biomass supply in northern Europe –
countrywide estimates and economic perspectives. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,

221
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

31(3), 314–322. http://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2015.1089930

Boström, C., Baden, S., Bockelmann, A. -C., Dromph, K., Fredriksen, S., Gustafsson, C., Krause-Jensen,
D., Möller, T., Nielsen, S. L., Olesen, B., Olsen, J., Pihl, L., & Rinde, E. (2014). Distribution, structure
and function of Nordic eelgrass (Zostera marina) ecosystems: implications for coastal
management and conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Systems, 24, 410–
434. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2424
Bottalico, F., Chirici, G., Giannetti, F., De Marco, A., Nocentini, S., Paoletti, E., Salbitano, F., Sanesi, G.,
Serenelli, C., & Travaglini, D. (2016). Air pollution removal by green infrastructures and urban
forests in the city of Florence. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 243–251.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.099
Boudouresque, C. F., Bernard, G., Pergent, G., Shili, A., & Verlaque, M. (2009). Regression of
Mediterranean seagrasses caused by natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances and
stress: A critical review. Botanica Marina, 52(5), 395-418. http://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2009.057
Bouget, C., Lassauce, A., & Jonsell, M. (2012). Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity — a review
focused on the situation in Europe. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42(8), 1421–1432.
http://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-078
Bouraoui, F., & Grizzetti, B. (2014). Modelling mitigation options to reduce diffuse nitrogen water
pollution from agriculture. Science of the Total Environment, 468-469, 1267–1277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.066
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence
for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10,
456. http://doi.org/10.1186/147-2458-10-456
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Sodhi, N. S., Peh, K. S. H., & Brook, B. W. (2007). Global evidence that deforestation
amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global Change Biology, 13(11), 2379–
2395. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x
Breckle, S. W., & Wucherer, W. (2006). Vegetation of the Pamir (Tajikistan): Land use and
desertification problems. In E. Spehn, C. Körner, & M. Liberman (Eds.), Land-use change and
mounatin biodiversity (pp. 239–251). Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Breeze, T. D., Vaissière, B. E., Bommarco, R., Petanidou, T., Seraphides, N., Kozák, L., Scheper, J.,
Biesmeijer, J. C., Kleijn, D., Gyldenkærne, S., Moretti, M., Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Stout, J. C., Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., & Potts, S. G. (2014). Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee
pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e82996.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082996
Breuste, J. H., & Artmann, M. (2015). Allotment gardens contribute to urban ecosystem service: Case
study Salzburg, Austria. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3), A5014005.
http://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000264
Brooks, T. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Juffe-
Bignoli, D., Kingston, N., MacSharry, B., Parr, M., Perianin, L., Regan, E. C., Rodrigues, A. S. L.,
Rondinini, C., Shennan-Farpon, Y., & Young, B. E. (2016). Analysing biodiversity and conservation
knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.7
Buapet, P., Gullström, M., & Björk, M. (2013). Photosynthetic activity of seagrasses and macroalgae in
temperate shallow waters can alter seawater pH and total inorganic carbon content at the scale

222
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of a coastal embayment. Marine and Freshwater Research, 64(11), 1040–1048.

http://doi.org/10.1071/MF12124
Bugalho, M. N., Caldeira, M. C., Pereira, J. S., Aronson, J., & Pausas, J. G. (2011). Mediterranean cork
oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 9(5), 278–286. http://doi.org/10.1890/100084
Buhlmann, E., Wolfgramm, B., Maselli, D., Hurni, H., Sanginov, S. R., & Liniger, H. P. (2010). Geographic
information system-based decision support for soil conservation planning in Tajikistan. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 65(3), 151–159. http://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.65.3.151
Bukvareva, E. N., Grunewald, K., Bobylev, S. N., Zamolodchikov, D. G., Zimenko, A. V., & Bastian, O.
(2015). The current state of knowledge of ecosystems and ecosystem services in Russia: A status
report. Ambio, 44(6), 491–507. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0674-4
Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., & Müller, F. (2014). Ecosystem service potentials, flows and
demands-concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landscape Online, 34(1),
1–32. http://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201434
Buyck, C., Dudley, N., Furuta, N., Pedrot, C., Renaud, F., & Sudmeier-Rieux, K. (2015). Protected areas
as tools for disaster risk reduction. A handbook for practitioners.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703993104
Çağlarirmak, N. (2011). Edible mushrooms: An alternative food item. Proceedings of the 7th
international conference on mushroom biology and mushroom products, 548–554.
Cai, X., McKinney, D., & Rosegrant, M. (2003). Sustainability analysis for irrigation water management
in the Aral Sea region. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 1043–1066. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-
521X(02)00028-8
Camps-Calvet, M., Langemeyer, J., Calvet-Mir, L., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2015). Ecosystem services
provided by urban gardens in Barcelona, Spain: Insights for policy and planning. Environmental
Science & Policy, 62, 14–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.007
Capriel, P. (2013). Trends in organic carbon and nitrogen contents in agricultural soils in Bavaria (south
Germany) between 1986 and 2007. European Journal of Soil Science, 64, 445–454.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12054
Caraveli, H. (2000). A comparative analysis on intensification and extensification in Mediterranean
agriculture: Dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 231–242.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00050-9
Carlsson, J., Eriksson, L. O., Ohman, K., & Nordstrom, E.-M. (2015). Combining scientific and
stakeholder knowledge in future scenario development - A forest landscape case study in
northern Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 61, 122–134.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.008
Carmona, C. P., Azcárate, F. M., Oteros-rozas, E., González, J. A., & Peco, B. (2013). Assessing the effects
of seasonal grazing on holm oak regeneration: Implications for the conservation of
Mediterranean dehesas. Biological Conservation, 159, 240–247.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.015
Carpenter, D. O., El-Qaderi, S., Fayzieva, D., Gilani, A. H., Hambartsumyan, A., Herz, K., Isobaev,
M., Kasymov, O., Kudyakov, R., Majitova, Z., Mamadov, E., Nemer, L., Revich, B., Stege, P., Suk,
W., Upshur, R., Yilmaz, B., & Zaineh, K. (2006). Children’s environmental health in Central Asia
and the Middle East. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 12(4), 362–

223
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

368. http://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2006.12.4.362
Carpenter, G., Kleinjans, R., Villasante, S., & O’Leary, B. C. (2016). Landing the blame: The influence of
EU Member States on quota setting. Marine Policy, 64, 9–15.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.001
Carrete, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J. A., Benitez, J. R., Lobon, M., & Donazar, J. A. (2009). Large scale risk-
assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor.
Biological Conservation, 142(12), 2954-2961. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.027
Carvalho, A. M., & Frazão-Moreira, A. (2011). Importance of local knowledge in plant resources
management and conservation in two protected areas from Trás-os-Montes, Portugal. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7, 36. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-7-36
Carvalho, A. M., & Morales, R. (2010). Persistence of wild food and wild medicinal plant knowledge in
a northeastern region of Portugal. In M. Pardo de Santayana, A. Pieroni, & R. Puri (Eds.),
Ethnobotany in the new era: People, health and wild plant resources (pp. 147–171). New York,
USA and Oxford, UK: Bergham.
Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., & Onaindia, M. (2013). Perception, demand and user contribution
to ecosystem services in the Bilbao metropolitan greenbelt. Journal of Environmental
Management, 129, 33–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059
Casal, G., Sánchez-carnero, N., Sánchez-rodríguez, E., & Freire, J. (2011). Estuarine, coastal and shelf
science remote sensing with SPOT-4 for mapping kelp forests in turbid waters on the south
European Atlantic shelf. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 91(3), 371–378.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2010.10.024
Casalegno, S., Inger, R., DeSilvey, C., & Gaston, K. J. (2013). Spatial covariance between aesthetic value
& other ecosystem Services. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e68437.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068437
Causarano, H. J., Doraiswamy, P. C., Muratova, N., Pachikin, K., McCarty, G. W., Akhmedov, B., &
Williams, J. R. (2011). Improved modeling of soil organic carbon in a semiarid region of Central
East Kazakhstan using EPIC. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(2), 275–286.
http://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010028
Cerreta, M., & Panaro, S. (2017). From perceived values to shared values: A multi-stakeholder spatial
decision analysis (M-SSDA) for resilient landscapes. Sustainability, 9(7), 1113.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su9071113
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address
and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Chaplin-Kramer, R., Dombeck, E., Gerber, J., Knuth, K. A., Mueller, N. D., Mueller, M., Ziv, G., & Klein,
A. -M. (2014). Global malnutrition overlaps with pollinator-dependent micronutrient production.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1794), 20141799.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1799
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andren, H., Lopez-Bao, J. V., Adamec,
M., Alvares, F., Anders, O., Bal iauskas, L., Balys, V., Bed , P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser,
U., Broseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjager, C., Groff, C.,
Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremi , J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola,
I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Maji , A., Mannil, P.,

224
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mys ajek, R. W.,
Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunovi , M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette,
P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbin ek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson,
J. E., Szemethy, L., Trajce, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Va a, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P.,
Wolfl, M., Wolfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., & Boitani, L. (2014). Recovery of large
carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346(6216), 1517–1519.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553
Charron, D. F. (2012). Ecosystem approaches to health for a global sustainability agenda. EcoHealth,
9(3), 256–266. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0791-5
Cheminée, A., Sala, E., Pastor, J., Bodilis, P., Thiriet, P., Mangialajo, L., Cottalorda, J. -M., & Francour, P.
(2013). Nursery value of Cystoseira forests for Mediterranean rocky reef fishes. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 442, 70–79.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.02.003
Cheung, W. W. L., Pinnegar, J., Merino, G., Jones, M.C. and Barange, M. (2012). Review of climate
change impacts on marine fisheries in the UK and Ireland. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
22(3), 368–388. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2248
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning,
68(1), 129–138. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Chmura, D. J., Howe, G. T., Anderson, P. D., & St Clair, J. B. (2010). Adaptation of trees, forests and
forestry to climate change. Sylwan, 154(9), 587–602.
Christanell, A., Vogl-Lukasser, B., Vogl, C., & Gütler, M. (2010). The cultural significance of wild gathered
plant species in Kartitsch (eastern Tyrol, Austria) and the influence of socio-economic changes on
local gathering practices. In M. Pardo-de-Santayana, A. Pieroni, & R. K. Puri (Eds.), Ethnobotany
in the new Europe: People, health, and wild plant resources. (pp. 51–75). New York, USA:
Berghahn Books.
Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., & Kenter, J. O. (2012). An evaluation of monetary and non-
monetary techniques for assessing the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services to
people in countries with developing economies. Ecological Economics, 83, 67–78.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.012
Ciais, P., Schelhaas, M. J., Zaehle, S., Piao, S. L., Cescatti, A., Liski, J., Luyssaert, S., Le-Maire, G., Schulze,
E. -D., Bouriaud, O., Freibauer, A., Valentini, R., Nabuurs, G. J. (2008). Carbon accumulation in
European forests. Nature Geosciences, 16(4), 1555–1574. http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo233
Ćirović, D., Penezić, A., & Krofel, M. (2016). Jackals as cleaners: Ecosystem services provided by a
mesocarnivore in human-dominated landscapes. Biological Conservation, 199, 51–55.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.027
Clark, N. E., Lovell, R., Wheeler, B. W., Higgins, S. L., Depledge, M. H., & Norris, K. (2014). Biodiversity,
cultural pathways, and human health: A framework. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29(4), 198–
204. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.01.009
Clec’h, S. Le, Oszwald, J., Decaens, T., Desjardins, T., Dufour, S., Grimaldi, M., Jegou, N., & Lavelle, P.
(2016). Mapping multiple ecosystem services indicators: Toward an objective-oriented approach.
Ecological Indicators, 69, 508–521. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.021
Colding, J., Barthel, S., Bendt, P., Snep, R., van der Knaap, W., & Ernstson, H. (2013). Urban green
commons: Insights on urban common property systems. Global Environmental Change-Human

225
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and Policy Dimensions, 23(5), 1039–1051. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.006

Comber, A., Brunsdon, C., & Green, E. (2008). Using a GIS-based network analysis to determine urban
greenspace accessibility for different ethnic and religious groups. Landscape and Urban Planning,
86(1), 103–114. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.01.002
Conrad, C., Kaiser, B. O., & Lamers, J. P. A. (2016). Quantifying water volumes of small lakes in the inner
Aral Sea Basin, Central Asia, and their potential for reaching water and food security.
Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 952. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5753-8
Cordier, M., Pérez Agúndez, J. A., O’Connor, M., Rochette, S., & Hecq, W. (2011). Quantification of
interdependencies between economic systems and ecosystem services: An input-output model
applied to the Seine estuary. Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1660–1671.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.009
Cornwall, C. E., Hepburn, C. D., McGraw, C. M., Currie, K. I., Pilditch, C. A., Hunter, K. A., Boyd, P. W., &
Hurd, C. L. (2013). Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying
macroalga to ocean acidification. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
280(1772), 20132201. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2201
Cornwall, C. E., Pilditch, C. A., Hepburn, C. D., & Hurd, C. L. (2015). Canopy macroalgae influence
understorey corallines’ metabolic control of near-surface pH and oxygen concentration. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 525, 81–95. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps11190
Cornwall, C. E., Revill, A. T., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Milazzo, M., Raven, J. A., & Hurd, C. L. (2017). Inorganic
carbon physiology underpins macroalgal responses to elevated CO2. Scientific Reports, 7, 46297.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep46297
Cunha, S. (1997). Hunting of rare and endangered fauna in the mountains of post-Soviet Central Asia.
Proceedings of the Eighth International Snow Leopard Symposium, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Dafnomilis, I., Hoefnagels, R., Pratama, Y. W., Schott, D. L., Lodewijks, G., & Junginger, M. (2017).
Review of solid and liquid biofuel demand and supply in northwest Europe towards 2030 – A
comparison of national and regional projections. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 78,
31–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.108
Daly, H. E. (1992). Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and
sustainable. Ecological Economics, 6(3), 185–193.
Daniel, T. C. (2001). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In S. R. J. Sheppard, & H. W.
Harshaw (Eds.), Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics (pp. 15–29).
Wallingford, UK: Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International.
http://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995007.0015
Daniel, T. C., Muhar, A., Arnberger, A., Aznar, O., Boyd, J. W., Chan, K. M. A., Costanza, R., Elmqvist, T.,
Flint, C. G., Gobster, P. H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lave, R., Muhar, S., Penker, M., Ribe, R. G.,
Schauppenlehner, T., Sikor, T., Soloviy, I., Spierenburg, M., Taczanowska, K., Tam, J., & von der
Dunk, A. (2012). Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(23), 8812–8819.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114773109
Davidson, M. D. (2012). Distributive justice in the international regulation of global ecosystem services.
Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 852–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.004
Davies, A. L., & White, R. M. (2012). Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling
stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental

226
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Management, 112, 160–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032

Davis, A., & Wagner, J. R. (2003). Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when
researching local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology, 31(3), 463–489.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025075923297
Daw, T., Brown, K., Rosendo, S., & Pomeroy, R. (2011). Applying the ecosystem services concept to
poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environmental Conservation,
38(4), 370-379. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892911000506
Daw, T. M., Coulthard, S., Cheung, W. W. L., Brown, K., Abunge, C., Galafassi, D., Peterson, G.
D., McClanahan, T. R., Omukoto, J. O., & Munyi, L. (2015). Evaluating taboo trade-offs in
ecosystems services and human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 112(22), 6949-6954. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414900112
Dawson, R. J., Dickson, M. E., Nicholls, R. J., Hall, J. W., Walkden, M. J. A., Stansby, P. K., Mokrech, M.,
Richards, J., Zhou, J., Milligan, J., Jordan, A., Pearson, S., Rees, J., Bates, P. D., Koukoulas, S., &
Watkinson, A. R. (2009). Integrated analysis of risks of coastal flooding and cliff erosion under
scenarios of long term change. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 249–288.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9532-8
De Fraiture, C., Giordano, M., & Liao, Y. (2008). Biofuels and implications for agricultural water use:
blue impacts of green energy. Water Policy, 10, 67-81. http://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.054
de Knegt, B. (Ed.). (2014). Graadmeter diensten van n atuur: Vraag, aanbod, gebruik en trend van
goederen en diensten uit ecosystemen in Nederland [Indicating services from nature: Demand,
supply, use and trends of goods and services from ecosystems in The Netherlands].
De Santo, E. M. (2011). Environmental justice implications of maritime spatial planning in the European
Union. Marine Policy, 35(1), 34–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.005
De Schutter, O. (2014). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter: Final
report: The transformative potential of the right to food.
de Vries, S. C., van de Ven, G. W. J., van Ittersum, M. K., & Giller, K. E. (2010). Resource use efficiency
and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation
conversion techniques. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34(5), 588–601.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.001
Deinet, S., Ieronymidou, C., McRae, L., Burfield, I. J., Foppen, R. P. Collen, B., & Böhm, M. (2013).
Wildlife comeback in Europe: The recovery of selected mammal and bird species. London, UK: The
Zoological Society of London.
Delibes-Mateos, M., Díaz-Fernández, S., Ferreras, P., Viñuela, J., & Arroyo, B. (2013). The role of
economic and social factors driving predator control in small-game estates in central Spain.
Ecology and Society, 18(2), 28. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05367-180228
Demerdzhiev, D., Hristov, H., Dobrev, D., Angelov, I., & Kurtev, M. (2014). Long-term population status,
breeding parameters and limiting factors of the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus Hablizl, 1783)
population in the eastern Rhodopes, Bulgaria. Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 66(3), 373–384.
Demeter, L. (2017). Biodiversity and ecosystem services of hardwood floodplain forests: Past, present
and future from the perspective of local communities in west Ukraine. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár
(Eds.), Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and
ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 6–19). Paris, France: UNESCO.

227
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

DeVault, T. L., Beasley, J. C., Olson, Z. H., Moleón, M., & Carrete, M. (2016). Ecosystem services
provided by avian scavengers. In C. H. Şekercioğlu, D. G. Wenny, & C. J. Whelan (Eds.), Why Birds
Matter: Avian Ecological Function and Ecosystem Services (pp. 235-270). Chicago, USA: University
of Chicago Press.
DeVault, T. L., Rhodes Jr, O. E., & Shivik, J. A. (2003). Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological,
and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial
ecosystems. Oikos, 102(2), 225-234. http://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x
Dixon, M. J. R., Loh, J., Davidson, N. C., Beltrame, C., Freeman, R., & Walpole, M. (2016). Tracking global
change in ecosystem area: The wetland extent trends index. Biological Conservation, 193, 27–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023
Dolman, A. J., Shvidenko, A., Schepaschenko, D., Ciais, P., Tchebakova, N., Chen, T., van der Molen, M.
K., Marchesini, L. B., Maximov, T. C., Maksyutov, S., & Schulze, E.-D. (2012). An estimate of the
terrestrial carbon budget of Russia using inventory-based, eddy covariance and inversion
methods. Biogeosciences, 9(12), 5323–5340. http://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-5323-2012
Donázar, J. A., Cortés-Avizanda, A., Fargallo, J. A., Margalida, A., Moleón, M., Morales-Reyes, Z.,
Moreno-Opo, R., Pérez-García, J. M., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Zuberogoitia, I., & Serrano, D. (2016).
Roles of raptors in a changing world: From flagships to providers of key ecosystem services.
Ardeola, 63(1), 181–234. http://doi.org/10.13157/arla.63.1.2016.rp8
Donázar, J. A., Margalida, A., Carrete, M., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2009). Too sanitary for vultures.
Science, 326(5953), 664. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.326_664a
Dramstad, W. E., Tveit, M. S., Fjellstad, W. J., & Fry, G. L. A. (2006). Relationships between visual
landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 78(4), 465–474. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006
Dubois, U., & Meier, H. (2016). Energy affordability and energy inequality in Europe: Implications for
policymaking. Energy Research & Social Science, 18, 21–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.015
Dupont, H., Mihoub, J. B., Bobbé, S., & Sarrazin, F. (2012). Modelling carcass disposal practices:
Implications for the management of an ecological service provided by vultures. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 49(2), 404–411. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02111.x
Dury, M., Hambuckers, A., Warnant, P., Henrot, A., Favre, E., Ouberdous, M., & François, L. (2011).
Responses of European forest ecosystems to 21st century climate: assessing changes in
interannual variability and fire intensity. iForest, 4(2), 82–99. http://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0572-
004
Eder, R., & Arnberger, A. (2016). How heterogeneous are adolescents’ preferences for natural and
semi-natural riverscapes as recreational settings? Landscape Research, 41(5), 555-568.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2015.1117063
Edmondson, J. L., Stott, I., Davies, Z. G., Gaston, K. J., & Leake, J. R. (2016). Soil surface temperatures
reveal moderation of the urban heat island effect by trees and shrubs. Scientific Reports, 6,
33708. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep33708
EEA. (2011). Water exploitation index. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/figures/water-exploitation-index-wei-4#tab-metadata
EEA. (2015a). Air quality in Europe - 2015 report. http://doi.org/10.2800/62459

228
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

EEA. (2015b). Global megatrends assessment - Extended background analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/global-megatrends-assessment-extended-
background-analysis
EEA. (2015c). Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine water. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/nutrients-in-transitional-coastal-and-
3/assessment
EEA. (2015d). SOER 2015. Freshwater quality — nutrients in rivers. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries-comparison/freshwater
EEA. (2015e). The European Environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report. Copenhagen:
European Environment Agency. http://doi.org/10.2800/944899
EEA. (2016a). Air Quality in Europe - 2016 report. http://doi.org/10.2800/80982
EEA. (2016b). European past floods. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/european-past-floods
EEA. (2016c). Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: progress and challenges.
http://doi.org/10.2779/12398
EEA. (2016d). Meteorological and hydrological droughts. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/river-flow-drought-2
EEA. (2016e). Quality of Europe’s water for people’s use has improved, but challenges remain to keep
it clean and healthy. https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/quality-of-europes-water-for
EEA. (2016f). Use of freshwater resources. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-2/assessment-2
EEA. (2016g). Water Exploitation Index plus (WEI+) for summer and urban morphological zones (UMZ).
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/water-exploitation-index-
plus-wei/fancybox.html
Efferth, T., Banerjee, M., Paul, N. W., Abdelfatah, S., Arend, J., Elhassan, G., Hamdoun, S., Hamm, R.,
Hong, C., Kadioglu, O., Naß, J., Ochwangi, D., Ooko, E., Ozenver, N., Saeed, M. E. M., Schneider,
M., Seo, E. J., Wu, C. F., Yan, G., Zeino, M., Zhao, Q., Abu-Darwish, M. S., Andersch, K., Alexie, G.,
Bessarab, D., Bhakta-Guha, D., Bolzani, V., Dapat, E., Donenko, F. V., Efferth, M., Greten, H. J.,
Gunatilaka, L., Hussein, A. A., Karadeniz, A., Khalid, H. E., Kuete, V., Lee, I. S., Liu, L., Midiwo, J.,
Mora, R., Nakagawa, H., Ngassapa, O., Noysang, C., Omosa, L. K., Roland, F. H., Shahat, A. A., Saab,
A., Saeed, E. M., Shan, L., Titinchi, S. J. J., Problems, D., Publication, S., Pullin, A., Frampton, G., &
Jongman, R. Titinchi, S. J. J. (2016). Biopiracy of natural products and good bioprospecting
practice. Phytomedicine, 23(2), 166–173. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2015.12.006
Efroymson, R. A., Dale, V. H., Kline, K. L., McBride, A. C., Bielicki, J. M., Smith, R. L., Parish, E. S.,
Schweizer, P. E., & Shaw, D. M. (2013). Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What
about context? Environmental Management, 51(2), 291–306. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
012-9907-5
Eggers, J., Tröltzsch, K., Falcucci, A., Maiorana, L., Verburg, P. H., Framstad, E., Louette, G., Maes, D.,
Nagy, S., Ozinga, W., & Delbaere, B. (2009). Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? GCB
Bioenergy, 1(1), 18–34. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2009.01002.x
Ekins, P., Simon, S., Deutsch, L., Folke, C., & De Groot, R. (2003). A framework for the practical
application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological

229
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Economics, 44(2–3), 165–185. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00272-0

Ekor, M. (2014). The growing use of herbal medicines: Issues relating to adverse reactions and
challenges in monitoring safety. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 4, 177.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00177
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., & Axelsson, R. (2007). Sustainable forest management as an approach to
regional development in the Russian Federation: State and trends in Kovdozersky model forest in
the Barents region. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22(6), 568–581.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701804179
Eliotout, B., Lecuyer, P., & Duriez, O. (2007). Premiers résultats sur la biologie de reproduction du
vautour moine Aegypius monachus en France [First results on the breeding biology of the monk
vulture Aegypius monachus in France]. Alauda, 75(3), 253–264.
EM-DAT. (2017). EM-DAT: The Emergency Events Database. Credit D. Guha-Sapir. Retrieved from
http://www.emdat.be/
Erb, K., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Gingrich, S., Bondeau, A., Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (2009a).
Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production — processes, trajectories,
implications. An introduction. Ecological Economics, 69(2), 250–259.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.001
Erb, K., Krausmann, F., Lucht, W., & Haberl, H. (2009b). Embodied HANPP: Mapping the spatial
disconnect between global biomass production and consumption. Ecological Economics, 69(2),
328–334. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.025
European Commission. (2011). A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services - Towards
an atlas of ecosystem services. Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union
(Vol. JRC63505). http://doi.org/10.2788/63557
European Commission. (2013). The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive
analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. http://doi.org/10.2779/822269
European Commission. (2014a). In-depth study of European energy security.
European Commission. (2014b). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Indicators
for ecosystem assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. 2nd report.
http://doi.org/10.2779/75203
European Commission. (2015a). Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity. Special Eurobarometer
436.
European Commission. (2015b). Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Trends in
ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and 2010.
http://doi.org/10.2788/341839
European Commission. (2015c). Towards an EU research and innovation policy agenda for nature-
based solutions & re-naturing cities. http://doi.org/10.2777/765301
European Commission. (2016a). Flash Eurobarometer 432. Preferences of Europeans towards tourism.
http://doi.org/10.2873/91884
European Commission. (2016b). Global soil biodiversity atlas. http://doi.org/10.2788/2613
Eurostat. (2016a). Forests, forestry and logging. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Forests,_forestry_and_logging

230
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Eurostat. (2016b). Fresh water abstraction by source. Retrieved from

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/ten00002
Eurostat. (2017). Database - Eurostat. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61(1),
1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3
Faith, D. P. (2016). A general model for biodiversity and its value. In J. Garson, A. Plutynski, & S. Sarkar
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of biodiversity. London, UK and New York, USA:
Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315530215
FAO. (1995). Non-wood forest products. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/nwfp/en/
FAO. (2005). Trade in Medicinal Plants. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/af285e/af285e00.htm
FAO. (2013). Irrigation in Central Asia in figures. AQUASTAT Survey – 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3289e.pdf
FAO. (2014a). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en
FAO. (2014b). The water-energy-food nexus. A new approach in support of food security and
sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl496e.pdf
FAO. (2015a). Forest Resources Assessment Working Paper 180: Terms and Definitions. Rome, Italy:
FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/ap862e/ap862e00.pdf
FAO. (2015b). Status of the world’s soil resources (SWSR) – Main report. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/215220/
FAO. (2015c). The Global Forest Resources Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forest-
resources-assessment/en/
FAO. (2016). AQUASTAT main database. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm
FAO. (2017). FAOSTAT. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
Farm Accountancy Data Network. (2017). Farm business survey: EU benchmarking.
FEFAC. (2017). The European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation. Retrieved September 12, 2017,
from http://www.fefac.eu/publications.aspx?CategoryID=2061&EntryID=10802
Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., & Comin, F. A.
(2015). Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE,
10(7), e0132232. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232
Fernández-Giménez, M. E., & Fillat Estaque, F. (2012). Pyrenean pastoralists’ ecological knowledge:
Documentation and application to natural resource management and adaptation. Human
Ecology, 40(2), 287–300. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9463-x
Fielding, J. (2007). Environmental injustice or just the lie of the land: An investigation of the socio-
economic class of those at risk from flooding in England and Wales. Sociological Research Online,
12(4), 1-23. http://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1570
Fielding, J. L. (2012). Inequalities in exposure and awareness of flood risk in England and Wales.

231
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Disasters, 36(3), 477–494. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01270.x

Fischer, G., Nachtergaele, F. O., Prieler, S., Teixeira, E., Toth, G., van Velthuizen, H., Verelst, L., &
Wiberg, D. (2012). GAEZ v3.0: Model documentation.
FLERMONECA. (2015). The state of the environment in Central Asia: Illustrations of selected
environmental themes and indicators.
Fletcher, R., Baulcomb, C., Hall, C., & Hussain, S. (2014). Revealing marine cultural ecosystem services
in the Black Sea. Marine Policy, 50, 151–161. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.001
Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s forests 2015 report.
Forsius, M., Anttila, S., Arvola, L., Bergström, I., Hakola, H., Heikkinen, H., Helenius, J., Hyvärinen, M.,
Jylhä, K., Karjalainen, J., Keskinen, T., Laine, K., Nikinmaa, E., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Rankinen, K.,
Reinikainen, M., Setälä, H., & Vuorenmaa, J. (2013). Impacts and adaptation options of climate
change on ecosystem services in Finland: a model based study. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 5(1), 26–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.01.001
Frank, S., Fürst, C., Koschke, L., Witt, A., & Makeschin, F. (2013). Assessment of landscape aesthetics—
Validation of a landscape metrics-based assessment by visual estimation of the scenic beauty.
Ecological Indicators, 32, 222–231. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.026
Fridl, J., Urbanc, M., & Pipan, P. (2009). The importance of teachers’ perception of space in education.
Acta Geographica Slovenica, 49(2), 365–392. http://doi.org/10.3986/AGS49205
Fuchs, R., Schulp, C. J. E., Hengeveld, G. M., Verburg, P. H., Clevers, J. G. P. W., Schelhaas, M. -J., &
Herold, M. (2016). Assessing the influence of historic net and gross land changes on the carbon
fluxes of Europe. Global Change Biology, 22(7), 2526–2539. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13191
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits
of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390-394.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Galvin, K. A. (2008). Responses of pastoralists to land fragmentation: Social capital, connectivity, and
resilience. In K. A. Galvin, R.S. Reid, R. H. Behnke Jr, & N.T. Hobbs (Eds), Fragmentation in semi-
arid and arid landscapes (pp. 369–389). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., López-Santiago, C. A., Aguilera, P. A., &
Montes, C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural
landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science and Policy, 19–20, 136–146.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006
Gascon, C., Brooks, T. M., Contreras-MacBeath, T., Heard, N., Konstant, W., Lamoreux, J., Launay, F.,
Maunder, M., Mittermeier, R., Molur, S., Al Mubarak, A., Parr, M., Rhodin, A., Ry, A., & Vié, J.-C.
(2015). The importance and benefits of species. Current Biology, 25(10), R431–R438.
http://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2015.03.041
Gauthier, S., Bernier, P., Kuuluvainen, T., Shvidenko, A. Z., & Schepaschenko, D. G. (2015). Boreal forest
health and global change. Science, 349(6250), 819–822. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9092
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., & Landry, J.-M. (2010). Livestock protection dogs in the 21st century:
Is an ancient tool relevant to modern conservation challenges? BioScience, 60(4), 299–308.
http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.4.8
Geijzendorffer, I., Galewski, T., Guelmami, A., Perennou, C., Popoff, N., & Grillas. (in press).
Mediterranean wetlands: A gradient from natural resilience to a fragile social-ecosystem. In M.

232
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Schröter, A. Bonn, S. Klotz, R. Seppelt, & C. Baessler (Eds.), Atlas of ecosystem services: Drivers,
risks, and societal responses. Leipzig, Germany: Springer.
Geijzendorffer, I. R., Cohen-Shacham, E., Cord, A. F., Cramer, W., Guerra, C., & Martín-López, B. (2017).
Ecosystem services in global sustainability policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 40–48.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.017
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., van Lienden, A. R., Hoekstra, A. Y., & van der Meer, T. H. (2012). Biofuel
scenarios in a water perspective: The global blue and green water footprint of road transport in
2030. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 764–775.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.04.001
Gilroy, J. J., Gill, J. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Jones, V. R., & Franco, A. M. A. (2016). Migratory diversity
predicts population declines in birds. Ecology Letters, 19, 308–317.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12569
Global Footprint Network. (2017). National footprint accounts, 2017 edition.
Glotzbach, S., & Baumgärtner, S. (2012). The Relationship between Intragenerational and
Intergenerational Ecological Justice. Environmental Values, 21, 331–355.
http://doi.org/10.3197/096327112X13400390126055
Goidts, E., & Wesemael, B. Van. (2007). Regional assessment of soil organic carbon changes under
agriculture in southern Belgium (1955 – 2005). Geoderma, 141, 341–354.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.06.013
Golosov, V. N., Gennadiev, A. N., Olson, K. R., Markelov, M. V., Zhidkin, A. P., Chendev, Y. G., & Kovach,
R. G. (2011). Spatial and temporal features of soil erosion in the forest-steppe zone of the east-
European Plain. Eurasian Soil Science, 44(7), 794–801.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229311070064
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Martín-López, B. (2015). Ecological economics perspectives on ecosystem
services valuation. In J. Martinez-alier & R. Muradian (Eds.), Handbook of ecological economics
(pp. 260–282). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Gorenflo, L. J., Romaine, S., Mittermeier, R. a., & Walker-Painemilla, K. (2012). Co-occurrence of
linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(21), 8032–
8037. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117511109
Government of Sweden. (2014). Fifth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
GRAIN. (2016). The global farmland grab in 2016: How big, how bad? Retrieved from
https://www.organicconsumers.org
Grall, J., & Hall-Spencer, J. M. (2003). Problems facing maerl conservation in Brittany. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13, S55–S64. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.568
Green, R. E., Donázar, J. A., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., & Margalida, A. (2016). Potential threat to Eurasian
griffon vultures in Spain from veterinary use of the drug diclofenac. Journal of Applied Ecology,
53(4), 993–1003. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12663
Grilli, G., Nikodinoska, N., Paletto, A., & De Meo, I. (2015). Stakeholders’ preferences and economic
value of forest ecosystem services: An example in the Italian Alps. Baltic Forestry, 21(2), 298–307.
Grizzetti, B., Bouraoui, F., & Aloe, A. (2012). Changes of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to European

233
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

seas. Global Change Biology, 18(2), 769–782. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02576.x

Grizzetti, B., Pistocchi, A., Liquete, C., Udias, A., Bouraoui, F., & van de Bund, W. (2017). Human
pressures and ecological status of European rivers. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 205.
http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00324-3
Groot, R. de, Ramakrishnan, P. S., Berg, A. van de, Kulenthran, T., Muller, S., Pitt, D., Wascher, D.,
Wijesuriya, G. (2005). Cultural and amenity services. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
Current state and trends, volume 1 (pp. 457–476). Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
Grote, R., Samson, R., Alonso, R., Amorim, J. H., Cariñanos, P., Churkina, G., Fares, S., Thiec, D. Le,
Niinemets, Ü., Mikkelsen, T. N., Paoletti, E., Tiwary, A., & Calfapietra, C. (2016). Functional traits
of urban trees: Air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
14(10), 543–550. http://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1426
Grubač, B., Velevski, M., & Avukatov, V. (2014). Long-term population decrease and recent breeding
performance of the Egyptian vulture Neophron percnopterus in Macedonia. North-Western
Journal of Zoology, 10(1), 25–35.
Gubbay, S., Sanders, N., Haynes, T., Janssen, J. A. M., Rodwell, J. R., Nieto, A., García Criado, M., Beal,
S., Borg, J., Kennedy, M., Micu, D., Otero, M., Saunders, G., & Calix, M. (2016). European red list
of habitats. Part 1. Marine habitats. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2779/032638
Guerra, C. A., Maes, J., Geijzendorffer, I., & Metzger, M. J. (2016). An assessment of soil erosion
prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean Europe: Current trends of ecosystem service
provision. Ecological Indicators, 60, 213-222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.043
Gundersen, V. S., & Frivold, L. H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of
quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway and Sweden. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,
7(4), 241–258. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.05.001
Gupta, R., Kienzler, K., Martius, C., Mirzabaev, T., Oweis, T., de Pauw, E., Qadir, M., Shideed, K.,
Sommer, R., Thomas, R., Sayre, K., Carli, C., Saparov, A., Bekenov, M., Sanginov, S., Nepesov, M.,
Kramov, R. (2009). Research Prospectus: A Vision for Sustainable Land Management Research in
Central Asia. ICARDA Central Asia and Caucasus Program. Sustainable Agriculture in Central Asia
and the Caucasus Series No.1. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: CGIAR-PFU.
Gürlük, S., & Rehber, E. (2008). A travel cost study to estimate recreational value for a bird refuge at
Lake Manyas, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(4), 1350–1360.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.07.017
Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses
of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the
Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 22. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04853-
170322
Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Bondeau, A., Lauk, C., Müller, C., Plutzar, C., & Steinberger, J. K.
(2011). Global bioenergy potentials from agricultural land in 2050: Sensitivity to climate change,
diets and yields. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(12), 4753–4769.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.035
Hagg, W., Braun, L. N., Weber, M., & Becht, M. (2006). Runoff modelling in glacierized Central Asian
catchments for present-day and future climate. Nordic Hydrology, 37, 93–105.
http://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2006.001

234
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., & Kienast, F. (2012). Indicators of ecosystem service potential at
European scales: Mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators, 21, 39–53.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004
Hainz-Renetzeder, C., Schneidergruber, A., Kuttner, M., & Wrbka, T. (2015). Assessing the potential
supply of landscape services to support ecological restoration of degraded landscapes: A case
study in the Austrian-Hungarian trans-boundary region of Lake Neusiedl. Ecological Modelling,
295, 196–206. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.001
Hajat, S., O’Connor, M., & Kosatsky, T. (2010). Health effects of hot weather: from awareness of risk
factors to effective health protection. The Lancet, 375(9717), 856–863.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61711-6
Hall-Spencer, J., & Bamber, R. (2007). Effects of salmon farming on benthic Crustacea. Ciencias
Marinas, 33, 353–366. http://doi.org/10.7773/cm.v33i4.1166
Hall-Spencer, J. M., Kelly, J., & Maggs, C. A. (2008). Assessment of maerl beds in the OSPAR area and
the development of a monitoring program.
Hansen, K., & Malmaeus, M. (2016). Ecosystem services in Swedish forests. Scandinavian Journal of
Forest Research, 31(6), 626–640. http://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1164888
Hanski, I., von Hertzen, L., Fyhrquist, N., Koskinen, K., Torppa, K., Laatikainen, T., Karisola, P., Auvinen,
P., Paulin, L., Makela, M. J., Vartiainen, E., Kosunen, T. U., Alenius, H., & Haahtela, T. (2012).
Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(21), 8334–8339.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205624109
Haque, U., Blum, P., da Silva, P. F., Andersen, P., Pilz, J., Chalov, S. R., Malet, J.-P., Auflič, M. J., Andres,
N., Poyiadji, E., Lamas, P. C., Zhang, W., Peshevski, I., Pétursson, H. G., Kurt, T., Dobrev, N., García-
Davalillo, J. C., Halkia, M., Ferri, S., Gaprindashvili, G., Engström, J., & Keellings, D. (2016). Fatal
landslides in Europe. Landslides, 13(6), 1545–1554. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-016-0689-3
Harmon, D., & Loh, J. (2010). The index of linguistic diversity: A new quantitative measure of trends in
the status of the world ’s languages. Language Documentation & Conservation, 4, 97–151.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public
Health, 35, 207–28.
Harvey, M., & Pilgrim, S. (2011). The new competition for land: Food, energy, and climate change. Food
Policy, 36(Suppl.), S40–S51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.009
Harwood, A. R., Lovett, A. A., & Turner, J. A. (2015). Customising virtual globe tours to enhance
community awareness of local landscape benefits. Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, 106–119.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.08.008
Haslinger, A., Breu, T., Hurni, H., & Maselli, D. (2007). Opportunities and risks in reconciling
conservation and development in a post-Soviet setting: The example of the Tajik National Park.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystems Services & Management, 3(3), 157–169.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17451590709618170
Hausner, V. H., Brown, G., & Lægreid, E. (2014). Effects of land tenure and protected areas on
ecosystem services and land use preferences in Norway. Land Use Policy, 49, 446–461.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.018
Havlík, P., Schneider, U. A., Schmid, E., Böttcher, H., Fritz, S., Skalský, R., Aoki, K., Cara, S. De,

235
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Kindermann, G., Kraxner, F., Leduc, S., McCallum, I., Mosnier, A., Sauer, T., & Obersteiner, M.
(2011). Global land-use implications of first and second generation biofuel targets. Energy Policy,
39(10), 5690–5702. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.030
Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland
soils in 1974-2009. Global Change Biology, 19(5), 1456–1469. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12137
Hein, T., Schwarz, U., Habersack, H., Nichersu, I., Preiner, S., Willby, N., & Weigelhofer, G. (2016).
Current status and restoration options for floodplains along the Danube River. The Science of the
Total Environment, 543, 778–790. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.073
Heinrichs, M., & Jäger, A. K. (Eds.). (2015). Ethnopharmacology. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Heintz, M. D., Hagemeier-Klose, M., & Wagner, K. (2012). Towards a risk governance culture in flood
policy-findings from the implementation of the “floods directive” in Germany. Water, 4(1), 135–
156. http://doi.org/10.3390/w4010135
Hellmann, F., & Verburg, P. H. (2010). Impact assessment of the European biofuel directive on land use
and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(6), 1389–1396.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.02.022
Hellmann, F., & Verburg, P. H. (2011). Spatially explicit modelling of biofuel crops in Europe. Biomass
and Bioenergy, 35(6), 2411–2424. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.09.003
Henders, S., Persson, U. M., & Kastner, T. (2015). Trading forests: land-use change and carbon
emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environmental
Research Letters, 10(12), 125012. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125012
Hendriks, I. E., Olsen, Y. S., Ramajo, L., Basso, L., Steckbauer, A., Moore, T. S., Howard, J., & Duarte, C.
M. (2014). Photosynthetic activity buffers ocean acidification in seagrass meadows.
Biogeosciences 11, 333-346. http://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-333-2014
Hernández-Morcillo, M., Hoberg, J., Oteros-Rozas, E., Plieninger, T., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-
García, V. (2014). Traditional ecological knowledge in Europe: Status quo and insights for the
environmental policy agenda. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
56(1), 3–17. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2014.861673
Hilborn, R., & Ovando, D. (2014). Reflections on the success of traditional fisheries management. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 71(5), 1040–1046. http://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu034
Hillel, D., & Rosenzweig, C. (2008). Biodiversity and food production. In E. Chivian & A. Bernstein (Eds.),
Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity (pp. 325–381). New York, USA: Oxford
University Press.
Hodgkin-Hunter. (2015). Agricultural biodiversity and food security. In WHO & CBD, Connecting global
priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 75-95).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Holland, J. M. (2004). The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe:
reviewing the evidence. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 103(1), 1–25.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.018
Horne, P., & Petäjistö, L. (2003). Preferences for alternative moose management regimes among
Finnish landowners: A choice experiment approach. Land Economics, 79(4), 472–482.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3147294
Hornigold, K., Lake, I., & Dolman, P. (2016). Recreational use of the countryside: No evidence that high

236
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

nature value enhances a key ecosystem service. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0165043.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165043
Horwitz, P., & Kretsch C. (2015). Contribution of biodiversity and green spaces to mental and physical
fitness, and cultural dimensions of health. In WHO & CBD, Connecting global priorities:
Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 200-220).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem
services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in
the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28, 263–275.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005
Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’ preferences towards rural
landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72, 161–169. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O., & Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for traditional farming
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 66–74.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006
Hunter-Burlingame-Remans. (2015). Biodiversity and Nutrition. In WHO & CBD, Connecting global
priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 97-129).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., & Kienast, F. (2008). Evaluation of
Landscape Change by Different Social Groups. Mountain Research and Development, 28(2), 140–
147. http://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0952
Hurd, C. L. (2015). Slow-flow habitats as refugia for coastal calcifiers from ocean acidification. Journal
of Phycology, 51(4), 599–605. http://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12307
Hussey, K., & Pittock, J. (2012). The energy-water nexus: Managing the links between energy and water
for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society, 17(1). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04641-170131
ICES Working Group for Baltic Salmon and Sea trout. (2013). Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt.
HELCOM Core Indicator Report.
IEA. (2004). World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1787/weo-
2004-en
IEA/OECD. (2015). Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Retrieved from
https://www.iea.org/publications
IEA/OECD. (2016). World Energy Statistics 2016. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/publications
Imbert, C., Caniglia, R., Fabbri, E., Milanesi, P., Randi, E., Serafini, M., Torretta, E., & Meriggi, A. (2016).
Why do wolves eat livestock?: Factors influencing wolf diet in northern Italy. Biological
Conservation, 195, 156–168. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.01.003
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García del Amo, D., García-Nieto, A. P., Piñeiro, C., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B.
(2014). Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean
watersheds: Insights for conservation policies, Ambio, 44(4), 285-296.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0556-1
IPBES. (2015). IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple
values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services
(deliverable 3 (d)). Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-4-plenary

237
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

IPBES. (2016). 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, & B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. (2017a). IPBES/5/INF/24: Update on the classification of nature’s contributions to people by the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved
from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-5-plenary
IPBES. (2017b). IPBES/5/INF/5: Update on the work on knowledge and data (deliverables 1 (d) and 4
(b)). Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-5-plenary
IUCN. (2014). Europe’s big five selected! Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/europes-
big-five-selected
IUCN. (2017). Protected areas categories. Retrieved from https://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-
areas/about/protected-area-categories
Ivascu, C., & Rakosy, L. (2017). Biocultural adaptations and traditional ecological knowledge in a
historical village from Maramureș Land, Romania. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Knowing our
lands and resources: Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in
Europe and Central Asia (pp. 21–41). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Jackson, E., Rowden, A., Attrill, M., Bossey, S., & Jones, M. (2001). The importance of seagrass beds as
a habitat for fishery species. In R. N. Gibson & M. Barnes (Eds.), Oceanography and Marine
Biology: An Annual Review (pp. 269-304). Millport, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Jackson, L. E., Daniel, J., McCorkle, B., Sears, A., & Bush, K. F. (2013). Linking ecosystem services and
human health: the Eco-Health Relationship Browser. International Journal of Public Health, 58(5),
747–55. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-013-0482-1
Jacobs, S., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Kelemen, E., Saarikoski, H.,
Termansen, M., García-Llorente, M., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Kopperoinen, L., Luque, S., Palomo,
I., Priess, J. A., Rusch, G. M., Tenerelli, P., Turkelboom, F., Demeyer, R., Hauck, J., Keune, H.,
&Smith, R. (2017). The means determine the end - Pursuing integrated valuation in practice.
Ecosystem Services. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.07.011
Jacobsen, K. S., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Perceptions of environmental justice and the conflict
surrounding large carnivore management in Norway - Implications for conflict management.
Biological Conservation, 203, 197–206. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.041
Jalilov, S. M., Keskinen, M., Varis, O., Amer, S., & Ward, F. A. (2016). Managing the water-energy-food
nexus: Gains and losses from new water development in Amu Darya River Basin. Journal of
Hydrology, 539, 648–661. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.071
Janhäll, S. (2015). Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution - Deposition and dispersion.
Atmospheric Environment, 105, 130–137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.052
Janssens, I. A., Freibauer, A., Ciais, P., Smith, P., Nabuurs, G., Folberth, G., Schlamadinger, B., Hutjes, R.
W. A., Ceulemans, R., Schulze, E. -D., Valentini, R., & Dolman, A. J. (2003). Europe’s terrestrial
biosphere anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Science, 300(5625), 1538–1542.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1083592

238
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Jansson, R., Nilsson, C., Keskitalo, E. C. H., Vlasova, T., Sutinen, M.-L., Moen, J., Stuart Chapin III, F.,
Bråthen, K. A., Cabeza, M., Callaghan, T. V, van Oort, B., Dannevig, H., Bay-Larsen, I. A., Ims, R. A.,
Aspholm, P. E., Stuart Chapin III, F., Bråthen, K. A., Cabeza, M., Callaghan, T. V, van Oort, B.,
Dannevig, H., Bay-Larsen, I. A., Ims, R. A., Aspholm, P. E., Stuart Chapin III, F., Bråthen, K. A.,
Cabeza, M., Callaghan, T. V, van Oort, B., Dannevig, H., Bay-Larsen, I. A., Ims, R. A., & Aspholm, P.
E. (2015). Future changes in the supply of goods and services from natural ecosystems: Prospects
for the European North. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 32. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07607-200332
Jäppinen, J.-P., & Heliölä, J. (Eds.). (2015). Towards a sustainable and genuinely green economy. The
value and social significance of ecosystem services in Finland (TEEB for Finland). Helsinki, Finland:
Ministry of the Environment.
Jax, K., Barton, D. N., Chan, K. M. A., de Groot, R., Doyle, U., Eser, U., Görg, C., Gómez-Baggethun, E.,
Griewald, Y., Haber, W., Haines-Young, R., Heink, U., Jahn, T., Joosten, H., Kerschbaumer, L., Korn,
H., Luck, G. W., Matzdorf, B., Muraca, B., Neßhöver, C., Norton, B., Ott, K., Potschin, M.,
Rauschmayer, F., von Haaren, C., & Wichmann, S. (2013). Ecosystem services and ethics.
Ecological Economics, 93, 260–268. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.06.008
Jay, M., Peters, K., Buijs, A. E., Gentin, S., Kloek, M. E., & O’Brien, L. (2012). Towards access for all?
Policy and research on access of ethnic minority groups to natural areas in four European
countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 19, 4–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.12.008
Jensena, S., Mazhitova, Z., & Zetterstrom, R. (1997). Environmental pollution and child health in the
Aral Sea region in Kazakhstan. Science of the Total Environment, 206(2–3), 187–193.
JNCC. (2007). Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive
from January 2001 to December 2006.
Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., & Kenter, J. O. (2014). Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem
service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosystem Services, 10, 97–110.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.006
Johann, E. (2007). Traditional forest management under the influence of science and industry: The
story of the alpine cultural landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1–2), 54–62.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.04.049
Johnston, J. L., Fanzo, J. C., & Bogil, B. (2014). Understanding sustainable diets: A descriptive analysis
of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security
and environmental sustainability. Advances in Nutrition, 5(4), 418–429.
http://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.005553
Jones, A., Panagos, P., Barcelo, S., & Bouraoui, F. (2012). The state of soil in Europe.
http://doi.org/10.2788/77361
Jones, L., Provins, A., Holland, M., Mills, G., Hayes, F., Emmett, B., Hall, J., Sheppard, L., Smith, R.,
Sutton, M., Hicks, K., Ashmore, M., Haines-Young, R., & Harper-Simmonds, L. (2014). A review
and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services,
7, 76–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.001
Jonsson, L., Uddstål, R., Försöksparker, V., & Lantbruksuniversitet, S. (2002). En beskrivning av den
svenska skogsbärbranschen [A description of the Swedish forest berry industry].
Jonsson, R. (2013). How to cope with changing demand conditions - The Swedish forest sector as a
case study: an analysis of major drivers of change in the use of wood resources. Canadian Journal
of Forest Research, 43, 405–418. http://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2012-0139

239
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Joppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A. (2009). High and far: Biases in the location of protected areas. PLOS ONE, 4(12),
e8273. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008273
Jorda, G., Marba, N., & Duarte, C. M. (2012). Mediterranean seagrass vulnerable to regional climate
warming. Nature Climate Change, 2(11), 821–824. http://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1533
Jueterbock, A., Tyberghein, L., Verbruggen, H., Coyer, J. A., Olsen, J. L., & Hoarau, G. (2013). Climate
change impact on seaweed meadow distribution in the North Atlantic rocky intertidal. Ecology
and Evolution, 3(5), 1356–1373. http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.541
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2013). Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 110(1), 113–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces in Berlin,
Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Urban green space availability in
European cities. Ecological Indicators. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.029
Kain, J.-H., Larondelle, N., Haase, D., & Kaczorowska, A. (2016). Exploring local consequences of two
land-use alternatives for the supply of urban ecosystem services in Stockholm year 2050.
Ecological Indicators, 70, 615–629. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.062
Kaltenborn, B. P., & Bjerke, T. (2002). Association between environmental value orientations and
landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 59(1), 1–11.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2
Kamenos, N. A., Moore, G., & Hall-spencer, J. M. (2004). Nursery-area function of maerl grounds for
juvenile queen scallops Aequipecten opercularis and other invertebrates. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 274, 183–189. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps274183
Kandiyoti, D. (2007). Introduction. In D. Kandiyoti (Ed.), The cotton sector in Central Asia, proceedings
of a conference held at SOAS University of London 3–4 November 2005 (pp. 1–11).
Kangas, K., & Markkanen, P. (2001). Factors affecting participation in wild berry picking by rural and
urban dwellers. Silva Fennica, 35(4), 582. http://doi.org/10.14214/sf.582
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Karabulut, A., Egoh, B. N., Lanzanova, D., Grizzetti, B., Bidoglio, G., Pagliero, L., Bouraoui, F., Aloe, A.,
Reynaud, A., Maes, J., Vandecasteele, I., & Mubareka, S. (2016). Mapping water provisioning
services to support the ecosystem–water–food–energy nexus in the Danube river basin.
Ecosystem Services, 17, 278–292. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.002
Karadeniz, N., Tırıl, A., & Baylan, E. (2009). Wetland management in Turkey: Problems, achievements
and perspectives, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(11), 1106–1119.
Karesh, W. B., & Formenty, P. (2015). Infectious diseases. In WHO & CBD, Connecting global priorities:
Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 130-149).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Karlen, D. L., Mausbach, M. J., Doran, J. W., Cline, R. G., Harris, R. F., & Schuman, G. E. (1997). Soil
quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Science Society America Journal,
61, 4–10. http://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010001x
Karlsson, J., & Sjöström, M. (2008). Direct use values and passive use values: Implications for

240
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation of large carnivores. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(4), 883–891.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9334-3
Kassam, K.-A., Karamkhudoeva, M., Ruelle, M., & Baumflek, M. (2010). Medicinal plant use and health
sovereignty: Findings from the Tajik and Afghan Pamirs. Human Ecology, 38(6), 817–829.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9356-9
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., & Haberl, H. (2014). Rapid growth in agricultural trade: effects on global area
efficiency and the role of management. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 34015.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034015
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., & Haberl, H. (2015). Global human appropriation of net primary production for
biomass consumption in the European Union, 1986-2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5),
825–836. http://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12238
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., & Nonhebel, S. (2011). International wood trade and forest change: A global
analysis. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 947–956.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.05.003
Kayranli, B., Scholz, M., Mustafa, A., & Hedmark, Å. (2010). Carbon storage and fluxes within
freshwater wetlands: A critical review. Wetlands, 30(1), 111–124.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-009-0003-4
Kedem, H., Cohen, C., Messika, I., Einav, M., Pilosof, S., & Hawlena, H. (2014). Multiple effects of host-
species diversity on coexisting host-specific and host-opportunistic microbes. Ecology, 95(5),
1173–1183. http://doi.org/10.1890/13-0678.1
Keenleyside, C., Beaufoy, G., Tucker, G., & Jones, G. (2014). High nature value farming throughout EU-
27 and its financial support under the CAP.
Kenis, M., & Branco, M. (2010). Impact of alien terrestrial arthropods in Europe. Chapter 5. BioRisk,
4(1), 51–71. http://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.4.42
Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K. N., Fazey, I., O’Brien, L., Orchard-
Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C. M., Reed, M. S., Tett, P., & Watson, V. (2016). Shared
values and deliberative valuation: Future directions. Ecosystem Services, 21, 358–371.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006
Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., Reed, M. S., Christie, M.,
Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard, M., Fish, R., Fisher, J. A.,
Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-Webb, J., Ranger, S., Ryan, M., Watson, V., & Williams, S.
(2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
Kerr, J. T., Pindar, A., Galpern, P., Packer, L., Potts, S. G., Roberts, S. M., Rasmont, P., Schweiger, O.,
Colla, S. R., Richardson, L. L., Wagner, D. L., Gall, L. F., Sikes, D. S., & Pantoja, A. (2015). Climate
change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. Science, 349(6244), 177–180.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7031
Khalil, H., Ecke, F., Evander, M., Magnusson, M., & Hörnfeldt, B. (2016). Declining ecosystem health
and the dilution effect. Scientific Reports, 6, 31314. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep31314
Kikvidze, Z., & Tevzadze, G. (2015). Loss of traditional knowledge aggravates wolf–human conflict in
Georgia (Caucasus) in the wake of socio-economic change. Ambio, 44(5), 452–457.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0580-1

241
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Kirazli, C., & Yamac, E. (2013). Population size and breeding success of the cinereous Vulture, Aegypius
monachus, in a newly found breeding area in western Anatolia (Aves: Falconiformes). Zoology in
the Middle East, 59(4), 289–296. http://doi.org/10.1080/09397140.2013.868129
Kis, J., Barta, S., Elekes, L., Engi, L., Fegyver, T., Kecskeméti, J., Lajkó, L., & Szabó, J. (2017). Traditional
herders’ knowledge and worldview and their role in managing biodiversity and ecosystem-
services of extensive pastures. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Knowing our lands and resources:
Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia
(pp. 57–71). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Kitzes, J., & Wackernagel, M. (2009). Answers to common questions in ecological footprint accounting.
Ecological Indicators, 9(4), 812–817. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.09.014
Kizmaz, M. (2003). Policies to promote sustainable forest operations and utilization of non-wood forest
products. In Harvesting of non-wood forest products (pp. 97-112).
Kizos, T., Plieninger, T., & Schaich, H. (2013). “Instead of 40 sheep there are 400”: Traditional grazing
practices and landscape change in western Lesvos, Greece. Landscape Research, 38(4), 476–498.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.783905
Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., &
Tscharntke, T. (2007). Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1608), 303-313.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
Klinar, K., & Geršič, M. (2014). Traditional house names as part of cultural heritage. Acta Geographica
Slovenica, 54(2). http://doi.org/10.3986/AGS54409
Knarrum, V., Sørensen, O. J., Eggen, T., Kvam, T., Opseth, O., Overskaug, K., & Eidsmo, A. (2006). Brown
bear predation on domestic sheep in central Norway. Ursus, 17(1), 67–74.
http://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2006)17[67:BBPODS]2.0.CO;2
Köbbing, J. F., Thevs, N., & Zerbe, S. (2013). The utilisation of reed (Phragmites australis): A review.
Mires and Peat, 13, 1–14.
Konijnendijk, C. C., Annerstedt, M., Nielsen, A. B., & Maruthaveeran, S. (2013). Benefits of urban parks:
A systematic review.
Konow, J. (2003). Which Is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of
Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239. http://doi.org/10.1257/002205103771800013
Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, Á., Margóczi, K., Pataki, G., Gébert, J., Málovics, G., Balázs, B., Roboz,
Á., Krasznai Kovács, E., & Mihók, B. (2015). Understanding the links between ecosystem service
trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. Ecosystem Services, 12, 117–127.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.012
Kovařík, P., Kutal, M., & Machar, I. (2014). Sheep and wolves: Is the occurrence of large predators a
limiting factor for sheep grazing in the Czech Carpathians? Journal for Nature Conservation, 22(5),
479–486. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.06.001
Kovats, R., Valentini, R., Bouwer, L. M., Georgopoulou, E., Jacob, D., Martin, E., Rounsevell, M., &
Soussana, J.-F. (2014). Europe. In V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J.
Mach, T. E. Billir, M. Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A.
N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects. Contribution of working group II to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1267–1327).

242
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Kraemer, R., Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V. C., Dara, A., Terekhov, A., &
Frühauf, M. (2015). Long-term agricultural land-cover change and potential for cropland
expansion in the former virgin lands area of Kazakhstan. Environmental Research Letters, 10(5),
54012. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054012
Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2014). Expansion of vegetated coastal ecosystems in the future
Arctic. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1, 77. http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00077
Krause-Jensen, D., Duarte, C. M., Hendriks, I. E., Meire, L., Blicher, M. E., Marbà, N., & Sejr, M. K. (2015).
Macroalgae contribute to nested mosaics of pH variability in a subarctic fjord. Biogeosciences,
12(16), 4895–4911. http://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4895-2015
Krause-Jensen, D., Marbà, N., Sanz-Martin, M., Hendriks, I. E., Thyrring, J., Carstensen, J., Sejr, M. K., &
Duarte, C. M. (2016). Long photoperiods sustain high pH in Arctic kelp forests. Science Advances,
2(12). e1501938. http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501938
Kreft, S., Eckstein, D., Dorsch, L., & Fischer, L. (2016). Global climate risk index 2016: Who suffers most
from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2014 and 1995 to 2014.
Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L., Crim, R., Hendriks, I. E., Ramajo, L., Singh, G. S., Duarte, C. M., & Gattuso,
J.-P. (2013). Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and
interaction with warming. Global Change Biology, 19(6), 1884–1896.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12179
Kronenberg, J. (2014). Viable alternatives for large-scale unsustainable projects in developing
countries: The case of the Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan. Sustainable Development, 22(4), 253–
264. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1529
Kronenberg, J. (2015). Why not to green a city? Institutional barriers to preserving urban ecosystem
services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 218–227. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.002
Krutilla, J. V. (1967). Conservation reconsidered. The American Economic Review, 57(4), 777–786.
Kuemmerle, T., Olofsson, P., Chaskovskyy, O., Baumann, M., Ostapowicz, K., Woodcock, C. E.,
Houghton, R. A., Hostert, P., Keeton, W. S., & Radeloff, V. C. (2011). Post-Soviet farmland
abandonment, forest recovery, and carbon sequestration in western Ukraine. Global Change
Biology, 17(3), 1335–1349. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02333.x
Kulikov, M., Schickhoff, U., & Borchardt, P. (2016). Spatial and seasonal dynamics of soil loss ratio in
mountain rangelands of south-western Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(2), 316–329.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-014-3393-6
Kumar, R., Tol, S., McInnes, R. J., Everard, M., & Kulindwa, A. A. (2017). Wetlands for disaster risk
reduction: Effective choices for resilient communities. Ramsar policy brief 1. Gland, Switzerland:
Ramsar Convention Secretariat.
Kummu, M., Guillaume, J. H. A., de Moel, H., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Veldkamp,
T. I. E., & Ward, P. J. (2016). The world’s road to water scarcity: shortage and stress in the 20th
century and pathways towards sustainability. Scientific Reports, 6, 38495.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep38495
Kurganova, I., Lopes de Gerenyu, V., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2015). Large-scale carbon sequestration in post-
agrogenic ecosystems in Russia and Kazakhstan. Catena, 133, 461–466.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.06.002

243
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Lagos, L., & Bárcena, F. (2015). EU sanitary regulation on livestock disposal: Implications for the diet of
wolves. Environmental Management, 56(4), 890–902. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0571-
4
Lal, R. (2001a). Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse
effect. Climatic Change, 51(1), 35–72. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017529816140
Lal, R. (2001b). Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation & Development, 12, 519–539.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.472
Lange, E., & Hehl-Lange, S. (2011). Citizen participation in the conservation and use of rural landscapes
in Britain: The Alport Valley case study. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 7(2), 223–230.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-010-0115-2
Langemeyer, J., Baro, F., Roebeling, P., & Gómez-Baggethun, E. (2015). Contrasting values of cultural
ecosystem services in urban areas: The case of park Montjuic in Barcelona. Ecosystem Services,
12, 178–186. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.016
Larondelle, N., Haase, D., & Kabisch, N. (2014). Mapping the diversity of regulating ecosystem services
in European cities. Global Environmental Change, 26(1), 119–129.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.008
Lavalle, C., Micale, F., Houston, T. D., Camia, A., Hiederer, R., Lazar, C., Conte, C., Amatulli, G., &
Genovese, G. (2009). Climate change in Europe. 3. Impact on agriculture and forestry. A review.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29(3), 433–446. http://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2008068
Lavrillier, A., Gabyshev, S., & Rojo, M. (2016). The sable for Evenk reindeer herders in southeastern
Siberia: Interplaying drivers of changes on biodiversity and ecosystem services – Climate change,
worldwide market economy, and extractive industries. In M. Roué & Z. Molnar (Eds.), Knowing
our lands and resources: Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services
in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 111–128). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Le, Q. B., Nkonya, E., & Mirzabaev, A. (2014). Biomass productivity-based mapping of global land
degradation hotspots. In: E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, & J. von Braun (Eds.), Economics of Land
Degradation and Improvement – A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (pp. 55-84).
Bonn, Germany: Springer.
Le Bissonnais, Y., & Arrouays, D. (1997). Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and
erodibility: II. Application to humic loamy soils with various organic carbon contents. European
Journal of Soil Science, 48(1), 39–48. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1997.tb00183.x
Lee, A. C. K., & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the
evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212–22. http://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq068
Lemasson, A. J., Fletcher, S., Hall-Spencer, J. M., & Knights, A. M. (2017). Linking the biological impacts
of ocean acidification on oysters to changes in ecosystem services: A review. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 492(Suppl.), 49–62.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.01.019
Leonti, M., & Casu, L. (2013). Traditional medicines and globalization: Current and future perspectives
in ethnopharmacology. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 4(92), 1-13.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2013.00092
Leonti, M., & Verpoorte, R. (2017). Traditional Mediterranean and European herbal medicines. Journal
of Ethnopharmacology, 199, 161–167. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2017.01.052

244
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Leuzinger, S., Vogt, R., & Körner, C. (2010). Tree surface temperature in an urban environment.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150(1), 56–62.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.08.006
Libralato, S., Coll, M., Tudela, S., Palomera, I., & Pranovi, F. (2008). Novel index for quantification of
ecosystem effects of fishing as removal of secondary production. Marine Ecology Progress Series,
355, 107–129. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps07224
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss
alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99–109.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015
Linnell, J. D. C., & Lescureux, N. (2015). Livestock guarding dogs: Cultural heritage icons with a new
relevance for mitigating conservation conflicts. Trondheim, Norway: Norwegian Institute for
Nature Research (NINA).
Lioubimtseva, E. (2015). A multi-scale assessment of human vulnerability to climate change in the Aral
Sea basin. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(2), 719–729. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-
3104-1
Liquete, C., Cid, N., Lanzanova, D., Grizzetti, B., & Reynaud, A. (2016a). Perspectives on the link
between ecosystem services and biodiversity: The assessment of the nursery function. Ecological
Indicators, 63, 249–257. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.058
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Macías, D., Druon, J.-N., & Zulian, G. (2016b). Ecosystem services sustainability
in the Mediterranean Sea: Assessment of status and trends using multiple modelling approaches.
Scientific Reports, 6, 34162. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep34162
Liu, J., Yang, W., & Li, S. (2016). Framing ecosystem services in the telecoupled Anthropocene. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment, 14(1), 27–36. http://doi.org/10.1002/16-0188.1
Lorencova, E., Frelichova, J., Nelson, E., & Vackar, D. (2013). Past and future impacts of land use and
climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy, 33,
183–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012
Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2016). Soil organic carbon – An appropriate indicator to monitor trends of land
and soil degradation within the SDG framework? Dessau-Roßlau, Germany: Umweltbundesamt.
Lozano, J., Casanovas, J. G., Zorrilla, J. M., Lozano, J., Casanovas, J. G., Virgós, E., & Zorrilla, J. M. (2013).
The competitor release effect applied to carnivore species: How red foxes can increase in
numbers when persecuted. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 36(1), 37-46.
Lozej, Š. L. (2013). Paša in predelava mleka v planinah Triglavskega narodnega parka: Kulturna
dediščina in aktualna vprašanja. [Grazing and dairying in the mountain pastures of Triglav
National Park: cultural heritage and current questions]. Traditiones, 42(2), 49–68.
http://doi.org/10.3986/traditio2013420203
Łuczaj, Ł., Köhler, P., Pirożnikow, E., Graniszewska, M., Pieroni, A., & Gervasi, T. (2013). Wild edible
plants of Belarus: from Rostafiński’s questionnaire of 1883 to the present. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 9(1), 21. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-21
Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Sõukand, R., Svanberg, I., & Kalle, R. (2012).
Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search
for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 81(4), 359–370.
http://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031

245
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Łuczaj, Ł., Stawarczyk, K., Kosiek, T., Pietras, M., & Kujawa, A. (2015). Wild food plants and fungi used
by Ukrainians in the western part of the Maramureş region in Romania. Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae, 84(3), 339–346. http://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2015.029
Lugato, E., Bampa, F., Panagos, P., Montanarella, L., & Jones, A. (2014). Potential carbon sequestration
of European arable soils estimated by modelling a comprehensive set of management practices.
Global Change Biology, 20(11), 3557-3567. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12551
Lutz, S. R., Mallucci, S., Diamantini, E., Majone, B., Bellin, A., & Merz, R. (2016). Hydroclimatic and water
quality trends across three Mediterranean river basins. Science of the Total Environment, 571,
1392–1406. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.102
Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1),
599–617. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120437
Makó, A., Kocsis, M., Barna, G., & Tóth, G. (2017). Mapping the storing and filtering capacity of
European soils. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2788/49218
Mallarch, J. -M., Papayannis, T., & Väisänen, R. (Eds.). (2012). The diversity of sacred lands in Europe:
Proceedings of the third workshop of the Delos initiative – Inari/Aanaar 2010. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN and Vantaa, Finland: Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services.
Manes, F., Marando, F., Capotorti, G., Blasi, C., Salvatori, E., Fusaro, L., Ciancarella, L., Mircea, M.,
Marchetti, M., Chirichi, G.,& Munafò, M. (2016). Regulating ecosystem services of forests in ten
Italian metropolitan cities: Air quality improvement by PM10 and O3 removal. Ecological
Indicators, 67, 425–440. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.03.009
Mangialajo, L., Gianni, F., Airoldi, L., Bartolini, F., Francour, P., Meinesz, A., Thibaut, T., & Ballesteros,
E. (2013). Conservation and restoration of Cystoseira forests in the Mediterranean Sea: The role
of marine protected areas. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrice_Francour/publication/268278685_Conservation
_and_restoration_of_Cystoseira_forests_in_the_Mediterranean_sea_the_role_of_marine_prot
ected_areas/links/54678b220cf2f5eb18036bee/Conservation-and-restoration-of-Cystoseira-
forests-in-the-Mediterranean-sea-the-role-of-marine-protected-areas.pdf
Manzano, P., & Malo, J. E. (2006). Extreme long-distance seed dispersal via sheep. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 4, 244-248. http://doi.org/10.1016/10.1890/1540-
9295(2006)004[0244:ELSDVS]2.0.CO;2
Marando, F., Salvatori, E., Fusaro, L., & Manes, F. (2016). Removal of PM10 by forests as a nature-based
solution for air quality improvement in the Metropolitan city of Rome. Forests, 7(7), 150.
http://doi.org/10.3390/f7070150
Margalida, A., Bogliani, G., Bowden, C. G. R., Donázar, J. A., Genero, F., Gilbert, M., Karesh, W. B., Kock,
R., Lubroth, J., Manteca, X., Naidoo, V., Neimanis, A., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Taggart, M. A.,
Vaarten, J., Yon, L., Kuiken, T., & Green, R. E. (2014a). One health approach to use of veterinary
pharmaceuticals. Science, 346(6215), 1296–1298. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260260
Margalida, A., & Colomer, M. À. (2012). Modelling the effects of sanitary policies on European vulture
conservation. Scientific Reports, 2(1), 753. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep00753
Margalida, A., Donázar, J. A., Carrete, M., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2010). Sanitary versus environmental
policies: Fitting together two pieces of the puzzle of European vulture conservation. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 47(4), 931–935. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01835.x

246
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Margalida, A., & Moleón, M. (2016). Toward carrion-free ecosystems? Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 14(4), 183–184. http://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1261
Margalida, A., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Blanco, G., Hiraldo, F., & Donázar, J. A. (2014b). Diclofenac
approval as a threat to Spanish vultures. Conservation Biology, 28(3), 631–632.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12271
Markus-Johansson, M., Mesquita, B., Nemeth, A., Dimovski, M., Monnier, C., & Kiss-Parciu Szentendre,
P. (2010). Illegal Logging in South Eastern Europe. Szentendre, Hungary: Regional Environmental
Center.
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across
value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220–228.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2009). Effects of spatial and
temporal scales on cultural services valuation. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2),
1050–1059. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.013
Martín-Lopez, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Garcia-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D.
G., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., Gonzalez, J. A.,
Santos-Martin, F., Onaindia, M., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering ecosystem
service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6).
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2007). The non-economic motives behind the willingness
to pay for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 139(1), 67–82.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.005
Martín-López, B., Montes, C., & Benayas, J. (2008). Economic valuation of biodiversity conservation:
the meaning of numbers. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 624–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00921.x
Martín-Vega, D., & Baz, A. (2011). Could the “vulture restaurants” be a lifeboat for the recently
rediscovered bone-skippers (Diptera: Piophilidae)? Journal of Insect Conservation, 15(5), 747–
753. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9429-0
Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N. M., Fraser, J. A., Lehman, I., & Rodriguez, I. (2016).
Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation, 197, 254–
261. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.03.021
Martínez de Aragón, J., Riera, P., Giergiczny, M., & Colinas, C. (2011). Value of wild mushroom picking
as an environmental service. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(6), 419–424.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.003
Mateo-Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Moleón, M., Vicente, J., Botella, F., Selva, N., Viñuela, J., & Sánchez-
Zapata, J. A. (2015). From regional to global patterns in vertebrate scavenger communities
subsidized by big game hunting. Diversity and Distributions, 21(8), 913–924.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12330
Mateo-Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Sánchez-Barbudo, I. S., & Mateo, R. (2012). Alleviating human-wildlife
conflicts: Identifying the causes and mapping the risk of illegal poisoning of wild fauna. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 49(2), 376–385. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02119.x
Mattisson, J., Odden, J., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2015). A catch-22 conflict: Access to semi-domestic reindeer
modulates Eurasian lynx depredation on domestic sheep. Biological Conservation, 179, 116–122.

247
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.004
Mattsson, B. J., & Vacik, H. (2017). Prospects for stakeholder coordination by protected-area managers
in Europe. Conservation Biology, 32(1), 98-108.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.12966
Mauerhofer, V. (2016). Public participation in environmental matters: Compendium, challenges and
chances globally. Land Use Policy, 52, 481–491. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.012
Mavsar, R., Japelj, A., & Kovač, M. (2013). Trade-offs between fire prevention and provision of
ecosystem services in Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 29, 62–69.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.10.011
Mayer, A. L., Kauppi, P. E., Angelstam, P. K., Zhang, Y., & Tikka, P. M. (2005). Importing timber,
exporting ecological impact. Science, 308(5720), 359–360.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109476
Maynou, F., Sbrana, M., Sartor, P., Maravelias, C., Kavadas, S., Damalas, D., Cartes, J. E., & Osio, G.
(2011). Estimating trends of population decline in long-lived marine species in the Mediterranean
Sea based on fishers’ perceptions. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e21818.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021818
McBride, A. C., Dale, V. H., Baskaran, L. M., Downing, M. E., Eaton, L. M., Efroymson, R. A., Garten, C.
T., Kline, K. L., Jager, H. I., Mulholland, P. J., Parish, E. S., Schweizer, P. E., & Storey, J. M. (2011).
Indicators to support environmental sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators,
11(5), 1277–1289. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.010
Mccloskey, R. M., & Unsworth, R. K. F. (2015). Decreasing seagrass density negatively influences
associated fauna. PeerJ, 3, e1053. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1053
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: A multidimensional
framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science &
Policy, 33, 416–427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006
MCPFE, UNECE, & FAO. (2007). State of Europe’s forests 2007. The MCPFE report on sustainable forest
management in Europe. Retrieved from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/State_of_europes_forests_2007.p
df
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Meyer, M. A., & Leckert, F. S. (2017). A systematic review of the conceptual differences of
environmental assessment and ecosystem service studies of biofuel and bioenergy production.
Biomass and Bioenergy. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.05.003
Meyer, M. A., Seppelt, R., Witing, F., & Priess, J. A. (2016). Making environmental assessments of
biomass production systems comparable worldwide. Environmental Research Letters, 11(3),
34005. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034005
Michelozzi, P., Accetta, G., De Sario, M., D’Ippoliti, D., Marino, C., Baccini, M., Biggeri, A., Anderson, H.
R., Katsouyanni, K., Ballester, F., Bisanti, L., Cadum, E., Forsberg, B., Forastiere, F., Goodman, P.
G., Hojs, A., Kirchmayer, U., Medina, S., Paldy, A., Schindler, C., Sunyer, J., & Perucci, C. A. (2009).
High temperature and hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory causes in 12 European
cities. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 179(5), 383–389.
http://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200802-217OC

248
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Micklin, P. (2007). The Aral Sea disaster. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 47–72.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120
Middelboe, A. L., & Hansen, P. J. (2007). Direct effects of pH and inorganic carbon on macroalgal
photosynthesis and growth. Marine Biology Research, 3(3), 134–144.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17451000701320556
Mitchell, G. R., Biscaia, S., Mahendra, V. S., & Mateus, A. (2016). High value materials from the forests.
Advances in Materials Physics and Chemistry, 6, 54–60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ampc.2016.63006
Mitchell, R. J., Richardson, E. A., Shortt, N. K., & Pearce, J. R. (2015). Neighborhood environments and
socioeconomic inequalities in mental well-being. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(1),
80–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.01.017
Miura, S., Amacher, M., Hofer, T., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Ernawati, & Thackway, R. (2015). Protective
functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. Forest Ecology and
Management, 352, 35–46. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.03.039
Mocior, E., & Kruse, M. (2016). Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes – An
overview. Ecological Indicators, 60, 137–151. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.031
Moleón, M., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2015). The living dead: Time to integrate scavenging into
ecological teaching. BioScience, 65(10), 1003–1010. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv101
Moleón, M., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Selva, N., Donázar, J. A., & Owen-Smith, N. (2014). Inter-specific
interactions linking predation and scavenging in terrestrial vertebrate assemblages. Biological
Reviews, 89(4), 1042–1054. http://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12097
Molnár, Z. (2014). Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by
Hungarian herders. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 107–118.
http://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00082.1
Molnár, Z., Safian, L., Mate, J., Barta, S., Suto, D. P., Molnar, A., & Varga, A. (2017). “It does matter who
leans on the stick”: Hungarian herders’ perspectives on biodiversity, ecosystem services and their
drivers. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 42–56). Paris,
France: UNESCO.
Montanarella, L., Pennock, D. J., McKenzie, N. J., Badraoui, M., Chude, V., Baptista, I., Mamo, T.,
Yemefack, M., Singh Aulakh, M., Yagi, K., Young Hong, S., Vijarnsorn, P., Zhang, G.-L., Arrouays,
D., Black, H., Krasilnikov, P., Sobocká, J., Alegre, J., Henriquez, C. R., Mendonça-Santos, M. L.,
Taboada, M., Espinosa-Victoria, D., AlShankiti, A., AlaviPanah, S. K., Elsheikh, E. A. E., Hempel, J.,
Camps Arbestain, M., Nachtergaele, F., & Vargas, R. (2015). World’s soils are under threat. SOIL,
2, 79-82. http://doi.org/10.5194/soild-2-1263-2015
Moore, P. G. (2003). Seals and fisheries in the Clyde Sea area (Scotland): traditional knowledge informs
science. Fisheries Research, 63(1), 51–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-7836(03)00003-1
Morales-Reyes, Z., Martín-López, B., Moleón, M., Mateo-Tomás, P., Botella, F., Margalida, A., Donázar,
J. A., Blanco, G., Pérez, I., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2017a). Farmer perceptions of the ecosystem
services provided by scavengers: What, who, and to whom. Conservation Letters.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12392
Morales-Reyes, Z., Pérez-García, J. M., Moleón, M., Botella, F., Carrete, M., Donázar, J. A., Cortés-
Avizanda, A., Arrondo, E., Moreno-Opo, R., Jiménez, J., Maralida, A., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A.

249
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(2017b). Evaluation of the network of protection areas for the feeding of scavengers in Spain:
from biodiversity conservation to greenhouse gas emission savings. Journal of Applied Ecology,
54(4), 1120–1129. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12833
Morales-Reyes, Z., Pérez-García, J. M., Moleón, M., Botella, F., Carrete, M., Lazcano, C., Moreno-Opo,
R., Margalida, A., Donázar, J. A., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. (2015). Supplanting ecosystem services
provided by scavengers raises greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 7811.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep07811
Morales-Reyes, Z., Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Sebastián-González, E., Botella, F., Carrete, M., & Moleón, M.
(2017c). Scavenging efficiency and red fox abundance in Mediterranean mountains with and
without vultures. Acta Oecologica, 79, 81–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2016.12.012
Mortberg, U., Haas, J., Zetterberg, A., Franklin, J. P., Jonsson, D., & Deal, B. (2013). Urban ecosystems
and sustainable urban development-analysing and assessing interacting systems in the
Stockholm region. Urban Ecosystems, 16(4), 763–782. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0270-
3
Moseley, C. (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Mrozik, K. (2016). Assessment of retention potential changes as an element of suburbanization
monitoring on example of an ungauged catchment in Poznań Metropolitan Area (Poland). Rocznik
Ochrona Środowiska [Annual Set the Environment Protection], 18, 188-200.
Mueller, L., Schindler, U., AxelBehrendt, & Eulenstein, F. (2014). The Muencheberg soil quality rating
for assessing the quality of global farmland. In L. Mueller, A. Saparov, & G. Lischeid (Eds.), Novel
measurement and assessment tools for monitoring and management of land and water resources
in agricultural landscapes of Central Asia (pp. 235-248). Switzerland: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01017-5
Murillas-Maza, A., Virto, J., Gallastegui, M. C., González, P., & Fernández-Macho, J. (2011). The value
of open ocean ecosystems: A case study for the Spanish exclusive economic zone. Natural
Resources Forum, 2(2), 122–133. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2011.01383.x
Mustaeva, N., Wyes, H., Mohr, B., & Kayumov, A. (2015). Tajikistan: Country situation assessment -
Working paper.
MWO. (2012). Mediterranean wetlands outlook 2012. First technical report.
Myers, S. S., & Patz, J. A. (2009). Emerging threats to human health from global environmental change.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34(1), 223–252.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.033108.102650
Nabhan, G. P. (2001). Cultural perceptions of ecological interactions: An “endangered people’s”
contribution to the conservation of biological and linguistic diversity. In L. Maffi (Ed.), On
biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge and the environment (pp. 145–156).
Washington, DC, USA and London, UK: Smithson. Institution Press.
Nachtergaele, F., Petri, M., Biancalani, R., van Lynden, G., & van Velthuizen, H. (2010). Global land
degradation information system (GLADIS). Beta version. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/gladis/glad_ind/
Nakicenovic, N., & Swart, R. (2000). Special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., Ringler, C., Msangi, S., Palazzo,

250
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A., Batka, M., Magalhaes, M., Valmonte-Santos, R., Ewing, M., & Lee, D. R. (2009). Climate
change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. Washington, DC, USA: International Food
Policy Research Institute. http://doi.org/10.2499/0896295354
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Palazzo, A., Gray, I., Ingersoll, C., Robertson, R., Tokgoz, S., Zhu, T.,
Sulser, T. B., Ringler, C., Msangi, S., & You, L. (2010). Food security, farming, and climate change
to 2050: Scenarios, results, policy options. Research reports IFPRI.
http://doi.org/10.2499/9780896291867
Netalgae. (2012). Seaweed industry in Europe.
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2016). Natural products as sources of new drugs from 1981 to 2014.
Journal of Natural Products, 79(3), 629–661. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01055
Nieto, A., Roberts, S. P. M., Kemp, J., Rasmont, P., Kuhlmann, M., García Criado, M., Biesmeijer, J. C.,
Bogusch, P., Dathe, H. H., De la Rúa, P., De Meulemeester, T., Dehon, M., Dewulf, A., Ortiz-
Sánchez, F. J., Lhomme, P., Pauly, A., Potts, S.G., Praz, C., Quaranta, M., Radchenko, V. G.,
Scheuchl, E., Smit, J., Straka, J., Terzo, M., Tomozii, B., Window, J., & Michez, D. (2014). European
red list of bees. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2779/77003
Nurbekov, A., Akramkhanov, A., Kassam, A., Sydyk, D., Ziyadaullaev, Z., & Lamers, J. P. A. (2016).
Conservation agriculture for combating land degradation in Central Asia: A synthesis. Aims
Agriculture and Food, 1(2), 144–156. http://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.144
Ode, Å., Fry, G., Tveit, M. S., Messager, P., & Miller, D. (2009). Indicators of perceived naturalness as
drivers of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 375–383.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
OECD-FAO. (2016). OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 2016-2025. http://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-
2016-en
OECD. (2017). World development indicators. Retrieved December 12, 2017, from
http://stats.oecd.org/
Ogada, D. L., Keesing, F., & Virani, M. Z. (2012). Dropping dead: Causes and consequences of vulture
population declines worldwide. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 57–71.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06293.x
Olchev, A., Novenko, E., Desherevskaya, O., Krasnorutskaya, K., & Kurbatova, J. (2009). Effects of
climatic changes on carbon dioxide and water vapor fluxes in boreal forest ecosystems of
European part of Russia. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 45007.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045007
Olea, P. P., & Mateo-Tomás, P. (2009). The role of traditional farming practices in ecosystem
conservation: The case of transhumance and vultures. Biological Conservation, 142(8), 1844–
1853. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.024
Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., & Tarrant, S. (2011). How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?
Oikos, 120(3), 321–326. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
Olsson, O., Bolin, A., Smith, H. G., & Lonsdorf, E. V. (2015). Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in
heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory. Ecological Modelling, 316, 133–143.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.08.009
Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2001). Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem

251
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

management: A study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4(2), 85–104.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s100210000061
Osipova, E., Wilson, L., Blaney, R., Shi, Y., Fancourt, M., Strubel, M., Salvaterra, T., Brown, C., &
Verschuuren, B. (2014). The benefits of natural world heritage: identifying and assessing
ecosystem services and benefits provided by the world’s most iconic natural places. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
OSPAR. (2010). Quality Status Report 2010.
Ostfeld, R. S., & Keesing, F. (2012). Effects of host diversity on infectious disease. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 43(1), 157–182. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-
102710-145022
Otčenášek, J. (2013). Traditional food in the Central Europe: History and changes. Retrieved from
https://books.google.de/books/about/Traditional_Food_in_the_Central_Europe.html?id=LCXvo
AEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J. A., Martín-López, B., López, C. A., & Montes, C. (2012). Ecosystem
services and social – ecological resilience in transhumance cultural landscapes: learning from the
past, looking for a future. In T. Plieninger & C. Bieling (Eds.), Resilience and the cultural landscape
(pp. 242–260). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2017). Using social media
photos to explore the relation between cultural ecosystem services and landscape features
across five European sites. Ecological Indicators, in press.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.009
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martin-Lopez, B., Gonzalez, J. A., Plieninger, T., Lopez, C. A., & Montes, C. (2014).
Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network.
Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1269–1289. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., López, C. A., Palomo, I., & González, J. A. (2013a). Envisioning the
future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case study in Spain.
The Rangeland Journal, 35(3), 251-272. http://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092
Oteros-Rozas, E., Ontillera-Sánchez, R., Sanosa, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., & González,
J. A. (2013b). Traditional ecological knowledge among transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean
Spain. Ecology and Society, 18(3), art33. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05597-180333
Page, E. A. (2007). Justice between generations: Investigating a sufficientarian approach. Journal of
Global Ethics, 3(1), 3–20. http://doi.org/10.1080/17449620600991960
Pak, M., Türker, M. F., & Öztürk, A. (2010). Total economic value of forest resources in Turkey. African
Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(15), 1908–1916. http://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR10.018
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Meusburger, K., Alewell, C., Lugato, E., & Montanarella, L. (2015a). Estimating
the soil erosion cover-management factor at the European scale. Land Use Policy, 48, 38–50.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.05.021
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., Ballabio, C., Lugato, E., Meusburger, K., Montanarella, L., & Alewell,
C. (2015b). The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environmental Science &
Policy, 54, 438–447. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.012
Panagos, P., Imeson, A., Meusburger, K., Borrelli, P., Poesen, J., & Alewell, C. (2016). Soil conservation
in Europe: Wish or reality? Land Degradation and Development, 27(6), 1547–1551.

252
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2538
Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Kopperoinen, L., Maes, J., Schägner, J. P., Termansen, M., Zandersen, M.,
Perez-Soba, M., Scholefield, P. A., & Bidoglio, G. (2014). Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A
framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecological Indicators, 45,
371–385. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.04.018
Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Pieroni, A., & Puri, R. K. (2010). The ethnobotany of Europe, past and present.
In M. Pardo-de-Santayana, A. Pieroni, & R. K. Puri (Eds.), The Ethnobotany in the new Europe:
People, health and wild plant resources (pp. 1–15). New York, USA: Berghahn Books.
Parrotta, J. A., & Agnoletti, M. (2007). Traditional forest knowledge: Challenges and opportunities.
Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1-2), 1-4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.022
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Diaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E.,
Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.
Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J. Bullock, C., Cáceres,
D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D.,
Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue,
W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.
B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., & Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to
people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L. C., & Duraiappah, A. (2010). Exploring the links between equity
and efficiency in payments for environmental services: A conceptual approach. Ecological
Economics, 69(6), 1237–1244. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.004
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., &
Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services. BioScience,
64(11), 1027–1036. http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146
Pausas, J. G., Llovet, J., Rodrigo, A., & Vallejo, R. (2008). Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean
basin? – A review. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17(6), 713.
http://doi.org/10.1071/WF07151
Pawera, L., Verner, V., Termote, C., Kandakov, A., & Karabaev, N. (2016). Medical ethnobotany of
herbal practitioners in the Turkestan Range, southwestern Kyrgyzstan.
http://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.3483
Payyappallimana, U., & Subramanian, S. (2015). Traditional medicine. In WHO & CBD, Connecting
global priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge review (pp. 180-199).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Pearce, D. W., & Moran, D. (1994). The Economic Value of Biodiversity. London, UK: Earthscan
Publications.
Pehlivanov, L., Fikova, R., Ivanova, N., Nevena, R., Kazakov, S., Pavlova, M., & Doncheva, S. (2014).
Analysis of ecosystem services of wetlands along the Bulgarian section of the Danube river. Acta
Zoologica Bulgarica, 66(Suppl.), 103–107.
Pelkonen, P.; Mustonen, M., Asikainen, A., Egnell, G., Kant, P., Leduc, S., & Pettenella, D. (2014). Forest
Bioenergy for Europe.
Pettit, L. R., Smart, C. W., Hart, M. B., Milazzo, M., & Hall-Spencer, J. M. (2015). Seaweed fails to prevent
ocean acidification impact on foraminifera along a shallow-water CO2 gradient. Ecology and

253
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Evolution, 5(9), 1784–1793. http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1475

Pieroni, A., Rexhepi, B., Nedelcheva, A., Hajdari, A., Mustafa, B., Kolosova, V., Cianfaglione, K., & Quave,
C. L. (2013). One century later: the folk botanical knowledge of the last remaining Albanians of
the upper Reka Valley, Mount Korab, western Macedonia. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine, 9, 22. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-22
Pietilä, M., & Fagerholm, N. (2016). Visitors’ place-based evaluations of unacceptable tourism impacts
in Oulanka National Park, Finland. Tourism Geographies, 18(3), 258–279.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2016.1169313
Pilgrim, S. E., Cullen, L. C., Smith, D. J., & Pretty, J. (2008). Ecological knowledge is lost in wealthier
communities and countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 1004–1009.
Piper, R. (2017). Drugs from bugs: The next blockbuster medicine could be lurking inside an insect.
Retrieved from www.theconversation.com
Plieninger, T., Draux, H., Fagerholm, N., Bieling, C., Bürgi, M., Kizos, T., Kuemmerle, T., Primdahl, J., &
Verburg, P. H. (2016). The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of
the evidence. Land Use Policy, 57, 204–214. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.040
Plieninger, T., Hartel, T., Martín-López, B., Beaufoy, G., Bergmeier, E., Kirby, K., Montero, M. J., Moreno,
G., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Van Uytvanck, J. (2015). Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage,
social-ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biological
Conservation, 190, 70–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014
Pollock, L. J., Thuiller, W., & Jetz, W. (2017). Large conservation gains possible for global biodiversity
facets. Nature, 546(7656), 141–144. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature22368
Popkin, B. M., Adair, L. S., & Ng, S. W. (2011). Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity
in developing countries. Nutrition Reviews, 70(1), 3–21. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-
4887.2011.00456.x
Popova, E. E., Yool, A., Coward, A. C., Dupont, F., Deal, C., Elliott, S., Hunke, E., Jin. M., Steele. M., &
Zhang, J. (2012). What controls primary production in the Arctic Ocean? Results from an
intercomparison of five general circulation models with biogeochemistry. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Oceans, 117(C8). http://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007112
Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014). The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food,
energy, and environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 559-578.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056
Pullin, A., Frampton, G., & Jongman, R. (2016). Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis
to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(7), 1285–1300.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1131-9
Qi, J., Bobushev, T., Kulmatov, R., Groisman, P., & Gutman, G. (2012). Addressing global change
challenges for Central Asian socio-ecosystems. Frontiers of Earth Science, 6(2), 115- 121.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-012-0320-4
Quave, C. L., Pardo-De-Santayana, M., & Pieroni, A. (2012). Medical ethnobotany in Europe: From field
ethnography to a more culturally sensitive evidence-based cam? Evidence-Based Complementary
and Alternative Medicine, 2012, 156846. http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/156846
Queenan, K. (2017). Roadmap to a one health agenda 2030. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 12(14).

254
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR201712014
Quetier, F., Lavorel, S. Thuiller, W. and Davies, I. (2007). Plant-trait-based modeling assessment of
ecosystem-service sensitivity to land-use change. Ecological Applications, 17, 2377–2386.
http://doi.org/10.1890/06-0750.1
Rakhmatullaev, S., Huneau, F., Le Coustumer, P., Motelica-Heino, M., & Bakiev, M. (2010). Facts and
perspectives of water reservoirs in Central Asia: A special focus on Uzbekistan. Water, 2(2), 307–
320. http://doi.org/10.3390/w2020307
Rall, E., Bieling, C., Zytynska, S., & Haase, D. (2017). Exploring city-wide patterns of cultural ecosystem
service perceptions and use. Ecological Indicators, 77, 80–95.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.02.001
Randolph, S. E., & Dobson, A. D. M. (2012). Pangloss revisited: a critique of the dilution effect and the
biodiversity-buffers-disease paradigm. Parasitology, 139(7), 847–863.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182012000200
Read, P., & Fernandes, T. (2003). Management of environmental impacts of marine aquaculture in
Europe. Aquaculture, 226(1–4), 139–163. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(03)00474-5
Reed, D. W. (2002). Reinforcing flood-risk estimation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
A, 360, 1373–1387. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2002.1005
Remme, R. P., Schröter, M., & Hein, L. (2014). Developing spatial biophysical accounting for multiple
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 10, 6–18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.006
Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Kaiser, M., Dentinho, T. P., Zarzycki, T., Bentley, C., Austen, M., Burdon,
D., Atkins, J., Santos, R. S., & Edwards-Jones, G. (2012). Different cultures, different values: The
role of cultural variation in public’s WTP for marine species conservation. Biological Conservation,
145(1), 148–159. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.026
Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H. A., & Larigauderie, A. (2012). Finding common ground for
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience, 62(5), 503–507.
http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.5.12
Reyes-García, V., Menendez-Baceta, G., Aceituno-Mata, L., Acosta-Naranjo, R., Calvet-Mir, L.,
Domínguez, P., Garnatje, T., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Molina-Bustamante, M., Molina, M.,
Rodriguez-Franco, R., Serrasolses, G., Valls, J., & Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2015). From famine
foods to delicatessen: Interpreting trends in the use of wild edible plants through cultural
ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 120, 303–311.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.003
Reyes-García, V., Vila, S., Aceituno-Mata, L., Calvet-Mir, L., Garnatje, T., Jesch, A., Lastra, J. J., Parada,
M., Rigat, M., Valles, J., & Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2010). Gendered homegardens: A study in
three mountain areas of the Iberian Peninsula. Economic Botany, 64, 235–247.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-010-9124-1
Ricketts, T. H., & Lonsdorf, E. (2013). Mapping the margin: Comparing marginal values of tropical forest
remnants for pollination services. Ecological Applications, 23(5), 1113–1123.
http://doi.org/10.1890/12-1600.1
Rigg, R., Finďo, S., Wechselberger, M., Gorman, M. L., Sillero-Zubiri, C., & Macdonald, D. W. (2011).
Mitigating carnivore–livestock conflict in Europe: Lessons from Slovakia. Oryx, 45(2), 272–280.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000074

255
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Roberge, J. M., Laudon, H., Björkman, C., Ranius, T., Sandström, C., Felton, A., Sténs, A., Nordin, A.,
Granström, A., Widemo, F., Bergh, J., Sonesson, J., Stenlid, J., & Lundmark, T. (2016). Socio-
ecological implications of modifying rotation lengths in forestry. Ambio, 45, 109–123.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0747-4
Roberti di Sarsina, P. (2007). The social demand for a medicine focused on the person: The contribution
of CAM to healthcare and healthgenesis. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, 4(Suppl.), 45–51. http://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nem094
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer,
M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe,
H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W.,
Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009).
A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
http://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Roleda, M. Y., Cornwall, C. E., Feng, Y., McGraw, C. M., Smith, A. M., & Hurd, C. L. (2015). Effect of
ocean acidification and pH fluctuations on the growth and development of coralline algal recruits,
and an associated benthic algal assemblage. PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0140394.
Romagosa, F., Eagles, P. F. J., & Lemieux, C. J. (2015). From the inside out to the outside in: Exploring
the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being. Journal of
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 10, 70–77. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.009
Rook, G. A. W., & Knight, R. (2015). Environmental microbial diversity and noncommunicable diseases.
In WHO & CBD, Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge
review (pp. 150-163). http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Roques, A., Rabitsch, W., Rasplus, J.-Y., Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Nentwig, W., & Kenis, M. (2009). Alien
terrestrial invertebrates of Europe. In DAISIE, Handbook of alien species in Europe (pp. 63–79).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8280-1_5
Rotherham, I. D. (2007). The implications of perceptions and cultural knowledge loss for the
management of wooded landscapes: A UK case-study. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1–
2), 100–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.030
Roué, M., & Molnár, Z. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Ruiz-Frau, A., Edwards-Jones, G., & Kaiser, M. J. (2011). Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone
management. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 239–249. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps09136
Rulli, M. C., Bellomi, D., Cazzoli, A., De Carolis, G., & D’Odorico, P. (2016). The water-land-food nexus
of first-generation biofuels. Scientific Reports, 6, 22521. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep22521
Rulli, M. C., Saviori, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2013). Global land and water grabbing. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 892–897.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213163110
Ruokolainen, L., Paalanen, L., Karkman, A., Laatikainen, T., von Hertzen, L., Vlasoff, T., Markelova, O.,
Masyuk, V., Auvinen, P., Paulin, L., Alenius, H., Fyhrquist, N., Hanski, I., Mäkelä, M. J., Zilber, E.,
Jousilahti, P., Vartiainen, E., & Haahtela, T. (2017). Significant disparities in allergy prevalence and
microbiota between the young people in Finnish and Russian Karelia. Clinical and Experimental
Allergy, 47(5), 665–674. http://doi.org/10.1111/cea.12895

256
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ruskule, A., Nikodemus, O., Kasparinskis, R., Bell, S., & Urtane, I. (2013). The perception of abandoned
farmland by local people and experts: Landscape value and perspectives on future land use.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 115, 49–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.012
Ruyts, S. C., Ampoorter, E., Coipan, E. C., Baeten, L., Heylen, D., Sprong, H., Matthysen, E., & Verheyen,
K. (2016). Diversifying forest communities may change Lyme disease risk: Extra dimension to the
dilution effect in Europe. Parasitology, 143(10), 1310–1319.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182016000688
Rzadkowski, S., & Kalinowski, M. (2013). Harvesting of non-wood forest products in Poland and their
resources an overview. In Harvesting of non-wood forest products (pp. 133–138).
Sæbø, A., Popek, R., Nawrot, B., Hanslin, H. M., Gawronska, H., & Gawronski, S. W. (2012). Plant species
differences in particulate matter accumulation on leaf surfaces. Science of the Total Environment,
427–428, 347–354. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.084
SAEPF, UNEP, & UNDP. (2012). The national report on the state of the environment of the Kyrgyz
Republic for 2006-2011.
Sahlén, V., Friebe, A., Sæbø, S., Swenson, J. E., & Støen, O. G. (2015). Den entry behavior in
Scandinavian brown bears: Implications for preventing human injuries. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 79(2), 274–287. http://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.822
Sánchez-Mata, M. D., & Tardío, J. (2016). Mediterranean wild edible plants: Ethnobotany and food
composition. New York, USA: Springer.
Sánchez-Zapata, J. A., Clavero, M., Carrete, M., DeVault, T. L., Hermoso, V., Losada, M. A., Polo, M. J.,
Sánchez-Navarro, S., Pérez-García, J. M., Botella, F., Ibáñez, C., & Donázar, J. A. (2016). Effects of
renewable energy production and infrastructure on wildlife. In R. Mateo, B. Arroyo, & J. T. García
(Eds.), Current trends in wildlife research (pp. 97–123). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Sanderson, F. J., Donald, P. F., Pain, D. J., Burfield, I. J., & van Bommel, F. P. J. (2006). Long-term
population declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biological Conservation, 131(1), 93–105.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.02.008
Santos-Martín, F., Martín-López, B., García-Llorente, M., Aguado, M., Benayas, J., & Montes, C. (2013).
Unraveling the relationships between ecosystems and human wellbeing in Spain. PLoS ONE, 8(9),
e73249. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073249
Schierhorn, F., Müller, D., Beringer, T., Prishchepov, A. V., Kuemmerle, T., & Balmann, A. (2013). Post-
Soviet cropland abandonment and carbon sequestration in European Russia, Ukraine, and
Belarus. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 27(4), 1175–1185.
http://doi.org/10.1002/2013GB004654
Schirpke, U., Hölzler, S., Leitinger, G., Bacher, M., Tappeiner, U., & Tasser, E. (2013). Can we model the
scenic beauty of an alpine landscape? Sustainability (Switzerland), 5(3), 1080–1094.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su5031080
Schlegel, J., Breuer, G., & Rupf, R. (2015). Local insects as flagship species to promote nature
conservation? A survey among primary school children on their attitudes toward invertebrates.
Anthrozoos, 28(2), 229–245. http://doi.org/10.2752/089279315x14219211661732
Schley, L., Dufrêne, M., Krier, A., & Frantz, A. C. (2008). Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus
scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 54(4), 589–
599. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x

257
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Schmalz, B., Kruse, M., Kiesel, J., Müller, F., & Fohrer, N. (2016). Water-related ecosystem services in
western Siberian lowland basins - Analysing and mapping spatial and seasonal effects on
regulating services based on ecohydrological modelling results. Ecological Indicators, 71, 55–65.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.050
Schmitz, C., Biewald, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Bodirsky, B., Krause, M., & Weindl,
I. (2012). Trading more food: Implications for land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and the food
system. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 189–209.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.013
Schokkaert, E., & Devooght, K. (2003). Responsibility-sensitive fair compensation in different cultures.
Social Choice and Welfare, 21(2), 207–242. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-003-0257-3
Schröter, M., Stumpf, K. H., Loos, J., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., & Abson, D. J.
(2017). Refocusing ecosystem services towards sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 25, 35–43.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.019
Schulp, C. J. E., Lautenbach, S., & Verburg, P. H. (2014a). Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services:
Demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecological Indicators, 36, 131–141.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014
Schulp, C. J. E., Thuiller, W., & Verburg, P. H. (2014b). Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowledge
and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. Ecological Economics, 105, 292–305.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.018
Schulp, C. J. E., Van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Tucker, G., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). A quantitative assessment
of policy options for no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the European Union.
Land Use Policy, 57, 151–163. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.018
Schulze, E. D., Ciais, P., Luyssaert, S., Schrumpf, M., Janssens, I. A., Thiruchittampalam, B., Theloke, J.,
Saurat, M., Bringezu, S., Lelieveld, J., Lohila, A., Rebmann, C., Jung, M., Bastviken, D., Abril, G.,
Grassi, G., Leip, A., Freibauer, A., Kutsch, W., Don, A., Nieschulze, J., Börner, A., Gash, J. H., &
Dolman, A. J. (2010). The European carbon balance. Part 4: Integration of carbon and other trace-
gas fluxes. Global Change Biology, 16(5), 1451-1469. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2010.02215.x
Schulze, E. D., Luyssaert, S., Ciais, P., Freibauer, A., Janssens, I. A., Soussana, J. F., Smith, P., Grace, J.,
Levin, I., Thiruchittampalam, B., Heimann, M., Dolman, A. J., Valentini, R., Bousquet, P., Peylin, P.,
Peters, W., Rödenbeck, C., Etiope, G., Vuichard, N., Wattenbach, M., Nabuurs, G. J., Poussi, Z.,
Nieschulze, J., Gash, J. H., & the CarboEurope team. (2009). Importance of methane and nitrous
oxide for Europe’s terrestrial greenhouse-gas balance. Nature Geoscience, 2(12), 842–850.
http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo686
Sebastián-González, E., Moleón, M., Gibert, J. P., Botella, F., Mateo-Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Guimarães
Jr, P. R., & Sánchez-Zapata, J. (2015). Nested species-rich networks of scavenging vertebrates
support high levels of interspecific competition. Ecology, 97(1), 95–105.
http://doi.org/10.1890/15-0212.1
Seeland, K., & Staniszewski, P. (2007). Indicators for a European cross-country state-of-the-art
assessment of non-timber forest products and services. Small-Scale Forestry, 6(4), 411–422.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-007-9029-8
Seidl, A. (2014). Cultural ecosystem services and economic development: World heritage and early
efforts at tourism in Albania. Ecosystem Services, 10, 164–171.

258
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.006
Sekercioglu, C. H., Daily, G. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (2004). Ecosystem consequences of bird declines.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(52),
18042–18047. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0408049101
Setälä, H., Viippola, V., Rantalainen, A.-L., Pennanen, A., & Yli-Pelkonen, V. (2013). Does urban
vegetation mitigate air pollution in northern conditions? Environmental Pollution, 183, 104–112.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.11.010
Sevenant, M., & Antrop, M. (2009). Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and
differentiation of landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(9), 2889–2899.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016
Shahgedanova, M., Burt, T. P., & Davies, T. D. (1997). Some aspects of the three‐dimensional heat
island in Moscow. International Journal of Climatology, 17, 1451–1465.
http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(19971115)17:13<1451::AID-JOC201>3.0.CO;2-Z
Shanin, V. N., Komarov, A. S., Mikhailov, A. V., & Bykhovets, S. S. (2011). Modelling carbon and nitrogen
dynamics in forest ecosystems of central Russia under different climate change scenarios and
forest management regimes. Ecological Modelling, 222(14), 2262–2275.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.11.009
Skoulikidis, N. T., Sabater, S., Datry, T., Morais, M. M., Buffagni, A., Dorflinger, G., Zogaris, S., Sanchez-
Montoya, M. D., Bonada, N., Kalogianni, E., Rosado, J., Vardakas, L., De Girolamo, A. M., &
Tockner, K. (2017). Non-perennial Mediterranean rivers in Europe: Status, pressures, and
challenges for research and management. Science of the Total Environment, 577, 1–18.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.147
Smale, D. A., Burrows, M. T., Moore, P., O’Connor, N., & Hawkins, S. J. (2013). Threats and knowledge
gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: A northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology
and Evolution, 3(11), 4016–4038. http://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.774
Šmid Hribar, M., Bole, D., & Urbanc, M. (2015). Javno in skupno dobro v kulturni pokrajini [Public and
common good in cultural landscapes]. Geografski Vestnik [Geographic News], 87(2), 43–57.
http://doi.org/10.3986/GV87203
Šmid Hribar, M., & Urbanc, M. (2016). The nexus between landscape elements and traditional practices
for cultural landscape management. In M. Agnoletti & F. Emanueli (Eds.), Biocultural diversity in
Europe (pp. 523–537). Switzerland: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26315-1_28
Smrekar, A., Šmid Hribar, M., & Erhartic, B. (2016). Stakeholder conflicts in the Tivoli, Rožnik hill,
and Šiška hill protected landscape area. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 56(2), 305–319.
http://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.895
Solín, Ľ., Feranec, J., & Nováček, J. (2011). Land cover changes in small catchments in Slovakia during
1990-2006 and their effects on frequency of flood events. Natural Hazards, 56(1), 195–214.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9562-1
Sommer, R., & de Pauw, E. (2011). Organic carbon in soils of Central Asia - Status quo and potentials
for sequestration. Plant and Soil, 338(1), 273–288. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0479-y
Sorg, A., Bolch, T., Stoffel, M., Solomina, O., & Beniston, M. (2012). Climate change impacts on glaciers
and runoff in Tien Shan (Central Asia). Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 725–731.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1592

259
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sorokin, A., Bryzzhev, A., Strokov, A., Mirzabaev, A., Johnson, T., & Kiselev, S. V. (2016). The economics
of land degradation in Russia. In E. Nkonya, A. Mirzabaev, & J. von Braun (Eds.), Economics of land
degradation and improvement – A global assessment for sustainable development (pp. 541–576).
Switzerland: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19168-3
Sorrenti, S. (2017). Non-wood forest products in international statistical systems.
Spanish NEA. (2013). Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and biodiversity for human
wellbeing. Madrid, Spain: Biodiversity Foundation of the Ministry of Environment.
Stahl, K., Hisdal, H., Hannaford, J., Tallaksen, L. M., van Lanen, H. A. J., Sauquet, E., Demuth, S.,
Fendekova, M., & Jódar, J. (2010). Streamflow trends in Europe: evidence from a dataset of near-
natural catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(12), 2367–2382.
http://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010
Stahl, K., Tallaksen, L. M., Hannaford, J., & van Lanen, H. A. J. (2012). Filling the white space on maps
of European runoff trends: estimates from a multi-model ensemble. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 16(7), 2035–2047. http://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2035-2012
Ståhlberg, S., & Svanberg, I. (2011). Catching basking ide, Leuciscus idus (L.), in the Baltic Sea. Journal
of Northern Studies, 5(2), 87–104.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter,
S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M.,
Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Steinbrecher, R., Smiatek, G., Köble, R., Seufert, G., Theloke, J., Hauff, K., Ciccioli, P., Vautard, R., &
Curci, G. (2009). Intra- and inter-annual variability of VOC emissions from natural and semi-
natural vegetation in Europe and neighbouring countries. Atmospheric Environment, 43(7), 1380–
1391. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.072
Sténs, A., Bjärstig, T., Nordström, E. M., Sandström, C., Fries, C., & Johansson, J. (2016). In the eye of
the stakeholder: The challenges of governing social forest values. Ambio, 45, 87–99.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0745-6
Stoffel, M., & Huggel, C. (2012). Effects of climate change on mass movements in mountain
environments. Progress in Physical Geography, 36(3), 421–439.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0309133312441010
Stolbovoi V., M. I. (2002). Land Resources of Russia (CD-ROM). Laxenburg, Austria: International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and the Russian Academy of Science.
Stolte, J., Tesfai, M., Keizer, J., Øygarden, L., Kværnø, S., Verheijen, F., Panagos, P., Ballabio, C., &
Hessel, R. (2015). Soil threats in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2788/828742
Stone, D., Ritz, K., Griffiths, B. G., Orgiazzi, A., & Creamer, R. E. (2016). Selection of biological indicators
appropriate for European soil monitoring. Applied Soil Ecology, 97, 12–22.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.08.005
Støttrup, J. G., Stenberg, C., Dahl, K., Kristensen, L. D., & Richardson, K. (2014). Restoration of a
temperate reef: Effects on the fish community. Open Journal of Ecology, 4, 1045–1059.
Stoyneva-Gärtner M. P., S., & Uzunov, B.A. (2015). An ethno biological glance on globalization impact

260
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

on the traditional use of algae and fungi as food in Bulgaria. Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences,
5(5). http://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9600.1000413
Sturck, J., Poortinga, A., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Mapping ecosystem services: The supply and demand
of flood regulation services in Europe. Ecological Indicators, 38, 198–211.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.010
Surová, D., Pinto-Correia, T., & Marušák, R. (2013). Visual complexity and the montado do matter:
landscape pattern preferences of user groups in Alentejo, Portugal. Annals of Forest Science,
71(1), 15–24. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-013-0330-8
Sutton, W.R., Srivastava, J.P. and Neumann, J. E. (2013). Looking beyond the horizon: How climate
change impacts and adaptation responses will reshape agriculture in Eastern Europe and Central
Asia. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank.
Sychev, V. G., Yefremov, E. N., & Romanenkov, V. A. (2016). Monitoring of soil fertility (agroecological
monitoring). In L. Mueller, A. K. Sheudshen, & F. Eulenstein (Eds.), Novel methods for monitoring
and managing land and water resources in Siberia (pp. 541–561). Switzerland: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24409-9_24
Tallis, M., Taylor, G., Sinnett, D., & Freer-Smith, P. (2011). Estimating the removal of atmospheric
particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under current and future
environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 103(2), 129–138.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.07.003
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations.
London, UK: Earthscan.
Telesca, L., Belluscio, A., Criscoli, A., Ardizzone, G., Apostolaki, E. T., Fraschetti, S., Gristina, M.,
Knittweis, L., Martin, C. S., Pergent, G., Alagna, A., Badalamenti, F., Garofalo, G., Gerakaris, V.,
Louise Pace, M., Pergent-Martini, C., & Salomidi, M. (2015). Seagrass meadows (Posidonia
oceanica) distribution and trajectories of change. Scientific Reports. 5, 12505.
http://doi.org/10.1038/srep12505
ten Brink, P., Mutafoglu, K., Schweitzer, J., Kettunen, M., Kuipers, Y., Emonts, M., Tyrväinen, L., Hujala,
T., & Ojala, A. (2016). The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection. A
report for the European Commission (ENV.B.3/ETU/2014/0039).
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4312.2807
Tengberg, A., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Knez, I., Saltzman, K., & Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural
ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity.
Ecosystem Services, 2, 14–26. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006
Tieskens, K., Schulp, C. J. E., Levers, C., Kuemmerle, T., Lieskovský, J., Plieninger, T., & Verburg, P. H.
(2017). Characterizing European cultural landscapes: Accounting for structure, management
intensity and value of agricultural and forest landscapes. Land Use Policy, 62, 29-39.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.12.001
Tilman, D., Socolow, R., Foley, J. a, Hill, J., Larson, E., Lynd, L., Pacala, S., Reilly, J., Searchiner, T.,
Somerville, C., & Williams, R. (2009). Beneficial biofuels—The food, energy, and environment
trilemma. Science, 325(5938), 270–271. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177970
TNC. (n.d.). The atlas of global conservation. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from
http://maps.tnc.org/globalmaps.html
TNI. (2016). Land grabbing and land concentration in Europe. A Research Brief. Retrieved from

261
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/landgrabbingeurope_a5-2.pdf
Toivonen, A. L., Roth, E., Navrud, S., Gudbergsson, G., Appelblad, H., Bengtsson, B., & Tuunainen, P.
(2004). The economic value of recreational fisheries in Nordic countries. Fisheries Management
and Ecology, 11(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2400.2003.00376.x
Torralba, M., Fagerholm, N., Burgess, P. J., Moreno, G., & Plieninger, T. (2016). Do European
agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 230, 150–161. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002
Tóth, G., Gardi, C., Bódis, K., Ivits, É., Aksoy, E., Jones, A., Jeffrey, S., Petursdottir, T., & Montanarella,
L. (2013). Continental-scale assessment of provisioning soil functions in Europe. Ecological
Processes, 2, 32. http://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-32
Tribot, A., Mouquet, N., Villéger, S., Raymond, M., Hoff, F., Boissery, P., Holon, F., & Deter, J. (2016).
Taxonomic and functional diversity increase the aesthetic value of coralligenous reefs. Scientific
Reports, 6, 34229. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep34229
Turtiainen, M., & Nuutinen, T. (2012). Evaluation of information on wild berry and mushroom markets
in European countries. Small-Scale Forestry, 11(1), 131–145. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-
9173-z
Tveit, M., Ode, Å., & Fry, G. (2006). Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape
character. Landscape Research, 31(3), 229–255.
Uca, S. (2007). Türk Toplumunda Hıdrellez [Hidrellez in Turkish society]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat
Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi [Ataturk University Journal of Turkic Studies], 34, 113–138.
UK NEA. (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical report. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-
WCMC.
Ulbrich, K., Schweiger, O., Klotz, S., & Settele, J. (2015). Biodiversity impacts of climate change - the
PRONAS software as educational tool. Web Ecology, 15, 49–58. http://doi.org/10.5194/we-15-
49-2015
UN-Water. (2011). Water quality. Policy Brief.
UN-Water. (2013). Water security and the global water agenda. Analytical Brief.
http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(68)90080-2
UNEP. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity.
UNEP. (2004). Exploring the links: Human well-being, poverty, and ecosystem services. Mountain
Research and Development (Vol. 22).
UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2016). Protected planet report 2016.
UNEP & UNECE. (2016). GEO-6 - Assessment for the pan-European region. Nairobi, Kenya: United
Nations Environment Programme.
UNESCO. (n.d.). UNESCO Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from
http://www.unesco.org/languages-atlas/
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Retrieved from
https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention
UNFCCC. (2014). National greenhouse gas inventory data for the period 1990–2013. Note by the
secretariat. Retrieved from

262
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008
730
UNICEF. (2014). Children of the recession. The impact of the economic crisis on the child well-being in
rich countries. Innocenti report card 12. Children in the developed world.
US Energy Information Administration. (2017). International Energy Statistics - Biofuels.
Valin, H., Peters, D., Van den Berg, M., Frank, S., Havlik, P., Forsell, N., & Hamelinck, C. (2015). The land
use change impact of biofuels consumed in the EU quantification of area and greenhouse gas
impacts.
Van den Berg, A. E., & Koole, S. L. (2006). New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual
preferences for nature development landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(4), 362–372.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006
Van Den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., Van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., Van Mechelen, W., & Maas, J. (2015).
Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological
studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 806–816.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008
van der Ploeg, J. D., Franco, J. C., & Borras, S. M. (2015). Land concentration and land grabbing in
Europe: A preliminary analysis. Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue Canadienne
D’études Du Développement, 36(2), 147–162. http://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2015.1027673
van Oudenhoven, F., & Haider, J. (2015). With our own hands: A celebration of food and life in the
Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LM Publishers.
Van Swaay, C., Cuttelod, A., Collins, S., Maes, D., Munguira, M. L., Šašić, M., Settele, J., Verovnik, R.,
Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M., & Wynhoff, I. (2010). European red list of butterflies.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://doi.org/10.2779/83897
Van Wijnen, H. J., Rutgers, M., Schouten, A. J., Mulder, C., de Zwart, D., & Breure, A. M. (2012). How
to calculate the spatial distribution of ecosystem services - Natural attenuation as example from
The Netherlands. Science of the Total Environment, 415, 49–55.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.058
Van Zanten, B. T., Van Berkel, D. B., Meentemeyer, R. K., Smith, J. W., Tieskens, T. F., & Verburg, P. H.
(2016). Continental scale quantification of landscape values using social media data. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(46), 12974-12979.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614158113
Van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Koetse, M. J., & Van Beukering, P. J. H. (2014). Preferences for
European agrarian landscapes: A meta-analysis of case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning,
132, 89–101. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.012
Varga, A., & Molnár, Z. (2014). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in managing wood-
pastures. In T. Hartel & T. Plieninger (Eds.), European wood-pastures in transition: A social–
ecological approach. (pp. 185–202.). Abingdon, UK and New York, USA: Earthscan.
Verkerk, P. J., Mavsar, R., Giergiczny, M., Lindner, M., Edwards, D., & Schelhaas, M. J. (2014). Assessing
impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services
provided by European forests. Ecosystem Services, 9, 155–165.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004
Verschuuren, B. (2006). An overview of cultural and spiritual values in ecosystem management and

263
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation strategies.
Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., Mcneely, J., & Oviedo, G. (2010). Sacred natural sites: Conserving nature and
culture. B. Verschuuren, R. Wild, J. Mcneely, & G. Oviedo (Eds.). Abingdon, UK: Earthscan.
Vesterinen, J., Pouta, E., Huhtala, A., & Neuvonen, M. (2010). Impacts of changes in water quality on
recreation behavior and benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(4), 984–
994. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.005
Vidal-Abarca Gutiérrez, M. R., & Suárez Alonso, M. L. (2013). Which are, what is their status and what
can we expect from ecosystem services provided by Spanish rivers and riparian areas?
Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(11), 2469–2503. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0532-2
Vuichard, N., Ciais, P., Belelli, L., Smith, P., & Valentini, R. (2008). Carbon sequestration due to the
abandonment of agriculture in the former USSR since 1990. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 22(4).
http://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003212
Walker, W. S., & Uysal, A. (1973). An ancient god in modern Turkey: Some aspects of the cult of Hizir.
The Journal of American Folklore, 86(341), 286–289.
Walker, G., & Burningham, K. (2011). Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: Evidence and
evaluation of inequality in a UK context. Critical Social Policy, 31(2), 216–240.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0261018310396149
Watson, R. A., Green, B. S., Tracey, S. R., Farmery, A., & Pitcher, T. J. (2015a). Provenance of global
seafood. Fish and Fisheries, 17, 585-595. http://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12129
Watson, R., Nowara, G. B., Hartmann, K., Green, B. S., Tracey, S. R., & Carter, C. G. (2015b). Marine
foods sourced from farther as their use of global ocean primary production increases. Nature
Communications, 6, 7365. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8365
Waycott, M., Duarte, C. M., Carruthers, T. J. B., Orth, R. J., Dennison, W. C., Olyarnik, S., Calladine, A.,
Fourqurean, J. W., Heck, K. L., Hughes, A. R., Kendrick, G. A., Kenworthy, W. J., Short, F. T., &
Williams, S. L. (2009). Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal
ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
106(30), 12377–81. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905620106
Wetlands International. (2015). A pilot wintering waterbird indicator for the European Union.
White, P. C. L., Bennett, A. C., & Hayes, E. J. V. (2001). The use of willingness-to-pay approaches in
mammal conservation. Mammal Review, 31(2), 151–167. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2907.2001.00083.x
WHO. (2008a). Diabetes country profiles. Retrieved February 8, 2017,
from: http://www.who.int/diabetes/country-profiles/en/
WHO. 2008b). Global health observatory data. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from:
http://www.who.int/gho/countries/en/
WHO. (2017). Culture matters: Using a cultural contexts of health approach to enhance policy-making.
http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17532.74881
WHO & CBD. (2015). Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge
review. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Wiggs, G. F. S., O’hara, S. L., Wegerdt, J., Van Der Meer, J., Small, I., & Hubbard, R. (2003). The
dynamics and characteristics of aeolian dust in dryland Central Asia: Possible impacts on human

264
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

exposure and respiratory health in the Aral Sea basin. The Geographical Journal, 169(2), 142–157.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4959.04976
Wilbon, P. A., Chu, F., & Tang, C. (2013). Progress in renewable polymers from natural terpens,
terpenoids and rosin. Macromolecular Rapid Communications, 34(1), 8–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/marc.201200513
Wild, R., & McLeod, C. (Eds.). (2008). Sacred natural sites: Guidelines for protected area managers.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Willis, K. J. (Ed.). (2017). State of the world’s plants 2017. Kew, UK: Kew Royal Botanic Gardens.
Wilson, D. E., Mittermeier, R. A., & Cavallini, P. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of the mammals of the world.
Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions.
Wilson, E. E., & Wolkovich, E. M. (2011). Scavenging: How carnivores and carrion structure
communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(3), 129–135.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.12.011
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A. A, & Wiebe, N. (2010). The origins & potential of food sovereignty. In A.A.
Desmarais, N. Wiebe, & H. Wittman (Eds.), Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and
Community (pp. 1-14). Oakland, USA: Food First Books.
Wood, C. L., & Lafferty, K. D. (2013). Biodiversity and disease: A synthesis of ecological perspectives on
Lyme disease transmission. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4), 239–247.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.011
Wood, C. L., Lafferty, K. D., DeLeo, G., Young, H. S., Hudson, P. J., & Kuris, A. M. (2017). Does biodiversity
protect humans against infectious disease? Ecology, 95(4), 817-832. http://doi.org/10.1890/13-
1041.1
World Bank. (2016). Percentage of population with access to improved drinking water sources.
Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.H2O.SAFE.ZS
World Bank. (2017). World Development Indicators. Retrieved July 27, 2017, from
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators
Xirouchakis, S. M. (2010). Breeding biology and reproductive performance of griffon vultures Gyps
fulvus on the island of Crete (Greece). Bird Study, 57(2), 213–225.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00063650903505754
Yu, Y., Feng, K., & Hubacek, K. (2013). Tele-connecting local consumption to global land use. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 1178–1186. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.04.006
Zabel, F., Putzenlechner, B., & Mauser, W. (2014). Global agricultural land resources - A high resolution
suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change conditions. PloS ONE,
9(9), e107522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107522
Zaehle, S., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., & Prieur, V. (2011). Carbon benefits of anthropogenic reactive
nitrogen offset by nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Geoscience, 4(9), 601–605.
http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1207
Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., Plamo,
I., & Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in
protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134–141.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014

265
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Zedler, J. B. (2017). What’s new in adaptive management and restoration of coasts and estuaries?
Estuaries and Coasts, 40(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0162-5
Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services, and
restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 39–74.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144248
Zimmerman, R. C., Hill, V. J., Jinuntuya, M., Celebi, B., Ruble, D., Smith, M., Cedeno, T., & Swingle, W.
M. (2017). Experimental impacts of climate warming and ocean carbonation on eelgrass Zostera
marina. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 566, 1–15. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps12051
Zoulia, I., & Santamouris, M., & Dimoudi, A. (2008). Monitoring the effect of urban green areas on the
heat island in Athens. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 156(1), 275–292.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0483-3
Zumbrunnen, T., Menendez, P., Bugmann, H., Conedera, M., Gimmi, U., & Bürgi, M. (2012). Human
impacts on fire occurrence: A case study of hundred years of forest fires in a dry alpine valley in
Switzerland. Regional Environmental Change, 12, 935–949. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-
0307-4

266
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3 Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and

ecosystems underpinning nature’s contributions to people

Coordinating lead authors:

Piero Visconti (Italy/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Victoria Elias (Russian
Federation), Isabel Sousa Pinto (Portugal), Markus Fischer (Germany/Switzerland)

Lead authors:
Valida Ali-Zade (Azerbaijan), András Báldi (Hungary), Sandra Brucet (Spain), Elena Bukvareva (Russian
Federation), Kenneth Byrne (Ireland), Paul Caplat (Sweden), Alan Feest (United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland), Rodolphe Gozlan (France), Dusan Jelić (Croatia), Zaal Kikvidze (Georgia),
Alexandra Lavrillier (France), Xavier Le Roux (France), Oksana Lipka (Russian Federation), Petr Petrík
(Czech Republic), Bertrand Schatz (France), Ilya Smelansky (Russian Federation), Frédérique Viard
(France)

Fellow:
Carlos Guerra (Portugal/Germany)

Contributing authors:
Yaakov Anker (Israel), Céline Bellard (France), Steffen Boch (Germany/Switzerland), Monika Böhm
(Germany/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Anders Dahlberg (Sweden), Ksenia
Dobrolyubova (Russian Federation), Johan Ekroos (Finland/Sweden), Daniel P. Faith (Australia), Anat
Feldman (Israel), Bella Galil (Israel), Mariana García Criado (Spain), Dmitry Geltman (Russian
Federation), Antoine Guisan (Switzerland), Hans Joosten (The Netherlands/Germany), Bakhtiyor
Karimov (Uzbekistan), Vladimir Korotenko (Kyrgyzstan), Jonne Kotta (Estonia), Elena Kreuzberg
(Canada/Uzbekistan), Marina Krylenko (Russian Federation), Aleksei Kurokhtin (Kyrgyzstan), Daria
Kuznetsova (Russian Federation), Boris Leroy (France), Lada Lukić Bilela (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Shai
Meiri (Israel), Tatiana Minayeva (Poland/Russian Federation), Ulf Molau (Sweden), Telmo Morato
(Portugal), George Nakhutsrishvili (Georgia), Ana Nieto (Spain), Oxana Nikitina (Russian Federation),
Ruslan Novitsky (Belarus), Kristiina Nurkse (Estonia), Angel Pérez Ruzafa (Spain), Kristina Raab
(Germany), Uri Roll (Israel), Axel G. Rossberg (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
Resad Selimov (Azerbaijan), Emil Shukurov (Kyrgyzstan), Andrey Sirin (Russian Federation), Henrik G.
Smith (Sweden), Mark Snethlage (The Netherlands/Switzerland), Boris Solovyev (Russian Federation),
Tatyana Svetasheva (Russian Federation), Franziska Tanneberger (Germany), Wilfried Thullier (France),
Boris Tuniyev (Russian Federation), Fons van der Plas (The Netherlands/Germany), Vigdis Vandvik
(Norway), Stephen Venn (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Finland), Vladimir
Vershinin (Russian Federation), Marten Winter (Germany), Egor Zadereev (Russian Federation), Nugzar
Zazanashvili (Georgia)

Review Editors:
Guntis Brūmelis (Latvia), Andreas Troumbis (Greece)

267
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This chapter should be cited as:

Visconti, P., Elias, V., Sousa Pinto, I., Fischer, M., Ali-Zade, V., Báldi, A., Brucet, S., Bukvareva, E., Byrne,
K., Caplat, P., Feest, A., Guerra, C., Gozlan, R., Jelić, D., Kikvidze, Z., Lavrillier, A., Le Roux, X., Lipka, O.,
Petrík, P., Schatz, B., Smelansky, I. and Viard, F. Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of
biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature’s contributions to people. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES
regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia.
Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services, Bonn, Germany,
pp. xx-xx.

268
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
3 Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning
nature’s contributions to people ........................................................................................................ 267
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 272
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 280
3.2 The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services..................... 280
3.2.1 General importance of biodiversity for ecosystem functions and services .................. 280
3.2.2 Positive effect of biodiversity on the magnitude of ecosystem functioning................. 283
3.2.3 Effects of biodiversity on stability and resilience of ecosystem functioning ................ 286
3.2.4 Importance of all hierarchical levels of biodiversity...................................................... 288
3.2.5 Long-term maintenance of multiple ecosystem functions and services ....................... 289
3.3 Past and current trends in biodiversity and ecosystems by unit of analysis ......................... 291
3.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 291
3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems ................................................................................................... 292
3.3.2.1 Snow- and ice-dominated systems .................................................................................... 292
3.3.2.2 Tundra and mountain grasslands (only high elevation grasslands) ................................... 293
3.3.2.3 Temperate and boreal forests and woodlands.................................................................. 296
3.3.2.4 Mediterranean forests, woodland and scrub .................................................................... 299
3.3.2.5 Tropical and subtropical dry and humid forests ................................................................ 300
3.3.2.6 Temperate grasslands ........................................................................................................ 303
3.3.2.7 Deserts ............................................................................................................................... 306
3.3.2.8 Peatlands ........................................................................................................................... 308
3.3.2.9 Agricultural areas ............................................................................................................... 311
3.3.2.10 Urban areas ....................................................................................................................... 323
3.3.2.11 Special systems .................................................................................................................. 328
3.3.2.11.1 Heathlands................................................................................................................... 328
3.3.2.11.2 Caves and other subterranean habitats ...................................................................... 331
3.3.2.12 Progress towards Multilateral Environmental Agreements for terrestrial ecosystems .... 337
3.3.3 Inland surface waters .................................................................................................... 338
3.3.3.1 Freshwater systems ........................................................................................................... 338
3.3.3.2 Enclosed seas and saline lakes........................................................................................... 343
3.3.3.3 Implementation of the Ramsar Convention by the countries of Europe and Central Asia 347
3.3.4 Marine systems.............................................................................................................. 349
3.3.4.1 North East Atlantic Ocean ................................................................................................. 349
3.3.4.2 Baltic Sea............................................................................................................................ 354
3.3.4.3 Mediterranean Sea ............................................................................................................ 359
3.3.4.4 The Black and Azov Seas .................................................................................................... 362
3.3.4.5 Arctic Ocean....................................................................................................................... 365

269
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.3.4.6 North West Pacific Ocean .................................................................................................. 367

3.3.4.7 Deep-sea in Europe and Central Asia ................................................................................ 372
3.3.4.8 Progress towards goals of Multilateral Environmental Agreements ................................. 373
3.4 Past and current trends by taxonomic group ........................................................................ 381
3.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 381
3.4.2 Birds ............................................................................................................................... 383
3.4.3 Mammals ....................................................................................................................... 387
3.4.4 Reptiles .......................................................................................................................... 388
3.4.5 Amphibians .................................................................................................................... 394
3.4.6 Fishes ............................................................................................................................. 396
3.4.6.1 Marine fishes ..................................................................................................................... 396
3.4.6.2 Freshwater fishes ............................................................................................................... 399
3.4.7 Terrestrial Invertebrates................................................................................................ 402
3.4.8 Freshwater invertebrates .............................................................................................. 404
3.4.9 Vascular plants............................................................................................................... 407
3.4.10 Bryophytes ................................................................................................................ 409
3.4.11 Lichens ....................................................................................................................... 410
3.4.12 Fungi .......................................................................................................................... 412
3.4.13 Progress towards Multilateral Environmental Agreements for species conservation ...
................................................................................................................................... 416
3.5 Future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems .................................................................. 421
3.5.1 Terrestrial systems ........................................................................................................ 421
3.5.1.1 Species distribution and conservation status .................................................................... 421
3.5.1.2 Community composition ................................................................................................... 423
3.5.1.3 Ecosystem extent, function and structure ......................................................................... 424
3.5.1.4 Emerging drivers of change ............................................................................................... 426
3.5.2 Freshwater systems ....................................................................................................... 426
3.5.2.1 Species distribution and conservation status .................................................................... 426
3.5.2.2 Community composition ................................................................................................... 427
3.5.2.3 Ecosystem functioning ....................................................................................................... 428
3.5.2.4 Emerging drivers of change ............................................................................................... 428
3.5.3 Marine systems.............................................................................................................. 429
3.5.3.1 Species distribution and conservation status .................................................................... 429
3.5.3.2 Community composition ................................................................................................... 430
3.5.3.3 Ecosystem extent and function ......................................................................................... 431
3.5.3.4 Emerging drivers of change ............................................................................................... 433
3.6 Knowledge gaps ..................................................................................................................... 433
3.7 References .............................................................................................................................. 440

270
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

271
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive Summary

Biodiversity loss impairs ecosystem functioning and, hence, nature’s contributions to people (well
established) (3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3). Sustainable delivery of these contributions requires the
maintenance of genetic diversity, species diversity, and the diversity of ecosystems and land- and
seascapes (well established) (3.2.4). The delivery of individual functions over time and at different
places, and the delivery of multiple contributions, requires higher biodiversity than provisioning
single services at one place and time alone (well established) (3.2.5). Higher biodiversity increases
the capacity of terrestrial, freshwater or marine systems to capture resources, produce biomass,
decompose and recycle nutrients, and to provide pollination (well established) (3.2.1, 3.2.2).
Higher biodiversity facilitates stable ecosystem functioning and improved capacity for evolutionary
adaptation (well established) (3.2.3, 3.2.4). Higher biodiversity also increases ecosystem resilience and
biological control of pathogens and invasive alien species (established but incomplete) (3.2.1, 3.2.3). To
support ecosystem functioning, ecosystem stability over time, and adaptation to future environmental
changes, biodiversity is required at different levels, from genetic and phenotypic diversity within
populations, to diversity among populations and ecological or morphological types within species,
species diversity and phylogenetic and functional diversity within communities, and diversity of
communities, ecosystems and land and seascapes (well established) (3.2.3).
The higher the number of nature’s contributions to people, the longer the time span, and the larger the
area, the more biodiversity is required for their delivery (well established) (3.2.5). At the land and
seascape and larger spatial scales, biotic homogenization, i.e. increasing similarity of the sets of
organisms found at different places, reduces nature’s overall contributions to people (established but
incomplete), because of trade-offs between different facets of biodiversity and different contributions
of nature to people (well established) (3.2.5). Thus, at the landscape and larger spatial scale the supply
of multiple contributions of nature to people requires the maintenance and promotion of high
biodiversity (established but incomplete). This implies high synergy at the land and seascape level
between maintaining and promoting biodiversity and maintaining and promoting multiple
contributions of nature to people (3.2.5).
Despite including some of the best-studied marine ecosystems, most of Europe and Central Asia’s
marine ecosystems, especially those deeper than 200m, and most marine species are data deficient
and their status and trends cannot be properly assessed (well established) (3.3.4). 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). The abundance, range and habitat size of many
marine species is shrinking due to human pressures (well established) (3.3.4.1-7, 3.4.6.1). The
distribution or phenology of many taxa has changed (well established) (3.3.4), including an
“Atlantification” and ”Pacification” of the Arctic Sea (established but incomplete) (3.3.4.5). Positive
trends, mainly due to improved fishing practices or to 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). Fifty-three per cent of the benthic shallow habitats in Western and Central Europe
are data deficient. This figure is 87% in the Black Sea, 60% in the North East Atlantic, 59% in the
Mediterranean Sea and 5% in the Baltic Sea (well established) (3.3.4.1-7). Of the assessed benthic
habitats, 38% are classified as threatened (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable), most of
them in the Black (67%) and Mediterranean Seas (74%), followed by the North East Atlantic (59%) and
Baltic Sea (8%) (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, only 7% of marine species
and 9% of marine habitat types show a “favourable conservation status”. Moreover 27% of species

272
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and 66% of assessments of habitat types show an ”unfavourable conservation status” and the
reminder are categorized as “unknown” (established but incomplete) (3.3.4).
In Europe and Central Asia, 26% of the marine fish species have known trend data. Of those, 72% are
stable, 26% have declining populations and 2% 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
changed (well established) (3.3.4). Such changes are particularly visible in the Arctic Ocean, where they
were classified as “Atlantification” and ”Pacification” with multiple ecosystem effects (established but
incomplete) (3.3.4.5). Many changes in species distribution or phenology lag behind the pace of climate
change, however (established but incomplete) (3.3.4). Forty-eight 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 (established but incomplete)
(3.4).
Marine habitat and species trends are driven by individual and combined effects of overfishing,
habitat degradation, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species (established but
incomplete) (3.3.4.1-7). Invasion by alien species is observed in all marine areas of the region and is
particularly fast in the Mediterranean Sea (well established). These invasions combined with species
range shifts, are responsible for widespread biotic homogenization between subregions and systems
(well established) (3.3.4.3). Invasive alien species, climate change and selective fishing reduce
taxonomic and functional diversity by increasing generalist species and decreasing specialists (well
established) (3.4). While fisheries are still the main driver of observed marine biodiversity loss across
the region, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea (well established), some fish stocks also improved due to
decreased fishing pressure in some areas, e.g. the North Sea (established but incomplete) (3.3.4.1). In
some areas, eutrophication has decreased in recent years and e.g. plankton diversity of the Black Sea
has recovered (established but incomplete) (3.3.4.4). Other forms of pollution, such as microplastics
and noise, negatively affect marine animals, but a full assessment of their impact is still lacking
(established but incomplete) (3.3.4).
Freshwater species and inland surface water habitats are threatened in Europe and Central Asia (well
established). Only 53% of the European Union’s rivers and lakes achieved good ecological status in
2015. 73% of the European Union’s freshwater habitats have an unfavourable conservation status
(well established) (3.3.3.1). Across Europe and Central Asia, lakes, ponds and streams are
disappearing as a consequence of agricultural intensification, irrigation and urban development
combined with climate change (well established) (3.3.3.1). The extent of wetlands in Western,
Central and Eastern Europe has declined by 50% from 1970, while 71% of fish and 60% of amphibians
with known population trends are declining (well established) (3.3.3.1, 3.4.5, 3.4.6.2). Over 75% of
catchment areas in Europe and Central Asia are heavily modified and subject to multiple pressures,
resulting in serious threats to biodiversity. 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% of rivers and lakes had good ecological status, despite some
improvements (well established) (3.3.3.1). Freshwater and saline lake species and habitats are the
most threatened in the region. Most known population trends for freshwater and saline lake species
have been declining, including fish, amphibians and invertebrates. In Western and Central Europe and
the western parts of Eastern Europe at least 37% of freshwater fish and about 23% of amphibians are

273
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

threatened with extinction. In the same area, freshwater invertebrates are also threatened, with the
most threatened group being gastropods (45-70% of species threatened depending on whether or not
data deficient species are considered threatened), bivalves (20 to 26%) and dragonflies (15 to 19%)
(established but incomplete) (3.4.5, 3.4.6.2, 3.4.8).
The main drivers of trends in the biodiversity of inland surface waters are habitat destruction and
modification caused by infrastructure for hydro-power, 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)
(3.3.3). Many lakes, ponds and streams are disappearing as a consequence of agricultural
intensification, irrigation and urbanization combined with climate change (well established). Water
bodies disappear particularly in the Mediterranean region and Central Asia. Lake Akşehir, for example,
was among the largest freshwater lakes in Turkey, but has now completely disappeared due to loss of
surface and ground water sources through intensive crop irrigation (3.3.3.1). The desiccation of the
Aral Sea due to water abstraction for irrigation, followed by wind-borne pollution from former
sediments, is globally considered as a major environmental disaster (well established) (3.3.3.2).
Water protection has progressed in Western and Central Europe, especially due to the European Union
Water Framework Directive. The rate of wetland loss has slowed considerably in Central and Western
Europe due to the implementation of binding nature conservation policies or the designation of
conservation areas (e.g. Ramsar sites). Nevertheless, the deterioration of freshwater ecosystems is
generally continuing in the region (well established) (3.3.3).
Most terrestrial species and natural habitats have long-term declining trends in abundance, range
and habitat extent and intactness. This is mainly due to agriculture, forestry, transport infrastructure,
urban development and climate change (well established) (3.3.2, 3.4). Most natural habitats have
been declining in extent, especially subtropical and tropical forests with 20% left in Macaronesia and
10% in the Caucasus (3.3.2.5), with the highest loss occurred during the 20th century (well established)
(3.3.2). These declines are generally continuing, albeit at a slower rate. Forests, grasslands and tundra
have been the most impacted terrestrial habitats since the second half of the 20th century (3.3.2).
Systematic assessments of habitat conservation status only exist for the European Union. There, 16%
of terrestrial habitat assessments in the period 2007-2012 had favourable conservation status; 3% had
unfavourable, but improving trends; 37% had unfavourable, but stable trends; 29% had unfavourable
and declining trends; 11% had unfavourable status with unknown trend relative to the period 2001-
2006 and 4% had unknown status (well established) (3.3.2.12).
Forty-two per cent of terrestrial European and Central Asian animal and plant species with known
population trends declines in the last 10 years, 6% increased and 52% were stable (3.4.13) (established
but incomplete).
The main causes of the decline of terrestrial species include habitat conversion and pollution due to
agriculture and forestry practices, natural resource extraction, climate change and invasive alien
species (well established) (3.4, 3.3.2). Loss of forest biodiversity continues due to loss of intact natural
forest (well established), forest fires, loss of natural structures, such as dead trees (well established),
fragmentation of populations (well established), loss of traditional forestry practices that created open
forest (well established), increased number and strength of extreme weather events due to climate
change (well established) and conversion of land use (well established). Since the 1950s, biodiversity
has decreased 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). The conversion of grasslands to crops and urban areas and conversion of

274
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

semi-natural grassland to more intensively used pastures are among the main drivers of declining
conservation status of non-forested habitats and species (well established) (3.3.2.6). Climate change,
including increased number and strength of extreme weather events, also accelerates turnover in
species composition and species loss in all habitat types, shifts species distributions northwards and
upwards on mountain slopes (well established), decreases the extent of glaciers (well established),
decreases the extent of polar deserts with transformation to tundra (well established), expands deserts
and shifts forest cover and types (3.3.2). Populations of invasive and alien species continuously
increase in numbers, exacerbated in northern parts of Europe and Central Asia by climate change (well
established) (3.3.2).
Drainage-based exploitation of boreal peatlands is gradually giving way to sustainable use, protection
and restoration, while southern and mountain peatlands are still threatened by development (well
established). Unique functions of peatlands such as carbon storage, water regulation and biodiversity
maintenance are increasingly lost by drainage and over-utilization (well established) (3.3.2.8).
Europe and Central Asia has over half of all known breeds of domesticated mammals and birds, but
75% of local bird breeds and 58% of local mammal breeds are threatened with extinction (3.4.13).
The species diversity of arable plants has decreased by 20% since 1950 in Western and Central
Europe, and the abundance of rare arable plants has also decreased (well established) (3.3.2.9). The
genetic diversity of plants cultivated in situ declined until the 1960s, due to the replacement of
landraces by modern cultivars, and no further reduction or increase of diversity was observed after
the 1980s (well established). The numbers of at-risk animal breeds have slightly declined since 1999,
but exact quantification is hampered by the changing number of documented local breeds (established
but incomplete) (3.4.13). From 1980 to 2013, the abundance of farmland common bird species
decreased by 57% in Western and Central Europe, the abundance of grassland butterflies has declined
since 1990 (well established for Western Europe) and there have been severe seasonal losses of honey
bee colonies over the period 1961-2012 across Europe and Central Asia (well established) (3.3.2.9).
Between 44 and 68 recorded species endemic to Europe and Central Asia have become globally
extinct since the 15th century (40-62 animals, four to six plants). In addition, between 20 and 88
recorded species have become regionally extinct in Europe and Central Asia (16-80 animals, one
fungus and four to seven plants). 37 global extinctions involved marine and freshwater species and
seven involved terrestrial species, while most recorded regional extinctions were of terrestrial
species (established but incomplete). In addition to these extinctions recorded at large scale,
numerous extinction events were recorded at the country level (well established) (3.4.1). Around
13% of animal and plant groups living in Europe and Central Asia and comprehensively assessed by
IUCN are endemic to the region (well established). Thirteen percent of species occurring in Europe and
Central Asia with known conservation status are at high risk of extinction. Particularly threatened are
mosses and liverworts (50%), freshwater fishes (37%), freshwater snails (45%), vascular plants (33%)
and amphibians (23%). Of species endemic to Europe and Central Asia, 30% are threatened. The
Central and Western European subregions have the highest percentages of threatened (13%) and
endemic species (11%) and the highest percentage of threatened endemics (35%), with these
percentages primarily driven by the many threatened endemic species in the Mediterranean hotspot
and the Macaronesian Islands. Eastern Europe and Central Asia have lower percentages of species
(<10%) and endemic species (<5%), and lower percentages of threatened endemics (<10%)
(established but incomplete) (3.4.1).
The net change in extinction risk for mammals, birds and amphibians is 17 species moving one category
closer to extinction every 10 years. Seven of these are in Western and Central Europe, six in Eastern
Europe and four in Central Asia (established but incomplete) (3.4.13). From 2007 to 2012 the

275
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation status of 35 monitored plant and animal populations in EU-27 improved relative to the
previous 6 years, versus 41 deteriorations (well established) (3.4.13). Overall, 118 monitored species
of plants and animals in the European Union have unfavourable conservation status but improving
trends, 572 have unfavourable conservation status and deteriorating trends and 905 have
unfavourable status and stable or unknown trends (well established) (3.4.13).
In Western and Central Europe, the main drivers of recent past population declines across all realms
are agriculture (use of biocides and chemicals affected 73% of assessed populations, intensification
42%, modification of cultivation practices 36%); reduction of habitat connectivity (55%); pollution of
surface waters (56%); invasive alien species (46%); human induced changes in hydraulic conditions
(43%); and forestry (removal of dead trees (39%), clearance (38%), logging of natural and plantation
forests (38%) (well established) (3.4.13). A separate assessment of threats to freshwater species found
that at least 62% (n=13) of globally extinct species of European freshwater fishes were victims of water
pollution and lake eutrophication. Destruction or modification of freshwater habitats, including water
abstraction, affects 89% of amphibian threatened species and 26% of threatened freshwater
invertebrates (well established) (3.4.5, 3.4.8). A quantitative assessment of drivers of biodiversity
change in Central Asia and Eastern Europe was not possible due to a scarcity of data, but the same
drivers with the addition of overexploitation (hunting, trapping, fishing, harvesting) are reported as
the main causes of known trends (established but incomplete).
Loss of taxonomic and functional diversity driven by increasing trends and expansion of generalist
species and decline of specialists is documented across Europe and Central Asia and all taxa. On land,
simplification of ecosystems through land-use intensification (agriculture, forestry, and
urbanization) drives this phenomenon. In inland surface waters it is due to changes in water regime,
eutrophication, salinity and introduction of invasive and alien species. In the seas, the main drivers
are climate change, invasive alien species and fishing of selected species (well established) (3.3, 3.4).
Loss of taxonomic, and even more so, of functional diversity driven by increasing trends and expansion
of generalist species and decline of specialists is documented across Europe and Central Asia for all
taxa (well established) (3.4). Biotic homogenization in agricultural areas has occurred for a range of
biological groups, including birds, butterflies, cultivated plants, weeds, and domestic animals (well
established). Intensification of forestry and urbanization also has resulted in biotic homogenization
(wel established) (3.3, 3.4).
Bird communities have experienced extreme levels of biotic homogenization with near-extinction of
habitat specialists, especially in grasslands of Western Europe and Central Europe due to landscape
simplification. Other groups disproportionally affected are migratory species (hunting and trapping)
and seabirds, due to bycatch from fisheries and predation by invasive species (well established) (3.4).
Amongst forest plants, lichens, birds, mammals and arthropods show declines of specialists of old
forests and of deciduous forests, and of cavity-nesters (3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.2.5, 3.4). All these changes
can be related to the intensification of forestry, which does not allow the development of structural
elements benefitting specialist communities (well established) (3.4). Among freshwater fish
communities, functional homogenization exceeds taxonomic homogenization sixfold. Species that are
anadromous, slow-growing, large-body sized, diet or habitat specialists have been far more impacted
than others. Body-size and specialization have also played a role in biotic homogenization of
zooplankton communities (established but incomplete) (3.4). Large-bodied and other vulnerable
marine fish species are the most threatened in large parts of Europe and Central Asia, and some have
gone extinct (well established) (3.4.6.1).
Conservation efforts have shown the potential to reverse negative population trends (well
established) 3.4.13). The long-term population trends of 40% of the breeding bird taxa in Annex I of

276
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the European Union Birds Directive are increasing compared with 31% for all breeding bird taxa
(3.4.13). Charismatic mammalian mega-fauna, 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 (well established) (3.4.3, 3.4.13). The response of biodiversity to “ecologically-
friendly” agricultural practices (stricter pesticide management, reduced tillage and organic farming) is
generally positive, but depends on the landscape context, spatial scale of evaluation, and biological
groups - with particularly beneficial effects on plants and pollinators (well established) (3.4).
Overall, impacts from direct drivers on biodiversity are maintained and the use of biodiversity is not
sustainable in the region (3.3, 3.4). Progress has been made in the region in terms of the extent of
protected areas (3.3). However, overall trends in biodiversity are still negative (3.3, 3.4). These
trends suggest that the corresponding Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goals
14 and 15 are not likely to be met (well established) (3.32.12, 3.3.3.3, 3.3.4.8, 3.4.13). Aichi
Biodiversity Target 5 (habitat loss halved or reduced) is unlikely to be achieved given the observed
status and trends in extent and biodiversity of terrestrial, inland surface water, and marine habitat
(3.3.,3.4). Based on current freshwater biodiversity trends, it is highly unlikely that Europe and Central
Asia will achieve the respective Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020 (i.e. targets, 6-10) or Target 1 of the
European Union EU Biodiversity Strategy (well established), in spite of some progress having been
made (3.4, 3.3.3, 3.5.2). Although the rate of natural habitat loss (e.g. of wetlands) has slowed down
in some Europe and Central Asia countries due to the implementation of binding nature conservation
policies or the designation of sites (e.g. Ramsar), the decline in freshwater habitat continues (well
established) (3.3.3). Achieving Targets 6 (sustainable management of marine living resources) and 10
(pressures on vulnerable ecosystems reduced) is hampered for the deep-sea by increased habitat
degradation and declines in biodiversity (established but incomplete) (3.3.4). Achieving Aichi
Biodiversity Target 11 for terrestrial ecosystems (at 17% conserved through protected areas) appears
to be on track, which is ensured for Western and Central Europe and likely to be met in Eastern Europe
and Central Asia (Chapter 4). Despite some recent progress, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and target
14.5 of Sustainable Development Goal 14 have still not been reached for the marine systems of Europe
and Central Asia (well established), although they have been surpassed in some coastal areas, e.g. of
the Mediterranean and North Seas, and by 15 countries protecting more than 10% of their marine
waters (3.3.4.8). Some marine systems, especially those further from the coast, are much less
protected, however (well established). Downward trends in the conservation status of assessed taxa
indicate that the Europe and Central Asia region is not on track to meet Target 12, in spite of some
decreasing trends in extinction risk (well established) (3.4). Despite some progress towards Target 13
(genetic diversity maintained) by developing safeguards for rare domestic breeds and germplasms of
cultivated plants, the extinction risk of domestic animal breeds is increasing and genetic diversity of
cultivated plants eroding under modern production systems (established but incomplete) (3.4.13).
Despite advances in protected areas (relevant in the context of Sustainable Development Goals 14 –
life below water and 15 – life on land), the negative trends observed for biodiversity currently restrict
progress toward Goals 14 and 15 (well established) (3.3).
Under business as usual scenarios of future global change, the extent of coniferous forests is
expected to be maintained or even increase. Meanwhile, tundra, other Alpine ecosystems,
Mediterranean ecosystems, and broad-leaved and mixed forests are expected to substantially
contract, because of climate and land-use change. Alpine, Scandinavian, and Icelandic glaciers are
projected to retreat (3.5.1.3) (well established). The expected range of glacier losses depends on
climate modelling scenario and varies from 20% to 90% of the 2006 ice volume. Climate change is also
expected to further increase the stress on freshwater ecosystems, not only by changing species
distribution but also by exacerbating the symptoms of eutrophication due to loss of planktivorous

277
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

species through warming and salinization (inconclusive) (3.5.2). Mean species abundance, local
functional and phylogenetic diversity and betwee-sites taxonomic diversity are expected to decrease
throughout the 21st century, while local taxonomic diversity is expected to increase in some terrestrial
and marine regions as a result of climate-driven range shifts (established but incomplete) (3.5.1, 3.5.3).
Across species, range contractions are projected to be between 10% and 55% depending on climate
scenario and taxonomic group considered (established but incomplete) (3.5.1.1). Biomass productivity
may increase in some areas due to CO2 fertilization and temperature increase, especially in the Arctice
seas, lakes and boreal forests (unresolved) (3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3).
If key knowledge gaps would be addressed soon, future assessments could provide a more
comprehensive account of the relationship between biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people and of the status and trends of nature (well established) (3.6).Much more information is
available on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services from experiments than from
the field. Among the experiments those manipulating plant diversity were overrepresented compared
with those manipulating other taxa, and most concerned grasslands or aquatic mesocosms. For
experiments and field studies addressing the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem
services, comprehensive information across all types of nature’s contributions is not yet available (well
established) (3.2, 3.6).
A broader knowledge basis on trends in habitat extent, intactness and species conservation status was
available for Western and most of Central Europe than for Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Balkan
countries in Central Europe (3.4, 3.6). For example, exact extent, biodiversity status and trends are
hardly known for most terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and
the chemical status of 40% of Western and Central Europe's surface waters remains unknown (well
established). Biodiversity status and trends are also poorly known for most marine habitats. E.g. 30%
of coastal marine habitat assessments in the Mediterranean reported unknown conservation status.
Only a minor fraction of the deep-sea floor and of known seamounts have been subject to biological
investigation (well established) (3.4, 3.6).
Major gaps on status and trends of taxonomic groups concerned invertebrates, most marine and
freshwater species, bryophytes, lichens, fungi and microorganisms. Of the estimated 32,000 vascular
plant species of Europe and Central Asia, IUCN evaluated 2483 (approx. 8%) in the Red List of
Threatened Species. Of the estimated more than 2000 bryophyte and more than 7000 lichen species
in the region only 14 and 5 species, respectively, have been evaluated in the IUCN Red List. For
invertebrates in general, and freshwater invertebrates in particular, even the current status is available
only for a minority of species. Almost a quarter of all European freshwater molluscs are data deficient,
many of them likely to be threatened. 76% of freshwater fishes and 83% of freshwater molluscs
assessed have unknown population trends (well established) (3.4). One to two thirds of marine species
are still to be described. Status and trends for marine biodiversity are mostly unknown, even for coastal
habitats. Accordingly, 50% of the assessments under the European Union habitat directives reported
unknown conservation status for cetaceans and turtles and coastal marine habitats in the
Macaronesian biogeographic region. And 30% of coastal marine habitat assessments in the
Mediterranean reported unknown conservation status. Only a minor fraction of the deep-sea floor and
of known seamounts have been subject to biological investigation (well established) (3.3., 3.4, 3.6).
Indigenous and local knowledge on biodiversity trends was only partially available (well established)
(3.6).
Due to lack of quantitative knowledge the relative role of drivers of change in determining trends in
extent and intactness of habitats and in species diversity and abundance could only be attributed in

278
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

terms of a coarse classification. Moreover, information is lacking on the interacting effects of several
drivers on biodiversity (well established) (3.3, 3.4, 3.6)
These knowledge gaps greatly reduce the ability to monitor progress towards international biodiversity
targets and to inform policy to avert further biodiversity loss. For example, current instruments such
as the European Union habitat directive and Natura 2000 programme do not consider algae, fungi or
lichens, and only a small fraction of invertebrates (well established) (3.6).

279
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.1 Introduction

This chapter assesses, for Europe and Central Asia, evidence for the general role of biodiversity for
nature’s contributions to people (3.2). Then it assesses the past and current status and trends of
terrestrial, inland surface water and marine biodiversity by ecosystems (units of analysis) (3.3) and by
taxa (3.4). This is followed by an assessment of future trends of terrestrial, inland surface water and
marine biodiversity (3.5). Finally this chapter assesses knowledge gaps (3.6) in these respects.
Whereas Chapter 2 of the IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia identifies strong
evidence that nature’s contributions to people are declining, this chapter provides an assessment of
the general underpinning of nature’s contributions to people by biodiversity. Moreover, while Chapter
4 establishes that natural resource extraction, land-use change, pollution, climate change, and invasive
alien species are the main direct drivers driving biodiversity change in general, this chapter assesses
the status and trends of marine, inland surface water and terrestrial biodiversity for different units of
analysis and for different taxa, and it attributes these trends to the direct drivers.

3.2 The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functions and

services

3.2.1 General importance of biodiversity for ecosystem functions and services

Theoretical, experimental and field studies have proven that biodiversity is one of the key factors in
determining the mean level and stability of ecosystem properties and functioning, such as biomass
production, decomposition and carbon sequestration (Cardinale et al., 2012; Tilman et al., 2014). Clear
evidence of biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning has been obtained from experiments, which
overall showed that the impacts of diversity loss on ecological processes are of comparable magnitude
to the effects of other global drivers of environmental changes such as climate change, ultraviolet
radiation, increase in the concentration of CO2, nitrogen addition, droughts and fires (Cardinale et al.
2012; Hooper et al., 2012; Tilman et al., 2012). Experiments can even underestimate biodiversity
effects because they do not assess important properties of natural systems that enhance the positive
diversity effects, such as complex trophic structures, complementary and mutualistic interspecific
relations, non-random biodiversity loss and spatial heterogeneity (Cardinale et al. 2012; Duffy et al.,
2009; supporting material Appendix 3.1). In addition, biodiversity effects increase with time and at
larger spatial scales (Cardinale et al. 2012; supporting material Appendix 3.1), which means they may
be stronger in real-world systems than in experiments. On the other hand, the range of species richness
loss studied in typical biodiversity experiments is far greater than real world biodiversity loss (Vellend
et al., 2013).
Comparative field studies have the great potential to show the relevance of biodiversity in real world
ecosystems, but they are often not suitable for demonstrating the causality of observed relationships
and have difficulties in distinguishing the effects of biodiversity, versus environmental drivers, on
ecosystem functioning. Thus, the analysis of field observations needs to separate effects of diversity
from other confounding factors (supporting material Appendix 3.1).
In addition to the general consensus about the key role of biodiversity in ecosystem functioning, there
is increasing information on the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services and, hence,
nature’s contributions to people (Balvanera et al., 2014). A comprehensive systematic literature review
(Harrison et al., 2014) showed that the majority of relationships between biodiversity attributes and
the selected 11 ecosystem services were positive. The key role of biodiversity was demonstrated for

280
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

certain provisioning services (such as wood production in plantations, production of fodder in

grasslands, and stability of fisheries yields); and regulating services (such as pollination, resistance to
exotic plant invasions and plant pathogens, aboveground carbon sequestration, soil nutrient
mineralization, and bioremediation of contaminated water and sediments (Cardinale et al., 2012;
Harrison et al., 2014; Science for Environment Policy, 2015; Thompson et al., 2012). For many other
ecosystem services (e.g. long-term carbon storage, suppression of pests and animal disease), the
evidence for biodiversity effects is mixed or there are still insufficient data (Balvanera et al., 2014;
Cardinale et al., 2012). Overall, however, the evidence to date suggests that sustaining the long-term
flow of many ecosystem services will require high levels of biodiversity (Science for Environment Policy,
2015).
In Europe and Central Asia, field studies revealed generally positive effects of biodiversity on
ecosystem services. A European Union-wide assessment (Maes et al., 2012) showed that biodiversity
indicators (mean species abundance, tree species diversity and the relative area of Natura 2000 sites)
and ecosystem service supply (aggregated index of four provisioning services, five regulating services
and one cultural service) were positively correlated with each other (Figure 3.1). Overall, habitats in a
positive conservation status provided higher levels of biodiversity indicators and had a higher potential
to supply ecosystem services, particularly regulating and cultural services, than unprotected areas.

281
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

282
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

An analysis of data of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment showed that biodiversity plays a key role
in providing various types of ecosystem services: as a regulator of ecosystem processes, in providing
final ecosystem services, and as a good with intrinsic value (Mace et al., 2012).
An analysis of Swedish forest inventory data showed that relationships between tree species richness
and several ecosystem services (production of tree biomass, soil carbon storage, berry production and
game production) were positively linear to positively unimodal (Gamfeldt et al. 2013). Importantly, no
single tree species was able to promote all services, emphasising the need for planting multiple tree
species in forest stands to maintain multiple ecosystem services.
Regional studies in Finland (Hanski, 2014; Hanski et al., 2012) confirmed that biodiversity increased
immune regulation (von Hertzen et al., 2011) and thus extended the view on ecosystem services to
the field of maintaining human health. The findings suggest that loss of biodiversity reduces human
exposure to beneficial environmental microbes, with essential immunoregulatory functions and, thus,
leads to increasing prevalence of allergies and other chronic inflammatory diseases among urban
populations worldwide.

3.2.2 Positive effect of biodiversity on the magnitude of ecosystem functioning

A scientific consensus has been reached that “there is now unequivocal evidence that biodiversity loss
reduces the efficiency by which ecological communities capture biologically essential resources,
produce biomass, decompose and recycle biologically essential nutrients” (Cardinale et al., 2012). Both
diversity within species (intraspecific diversity) and species diversity within communities are important
for ecosystem functioning.
Numerous theoretical models describe how competition between individuals of both the same and
different species predicts positive effects of species and functional diversity on biomass production
and effectiveness of resource use (Tilman et al., 2014). Several hypotheses predict that effects of

283
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

diversity are more complex and variable in multi-trophic systems, i.e. of systems involving species of
different trophic levels of the same food web (see supporting material Appendix 3.1). Population
genetics provides a theoretical foundation for the key importance of diversity within a population for
population fitness (Lavergne et al., 2010; Wennersten & Forsman, 2012) and thus, their capacity to
provide ecosystem functions and services. Theory distinguishes two main classes of mechanisms by
which diversity can positively affect ecosystem processes: a) complementarity effects, i.e. functional
complementarity in, for example, resource use of species or genotypes or phenotypes or due to
positive (facilitative) species interactions; and b) selection effects, i.e. selection of particular functional
traits of species or genotypes or phenotypes, with beneficial effects for ecosystem processes (for
example the tendency of fast-growing plant species to become dominant in diverse communities)
(Bolnick et al., 2011; Forsman & Wennersten, 2016; Hughes et al., 2008; Loreau, 2010).
Meta-analyses and reviews of hundreds of experiments revealed predominantly positive effects of
species richness on community-level functioning (productivity, biomass, abundance, rate of nutrient
cycling, invasion resistance, etc.). Negative effects were also found, but to a lesser extent (Figure 3.2)
(Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014; Cardinale et al., 2012; Gamfeldt et al., 2015; Handa et al. 2014;
supporting material Appendix 3.1). Dozens of experiments with bacteria, plants, and invertebrate and
vertebrate animals, showed positive effects of genetic diversity on ecosystem functioning (Forsman,
2014; Forsman & Wennersten, 2016; Hughes et al., 2008; supporting material Appendix 3.1). At the
population level, high genetic diversity increases productivity, biomass, fitness, resistance and stability.
At the community level, high genetic diversity (per species) decreases the probability of alien species
invasions, disease levels, and increases the abundance and species diversity of consumers. At the
ecosystem level, high genetic diversity in dominant plant species increases decomposition rates and
nutrient cycling (Forsman, 2014; Forsman, Wennersten, 2016; Hughes et al., 2008).

284
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Comparative field studies also demonstrated positive impacts of species and functional diversity on
ecosystem functioning (productivity, biomass, aboveground carbon stocks, soil carbon content,
nutrient cycling, resource use efficiency) in real-world terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems
across the world (Grace at al., 2016; Lewandowska et al., 2016; Maestre et al., 2016; Mora et al., 2011;
supporting material Appendix 3.1). Field observations of plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles,
birds and mammals confirmed the importance of intraspecific diversity for population fitness and
functioning (Forsman & Wennersten, 2016; Hughes et al., 2008) that was also expressed in a decline
of fitness and adaptability due to a loss of genetic diversity in small or anthropogenically disturbed
populations (see supporting material Appendix 3.1).
More specifically, comparative field observations also showed that positive biodiversity effects are
widespread in Europe and Central Asia. Analysis of forests across Western and Central Europe revealed
positive effect of tree species richness on biomass production (Jucker et al., 2014, 2016; Vilà et al.,
2013). Eight Western and Central European field studies of five animal groups (bees, carabid beetles,
earthworms, soil nematodes and dung beetles), which deliver several key ecosystem functions
(pollination, biocontrol of pests and weeds, bioturbation, nutrient cycling) revealed a positive
relationship between functional diversity and ecosystem functioning provided by animals (Gagic et al.,
2015).
The shape of the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is crucially important
for ecological management. Most experiments that manipulated species richness revealed an
asymptotic saturating relationship (see A in Figure 3.3) between diversity and ecosystem processes
(Cardinale et al., 2006, 2012). Most experiments that manipulated genetic diversity revealed a positive
linear relationship (B in Figure 3.3) (Forsman & Wennersten, 2016). However, two recent large-scale
field observational studies on sea communities detected exponential relationships (C in Figure 3.3)
(Danovaro et al., 2008; Mora et al., 2011).

The asymptotically saturating pattern found in many experiments implies that the loss in ecosystem
functioning accelerates as biodiversity loss increases. This suggests that the loss of a few species from
a very species-rich community may have less deleterious consequences for ecosystem functioning than
the loss of species from a species-poor community. In the case of a linear relationship, the loss of any
species will equally decrease functioning. In the case of an exponential pattern, the loss of species will
even cause an exponential decline in ecosystem functioning (Danovaro et al., 2008; Loreau, 2008;
Mora et al., 2014). The unimodal shape suggests that there are optimal diversity values that
correspond to maximum levels of ecosystem functioning, thus both a decrease and increase of
diversity away from the optimal values leads to reduced ecosystem functioning. The optimal diversity
values can often be regarded as typical for undisturbed populations and communities, which would
suggest that the preservation of typical diversity may at the same time maintain ecosystem functioning
(see 3.1.4).

285
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Theoretically, the shape of the relationship between species richness and ecosystem processes
depends on the degree of species niche overlapping and dominance - if species niches largely overlap
(species are functionally redundant) the relationship is asymptotically saturating. If niches practically
do not overlap (species carry out different functions) the relationship is close to linear (Loreau, 2000;
Petchey, 2000; Tilman et al., 2014). Mutualistic species interrelations can cause an exponential
relationship (Loreau, 2008). The order of species extinctions also changes the shape of the relationship,
particularly, saturating relationships are observed when species go extinct from the least efficient to
the most efficient and exponential relationships when species are lost in the reverse order (see
supporting material Appendix 3.1). Unimodal relationships occur when ecosystem functioning peaks
at intermediate biodiversity (D in Figure 3.3) and are predicted by some theoretical models (Bond &
Chase, 2002; Bukvareva & Aleshchenko, 2013; Bukvareva, 2014). These were detected in some
experiments manipulating genetic diversity (Caesar et al., 2010; Burls et al., 2014) and in wild
populations of spruce and salmon (Altukhov, 2003). Experiments with communities of littoral
psammophilous (i.e. sand-living) ciliates of the White Sea showed that the width of the group’s trophic
niche (i.e. the suite of used resources) was highest at intermediate species richness (Azovsky, 1989).
Passy and Legendre (2006) found the highest biovolume (a surrogate for biomass) of algae at
intermediate species richness in freshwater communities.

3.2.3 Effects of biodiversity on stability and resilience of ecosystem functioning

There is now a consensus that biodiversity increases the stability of ecosystem functions through time
(Cardinale et al. 2012). Theoretical models predict that community stability is an increasing function
of species richness, while population stability often decreases with species richness (Tilman et al.,
2014). Two main hypotheses known as the “portfolio effect” and the “insurance hypothesis” predict a
stabilizing effect of species diversity. The “portfolio effect” posits higher likelihood of stabilization due
to asynchrony in species responses to environmental fluctuations and stochastic ecological
mechanisms, where the decline of one species is compensated by an increase in another species
(Loreau, 2010; supporting material Appendix 3.1). The “insurance hypothesis”, positing that more
diverse communities have a higher likelihood that at least some species function well under various
conditions, was supported by simulation models using data of Central European forests (Morin et al.,
2014). Population models predict that similar mechanisms can provide stabilizing effects of intra-
population diversity on populations and species (Bolnick et al., 2011; Forsman & Wennersten, 2016;
Hughes et al., 2008; supporting material Appendix 3.1). There is also evidence that resilience of
ecosystem functioning (i.e. maintenance of ecosystem functioning under a range of environmental
perturbations that could occur in the near future) is ensured by all levels of biodiversity - intraspecific
genetic diversity, adaptive phenotypic plasticity, species diversity and spatial heterogeneity of habitats
(Oliver et al., 2015).
Grassland experiments fully confirmed theoretical assumptions showing that community stability
increases with species richness due to averaging effects, while population stability decreases with
species richness due to smaller population sizes (Griffin et al., 2009; Gross et al., 2014; Hector et al.,
2010; Tilman et al., 2014; supporting material Appendix 3.1). Furthermore, field observations in
grasslands across five continents also showed positive relationships between species richness and
stability in biomass production, but only in un-manipulated communities of non-fertilized grasslands
(Hautier et al., 2014). The importance of intraspecific diversity for population stability has been
demonstrated for wild fish populations (see supporting material Appendix 3.1).
In Western and Central Europe, forest surveys showed that aboveground wood production is more
stable in forests with higher tree species richness due to asynchronous responses of species to climate

286
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and due to greater temporal stability in the growth rates of individual tree species. Thus, the central
role of diversity in stabilizing productivity was revealed for European forests (Jucker et al. 2014).
Furthermore, studies of inter-annual fluctuations of 2,671 plant, arthropod, bird and bat species in
German forests and grasslands demonstrated that species diversity provides community stability due
to asynchronous changes in the abundance of different species (Figure 3.4, Blüthgen et al., 2016).

287
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.2.4 Importance of all hierarchical levels of biodiversity

Measures of diversity other than species diversity have received less attention in literature on
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. However, intra-population diversity (i.e. genetic and
phenotypic variation within populations) and intraspecific diversity (i.e. local populations, ecological
and morphological forms composing species) are crucially important for fitness, adaptability and long-
term viability of populations and species (Lavergne et al., 2010). Maintaining the evolutionary
perspective of species and ecosystems is necessary to ensure ecosystem functioning and services into
the future, while the loss of intra-population or intraspecific diversity undermines species’ ability to
adapt and evolve in a changing environment (Lavergne et al., 2010; supporting material Appendix
3.1). The loss of intra-population or intra-specific diversity also weakens and destabilizes ecosystem
functioning (3.1.2 and 3.1.3). Diversity assessments that ignore intraspecific diversity may
underestimate biodiversity changes and even lead to ineffective conservation practices. This is highly
risky, since the loss of intra-specific diversity is already occurring and is projected to continue in the
future in Europe and Central Asia (Balint et al., 2011; Habel et al., 2011; Neaves et al., 2015; Pauls et
al., 2013; Taubmann et al., 2011).
Experimental and field studies demonstrated that functional diversity (i.e. diversity of species
functional traits or diversity of functional groups of species) is no less important than species diversity
(Cardinale et al., 2012; Cadotte et al., 2011; Gagic et al., 2015; Gamfeldt et al., 2015; Gravel et al.,
2016; Lefcheck et al., 2015; Mouchet et al., 2010; supporting material Appendix 3.1). Functional traits
both of key species and rare species are important because the former have a large influence on
community productivity (Cardinale et al., 2012) and the latter can provide the most distinct trait
combinations (Mouillot et al., 2013). Phylogenetic diversity is the variation in the evolutionary origin
of co-occurring species. It can be important for ecosystem functioning along with species and
functional diversity (Cardinale et al. 2012; Mace et al., 2003) (see supporting material Appendix 3.1).
Functional and phylogenetic homogenization across Europe were predicted for plants, birds and
mammals, due to changes of climate and land use (Thuiller et al., 2011, 2014b). Phylogenetic diversity
over multiple taxonomic groups is considered as indicator of nature’s contribution to people number
18, maintenance of option (Faith, 1992, Gascon et al., 2015, Faith, 2017; Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3.4).
Thus, accounting for these biodiversity facets appears important for the prediction of future ecosystem
functions and services.
The structure of interspecific relations, including food webs, is also a key feature of biodiversity.
Particularly, there is now consensus that the “loss of diversity across trophic levels has the potential to
influence ecosystem functions even more strongly than diversity loss within trophic levels” (Cardinale
et al., 2012). Experiments and simulations demonstrated the importance of the structure of food webs
for ecosystem functioning. For example, the loss of consumers at higher trophic levels can cascade
through a food web to influence structure and functioning of the whole ecosystem (see supporting
material Appendix 3.1).
The diversity of ecosystems, communities and habitats is also of crucial importance for ecosystem
functioning. Recent experiments demonstrated the importance of habitat diversity for ecosystem
multifunctionality (Alsterberg et al., 2017). Because biodiversity responds to environmental conditions
and is itself driving ecosystem functioning (3.1.1), communities that are adapted to some conditions
typically have high species diversity, while communities adapted to other, more stressful (e.g. Arctic),
conditions have a low diversity. Global positive correlations between taxonomic diversity and
temperature, evapotranspiration and other proxies of energy supply are well known (see supporting

288
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

material Appendix 3.1). Meta-analyses across similar communities, especially grasslands, at the global,
or regional scales revealed positive, unimodal, and negative correlations between species richness and
productivity (see supporting material Appendix 3.1). However, this does not contradict the positive
biodiversity effect on productivity within each local community (Loreau et al., 2001; Schmid, 2002).
To maintain stable and effective ecosystem functioning in a landscape, maintaining undisturbed
communities adapted to specific conditions (e.g. in peatlands, or rocky or sandy habitats) is required.
Even though they typically may have lower species diversity than communities in other types of
habitats, the diversity of undisturbed communities is still higher than the one of disturbed
communities of the same habitat type. For example, Anderson et al. (2009) found that the distribution
of carbon stocks in Britain was negatively correlated with species richness, as high carbon stocks were
predominantly found in (inherently) species poor heathlands. In this case, communities typical of
northern peat ecosystems, with low biodiversity, were likely most suitable for ecosystem functioning.
Plant species from more diverse communities present in other habitat types are not adapted to the
nutrient-poor conditions in peat ecosystems, and therefore do not function as well as the few species
that are more typically found there. This case illustrates that the relevance of biodiversity for
ecosystem functioning is revealed by comparisons between differently biodiverse ecosystems of the
same type rather than by comparing between different types of ecosystems. Simply correlating
biodiversity with ecosystem functioning across different ecosystem types ignores the fact that
potential local biodiversity is not the same for all ecosystems, but depends on local environmental
conditions (Schmid, 2002).

3.2.5 Long-term maintenance of multiple ecosystem functions and services

Maintaining multiple ecosystem processes at multiple places and times requires higher levels of
biodiversity than does a single process at a single place and time, as shown by many studies (Byrnes et
al. 2014; Cardinale et al. 2012; Hector & Bagchi, 2007; Isbell et al. 2011; Maestre et al. 2012; Zavaleta
et al., 2010). For example, Isbell et al. (2011) demonstrated that 84% of the 147 grassland plant species
in their study, including many rare species, promoted ecosystem functioning in at least one situation.
Different species promoted different types of ecosystem functions, during different years, at different
places, and under different environmental contexts. These results indicate that even more species will
be needed to maintain ecosystem functioning than previously suggested by studies that have
considered only the number of species needed to promote one function under one set of
environmental conditions.
Inclusion of ecosystem multifunctionality (i.e. the provision of multiple ecosystem functions or
services) in community models shows that multifunctional redundancy is generally lower than single-
function redundancy. This means that a moderate loss of species can lead to a stronger loss of
ecosystem multifunctionality than of individual ecosystem functions (Gamfeldt et al., 2008). At the
same time, the loss of multifunctionality due to biodiversity loss also depends on non-additive effects
of biodiversity on individual functions (Gamfeldt et al., 2017).
Field studies in Europe and Central Asia confirmed an important role of biodiversity for multiple
ecosystem functions (ecosystem multifunctionality) in the real world. In a study across six Western and
Central European countries, van der Plas et al. (2016a) showed that at local scales, relationships
between local (so-called α) tree diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality can be either positive or
negative, and strongly depend on how multifunctionality is quantified. However, larger scale (so-called
β) tree diversity, quantified as the differences in tree species composition among sites, positively

289
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

affected spatial turnover in the types of ecosystems that were provided at high levels (β-
multifunctionality) and hence landscape-scale (so-called γ-) multifunctionality, across countries,
emphasizing the scale-dependency of diversity-functioning relationships and the need for landscape-
level forest diversity (van der Plas et al. 2016b) (Figure 3.5). Hence, forest management leading to
biotic homogenization can have negative consequences for large-scale ecosystem multifunctionality,
whereas promoting forest stands varying in tree species composition will have positive influences on
large-scale forest ecosystem multifunctionality.

290
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A well replicated multisite study of 150 grasslands in Germany showed that plant biodiversity loss
driven by land-use intensification also leads to loss of functions related to nutrient cycling, pest control,
pollination and cultural services. While the effects on nutrient cycling, pest control and pollination
varied among regions, effects of plant diversity loss consistently led to a loss in cultural services (Allan
et al., 2015). In the same grasslands, Soliveres et al. (2016a) revealed the importance of the diversity
of locally rare species (plants, invertebrates, fungi, protists and bacteria) for ecosystem
multifunctionality. Locally rare above-ground species were associated with high levels of
multifunctionality, while common species were only related to average, not high, levels of
multifunctionality. Furthermore, Soliveres et al. (2016b) showed that not only plants are important for
multiple ecosystem functions and services, but that the diversity of other trophic groups, particularly
aboveground herbivores and microorganisms, is also extremely important for the maintenance of
multiple ecosystem functions and services in grasslands.
Different ecosystem services profit from different types of management. Provisioning services often
peak under intensive use of populations and ecosystems and at relatively low levels of biodiversity
(Science for Environment Policy, 2015). Optimizing ecosystems for certain provisioning services,
especially food, fibre and biofuel production has, however, greatly simplified their structure,
composition and functioning across scales. While this simplification has enhanced certain provisioning
services, it reduced others, particularly regulating services, and this simplification has led to major
losses of biodiversity (Cardinale et al., 2012). Mapping of four provisioning services, five regulating
services and one cultural service across Western and Central Europe also revealed spatial trade-offs
among ecosystem services, in particular between the provisioning service of crop production and
regulating services (Maes et al., 2011, 2012).
In summary, provisioning multiple ecosystem services requires maintaining and promoting high
biodiversity within and between ecosystems. This implies high overall synergy between the goals of
maintaining and promoting biodiversity and of maintaining and promoting multiple ecosystem
services.

3.3 Past and current trends in biodiversity and ecosystems by unit of

analysis

3.3.1 Introduction
Europe and Central Asia embrace a diversity of biogeographical regions from Arctic snow and ice-
dominated systems in the north to Mediterranean forest and deserts in the south (Chapter 1, Section
1.3.4). The variety of the ecosystems also includes tundra, alpine and subalpine systems, temperate,
boreal, tropical and subtropical dry and humid forests, peatlands, grasslands and deserts. The region
also has important anthropogenic land cover types including agricultural and urban areas that are
found across biogeographical regions. These categories are collectively referred to as terrestrial units
of analysis, and in this section on past and current trends are addressed roughly sequentially from the
north to the south of the region (Section 3.3.2), along with two examples of special ecosystems of
relevance in the region, heathlands, and caves and other subterranean habitats. This is followed by a
section on status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystems for inland surface waters (Section 3.3.3),
which includes the categories of freshwater habitats and saline lakes. Finally, Section 3.3.4 addresses
status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystems for marine systems, including the North Eastern
Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Black and Azov Sea, Arctic Ocean, and North Western

291
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pacific Ocean, and the Deep Sea parts of the region and progress toward goals of Multilateral
Environmental Agreements. The section is concluded by a box summarizing the trends for all
terrestrial, inland surface water and marine systems in the overview Table 3.5 and Figure 3.43.

3.3.2 Terrestrial Ecosystems

3.3.2.1 Snow- and ice-dominated systems
Overview of the sub-system
Glaciers and nival mountain belt
Currently glaciers are present in the high Arctic and in mountains in Europe and Central Asia. Glaciers
extend for 55,800 km2 in the Russian Arctic, 35,100 km2 in Svalbard and 11,800km2 in Iceland. The
average ice thickness varies from 280-300 m (Novaya Zemlya) to 200 m (Severnaya Zemlya) and 100
m (Franz-Joseph Land). Glaciers flowing into the sea break off forming icebergs in some coastal areas.
In mountains, they extend for 25,400 km2 in Scandinavia, the Alps, the Apennines and the Pyrenees,
Siberia, the Caucasus, Altay, Tien Shan and Pamir (Milkov, 1977; UNEP-WGMS, 2008; Kotlyakov, 2010;
AMAP, 2012; IPCC, 2013; Roshydromet, 2014; Zimnitskiy et al. 2015). The nival belt in mountains is
characterized by extremely harsh conditions: low average annual temperature (˂3.5°C) and a brief
vegetation growing season (˂10 days) (Körner et al., 2011). In the higher mountains of the Europe and
Central Asia region, “dry permafrost” in bedrock and moraines prevents the formation of continuous
vegetation cover. In the northern Scandes, the lower limit for dry permafrost is currently at 1,300 m
a.s.l. (Bockheim & Tarnocai, 1998).

Polar deserts
The Arctic deserts are spread over the far north of the Arctic Circle. The scant vegetation of the Arctic
desert covers less than 50-60% of the soil surface, consisting of mosses, lichens, algae and a few species
of higher plants (Milkov & Gwozdecky, 1969). These landscapes are common on Svalbard, Iceland,
Arctic Ocean archipelagos and the Cheluskin Peninsula in Taimyr (Diakonov et al., 2004; Matveeva,
2015).
The vegetation productivity here is negligible (Aleksandrova, 1983). Total biomass stock is less than 5
t/ha, dominated by above-ground biomass, thus distinguishing polar deserts from other habitats. Low
vegetation productivity causes poor faunal diversity. At the extreme north of the zone only colonies of
sea birds on rocky shores nest in summer and form so-called rookeries (especially on Novaya Zemlya
and the Franz Joseph Land) (Milkov, 1977; Bliss et al., 1981; CAFF, 2013).

Past and current trends

The glaciation of the Russian Arctic has decreased by 725 km2 in area and 250 km3 in volume over the
last 50 years, especially in western and central areas - 30% of it by icebergs and 70% by melting
(Kotlyakov, 2010; Roshydromet, 2014). The mountain glaciers of southern Russia have decreased even
more: by 40% in the Caucasus, 20% in the Altay and 30 % in the Sayan Mountains relative to the mid-
20th century (UNEP-WGMS, 2008). In the Alps, glaciers lost 35% of their total area from 1850 to 1970
and almost 50% by 2000 (Zemp et al. 2006). The lower limit for high alpine “dry” permafrost has been
escalating rapidly over recent decades (IPCC, 2014a; Arctic Council, 2013).
Arctic deserts are extremely vulnerable to climate change because of greater than global average
warming, decrease of ice and increase of permafrost melting in the Polar region. The warming and
permafrost melting lead to more favourable conditions for plants, leading to an increase in species
richness and productivity; and subsequently to the shift of vegetation type to tundra. While plant

292
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

species richness increases, some vulnerable species are affected negatively and decline (Callaghan et
al., 2004; Callaghan et al., 2005; Wolf et al., 2008; IPCC, 2014a; Roshydromet, 2014). At the same time
better climate conditions let people use natural resources more actively (Government of the Russian
Federation, 2013).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Glaciers play an important regulating role for reindeer in the Altay Mountains in summer, as animals
spend day time on ice to avoid blood-sucking insects. Shrinking of glaciers leads to concentration of
reindeer in remaining places and limits their population size (Artemov et al., 2013). The same function
applies to snowbeds in the northern Scandes, where reindeer herds escape parasitic insects in warm
summer days. This also allows them to see predators (e.g. wolverine) before they get close (Reimers
et al., 2006).
Reduction of the period during which the sea is covered in ice, means that polar bears are forced to
stay on land for longer periods of time. Studies show that a one week shift in the ice melt in spring
leads to 10 kg weight loss of a bear (Morgunov, 2011). Permafrost melting also leads to erosion of
landscapes and destruction of the sea shore, as previously frozen surfaces become softer and more
boggy. This can sometimes result in a fast decline in the area of islands – up to 10 m per year
(Roshydromet, 2014).
Pollution and mining can have dramatic local effects, including complete destruction of vegetation.
However, most Arctic deserts and mountain peaks are far from main industrial human activity, and are
therefore not severely affected (CAFF, 2013; Shukurov et al., 2015).
Tourism development, especially ski slopes, in high mountain ecosystems can cause their
fragmentation, disturbance to animals, and land degradation in local plots (Sokratov et al., 2014).
Poaching of rare charismatic animals for illegal trading leads to a decline of their populations in Arctic
deserts, especially polar bears (classified as vulnerable A3c, Wiig et al., 2015; CAFF, 2013). The snow
leopard (vulnerable C1, McCarthy et al., 2017) is another similar example of a species affected by illegal
poaching and human-wildlife conflict in high mountains (Paltsyn et al., 2012).

3.3.2.2 Tundra and mountain grasslands (only high elevation grasslands)

Overview of the sub-system
Tundra
Tundra refers to areas with permafrost, where the temperature is too low, precipitation too high and
winds are too strong to allow for forest growth (Wielgolaski, 1972). Tundra is found on islands and on
the mainland coast of the Arctic Ocean from the Kola Peninsula in the west to Chukotka in the east;
and a vegetation belt in mountains from Scandinavia in the west to Kamchatka in the east and to Pamir
and Tien Shan in the south (Milkov, 1977; Bliss & Matveyeva, 1992; Walker et al., 2005).
Arctic tundra is a narrow strip along the ocean coast in Iceland, on many Islands in the Arctic Ocean
and from the Barents Sea to Chukotka (Walker et al., 2005). There are only two layers of vegetation,
grasses and mosses, with some bushes and open soil (Diakonov et al., 2004; Vasiliev et al., 1941,
Aleksandrova, 1970; Bliss et al., 1981). Lichen and moss tundra is located in Iceland and in continental
Eurasia, stretching in a band from the Kola Peninsula in the west to the Lena River in the east.
Xerophilous and mesophilous mosses and some low shrubs are also abundant (Vasiliev et al., 1941,
Aleksandrova, 1970; Bliss et al,. 1981; Diakonov et al., 2004). To the south on the continent the moss
and lichen tundra is replaced by shrubs, commonly consisting of dwarf birches and bush willows. The

293
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

lichen-moss layer contains more grasses and forest plants (Vasiliev et al., 1941; Aleksandrova, 1970;
Bliss et al., 1981).

Past and current trends

Remote and very slow naturaly recovering tundra areas were undisturbed by human impact for
centuries. Currently climate change affects the tundra through global warming, opening access into
the Arctic. The overall trend is towards a greater human footprint (CAFF, 2013; Government of the
Russian Federation, 2013).
The northward (and upward on mountains) range shift of species is also observed by both scientists
and Arctic residents. Range shifts of plants averaging 6.1 km per decade toward the poles and 6.1 m
per decade in altitude have been identified in response to a mean advancement of spring (initiation of
greening) by two to three days per decade (Callaghan et al., 2005; Morgunov, 2011, CAFF, 2013; IPCC,
2014a).
Lemming life cycles have changed in some Arctic regions probably due to changes in timing and quality
of snow accumulation, with consequent impacts for lemming predators and alternative prey (Cornulier
et al., 2013, Henden et al., 2010; Terraube et al., 2011; Killengreen et al., 2012; Terraube et al., 2012;
Schmidt et al., 2012; Hamel et al., 2013; Millon et al., 2014).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Mechanical disturbance of the soil and vegetation cover leads to ecosystem fragmentation (Kumpula
et al., 2012), formation of artificial habitats and their colonization by weeds. Off-road driving with
tracked vehicles poses a problem in parts of the Arctic, especially in Eastern Europe, where impacts on
tundra vegetation can persist for decades following the disturbance (CAFF, 2013). Mechanical
disturbances include thermokarst induced by the thawing of permafrost; freeze–thaw processes; wind,
sand, and ice blasts; seasonal ice oscillations; slope processes; snow load; flooding during thaw;
changes in river volume; coastal erosion and flooding. Biological disturbances include insect-pest
outbreaks, peaks of grazing animals that have cyclic populations, and fire (Callaghan et al., 2005).
Overgrazing by domestic reindeer causes destruction of vegetation cover (Morgunov, 2011; Aleynikov
et al., 2014), - a widespread direct human-induced pressure on terrestrial Arctic in Europe and Central
Asia (CAFF, 2013).
The Arctic stands out in terms of climate change effects on biodiversity (Callaghan et al., 2005),
including a prolongation of the growing season and an increase in productivity (for plants), nesting
period (for birds), and warm season (for invertebrates). Climate change has led to a northward shift of
the tundra-forest boundary; the extension of some species ranges, changing migration patterns; and
to the introduction of alien species. An increase in the frequency of climatic anomalies such as winter
thaw, summer frosts, increased precipitation, including snow, leads to the mass deaths of animals (e.g.
reindeer and waterfowl) (Bhatt et al., 2010; CAFF, 2013; Gauthier et al., 2013; Hudson & Henry, 2009;
IPCC, 2014a, 2014b; Morgunov, 2011; Raynolds et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2013).
Poaching and unregulated use of biological resources affect rare and vulnerable species. Polar bear
poaching in Eastern Russian coastal tundra estimated at 100-200 animals per year (Kochnev, 2004;
Morgunov, 2011; Kochnev & Zdor, 2014). While gathering goose down or hunting for birds and animals
for food, local people may be unaware of the species national conservation status (Danilov-Danilyan
et al., 2001; Lavrinenko & Lavrinenko, 2006) and protection by law (Aleynikov et al., 2014).

294
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Intentional and unintentional introduction of alien species in Arctic ecosystems is ongoing. Fifteen
alien invertebrate species, for example, have settled in Svalbard, many of them introduced via
imported soils (Coulson, 2015).
Pollution by oil spills, mining or toxic waste dumps can transform or destroy vegetation cover and
animal populations (Kumpula et al., 2011; Virtanen et al., 2002). Persistent organic pollutants and
heavy metals accumulate in Arctic ecosystems, despite being produced and released in temperate and
tropical regions, due to global atmospheric circulation (CAFF, 2013).

Subalpine and Alpine ecosystems

The alpine mountain belt is situated above subalpine and below snow and ice dominated ecosystems.
The alpine vegetation comprises mainly perennial grasses, sedges, forbs, prostrate shrubs, cushions,
tussocks, bryophytes and lichens (Körner, 2003; Körner et al., 2011). It demonstrates high rates of local
endemism (Grabherr et al., 1995). Mountain tundra (as a variant of the alpine type) is most developed
in Eastern Siberia, but can be found in all high mountains in Eurasia from the Urals to Kamchatka and
from the Arctic to Tien Shan (Vasiliev et al., 1941; Aleksandrova, 1970). Central Asian mountains
contain a very specific variation of the alpine belt in extremely dry climate – alpine deserts in Pamir
(Breckle & Wucherer, 2006).
The subalpine mountain belt is an ecotone zone between forest or steppe and alpine vegetation belts.
It occurs at elevations from the sea level in the Kurily Islands in the Pacific Ocean up to 1,700-2,300 m
in the Alps, Caucasus and Mediterranean mountains. The four main types of ecosystems in the
subalpine belt are high-grass subalpine meadows; communities of dwarf bushes and shrubs;
heathlands and grasslands consisting of short grasses; and subalpine thinned park type and crooked
forests (Malyshev & Nimis, 1997).
Alpine and subalpine ecosystems stand out for their extremely high biodiversity. 20% percent (approx
2,500 species) of Europe’s vascular plant flora were estimated to being predominantly alpine, i.e.
occurring within only 3% of the continent's territory (Grabherr et al., 1995; Väre et al., 2003).
Mountains around the Mediterranean basin, such as Sierra Nevada in Spain, are outstandingly rich in
local endemic species (Pauli et al., 2003) and there is a general south-to-north gradient of decreasing
endemism in mountains across Europe (Favarger, 1972). The subalpine belt is especially diverse in
mountains of Europe and Central Asia and includes a large part of endemic species. For example, in
Central Asian mountains more than 600 species of vascular plants were found and 50 of them are
endemics (Shukurov et al., 2015, Kovalevskaya et al., 1968-1993), in the Central Caucasus mountains
the endemism level is higher: 197 from 595 species (Nakhutsrishvili, 2003).

Past and current trends

The subalpine ecosystems in Europe and the Caucasus are strongly modified through a long history of
human use. Humans converted large parts of subalpine woodlands into pastures and hay meadows,
which resulted in a widespread increase in secondary grasslands below the tree line. The actual tree
lines have shifted downwards especially in densely populated mountains such as the Alps and the
Caucasus (Körner, 2003; 2012). Unlike in the Alps, in southern Siberia the altitudinal range of the
subalpine belt is mostly conditioned by natural factors (Malyshev & Nimis, 1997).
In the Carpathians the subalpine scrub communities almost completely disappeared, being
transformed into so-called polonina with matgrass (Nardus stricta) swards or communities dominated
by blueberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) with very low plant diversity (Kricsfalusy et al., 2008). Overgrazing
in Tien-Shan in the second half of the 20th century was five to ten times over the tolerance limit

295
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Shukurov, 2007). Pamir alpine deserts are 20% moderately degraded, 25% strongly degraded and 55%
extremely degraded (Breckle & Wucherer, 2006). As a result, wild species were crowded out by
livestock and their number has dramatically declined (Korotenko & Domashov, 2014). This
subsequently led to a decline in the number of predators and scavengers (Shukurov, 2007).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Mountain meadows in Europe and Caucasus suffer from overgrazing, which leads to simplifying of
ecosystem structure and decline of population abundance and species richness (European
Commission, 2016).
Alpine grasslands today undergo rapid transition driven by changes in land use and climate.
Thermophilous species increased while cold-adapted high-elevation species declined in European
mountains (Gottfried et al., 2012; Grabherr et al., 2010; Malanson et al., 2011). Upward altitudinal
shifts of alpine plant species ranges have repeatedly been observed in mountains (Klanderud & Birks,
2003; Kokorin et al., 2011; Pauli et al., 2012; Wipf et al., 2013), which has led to increased species
numbers on mountain tops in northern parts of Europe, but to declines in Mediterranean mountains
(Jiménez-Alfaro et al., 2014; Pauli et al., 2012). The rate of tree line change varies across the region,
usually several meters per decade and more than 100 m in Sweden and Norway (IPCC, 2014a).
Species population dynamics may lag behind climatic changes due to the persistence of some alpine
plant species (Dullinger et al., 2012). Abandonment of traditional farming and rural depopulation has
become an evident trend in European and Caucasus mountains (Keenleyside et al., 2010). The
consequence is natural reforestation (Gehrig-Fasel et al., 2008; Sitzia et al., 2010), which reduces
landscape heterogeneity, increases fire risks and exacerbates human-wildlife conflicts (Körner, 2003;
Navarro & Pereira, 2015; Wilson et al., 2012).
Landscape fragmentation and degradation as a result of the development of ski and tourism centres
in high mountains have local negative impacts on biodiversity, species decline (especially rare and
endemic species) and homogenization. Disturbance of vegetation on steep slopes may result in
mudslides and water erosion (Belonovskaya, 1995; Akatov et al., 2003). In Kyrgyzstan mining in high
mountain ecosystems has led to degradation, fragmentation and pollution of vulnerable subalpine and
alpine grasslands (Korotenko & Domashov, 2014; Shukurov, 2007).
Often changes are due to combinations of drivers. For example, species richness in Scottish alpine
areas over a 20–40 year period increased in most habitats, while β-diversity declined, resulting in
increased homogeneity of vegetation. Key northern and alpine species declined, while lowland
generalist species increased. This change was consistent with impacts of climate change, but other
elements of spatial pattern (decline in lichen richness in high deposition areas) were consistent with
effects of nitrogen pollution (Britton et al., 2009), which transforms species composition significantly
(Bassin et al., 2007).

3.3.2.3 Temperate and boreal forests and woodlands

Overview of the sub-system
Broad-leaved, mixed and coniferous forests constitute most of the potential natural vegetation in
about 80% of Europe (Bohn et al., 2000) and Central Asia. Other patchily distributed forest types
include water-influenced forests like black alder carrs and ravine forests on steep slopes. The vast area
of boreal forest includes much of Fennoscandia, the middle and northern part of European Russia,
Southern Siberia and far eastern part of Russia, covering ca 809 million ha (Federal Forestry Agency,
2013).

296
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Past and current trends

The main past and current trends in biodiversity have been deforestation and fragmentation. In
Western and Central Europe, conversion of deciduous forest to agriculture caused large breaks in
connectivity and loss of the typical plant communities. Recovery of ecosystems lags far behind the
efforts made in afforestation in these predominantly agricultural landscapes (Hermy et al., 1999).
High biodiversity of various taxa of forest ecosystems is associated with natural disturbances like fires,
wind and insect outbreaks, creating patches of dead trees and heterogeneity at different spatial scales.
Up to 4,000 species are dependent on coarse woody debris as habitat (Stokland et al., 2012). Protected
areas focus on limiting human intervention in forests, with the aim of conserving species dependent
on forest cover continuity, deadwood and large trees. Many bryophytes, lichens, fungi, vascular plants,
saproxylic beetles and birds and cavity-nesters are associated with old forests (Bilz et al., 2011; Moning
& Müller, 2009, Paillet et al., 2010; Roberge et al., 2015; Gregory et al., 2007; Scheidegger et al., 2012;
Virkkala et al., 2008).
In the 18th century modern forestry began to reduce traditional forest pasturage, litter raking, charcoal
making, pollarding and coppicing (Szabó, 2013). This replacement to high forests led to loss of species
like threatened butterfly species associated with these open habitats (Konvička et al., 2006). These
changes have shifted the composition of understorey towards more shade-tolerant and nutrient-
demanding species (de Frenne et al. 2013, Kopecký et al., 2013) and forest vegetation has undergone
significant loss of plant specialists (see e.g. De Frenne et al., 2013; Keith et al., 2009), loss of lichens
(Reinecke et al., 2014) and decreased multi-functionality at landscape-scale (van der Plas et al., 2016a).
This process is visible also in some coniferous forests (Hedwall & Brunet, 2016). Traditionally managed
open forest habitats included in European Union protected habitats currently have unfavourable
status (EEA et al., 2016).
For the 2007–2012 period, the 27 European Union member States reported that only 26% of forest
species and 15% of (non-Mediterranean) forest habitats (29 habitats) of European interest, as listed in
the European Union’s Habitats Directive, are in favourable conservation status (EEA, 2015a). An
additional 7 have unfavourable but improving status with respect to the 2001-2006 period, 54 are
deteriorating, 102 are stable or have unknown trends. In Central Europe, 248 assessments were
performed (combinations of habitats and countries) and of these 56 were favourable, 16 unfavourable
but improving, 46 unfavourable and declining, 123 unfavourable but stable, and 7 had unknown or
unreported status and trends. In Western Europe, 380 status and trend assessments were performed,
of which 66 were favourable, 25 unfavourable but improving, 83 unfavourable and declining, 125
unfavourable stable and 81 unknown or unreported. The most endangered habitats are forests along
rivers and on bogs and water-influenced habitats such as ravine and boreal coniferous forests, riparian
alluvial forests, lichen Scots pine forests, old acidophilous oak woods on sandy plain, Fennoscandian
wooded pastures and swampy forests (Janssen et al., 2016).
For people in remote forested areas, old-growth mountain or boreal forests are the only source of
wood, and a source of food. Planted forests exclusively used for timber cover about 10% of the
European Union (EEA, 2016). Throughout the forests of Europe and Central Asia, biodiversity is an
important source of non-wood products (berries, mushrooms, game animals and recreation).
Mustonen & Helander (2004) reported a decline of certain berry plants such as marsh whortleberries,
traditionally collected by the Sami people in Finland.
A significant upward shift in the optimal elevation of forest herb and woody species occurred during
the 20th century in various Western, Central and Eastern European forests, including primary forests

297
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Engler et al., 2011; Lenoir et al., 2008; Šebesta et al., 2011). Across several regions, the upper
elevational limits of both tree seedlings and saplings were significantly higher than of adults (e.g.
Vitasse et al., 2012). However, despite the observed climate change, tree distribution of life-stage has
not changed directionally (Máliš et al., 2016). Drought is also known to be increasing fire risk in boreal
forest (Drobyshev et al., 2012) which, coupled with inadvertently human-caused ignition, can cause
extensive wildfires.

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Direct drivers such as the expansion of infrastructure (urban and transport), unsustainable silviculture
(including alteration and embankment of streams and spring drainages, excessive use of chemicals and
clear-cutting and afforestation by monocultures of invasive species), conversion to agricultural land
use and the lack of natural processes (e.g. floods in floodplain forests or fires in taiga forests) have
affected forest ecosystems (Forest Europe, 2015) (Figure 3.6).

It is difficult to disentangle the influence of various drivers on forest indicators; however, repeated
surveys (see e.g. initiative www.forestreplot.ugent.be) have revealed significant changes in species
composition and distribution ranges.
In Central and Western Europe there have been trends of increasing integrated forest management
for conservation of biological diversity by close-to-nature forest management without clear cuts to
increase continuity of forest structures, and emulation of natural disturbances (creation of dead wood
and natural rejuvenation (Kraus & Krumm, 2013). Large populations of game animals can decimate
natural rejuvenation by browsing (Kuijper et al., 2010) or rooting (Brunet et al., 2016).
In addition, the current large tree plantations are prone to invasions by species in the forest
understorey (Essl et al., 2010; Pyšek et al., 2009). Among the problematic invasive alien species, 33
(invertebrates, vascular plants and fungi) are regularly found in European Union forest ecosystems or
are dependent on trees (EEA, 2016).
Past deposition of SO2 caused acidification of soil in some areas (Krám et al. 2012), resulting in the
widespread dieback of Norway spruce plantations and mountainous coniferous forests and associated

298
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in the 1980s (Arnolds, 1991). Current atmospheric nitrogen deposition
in areas of Central and Western Europe has caused soil eutrophication (Hédl et al., 2011, Lomský et
al., 2012, Šebesta et al., 2011), in general and and locally close to urban and industrial areas (Kotlyakov,
2000). This has caused changes in forest plant communities (Ewald et al., 2013; Verheyen et al., 2012).

3.3.2.4 Mediterranean forests, woodland and scrub

Overview of the sub-system
This unit stretches west to east from Portugal to Jordan, includes ecosystems on Madeira, the Azores
and Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean (Conservation International, 2011; FAO, 2013b) and is
characterized by cool wet winters and dry hot summers causing water stress (Allen, 2014; Gauquelin
et al., 2016). Similar conditions can be found in the Crimean Peninsula, Turkey, and in lower parts of
the Caucasus and Central Asian Mountains, which are sometimes also considered as a part of the
Mediterranean area (Takhtazhyan, 1978; Şekercioglu et al., 2011). Further to the east, juniper and
pistachio woodlands and scrub become the most common ecosystems (Fayvush & Aleksanyan, 2016;
Şekercioĝlu et al. 2011; Government of Tajikistan, 2016; Government of Turkmenistan, 2015). In
Central Asia, they are composed of pistachio-almond dry woodlands (Venglovsky, 2006).
The Mediterranean area is among the world’s richest places in terms of plant diversity, with 25,000
plant species, 50% of them endemic (Blondel et al., 2010). There are 290 tree species (Noce et al.,
2016), of which 200 are endemic (Quézel & Médail, 2003; Gauquelin et al., 2016). Two thirds of
Mediterranian amphibian species, 48% of reptiles, a quarter of mammals, 14% of dragonflies, and 3%
of birds are endemic (Mittermeier et al. 2004; Paine & Lieutier, 2016; Lefèvre & Fady, 2016; FAO,
2013b). With 52 plant refuges during ice ages (Médail & Diadema, 2009), the Mediterranean is
recognized as a Global Biodiversity Hotspot (Mittermeier et al., 2004).
In scrublands, the dominant maquis has many local names reflecting indigenous and local knowledge,
such as matorral in Spain, phryganae in Greece or bartha in Israel. It is characterized by hard-leaved
shrubby evergreen species of genera Cistus, Erica, Genista, Juniperus, Myrtus, Phillyrea, and Pistacia.
The term “garrigue” is restricted to the limestone, semi-arid, lowland and coastal regions of the basin
and is maintained by grazing and fires.

Past and current trends

The State of Nature in the European Union reports that 139 habitats where assessed for the
Mediterranean Ecoregion in the European Union. In the period 2007-2012, 27 of these were of
favourable conservation status, 1 is unfavourable but improving with respect to the 2001-2006 period,
49 are deteriorating , 62 are stable or have unknown trends. In Central Europe, 38 assessments were
performed (combinations of habitats and countries) and of these 37 were favourable and one
unfavourable but stable. In Western Europe, 467 assessments were performed, of which 139 were
favourable, 6 were unfavourable but improving, 104 unfavourable and declining, 107 unfavourable
stable and 109 unknown or unreported status and trends (EEA, 2015a).
Originally, the Mediterranean region was largely covered by evergreen oak forests, deciduous, semi-
deciduous, and conifer (pine, juniper) forests (De Beaulieu et al., 2005). However, as a result of
centuries of deforestation, no intact forest is left in the region (Blondel et al., 2010; CEPF, 2010a). Both
human intervention and climatic conditions are favouring the development of shrublands and then of
sclerophyllous and secondary coniferous forests, replacing the primary semi-deciduous and deciduous
forests (Abdurakhmanov et al., 2003; Blondel et al., 2010; CEPF, 2010a; Allen, 2014). UNEP et al. (2009)
reported that 67% of the sub-system of the Mediterranean forest, woodland and scrub had been

299
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

converted before 1950, whereas recent changes only represent 3% in terms of area. During the 1990-
2005 period the area covered by forest generally increased except in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
(UNEP et al., 2009; FAO, 2013b). Plantations cover about 11% of the area, mostly formed by pines and
eucalyptus (Wingfield et al., 2015; de Rigo et al., 2016).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Mediterranean forests are the product of a long history of agro-sylvo-pastoral management by rural
populations and of interactions between local societies and the state (mainly through the public forest
administration) (Blondel et al., 2010; Gauquelin et al., 2016; Kouba et al., 2015; Lefèvre & Fady, 2016;
Paine & Lieutier, 2016; Médail & Diadema, 2009). At low altitudes, the present Mediterranean forests
have been managed by coppicing, wood cutting, prescribed fires and grazing, while at higher altitudes
they have been conserved (Blondel et al., 2010). Fires and herding are particularly important drivers
of vegetation dynamics and selection of plant traits (Arianoutsou, 2001; CEPF, 2010a; de Rigo et al.,
2016). After the Second World War, land abandonment resulted in land cover changes from pastures
to scrub and later to closed forests, and was accompanied by significant changes in biodiversity
(Gauquelin et al., 2016; Lavergne et al., 2005; Mazzoleni et al., 2004; Sirami et al., 2010). The most
important threats for Mediterranean woodland species are habitat loss, fragmentation, land
degradation and anthropogenic fires causing primary forest cover to decrease and an increase of
secondary forest and shrubland (Abdurakhmanov et al., 2003; Peñuelas et al., 2002; FAO, 2013b;
Government of Armenia, 2015; EEA, 2002). Nitrogen pollution from agriculture (Sutton et al., 2014;
Feest et al., 2014), and unsustainable harvesting and hunting (Peñuelas et al. 2002; IUCN, 2008; FAO,
2013a) also contribute to biodiversity loss.
Climate change, withan increase in temperature and frequency of natural disasters, especially
droughts, leads to aridification, desertification and a decline of species richness (Allen, 2014; FAO,
2013b; IPCC, 2014a).
With the exception of some pyrophytic species like Cistus sp. (EEA, 2004), pine woodlands are more
sensitive than scrubland and oak forest to more frequent wildfires (Pausas et al., 2008; Moreira et al.,
2011; Dias et al., 2016).
Invasive alien species, including forest pests and diseases (potentially favoured by fires) and
plantations of exotic tree species also contribute to biodiversity loss (de Rigo et al., 2016; EEA, 2004;
IUCN, 2008). Eucalyptus monocultures can be infected with up to 150 pathogens, spreading more
easily in uniform conditions (de Rigo et al., 2016; Wingfield et al., 2015), while pine invasion promotes
soil acidification, causing a decrease of taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity (Selvi et al., 2016).

3.3.2.5 Tropical and subtropical dry and humid forests

Overview of the sub-system
There are several types of laurel subtropical forests (“laurifolia” or “laurisilva”) on islands in the North
Atlantic Ocean, belonging to the Macaronesian biogeographical province. They occupy territories with
medium to high precipitation of Azores, Canary Islands and Madeira islands between altitudes of 600
and 1500 m (Dias et al., 2005; Fernández-Palacios & Arevalo, 1998) and demonstrate a high species
diversity: 12,660 species of fungi, plants and animals with extremely high level of endemism – 30%
(3,570 species) (Moya et al., 2004).
Two types of mixed and deciduous humid subtropical forests with evergreen elements grow in the
Caucasus Mountains: Colchic in the west (Georgia, Russia and Turkey) and Hyrcanic in the east in
Azerbaijan (Akhani et al., 2010; Chitanava, 2007; Grossheim, 1926; Gerasimov et al., 1964; Prilipko,

300
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1970; Safarov, 1979; Safarov, 2009; Solomon et al. 2014). Other researchers consider Colchic and
Hyrcanic forests as specific temperate rainforests, rather than subtropical, because of the mild climate
conditions with cooler winters than in many subtropical regions and the presence of the sclerophyllous
species only in undergrowth and absent from the tree layer (Borsch et al., 2014; Maharramova et al.,
2015; Nakhutsrishvili et al., 2015; Zazanashvili & Mallon, 2009). Colchic forests include about 3,600
vascular plant species, and Hyrcanic forests more than above 1,200 species (Abdurakhmanov et al.
2003; Akhani et al. 2010; Chitanava, 2007; Filibeck et al. 2004; Grossheim, 1926; Gerasimov et al.,
1964; Prilipko, 1970; Safarov, 1979, 2009; Solomon et al. 2014; Tutayuk, 1975; Figure 3.7). Twenty to
30% of Caucasian flowering plants, fish, and terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates are endemic.
Endemism in terrestrial molluscs can reach 75% (CEPF, 2004; Mumladze et al., 2008; Nakhutsrishvili et
al., 2015; Zazanashvili & Mallon, 2009). Due to the high diversity of relict Arcto-Tertiary species
(Gegechkori, 2011) and the high level of endemism these forests are included in the Caucasus Global
Biodiversity Hotspot (CEPF, 2010b; Mittermeier et al., 2004), the Western Caucasus UNESCO World
Heritage Site (Succow & Uppenbrink, 2009) and Global 200 WWF ecoregions (WWF, 2006).
Tugai is a type of gallery forest and shrubland interspersed with grasslands along the Caucasus and
Central Asian rivers, similar to natural riparian forests in the northern part of Europe and Central Asia
(Glazovsky, 1990; Sadygov, 2012; Shukurov, 2009). Primary wild walnut-fruit forests and woodlands
are a specific feature of Central Asian mountains and relict ecosystems, remaining as refuges during
ice ages. They occupy mountain slopes at 800 - 2100 m a.s.l. (Janick, 2003; Shukurov et al., 2005;
Venglovsky, 2006).

Past and current trends

301
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Subtropical forests have been transformed by human activities. Currently, native subtropical forests in
Europe and Central Asia occupy only 20% of initial laurel forest area (Fernández-Palacios & Arevalo,
1998) and about 10% of Colchic, Hyrcanian, Amu Darya and Azerbaijan Tugai forest area. Mostly they
have been transformed into agricultural lands. Remaining subtropical forests are fragmented and
degraded because of logging and overgrazing, or replaced by Mediterranean type vegetation. This has
been the case with laurel forests in Macaronesia and Tugais in Armenia (Government of Azerbaijan,
2014; Bikirov, 2012; Burkhanov, 2013; Fayvush & Aleksanyan, 2016; Fernández-Palacios & Arevalo,
1998; Ionov & Lebedeva, 2004; Janick, 2003; Jungius, 2012; Mumladze et al., 2008; Nakhutsrishvili et
al. 2011; Shukurov et al., 2015; Treshkin, 2001; Turdieva et al., 2007; Yusifov & Hajiyev, 2004;
Zazanashvili & Mallon, 2009). 97% of Macaronesian Laurisilva is in Madeira, and is in unfavourable but
stable conservation status, the remaining 3% is in the Canary Islands and is considered in favourable
conservation status (EEA, 2015a).
The total number of regional extinctions from subtropical forest is unknown. However, noteworthy is
the global extinction of the Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris ssp. virgata). About 50% of natural Azorean
species are in danger of extinction (Dias et al., 2005). Twenty-one species of mammals, birds, reptiles
and amphibians in Caucasus forests are globally threatened and included in IUCN Red Lists as
vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. Of these, 8 are endemic (West Caucasian tur (Capra
caucasica), Clarks' lizard (Darevskia clarkorum), Charnali lizard (Darevskia dryada), large-headed water
snake (Natrix megalocephala), Caucasian viper (Vipera kaznakovi), Black Sea viper (Vipera pontica),
Caucasian salamander (Mertensiella caucasica) and Persian mountain salamander (Iranodon persicus)
(Nakhutsrishvili et al., 2011). The population of Bukhara deer declined to 100 animals in Tajikistan
(Bannikov & Zhirnov, 1971; Jungius, 2012).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Overgrazing affects all types of remaining subtropical forests, but especially damaged wild walnut-fruit
forests in Central Asia because of the lack of good pastures. So far, numbers of livestock (mainly goats
and sheep) have been growing. Only in Kyrgyzstan in walnut-fruit forests it increased by 5% from 2012
to 2013 (Asykulov & Chodonova, 2015). This leads to structural homogenization, extinction of rare and
endemic species, and introduction of weeds and invasive species like Japanese spiraea (Spiraea
japonica) (Nakhutsrishvili et al., 2011; Treshkin et al., 1998; Shukurov et al., 2005; Fernández-Palacios
& Arevalo, 1998; Prada et. al., 2009; Asykulov & Chodonova, 2015).
In Macaronesia tourism exerts pressure on ecosystems through recreational activities, disturbance of
species, and risk of fires and wastes. From 1960 to 1998 the number of tourists increased from 940,000
to 12.5 million people each year, 6 times as large as the local population. The resulting anthropogenic
pressure impairs natural ecosystem functioning (European Comission, 2014; Fernández-Palacios &
Arevalo, 1998).
In Azerbaijan water storage facilities have transformed the water regime downstream the Kura River,
making it drier and without regular floods. These conditions are unsuitable for Tugai forest (Sadygov,
2012).
Aridification caused by global warming negatively affects Hyrcanian and walnut-fruit forests - dryer
forest types (IPCC, 2014a) and they lose mesophytes (Program and Action Plan, 2015). Increasingly,
the frequency of catastrophic floods and forest fires caused by climate change, cause the decline of
species richness in all subtropical forests within Europe and Central Asia (Prada et. al., 2009; Succow
& Uppenbrink, 2009; Zazanashvili & Mallon, 2009).

302
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Invasive species affect all types of subtropical forests (Fernández-Palacios & Arevalo, 1998; Shukurov,
2016). The Azorean flora consists of 1,007 plants species, 707 of which have been introduced mostly
in the last fifty years (Dias et al., 2005). An invasion of box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) in 2012
in the Caucasus exemplifies the magnitude of pest damage in the region. It has developed in an active
pest outbreak in 2013, and expanded from common box (Buxus sempervirens) into an endemic relict
box (Buxus colchica) in the wild (Gninenko et al., 2014). In 2015 it reached Abkhazia and Crimea, and
has destroyed most Buxus colchica in the Caucasus Colchic forests (Abasov et al., 2016). Pest outbreak
effects have been exacerbated by destabilisation of ecosystems due to pesticide application (Shukurov,
2016). Pollution from agricultural sources has caused a strong decrease in the area covered by
subtropical forest ecosystems (Kuz'mina & Treshkin, 1997; Shukurov et al., 2005; Zazanashvili &
Mallon, 2009).
In Central Asia, mining projects have been developed in walnut-fruit forests, polluting air and water
and leading to the degradation of the forest vegetation (Janick, 2003).
After the collapse of the Soviet Union many fields and plantations were abandoned and a process of
natural reforestation started (Nakhutsrishvili et al. 2011). Today these are gradually being returned to
agriculture, thereby preventing the expansion of subtropical ecosystems in this way (Shukurov et al.,
2015).
Countries have recognized the necessity to conserve the remaining subtropical forests and species and
to establish protected areas (Turdieva et al., 2007; Government of Kyrgyzstan, 2014; Government of
Tajikistan, 2014; Government of Turkmenistan, 2015; Government of Kazakhstan, 2015; Government
of Uzbekistan, 2015). For example, all remaining laurel forests in the Canary Islands are protected
(Fernández-Palacios & Arevalo, 1998), and 37% of Hyrcanian forests in Europe and Central Asia are
covered by protected areas (Nakhutsrishvili et al., 2015). Programmes on forest restoration have
started in some countries (ENPI-FLEG, 2015), to promote the recovery of species diversity and habitat.
Due to implemented measures, populations of some threatened species have become stable or even
slowly growing, such as Bukhara deer in Kazakhstan (Greifswald, 2010; Government of Kazakhstan,
2015; Government of Turkey, 2014; Government of Uzbekistan, 2015; Government of Tajikistan , 2014;
Government of Kyrgyzstan, 2014; Government of Tajikistan, 2016; Government of Turkmenistan,
2015).

3.3.2.6 Temperate grasslands

Overview of the sub-system
The ecosystem comprises dry or seasonally wet (not overwetting) non-coastal land, more than 30%
covered by natural vegetation. Vegetation is dominated by herbaceous, shrub plants and trees.
Actively managed grasslands and cultivated lands, high-mountainous (alpine) grasslands, and arid
dwarf-shrublands (semi-deserts) are covered in 3.2.2.9, 3.3.2.2. and 3.3.2.7, respectively. Three main
grassland types are distinguished in Europe and Central Asia (namely: Steppes, azonal/extrazonal
natural dry grasslands, and secondary (semi-natural) grasslands (Bohn et al., 2004; Dengler et al., 2013;
Dengler et al., 2014; Ellenberg & Leuschner, 2010; Veen et al., 2009; Vrahnakis et al., 2013; Wesche et
al., 2016). The natural grasslands of the two first types are essentially self-sustaining if the wild
herbivore assemblage is present or replaced with a domestic one. The man-made grasslands of the
last type require continuous management to preserve their current status (or restore them). The area
of original extent of steppes in Europe and Central Asia was assessed as 1,700,000km2. The actually
remaining steppe area was assessed as 670,000 km2 (Henwood 2010).

303
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Europe and Central Asia’s grasslands are global hotspots of small-scale (at scales below 100 m2)
vascular plant diversity. Some prominent examples are Transylvanian and Carpathian dry meadows (or
meadow steppes) where up to 98 vascular plant species can co-exist on 10 m2 and 133 species on 100
m2 (Dengler et al., 2014; Török et al., 2016; Wilson et al., 2012); . This richness may result from the
traditional management practices of local people (Babai & Molnár, 2014). More than 18 % of Europe’s
endemic vascular plants are bound to grassland habitats (Habel et al., 2013; Hobohm & Bruchmann,
2009).
Europe and Central Asia’s grasslands provide important habitats for many species of global
conservation concern, such as the saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), great bustard (Otis tarda tarda),
sociable sapwing (Vanellus gregarious) (IUCN, 2017b). In Europe, the birds associated with grasslands
(and low intensity agricultural) habitats have the highest proportion of threatened species (23%)
compared witho other habitats (BirdLife International, 2015).
The steppe habitats of Russia harbour 11 mammal species of global conservation concern. The Federal
Red Data Book of Russia listed 14 mammal and 14 bird species strongly linked to steppe habitats (two
are extinct in the wild in Russia) (Antonchikov, 2005; Smelansky & Tishkov, 2012), and 30 insect species
inhabiting only grasslands (presumably steppes) comprising 31 % of the whole list of insects (94 taxa)
(Red Data Book of Russian Federation, 2001). In Ukraine (Parnikoza & Vasiluk, 2011; Vasiluk et al.,
2010) steppe animals comprise 29% of the list of the national Red Data Book (159 from 553). Among
826 species of plants listed in the Red Data Book of Ukraine 33.4% (276) can be found in steppe habitats
only (Korotchenko & Peregrym, 2012; Parnikoza & Vasiluk, 2011).
European grasslands have been recognized as threatened hotspots of biodiversity which emphasizes
their high conservation priority (Dengler et al., 2014; Habel et al., 2013; Török et al., 2016). Fifty three
grassland habitats, distinguished in Europe, are assessed as threatened to some degree, including 12
critically endangered or endangered habitats (Janssen et al., 2016). Nearly half of the bird species
associated with grasslands have a threatened population status in the European Union (EEA, 2015d).
In the steppes of Russia only 10% of the protected areas are covered by grasslands (Tishkov, 2005);
only 11 of 151 Russian federal strict nature reserves and national parks conserve significant steppe
tracts and they comprise only ca. 1% of the total area of federal protected areas (Smelansky & Tishkov,
2012).

Past and current trends

Each main type of grasslands has had a distinct trend. Here we treat Steppe and Azonal natural
grasslands together due to similar trends.
Historically, dry grasslands in Europe and Central Asia were ploughed up and turned into croplands on
a massive scale. This was the fate of the wet grasslands as well, which were directly drained, or were
drained due to drainage of the neighboring arable fields in the landscape (Stoate et al., 2009). The
process had accelerated in the Central Europe in 17th century and came to an end in the mid-20th
century in Siberia and Kazakhstan (Hejcman et al., 2013; Moon, 2013; Smelansky et al., 2006). In
England and Wales 97% of semi-natural grassland disappeared by the mid-20th century (Bullock,
2011). Thus, extensive decline in area, increasing fragmentation, and loss of diversity were dominant
trends in grasslands for centuries. As a result, only 3-5% of natural steppe grasslands (and azonal
grasslands to a significantly lesser extent) remained relatively intact in Europe (Henwood, 2010) and
ca. 20% in Russia (Smelansky & Tishkov, 2012). In the only country where grassland are in relatively
good status, Kazakhstan, at least 70-80% of the original extent of grassland remains (from 10% to 90%
for different steppe and semi-desert types) (Henwood, 2010; Rachkovskaya & Bragina, 2012). An

304
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

example of a more detailed assessment can be found in Hungary, where approximately 251 thousand
ha (6.8%) of the original total of 3.7 million ha of forest-steppe vegetation survived, of which only 5.5%
of the stands may be considered natural, 38% semi-natural, 46% moderately degraded, and 10%
strongly degraded (Molnár et al., 2012).
The second most important trend in the last millennium was loss or significant decline of two keystone
herbivore guilds naturally grazing over grasslands in Europe and Central Asia: wild nomadic ungulates
(Pärtel et al., 2005); and colonial burrowing rodents and lagomorphs (Davidson et al., 2012). Both
guilds are the main ecosystem engineers in their grassland ecosystems through grazing, trampling,
defecating, and digging activities.
A general trend common for steppes and semi-natural grasslands is a strong dependence on traditional
agricultural systems, evolved over centuries of land use by local people (Schneider-Binder, 2007).
Many grassland variants in Europe and Central Asia developed under or were supported by traditional
low-intensity agricultural land use including livestock grazing, hay making, manuring, tillage and
burning regimes (Smelansky, 2003). Many grassland species, for example some birds and insects, are
dependent on specific agricultural practices in both Europe (Benton et al., 2002; Cardador et al., 2014;
Donald et al., 2001; Stoate et al., 2009) and Central Asia (Kamp et al., 2011; Wright et al., 2012). For
example, critically endangered sociable lapwing (Vanellus gregarius), endemic black lark
(Melanocorypha yeltoniensis), and some other typical steppe birds strongly prefer heavily-grazed
habitats for nesting, but moderately-grazed habitat is optimal for nesting success (Fijen et al., 2015;
Sheldon et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2006). Historically, grazing patterns in the steppes of Central Asia
were created and maintained by the traditional mobile pastoralists acting for centuries (Krader, 1955;
Leeuwen et al., 1994).
In contrast to traditional farming systems, the more recent intensification of farming has resulted in a
dramatic decline of grassland biodiversity. Data from Western Europe show a strong decline of
grasslands birds and a 45% decline in the butterfly population in recent decades (Donald et al., 2006;
EEA et al., 2013).
In general, habitat and species trends for grasslands in Europe and Central Asia are negative (Table
3.5). Habitat degradation is still increasing and habitat area decreasing principally as a result of massive
land-use changes and pollution, but significant subregional variation is observed. The conservation
status of many endangered species remains unchanged or even becomes worse due to land-use
change, overexploitation and pollution. Only species richness is relatively stable, except for semi-
natural grasslands,for which it has a negative trend. Climate change accelerates these trends.

Attribution of Biodiversity Trends to Direct Drivers

The most important direct drivers that strongly affect temperate grassland area are ploughing,
afforestation, mining and excavation, settlements and industrial area encroachment, land
abandonment and climate change (Cerqueira et al., 2015; Kamp et al., 2016; Korotchenko & Peregrym,
2012; Prishchepov et al., 2013; Rachkovskaya & Bragina, 2012; Smelansky et al., 2006; Smaliychuk et
al., 2016; Smelansky & Simonov, 2008; Smelansky & Tishkov, 2012) (Table 3.5).
Biodiversity and functioning of ecosystems are shaped by differences in subbiome (grassland) type,
and latitudinaland evolutionary gradients, site factors (slope, aspect, nutrient status, levels of
alkalinity/acidity and moisture), livestock breeding (grazing and mowing), fire, fertilization (manuring,
nitrogen deposition), species invasion, and successional dynamics (specifically as a result of
abandonment) (Smelansky et al., 2006; Faber-Langendoen & Josse, 2010; Kamp et al., 2016;
Korotchenko & Peregrym, 2012; (Merunková et al., 2014; Smelansky & Tishkov, 2012).

305
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Except for latitudinal and subbiome differences, the abovementioned drivers are caused or influenced
by society. Grazing is a major direct factor influencing biodiversity and ecosystem functioning
(Augustine & Mcnaughton, 1998; Díaz et al., 2007). Fire is another major factor, both through wildfires
and prescribed burning. Wildfires (including uncontrolled burning) are practiced in extensive areas in
Ukraine, Russia, some Central European countries (Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria) and in Central Asia
(Valkó et al., 2016; Smelansky et al., 2015) as well as in the Mediterranean (Keeley et al., 2012; Valkó
et al., 2016). Fertilization leading to eutrophication is especially important for semi-natural grasslands
in Western and Central Europe (Duprè et al., 2010). Many drivers lead to fragmentation of grasslands
producing a loss of grassland-specific species and degradation of ecosystems.

3.3.2.7 Deserts
Overview of the sub-system
Deserts comprise low and high altitude plains with precipitation of no more than 100 mm/year (FAO,
1989) or no more than 250 mm/year (as per Koeppen-Geiger Classification, Kottek et al., 2006), with
rare or absent vegetation on desert soils (Kharin, 2002). While the largest extent of deserts is found
across Central Asia, the most arid desert in the region is located in Israel (Western Europe in this
assessment). The Central Asian deserts extend from the Kopetdag and Paropamiz mountains in the
south, to a latitude of 48° north and from the Caspian Sea in the west to the foothills of Jungar Alatau,
Tien Shan and Pamir-Altai mountains in the east. This spans about 1400 km from north to south and
2700 km from west to east (Akzhygitova et al., 2003). The Negev Desert in Israel is expanding from the
south-eastern section of the Mediterranean Sea eastwards and south-eastwards and with extension
northwards along the Dead Sea Rift Valley (Evenari et al., 1982).
Central Asian deserts include: northern or steppified deserts (or semi-deserts) with wormwood
gramineous and salt grass plant associations; middle deserts or the true deserts with perennial
saltworts and wormwoods and saxaul (Haloxylon ammodendron) on sands; and southern deserts with
a different composition of wormwoods and salt grass species. Deserts in foothills and in intermontane
areas are specifically different in terms of species composition but occupy comparatively small areas
(Akzhygitova et al., 2003, Figure 3.8).
While the Central Asian deserts form part of the Irano-Turanian floristic region (Takhtadzhyan, 1978;
Shmida, 1985), the Negev Desert also has Irano-Turanian vegetation. It becomes increasingly arid
towards the south, with features of Saharo-Arabian vegetation. The region has been continuous with
the African continent since the Permian (Trewick, 2017; Ziv et al., 2014). Additional more recent
geological processes making it a major biodiversity corridor between Africa and Eurasia include the
rifting of the Dead Sea Rift Valley (Anker et al. 2009).
Aralkum is a new desert formed as a result of the drying up of the Aral Sea following extensive water
consumption for irrigation. The current flora consists of 34 families of plants with 134 genera and 300
species. Aralkum covers an area of over 38,000km2 and is a source of windblown dust. Dust storms
carry away about 100 million tons of toxic dust and salts annually, including fertilizers and pesticides
that have been washed away from irrigated fields (Breckle et al., 2012).

306
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Past and current trends and their attribution to direct drivers

The most evident changes of population abundance, functional diversity, and habitat extent in Central
Asian deserts were caused by land transformation, fragmentation and degradation (Zoï, 2011). Desert
habitats in Central Asia have been fragmented by agriculture for cotton and food production (Kharin,
2002). The irrigated area of Central Asian deserts more than doubled during the 20th century (from
25,000-35,000 km2 to 70,000-80,000 km2 and reached 100,000 km2 in 2013 (Kurtov, 2013). Land
degradation caused a species richness decline due to high salinity of abandoned fields. Overall, 40 to
60% of irrigated soils in Central Asia are salt-affected or waterlogged (Gupta et. al., 2009; Zoï, 2011).
In the Negev wind and water erosion plays an additional significant role (Verheye, 2009). Removal of
sand by winds stimulates sand desert expansion by 3-4 m per year on average and up to 9-12m in
Turkmenistan (Veisov et al., 2008).
Central Asian deserts traditionally have been used by local people as pastures – up to 1,700,000 km2
during the Soviet Union period (until 1991) (Vinogradov, 1977). Poor pasture management and
overgrazing deteriorate the natural vegetation (Gupta et. al., 2009; Turdiboeva, 2015). They were
partly abandoned at the end of the last century, but most of the area still suffers from overgrazing,
which causes land degradation and species richness decline (Kharin, 2002; Shukurov, 2016). Different
natural conditions in the Negev Desert supported different land-use patterns: crop husbandry at the
north and grazing in the south, which were based on water-harvesting practices. The history of
ecosystem transformation in the Negev is as long as in the Mediterranean (Verheye, 2009). Until
recently, the process of desertification did not affect the Negev profoundly. This was mainly due to
large-scale afforestation programmes, restrictions imposed on grazing, and large water subsidies from

307
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the less arid parts of Israel to its more arid areas (Portnov & Safriel, 2004). Presently, overgrazing and
aridification contribute to biodiversity decline (Verheye, 2009; IPCC, 2014a).
Aridification due to climate change is leading to the increase in desert area and consequent a decline
in biodiversity in the centre of deserts (Berseneva, 2006; IPCC, 2014a). It also leads to the spread of
deserts to the north and high into the mountains in response to warming. This results in loss of
biodiversity in former semi-deserts and dry steppes (Glazovsky & Orlovsky, 1996; IPCC, 2014a).
Fragmentation of habitats by linear infrastructure interrupts migration routes, for example for globally
threatened ungulates leading to decline of their populations: saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica), khulan
(Equus hemionus), Goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) (Olson, 2013; Rosen Michel & Röttger,
2014).
Pollution by fertilizers, pesticides, defoliants used in agriculture (Zoï, 2011), and from mining extraction
has a large impact, locally up to the total loss of the vegetation cover (Luryeva, 2014). A particular
feature of Central Asian deserts is the impact of the Aralkum that is causing overall species richness
decline due to the windborne transfer of hazardous substances from remaining sediments of the
former Aral Sea bottom to the surrounding areas (Alikhonov, 2011; Zoï, 2011; Breckle et al., 2012).
In spite of large number of invasive species (57 in Turkmenistan alone) and their competition with
native ones, they mainly occur in agricultural and urban territories, so their impact is generally not
considered a significant driver of the decline of the number or abundance of populations of native
species (Kamakhina, 2008).

3.3.2.8 Peatlands
Overview of the sub-system
Peatlands are areas where water-saturated soil causes the accumulation of incompletely decomposed
plant material (“peat”). A peatland which is actively accumulating peat is called mire. Several English
terms (e.g., marsh, swamp, fen, bog) are used for naming different mire types (Joosten et al., 2017).
Henceforth, this assessment report will use the term peatland. Most national definitions require
“peatland” to have a minimum peat depth of 30cm with peat of >30% by dry mass (Joosten & Clarke
2002, Parish et al., 2008, Rydin & Jeglum, 2013). Peatlands have organic soils (histosols), which include
soils with shallower organic layers and less organic matter (FAO, 2015b). Areas with shallow peat (<
30cm) may cover large areas, as in tundra and boreal zones (e.g. Vompersky et al., 1996, 2011), and in
the field are difficult to distinguish from real peatlands,but are usually overlooked and not considered
as they usually count as tundra or boreal area (Minayeva & Sirin 2012). Most peatlands of Europe and
Central Asia were formed after the last Ice Age (~10,000 years ago), and only very few are much older
(Joosten et al., 2017).
Peatlands often demonstrate a unique structural and functional integrity which has developed over
centuries. Saturated peatland conditions select the plant species that may grow and form peat. The
accumulated peat (which may consist to more than 90% of water) regulates the moisture balance and
further determines the habitat for plant growth. Changes in water regime or vegetation may lead to
peat and peatland degradation, causing enormous emissions of greenhouse gases (Parish et al., 2008,
Hiraishi et al., 2014). Under favourable conditions, however, peatlands may recover (Bonn et al., 2016,
Minayeva et al., 2017a).

Past and current trends

308
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Peatlands are found in every country in Europe and Central Asia. In Western Europe peatlands cover
276,323 km2, of which 48 % are degraded by drainage for agriculture, forestry and peat extraction, or
destroyed by infrastructure development, construction, or flooding by dams (Figure 3.9). In Central
Europe peatlands cover 47,829 km2,of which 74% are drained and degraded. In both subregions some
10% of the former peatland area does no longer have enough peat to be considered as peatlands. In
the European Union part of Western and Central Europe 51% of mires and bogs assessments were
classified as “unfavourable bad” and another 34% as “unfavourable inadequate” (EEA, 2015a). In
Eastern Europe (including only the European part of the Russian Federation) peatlands cover 267,130
km2 of which 38% are drained and degraded (Joosten et al., 2017 and Figure 3.9). In the entire Russian
Federation peatlands occupy 1,390,000 km2 or 8.1% of the country and together with shallow peat
lands (<30 cm) as much as 3,690,000 km2 or 21.6%. Most peatlands (85%) and shallow-peat lands (84%)
are found in the Asian part of the Russian Federation. Almost 20% of the peatlands are underlain by
permafrost, of which 5.3% are polygon mires and 14.5% palsa mires (Vompersky et al., 1996; 2005;
2011). Trees are present on 38% of the peatland area, while about 62% is open. Also, 53% of the
shallow-peatlands are open (Vompersky et al., 2011). Most peatlands in Russia are still in a natural
state. Degraded peatlands are concentrated in the western and central part of European Russia
(Minayeva & Sirin, 2005; Minayeva et al., 2009). In Central Asian countries, peatlands cover only a few
thousand square kilometres and are mainly situated in the highlands of Pamir, Tyanshan and Altay
(Aljes et al., 2016; Kats, 1971). Highland peatlands play a crucial role for maintaining ecosystem
productivity, conserving biodiversity, preserving permafrost, and regulating water supply (Müller et
al., 2016). However, they are often overlooked, not considered as peatlands, treated as dry meadows,
and therefore rapidly disappearing.

309
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Peatlands in Europe and Central Asia in the past demonstrably suffered from long-term climate
warming (Klimanov & Sirin, 1997), but their diversity and the variety of geographical conditions
prohibit drawing unequivocal general conclusions on their reaction to climate change, especially on
the scale of decades (Parish et al., 2008).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Peatlands as ecosystems are rather well adapted to climate change (Minayeva & Sirin, 2012). However,
especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, anthropogenic transformation (drainage for agriculture,
forestry, peat extraction, infrastructure) has substantially reduced this resilience. Northern permafrost
peatlands, which are most sensitive to climate change, are progressively affected by industrial
development and intensification of traditional land use (Minayeva & Sirin, 2009; 2010). In the
temperate and boreal zones peatlands have been widely drained and used for forestry, agriculture and
peat extraction. Many of the earlier drained areas are currently abandoned and subject to – sometimes
catastrophic – fires (Minayeva et al., 2013; Sirin et al., 2011).
Boreal peatlands currently show a gradual reverse from drainage-based exploitation towards
protection and restoration. In the temperate zone a growing appreciation for ecosystem services has

310
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

initiated peatland rewetting projects to reverse the impacts of drainage. At the same time, however,
the demand for biomass has caused massive expansion of biomass cultivation on peatlands with
deeper drainage and more fertilization, which dramatically changes peat soil properties. In semi-arid
and desert regions peatlands are being destroyed by overgrazing and drainage, while highland
peatlands are often affected by mining. Overgrazing on peatlands leads to peat degradation, massive
CO2 emissions, and a loss of storage and retention capacity for carbon and water (Sirin et al., 2016). All
these hazards are aggravated by climate change, especially by decreasing precipitation, rising
temperatures, and increased probability of catastrophic events such as droughts, rain storms or fires.
The resilience of natural peatlands to climate change is based on their self-regulation, but this capacity
is not unlimited (Minayeva & Sirin, 2012). Substantial changes in peatland hydrology (by drainage), soil
hydraulic properties (by long-term drainage), and peatland relief (by oxidation, subsidence and peat
extraction) make spontaneous and supported recovery more and more complicated (Parish et al.,
2008). In damaged peatlands, climate change is expected to increase the probability of catastrophic
events, such as peat fires (Minayeva et al., 2013; Sirin et al., 2011), erosion, and inundation, and will
impair the further provision of important ecosystem services, such as carbon storage and water
regulation (Parish et al., 2008, Bonn et al., 2016). As peatland degradation enhances climate change
(because of the enormous emissions involved (Hiraishi et al., 2014), the impact on biodiversity reaches
far beyond the boundaries of the peatland itself.

3.3.2.9 Agricultural areas

Overview of the sub-system
Agroecosystems include croplands, orchards, horticultural systems and managed grasslands (note that
alpine grasslands and naturalor semi-natural grasslands are addressed in other sections). Agricultural
areas cover around half of the land area and thus represent the largest terrestrial unit of analysis over
Europe and Central Asia (EEA, 2015a; FAO, 2013a; Levers et al., 2015).

Past and current changes in the extent and diversity in agroecosystems

The legacy of traditional, low-intensity and diverse agricultural systems in Europe and Central Asia is a
rich diversity of habitats and landscapes, generally supporting high levels of biodiversity (STOA, 2013
and references therein). However, agroecosystems and their diversity have changed dramatically since
the early 1950s, and there has been an increase of highly modified and simplified agroecosystems and
agricultural landscapes, in particular in Europe (Poláková et al., 2011). From 1990 to 2006, land-use
conversion, de-intensification and intensification took place on 26%, 18% and 15% of land areas,
respectively, which corresponds with huge changes in the extent of different agroecosystem types
(Figure 3.10).

311
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

312
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

De-intensified agroecosystems dominated in Eastern Europe and Central Europe (3.5; see also
Kuemmerle et al., 2016) and in Central Asia (Kraemer et al., 2015), along with abandoned farmland
after the collapse of the Soviet Union (e.g. 26million ha in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan
(Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011). A vast area experienced spontaneous recovery of forest and steppe
ecosystems (Kamp et al., 2015). Remote, economically unproductive agroecosystems are increasingly

313
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

abandoned, reforested, or included in rewilding schemes (MacDonald et al., 2000; Navarro and
Pereira, 2012). For the EU-27 plus Switzerland, gross changes in the extent of the different types of
agroecosystems resulted in changes to 56% of the area (ca. 0.5% /yr) between 1900 and 2010. This
covers twice the area of net changes, with main changes being cropland or grassland dynamics and
afforestation (Figure 3.11). Within agricultural landscapes, decreased crop diversity, decreased
coverage of natural and semi-natural areas (hedgerows, isolated trees, ponds, permanent grasslands)
and lower connectivity between the remaining natural and semi-natural habitats are generally
observed in response to intensification of agricultural systems (Robinson and Sutherland, 2002; Stoate
et al., 2001, 2009). For instance, hedgerow length and connectivity have strongly decreased in Western
Europe (Deckers et al., 2005; Robinson and Sutherland, 2002).
Ample information is available on the status and temporal trends of biodiversity for some broad
taxonomic or functional groups in Europe and Central Asia, or at least for Western Europe and Central
Europe. A vast number of scientific papers report temporal trends of biodiversity components in
agricultural areas in locations or (sub)regions of Europe and Central Asia. Well established information
exists for farmland birds (e.g. work of the European Bird Census Council covering at least 28 countries),
arable flora (meta-analyses covering croplands from many countries), grassland butterflies (covering
19 countries), and the diversity of avian and mammalian breeds (syntheses performed by FAO over
Europe and Central Asia). For the diversity of cultivated crop plants, comprehensive information exists
for the number of varieties conserved ex situ, but not for the trends in the (genetic and functional)
diversity of major cultivated varieties actually cultivated, i.e. grown in situ. In contrast to the Western
Europe and Central Europe subregions, agricultural lands in Eastern Europe and Central Asia are often
not recognized as having high conservation value, and research on trends of biodiversity in agricultural
areas is rare. We summarize the major trends for different components of biodiversity in agricultural
areas of Europe and Central Asia in Table 3.1.

314
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Farmland birds - From 1980 to 2013, the abundance of common farmland bird species has continuously
been decreasing (by 57% in total) in Europe, although the slope of decrease is lower since the 1990s
(Figure 3.12). Since 1990, the decline is more pronounced for northern Europe, intermediate for
western Europe and new European Union member States, and less important for southern Europe
(Figure 3.12). In addition, the functional diversity of farmland bird communities is changing. The
abundance of 17 granivorous species and 14 insectivorous species decreased strongly (56% and 46%,
respectively), while the abundance of other species (one herbivore, two omnivores, one carnivore and
one aerial insectivore) remained constant over 28 European countries (Inger et al., 2015) 23. Overall,
farmland bird communities become more homogeneized (Doxa et al., 2012).

23Inger et al. kindly reanalysed their published data and computed trends for farmland birds for the present assessment

315
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Over the past 25 years in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia subregions the dynamics of farmland
bird populations have been mainly driven by the crucial land-use changes related to transition from
the Soviet-era planned economy to a market economy. The 1991-2001 period was characterized by
massive land abandonment, decreasing crop yields and livestock numbers, and decline of fertilizer and
pesticide use, which led to increases of the abundance and species richness of farmland birds in the
steppe and forest-steppe geographical zones (Bolnykh & Vengerov 2011; Kamp et al., 2011, 2015;
Korovin, 2015), whereas in the forest zone this promoted an opposite trend (i.e. decreasing
abundances and diversity) due to spontaneous reforestation, decreased open habitat areas and
reduced habitat diversity (Borisov et al., 2014). At least in part of the Central Asia and Eastern Europe
subregions, farmland bird populations have decreased again since the early 2000s (Kamp et al., 2015).
The abundance of grassland butterflies has declined by 30% in 22 European countries from 1990 to
2015 (Figure 3.13). Butterfly communities also became more homogeneized (Eskildsen et al., 2015).
However, this negative trend has been locally reversed in some cases (Box 3.1).

316
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Box 3.1: Reversing the decline of biodiversity in agricultural areas: a success story for a butterfly
species.

Ecological knowledge was successfully used to guide innovative conservation practices allowing the reversal of
the decline of Maculinea arion, a charismatic specialist whose larvae parasitize Myrmica ant societies (Thomas
et al., 2008). M. arion larvae were found to be adapted to a single host-ant species inhabiting a narrow niche in
grassland. Inconspicuous changes in grazing and vegetation structure caused host ants to be replaced by other
ant species unsuitable for the butterfly larvae, explaining the extinction of European Maculinea populations.
Once this problem was identified, ecosystems were perturbed by appropriate practices, and the predicted
subsequent recovery of the butterfly and ants was validated for 78 sites. Such successful identification and
reversal of the problem provides a paradigm for other science-based actions to reverse the decline of biodiversity
in agricultural areas.

End of Box 3.1

Agriculture-detrimental and beneficial insects – Temporal trends in the abundance or distribution of

insects, which can cause major changes for agriculture have been reported. For instance, important
changes in the distribution of crop pests, in particular due to climate change in northern areas of
Europe and Central Asia, have been reported (Roshydromet, 2014; Figure 3.14 A). Evidence also
accumulates of significant declines for both managed and wild bees (including bumblebees) over the
past 60 years in Europe, which has been recently synthesized by a thematic IPBES assessment (IPBES,
2016a). In particular, there have been severe losses of honey bee colonies reported for the 1961-2012
period in many countries of Europe and Central Asia (Figure 3.14 B). However, in the countries of

317
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia subregions, the hive numbers show marked trends
of recovery during the past decade (Kazstat, 2005, 2016; Rosstat, 2015).

318
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Animal genetic resources for food and agriculture – geogaphical Europe and the Caucasus have by far
the highest proportion of animal breeds at risk in the world (31 and 35 per cent of mammalian and
avian breeds, respectively) and the highest absolute number of at-risk breeds (446 mammalian and 75
avian breeds corresponding to 79% and 91% of total breed extinction at global scale, respectively)
(Figure 3.15). In several countries, populations of native breeds, although generally well adapted to
local circumstances and resources and forming an important part of our cultural heritage and regional
identity in Europe and Central Asia, remain at critically low numbers, being replaced by a few and
widespread highly productive breeds. Native breeds make up only a small part of the total population,
and nearly 40% of native breeds are at risk in Europe and Central Asia, i.e. the highest value for all
global regions (FAO, 2015a). Overall, the situation of animal genetic resources is stable but negative in
Europe and Central Asia.

Arable plants and weeds - The species diversity of arable plants has decreased since 1950 (by around
20%; (Richner et al., 2015). The abundance of arable plants has also decreased (Meyer et al., 2013;
Richner et al., 2015). In particular, the abundance of rare arable plant species characteristic of
traditional management has decreased since the 1950s. These trends probably hold true all over
Europe and Central Asia. The functional diversity of arable plants has changed from the 1950s to 2011,
with an increase of arable weeds linked to high nutrient demand and resistance to extreme pH, and
herbicides (Richner et al., 2015). 25% of weed taxa are threatened in Tajikistan, including 18 endemic
and four subendemic plants (Nowak & Nowak, 2015; Nowak et al., 2014).

319
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Plant genetic resources and crop wild relatives for food and agriculture - The number of plant varieties
conserved ex situ has increased in Europe, as a result of selection and efficient storage approaches.
However, much of the diversity of crop wild relatives and underused species relevant for food and
agriculture still needs to be secured for present and future use (FAO, 2015a). Regarding the genetic
diversity of crop plants actually cultivated in situ, a reduction in diversity occurred up to the 1960s due
to the replacement of landraces by modern cultivars and to the low number of cultivars actually
cultivated over large areas, while no further reduction or increase of diversity was observed after 1980
(Bonnin et al., 2014); but the trend is likely species-specific. However, the actual genetic diversity of
crop species found in fields is often not documented.
Among 572 species of European wild relatives of economically important crop species, 11% are
threatened, and a further 4.5% of the species are near threatened (Bilz et al., 2011; Kell et al., 2012).
More species are threatened at national level.
While scientific publications on biodiversity trends in agricultural areas in Central Asia and some parts
of Europe are not numerous, precious information can be derived from indigenous and local
knowlegde. For instance, Hungarian herders have a deep understanding of biodiversity and its trends
in managed grasslands, and they also report a biodiversity decline, in particular for bird and plant
species richness and abundances (Molnár, 2014; Varga & Molnár, 2014).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Main drivers influencing biodiversity in agricultural areas: The moderate utilization of lands in
historical times was associated with high species richness in the rural landscape of Europe (Kull and
Zobel, 1991; Pykälä, 2003), leading to the concept of high nature value farmland (Halada et al., 2011).
The traditional, non-intensive agriculture and the management of marginal lands generally have a
positive role in maintaining high biodiversity levels.

320
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

As reported by a large majority of the many studies on this subject, lower biodiversity levels are very
generally observed with increasing intensification of agricultural systems (Le Roux et al., 2008). These
are mostly related (1) at the landscape scale to decreased percentage of natural and semi-natural
elements, decreased habitat diversity or crop diversity, and to a lesser extent reduced coverage of
extensively managed crops; (2) at the field scale to increased addition of pesticides and fertilizers, and
other practices like drainage; and to a lesser extent (3) to decreased connectivity between habitats (Le
Roux et al., 2008; STOA, 2013) (Figure 3.16).
Overall, the effects of the level of agricultural intensification on the diversity of several taxonomic
groups are now well documented, but are complex and depend on both the considered group, aspect
of intensification and spatial scale (e.g. Jørgensen et al. 2016b for farmland birds). Intensive farming
also has impacts on biodiversity outside agricultural areas and outside Europe and Central Asia (STOA
2013). In parallel, partial or complete abandonment of agricultural management on non-intensively

321
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

managed systems is a major threat to biodiversity in Europe and Central Asia (Billeter et al., 2008;
STOA, 2013), and many studies have reported that biodiversity declines following abandonment for
several biological groups (Le Roux et al. (2009) and references therein). In parts of Central Asia, the
decline in cooperative farms and intensive agriculture based on relatively few economically important
crops has led to a return to a more diverse crop production, offering opportunities to biodiversity.
Main drivers influencing particular taxonomic groups: The steep decline in farmland bird populations
during the 1980s and 1990s was associated with increasing agricultural specialisation and intensity in
some areas, and large-scale marginalisation and land abandonment in others (Pe’er et al., 2014). As
these changes have expanded eastwards, a steeper decline has been reported in Central Europe in
recent years (EBCC, 2013). Agri-environment schemes implemented after revision of the European
Union’s agri-environmental programmes in 2007 were not more effective for farmland bird diversity
than schemes implemented before revision (Batáry et al., 2015). In post-soviet countries in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, the dynamics of farmland bird populations were mainly driven by land-use
changes linked to the transition to the market economy (Kamp et al., 2015; Kessler & Smith, 2014).
Intensifying agriculture on the one hand, and abandoned land (mainly in Eastern Europe and Southern
parts of Western and Central Europe) on the other, are the two main driving forces affecting the
populations of grassland butterflies (van Swaay et al., 2015).
Evidence has accumulated of a significant decline in populations of bees (including bumblebees) over
the past 60 years in geographical Europe, resulting mainly from agriculture intensification (IPBES,
2016b). Many of the environmental threats to wild bee diversity in Europe are associated with modern
agriculture and, in particular, shifting agricultural practice and increasing intensification of farming
(Nieto et al., 2014). In addition, while agriculture has become increasingly pollinator-dependent, the
number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across 41 countries from the region has
risen 4.9 times faster than honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010 (Breeze et al., 2014; Schatz &
Dounias, 2016).
Bats, rodents, and herbivorous and carnivorous mammals, are all in decline due to agriculture
intensification in geographical Europe since mid-20th century (e.g. Flowerdew, 1997; Pocock and
Jennings, 2008). Among different drivers linked to intensive agriculture (Stoate et al., 2009),
molluscicides and rodenticides are considered the greatest risk to mammals, both through primary
and secondary exposure (Shore et al., 2003), while poisoning by pesticides persists or tends to
decrease locally (Barnett et al., 2006). It is noteworthy that several large mammals such as the wolf
(Canis lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) wild boar (Sus scrofa), and moose (Alces
alces), are probably gaining from land abandonment, expansion of forest cover or subsequent increase
in ungulate mammal prey in Europe and Central Asia (Moreira and Russo, 2007; Falcucci et al., 2007;
Russo, 2007; Sieber et al., 2015).
The role of ecologically-friendly agricultural practices: During recent decades, agricultural practices
and systems alternative to intensive ones have been developed (including new practices or previously
widespread ones), such as leaving field margins unsprayed, stricter pesticide management, reduced
tillage, and organic farming (EBCC, 2017; see Chapter 4 for details and temporal trends). The effects of
these “ecologically-friendly” agricultural practices on biodiversity are generally positive, but can vary,
e.g. according to the landscape context and spatial scale of evaluation (Box 3.2).
In particular, organic farming has been shown to increase local species richness of wild organisms,
although with large variation between studies (Tuck et al., 2014). The effect differs between taxonomic
groups (Dicks et al., 2016; Fuller et al., 2005), with particularly beneficial effects on plants and
pollinators (Batáry et al., 2011, Tuck et al., 2014). Other differences between studies can be attributed

322
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

to the effect of landscape context (Tuck et al., 2014), the local extent of organic farming (Gabriel et al.,
2010) and time since conversion to organic farming (Jonason et al., 2011). However, beneficial effects
of organic farming may be mainly local (Bengtsson et al., 2005), and it is not clear whether effects on
local biodiversity scale up to effects on biodiversity at regional scales (Gabriel et al., 2006; Schneider
et al., 2014).

Box 3.2: Does biodiversity increase in response to agri-environmental schemes?

A meta-analysis (Batáry et al., 2015) showed that agri-environment schemes benefit species richness and
abundance, but several reviews reported that current schemes are not sufficient to reverse the decline of
farmland biodiversity in Europe (Berendse et al., 2004; Kleijn et al., 2006). This is likely due to the fact that many
agri-environment schemes do not sufficiently target biodiversity conservation or are not applied over a sufficient
land cover (STOA, 2013; see Chapter 6).

End of Box 3.2

Given the low uptake of organic farming in areas with high agricultural intensification, where the
effects on biodiversity would be greatest (Rundlöf & Smith, 2006), the actual effect of organic farming
on general biodiversity trends may be smaller than expected. Organic farming may contribute to the
maintenance of agriculture in marginal areas of high value for biodiversity (Gabriel et al., 2009), but
the extent of this effect remains unknown.
The question of how farmland conservation initiatives actually contribute to the policy objectives of
halting the decline of agrobiodiversity largely remains to be addressed in a quantitative manner (see
Kleijn et al. (2011) and references therein) and using adequate indicators.

3.3.2.10 Urban areas

Overview of the sub-system
Urban green infrastructures comprise systems of indigenous habitats, formal (e.g. parks, cemeteries)
and informal (e.g. ruderal, transportation areas) green space, artificial habitats (e.g. green roofs and
walls, ponds), semi-natural and rural habitats. Taxa that occupy these habitats vary in their sensitivity
to urbanization, with some assemblages comprising generalist species and others retaining specialist
species and contributing more to biodiversity (Niemelä & Kotze, 2009). During the expansion phases
of cities, both through outward expansion into the peri-urban region and densification, changes occur
in the provision of green space and the composition of species assemblages (Kotze et al., 2014). The
European Union “Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for
Biodiversity (2011-2020)” emphasizes the essential role of cities in achieving the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. Also the 7th Environment Action Programme supports the development of initiatives for the
conservation of biodiversity.
Urbanization has changed habitats, both spatially and through the release of heat, waste, nutrients
and contaminants. Cities generate novel habitats and assemblages, as many species adapt to urban
conditions, and urban habitats acquire characteristic communities. Disturbance is typical of urban
habitats and they tend to remain at early to mid-successional stages, which can have high levels of
species diversity. A number of the species that have become most adapted to cities originate in rocky
habitats, such as the rock pigeon (Columba livia), the common swift (Apus apus) and the alpine swift
(Tachymarptis melba) (Kelcey & Rheinwald, 2005). In Central Asia, the core urban avian fauna
comprises 7 to 17 species (Fundukchiev, 1987) with distinctive adaptive traits to urban conditions.

323
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Such novel features as green roofs and green walls have been introduced into many cities as potential
means of enhancing the provision of supplementary habitats. Studies show that these can develop
diverse assemblages of arthropods and vascular plants (Madre et al., 2013), and they probably have
the potential to support the biodiversity of some taxa.

Past and current trends

As a result of intensive urbanization in the 20th and 21st centuries, patches of indigenous habitats
have become fragmented, and many species have declined or disappeared. The overall result is
generally a loss of species across most taxa, particularly specialized species, and a subsequent
assemblage of mostly generalist species that are adapted to urban conditions.
Many species have adapted to urban conditions and are recognized as typical urban species. These
include the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral pigeon (Columba livia domestica), and in Central
Asia the common myna (Acridotheres tristis). In addition, many species have been periodically
recorded as expanding into urban areas, such as the flying squirrel (Pteromys volans) in Helsinki
(Mäkeläinen et al., 2016), the Eurasian eagle owl (Bubo bubo) in numerous cities (König & Weick, 2008)
and the Eurasian lynx in Tallinn and Espoo. These probably result from declines in resources in peri-
urban regions and availability of resources within urban regions. Vulnerable taxa, such as ground-
nesting birds, do not persist in cities due to many threats.
Fish species have declined in urban areas, with the loss of migratory species, such as salmon (Salmo
salar), sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) and river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis), through fragmentation due
to obstacles to free movement along rivers. Modification of rivers by straightening channels, dredging
and canalizing, has resulted in the loss of species that inhabit or breed in gravel beds and river margins.
Recently there have been initiatives in many cities to restore natural features of rivers, improve water
quality and enhance connectivity. Some fish species that are present outside urban areas, such as three
fish species endemic to the River Danube, Gymnocephalus schraetzer, G. baloni and Zingel zingel,
which are all occasionally recorded in Budapest (Tóth-Ronkay et al., 2015), have potential to benefit
from restoration of urban river systems.

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

There is a high level of impact of land-use change on both the extent of habitat and the biodiversity
status. The loss, degradation and isolation of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats, is a major cause of
declines in biodiversity. Habitat loss is mainly due to replacement of green space with urban
infrastructure, and the conversion of indigenous habitats to managed habitats, such as parks and
gardens (Kabisch & Haase, 2013). There is a high level of variation within the region (Figure 3.17)
(Siedentop & Fina, 2012).

324
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Habitat degradation includes qualitative changes in habitats that are not destroyed, but converted,
such as woodlands converted to parks, species-rich grasslands - to lawns, or water bodies that are
dredged, drained, canalized or diverted into pipes. Homogenization due to management practices
leads to loss of specialized species and domination of communities by a small number of generalist
species.
Relict natural habitats such as steppe grasslands and limestone caves in Budapest (Tóth-Ronkay et al.,
2015) and calcareous sand dunes in Rotterdam (Van de Poel et al., 2015), support communities of
specialized species, though fragmentation often leads to species losses and reduces the potential for
re-colonization. Large old mature trees in parks, often more common even than in mature forests, can
provide nesting cavities for birds and support communities of saproxylic insects (Venn et al., 2015) and
fungi, such as polypores, though they have been reduced in some cities for safety reasons. Such
habitats may be lost outside cities and become increasingly valuable for biodiversity (Gilbert, 1989),
depending on their size and capacity to retain characteristic species communities.
Fragmentation and loss of connectivity is one major cause of biodiversity decline. Migratory species
such as the common frog (Rana temporaria), which migrates between running water, still water and
terrestrial habitats during its annual life cycle, are particularly vulnerable (Št’astný et al., 2015).
Fragmentation and isolation of habitats results from the development of urban infrastructure,
particularly communication networks, such as roads, but can also include noise, light and chemical
barriers both within and between habitats (Vershinin et al., 2015). Some cities retain large green space
elements and extensive corridor networks, often following the courses of rivers, such as riparian
forests (Herrera et al., 2015).
Climate change has less negative impacts in urban areas than in many other systems, as urban areas
are warmer, lighter and drier, and thus their assemblages tend to contain mainly thermophilic species.
However, cities in northern parts of the region, such as Helsinki and Rotterdam, are experiencing an
ongoing influx of species of many insect taxa, including Lepidoptera, Carabidae, Odonata and Apidae,
as a consequence of range expansions due to climate change (Moerland et al., 2015; Venn et al., 2015).

325
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pollution affects habitats and communities most intensively and extensively in urban regions.
Pollutants include heavy metals, pesticides, nutrients, salt, other chemicals, heat and light. In many
cities, legislation has been introduced to control pollution, with consequent decreases in their levels
in green infrastructure. Heavy metals are common in most urban soils, and lead levels can be high
adjacent to major roads, due to the use of lead in petrol fuels prior to the 1990s. Pesticide residues
(DDT, DDD, DDE, phosphorus organic-trichloroform) are present in high concentrations in suburban
regions of some eastern European cities (Peskova, 2000). Some rare plants, with tolerance to metals,
including a number of orchid species, occur at sites containing calcareous metalliferous spoils in the
UK (Johnson et al., 1978). The urban heat island phenomenon can increase temperatures by
approximately 2–3 °C in the urban core (Vershinin et al., 2015). In northern Europe, many cities contain
thermophilic species due to suitable microclimatic conditions. These include fish and amphibians in
aquatic habitats and also fig trees (Ficus carica), for instance, in some UK cities (Gilbert, 1989). Thermal
pollution can also result in phenological changes (Belimov & Sedalishchev, 1980; Fominykh & Lyapkov,
2011; Piano et al., 2017). High levels of light pollution, particularly in Central and Western Europe
(Figure 3.18) cause a disorientating effect on some nocturnally flying insect taxa and can compromise
pollination (Knop et al., 2017). Bats, amphibians and entomophagous mammals use this niche, i.e.
streetlights, illuminated buildings, for foraging. Recently there have been initiatives to reduce the
amount of energy used for lighting and the amount of light lost into the atmosphere.
Overexploitation in the urban systems is attributed to excessive utilization of recreational areas, which
can lead to erosion. Tourism pressure has also had an impact on vulnerable biotopes in the
Mediterranean region (Mansuroglu et al., 2006). Land-use change, recreational activities and the
intensification of fish farming have also affected populations of amphibians, as has the spread of the
chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which has devastated amphibian populations in many
parts of Europe and Central Asia (Št’astný et al., 2015; Tóth-Ronkay et al., 2015).
Alien and invasive species seriously affect ecological equilibria, and displace indigenous species or
hybridize with them (Rhymer & Simberloff, 1996). Urban sites are among the most invasible biomes
(Richardson & Pysek, 2006). Exotic species are a problem in most cities. Both escapes of garden plants
and the release of pets maintain alien species populations (Herrera et al., 2015). It has been estimated
that 2000 exotic species of arthropods were introduced to Europe during the 20th century (Kobelt &
Nentwig, 2008), mostly via cities. In the case of taxa introduced incidentally via anthropogenic activity,
such as spiders and other arthropods, the majority of these arrive via international trade (Kobelt &
Nentwig, 2008). Many cities have programmes for the control of alien invasive species, though a major
problem is the delay between recognition of invasiveness and initiation of control measures. Some
invasive plant species, such as Elodea canadensis, Solidago canadensis, or Heracleumspecies have
colonized virtually the whole of Europe. Invasive plant and tree species, such as Robinia pseudoacacia
and Acer negunda, also lead to homogenization of woodlands and loss of microhabitats and associated
communities.

326
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In aquatic communities, introductions of alien fish species including carp (Carassius spp), rainbow trout
(Oncorynchus mykiss), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and eel (Anguilla anguilla), reduce the
potential for restoring indigenous communities (Herrera et al., 2015; Št’astný, 2015; Tóth-Ronkay et
al., 2015).

Conservation initiatives
There are many cases of habitat and population restoration and species reintroductions in cities of
Europe and Central Asia (McNeill, 2010). Many of these have been accomplished through EU LIFE
actions. Many cities have biodiversity plans, or biodiversity incorporated into other strategic policy.
There is ongoing encroachment of large areas of green space for development, due to the dwindling
availability of suitable land for construction. Wetlands, rocky hills and other habitats have been
conserved and many, such as the riparian forests of Dresden and Leipzig, have been protected (Haase
& Gläser, 2009).
Parks and woodlands can also be valuable, and in many cities they are now managed less intensively,
with retention of decaying wood for saproxylic species. Spider assemblages of cities are diverse and
include a considerable number of species benefitting from humans and urban spaces (Fedoriak et al.,
2012). Many of these are also present in green infrastructure and and some species have adapted to
inhabiting buildings since the 1930s.
Lepidopteran species of meadows and open habitats, are particularly sensitive to urbanization, with
poor levels of diversity in urban areas and higher diversity restricted to more natural areas at the
periphery (Št’astný, Červený, Řezáč, et al., 2015). The decline of Lepidoptera has resulted from

327
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

intensive urban development, widespread use of pesticides during the post-war period and light
pollution, which attracts and disorientates males of nocturnal species (Manu et al., 2015). Many cities
have had more diverse assemblages of Lepidoptera during the early 20th century (e.g. Manu et al.,
2015). Replacement of vegetation with solid surfaces is probably a major reason for this decline. River
banks and remnant forest habitats still retain some noteworthy species, such as the ash hawkmoth
(Dolbina elegans) in Bucharest (Manu et al., 2015).
Cities also provide opportunities through the allocation of municipal resources to conservation for the
maintenance of urban biodiversity. This can include mowing and grazing of meadows for the benefit
of plants and insects (Venn et al., 2015), management of wetland vegetation for amphibians (Št’astný,
Červený, Rom, et al., 2015) and control of invasive species. This is particularly important for species
that decline due to the cessation of suitable management regimes of semi-natural habitats. However,
many of these are affected by landscape change on such a large regional scale that local initiatives
alone do not have the capacity to improve the situation dramatically.

3.3.2.11 Special systems

3.3.2.11.1 Heathlands
Overview of the sub-system
Dwarf-shrub dominated heaths are among the principal cultural landscapes of the Atlantic regions of
Western Europe (Janssen et al., 2016). These heathlands developed about 4000 years ago as a result
of forest clearances, and have since been maintained by a land-use regime that may include year-
round free-range grazing by domestic ungulates, prescribed burning, cutting of vegetation and turf for
fuel, and harvesting of vegetation for fodder (Gimingham, 1972; Kaland, 1986; Odgaard, 1994; Jansen
et al., 1997). Heathlands have since been an intrinsic part of the agricultural system, with the pattern
and intensity of their use closely linked with the local agricultural economy (Diemont & Jansen, 1998;
Kaland, 1986, Diemont et al., 2013).
Heathlands harbour unique landscape and habitat qualities and specialized biodiversity, and are thus
of nature conservation interest (Janssen et al., 2016, Halada et al., 2011, Rosa Garcia et al., 2013,
Halvorsen et al., 2015, Nybø & Evju, 2017, Webb et al., 2010). They support characteristic plant and
animal assemblages (Webb, 1986), which respond to, and in part are dependent on, the interplay
between traditional management practices and underlying environmental variability (vascular plants
and bryophytes (Vandvik et al., 2005; Velle et al., 2014), carabid beetles (Bargmann et al., 2015), other
insects (WallisDeVries et al., 2016), and soil invertebrates (Ponge et al., 2015). The long-term land-use
history of heathlands has also had evolutionary consequences, for example, Calluna vulgaris seed
germination is stimulated by smoke in heathlands, a trait that is lacking in populations from other
habitats not regularly subject to burning, such as alpine areas (Vandvik et al., 2014).

Past and current trends

Traditional management practices maintained open heathlands until the beginning of the 20th
century. During their maximum extent (Figure 3.19) heathlands occurred over several million hectares,
but today less than 350,000 ha remain (Diemont et al., 1996; Webb 1998).

328
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The heathlands of Western Europe are now threatened throughout their range
(https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/; Lindgaard and Henriksen 2011). In the Mediterranean parts of Western
Europe, major heathland habitat types (European Union habitat number 4010 - Northern Atlantic wet
heaths with Erica tetralix, 4020 - Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris & E. tetralix, and
4030 - European dry heaths), are reported by European Union member States to be in “inadequate”
conservation status. In the Continental, Boreal and Atlantic parts 24 these same habitats are reported
to have “bad” conservation status. Dry Atlantic coastal heath with Erica vagans (Habitat 4040) is
somewhat less threatened, its status being classified as “inadequate”. The European Red List of
Habitats (Janssen et al., 2016) classifies some heathland types (F4.1 Wet heath and F4.2 Dry heath) as
“vulnerable”. Approximately one third of the latitudinal distribution of heathlands is found in Norway,
which is not party to the Habitats Directive. The corresponding Norwegian Red List for ecosystems and
habitat types classifies northern coastal heathlands as “endangered” (Lindgaard & Henriksen 2011,
Figure 3.20).

24 Continental, Boreal and Atlantic parts of Western Europe as per EU Habitats directive

329
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Across their range in Western Europe, heathlands thus suffer from poor conservation status and loss
of biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The underlying drivers of these negative trends vary. Pollution
(especially atmospheric nitrogen deposition and associated acidification), land-use intensification, and
habitat loss or fragmentation are the main drivers in the central parts of the heathlands’ range (Härdtle
et al., 2009; Aerts & Heil, 2013). Land abandonment and habitat conversion, including afforestation,
dominate in the southern, westernmost, and northern parts (Britton et al., 2017; Fagúndez, 2013;
Halvorsen et al., 2015; Nybø & Evju, 2017). Contrasting processes may drive changes within the same
landscape or region. For example, in the UK declines in the quality of lowland heaths have occurred
due to increasing stocking in privately owned sites and succession towards woodland in areas managed
for forestry or conservation (Diaz et al., 2013). In the uplands of the UK over-exploitation for sheep
grazing is a critical concern (Pakeman & Nolan, 2009). In some important parts of heathland range
future prospects are undermined by controversies over their ecological importance and the
sustainability of management regimes (Figure 3.21) (Davies et al., 2016).

330
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.3.2.11.2 Caves and other subterranean habitats

Overview of the sub-system
Subterranean habitats represent an extreme environment with unique particularities including trophic
dependence on surface ecosystems. The relative constancy of abiotic factors makes these habitats and
their associated fauna one of the most vulnerable on Earth to any disturbance (Juberthie, 2000). The
absence of photosynthetic activity, limited supply of organic material, as well as stable temperature,
high relative humidity and low rates of evaporation create an environment that determines the
distribution and population density of cave fauna (Holsinger, 1988). Subterranean ecosystems
encompass terrestrial and aquatic systems - the latter constituting freshwater, anchialine (with an
underground connection to the ocean) and marine systems.
We distinguish to two types of subterranean systems, subterranean terrestrial systems (dry caves,
epikarst, MSS (milieu souterrain superficiel)) and subterranean aquatic systems (flooded caves,
groundwater, interstitial).
Typically, two main zones are recognized in the karst: epikarst (cutaneus zone, the surface; and soil
and subcutaneus zone, the regolith and enlarged fissures) and endokarst (vadose zone, water
unsaturated, and phreatic zone, water saturated) (Ford & Williams, 2007; Palmer, 1991). Karst systems
provide heterogeneous habitats of interconnected cracks, fissures and draines, filled with air or water.
The karst process is polyphasic through geological time and related to the change of level of sea and
landmass, so inactive (fossil) caves may be present at different elevations. Moreover, shallow

331
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

subterranean habitats, as areas of habitable space that are less than 10 metres in depth beneath the
surface (ranging from large areas such as lava tubes, to tiny areas such as cracks in cave ceilings or pore
spaces in soil) have little in common with caves except for the absence of light and a specialized fauna
with typical “cave” morphology (Culver & Pipan, 2014).
Subterranean habitats and there fauna are extremely vulnerable and endangered mostly by
anthropogenic influences (pollution, overexploitation of caves, changing of water regime, building of
hydropower plants and dams) as well as climate changes. Ecological categories are defined as
stygoxene and trogloxene (stygo- relates to aquatic and troglo-to terrestrial) species, which spend their
complete life cycle in surface environments and are only accidentally found in subterranean habitats;
stygobite and troglobite species, which spend their complete life cycle in subterranean environments;
stygophiles and troglophiles may have several kinds of life cycles—some populations live in surficial
habitats and others in subterranean habitats, or individual life cycles necessitate use of both surface
and subterranean environments (Gibert & Deharveng, 2002) .
By 2000, approximately 5000 obligate subterranean aquatic (stygobionts) and terrestrial (troglobionts)
species from Central Europe had been described. 1200 had been described from Asia, 500 from Africa,
and 1000 from North America (Gibert & Culver, 2005). Central Europe is both a hotspot of
subterranean biodiversity and a hotspot of research into subterranean biology, both historically and
at present (Deharveng et al., 2009). The Dinaric karst in the western Balkan Peninsula is a global
hotspot of subterranean biodiversity, with more than 900 aquatic and terrestrial obligate subterranean
species recorded (Sket, 2012a). Troglobiotic beetles are considered the most important contributors
to terrestrial subterranean biodiversity in most temperate karst regions, including the Dinaric karst,
where they present about 42% of the terrestrial troglobionts (Sket et al., 2004). Subterranean
biodiversity in Europe is actually higher than on other continents as indicated by (Culver & Sket, 2000).
There are also visible geographic patterns within Western and Central Europe. The first one is a
gradient in species richness with diversity decreasing from south to north and highest biodiversity
within the mid-European high subterranean diversity ridge (Figure 3.22). For details see Culver & Pipan
(2013).

332
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Some of the biodiversity hotspots are in the western Balkans (northeast Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and Serbia) and the Pyrenees (France and Spain). Increased diversity of stygobionts
in the western Balkans could be explained by the complex biological and geological history of the
Dinaric mountains (Sket, 1999) and complex history of the Mediterranean Sea (including its almost
complete drying about 6 million years ago during the Messinian crisis (Figure 3.23, Figure 3.24).

333
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

334
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Population data are deficient compared with Western Europe, but information has recently improved
for a few species, including olm Proteus anguinus (Trontelj & Zakšek, 2016; Trontelj et al., 2009),
chiropteran species (data collected by EUROBATS) and the bivalves Congeria kusceri and C. jalzici
(Bilandžija et al., 2014; Jovanović Glavaš et al., 2017).
The Dinaric Arc is a habitat to one of the best-known representatives of stygofauna, the cave dwelling,
blind salamander (olm; Figure 3.25). It is only found in the Dinaric karst region of the Balkan Peninsula
(Italy, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; endemics of Dinaric karst) and is a globally
vulnerable species (VU) (Arntzen et al., 2009). Its distribution is severely fragmented, and there is a
continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat (underground aquifers) (Jelić et al., 2012;
Sket, 2012b). The olm is the largest strictly cave adapted (stygobiont) species in the World (23-25 cm)
and, until recently, it was the only exclusively cave-dwelling vertebrate species found in Europe. Then,
in 2012 the first cave loach (Cobitis damlae), was discovered in the Dalaman river drainage which flows
into the karstic plain of western Turkey (Erkakan & Ozdemir, 2012).

335
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Impact of direct drivers on subterranean habitats and fauna

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some animals were caught in large numbers for illegal
trading purposes (Sket, 2012b). The trend of collecting and trading in rare and endangered fauna or
even paleontological samples (for example Ursus speleous) still persists (Lukić-Bilela et al., 2013).
The main threats are habitat loss, water regulation and flooding, dam projects, overextraction,
quarries, and pollution. Moreover, due to a lack of researchspecies are likely being lost before they are
even scientifically described.
Shifts in water level regimes and seasonal cave flooding due mainly to hydropower development pose
extreme threats to underground ecosystems. More than 2,700 new hydropower plants are being
implemented or planned in the south of Central Europe (area of the Balkan Peninsula) (Figure 3.26).
Above-ground pollution was reported to seeps directly into the subterranean habitats and destroys
unique biodiversity (Danielopol et al., 2003; Slingenberg et al., 2009).
Climate change impacts these fragile ecosystems through reduction of water in aquifers and lack of
seasonal flooding (Hunkeler, 2007). Cave temperature are generally strictly connected with the
external climate (Badino, 2004) and thus increase.
Subterranean ecosystems are generally extremely oligotrophic habitats, receiving very little
degradable organic matter from the surface. Conversely, anthropogenic impacts on underground
ecosystems (for example from intensive tourism and recreational caving) cause important alterations

336
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

to the whole subterranean environment. In particular, artificial lighting systems in show caves support
the growth of autotrophic organisms (the so-called lampenflora), mainly composed of cyanobacteria,
diatoms, chlorophytes and mosses (Mulec & Kosi, 2009; Falasco et al., 2014).

3.3.2.12 Progress towards Multilateral Environmental Agreements for terrestrial ecosystems

European Union Biodiversity Strategy
The European Union Biodiversity Strategy Target 1 “Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives”
and Target 2 “Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services” define actions to ensure habitats
and ecosystems protection. According to the 2015 mid-term review of the implementation of the
Strategy by the European Environment Agency progress toward these targets is insufficient: 15.6% of
terrestrial habitat assessments in the period 2007-2012 had favourable conservation status; 3.3% had
unfavourable, but improving trends; 36.7% had unfavourable, but stable trends; 28,8% had
unfavourable and declining trends; 11.2% had unfavourable status with unknown trend relative to the
period 2001-2006 and 4.3% have unknown status (EEA, 2015d).
At the same time the network of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for
terrestrial habitats, since 2010 it has grown by 1,4% and in 2015 covered 18,1% of land in the European
Union. Overall, the European Union biodiversity targets 1 and 2 will not to be fully met by 2020 should
the rate of progress not improve.

Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Aichi Biodiversity Target 5 requires at least to halve the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including
forests, and where feasible to bring it close to zero, and significantly reduce degradation and
fragmentation. This is to be achieved through improvements in production efficiency and land-use
planning, and enhanced mechanisms for natural resource governance combined with recognition of
the economic and social value of ecosystem services provided by natural habitats (Nelson et al., 2009,
see Chapter 4). The emphasis for this target is specially made on preventing the loss of high-
biodiversity value habitats, such as primary forests and wetlands. Recent evidence suggests that the
rate of deforestation in Europe and Central Asia is decreasing (see 3.3), with some variations by country
in Central Europe and Central Asia. Concerning terrestrial habitats, achievement of Target 5 is unlikely
without increased implementation of integrated forest management targeted at conservation of
biodiversity and without halting negative trends of biodiversity in agricultural and other areas in
Europe and Central Asia.
The network of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for terrestrial habitats,
covering about 18% of the land in Western Europe and Central Europe. Countries in Central Asia and
Eastern Europe traditionally report on the coverage of strictly protected areas and do not account for
other effective area-based conservation measures. In their national biodiversity strategies and action
plans (NBSAPs) reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity Eastern European and Central Asian
countries committed to achieve protected areas coverage by 2020 at the level of 12% in Eastern
Europe and 15% in Central Asia, and at the level of 22% and 19% for all types of sustainably managed
and protected terrestrial areas.Thus, Western and Central Europe has largely progressed toward
achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. Further, the implementation of the NBSAPs commitments of
2017 would allow for meeting Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 for terrestrial ecosystems in Eastern and
Central Europe.

337
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.3.3 Inland surface waters

3.3.3.1 Freshwater systems
Overview of the system
Freshwater habitat includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds (temporary or not) and also their sources
(glaciers, aquifers or rainfall). Freshwater biodiversity includes organisms that either live permanently
in water, or spend part of their life cycle in water. The freshwater ecosystems of Europe and Central
Asia are very diverse. Based on the distribution and composition of freshwater fish species and major
ecological and evolutionary patterns, almost 60 different freshwater “ecoregions” were depicted for
this area (Abell et al., 2008). They include large rivers in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Ocean basins
and the Mediterranean, Black, Caspian and Aral Sea basins. Lakes of different sizes are numerous in all
subregions with Lake Baikal in eastern Russia dominating in size and volume, containing almost 20%
of the world’s freshwater. Overall, almost 60% of world water volume stored in lakes is located in
Europe and Central Asia (Messager et al., 2016). Out of four global biodiversity hotspots identified for
the region, the Mediterranean basin is considered a hotspot for freshwater systems.
Freshwater systems are consistently at higher risk than their terrestrial or marine counterparts
(Dudgeon et al., 2006) and the quantity and quality of habitats and abundance of many species is
declining in Europe and Central Asia. Agriculture is the biggest user of fresh water, constituting 70–
90% of the annual water demand for many countries (Rabalais et al., 2010), and this is expected to
further increase due to a growing population. In many regions, the lack of regulation of groundwater
extraction has led to a decline in water tables. If all of the water in a river is used by agriculture and
industry, leaving nothing for the aquatic environment, freshwater biodiversity will inevitably decline
and freshwater ecosystems will disappear. Of course, this crisis point is unlikely to happen if
technological solutions (e.g., change in farming practices, recycling waste water) are put in place to
close the gap between supply and demand. Climate change is expected to intensify the hydrological
cycle and alter evapotranspiration, with implications for ecosystem services but also feedback to
regional and global climates. As a result, increased stress on freshwater ecosystems is expected in the
coming decades.
The overall diversity of freshwater species in Europe and Central Asia has routinely been reported to
increase towards lower latitudes, along with the proportion of threatened species. However, according
to Dehling et al. (2010), in Europe this pattern differs for lentic (standing water) and lotic (running
water) animal species. In Europe and Central Asia there is a high proportion of freshwater species with
unknown population trends, for example in the case of 76% of European freshwater fishes and 83% of
freshwater molluscs (Cuttelod et al., 2011). This highlights the urgent need for monitoring and data
collection across the region. However, according to Vörösmarty et al. (2010), the highest incidence of
freshwater biodiversity threats worldwide is for Europe and Central Asia and correlates with the
incidence of human water security threats.

Past and current trends

Unfortunately, historical information and long-term data are rare for freshwater biodiversity and thus
the patterns of species richness, for example, are known with much less confidence than for terrestrial
systems (Carpenter et al., 2009; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Tockner et al., 2008; Tockner et al., 2011).
This lack of quantitative freshwater biodiversity data is severe (e.g. 32% of IUCN evaluated freshwater
invertebrate species in Europe are data deficient) especially for Central Asian freshwater ecosystems,
as they have not yet benefited from IUCN Red List assessments.

338
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The extent of wetlands in Western, Central and Eastern Europe has declined by 50% from 1970 to 2008
(Dixon et al., 2016). According to the State of the Environment Report review of the state of freshwater
systems, only 53% of geographical Europe’s rivers and lakes have a good ecological status in 2015 (EEA,
2015a) (Figure 3.27), despite several major European water initiatives in the past 15 years. Ecological
status is a criterion for the quality of the structure and functioning of surface water ecosystems. Based
on current freshwater biodiversity trends, it is highly unlikely that Europe and Central Asia will achieve
the relevant Aichi Biodiversity Targets by 2020 (i.e. Targets 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) or Target
1 of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy. Furthermore, several water bodies in the region are
drastically declining in size, and many ponds and streams are even disappearing from the landscape as
a consequence of agricultural intensification, draining, dam construction and urbanization in
combination to climate change (UNDP, 2015; Jeppesen et al., 2015; Bagella et al., 2016; Bogatov &
Fedorovskiy, 2016; Boix et al., 2016). Examples of water bodies disappearing are particularly found in
the Mediterranean region and Central Asia (Jeppesen et al., 2015). An example is Lake Akşehir, which
was previously one of the largest freshwater lakes in Turkey, but completely disappeared due to loss
of surface and ground water sources through intensive crop irrigation of (Doğan, n.d.; Jeppesen et al.,
2009).
In the Mediterranean region, there is sometimes no legal requirement for a permanent minimum
water outflow from dams and this often has dramatic consequences in summer when rivers dry out
downstream (Benejam et al., 2016; Freyhof, 2011).
A further issue of concern is the conservation of ponds in Europe and Central Asia at landscape scale,
which harbour a significant proportion of aquatic biodiversity but are under increasing pressure. They
have been historically neglected particularly in the Mediterranean region (Boix et al., 2016; Céréghino
et al., 2008) and remain excluded from the provisions of the European Union Water Framework
Directive. Natural wetlands (marshes and bogs) decreased by 5% between 1990 and 2006, one of the
largest proportional land cover change of all habitats (EEA, 2010). In the Mediterranean region,
temporary ponds contain rare, endemic or Red Data List species and as such form an irreplaceable
type of habitat for a variety of freshwater biota (Céréghino et al., 2008). However, the shallowness and
small size of many temporary ponds have made them very vulnerable to human impacts as they can
easily be drained for agriculture, urbanization, tourism, or industrial purposes (Boix et al., 2016;
Zacharias et al, 2007). Moreover, annual rainfall has been declining substantially since 1900 in several
parts of the Mediterranean region owing to climate change, and already dry periods in rivers and
wetlands have been markedly prolonged.
European Union member States reporting under the Habitats Directive indicate that 17% of Europe's
freshwater habitats have an “unfavourable to bad” conservation status, while 56% were classified as
“unfavourable to inadequate” (EEA, 2015a) (Figure 3.27). Yet relatively unaffected parts of the
European Union include parts of the Balkans which, although not devoid of pressures, are freshwater
biodiversity hotspots of continental and global value (Griffiths et al., 2004). Concerning species, 30%
assessments have an “unfavourable to bad” conservation status and 45% assessments were classified
as “unfavourable to inadequate” (EEA, 2015a). For Eastern Europe, fresh water quality remains
poor, with variation from contaminated to extremely polluted for the majority of large rivers in Russia
(Government of the of Russian Federation, 2016). In Central Asia in mountainous regions water
bodies were assessed as clean and even very clean, when in lowlands they were assessed as
moderately polluted and sometimes as extremely polluted (UNECE, CAREC, 2011).

339
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Increased air temperatures result in melting of the glaciers which feed rivers and streams of Central
Asia (e.g. Amu Darya, Syr Darya), causing changes in their hydrological regime (Zoï, 2009). Many
formerly perennial wetlands are now seasonal, while several formerly seasonal wetlands are now
rarely flooded. In other parts of Europe and Central Asia, recent climate change has produced
contrasting trends. For example, floods in the Artic Ocean basin are becoming more prevalent due to
an increase in winter runoff over the past 30 years, underpinned by the melting of Central Asian
glaciers (Georgievsky, 2016; Gurevich, 2009). The Central Asian subregion also suffers from a drastic
water loss that constitutes over 70 % of global net permanent water loss. This water loss is due a
combination of drought and human activities including river diversion, damming and unregulated
water intake (Pekel et al., 2016). In addition, in the southern Caucasus and in Central Asia, there is a
decline in surface water quality due to poor water treatment facilities. This leads to an increase in
organic pollution, with about 20% of untreated sewage directly discharged into rivers (Barenboim et
al., 2013; Georgiadi et al., 2014). Freshwater salinization is also a threat across Europe and Central Asia
(Cañedo-Argüelles et al., 2016; Jeppesen et al., 2015), however, it is most relevant for the arid parts of
Central Asia and the Mediterranean region due to irrigation and land washing salt pollution (Crosa et
al., 2006; Jeppesen et al., 2015; Karimov et al., 2014a). The lack of international and inter-sectoral
coordination (e.g. between the irrigation and energy sectors) of water resource management in
Central Asia and the Caucasus in the construction of irrigation systems, canals and water storage
reservoirs in the lower reaches and deltas of the Central Asian Amu Darya, Kura, Syr Darya, Hrazdan
and Ural Rivers has resulted in a severe environmental crisis (Petr et al., 2004). Overall, despite
contrasting trends in the availability of water resources in part of Europe and Central Asia (i.e. drying
of ponds, flooding of rivers), the resulting environmental trend is a rapid decline in freshwater habitat
quality and the decline in the most fragile species.
According to a recent study that identified the most important catchments for the conservation of
freshwater biodiversity in geographic Europe (see Carrizo et al., 2017), protected areas do not
currently provide sufficient coverage to the most important “critical catchments” (i.e. catchments that

340
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

contain sites likely to qualify as freshwater “key biodiversity areas”) (Figure 3.28). Without
improvement to the current configuration and perhaps management, European countries are unlikely
to meet international obligations to reverse the loss of freshwater biodiversity.

Alien species trends

The rate at which alien freshwater species have been introduced in Europe and Central Asia has
doubled in the space of 40 years, with the principal motives being aquaculture (39%) and improvement
of wild stocks (17%) (EC, 2014; Gozlan, 2008, 2015). Most sought-after freshwater species have already
been introduced in Europe and Central Asia rivers and lakes and have contributed to biotic
homogenization (Gozlan, 2016; Vilà & Hulme, 2017). In Central and Western Europe, 16% of lakes
contain alien fish species (Jeppesen, Winfield, et al., 2017). The role of alien species in the emergence
of novel diseases in the region has clearly been demonstrated in the last three decades through the
increased geographic distribution of pathogens and parasites and also as facilitators of host-switching
(Peeler et al., 2011). In the European Union, the historical trends of alien species introduction have
been slowed down due to legislation (European Union, 2007) concerning use of alien and locally absent
species in aquaculture. This regulation establishes a “framework governing aquaculture practices to
assess and minimize the possible impact of non-native species on aquatic habitats and in this manner
contributes to the sustainable development of the sector”.

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Analyses of data on freshwater biodiversity show that more than 75% of Europe and Central Asia
catchment areas are subject to multiple pressures and have been heavily modified, resulting in serious
threats to their biodiversity (EEA, 2010; Tockner et al., 2008). General threats to inland water
ecosystems such as overexploitation, water pollution, flow modification, habitat degradation, invasive
alien species and salinization (Dudgeon et al., 2006), are also the most relevant for Europe and Central
Asia. Vörösmarty et al. (2010) have classified the importance of these drivers for biodiversity status
and have shown that the main drivers threatening biodiversity in areas where incident threat is greater
than the 75th percentile (i.e. most of the region), is water resource development (e.g. dams, river
fragmentation), followed by pollution (e.g. organic pollution and sediment loading). In comparison, the

341
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

effects of fishing and aquaculture pressure remain relatively limited, while the impact of alien species
is projected to increase in the future (EEA, 2015d). This is further illustrated by another recent study
at continental scale based on 4,000 monitoring sites across Europe (Malaj et al., 2014) which showed
that the health of almost half of all European freshwater ecosystems are at risk from toxic organic
chemical pollution. The chemical risk to freshwater ecosystems is strongly influenced by human land
use, with areas of natural vegetation at significantly lower risk. Pollution pressures particularly affect
central and north-western parts of Western European areas with intensive agricultural practices and
high population density. Notably, the chemical status of 40% of Europe's surface waters remains
unknown (EEA, 2015b) and a good chemical status (as defined by the European Union Water
Framework Directive in terms of compliance with all quality standards established for chemical
substances at European Union level) was not achieved in surface water bodies in 22 member States in
2015. Furthermore, although in most parts of Europe the potential for hydropower is almost fully
exploited, the Balkans, which are a freshwater biodiversity hotspot of continental and global value,
rank under the top world regions concerning planned dams and impoundments (Griffiths et al., 2004;
Zarfl et al., 2015). The boom in hydropower development threatens the remaining free-flowing rivers
and near-natural freshwaters including in Siberian rivers (Saltankin, 2012). Similarly, according to
current plans, Turkey's rivers and streams will see the construction of almost 4,000 dams, diversions,
and hydroelectric power plants for power, irrigation, and drinking water by 2023 (Şekercioĝlu et al.,
2011).
According to the State of the Environment Report 2015’s (EEA, 2015a) review of the health of
freshwater systems in Western and Central Europe, the pressures reported to affect most surface
water bodies are pollution from diffuse sources, in particular from agriculture, causing nutrient
enrichment. More than 40% of rivers and coastal water bodies and more than 30% of lakes and
transitional waters in European Union subregions are affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture
(EEA, 2012). Between 20% and 25% are subject to point source pollution, for example, from industrial
facilities, sewage systems and wastewater treatment plants. Across Europe and Central Asia, industrial
and agricultural developments also influence water quality and threaten biodiversity in some highly
diverse ecosystems (e.g. Selenga River and Lake Baikal in eastern Russia) (Sorokovikova et al., 2013).
Nevertheless, pollution and nutrient enrichment are the only pressures that are reported to be
decreasing in part of Western and Central Europe (EEA, 2015a; Jeppesen et al., 2005). Agriculture is
the main reason for groundwater over-abstraction, an activity that is frequent in areas with low rainfall
and high population density, and in areas with intensive agricultural or industrial activity, such as Italy,
Spain, Greece and Turkey, among others. The result is sinking water tables, empty wells, draining of
wetlands, higher pumping costs and, in coastal areas, the intrusion of saltwater from the sea which
degrades the groundwater (Rabalais et al., 2010). Climate change and other components of global
change, such as a growing population demanding higher food production, are expected to intensify
these problems. Global warming can also exacerbate the symptoms of eutrophication in lakes and thus
lower nutrient loading will be needed in a future warmer world to achieve the same ecological status
as today (Jeppesen et al, 2017).

Invasive alien species

Although increasing with the number of introductions, the risk of ecological impact after the
introduction of an alien freshwater fish species is less than 10% for the great majority of alien
freshwater species introduced (Gozlan, 2008). However, alien species are very numerous in many
freshwater bodies (Altermatt et al., 2014) there are specific threats associated with the introduction
of freshwater species which clearly need to be mitigated, such as the risk of alien pathogen
introductions (Peeler et al., 2011) and alien species that have been clearly identified as ecosystem

342
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

engineers. The heightened risk associated with these species is that they are especially difficult to
eradicate (Cacho et al., 2006) and capable of significantly altering the functioning of ecosystems.

3.3.3.2 Enclosed seas and saline lakes

The Aral Sea
Overview of the system
In the mid-twentieth century, the Aral Sea was the fourth largest lake in the world with an area of
67,499 km2 (Aladin & Plotnikov, 2008) and water volume 1,064 km3 (Glazovsky 1990). The biodiversity
of this moderately saline (around 10 g/l salt) lake (Dobrovolskii and Zalogin, 1982) included about 200
species of invertebrates (Plotnikov, 2016), 34 fish species (Aladin and Plotnikov, 2008; Ermakhanov et
al., 2012; Zonn et al., 2009), and 30 species of macrophytes (Zhakova, 2013).
The Aral Sea is, however, now a much smaller and more saline body of water Figure 3.29. Salt-dust
and sandstorms originating from the desiccated seafloor are affecting agricultural systems and the
livelihood and health of the people in the region (Breckle et al., 2012). Full restoration of the Aral Sea
in the foreseeable future appears impossible (Micklin, 2007).

Past and current trends

From the 1960s, the Aral began to shrink because of large-scale water extraction from the two main
in-flowing rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya (Boomer et al., 2000). The sea split into two isolated
lakes, the Small and Large Aral Lakes. By 1989 the Large Aral Sea divided further into Western and
Eastern parts (Aladin & Plotnikov, 2008). By 2014, the eastern part of the Large Aral Sea had dried
completely, but later some water appeared again (Figure 3.29) (Lindsey, 2016; NASA, 2014). Climate
changes have also contributed to transformation of the Aral Sea (IPCC, 2014b).
The desiccation of the Aral is considered the world’s worst aquatic ecology crisis in recent history
(Pekel et al., 2016). Negative effects of the Aral’s retreat on the ecology, economy, and quality of
human life in the region are manifold and dramatic (Micklin, 2007; Zavialov, 2005).

343
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A dam separating the Small Aral basin from the Large Aral basin has resulted in an increase in the water
level and decrease in salinity of the Small Aral. As a result the biodiversity of invertebrates has
increased (Plotnikov, 2016). The Small Aral was stocked with fish and now even provides some
commercial fish yields. The Large Aral Sea has split to several hypersaline lakes with biodiversity limited
to species which are tolerant to high salinity, with a few species of invertebrates (Plotnikov, 2016) and
macrophytes (Zhakova, 2013), but no vertebrates (Aladin et al., 2017).

The Caspian Sea

Overview of the system
The Caspian Sea is the largest saline inland sea or lake in the world, it contains about 40% of all inland
lake waters (Messager et al., 2016) (Figure 3.30). This brackish water body, with salinity up to 14 g/l
(Mamaev, 2002), is a home to 1,814 species and subspecies (Dumont et al., 1999; Kasymov, 1987;
Kazantcheev, 1981). Endemism at the species level is very high, especially among molluscs and fish.
There are five sturgeon species that are endemic or shared only with the Black Sea and constitute 85
% of the standing stock of the world's sturgeon population (Dumont et al., 1999; Mamaev, 2002). The
only aquatic mammal is the endemic Caspian seal (Pusa caspica) (Mamaev, 2002), assessed as
endangered by the IUCN (Goodman & Dmitrieva, 2016). The Caspian Sea lies on migration routes of
many birds and offers refuge for a number of rare and endangered bird species (Mamaev, 2002).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Changes in the level of the Caspian Sea play a significant role for ecosystems, but their causes are
uncertain. They may be caused partly by climate change and decrease of inflow after the construction
of dams on the Volga River (Barannik et al., 2004; IPCC, 2014a; Dobrovolskii and Zalogin, 1982;
Mamaev, 2002). Since 1995 the level of the Caspian Sea has not changed significantly, but it is
impossible to predict the scale and direction of future fluctuations (Pekel et al., 2016).

344
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The Caspian Sea is threatened by pollution from untreated wastewater from industry and agriculture
along the Volga River (an estimated 80% of the total load) (Glantz & Zonn, 1997) offshore oil and gas
production, processing, extraction and transportation, and shipping. Industrial pollution impacts
biological processes including the growth of commercially important fish (Dumont et al., 1999;
Mamaev, 2002).
The Lenin Canal between the Don and Volga Rivers, which opened the Caspian to maritime navigation
in 1954, led to invasions by Mediterranean biota such as small crustaceans, marine molluscs (e.g.
Mytilaster Zineatus) and comb-jelly (Mnemiopsis lediyi), which drove some endemic species (e.g. the
bivalve Dreissena caspia or one of the main fish resources Clupeonella) to almost total extinction
(Dumont et al., 1999; Rintelen & Van Damme, 2011; Zoï, 2012).
Fishing has significantly dropped during the 1990s, and slowly grew thereafter (Makoedov et al., 2007;
Figure 3.31). During the 1990s, illegal fishing vastly increased and negatively impacted mostly sturgeon
and salmon. A special moratorium on sturgeon fishing was signed by five Caspian countries in 2013.
All Caspian sturgeon species are protected under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), but the Convention is not in force in Turkmenistan. A
quota system, introduced together with a temporary ban on pelagic fishing, does not appear to have
been effective in reviving the dwindling sturgeon population (Mamaev, 2002).

The population of the Caspian seal (Pusa caspica, a globally endangered species) has declined by 70%
in the last twenty years. This is primarily due to unsustainable hunting, trapping as by-catch of the
illegal sturgeon fishery, and loss of prey-base due to fishing and invasive species (Goodman &
Dmitrieva, 2016; Harkonen et al., 2012). A canine distemper epidemic starting in April 2000 also
contributed to the seal decline (Mamaev, 2002). Limitations on hunting were introduced in the 1940s
but illegal killing of seals is still common (CEP, 2007; Mamaev, 2002).

Saline lakes
Overview of the system
In Western and Central Europe saline and brackish lakes can be found predominantly in the
Mediterranean region (Čížková et al., 2013). To the east, saline water bodies are found in many
terminal basins in a wide territorial belt with semiarid or arid climate including Turkey, the Caucasus,

345
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Asia and southern Siberia (Comin and Alonso, 1988; EEA, 2002; Kazanci et al., 2004; Kotova et
al., 2016; Kulagin et al., 1990; Montes & Martino, 1987; Orlov et al., 2011; Örmeci & Ekercin, 2005;
Government of Turkey, 2014; Stenger-Kovács et al., 2014; Williams, 1981; Zektser, 2000).
The biodiversity of saline and brackish lakes is variable and depends strongly, among other factors, on
salinity (Balushkina et al., 2008; Boros et al., 2013; Brucet et al., 2012; Ventosa & Arahal, 2009). It can
be quite high in large and moderately saline lakes, for example Lake Issyk-Kul (Kulagin et al. 1990;
Savvaitova & Petr, 1999). Generally, however, increased salinity leads to a decrease in biodiversity
(Kipriyanova et al., 2007). In hypersaline lakes like the Dead Sea in Israel or Lake Elton in Russia, only
some algae (Dunaliella salina), halophilic bacteria and fungi can be found (Nissenbaum, 1975). At the
same time, many hypersaline lakes harbour high and unique bacterial diversity that has high scientific,
ecological and biotechnological values (Oren, 2006).
Saline and brackish lakes in Europe and Central Asia are crucially important for birds during seasonal
migrations and wintering. Many of them are located along transcontinental migration routes, as for
example, the Torey lakes in the Daurian steppe in Russia. Some are crucial stops along the Australian-
Asian migration route, providing temporary habitats for rare species such as 70% of the world
population of the threatened white-headed duck (Oxyura leucocephala), which overwinters at Lake
Burdur, Turkey, which is a designated Ramsar site (Ramsar, n.d.).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

There are no comprehensive assessments of changes in biodiversity in saline and brackish lakes in
Europe and Central Asia. Many saline lakes in the region experience large fluctuations in water level

346
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and salinity, with corresponding biodiversity and ecosystems shifts (Namsaraev et al., 2008) (Figure
3.32).
Fishery volume exceeds sustainable use and fish resources dwindle in the largest saline and brackish
lakes in Central Asia (Karimov et al., 2009; Thorpe et al., 2011; Zoï, 2012), however rehabilitation
measures for fish resources (stocking of lakes with fish larvae, protection of spawning areas, etc.)
usually are not conducted (Karimov, 2011).
Water withdrawal for irrigation from tributaries led to the decline of many saline lakes’ area and
volume, rise in salinity and destruction of fish spawning areas and species’ migration routes (Bai et al.,
2004; Karimov et al., 2009; Government of Turkmenistan, 2015). Another factor that contributes to
decline of water level in saline lakes is climate change. This process is especially strong in the arid zones
of Europe and Central Asia (IPCC, 2014b). It affects salinity level and, as a result, leads to decline in
biodiversity and threatens the total extinction of the majority of species (Bai et al., 2004).
It is projected that many lakes in the Mediterranean climate zone will be markedly affected by
aridification and water abstraction, with related changes in water level, salinity, biodiversity and the
ecology of lakes and reservoirs (Jeppesen et al., 2015). Artificial saline lakes are also created in natural
depressions of Central Asia by storing collector-drainage water after irrigation (Stone, 2008; Thorpe et
al., 2011; Yakubov, 2011). They are extremely polluted by agricultural chemicals, initially with low
biodiversity limited to some algae and bacteria (Glazovsky, 1990; Orlov et al., 2011). However, there
are projections that these man-made ecosystems can be important for biodiversity conservation,
fisheries, migration birds and recreation (Karimov et al., 2014b; Government of Uzbekistan, 2015;
Thorpe et al., 2011).
As large saline and brackish lakes have a long history of isolation from each other, they have been
refugees for rare and endemic species. These species are more strongly affected than others by non-
native invasive species, which reach saline lakes sometimes accidentally, sometimes through
introduction by humans to improve fisheries, like in Issyk-Kul lake (Kulagin et al., 1990; Thorpe et al.,
2011).

3.3.3.3 Implementation of the Ramsar Convention by the countries of Europe and Central Asia
All countries in Europe and Central Asia are Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, except San
Marino.
According to a national reports review undertaken by the Secretariat of the Convention (Ramsar,
2015a, 2015b), Ramsar wetlands in the region face increasing pressures from rapid urbanization and
land-use changes for tourism, infrastructure development (transport and energy) and non-sustainable
exploitation of natural resources (e.g. water, gravel, peat, oil, gas). Ongoing climate change increases
environmental risk and the frequency of natural hazards such as floods, droughts, storms and
landslides, especially in Central Asian countries. The regulating services that wetlands can provide are
only rarely taken into account. Wetlands in Eastern Europe and Central Asia are under increasing
pressure especially from conversion due to population increase (Central Asia) and development
projects (Eastern Europe), overuse of wetland resources, expansion of human habitats and
infrastructure, agricultural, recreational and development activities, and pollution. In Central Asia
there are difficulties with water availability for wetlands, and there is competition for water within and
between countries. There are cases in Central Asia of wetland loss due to the natural disasters – such
as droughts and landslides.

347
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

An assessment of Ramsar Convention implementation was undertaken (Table 3.2) considering

progress towards the four main goals of the Convention: 1 - wise use of wetlands, 2 - creating a network
of wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Sites), 3 - international cooperation, and 4 -
institutional capacity and effectiveness (Table 3.3).

Table 3.2: Implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Europe and Central Asia: reporting statistics.

Subregion Number of Total sites New sites Sites under threat Official reporting
countries number last or with changed on Ramsar site
reporting to reporting ecological ecological
the period character character change
Convention
Western 18 of 24 805 46 62 (8% of all sites) 17 (27% of sites
Europe changed or under
threat)
Central Europe 13 of 18 174 11 27 (15%) 15 (55%)
Eastern Europe 5 of 7 110 6 17 (15%) 1 (6%)
Central Asia 1 of 5 21 1 1 (n/a) 1 (n/a)

The number of Ramsar sites is highest in Western Europe, while these sites cover smaller areas than
in other subregions. Western Europe is also more active in designating new sites. Fewer sites in
Western Europe are under threat than elsewhere. Nevertheless, those that are under threat are
reported by NGOs or local communities, and seldom via official channels to the Ramsar Secretariat.
Eastern and Central Europe has a higher portion of endangered sites, but more often reported via
official channels. In Central Europe 55 % of sites with changing ecological character were reported via
official channels, while in Eastern Europe it was only in 5 % of cases. Central Asia cannot be assessed
due to a lack of information except for Kazakhstan, which also reports its endangered Ramsar site
officially and was visited by a Ramsar mission.
As part of the wise use of wetlands, countries are reporting on successful wetland restoration projects
and work related to water policies and river basin management including the European Union Water
Framework Directive (Table 3.3). Within goal 2, countries report on the development of management
plans for Ramsar Sites and the implementation of their provisions; wetland monitoring and inventory
activities; and the preparation and designation of new Ramsar Sites and synergies with the European
Union Natura 2000 network of protected areas. Goal 3 is on international cooperation. The steps to
meet goal 4 mostly are communication, education and outreach activities, including World Wetlands
Day; and the development of national policies for conservation, biodiversity and wetlands including
national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
The steps to meet goal 4 mostly are communication, education and outreach activities, including World
Wetlands Day; and the development of national policies for conservation, biodiversity and wetlands
including national biodiversity strategies and action plans.

Table 3.3: Implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Europe and Central Asia: progress toward
goals. Yes = goal achieved; In part = goal partially achieved; No = Goal not achieved.

348
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Subregion Goal 1: Wise use Goal 2: Goal 3: International Goal 4:

of wetlands Network of cooperation Institutional
Wetlands of capacity and
International effectiveness
Importance
(Ramsar Sites)

Western Europe Yes No Yes No

Central Europe Yes In part Yes No

Eastern Europe In part Yes Yes In part

Central Asia In part In part In part In part

The greatest difficulties reported are limited administrative capacity resulting from limited human and
financial resources; slow administrative processes to put effective policies in place; and insufficient
coordination between wetland, water, and river basin management authorities. Progressing with
wetland ecosystem conservation on the ground is difficult, because it needs to be based on time-
consuming inter-sectoral stakeholder consultations. Agricultural, urban and land-owner interests
hinder the implementation of Ramsar objectives. The lack of political interest, economic incentives in
the absence of wetland valuations, and sufficient wetland inventories are reported by Europe and
Central Asian countries.

3.3.4 Marine systems

The marine environment of Europe and Central Asia, which includes open ocean areas and semi-
enclosed seas encompassing several marine ecoregions (Spalding et al., 2007) is very diverse at
genetic, community, ecosystem and seascape levels. This environment has been significantly impacted
by human activities for millennia but marine research in some parts of the region is well established,
resulting in some of the best studied marine ecosystems in the world. Still about 53% of the benthic
shallow habitats in Western and Central Europe were found to be data deficient in recent habitat
assessments (Gubbay et al., 2016). Of the assessed benthic habitats, about 38% were classified as
threatened in the categories critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable. In the European Union,
among assessments of the conservation status of species and habitat types of conservation interest,
only 7% of marine species and 9% of marine habitat types show a “favourable conservation status”.
Moreover, 27% of species and 66% of assessments of habitat types show an “unfavourable
conservation status” and the remainder are categorized as “unknown”.
For the purpose of the current assessment the marine environment was divided into the different
ocean basins and semi-enclosed seas of the region including the North East Atlantic Ocean, with
different sections for the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Seas, the Eurasian Arctic Ocean and the
North West Pacific Ocean, focusing on the exclusive economic zones of countries of Europe and Central
Asia, and of the relevant regional agreements.

3.3.4.1 North East Atlantic Ocean

Overview of the system

349
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The European part of the Atlantic Ocean (sensu lato, i.e. North Sea, Irish Sea, English Channel, Iberian
coast, and the Macaronesean Island coasts except for Cape Verde) encompasses large latitudinal
gradients, several biogeographic provinces from Artic to warm temperate systems realms (Spalding et
al., 2007), and a diversity of ecosystems and habitats, including complex structural habitats like
seagrass meadows, kelp forests and biogenic reefs, providing a diverse set of nature’s contributions to
people (Prather et al., 2013; Smale et al., 2013; Worm et al., 2006). Despite knowledge gaps, several
trends are well established thanks to the sustained observation of marine biota particularly in the
Celtic Sea, English Channel, North Sea and Bay of Biscay (e.g. Barceló et al., 2016; Beaugrand et al.,
2009; Daan et al., 2005; EEA, 2015c; Frederiksen et al., 2013; Mieszkowska et al., 2014; OSPAR, 2010,
2017).

Past and present trends

Changes in distribution and species abundance are the most well documented trends, across diverse
taxonomic groups, as illustrated in over 670 observational data points extracted from Poloczanska et
al. (2013) and summarized in Figure 3.33.

350
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Shifts in range, in particular northward expansion of more than 140 km per decade on average across
taxa (Poloczanska et al. 2013), have been shown (Figure 3.34). This is exemplified by the
subtropicalization of European pelagic fish communities (Montero-Serra et al., 2015), by movements
of calanoid copepods towards the north at rates of up to 23km per year between 1958 and 2009
(Beaugrand et al., 2009) and by shifts of the centre of the distribution for about 60% of 65 marine
invertebrates studied in the North Sea (Hiddink et al., 2015). Range shifts occur not only in latitude,
but also along depth gradients (e.g. Dulvy et al. (2008) for fishes; Hiddink et al. (2015) for marine
invertebrates). Range shift is, however, not fast enough to keep pace with climate change for many
species (Hiddink et al., 2015), so other effects of climate change, such as phenological changes, are
also observed. Also, as shown Figure 3.34, the rate of change varies across taxa: northward expansion
of benthic algae display an average range shift of 42km per decade which is an order of magnitude
slower than that documented for fishes (Perry et al., 2005; Poloczanska et al., 2013). Importantly,

351
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

although documented in a few taxa only, such range shifts can provoke the loss of particular genetic
clades (e.g. in the macroalga Fucus vesiculosus; Nicastro et al., 2013) and impoverished genetic
diversity at species level, with putative ecological and economic impacts (Parmesan, 2006).

In the 20th century almost all fish stocks of the North Atlantic have been depleted in abundance, with
consequential impacts on stock biomass, size distribution, and diversity (reviewed in Rice et al., 2016).
Many fish stocks are currently overfished. However, in the 21st century, fishing has been reduced in
most parts of the North East Atlantic shelves, and there is evidence of recovery in most of these areas,
albeit at different rates for different species (Rice et al., 2016). A combination of range shifts and fishing
is responsible for genetic changes, such as declines in genetic diversity in fishes, as observed in the
North Sea cod (Hutchinson et al., 2003). Populations of most marine bird species have been declining
since 2002 (Frederiksen, 2010), with the exceptions only of the northern gannet (Morus bassanus) and
great skua (Stercorarius skua), both likely benefiting from increasing availability of fishery discards,
and, for the gannet, from recovery from past persecution. These changes in abundance lead to local
population and species decline, which affect a variety of fish and bird taxa, as detailed above, but also
primary producers such as phytoplankton, with important consequences for trophic networks
(McQuatters-Gollop et al., 2007), and marine invertebrates including crustaceans, annelids, and
molluscs (OSPAR, 2008; Wiens, 2016).
Another clearly documented change is biotic homogenization, due to species range shifts (e.g. for
fishes assemblages, Magurran et al., 2015) combined with the introduction of alien species. An
estimated 237 species have been introduced into the North East Atlantic (Galil et al., 2014), having
steadily increased by about 173 species from 1970 to 2013. Many of these alien species were
introduced deliberately (e.g. the Asian oyster (Magallana gigas), with which many other “hitch-hiking”
species have been accidentally introduced. This is a consistent past and current trend over a large
range of taxa (Seebens et al., 2017).
Changes in distribution and abundance also impact habitat-structuring species, such as seagrass and
kelp forests, which are both natural carbon sinks and thus may contribute to carbon sequestration, or
biogenic reefs, for example Sabellaria spinulosa or flat oyster reefs, both of which are included on the

352
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

OSPAR list of threatened or declining habitats; (OSPAR, 2008). Disease outbreaks have also been
reported in cold-water corals, like the seafan Eunicella verrucosa (Hall-Spencer et al., 2007), a
structuring perennial species listed on the IUCN Red List’ of threatened species. The decline in extent
and abundance of these diverse structuring species modifies ecosystem functioning as well as the
contributions that they provide to people. For instance, a shift from kelp canopies to turf-forming
seaweeds has a global impact on community structure and function (Smale et al., 2013) as well as on
fisheries (Bertocci et al., 2015). These habitat-forming species are insufficiently monitored (e.g. for
kelps see Araújo et al., 2016), but current trends have already documented declines, as exemplified by
Cymodocea meadows, with estimated declines of between 15% and 80% in extent along the Iberian
Peninsula coasts. Changes in ecosystem functioning (e.g. food web and trophic network) have also
been well-documented in some areas, e.g. in pelagic systems of the North Sea (e.g. copepods-fishes;
Beaugrand, 2004; Kirby & Beaugrand, 2009).
Phenological changes (e.g. earlier timing of recruitment) are an important component of these changes
in ecosystem functioning. They can affect populations through diverse mechanisms and with large
impacts such as mismatches with food resource availability and increased mortality because of non-
favourable environmental conditions (Thackeray et al., 2010 and references therein). They have been
established with confidence for several taxonomic groups (Edwards & Richardson, 2004; Kirby &
Beaugrand, 2009; Poloczanska et al., 2013; Thackeray et al., 2010). For some taxa such as marine
invertebrates (Thackeray et al. 2010), rates of advance in seasonal timing was shown to increase over
recent decades.
Changes in patterns and processes, as detailed above, are indicative of a decline in biodiversity status,
now and in the past, at species, community and ecosystem levels.
Although biodiversity decline and changes in ecosystem functioning are widespread, a few trends are
indicative of partial recovery when compared with past-trends. With the exception of Atlantic cod,
there are signs of improvement in fish stocks and biomass, especially compared with other Western
European waters such as the Mediterranean Sea (Fernandes et al., 2017). The number of assessed
stocks that are above their maximum sustainable yield has dropped from 94% in 2007 to 41% in 2014
in European Union Atlantic and Baltic waters, which has been explained by an overall decrease in the
level of fishing pressure (Daan et al., 2005; EEA, 2015b). Moreover, with 3,203 marine protected areas
extending over 171,174 km², 5,9% of the surface of the North East Atlantic benefits from protection.
There are, nevertheless, discrepancies between sea areas (e.g. 14.7% Greater North Sea vs. 5.9% Bay
of Biscay and Iberian coasts) and distance from the shore (52.1% of 0-1 nautical miles zone vs. 2.3%
beyond 12 Nautical miles). The increase in network coverage is a positive current trend, but still below
the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of 10 % of marine habitats under protection (EEA, 2015a; OSPAR 2017)
over the whole North East Atlantic area. In addition, only 10% of marine habitats that have been
assessed have a favourable conservation status (EEA, 2015b), with contrasted features across areas.
For instance, while the Macaronesian region reported 33% of favourable habitat conservation status,
the other areas of the North East Atlantic reported 71% of unfavourable-bad assessments (EEA,
2015a). Finally, no fauna extinction has been documented so far, maybe due to major knowledge gaps
for important taxonomic groups like marine invertebrates (McCauley et al., 2015).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

The primary pressures responsible for past regime shifts in shelf ecosystems are overfishing, pollution
and climate driven changes including Arctic ice melting and ocean warming. In terms of the importance
of these direct drivers for past trends, they are graded as high impact (Table 3.5).

353
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Overall, several studies point with a high confidence to climate change, including ocean acidification
as the main emerging driver in the North East Atlantic (Barceló et al., 2016; Beaugrand et al., 2013;
Birchenough et al., 2015; Fossheim et al., 2015a; Hiddink & ter Hofstede, 2008; Montero-Serra et al.,
2015; Poloczanska et al., 2016). Eighty-six percent of the changes documented by Poloczanska et al.
(2013) are consistent with expectations based on climate change effects, although most often (82% of
the cases examined), other drivers are acting simultaneously. These include natural resource
exploitation with direct (e.g. overfishing) or indirect (e.g. trawling and demersal fishing activities on
benthos) effects, land and water use (eutrophication, pollution, including plastics and microplastics),
habitat changes (marine urbanization) and invasive species. There are also substantial cumulative
impacts of this diverse set of drivers (Halpern et al., 2015).
Between the past and current periods, the importance of the effect of climate change has not
decreased. Conversely, the importance of changes due to natural resource exploitation has likely been
decreasing (i.e. graded as moderate for current trends in Table 3.5. For example, in benthic
communities bottom trawling is one of the main pressures (Rice et al., 2016), but recoveries have been
observed following cessation of this activity (Kaiser et al., 2006). Similarly, overfishing remains high
(50% of fish stocks in the North East Atlantic) but positive trends are now observed. For example,
fishing effort decreased by 25% from 2000 to 2006 in the Greater North Sea (EEA, 2015c; OSPAR, 2010).
The same can be said for pollution: coastal benthic communities have been strongly affected by
nutrients and pollutants runoff and climate change (Rice et al., 2016) but nutrient inputs are now
reduced, even if still cause for concern (OSPAR 2010, 2017). However other categories of pollutants
(e.g. xenochemicals, microplastics) might have substantial effect, but have not yet been assessed (see
Chapter 4). Conversely, besides climate change, the impact of man-made structures on seabed and
coastal habitats has been increasing. These include structures associated with urbanization of coastal
areas, coastal land defences and a growing number of offshore structures (EEA, 2015c), and associated
ecosystems and species. The importance of invasive alien species has been increasing in a recent past,
with 44 high-impact species (de Castro et al., 2017) (Box 3.3; Table 3.5).

3.3.4.2 Baltic Sea

Overview of the system
The Baltic Sea is a shallow brackish waterbody characterized by strong seasonal variability and
decreasing gradients of salinity and temperature from south-west to north-east. It is an almost non-
tidal sea that spans from the temperate, highly populated and industrialized south with intensive
agriculture, to the boreal and rural north. It is a young, low diversity ecosystem inhabited by species
of both marine and freshwater origin, migratory species and glacial relicts (Segerstråle, 1957). Despite
being well-studied compared with other aquatic systems (Costello et al., 2010), several ecosystem
parts are still under-investigated (Ojaveer et al., 2010).

Past and current trends

International coordination of research in the Baltic Sea has been ongoing since the beginning of the
20th century, but long-term datasets are only available from the 1950s for benthos, plankton and
fishes (Ojaveer et al. 2010). Due to the absence of long-term monitoring for many other taxa, several
parts of the ecosystem are under-investigated and thus under-evaluated. Several biodiversity
assessment tools have been created for the assessment of biodiversity, but most of them have only
been applied in marginal areas of the Baltic Sea (Andersen et al., 2014; Aunins & Martin, 2014). The
overall health of the Baltic Sea is currently in a bad state, with significant decline in the status of

354
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

biodiversity in large areas (BalticSTERN, 2013; HELCOM, 2009, 2010), as can be seen in the indicators
in Figure 3.35). Only the Bothnian Sea and some coastal areas in the Bothnian Bay have an acceptable
status in terms of different elements of biodiversity. The grey seal population is in good status in the
whole Baltic Sea (Figure 3.35).

Regime shifts and fish trends

In general, fish communities of the Baltic Sea are very unstable due to substantial decline or lack of
large predatory fish in the system. Several species are of concern in achieving the Baltic Sea Action
Plan community level targets (HELCOM, 2009). Several currently threatened or declining fish species
are negatively influenced by eutrophication and pollution (Fernandes et al., 2017; HELCOM, 2009).
Coastal fish species are declining in shallower areas, mainly due to increasing temperature (Snickars et
al, 2015). Latest assessments indicate a good biodiversity status for about half of the assessed coastal
area (HELCOM, 2017f). In addition, reduced salinity reduces the food base for benthic feeding fish in
deeper areas (Snickars et al., 2015).
The open areas of the Baltic Sea have undergone several regime shifts in the 20th century (Österblom
et al., 2007). Such changes are primarily caused by the combination of weakened top-down pressure
and increased primary production (Möllmann et al., 2007). These ecosystem shifts are well observed
in cod populations. The current decline of cod populations can be attributed to the large scale fishing
industry and results in a significant increase in sprat populations (HELCOM, 2010), changes in
zooplankton communities (Rönkkönen et al., 2004) and thus reduced growth of the Baltic herring. In
addition, changing climate conditions and lack of saline water inflows have created environmental
conditions unsuitable for marine fishes (e.g. cod). Although, in some areas, signs of recovery have been
observed for cod populations (Cardinale & Svedäng, 2011), recovery to safe biological limits has not
yet been reached (HELCOM, 2010). Sturgeon, a very important commercial species for centuries, is
now a red-listed species. A reintroduction programme has being developed with eggs from the St. John
river in Canada (Kolman et al., 2011). In the open sea, a good status in terms of fish biodiversity has
not been achieved in any assessment area (HELCOM, 2017f).
Marine mammal trends
In the early 1900s strong hunting pressure followed by toxic pollution substantially decreased all
populations of marine mammals in the Baltic Sea resulting in a “critically endangered status” for the
Baltic Sea harbour porpoise (Hammond et al., 2008; HELCOM, 2009, 2013) and an order of magnitude
decrease in the number of seals (Harding & Härkönen, 1999). Although, the conservation status of
marine mammals in the Baltic Sea was considered as unfavourable for most of the species assessed
(EEA, 2015d), there are some signs of an increase of top predators, mostly seals and predatory birds,
during recent decades (HELCOM, 2013, 2017d). Population size of grey seals is considered as
favourable in several Baltic Sea areas (Figure 3.35) and this recovery is interfering with fishing activity
and an unknown number of seals are drowning in fishing gear every year (Vanhatalo et al., 2014). But
the assessment of their nutritional and reproductive status is still not good (Figure 3.35). In addition
several migratory bat species populations are negatively impacted by wind turbine development (Voigt
et al., 2012). An expert evaluation of endangered species in the Baltic shows that a number of species
are still at risk of extinction (HELCOM, 2013).
Marine bird trends
No clear trends are evident for marine bird populations, but populations are not considered stable in
the Baltic Sea. Substantial long-term declines can be attributed to anthropogenic factors, through
lower reproductive success. However, some bird species (e.g., cormorants) may benefit from certain

355
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

anthropogenic activities (HELCOM, 2009). A cascading effect from overfishing, that targets predator
fish, has also improved the food base for some birds, as more prey becomes available to them (e.g.
auks) (HELCOM, 2009). In addition, climate change has impacted the range and population size of
migrating species through changes in breeding areas (HELCOM, 2009, 2017b). In recent decades, over
half of wintering water bird species have declined significantly and the reasons for their decline are
not currently understood (BalticSTERN, 2013; HELCOM, 2017c).
Plankton trends
The species dominance and biodiversity of phytoplankton have significantly changed over the past 100
years (Feistel et al., 2008; Hällfors et al., 2013; HELCOM, 2009; Wasmund et al., 2008). In recent
decades, however, there have been few clear trends. Long-term increases in cyanobacteria blooms
present a challenge to achieving good Baltic Sea Action Plan environmental status (HELCOM, 2009).
During the past few decades, the dominant zooplankton taxa have undergone considerable changes,
driven by natural shifts and human impacts. These changes are causing a cascading effect in the food
web, affecting upper trophic levels (HELCOM, 2009).
Benthos and habitat forming species trends
Currently, macrobenthic communities are severely disturbed and degraded in several Baltic Sea areas
(HELCOM, 2009; Norkko et al., 2007) and long-term patterns indicate a “shifting baseline” (HELCOM,
2009). From 1994 to 2005 marine invertebrates in the Kattegat area decreased from 230 to 180 species
and this decline continued until 2011, when some taxonomic groups were found to have only one third
of the species recorded in 1994 (EEA, 2015a). In general, the dominance of perennial habitat-forming
macrophytes, such as bladder wrack, eelgrass and charophytes, is gradually decreasing and currently
being replaced by phytoplankton and fast growing annual phytobenthic species (Dahlgren & Kautsky,
2004; HELCOM, 2009, 2010; Korpinen & Jormalainen, 2008). However, some range expansion in
several important macroalgal species has been observed in the area of the Northern Baltic Proper
(HELCOM, 2009, 2013). For example, bladder wrack has increased its range in depth (HELCOM, 2009)
and its status is considered of least concern in the most recent assessment (HELCOM, 2013). Eelgrass
populations have undergone several restoration attempts after being almost destroyed by diseases in
the 1930s. Long-term trend indicates significant fluctuations in eelgrass distribution in the Baltic Sea,
with higher instability in sheltered areas (Frederiksen et al., 2004). In addition, mussel beds have
undergone significant transformation and further decline is expected due to the range expansion of
invasive species preying on mussels (Westerbom et al., 2002; HELCOM, 2009; Ojaveer et al., 2016). In
open sea areas soft bottom invertebrate communities are in good condition in a large part of the Baltic
Sea (HELCOM, 2017e, 2017f).
Invasive species trends
The number of non-indigenous species in the Baltic Sea is growing (HELCOM, 2009, 2017e, 2017g).
Over half of those recorded have become established in at least one of the Baltic Sea countries
(Ojaveer et al., 2016).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Eutrophication, overfishing, and a significant decline in the abundances of marine mammal
populations were the most important drivers of change in the Baltic Sea in the 20th century (Ojaveer
et al., 2010). Currently major environmental problems include eutrophication caused by increasing
river runoff, overfishing, hazardous substances, risk of chemical or oil spills, invasive species, habitat
loss due to anthropogenic factors, and climate change induced changes, i.e. in temperature and salinity
(BalticSTERN, 2013; Costello et al., 2010) (Box 3.3, Table 3.5). Assessments of the status of widespread
pressures like marine litter, including microplastics and underwater sound are currently unavailable,

356
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

but need to be assessed (HELCOM, 2017e). Most areas are subject to multiple stressors (Andersen et
al., 2015).
Eutrophication
All open waters and coastal areas of the Baltic Sea, with the exception of some areas in the Bothnian
Bay, are changing due to eutrophication (HELCOM, 2010). Altogether 97% of the surface area in the
Baltic Sea is eutrophic (HELCOM, 2017e). The sea floor area where hypoxia occurs has increased 10-
fold over the last 115 years (Carstensen et al., 2014). In open waters, the increase of oxygen-deficient
zone areas is the main driver of change in biodiversity and benthic community functioning (Carstensen
et al., 2014; HELCOM, 2009). Areas with eutrophication-induced coastal hypoxia are becoming more
common both in deep and shallow water habitats (Conley et al., 2011). In the northern Baltic Sea,
hypoxic disturbance degrades the structure and function of seafloor communities and sediment
nutrient cycling (BalticSTERN, 2013; Villnäs et al., 2012). There are improvements in eutrophication
status that are direct consequences of long-term efforts to reduce nutrient inputs (Andersen et al.,
2015; HELCOM, 2017e), but the overall target of a Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication has not yet
been met (Svendsen et al., 2015).
Overfishing
Overfishing is one of the main drivers of change in the Baltic Sea ecosystem, because low diversity
systems are more prone to cascading effects caused by the decline of top predators (BalticSTERN,
2013). Technical improvements in fishing methods have increased landings since the second half of
the 20th century in the overpopulated Baltic Sea area. In addition, construction and regulations in main
watercourses have disturbed the natural reproduction of migratory fish species (BalticSTERN, 2013).
Since the collapse of the cod stock in the 1980s, landings have been reduced, but due to a shifting
regime the cod stocks have not recovered (HELCOM, 2010).

357
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Invasive species
Fewer non-indigenous species are recorded in the Baltic Sea than in other European Seas (Galil et al.,
2014). Nevertheless, due to low native species diversity, underrepresentation of several ecosystem
traits, and overall large disturbances in habitats, alien species are having severe impacts on the Baltic
Sea ecosystem (BalticSTERN, 2013; Leppäkoski et al., 2002). Ecological impacts caused by the invaders
vary depending on how they differ from natives in their life form and resource usage (HELCOM, 2009).
Climate change
Climate change amplifies the effect of all other drivers of change (Snickars et al., 2015). In the Baltic
Sea eutrophication rates are increasing through increased nutrient fluxes from increased river runoff.
Warmer temperature and an increase in extreme temperatures are making the areas better suited for
the establishment of alien species. Moreover, increased riverine flows result in lower salinities with
detrimental impacts on all species of marine origin.

358
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In summary, the Baltic Sea is well studied and its ecosystems and biodiversity have been very degraded
in the past. Management plans for recovery have been in place for some years, and although in general
the status of biodiversity is still considered poor, some signs of recovery have been observed.

3.3.4.3 Mediterranean Sea

Overview of the system
The Mediterranean Sea, covering approximately 2,500,000 km², is a remnant of the Tethys ocean, an
ancient ocean from the Mesozoic era. The sea’s main hydrologic features are: i) a microtidal regime;
ii) scarce freshwater inputs compensated by inflow of Atlantic surface water; iii) highly saline (38 to
39.5‰) concentration basin with higher evaporation eastwards; iv) oligotrophy, with organic carbon
inputs 15-80 times lower in the eastern than in the western basin and extremely low concentrations
of chlorophyll-a in surface offshore waters (ca 0.05 μg l-¹ ); and v) with almost constant temperature
from about 300-500m downwards, with bottom temperatures about 12.8 - 13.5°C in the western basin
and 13.5 - 15.5°C in the Eastern basin.

Status and trends

Despite covering only 0.82% of global oceanic surface, the Mediterranean sea is host to more than
17,000 described marine species, representing an estimated 7% of the world’s marine biodiversity,
including about 25 to 30% of endemic species (Coll et al., 2010b; Mouillot et al., 2011). Longitudinal
and latitudinal patterns distinguish a dozen biogeographic regions, from the Alboran Sea to the
Levantine Basin (Bianchi et al., 2012), and a great number of unique ecosystems (Coll et al., 2010b;
Danovaro et al., 2010). The apparent eastwards decrease in biodiversity follows a gradient of
production, but its true extent is still not clear. Biodiversity is generally higher in coastal areas and on
continental shelves. Biodiversity, excepting bacteria and archaea, decreases with increasing water
depth, but to a different extent in different taxa. Danovaro et al. (2010) estimate the deep-sea
biodiversity of the Mediterranean (excluding prokaryotes) at 2,800 species, of which two thirds
remains undiscovered.
In recent habitat Red List assessments carried out for 47 benthic shallow (<200m depth) habitats off
the northern shores of the Mediterranean, 60% were considered data deficient. Of the remaining
habitats 74% (14 habitats) were threatened (Gubbay et al., 2016).
Some fish and invertebrate populations have been decimated in recent years. Of the 519 native marine
fish species and subspecies in the Mediterranean Sea, more than 8% (43 species) were classified in
threatened categories (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable). Of the 15 critically
endangered species, 14 are sharks and rays. Thirteen species are listed as endangered, nine of them
sharks and rays (Abdul Malak et al., 2011). Cartilaginous fishes in general are declining in abundance,
diversity and range (Cavanagh & Gibson, 2007). In the red list assessment of Mediterranean
Anthozoans 69 species (51%) were listed as data deficient, and from the remaning about 25% were
found to be threatened with extinction (critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable), including
two of the endemic species (Otero et al., 2017).
Mediterranean phyto- and zooplankton blooms, including jellyfish and comb jellies, are regional,
seasonal and species-specific phenomena. These blooms have likely benefited from overfishing,
eutrophication, habitat modification, aquaculture, global warming and human-mediated dispersal
(Boero, 2013).Documented increases in bloom frequency, duration, and spatial extent have negatively
impacted food web structure, as well as economy and human health (Ferrante et al., 2013) although

359
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

in some cases, jellyfish can contribute to maintain water quality and prevent phytoplankton blooms
exerting a top-down control of the trophic web (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2002).
Concurrent expansion of the range of warm-water species (native, recent Atlantic thermophilic entries,
tropical Erythraean aliens - that entered the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal) and contraction
of that of cold-water species, disrupt the present biogeographic patterns within the basin and place
cold-water species under threat (Bianchi et al., 2012; Galil et al., 2017). In the past decade Erythraean
aliens have increasingly been recorded on the deeper shelf (> 80m) and even on the upper slope
(Innocenti et al., 2017).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Recent increase of littoral residents, from 44 million in 2000 to 590 million expected in 2050 (Tosun,
2011), and tourists: 270 million in 2010 to 346 million expected in 2020, coupled with intensification
of anthropogenic activities, is driving unprecedented changes in the Mediterranean Sea (Micheli et al.,
2013; EEA, 2015c). Habitat loss, environmental degradation and pollution are chronic and ubiquitous.
Symptoms of complex and fundamental alterations to native populations, habitats and ecosystems
proliferate, including increases in exotic species. The biota across wide swaths of the Mediterranean
Sea, including marine protected areas, seagrass beds (Boudouresque et al., 2009), algal mats, and
biogenic reefs have already been severely altered (Airoldi and Beck, 2007) with dire ecological,
economical and human health impacts (Galil et al., 2015, 2017). Coastal lagoons are increasingly
endangered by anthropogenic impacts (climate change, sea-level rise, massive introduction of invasive
alien species, industrial scale aquaculture operations and fisheries) to the detriment of their role as a
reservoir of genetic diversity (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2011; Pérez-Ruzafa & Marcos, 2012).
Over half of all fish species are affected either directly or indirectly by fishing activities (Abdul Malak
et al., 2011; Vasilakopoulos et al., 2014). Fishing, either through targeted or multi-species fisheries, is
by far the most common threat to fish biodiversity, affecting 33% of native marine fish species, with
an additional 18% threatened by by-catch. In the Mediterranean, 85% of the stocks are currently
overfished and populations of many commercial species are characterized by truncated size- and age-
structures (Colloca et al., 2013). Overfishing has also led to a reduction of genetic diversity outside
marine protected areas (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2006). Larger coastal species and species that occur in
areas subjected to prolonged or intensive fishing pressure are of particular concern (Abdul Malak et
al., 2011). An analysis of the status of the Mediterranean fisheries (1970-2010), using various indicators
(total landings, mean trophic level and fishing-in-balance index) confirmed that the fisheries resources
of the Mediterranean are at risk from overexploitation. The pattern of exploitation and the state of
stocks differed among the regions, with the eastern Mediterranean fisheries being in the worst shape,
and declining (Tsikliras et al., 2015).
The effectiveness of management initiatives implemented in the context of the European Common
Fisheries Policy has been questioned with regard to the Mediterranean (Vasilakopoulos et al., 2014;
Cardinale & Scarcella, 2017). However, some of the analyses that compare the fishing activity in the
North East Atlantic and in the Mediterranean do not take into account some of the differentiating
characteristics of each region, and fail to discuss the role of marine protected areas as a
complementary management tool (Pérez-Ruzafa et al. 2017).
Marine protected areas provide benefits not only for recovering target fish stocks, but also to
biodiversity (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2017), maintaining assemblage structure and ecosystem equilibrium
(Claudet et al., 2008; García-Charton et al., 2008; Lester et al., 2009; Guidetti et al., 2014; Sciberras et
al., 2015) preserving ecological interactions (Guidetti, 2006a, 2006b) and maintaining genetic diversity

360
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2006). These effects can take place in a relatively short time (Pérez-Ruzafa et al.,
2017) and so the number of marine protected areas has been increasing significantly (see MAPAMED
for trends in the Mediterranean, http://www.medpan.org/en/mapamed). There are 1,231 (7.14% of
sea surface area) marine protected areas under legal designation in the Mediterranean, even if only
76 of those have no-go, no-take or no-fishing zones, that are the widest measures of protection for
biodiversity (0.04% of sea surface area). A recent report (MedPAN & RAC/SPA, 2016) admitted that “…
for the majority of sites little is known on whether management measures are implemented and if
they are, whether these measures are effective to reach the sites’ conservation targets.” Surveys
conducted in marine protected areas situated along the Levant coastline recorded large populations
of mostly Erythraean exotic species (Sala et al., 2011; Yokes & Baki, 2012; Guidetti et al., 2014; Vergés
et al., 2014). These marine protected areas are “hot spots” of exotic biodiversity and serve as “seed
banks” for secondary spread. A study by IUCN, WWF and MedPAN found “Uncertainty and lack of
information regarding marine introduced species was high in the marine protected areas we surveyed,
as in average half marine protected area (54.8%) managers did not know the status of the introduced
species reported (there).” (Abdulla et al., 2008).

The number of alien species, currently 740 multicellular species (Figure 3.36, with their distribution),
is substantially greater for the Eastern than the Western Mediterranean Sea with new introductions
registered on monthly basis (Galil et al., 2015; Galil et al., 2017). The most common vectors in the
Mediterranean are the Suez Canal (60%) (Figure 3.36) and vessels (21%). The invasion of the “killer
alga” Caulerpa taxifolia raised concern over its impact on Posidonia meadows (Bulleri & Piazzi, 2014),
on the trophic chain (Alomar et al., 2016; Deudero et al., 2011; Felline et al., 2014; Terlizzi et al., 2011),
nutrient cycles (Gennaro et al., 2015), sediments (Balata et al., 2015), and sessile and motile biota.
In the eastern Mediterranean algae-dominated rocky habitats, including Cystoseira meadows, have
been decimated by large populations of herbivorous fish introduced through the Suez Canal. The two

361
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

voracious grazers, Siganus luridus and S. rivulatus have transformed lush rocky reefs into “barrens”
(Giakoumi, 2014; Sala et al., 2011; Vergés et al., 2014).
The individual and cumulative impacts of these invasions adversely affect the conservation status of
native species and critical habitats, as well as the structure and function of ecosystems and the
availability of natural resources (Galil, 2007). Some species are noxious, poisonous, or venomous and
pose clear threats to human health (Galil et al., 2015).

3.3.4.4 The Black and Azov Seas

Overview of the system
The Black and Azov Seas are connected to the Mediterranean Sea by the Bosporus and the Dardanelles
Straits and the Sea of Marmara. The area of the Black Sea is 422,000km, with a maximum depth of
2,210m and the mean depth is 1,240m (Dobrovolskii and Zalogin, 1982). It is very stratified (Vershinin,
2003, 2016), with about 90% of its volume as anoxic water, saturated with hydrogen sulphide
accumulated from decaying organic matter. The thin oxygen rich upper layer is about 10-15% of total
water volume and only about 100-150m thick, but supports most of the unique biodiversity the Black
Sea (BSC, 2008; Filippov, 1968; Murray et al., 1989; Yakushev, 1999). The deeper waters are inhabited
mostly by protozoa, bacteria, and some multi-cellular invertebrates, though overall knowledge about
its biodiversity is very limited (BSC, 2008). Recent publications estimate the number of Black Sea
species at about 5,000 (Gomoiu et al., 2012).
Two major rivers flow into the Sea of Azov: the Don and Kuban, and salinity is at its lowest (about 1‰)
near the mouth of the Don (Kotlyakov, 2004). Flora and fauna are composed of different biogeographic
groups with a predominance of eurythermic and euryhaline species. Only for the last 6,000-7,000 years
the Black Sea has been connected to the Mediterranean basin and freshwater organisms gave place to
marine life. Relicts contribute less than 5% of current species, whereas about 85% of the current
species originate from the Mediterranean. Now there are about 700 species of phytoplankton, 150 of
zooplankton, 300 macroalgae, 1500 benthic invertebrates and about 180 fish species and three marine
mammals in the Black Sea (Vinogradov, 1958; Sorokin, 2002; Vershinin, 2003).

Past and current trends

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the Black Sea ecosystem was in a severely degraded condition, being
rated with highest concern in five out of seven environmental categories, and the worst of any of the
European seas (Stanners & Boudreau, 1995). The deterioration of this ecosystem was the result of two
main drivers: a) eutrophication caused by increase of phosphate and nitrate input from large rivers
leading to changes in the silicon/phosphorous and silicon/nitrogen balance (Nesterova & Terenko,
2009); and b) invasion by the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. This ctenophore, a competitor of
planktivorous fishes, reached very high biomass levels (>1 kg m−2) (Kideys, 2002), devastating the food
chain of the entire Black Sea basin. After the ctenophore bloom, there were sharp decreases in anchovy
catch and in the biomass of non-gelatinous zooplankton across the Black Sea which lead to a
simplification of the food web that consisted mainly of phytoplankton, gelatinous zooplankton and
ctenophores and bacteria (Figure 3.37) (Shiganova et al., 2000; Stelmakh et al., 2012; Vinogradov et
al., 1995).
Extinction of about half of the native bivalve species was brought about by the invasion of the Pacific
gastropod Rapana venosa, starting in 1947. Black Sea populations of Ostrea edulis and Flexopecten
ponticus are now on the brink of extinction (Sorokin, 2002; Vershinin, 2016; Zaitsev & Mamaev, 1997).

362
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The populations of predators such as dolphins, mackerel and tuna have declined because of pollution
and overfishing. Fishing has been refocused on the sprats Sprattus and Clupeonella, whose population
had also dramatically decreased by the early 1990s (Tokarev & Shulman, 2007).
Since the mid-1990s there have been some signs of ecosystem recovery. Western Black Sea coastal
waters improved due to reduced nutrient inputs, especially phosphorus (Kresin et al., 2008), mainly
due to the economic recession after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This led to fewer microalgal
blooms, recovery of some algal populations, increasing plankton biodiversity, decreasing opportunistic
and gelatinous species, re-appearance of some native fodder zooplankton and fish species, and
increasing edible zooplankton biomass (Ogus, 2008). After 1992, several eutrophication indices also
improved in the eastern and deep Black Sea, indicating a more widespread recovery of the Sea (Kideys,
2002). Then, the ctenophore Beroe ovata, a specialized predator of Mnemiopsis was also introduced
into Black Sea leading to a sharp decline of Mnemiopsis followed by a sharp decline of Beroe itself. The
Mnemiopsis population crash and reduction of eutrophication led to increases in non-gelatinous
zooplankton, egg densities of anchovy, as well as increases in the biomass of two native gelatinous
cnidarians (Rhizostoma pulmo and Aurelia aurita) and anchovy landings. In the early 2000s the
concentration of zooplankton returned to the level before the invasion of Mnemiopsis leidyi. In 2004
in the north-eastern part of the Sea the number of species was comparable with numbers before the
invasion of Mnemiopsis. The total number of fish roe and especially fish larvae, however, remains
below the level of the 1960s (Tishkov, 2009).
In the Azov Sea in 1950 to 1970 the construction of storage reservoirs and implementation of water
management led to a significant decrease in river inflow (Bespalova, 2016) and subsequent increase in
salinity (Kuksa, 1994). There was a migration of Black Sea species to the Azov Sea and the native
freshwater and brackish water ecosystems changed, with a decrease of commercial fish spawning in
the estuary systems. Pollution by heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, and petroleum
hydrocarbons increased, leading to the reduction of productivity (Bespalova, 2016; Kotlyakov, 2004).
Annual migration of Mnemiopsis leidyi led to a decrease in zooplankton biomass (Khrustalev et al.,
2001; Mirzoyan et al., 2002) that caused damage to the anchovy and sprat populations, resulting in
the loss of commercial catch of these species.
The first Black Sea Red Book (Dumont et al., 1999) included 160 endangered species. Of those,
sturgeons are the most endangered, along with species that inhabit shallow coastal waters such as
turbot, sharks, seals, shrimp and oysters. Several marine mammals and seabirds were also considered
to be threatened when their population size and distribution was assessed, with the potential to
become extinct in the near future (Eremeev et al., 2011). The habitats at risk include some in the water
column, lagoons, estuaries and deltas, and wetlands and saltmarshes. In a recent assessment of 63
shallow water habitat types in the Black Sea, 86% of the habitats were considered data deficient
(Gubbay et al., 2016). Excluding those, 67% of habitats were classified as threatened, including 11% as
critically endangered.
Phytoplankton and zooplankton ecological communities are currently recovering, but the communities
of higher trophic level species (benthonic species, fish) have not yet recovered. Commercial stocks of
anchovy are at a relatively high level, and stocks have recovered, but populations of the majority of
anadromous and catadromous fishes, such as sturgeons (Table 3.4) are still low and 70% of the
industrial fish catching consists of small pelagic fishes (Lukoyanov, 2013).

363
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Increased temperature of the upper mixed and the cold intermediate layers due to climate change
contributes to naturalization of thermophilic species from the Mediterranean Sea and thins the upper,
oxygen-rich layer of water in the Black Sea. Increase of temperature also causes increased evaporation
from the seawater surface and reduced inflow from rivers.
Invasions as a result of introduction from ballast water have caused profound changes in the Black Sea.
There are 156 species naturalized in this basin (Shiganova, 2000; Shiganova et al., 2000). Invasive
species from the coastal Atlantic waters of North America, belonging to eurybiont marine organisms,
have the greatest influence.
Twenty countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe discharge industrial and household
wastewaters into the Black Sea basin. Moreover, the main pressure falls on the north-west shallow
part of the Black Sea, where the main spawning grounds and habitats of algae and benthic species, are
located. Drainage of agricultural lands and increase in mineral fertilizer flows led to the eutrophication
of waters and changes in the structure of communities. Nutrients coming from the Danube river
remained significant, but stable, in recent years (EEA, 2015c). Rice agriculture has a strong impact on
Azov Sea biodiversity (water balance and pollution of seawater). Water pollution by oil and oil-
products killed marine animals in the Azov and Black Seas (Diagelets et al., 2014).
Fish stocks have deteriorated dramatically over the past three decades. The diversity of commercial
fish caught has decreased over this period from about 26 species to only six, although the volume of
fish caught has actually increased, after a near collapse in 1990. This is almost entirely due to significant
anchovy fishing by Turkey, accounting for almost 80% of the total catch. Illegal fishing is also increasing,
affecting biodiversity as well as the fishing industry (EEA, 2015c). Fishing gear is also responsible for a
decrease in non-target species. For example, dolphins are being stranded in lost or abandoned
fishnets, even inside marine protected areas (Nicolaev et al., 2013; Radu & Anton, 2014; Zaharia et al.,
2014).

364
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 3.4: Average fish catching in the Azov district in the 20th century, ton/year.

Natural regime After river regulation

Fish
1930-1940 1975-1982 1988-1989
Anadromous:
Acipenser guldenstadti 463 73 71
A. stellatus 684 17 7
Huso huso 276 15 5
Alosa caspia tanaica 1,508 97 47
Vimba vimba 233 15 11
Pelecus cultratus 3,696 475 376
Catadromous and freshwaters:
Lucioperca lucioperca 10,224 432 410
Abramis brama 20,353 912 1,960
Rutilus rutilus heckeli 770 18 11.6
Cyprinus carpio 895 2 6
Silurus glanis 1,200 2 0
Esox lucius 70 0 4
Others 2,730 2 20
Total: 43,102 2,060 3,033

3.3.4.5 Arctic Ocean

Overview of the system
The Barents, the White, the Kara, the Laptev, the East-Siberian, the Chukchi, and the Bering Seas
together form the Arctic Seas of Europe and Central Asia. The region is a part of the Arctic
biogeographic realm except some areas on its south-western and south-eastern margins which are
temperate (Spalding et al., 2007). The most distinctive feature of the region is its ice-associated
ecosystems.

Past and current trends

As the Eurasian Arctic Ocean is among the less studied marine regions of the world (Jorgensen et al.,
2016) and monitoring data are sparse, the majority of observed variations are for the Barents, the
White, the western Kara, the Bering, and the Chukchi Seas. While studies that speculate or attempt to
forecast impacts of current climate change on Arctic marine biota are numerous, documented impacts
are much more scarce (Wassman et al., 2011).
The generally observed and well documented trend of northward species’ range shifts (including
invasive species) has been defined in the western and the eastern parts of Eurasian Arctic as a
processes of “Atlantification” and “Pacification” respectively (Fossheim et al., 2015b; Jørgensen et al.,
2016a). In particular, the invasive snow crab is rapidly spreading in the eastern Barents and the Kara
Sea (Pavlov & Sundet, 2011; Zalota & Spiridonov, 2015), and other “warm-water” decapods are shifting
north-eastward from respective biogeographical borderlines drawn decades earlier (Zimina et al.,
2015). Consequences of this process could be unpredictable and different for the different ecosystems.
For example, in the Chukchi Sea more nutritious copepods with high fat content could increase; while
in the Barents Sea less nutritious boreal copepods could replace their Arctic relatives (CAFF, 2017). At
the same time there are observations showing increasing primary and secondary productivity in the
Barents Sea (Dalpadado et al., 2014).

365
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

There are also different trends in species and abundance of Arctic fish in the northern Barents Sea
(Johannesen et al., 2017). Overall there was a negative trend in the number of Arctic fish species from
2004-2015 but, while some species declined across the area, others declined only in the southern part
and increased in the north, indicating displacement, while others did not show any significant change.
There are also changes in Arctic vertebrates’ demography, abundance, distribution, phenology and
community structure related to these processes (McRae et al., 2012) (Figure 3.38). Several marine
mammal species are currently recovering from commercial exploitation (see also paragraph 3.4.3),
which could mask reductions in carrying capacity associated with habitat loss in the short-term (Laidre
et al., 2015).

There is limited evidence of a decrease in benthic species biomass and diversity with increased pelagic
grazing and recycling in the water column across the region (Kędra et al., 2015). In contrast, there are
observations showing increase in biomass and diversity of the benthic communities in the Chukhchi
Sea where Pacific species of polychaetes, crustaceans, mollusks, and bryozoans have been found in
recent years (Sirenko & Gagaev, 2007), later research conducted in this region showed that, despite
the presence of Pacific species in the area (e.g. northward shift and increased biomass of Walleye
Pollock were observed in the Bering and the Chukchi Seas; Overland & Stabeno, 2004), local benthic
communities remained relatively stable (Sirenko, 2009).
Shrinking of multi-year ice cover and related increases of open waters and shelf seas caused a major
decline in the productivity of sea-ice algae (Pabi et al., 2008; Wassman et al., 2011). Shifts in range and
seasonal movement patterns have altered predator-prey relationships, resulting e.g. in changes in diet
of sea birds (Meltofte et al., 2013). Some arctic species have to travel more and expend more energy
to find food. This can affect the condition of individuals and populations (CAFF, 2017). In the Barents
Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Bering Sea, ecosystems are transforming from mostly ice-associated to

366
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

more pelagic systems with changes in functional diversity (Wiedmann et al., 2014) and structure of
food webs (Kortsch et al., 2015).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

The primary driver of the observed biodiversity change in the Arctic marine ecosystems is ongoing
climate change, and in particular warming (Huntington et al., 2005) and the decrease of sea ice.
Current trends show that some species that are dependent on sea ice for reproduction, resting or
foraging, are experiencing a reduction in range as sea ice retreats earlier and the open water season is
prolonged (CAFF, 2017). This has been shown for many species, such as ducks breeding on the Siberian
tundra and wintering at sea, which have now shortened their migration in response to declines in
winter sea ice cover. Changes in sea ice conditions are probably also linked to changes of abundance
and health of marine mammals, such as declines in the abundance of hooded seals, reduced body
condition of Barents Sea harp seals, and changes in prey composition of bearded seals. Early sea ice
retreat also reduces suitable breeding and pup rearing habitat for ringed seals. This negatively affects
polar bears, which feed on ringed seals, as these conditions make them much more difficult to catch.
The bears are thus shifting to prey on ground-nesting seabirds nests (Prop et al., 2015), potentially
causing a decline on these bird populations.
Multi-year sea ice is disappearing and is being replaced by first-year sea ice. This is expected to cause
shifts in ice algal communities with cascading effects on the ice-associated ecosystem. Decline in ice
amphipod abundance was already seen around Svalbard since the 1980s, coinciding with declining sea
ice conditions (CAFF, 2017).
Although climate change and its effects are the major drivers of change in the Arctic (Wassman et al.,
2011), other drivers are also contributing (Box 3.3; Table 3.5). For many years both local communities
and international fleets have harvested several species of fish, seabirds and marine mammals and
some stocks of fishes, large whales and seals were reduced to a small fraction of their original
population sizes. Their current trends are, therefore, still subject to recovery from past
overexploitation, complicating the interpretation of observed trends and attribution to environmental
drivers (CAFF, 2017). Sea ice has been limiting the areas for industrial-scale fisheries until now but as
the ice retreats, there is potential for expansion of this activity into previously unfished areas. In the
Barents Sea, declines in benthic biomass have been linked to the intensity of bottom trawling and this
is likely also important in other parts of the Arctic (CAFF, 2017).
So far, there are few examples of invasive marine species becoming established in the Arctic. However,
in the Barents Sea two large non-native crab species, the snow crab and the king crab, have become
abundant and are affecting benthic communities (CAFF, 2017; Oug et al., 2011).
Finally, population sizes and trends of many migratory Arctic birds are influenced by overharvest,
disturbance, and habitat loss outside the Arctic (Meltofte et al., 2013).

3.3.4.6 North West Pacific Ocean

Overview of the system

367
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The Russian Far Eastern seas, consisting of the western part of the Bering Sea, Okhotsk Sea and
northern part of the Sea of Japan and the adjacent waters of the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3.39), have deep
basins separated from the open ocean by chains of islands: Aleutian, Kuril and Japan Islands, that
stretch from the Bering Strait to the coast of the Korean Peninsula (34° to 66° N). These are young
basins with extensive development of recent metamorphic, volcanic and seismic processes. Natural
hazards such as landslides in the coastal zone and continental slopes, earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions that can cause tsunamis are widespread. This is one of the most highly productive regions
of the global ocean with record levels of primary production equivalent to 70% of all Russian marine
biological resources (Antonov et al., 2013) and important fishing areas with valuable marine animals
and algae (Figure 3.40).

368
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In these waters, there are 37 species of marine mammals: 27 cetaceans, eight pinnipeds, the polar
bear and the sea otter (Artyukhin et al., 1999; Burdin et al., 2009; Hunt et al., 2000; Geptner et al.,
1976; Sokolov, 1986; Yablokov et al., 1972). The pelagic fishes in Russian waters of the Far Eastern seas
and the Pacific Ocean comprise about 450 species, among which 114 species are identified in the Sea
of Japan, 258 species in the Sea of Okhotsk, 170 species in the Bering Sea, and 319 species in the
Russian waters of the Pacific Ocean. The average density of pelagic fauna in this area was
calculated from about 20 years of trawl catches between 1980 and 2009, as an average of 16.8
tons/km2 and a total resource of about 70–80 million tons (Ivanov & Sukhanov, 2015) (Figure 3.40).
The Sea of Japan is one of the most diverse seas in Europe and Central Asia. A total of 33,629 species
have been reported to occur in these waters. The state of knowledge was extremely variable, with taxa
containing many inconspicuous, smaller species tending to be less well known. The total number of
species is estimated as 155,542, including 121,913 of identified but undescribed species reached
(Fujikura et al., 2010).

Past and current trends

After the dissolution of the USSR, production of commercial fish sharply decreased but since the
beginning of the 21st century fishing volume has steadily increased. In 2012 the official catch was equal
to 1.7 million tons (Antonov et al., 2013) (
Figure 3.41). The volume of poaching is unknown. From 2006 to 2012 there was significant growth in
catch, mainly of pollock, cod, herring, bluefish and lemonemy (Laemonema longipes) and the
composition of the 2012 catch can be seen in Figure 3.41 (Shevchenko & Datsky, 2014).

369
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

From 1930 through the 1970s benthic communities of the Amur Bay have changed dramatically
because of pollution: the number of polychaetes has decreased between 5-10 times, brittle stars 2-3
times, the average biomass of benthos by one third. Stocks of Gray’s mussels have diminished, and the
number and growth rate of scallops have drastically decreased. The stocks of commercial seaweeds
(Ahnfeltia) decreased – from 86.5 to 40 thousand tons from 1961 to the present time (Belan, 2003).
The number of polychaetes, tolerant to low oxygen conditions increased (Belan, 2003). Mass
mortalities of small fish have occurred (Yablokov et al., 2014).
The Okhotsk-Korean population of grey whales is one of the most vulnerable in the world. It is included
into the Red List of threatened species as "critically endangered" (IUCN, 2015) and is in the Russian
Red Book. The reason for its decline in the past was whaling, while in the present day intensive
exploitation of oil and gas deposits on the shelf near Sakhalin Island threaten destruction of the
population on its the summer-autumn feeding grounds (Adrianov, 2011). The far Eastern seas are
important for the Russian economy due to the discovery of large oil and gas reserves on the Far Eastern
shelf. However, after an agreement between NGOs and an oil company, mitigation plans for the
company exploitation where agreed and followed and the number of whales increased from about
115 animals in 2004 to 174 in 2015 (Martin-Mehers, 2016).
In the waters of the Gulf of Peter the Great 32 potentially harmful species of microalgae capable of
producing biotoxins were discovered (Adrianov & Tarasov, 2007). Recently blooms of strains of
microalgae that are highly pathogenic and highly virulent have appeared and accumulations of
dangerous microorganisms in filter-feeding organisms may lead to a threat to human health (Adrianov
& Tarasov, 2007) (Figure 3.42).

370
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

312 invasive species were found in Peter the Great Bay, including 104 southern migrants, most of them
were transported in ballast waters. In the last 12 years 19 new tropical and subtropical species were
detected (Adrianov, 2011). The expansion to the north of not only individual species, but entire
complexes of the southern biota is one of the consequences of climate change (IPCC, 2014b).

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Fisherу is the main pressure on the North West Pacific Ocean’s biological diversity. The total catch
every year reaches several million tons of fish and invertebrates. Before 1990, the Soviet Union
provided more than half of the world’s total catch of pollock (about 2.5 million tons) (FAO, 2011).
Excessive fishing of species such as crab, cod, pollock and others, and the by-catch of non-target fish
lead to the loss of fishing activities, e.g. the loss of Far Eastern crab fisheries (Adrianov, 2011).
A fast reduction of sea ice (4% of the sea area per decade) was recorded in the Okhotsk Sea in the
period of 1957-2012 (Roshydromet, 2014). Thirty-three years of observations (1979-2011) showed
that the air temperature above the water surface in the Sea of Japan had increased by 0.27° C. In the
last 50 years the average temperature of surface waters in the Peter the Great Bay have increased by
nearly 0.6° C and the amount of precipitation in the Far Eastern Seas has decreased (Roshydromet,
2014). This creates favourable conditions for invasive species (Adrianov, 2011). An assessment
performed by PICES (The North Pacific Marine Science Organization) (Kestrup et al., 2015) found 208
NIS (Non-indigenous Aquatic Species) for the North West Pacific, introduced mostly by ballast water,
hull fouling, the aquatic animal and plant trade or aquaculture.
Areas of the North West Pacific are impacted by pollution by oil products from oil and gas extraction
on the shelf. Draining of fuel in ports and along the transportation routes, and dumping of
decommissioned ships in the coastal zones is a very significant source of pollution in these waters.
Their effects on marine biota are severe, including oil films on the surface poisoning birds and other
animals, and disrupting photosynthesis and oxygen exchange with the atmosphere (Yablokov et al.,
2014).
Excessive run-off of nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous) from land causes eutrophication leading to
hypoxia and the degradation of water ecosystems (Yablokov et al., 2014). Also, marine farming of fish
and invertebrates harms the ecosystems at the local level degrading habitats and increasing pollution

371
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

from organic waste, leading to the deterioration of water quality and a drop in farm productivity. The
area affected by pollution can be tens of times greater than the area of the farm (Vyaznikova, 2014).

3.3.4.7 Deep-sea in Europe and Central Asia

Overview of the system
The deep-sea is usually defined as those parts of the ocean deeper than 200m (Gage & Tyler, 1991)
beyond the edge of the continental shelf. It is the largest biome on earth, covering approximately 60%
of the Earth’s solid surface. In the Europe and Central Asia region, the deep-sea covers an area greater
than 15 million km2, encompassing 8 pelagic and 37 benthic biogeographic provinces (UNESCO, 2009)
and 11 hydrothermal vent provinces (Rogers et al., 2012). Due to its limited accessibility, it is the least
understood, yet one of the richest ecosystems on the planet supporting a high diversity of habitats
(e.g. deep-sea pelagic habitats, continental slopes, abyssal soft sediments plains, seamounts, mid
ocean ridges, deep-sea canyons and trenches, and smaller habitats such as hydrothermal vents, cold
seeps, or cold water coral reefs) and species, as well as a set of supporting and regulating functions
and services (Thurber et al., 2014).

Past and current trends

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recognized more than 10 years ago that enormous deep-sea
species richness remains undiscovered (MEA, 2005), and this is still true today (Mengerink et al., 2014).
While there is a solid understanding of biodiversity changes in many coastal ecosystems, trends in the
deep sea are poorly described (MEA, 2005), and even basic ecological information (e.g., species ranges,
population subdivision, population genetic diversity, dispersal capability and demographic
parameters) is lacking for the vast majority of species (Taylor & Roterman, 2017).
However, changes in biodiversity and abundance have been reported as a result of deep-sea fishing
activities, oil spills, climate change, and other activities (Koslow et al., 2016). Also declines in cold-
water coral and deep-sea sponge abundance and community structure have been widely reported,
including off Norway, in the Barents Sea, the Azores, and other regions (Clark et al., 2016; Pham et al.,
2014a).
Recent changes in climate (5-16 years) in the deep-sea changed benthic species diversity, abundance
and faunal composition (Glover et al., 2010). This biodiversity loss in deep-sea ecosystems has been
shown to produce exponential reductions of ecosystem functions (Danovaro et al., 2008) (see Section
3.2).
Although trends are based on a very limited portion of the deep-sea (Koslow et al., 2016), they indicate
increased habitat degradation, and declines in biodiversity, abundance and probably ecosystem
functioning (Baldrighi et al., 2017). This may also mean that the achievement of important Aichi
Biodiversity Targets may be compromized. Targets 5, 6 and 10 under the Strategic Goal B of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and Target 11 under Strategic Goal C may require additional
attention and management measures in this context. This may include more effective fisheries
management, and an increase of protected areas in the deep-sea and other area-based conservation
measures.

Attribution of biodiversity trends to direct drivers

Although humans utilized the oceans for millennia, only recently, through technological developments,
deep-sea exploitation has begun. The past century has seen a significant increase in human activities
that directly affect deep-sea ecosystems, including fishing, waste disposal, oil and gas extraction and

372
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

bio-prospecting (Morato et al., 2006; Pham et al., 2014b; Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2011; Sandrea &
Sandrea, 2010; Synnes, 2007). Added to these pressures are indirect effects caused by global climate
change (Ramirez-Llodra et al., 2011).
Bottom fishing has been the major driver of past ecosystem changes in the deep-sea (Clark et al.,
2016). It has modified seafloor morphology and its physical properties (Puig et al., 2012), produced
overfishing of many stocks, and produced extensive damage to benthic communities, many of them of
Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) (Clark et al., 2016; Hall–Spencer et al., 2002; Pham et al., 2014a).
Global landings of marine deeper water species have increased over the last 50 years (Morato et al.,
2006; Watson & Morato, 2013). Many of these fisheries have been overfished or depleted (reviewed
in Norse et al., 2012). Bailey et al. (2009) and Godbold et al. (2013) analysed scientific trawl data from
1977 to 2002 in the Porcupine region of the North East Atlantic deep sea and found a significant
decrease of 36% in fish biomass in fished depths and considerably deeper.
Decline in deep-sea benthic invertebrate diversity (reviewed by Clark et al., 2016) has been observed
as a consequence of deep-sea fishing in the Barents Sea, and other regions.
Although evidence has been found from the geological record that past climate change has impacted
deep-sea faunas, the evidence that recent climate change or climate variability has altered deep-sea
benthic communities is still limited (Glover et al., 2010). This mainly reflects the lack of observations
and monitoring of this vast seafloor habitat.
Additionally, new industrial activities in the deep-sea are emerging, including the extraction of gas
hydrates, carbon sequestration, and mining. Future deep-sea mining (Petersen et al., 2016) has the
potential to disturb hundreds of thousands of km2 of seabed and pelagic environment, with uncertain
consequences (Levin et al., 2016). The recent discovery of microplastics in deep-sea sediments
suggests that this emergent form of pollution is more far reaching than previously anticipated (Van
Cauwenberghe et al., 2013).

3.3.4.8 Progress towards goals of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and Sustainable Development Goal 14, target 14.5
Subtarget “At least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas are conserved (in marine protected
areas)”
The definition of marine protected area varies significantly (e.g. Costello & Ballantine, 2015), which
causes divergence in the numbers presented as percentage of marine protected area coverage both
globally and regionally. In Europe and Central Asia, the coverage of marine protected areas was
calculated as 4% of its marine area (within the “exclusive economic zone” of 200 nautical miles) by
Brooks et al. (2016) and as 5,3% calculated by the present assessment with 2017 numbers from the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2017).
Within Europe and Central Asia, significant differences occur in terms of coverage both between the
different regional seas and the coverage of coastal waters and off-shore, within the exclusive economic
zone of coastal states. Marine protected area networks cover more than 5.9% of the European Union
marine area but only about 3% of Russian Federation marine waters. On the other hand, in European
Union countries more than 16% of coastal marine areas are now have some form of protection but,
beyond 12 nautical miles from the shore, an area representing 80% of the European Union's total sea
area, only 3% are protected.
In the framework of regional agreements such as OSPAR (see below), HELCOM (see below), the
Bucharest and Barcelona Conventions, and the Arctic Council there have been significant advances

373
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

regarding the area covered by marine protected areas, including in “areas beyond national
jurisdiction”, and the integration of these marine protected areas in regional networks.
The OSPAR network comprises 448 marine protected areas, covering 5.9% of the OSPAR maritime area,
including 16,7% of its coastal waters; 2,3% of the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of OSPAR countries;
and seven marine protected area situated in areas beyond national jurisdiction covering 8.9% of this
OSPAR area (OSPAR, 2017a). Marine protected area coverage also varies geographically, covering
14.7% of the Greater North Sea but only 1.9% of the Arctic OSPAR area.
The HELCOM marine protected area network from the Baltic Sea was the first in the world, already in
2010, to reach the target of conserving at least 10 % of coastal and marine areas. But although today
this network covers 11,8 % of the Baltic Sea, protection is not evenly distributed between sub-basins
or between coasts and open sea, and the aim remains to reach the 10% target in all offshore sub-basins
(HELCOM, 2017e).
In the Mediterranean 1,231 marine protected areas and “other effective area-based conservation
measures” now cover 7.14 % of the Sea area, through a large variety of conservation designations, but
with the “no-go”, “no-take” or “no-fishing” zones accounting only for 0.04% (MedPAN and RAC/SPA,
2016). Coverage is very uneven in geographic terms: over 72.77% of the surface covered is located in
the western Mediterranean. Designations cover 9.79% of European Union waters mostly due to the
Natura 2000 at sea network. To reach the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of 10% of marine areas
protected, an additional 71,900 km2 (2.86 % of the Mediterranean) will have to be designated. To also
fulfill the representivity goal, these new designations should target currently under-represented
features and subregions (MedPAN and RAC/SPA, 2016).
The extent of protected areas in the Arctic’s marine environment has almost quadrupled since 1980
and represents today 4.7% of the Arctic marine area (CAFF, 2017). The marine protected area is
dominated by several very large areas and some parts of the Arctic marine ecosystem are still poorly
protected. In 2013, the Arctic Council adopted a resolution to identify “Areas of heightened ecological
and cultural significance” similar to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s “ecologically and
biologically significant areas” criteria. Through this process, 98 areas were identified covering about
76% of the Arctic marine area. These areas were identified primarily on the basis of their ecological
importance for fish, birds or marine mammals (CAFF, 2017). Approximately 5% of “areas of heightened
ecological importance” lie within the present protected areas.
An effort to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of 10% has led to a significant increase in number
and extent of marine protected areas of different kinds in Europe and Central Asia in recent years (e.g.
in OSPAR it went from 159 in 2010 to 448 in 2016 and from 1,06% of the areas in 2010 to 5,9 in 2016
(OSPAR, 2017a) and in the Mediterranean 397 new marine protected areas were designated between
2012 and 2016). The general trend in marine protected area designation is therefore very positive. In
2017, 15 coastal nations have already more than 10% of their marine waters protected (CBD, 2017).
Global conservation targets based on area alone will, however, not optimize protection of marine
biodiversity, and the emphasis should be on better marine protected area design, adequate
management and compliance to ensure that they achieve their desired conservation value. Edgar et
al. (2014) showed that the conservation benefits of marine protected area increased significantly with
the accumulation of five key features: no fishing allowed, well enforced, old (>10 years),
large (>100km2), and isolated by deep water or sand. These were also shown to be key features
in the Mediterranean (Giakoumi et al., 2017), although here some small but well managed marine
protected area were also effective in conservation.

374
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Subtarget “Protected areas are ecologically representative and well connected and include areas of
particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services conserved”
Since there is so much difference between coverage of marine protected area in open seas and in
coastal waters, ecological representativeness is still not achieved in Europe and Central Asia. In OSPAR
progress was made in recent years towards an ecologically coherent and well-managed network, but
further work is required to achieve this goal (OSPAR, 2017a). This network is well distributed in the
Greater North and Celtic Seas, but substantial gaps remain in Arctic Waters and the wider Atlantic
Ocean. Also 19 of the 54 OSPAR listed features (i.e. species or habitats) are already protected by more
than one marine protected area in those parts of the North East Atlantic where they are considered to
be at risk. This includes all five listed invertebrates, three of the seven bird species, one of the two
reptile species, one of the three marine mammal species, five of the 22 fish species and four of the 15
types of habitat.
The HELCOM assessment of ecological coherence (HELCOM, 2016) showed that the areal
representation of different types of broad-scale habitats and the replication of a set of indicative
species and biotope were at an acceptable level for supporting a coherent marine protected area
network. However, connectivity, which measures how well the network supports the migration and
dispersal of species, is not yet optimal.

Subtarget “Protected areas are effectively and equitably managed”

For many of the marine protected areas in waters of Europe and Central Asia, management plans
either do not exist; or knowledge on the implementation of protective measures or the effectiveness
of these measures to reach the sites’ conservation targets is insufficient (MedPAN and RAC/SPA, 2016).
Only a small percentage is known to have reached or to be moving towards the objectives they were
set up to attain. The resources needed to adequately implement the existing regulations and to
manage pressures inside and outside of marine protected areas are still very often not in place.
Information on management is available for 61% of OSPAR marine protected areas, with a further 16%
partially documented. But management measures have been implemented for only 12% of OSPAR
marine protected areas, with partial action for a further 54%. The situation is similar for monitoring,
implemented only for about 14% of these marine protected areas (OSPAR, 2017a). So only 11% of
OSPAR marine protected areas were found to be moving towards or have achieved their conservation
objectives.
Implementation of management actions for OSPAR marine protected areas in “areas beyond national
jurisdiction” have started by OSPAR member countries, but successful management requires
cooperation with international organisations with competence for the management of human
activities, such as fishing, shipping and deep-sea mining. A mechanism to help cooperation between
the relevant organisations has been started between OSPAR and the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries
Commission, referred to as “the collective arrangement” (OSPAR, 2017a). On-going negotiations
within the United Nations on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in
areas beyond national jurisdiction (so called “BBNJ process”) is expected to result in a new
implementing agreement under the United Nations Law of the Sea that will finally allow marine
protected areas in “areas beyond national jurisdiction” to be adequately managed.
HELCOM is now working towards the development of a method to assess the management
effectiveness of HELCOM marine protected areas and of the network. Such an assessment will
determine the environmental positive effects of the marine protected area management (HELCOM,
2017e).

375
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Many sites of the current system of marine protected area and “other effective area-based
conservation measures” in the Mediterranean Sea do not have regulations in place to curb existing
pressures or enough means to enforce them. Information about management measures and their
effectiveness in maintaining or restoring biodiversity is also lacking. Resources allocated to
management are not sufficient for the requirements, thereby compromising successful conservation
(MedPAN and RAC/SPA, 2016).

European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Progress towards the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive goals
The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive, approved in 2008, has as its main objective
to achieve good environmental status in all waters of the European Union by 2020 (EEA, 2015c). This
status is described through 11 descriptors including: biodiversity, non-indigenous species,
commercially exploited fish, food-webs, eutrophication, sea-floor integrity, hydrographical conditions;
contaminants in the environment, contaminants in seafood, marine litter, and energy, all relevant for
determining the status of marine biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. The Directive aims to
maintain or restore biodiversity and to attain a marine environment that is healthy, clean, and
productive in all the European Union Seas and Ocean areas, and those it shares with its neighbors. Its
implementation should also make significant contributions to achieving the goals of the European
Union Biodiversity Strategy for the marine environment.
The first assessment of Europe's seas at European Union-wide scale (EEA, 2015c) used data from the
first Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Habitats Directive’s reporting completed in 2012 and
other sources. 80% of the species and habitats assessments under the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive were categorized as “unknown” status, but a more complete picture is available for the
marine habitats and species protected by the Habitats Directive. Even among assessments of the
conservation status of species and habitat types of conservation interest, only 7% of marine species
and 9% of marine habitat types show a “favourable conservation status”. Moreover 27% of species
and 66% of assessments of habitat types show an “unfavourable conservation status” and the
remainder are categorized as “unknown”. Additionally, 58% of the assessed commercial stocks did not
have “good environmental status”, while the status of 40% of commercial fish stocks was not assessed
due to lack of data.
There are many “unknowns” when it comes to European Union member State reporting and in
commercial fish stock statistics data from mandatory reporting. This highlights the difficulty associated
with obtaining data to assess the health status of even the seas that are under European Union
responsibility, where relatively rich information exists. However, by comparing information available
from European, regional, and national sources, a common pattern of change can be seen: ecological
extinctions are being observed across species belonging to different functional groups including
species such as monk seals in the Black Sea, bluefin tuna in the eastern North Sea, sharks in the
Mediterranean Sea and North East Atlantic Ocean and habitat-forming species like oysters in the North
Sea and sea grasses in the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas. Even if there are a few examples of species
where the declining trends appear to be halted, such as for bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in certain
areas (EEA, 2015c), patterns of degradation are observed across all of the ecosystem components, and
across all of the information sources considered. The observed loss of biodiversity affects ecosystem
functioning and may cause irreversible loss of ecosystem resilience, putting in jeopardy ecosystem
health. Based on different assessments considered the European Union’s marine ecosystems could
therefore not be considered to be in a healthy state, as would be the objective of the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive.

376
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The European Environment Agency (2015e) considered in addition that European Union marine areas
could also not be considered clean, even though some improvements in eutrophication are already
visible, for example in the Black and Baltic Seas. It stated, however, that they could be considered
productive, thus fulfilling one of the three main goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
Even if this Directive is only valid in the European Union , member States are required to use existing
regional cooperation structures to co-ordinate among themselves and to make every effort to
coordinate their actions with those of third countries in the same region or subregion. This cooperation
has been taking place through OSPAR, HELCOM, the Barcelona and Bucharest Conventions for more
than 30 years, and is also done in the framework of the Arctic Council.
Box 3.1: Summary of past and current trends in biodiversity and ecosystems and their attribution to
direct drivers of change.

The table and figure of this box summarize past and current trends in biodiversity and ecosystems for
terrestrial and inland surface water units of analysis and marine areas in Europe and Central Asia and
the attribution of these trends to direct drivers of change. Table 3.5 presents the assessed information
in terms of trends in areal extent and biodiversity status. Biodiversity status summarizes the
biodiversity information assessed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. Figure 3.43 summarizes the trend
information on biodiversity status.
Table 3.5: Summary of past and current trends in biodiversity and ecosystems in terms of spatial
extent and biodiversity status for terrestrial and inland surface water units of analysis and in terms
of biodiversity status for marine systems, and summary of the attribution of these trends to direct
drivers of change. ECA=Europe and Central Asia, WE=Western Europe, CE=Central Europe, EE=
Eastern Europe, CA=Central Asia. ↑/↓ denote strong and consistent increase/decrease in the
indicator; ↗/↘ denote moderate and consistent increase/decrease in the indicator; ↔ stable
indicator; ↕ variable trend in the indicator.

377
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

378
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

379
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 3.3

380
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.4 Past and current trends by taxonomic group

3.4.1 Introduction
Europe and Central Asia hosts more than 10% of the world’s vascular plant species, and about 25% of
animal and plant groups comprehensively assessed by IUCN are unique to this region. Between 20 and
120 species have gone extinct regionally and an additional 44 to 67 have gone extinct globally since
the 1500s 25 (data summarized from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Species Information
System, March 2017). These numbers are an under-estimation considering that only about 86,000
species have been assessed by the IUCN, less than 4% of species of plants and animals described today
(estimated to be 2.3 millions according to Jenkins et al. (2013). In addition to the extinctions recorded
at large scale, numerous extinction events were recorded at the country level. The following statistics
are based on a subset of taxonomic group that has been comprehensively assessed 26. A high risk of
extinction faces 13.0% of species occurring in Europe and Central Asia in these selected groups and for
which data is available (94% of the 2,493 species in these taxonomic groups). 13.5% of the species in
the region are endemic, and 27.9% of these species are threatened. The Central and Western European
subregions hold the highest percentages of species threatened (13.3%) and endemic (10.6%), and the
highest percentage of endemics threatened (35.1%), with these percentages primarily driven by the
many threatened endemic species in the Mediterranean hotspot and the Macaronesian Islands (Figure
3.44).

25 The lower value are the documented number of extinctions, the upper value is obtained by including also all species
classified by IUCN as possibly extinct.
26 Mammals, birds, chameleons, amphibians, sharks and rays, selected bony fish groups (angelfishes and butterflyfishes,

tarpons and ladyfishes, parrotfishes and surgeonfishes, groupers, wrasses, tunas and billfishes, hagfishes, sturgeon, blennies,
pufferfishes, seabreams, porgies, picarels), freshwater caridean shrimps, cone snails, freshwater crabs, freshwater crayfish,
lobsters, reef-building corals, conifers, seagrasses, and plant species occurring in mangrove ecosystems. Species assessed by
IUCN in other taxonomic groups may not be a random sample, but likely a subset of species deemed at higher risk of
extinction, therefore extrapolating their extinction risk to all species may bias the percentage of species endangered.

381
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Eastern Europe and Central Asia have lower percentages of species threatened (<10%) and endemic
(<5%), and a smaller proportion of endemics threatened (<10%). For mammals, birds, and amphibians,
global assessments of extinction risk against the Red List Categories and Criteria have been undertaken
multiple times over the last three decades to derive Red List Indices as indicators of the rate at which
species groups are sliding towards extinction, and these can be combined with species distribution
data to produce geographically downscaled Red List Indices (i.e., regional contributions towards the
global Red List Index; Rodrigues et al. 2014). Specifically, changes in aggregate extinction risk of all
regions’ and subregions’ species can be calculated, showing how adequately species are conserved
relative to their potential contribution to global species conservation. The contribution to increasing
global extinction risk varies among the subregions, with Central and Western Europe contributing the
most, followed by Central Asia and Eastern Europe (Figure 3.45).

382
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Below we discuss status and trends for most major taxonomic groups. These trends and their
attribution to different direct drivers are summarized in Table 3.11. Insufficient data were available to
assess status and trends of marine species except for mammals, birds and fishes. Status and trends in
community composition and biomass stocks of marine plankton are dealt with in the marine units of
analyses section, whereas the lack of status and trends of other taxonomic groups, including non-
planktonic marine invertebrates, algae and protozoans, are discussed in the knowledge gaps section.

3.4.2 Birds
Status and trends
There are an estimated 887 extant bird species in Europe and Central Asia, 25 endemic (BirdLife
International, 2016), and 71 threatened with extinction (categories vulnerable, endangered and
critically endangered; BirdLife International, 2016). Analysis of changes of categories in the IUCN Red
List between 1988 and 2008 suggests that Eastern Europe was the subregion with the greatest declines
(the most changes towards higher threat categories), and Central Asia was the subregion with the
smallest declines (Brooks et al., 2016). No species within the region has gone extinct since 1980, but
three species are possibly extinct or nearing extinction in the Western, Central and Eastern European
subregions (BirdLife International, 2016).
Areas of high bird richness include Russia, Turkey, the Mediterranean, Israel, the Black Sea and the
Caucasus (BirdLife International, 2015, 2016; Figure 3.46 A). The highest rates of endemism, and
highest numbers of threatened species (Jenkins et al. 2013; BirdLife International, 2016; Figure 3.46 B)
are found in the Mediterranean and Macaronesian islands, as well as the Caucasus (BirdLife
International, 2015, 2016), and Central Asia.

383
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

384
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

There is strong evidence for a moderate overall decline of bird populations in the region (BirdLife
International, 2017). A recent report (BirdLife International, 2015) shows that out of the 533 species
breeding in the EU-27 countries, 153 have declined since 2001, while 136 show a long-term decline
(since 1980, Table 3.6). Most of the large-scale, long-term research studies (Gregory et al., 2007;
Jørgensen et al., 2016b; Reif et al., 2008; Vickery et al., 2014) as well as many smaller studies (e.g.
Vilkov 2013) also report declines in either species richness or populations. However, different species
groups and regions exhibit different trends, and knowledge gaps exist. Notably, population sizes are
unknown for many species, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (BirdLife International,
2017).
Table 3.6: Long-term and recent trends of bird species breeding in EU-27 countries (EEA, 2015a).
Short-term covers the time period 2001-2012, and long-term the period 1980-2012. The total
number of species is 456.

Trend Long-term Short-term

Declining 136 153
Increasing 150 133
Stable 49 96
Fluctuating 6 12
Uncertain 55 23
Unknown 79 58

A large proportion of species in decline are associated with marine habitats (BirdLife International,
2015). Terrestrial species show contrasting trends among functional groups. Decline is strongest for

385
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

migratory birds (BirdLife International, 2008; Vickery et al. 2014) and habitat specialists (Le Viol et al.,
2012). The latter, coinciding with an increased frequency of generalist species, leads to a decrease in
functional diversity. This trend, often referred to as “biotic homogenization”, is maybe the typical
change in terrestrial avian communities across groups and locations (Le Viol et al., 2012).
Genetic diversity is often studied at the population level (Eeva et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2013) and no clear
large-scale trend patterns have been detected as this is still a young field of exploration. Possible
threats to avian genetic diversity include habitat fragmentation, hybridization with feral (Randi, 2008)
or introduced or invasive species (Muñoz-Fuentes et al., 2007).

Drivers of change
Exploitation (hunting, poaching, and bycatch from fisheries) was found to be the largest threat to
vulnerable or endangered species by the IUCN (BirdLife International, 2015). Although the exact
numbers of birds killed are difficult to evaluate due to lack of data, the order of magnitude in the entire
Mediterranean region is several millions of birds killed each year (Arizaga & Laso, 2015; Brochet et al.,
2016; Casas et al., 2009; Sokos et al., 2013), while hunting and poaching seem also to be significant in
Central Asia (BirdLife International, 2016; Chemonics International, 2001a).
Land and water use is an important driver as it affects multiple species at once. As such it is often
reported both in scientific literature and indigenous and local knowledge sources (Roué and Molnár
2016). Overall, decreases in the extent of specific habitats and urban expansion contribute to biotic
homogenization (Le Viol et al., 2012; McKinney, 2006). Recent agricultural changes have had a
dramatic effect on bird diversity (Donald et al. 2001, also see section on Agricultural areas). Amongst
forest birds, several changes have been documented, mostly showing a decrease in old forest
specialists, deciduous forest specialists, and cavity-nesters. All these changes can be related to the
intensification of forestry practices, which often entail dense monocultures that are harvested before
structural elements can benefit many bird species (Gil-Tena et al., 2007; Lõhmus et al., 2016; Sirkiä et
al., 2010; Smith et al., 2008). However, no large-scale consensus on land use related trends in forest
birds seems to exist (Gregory et al., 2007; Ram et al., 2017).
There is clear evidence that bird communities are locally affected by pollution from industrial activities
(Eeva et al., 2012) or pesticide use in agricultural fields, directly (Wegner et al., 2005) or indirectly
(Hallmann et al., 2014). Light pollution in urban environments has been shown to affect the timing of
reproductive events (Dominoni & Partecke, 2015), but there is not yet any clear evidence of an impact
on abundance or community composition.
Invasive alien species and invasive native species (e.g. rats, domestic cats), have been shown to
threaten the reproductive success of many birds, particularly colonial seabirds (BirdLife International,
2015), and have been linked with declines of some species (e.g. Skorka et al., 2010).
Climate-driven community changes and range expansions or contractions have been reported in many
studies (Estrada et al., 2016), and both scientific studies and reports from indigenous herders suggest
that local bird declines have been caused by climate change (Roué & Molnár, 2017; Vilkov, 2013).
However, evidence of direct impacts of climate change on population decline remains weak.
Other important drivers include direct mortality caused by power lines and wind turbines, although
the consequences of population decline are only documented for a few, rare species (BirdLife
International, 2015).
In many cases, it is the combination of drivers that put bird species at risk. Seabirds, for instance, have
declined strongly due to a multiplicity of threats. Conservation efforts reducing multiple pressures (e.g.

386
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the European Union habitat directive, national legislations) have been shown to have positive effects
on bird populations (Gamero, 2016).

3.4.3 Mammals
Status and trends
There are 538 species of mammals in the IUCN database that are extant in the region. Of these, 66 are
threatened with extinction (categories vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered). Their
number could be up to 124 (23% of the total) if all data deficient species where found to be vulnerable
or worse (IUCN, 2016). Globally, the net annual change in IUCN extinction risk categories for mammals
from 1996 to 2008 has been -13, meaning that, on average, 13 species moved one category closer to
extinction (Brooks et al., 2016). The Europe and Central Asia contribution to the global trend is -0.47,
which is equivalent to having one species endemic to the region moving one category closer to
extinction every two years (Brooks et al., 2016).
A notable decline in Europe and Central Asia in recent decades is that of the Saiga tatarica, an antelope
inhabiting the steppes and semi-desert regions in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Western
Mongolia, which deteriorated from vulnerable in 1996 to critically endangered in 2008. This followed
a greater than 95% decline in population size from approximately one million in the early 1990s to an
estimated 50,000 by 2008, primarily owing to poaching. An epidemic of pasteurellosis in 2015 caused
a further population collapse by 50% in two weeks, with an estimated mortality of >70% (Milner-
Gulland & Singh, 2016).
However, species that have received conservation attention are generally improving their
conservation status. There are 87 mammal species in the Annex II, IV and V of the European Union
Habitat Directive. European Union member States are required to take steps towards their
conservation report on the conservation status of these species every six years. Species in these
annexes generally improved their conservation status between 2006 and 2012 relative to the previous
six years (Table 3.7). Mammal species had more populations with stable or genuinely improved
conservation status than otherwise in all biogeographic areas in the European Union except Boreal,
and Marine Mediterranean (EEA, 2015a).
Table 3.7: Number of mammal species in each biogeographic area of European Union countries
whose conservation status was stable, or genuinely improved or worsened between the 2001-2006
assessment period and the 2007-2012 period. Total indicates the total number of species or
biogeographic region assessments of mammals in the European Union and include also assessments
with non-genuine changes (e.g. because of taxonomic revisions or improved knowledge), or
unknown or unreported trends. The biogeographic areas are Alpine (ALP); Atlantic (ATL); Boreal
(BOR); Continental (CON); Macaronesian (MAC); Mediterranean (MED); Pannonian (PAN); Marine
Atlantic (MATL); Marine Baltic (MBAL); Marine Mediterranean (MMED). No genuine changes were
recorded for the Macaronesian and Marine Macaronesian regions and are not reported here. Species
of the Black Sea and Steppic region were only assessed in 2012 and are excluded here. Species with
non-genuine changes in assessment, are not reported here.

ALP ATL BOR CON MAC MED PAN MATL MBAL MMED
Stable 9 11 3 27 3 11 13 3 2 1
Improved 8 17 1 15 3 5 1 2 3 0
Worsened 14 15 5 22 1 5 13 1 1 1

387
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Total 364 213 111 416 14 222 119 156 22 75

Remarkable recoveries due to conservation efforts include the one of the European bison, Bison
bonasus, which was extinct in the wild after World War I and reduced to a captive population of 54
animals. Conservation efforts started in 1929 with a captive breeding programme followed by
reintroductions in Białowieża National Park in Poland; Russia and several other locations in Europe.
Today there are more than 2,700 wild bison, in several populations, mostly stable or increasing in
numbers. Other remarkable recoveries are that of the European beaver (Castor fiber), the European
hamster (Cricetus cricetus) (EEA, 2015a) and large terrestrial carnivores (Chapron et al., 2014). Among
the latter group, are once critically endangered large felids such as the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus)
whose population tripled from 2002 (52 mature individuals) to 2012 (156), the Amur tiger (Panthera
tigris altaica), from 20-30 animals in the 1930s to 500 and stable in 2016, and the Amur leopard
(Panthera pardus orientalis), whose population has doubled since 2000. Among marine mammals, the
Baltic seal (Pusa hispida ssp. botnica) rebounded from 3,000 individuals in the 1970s affected by
hunting pressure and impaired fertility due to organochlorine pollution, to over 25,000 today thanks
to hunting regulations afforded by the European Union and national legislations, habitat protection
and improved water quality (Härkönen, 2015).

Drivers of change
National and international legislation affording legal protection and law enforcement are the main
drivers of large carnivore recoveries in Western and Central Europe (Chapron et al., 2014). Habitat
protection and law-enforcement by government and non-government agencies are the main drivers
in Eastern Europe (Government of the Russian Federation, 2015).
The main threats to terrestrial mammal species in the region are land-use change (including changes
to intense cropland and pastures, logging, and extractive activities), affecting 186 species; followed by
hunting and trapping, affecting 123 species; and invasive species, affecting 73 species; it should be
noted that these threats are not mutually exclusive (Joppa et al., 2016). Nearly all marine mammals
are impacted by persistent organic pollutants, especially polychrorinated byphenils (PCBs), despite
being banned by the Stockholm Convention in 2004, their concentrations in sediments and in the
marine food-chains have remained high, due to low compliance to the Convention requirements of
safe storage and elimination of PCB stockpile and limited decontamination of sediments, landfills,
building and equipment (Stuart-Smith & Jepson, 2017). As a result, high PCB concentrations in
European cetaceans from 1990 to 2012 were associated with long-term population declines and low
or zero rates of reproduction, consistent with severe PCB-induced population-level effect (Jepson et
al., 2016). Climate change is an emergent threat for mammals that is potentially overlooked in the
region (Pacifici et al., 2015 Table 3.11).

3.4.4 Reptiles
Status and trends
Reptile species richness across the region follows a latitudinal gradient. It is highest in southern Turkey
and along the eastern Mediterranean coast to Israel, with further hotspots in parts of the Iberian
peninsula and southern France, the Balkans, southern Transcaucasia, the southern deserts of Central
Asia and southern and far east Russia (Figure 3.47, Sillero et al., 2014; Roll et al., 2017). At the
subregional level, species richness is highest across Western Europe, with 213 species recorded and
212 assessed (Table 3.8). This is due to the subregion combining separate faunas: the Macaronesian

388
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

fauna of Portugal and Spain, the western Mediterranean fauna and the fauna of the eastern
Mediterranean of Israel.
Species richness of small-range endemics is highest in the Caucasus, southern Balkan Peninsula, central
and southern Iberian Peninsula, southern Turkey, and southern Central Asia. There are also a number
of important refugia, i.e. places supporting a relict population of a previously more widespread species.
These are both mesophyllic (Caucasian Black Sea coast of Russia, Georgia, Turkey & Southeast
Azerbaijan & southern Far East Russia; Tuniyev, 1990, 1997) and xerophyllic (Spain, Portugal, Italy,
Greece, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia and Central Asia; Tuniyev, 1995).
Areas of high diversity at the level of genera and families are: the Balkan Peninsula for turtles; south
Turkey and Kopet Dag for skinks; Central Asia for agamas; south Mediterranean and southern Central
Asia for geckos; the Caucasus, southern Balkan Peninsula and Iberian Peninsula, Mediterranean and
Aegean Sea islands for lacertids; southern Central Asia for boas; and the Caucasus and north-east
Turkey for vipers.
In this assessment we compiled a dataset of all 408 extant species of reptiles occurring in Europe and
Central Asia from the Reptile Database (Uetz, 2017) and IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN,
2017c). Of these, 289 have published assessments of extinction risk on the IUCN Red List. Sixty-three
species are assessed as threatened with extinction (categories vulnerable, endangered and critically
endangered; Table 3.8). Thus between 21.7% (assuming that no data deficient species are threatened
with extinction) and 26.6% (assuming that all data deficient species are threatened with extinction) of
species within the region are threatened with extinction. Best estimates of extinction threat generally
assume that data deficient species fall into non-data deficient categories in the same proportions as
non-data deficient species (IUCN, 2017a), indicating here that about 22.8% of reptile species in Europe
and Central Asia are threatened with extinction. This level of threat is similar to the one of reptiles
globally (18.8% - Böhm et al., 2013) and across Europe (Western, Central and Eastern Europe, including
the Russian Federation up to the Urals and excluding the Caucasus) (19.7% - Cox & Temple, 2009;
χ2=2.31, df=2, p=0.315). However, recent studies suggest that globally data deficient reptiles are
neither widespread nor common, suggesting there may be an underestimation of extinction risk (Meiri
et al., 2018).

389
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 3.8: Global IUCN Red List status of reptiles occurring within the Europe and Central Asia
assessment region, for species with a published assessment (Total = 289). N is the number of species
recorded in the assessment region. IUCN categories: DD: data deficient; LC: least concern; NT: near
threatened; VU: vulnerable; EN: endangered; CR: critically endangered. Source: IUCN (2017c).

Group DD LC NT VU EN CR Total N % threatened % lower bound % upper bound

Reptiles 14 186 26 21 25 17 1 289 408 22.9 21.8 26.6

Lizards 6 120 17 13 16 12 1 184 246 23.0 22.3 25.5
Snakes 7 63 7 4 7 4 92 141 17.7 16.3 24.0
Amphisbaenians 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 5 - - -
Turtles/tortoises 1 1 2 4 2 1 11 16 70.0 63.6 72.7
By region
Western Europe 3 105 18 11 14 9 1 160 212 21.7 21.3 23.1
Central Europe 4 88 11 6 9 5 123 156 16.8 16.3 19.5
Eastern Europe 2 55 9 6 4 2 78 119 15.8 15.4 18.0
Central Asia 5 51 1 4 2 3 66 109 14.5 13.4 20.9
Endemics
Endemic ECA 7 52 17 11 17 14 1 118 145 37.8 35.6 41.5
Western Europe 2 25 11 4 8 6 1
2
56 71 33.3 32.1 35.7
Central Europe 3 16 5 2 6 4
2,3
36 45 36.4 33.3 41.7
Eastern Europe3,4 0 11 5 3 4 2 25 28 36.0 36.0 36.0
Central Asia 4 3 9 0 3 1 3 18 21 46.7 38.9 55.6
1
Gallotia auaritae, endemic to the Canary Islands, is listed as critically endangered (possibly extinct)

390
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2
Four species endemic to Western Europe and Central Europe
3
Eleven species endemic to Central and Eastern Europe
4
Two endemic species shared between Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Extinction threat is lowest for snakes and highest for turtles and tortoises (Table 3.8) which is
comparable to global patterns (Böhm et al., 2013). Extinction risk across all assessed species is highest
in Western Europe. More than one third of reptiles endemic to Europe and Central Asia subregions are
at risk of extinction and this threat is highest across Central Asia (Table 3.8). Not all species have been
assessed yet for the IUCN Red List, however, there are a number of ongoing assessments.
One Canary Island endemic, Gallotia auaritae, is listed as possibly extinct or likely extinct (Martin, 2009;
Mateo Miras & Martínez-Solano, 2009). There is evidence for at least two extinctions from Europe and
Central Asia: the Persian toad agame Phrynocephalus persicus is thought to have gone extinct from
Azerbaijan and now solely exists outside Europe and Central Asia in Iran (Anderson et al., 2009). In
Israel, the Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus) was lost in the early 20th century, probably due to
hunting (Dolev Pervolutzki, 2004; Masterman, 1921). Of the more speciose genera, those with most
threatened species include the narrow-endemic vipers (genus Vipera sensu lato, 22 species, 45%
threatened, six not evaluated), toad-headed agamas of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (genus
Phrynocephalus, 13 species, 31% threatened, three not evaluated); species of mostly Mediterranean
wall lizards, often very common, but with small ranges (genus Podarcis, 23 species, 30% threatened,
three not evaluated); and the Caucasian – Asia Minor rock lizards (genus Darevskia, 26 species, 23%
threatened, three not evaluated).
Compared with data on extinction risk, data on reptile population trends are sparse. Deriving trends
from IUCN Red List data is difficult since not all species have yet been assessed and many have only
ever been assessed once. Only one species has a documented change in global extinction risk, the
globally distributed leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriaceae, critically endangered in 2004 and
vulnerable in 2013. Of the 289 species with published IUCN Red List assessments, 98 species show
declining populations and only five show an increasing trend across their global range: three least
concern species (Cyrtopodion scabrum, Hemidactylus turcicus, Podarcis siculus) and two critically
endangered species of the Canary Island endemic Gallotia (Gallotia bravoana, G. intermedia), which
have been subject to conservation action (control of predators). Populations for 119 species are
considered stable, and the status of the remaining 61 is unknown.
The Living Planet database currently contains 66 population time series representing 23 species of
reptiles for Europe and Central Asia (LPI, 2016). These are exclusively from Western and Central Europe
(49 and 17 time series, representing 22 and three species, respectively). Most Central European
population time series focus on marine turtles in Turkey and Cyprus. In Western Europe, data are also
available for snakes and lizards. The loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) is increasing across available
time series, while the few time series available for Testudo hermanni (Not Threatened on the IUCN
Red List), three species of vipers (Vipera aspis, least concern; V. berus, not evaluated; V. ursinii,
vulnerable) and Hierophis viridiflavus indicate declining population trajectories. Increases in sea turtle
populations have been noted in other parts of the eastern Mediterranean too, for example in Israel
(Casale & Margaritoulis, 2010).
Other data sources suggest declines for Testudo kleinmanni in Israel, the only country in Europe and
Central Asia where this species is thought to occur (Dolev Pervolutzki, 2004). There is also direct
evidence from the literature that some snake populations are in decline in specific Western European
localities (e.g., UK: Coronella austriaca; Italy: Vipera aspis, Vipera ursinii ; France: Vipera aspis,
Hierophis viridiflavus, Zamenis longissimus; Reading et al., 2010).

391
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Annexes II, IV and V of the European Union Habitat Directive list 91 reptile species and 7 subspecies.
Most species were only assessed once for the European Union Habitat Directive or did not have enough
information for a conclusive definition of their status. In many cases it is therefore not possible to
determine a trend (Table 3.9). Only few genuine changes in conservation status were recorded
between the two reporting period. However, only one species and one subspecies were recorded to
have a worsening status between the two assessment periods of 2001-2006 and 2007-2012: Podarcis
lilfordi in the Mediterranean, though in places this species is still very common; and Lacerta vivipara
pannonica. In terms of spatial planning, however, a recent study suggests that the Natura 2000
network mostly covers widespread reptile species, while narrow-range endemics are under-
represented in Natura 2000 and national protected area networks (Abellán & Sánchez-Fernández,
2015).
Table 3.9: Number of reptile species in each biogeographic area of European Union countries whose
conservation status was stable, or genuinely improved or worsened between the 2001-2006
assessment period and the 2007-2012 period. The biogeographic areas are Alpine (ALP); Atlantic
(ATL); Boreal (BOR); Continental (CON); Mediterranean (MED); Pannonian (PAN); Marine Atlantic
(MATL); Marine Mediterranean (MMED). Species of the Black Sea and Steppic area were only
assessed in 2012 and are excluded here. Non-genuine changes were mainly due to taxonomic
revisions or improved knowledge.

ALP ATL BOR CON MED PAN MATL MMED

2 4 1 10 4 5 0 2
Stable
Improved 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1
Worsened 5 2 3 0 1 2 0 1
Non-genuine changes 86 34 10 112 128 34 22 22
/Unknown/Not
Assessed

Drivers of change
The main threats to reptiles in Europe and Central Asia, according to the IUCN Red List, are agriculture,
residential/commercial development, and biological resource use (Figure 3.48). These threats
primarily cause habitat fragmentation and loss.

392
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The major threat of habitat loss affects in particular relic forest species, and species of the steppe and
semi-desert ecosystems, which are often not able to persist on agricultural and other transformed
lands. Eremias pleskei (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran) is listed as critically endangered, based
on a population decline of more than 80% over ten years. Its natural sandy habitat has virtually
disappeared due to human disturbance (Tuniyev et al., 2009). For habitat specialists, such as the
critically endangered Phrynocephalus horvathi and Acanthodactylus beershebensis which are found on
highly specific soils, habitat conversion can have a major impact (Ananjeva & Agasyan, 2009; Werner
et al., 2006). The disappearance of steppe vipers of the “ursinii-renardi” complex throughout most of
the previously occupied habitats in Europe and Central Asia is associated with ploughing of steppes for
agriculture (Tuniyev, 2016). Dam building has been detrimental to species such as Rafetus euphraticus
in Turkey, causing drastic habitat alteration (Taskavak et al., 2016).
Significant threats include the illegal capture of commercially valuable species for the pet trade (all
representatives of the vipers and turtles, and some species of lizards) in Turkey, the Caucasus and
Central Asia. Trionyx triunguis softshell turtles have been reported as bycatch and have been killed,
and nests destroyed, by fishermen who may perceive them as competitors; they are also affected by
pollution, resulting in a listing of the Mediterranean subpopulation in Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey
as critically endangered (European Reptile & Amphibian Specialist Group, 1996). There are also reports
of reptile poaching in Israel, which affects species such as Uromastyx aegypticus (Yom-Tov, 2003).
Prosecution of snakes continues in the area, especially in Turkey, the Caucasus and southern regions
of Russia, and is associated with low levels of environmental education.
Invasive predator species play a particularly important role for island species, such as the Canary Island
genus Gallotia (four of the eight species are critically endangered). Climate change is likely to play a
major role in the region in the future. Climate change has led to an increase in summer temperatures

393
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and length of the dry summer period in the western Caucasus, resulting in a reduction of habitats of
mesophylic Colchis reptile species (Darevskia derjugini) and an increase in the number of eastern
Mediterranean snakes (Hierophis caspius, Platiceps najadum) on the Black Sea Coast (Tuniyev, 2012).
Other threats, such as pollution, are less prominent in the IUCN Red List data; however, a recent risk
evaluation of pesticide use to protected European reptiles suggests that ten species, including all six
Habitat Directive Annex II turtles, are at above-average pesticide risk (Wagner et al., 2015).

3.4.5 Amphibians
Status and trends
Europe and Central Asia is highly diverse with, for example, thirty-five percent of the world’s newt and
salamander species (26 species of the family Salamandridae) present in Europe, extending from Iceland
in the west to the Urals in the east and from Franz Josef Land in the north to the Mediterranean in the
south.
A total of 74 amphibian species are known in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, with the highest
numbers occurring in France, Italy, Spain and the Balcans (20-30 species each) (Corbett, 1989). Fifty-
nine percent of amphibian species (Temple & Cox, 2009) have declining populations. In the western
Palearctic (i.e. European region and part of Asia with Turkey and the Caucasian region), species
richness decreases with increasing latitude for amphibians and reptiles (Meliadou & Troumbis, 1997).
Amphibians represent the third most endangered group of vertebrates in the European Union , with
23% of species (19 species out of the 83 assessed) considered as threatened (Temple & Cox, 2009)
(Figure 3.49). According to the Habitat Directive, more than two-thirds of the amphibian species
assessed by European Union countries by biogeographical region (104) have an unfavourable
conservation status. About 59% of European amphibian populations are declining with a further 36%
stable and only 2% on the increase. These declines seem to have worsened over the past 25 years and
amphibians are now more threatened than either mammals or birds (Beebee & Griffiths, 2005).

394
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The recent Red list of European amphibians (Temple & Cox, 2009) has highlighted that about 23% of
European amphibians (85 species in total) are threatened and show declining populations. This is even
more significant given that 74% of European amphibians are endemic (only found in Europe) and that
these endemic species tend to be more threatened within Europe.

Drivers of change
The three main causes for amphibians decline in the region are: 1) that fewer habitats available for
these species, and what remains is often in small and isolated patches; much of the habitat has become
less suitable through destruction or transformation, e.g. urbanization with roads, drainage and water
pollution (Hamer & Mcdonnell, 2008) and with the loss of areas managed by traditional means (Hartel
et al., 2010), more intense fish farming and recreational activities; 2) Climate changes, which threaten
species particularly in areas where water and humid habitats are already scarce and expected to
become even drier (Araújo et al., 2006); 3) Introduction of alien species, including the chytrid fungus,
which is a particularly virulent disease affecting the skin and nervous system of adult amphibians and
the mouthparts of their larvae, and responsible for amphibian declines worldwide (fatal for many
species) (Duffus & Cunningham, 2010; European Commission, 2009). These three factors may also
interact to exacerbate each other. In addition, there is rising concern that the impact of pesticides on
amphibians has been underestimated and that pesticides could locally be a cause of amphibian
population declines (Brühl, et al. 2013). While amphibians are generally declining, in the absence of

395
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the above mentioned drivers they can be well represented in traditionally managed landscapes by
stable populations and species rich communities (Hartel et al., 2010).

3.4.6 Fishes
3.4.6.1 Marine fishes
Status and trends
There are considerably more species of fish in all marine areas surrounding Europe and Central Asia
than those known to consumers from markets. For example, reported species richness is around 100
in the Caspian Sea (Mitrofanov & Mamilov, 2015), 833 in the Far Eastern seas of Russia (Volvenko,
2014), 650 in the Mediterranean Sea (United Nations, 2016), 200 in the Black Sea (Bologa & Sava,
2012), and 100 in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM, 2009). Species richness tends to be comparatively higher in
coastal areas, along the continental slope, and towards the south (Figure 3.50). Due to the high
mobility of fish and the open nature of marine waters, there are intense, complex, competitive
interactions within fish communities, which naturally leads to large differences in the population
biomasses of different species (Fung et al., 2013).
In Europe and Central Asia, 26% of marine fish species have known trend data. Of those, 72% are
stable, 26% have declining populations and 2% have been increasing over the last decade (IUCN,
2017c). In a comprehensive assessment of threats to European marine fish species, Nieto et al. (2015)
found that 59 species (7.5%) were threatened. All 15 critically endangered species amongst these are
Chondrichthyes (sharks, rays, and similar). The low resilience of these organisms is due to their life-
history traits (slow reproduction and small number of offspring). Indeed, poor conservation status is
most common for Chondrichthyes and other species with large body size, which also infers slow
reproductive rates (Fernandes et al., 2017b). Among the largest species, many migrate over large
distances. Of species with assessed stock, including those considered overfished, Fernandes et al.
(2017) found only a small proportion to be threatened. Considering trends in the sizes of species
populations, 8.4% were found to be declining, mainly due to overfishing, but also coastal development,
energy production and mining, and pollution. Increasing trends were found for 1.7% of populations.
For about 69% of marine fish species data for European Union waters is insufficient to estimate trends
(Nieto et al., 2015).

396
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Good data on trends is available for the North East Atlantic shelf seas, which permits application of
trend analyses that take into account that fish populations can naturally fluctuate over wide ranges
(Greenstreet et al., 2012). These reveal recovery of a statistically significant number of fish species
classed as sensitive (based on their recruitment pattern) in the Celtic Sea, but not yet in the North Sea
(OSPAR, 2017b). Yet, in both of these highly fished areas the number of recovering species has
increased over time (OSPAR, 2017b) as a result of changes in fisheries management.
Considering the strong relationship between conservation status and body size (Fernandes et al., 2017)
and the slow recovery dynamic of overall fish community size structure (Fung et al., 2013), the state
of marine fish communities can be assessed based on the “typical length” (Lynam & Rossberg, 2017)
of fish caught in surveys. Using this measure, OSPAR (2017b) showed that demersal fish communities
continue to deteriorate in some parts of North East Atlantic shelf, e.g. in the southern parts of the
North Sea and along the continental slope (Figure 3.51), while in other areas recovery can be observed.
This illustrates the surprisingly localized impact of varying exploitation patterns on the status of marine
fish communities. For pelagic fish communities, trends in either direction tend to be less apparent
(OSPAR, 2017b). For the Baltic Sea, good status of piscivores and of cyprinids/mesopredators (in terms
of total biomass) is reported by (HELCOM, 2017a).

397
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

For status and trends of fish biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea, indigenous and local knowledge
offers important information that is unavailable from scientific surveys. Combined survey data and
interviews with local fishermen in the Spanish Mediterranean Sea and Gulf of Cadiz, Coll et al. (2014)
documented overall declines in abundances and maximum sizes of fish. Potential extirpations, notably
of Chondrichthyes, were reported as well. Small fish were reported to have proliferated, potentially
due to a trophic cascade effect. A meta-analysis by Vasilakopoulos et al. (2014) of 42 stocks of nine
species in 1990–2010 covering the entire European Mediterranean and Black Seas comes to similar
conclusions: exploitation rates have been increasing, and stocks are shrinking and are being harvested
too early in their lifecycle. In the Black Sea, two sturgeon species were recently declared extinct
(Yankova et al., 2014).
For the North-West Pacific a digital database covering the years 1977-2010 is available (Volvenko,
2014), but coverage has been argued not to be sufficient even to reveal specific trends. In data from
pelagic trawl surveys, Ivanov and Sukhanov (2015) document a pronounced decline of pelagic fish
biomass and diversity in the Russian Waters of Far Eastern Seas from the 1980s to the mid 1990s, and
a pronounced recovery in the subsequent period until 2009, without providing a clear attribution.

Drivers of change
Overfishing is still the main threat to marine fish across Europe and Central Asia. Throughout the
region, the expansion of industrial fishing after the Second World War and the resulting over-
exploitation of fish led to pressures on biodiversity at community level, except in the Arctic Ocean
where only specific stocks appear to be affected (CAFF, 2013). However, during the last few decades

398
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

changes in management practices have led to improvement in the status of stocks and release of
pressures on fish-communities as a whole, especially throughout the North East Atlantic Shelf Seas. In
other parts of Europe and Central Asia, institutional barriers to coordinated action and the relatively
high costs involved in regular stock assessments have so far prevented demonstrable recovery of fish
communities.
Other drivers are also responsible for the negative trend identified, especially different forms of
pollution in enclosed seas (Black, Mediterranean, Baltic, Caspian and Aral Seas); coastal developments
degrading and sometimes extirpating coastal habitats important as nurseries; energy production; and
mining. These are sometimes exacerbated by climate change. In the Black Sea, for example, ecosystem
disruptions by eutrophication and invasive species continue to impact fish communities (Bologa &
Sava, 2012). In rivers feeding the Caspian and Aral Seas construction of dams has led to drastic
reductions in the abundance and extinction of some migratory fish (Mitrofanov & Mamilov, 2015).

3.4.6.2 Freshwater fishes

Status and trends
The European Union contains 546 native species of freshwater fish from of which, according to IUCN
assessments, at least 37% are threatened and 4% are considered near threatened (Freyhof & Brooks,
2011). This is currently the second most threatened taxonomic group assessed, after freshwater
molluscs. The highest diversity of fish species can be found in the Danube River with 103 species,
followed by the Volga River with 88 species (Figure 3.52). Southern Europe is the region with the
highest number of local endemic species, with natural ranges limited to one or few streams, springs or
rivers, and several of them have only recently been discovered. They are therefore still not well known
to conservationists and national or regional governments (Freyhof & Brooks, 2011). Central Asia is
home to approximately 120 fish species of which 30 are on the Red List (Karimov et al., 2009; Milner-
Gulland et al., 2006). Several fish species naturally entered the floodplains from the north (Siberia) and
west (Western Asia). Many Eurasian fish species have formed sub-species in Central Asia (e.g.
Amudarya trout, Aral roach, Aral asp, Samarkand khramulya, Aral bream) and contribute to high
endemic diversity (e.g. Aral Sea basin) (Berg, 1949; Nikolsky, 1971; Turdakov, 1963).

399
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

There are no other groups of freshwater fishes in Europe and Central Asia that show higher threat
levels than anadromous species (e.g. sturgeons, herrings of the genus Alosa, salmonids and some
whitefishes of the genus Coregonus and Stenodus (Freyhof & Brooks, 2011). Trends also highlight a
crisis with, for example, a sixfold decline in Baltic salmon catches between 1990 and 2009 (Mannerla
et al., 2011).
Although these figures are at a European level and such detailed data are difficult to access for Central
Asia, it is expected that these trends and the observed decline of about 17% of European freshwater
fishes populations are also true in Central Asia. In Europe, only 1% of freshwater fish species
populations are on the increase, against 17% declining and 6% considered stable (Freyhof & Brooks,
2011). However, there is a lack of reliable data on trends, and therefore the actual percentage of
species that is declining is probably largely underestimated. In fact, population trends for 76% of all
fish species in Western Europe, Central Europe and western parts of Eastern Europe still remain
unknown because almost no population trend data exist from most countries (Freyhof & Brooks,
2011). Thus, monitoring data for freshwater fish species diversity and abundance is urgently needed
in order to accurately measure population trends and improve the accuracy of future Red List
assessments. The highest number of threatened freshwater fish species is found in the south of the
European subregions Figure 3.53).

400
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Villéger and co-authors (2014) have also shown that among current European fish assemblages,
functional homogenization (reduction in diversity of functional traits over space and time) exceeds
taxonomic homogenization (reduction in species diversity) six-fold. In addition, non-native species
originating from other parts of Europe played a stronger role in this homogenization process than non-
native species from outside Europe, while extinction did not play a significant role.

Drivers of change
A main threat for freshwater fish species in Europe and Central Asia is the destruction or modification
of their habitat. This includes a change in the river continuum with the construction of dams and weirs
that fragment populations. This has direct consequences for the remixing of upstream-downstream
genetic pools and for free seasonal migrations. In addition, it leads to a deep modification of flow
patterns transforming lotic habitat into lentic ones and, as a result, changing species assemblages,
functional diversity and homogenization of freshwater fish communities. Water abstraction is one of
the most important threats to European freshwater fishes, especially in the Mediterranean basin
where illegal water abstraction is widespread (Freyhof & Brooks, 2011). Many countries in southern
parts of Western and Central Europe still lack effective enforcement of legislation that could limit the
damages of excessive water abstraction to biodiversity. The increased frequency and intensity of
droughts are worsening the situation.
Another important threat is pollution of industrial, agricultural and domestic origin (e.g. hormone
distruptors from polimery and paint industries that cause reproductive disorders, in particularly in
aquatic organisms). In lakes, for example, the percentage of land used for agriculture in the catchment
(which leads to anthropogenically enhanced productivity) is associated with several changes in fish
communities such as increase in species richness and abundance and a decrease in their community
average body size (Brucet et al., 2013). At least eight of the 13 globally extinct species of European
freshwater fishes were victims of water pollution and lake eutrophication, mainly during the late 19th
and in the 20th centuries (Freyhof & Brooks, 2011). However, due to European Union regulation, the
water quality of rivers and lakes has improved in recent decades and this has helped to improve
conditions for many fish species. In Central Asia and the Caucasus, however, about one third of
untreated sewage goes directly into regional rivers. Pollution as a result of change in land use is still
relevant in these regions, in particular the increase in siltation due to agricultural practice and
destruction of riparian vegetation, which used to act as an important buffer zone to freshwater
ecosystems.

401
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Climate change is also affecting fish populations, particularly in the coldest and the most arid parts of
Europe and Central Asia. Jeppesen and co-authors (2012) published long-term (10–100 years) series
of fish data from 24 European lakes. Along with a temperature increase of about 0.15–0.3°C per
decade, considerable changes have occurred in either fish assemblage composition, body size or age
structure during recent decades, with a shift towards dominance of warm water species. These
changes took place despite a general reduction in nutrient loading. Similar responses to warming were
found in river fish (Daufresne et al., 2009). Arctic charr has been particularly affected. In the arid
conditions of Central Asia, agriculture relied on the extensive use of irrigation. From the 1950s to the
1980s, about 40 reservoirs (total water volume more than 57 km3), more than 150,000 irrigation
canals, more than 100,000 drainage canals and 10 lakes for residual water storage (with an area of
about 7,000 km2) were created. These large-scale constructions impacted local fish communities.
Dams on the rivers blocked passage to spawning areas for migratory fishes. As a result, fringebarbel,
sturgeon and Aral barbell vanished from local waters. All fish populations in the floodplain (such as
common carp, asp, sabrefish, bream, roach, pike-perch) have established new stocks in all newly
constructed man-made reservoirs and lakes. Also, the abundance of riverine fishes such as shovelnoses
(three species), pike-asp, zarafshon dace and minnow dramatically decreased due to a change in flow
and a reduction of turbidity in the river sections downstream of the reservoirs (Berg, 1949; Kamilov,
1973; Nikolsky, 1938; Turdakov, 1963).
Another key threat in Central Asia is water salinization (Jeppesen et al., 2015). For example, in the
three decades from 1961 to 1991 the Aral Sea’s salt concentration increased from 10.2 ppt to 35 ppt
(Pavlovskaya, 1995). Freshwater fishes cannot adapt to these levels of salinity and many therefore
became extinct. The discharge of drainage waters from irrigated fields and industries has also led to
salinization and chemical pollution of rivers. Parts of many Central Asian rivers have been
contaminated by phenols, oil products, heavy metals, pesticides and nitrogen compounds
(Pavlovskaya, 1995).
In recent years there have been many examples of alien pathogen and parasite introductions in Europe
and Central Asia and their dramatic effects on aquatic wildlife and biodiversity, with several having a
direct impact on fish biodiversity and ecosystem services (Peeler et al., 2011). For example, Anguillicola
crassus, a parasitic nematode, directly impacted wild populations of the European eel, Anguilla
anguilla. The most severe of all, identified in the last decade as a major threat to European fish diversity
(Gozlan et al., 2005), is the rosette agent, a generalist fungal-like pathogen introduced along with the
Asian gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) and responsible for the rapid decline of endemic fish species
across Europe and Central Asia. This pathogen and its host have caused the decline and extinction of
native population across Europe - some of them endemic or not yet even described. Most of these
introductions across the region occured via the aquaculture trade, fisheries or ornamental purposes
(Boll et al., 2016; Gozlan, 2016).

3.4.7 Terrestrial Invertebrates

Status and trends
The diversity of terrestrial invertebrates in Europe and Central Asia is unevenly explored, with a
substantial lack of knowledge for most taxa, especially for below-ground (soil) fauna. Above-ground
terrestrial invertebrates are generally better known, with described insect species numbering in the
order of 100,000 in Europe 27, about 80,000 for Kazakhstan (The Fifth National Report on Progress in
Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2014), and about 30,000 for the Russian Far

27 The countries included in this checklist are listed here http://insectoid.info/checklist/insecta/europe/

402
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

East (Lelej & Storozhenko, 2010). Scientific knowledge of certain groups is rapidly increasing. For
example, the number of described fly (Diptera) species in the Palearctic was 29,579 according to a
catalogue published in 1992 (Soós et al., 1992) and increased to 44,894 in 2009 (Pape et al., 2009), an
increase of about 15,000 species new to science or to the region. Heteroptera species numbered 9,365
in 2006, an almost 10% increase compared to 1995 (Aukema et al., 2013). Bumblebee species numbers
increased from 23 to 33 in the 170,500 km2 large Tuva Republic (Russia) based on a survey in 2013
(Kupianskaya et al., 2014). For several speciose taxa, there is no information even on species presence,
even though some of these include taxa with extreme importance for ecosystem functions, like
Hymenoptera (with many parasitoid species), or most soil organisms, contributing to biological control
and pollination, or soil fertility, respectively. Despite their extremely high species richness, and
importance for ecosystems services, only a very small proportion of species is assessed by the IUCN
Red List (Table 3.10).
Trends are known for certain groups, such as butterflies. Major declines of butterfly populations
occurred in the 1950s-1970s due to agricultural intensification in Western Europe but one third of
species are still declining (van Swaay et al., 2010). Bees (honeybees and wild bees including
bumblebees) have been recently evaluated as pollinators by IPBES (2016b). Many wild bee species
have been declining in Western Europe. For example, 50% of bee species are threatened in some
European countries, while data for other regions are currently insufficient to draw conclusions (IPBES,
2016b). Better taxonomic coverage extists for terrestrial invertebrates of community interest
according to the Habitat Directive and monitored throughout the European Union. One quarter of
these species (arthropods, molluscs and others) have deteriorating conservation status (EEA, 2015d).
A recent meta-analyses found a 77% decline in flying insect biomass across 63 protected sites in
Germany from 1987 to 2016, likely due to agricultural intensification in the surrounding fields, with
protected sites therefore acting as ecological traps (Hallmann et al., 2017). This analysis suggests that
the extent of insect decline in Europe has been greatly underestimated.
In Europe alone, the update of the database of invasive species 28 (Roques et al., 2009), lists 1,590
terrestrial arthropod species of non-European origin established in Europe, including 1,390 insects, 47
spiders, 102 mites, 34 myriapods and 17 crustaceans (Kenis & Branco, 2010).
Local ecological knowledge on invertebrates is scarce, including their status and trends over the last
decades. Some culturally salient invertebrate species have, however, functioned as important
keystone species in the lives of certain communities (Marian, 1903; Ulicsni et al., 2016). Indigenous
and local knowledge can be a valuable information source in understudied regions for those species
that migrate northwards as a consequence of climate change. Some of these species (e.g. mosquitos
and ticks) may have (or already have) a strong but yet undocumented impact on local wild and
domestic livestock.

Drivers of change
Environmental changes may rapidly disrupt biotic interactions (insect-insect, plant-insect,
invertebrate-nutritional source). Species involved in species-specific interactions (e.g. pollination,
foraging) are particularly sensitive to environmental changes. The extinction of a butterfly species may
be locally explained by the extinction of its host plant. A parallel decline in pollinators and insect-
pollinated plants in Western Europe favoured wind-pollinated plants, and contributes to global
homogenization (Biesmeijer et al., 2006, Carvalheiro et al., 2013). Beyond independent taxon-based

28 Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe http://www.europe-aliens.org/

403
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

extinctions, the possible cascading effects of species loss are often neglected, which are considered
likely to greatly contribute to general homogenization and species loss (Kearns et al., 1998; Koh, 2004).
Honeybees suffer from colony collapse disorder, which also affects the production of colonies (Breeze
et al., 2014; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2016);. Many of the environmental threats to bee diversity are
associated with intensified agriculture (shifting agricultural practice linked to pollution, pesticides and
the increasing intensification of farming), as well as change in land use and climate (Nieto et al., 2014;
Goulson et al., 2008). Similar trends (sensitivity to agricultural intensification, change in land use and
climate) were also observed in other kinds of insects acting as pollinators (IPBES, 2016b). Many wild
bees and butterflies have been declining in abundance, occurrence and diversity at local and regional
scales, as it has been recorded in Western Europe (IPBES, 2016b).

Table 3.10: Number and trends of red listed species, and the major drivers of change for five groups
with diverse ecology. The area covered is Western Europe, Central Europe, and part of Eastern
Europe (continent of Europe).

Number Increasing Stable Decreasing Unknown Major drivers

of species (%) (%) (%) (%)
Terrestrial 246 0.6 39.8 6.3 53 Urbanization, agriculture,
molluscs recreation and other
(Cuttelod et al., human activities, change
2011) in fire regime, roads and
shipping lanes
Bees (Nieto et 1,942 0.7 12.6 7.7 79 Agricultural expansion and
al., 2014) intensification, livestock
farming and ranching,
pollution (agricultural and
forestry effluents),
Residential and
commercial development
(urban sprawl), fire and
fire suppression, climate
change
Butterflies 482 4 55 31 10 Agricultural
(Swaay et al., intensification,
2010) abandonment, climate
change (including
droughts), change of
woodland management,
tourism and recreation
Saproxylic 436 2.3 26.8 13.8 57.1 Logging and wood
beetles (Nieto harvesting
& Alexander,
2010)
Grasshoppers, 1,082 2.2 7.6 30.2 59 Livestock grazing, arable
Crickets, Bush- farming, increasing wild
crickets fire frequency,
(Hochkirch et urbanization and
al., 2016) infrastructure, touristic
development

3.4.8 Freshwater invertebrates

Status and trends

404
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

No assessment has been performed on freshwater invertebrates for the whole of Europe and Central
Asia except molluscs and dragonflies. In the interest of highlighting the magnitude of threat facing
freshwater invertebrates, the next paragraph reports some global statistics. Note that the trends for
the world and Europe and Central Asia are not necessarily similar, as exemplified by comparig the
global trends with European ones in the next two paragraphs.
The great majority of freshwater animals are invertebrates, mostly insects (60%) and crustaceans
(10%) with molluscs being the most diverse but also threatened group of animals, with at least 43.7%
of the species (373 species) considered as threatened (Cuttelod et al., 2011). In the Red List
assessment, IUCN experts have included 7,482 species divided in odonates, molluscs, crabs and
crayfish as these taxonomic groups have received extensive attention. Therefore, these groups
represent the best available dataset to quantify the extinction risk among freshwater invertebrates. It
includes assessments of 1,280 species of freshwater crabs, 590 species of crayfish, 1,500 species of
freshwater molluscs (30% of all known species) and 1500 species of dragonflies and damselflies (26%
of all known species). However, the precise level of threat is unknown as there is a high number of
species (2,504), which have a data deficient status. Therefore, the level of threat is between 23% and
56% depending on whether we assume that no species or all data deficient species are threatened.
Currently, 131 species are classified as extinct with an additional four as extinct in the wild. The most
threatened groups are gastropods (from 33%-68%, respectively assuming no data deficient species are
threatened or all of them are), bivalves (26%-49%), crayfish (24%-47%) (Richman et al., 2015), crabs
(16%-65 %) and dragonflies (9%-44%) (Cumberlidge et al., 2009). Due to a high proportion of range-
restricted species living in highly specialized habitats subject to pollution (including sedimentation) or
habitat destruction, freshwater gastropods have the highest percentage of threatened species (51%).
This results in 3% of gastropods and 5% of bivalves being classified as extinct with the greatest number
of extinctions reported for molluscs with more than that reported for birds, mammals and amphibians.
Concerning Europe (Europe as defined by IUCN incluing Western and Central Europe, and Eastern
Europe up to the Urals and the Caucasus region), the most threatened group among those that are
well monitored is gastropods (45-70% of species threatened depending on whether or not data
deficient species are considered threatened) (Cuttelod et al., 2011), followed by bivalves (20–26%)
(Cuttelod et al., 2011), and dragonflies (15-19%) (Kalkman et al., 2010). Distribution and population of
many widespread species of molluscs have been declining since the 1880s, with the greatest losses
between 1920 and 1960 due to habitat change and degradation (Cuttelod et al., 2011). Many species
of European dragonflies have shown a dramatic decline in distribution and abundance since the second
half of the 20th century (Kalkman et al., 2010; Sahlén et al., 2004), particularly in the south of Europe
due to the dessication of their habitats. Overall, 24% of assessed populations are declining (only 12%
of species have not been assessed). At least in parts of Europe, some of the species of dragonflies
considered threatened have recovered since the 1990s as result of improved water management
(Kalkman et al., 2010). The number of Plecoptera species decreased due to water quality degradation
and physical alteration of streams and rivers, particularly those inhabiting lowland rivers of
industrialized Central European countries (Fochetti & Tierno De Figueroa, 2008). Taeniopteryx
araneoides (Klapálek) and Oemopteryx loewi (Albarda), once common in large Central European rivers,
are now extinct (Zwick, 2004). These are among the very few documented cases of extinction in insects.
Although some invertebrate species have been lost in British rivers since 1800 (four out of 30
stoneflies, three out of 37 dragonflies, three out of 193 cais, and six out of 386 water beetles), the
diversity of invertebrate communities has overall increased in recent decades largely due to
improvements in wastewater treatment (Moss, 2015). Family level richness increased on average by
nearly 20% from 1991 to 2008, particularly in urban catchments, with a widespread shift towards taxa
of well-oxygenated and less polluted waters.

405
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Drivers of change
Water pollution, including nitrates and phosphates from agricultural sources, are the main threat to
freshwater invertebrates (e.g. Cuttelod et al., 2011). Habitat modifications linked to change of flow
patterns as a result of dam construction and, specifically in Europe, as a result of water abstraction for
domestic supplies and crop irrigation, threaten about 26% of freshwater invertebrate species. In
addition, habitat modifications due to change in land use, including decline of riparian macrophytes as
a result of floodplain drainage, for example for housing development projects, are responsible for 19%
of threatened freshwater species. A review by Stendera and co-authors (2012) showed an overall
decreasing trend in abundance, richness and diversity of invertebrates due to all these stressors,
predominantly land use, eutrophication, and habitat destruction.
Alien species introduced as a result of human activities were also found to have a role in causing a
decrease and change in invertebrate community structure. For example, invasions of amphipod
species from Ponto-Caspian rivers were enabled by the creation of canal networks interconnecting the
major Eastern and Western European river systems since the late 1700s and later enhanced by
intentional transfers of potential fish food organisms to hydropower reservoirs. The rate and range of
the invasions have dramatically increased since the late 1980s and in the 2000s across these three
subregions and many river communities are undergoing major change with the aggressive expansion
of Dikerogammarus villosus (Väinölä et al., 2008). Another example is the North American euryhaline
Gammarus tigrinus, which was introduced to Britain and then intentionally to Germany in 1957 to
replace locally extinct native species and has since then broadly occupied river, lake, and estuarine
habitats in Europe (Väinölä et al., 2008). Some Mysids autochthonous in the Ponto-Caspian region are
also currently invading some aquatic ecosystems of Northern Europe (Leppäkoski et al., 2002). The
impact of these species on native lacustrine and riverine ecosystems can be severe, including a
reduction in zooplankton abundance, with concomitant negative effects on higher consumers
(Ketelaars et al., 1999). However, at least for molluscs, though invasive species are now widely present
and have had an impact on some species, their presence impacts less than 5% of the threatened
species (Cuttelod et al., 2011). In addition, the introduction of diseases along with the introductions of
alien crayfish species has also been a major issue with Aphanomyces astaci, the crayfish plague,
responsible for the severe decline of the native European crayfish, Astacus astacus.
The effects of climate change on macroinvertebrates vary depending on the region and the taxon
group (Domisch et al., 2011; Jähnig et al., 2012) and some studies at national scale have confirmed
that, in England, for example, improved water quality through positive management better explained
assemblages than increased winter temperatures (Durance & Ormerod, 2009). At a local scale Brown
and co-authors (2007) found that a lower contribution of meltwater (from snow and glaciers) to
streams significantly increased macroinvertebrate diversity, although some cold adapted taxa
decreased in abundance. Some groups such as Trichoptera are potentially more at risk than others by
changes in climate across Europe (Hering et al., 2009). Recently it has become evident that many
dragonflies of temperate regions are responding, both in distribution and phenology, to global climate
change (Kalkman et al., 2008). The ranges of common and widespread southern species are expanding
in Europe but there is as yet no strong evidence that northern species are decreasing as a result of the
rising temperatures, as might be expected. There is evidence that ranges are changing for Odonata
(Moss, 2015), bugs (Hickling e al., 2006), Plecoptera, and aquatic beetles (Heino, 2002), and Diptera
(Burgmer et al., 2007).
Lake zooplankton has provided good examples of climate change effects on invertebrates. There is
evidence of direct and indirect (through changes in hydrology) effects on seasonality, community
composition, parasitism, grazing and production. For example, in the lake Muggelsee, in Berlin,

406
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

zooplankton species with high thermal tolerances or rotifers that grow quickly at high temperatures
have become more common (Wagner & Adrian, 2011). The trend towards warm springs and summers
has also affected the population dynamics of several cyclopoid copepods whose growth phase was
prolonged both in spring and autumn (Gerten & Adrian, 2002). Predatory Cladocera as well as filter
feeders have also been affected by warming. In Lake Maggiore, Italy, there was a more than 10-fold
increase in the mean annual population density of Bythotrephes longimanus between 1987 and 1993,
due to warmer winter and spring temperatures (Manca & DeMott, 2009). Bythotrephes remained
abundant and increased even more during the following ten years, as water temperature continued to
increase. Daphnia hyalina galeata, the dominant grazer, and a prey of Bythotrephes, decreased sharply
as Bythotrephes increased. Temperature increase in a series of Russian lakes was also associated with
a shift from copepods to cladocerans, resulting in the highly unsaturated fatty acid content of the
community falling and thus providing food of reduced quality for fish (Gladyshev et al., 2011)
irrespective of timing.
Acidification of surface waters was a severe environmental problem, particularly in northern Europe,
during the second half of the last century causing freshwater biodiversity loss. International action
plans have led to chemical recovery of some surface waters due to decreased acid deposition, but
acidification problems persist in some lakes and rivers. Long-term studies (1988-2007) have shown an
overall weak recovery of invertebrate species as a response to chemical recovery in boreal lakes
(Angeler & Johnson, 2012). In the Vosges mountains (France), Guerold and co-authors (2000) found a
high reduction in diversity for many aquatic species, and among them Molluscs, Crustaceans and
Ephemeroptera disappeared totally from strongly acidified streams. In addition, there is evidence that
acidification has simplified some invertebrate communities in UK streams and probably made them
more vulnerable to climate effects, which conversely might offset biological recovery from acidification
(Moss, 2015).

3.4.9 Vascular plants

Status and trends
Of the estimated 32,000 vascular plant species occurring in Europe and Central Asia, IUCN evaluated
2483 (approx. 8%) in the Red List of Threatened Species. Of these, 810 (32.6%) are threatened (270
critically endangered, 287 endangered and 253 vulnerable). Another 166 are listed as near threatened.
Four species are extinct and four species extinct in the wild (likely strongly underestimated). There is
a remarkably high percentage of species with unknown population trend (approx. 46%). About one
fifth of the evaluated plants (19.6%) show a declining population trend, whereas about one third
(31.6%) is stable. Only a very small proportion (2.5%) has increasing population sizes. However, these
percentages might be biased, as it is likely that more threatened than un-threatened species have been
evaluated by IUCN. Especially the total percentage of species with increasing population sizes is likely
larger, as many generalists tend to expand their range sizes (Bilz et al., 2011; IUCN, 2017b).
At the national level, all occurring species have often been evaluated in Red Lists and the average
proportions of extinct and endangered species are often quite high (e.g. in densely populated regions),
reflecting the local decline of species richness and of population sizes (Lozano, 2000; Bornand et al.,
2016; Broggi & Waldburger, 1984; Cheffings & Farrell, 2005; Conti et al., 1992; Curtis et al., 1988;
Icelandic Natural History Institute, 1996; Lilleleht, 1998; Ludwig & Schnittler, 1996; Marhold & Hindák,
1999; Millaku et al., 2013; Niklfeld, 1999; Olivier et al., 1995; Oltean et al., 1994; Parfenov et al., 1987;
Phitos et al., 1995; Procházka, 2000; Rakonczay, 1989; Rassi et al., 2010; Latvian Academy of Science,
1997; Shelyak-Sosonka, 1996; Silic, 1996; Sugar, 1994; Vangjeli et al., 1995; Vangjeli et l., 1997; Velchev,

407
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1984; Weeda et al., 1990; Westling, 2015; Wind & Pihl, 2004; Wraber et al., 1989; Zarzycki &
Kaźmierczakowa, 2001).
Europe as defined by IUCN (West and Central Europe, Eastern Europe up to the Ural and Caucasus
region) harbors more than 20,000 vascular plant species (Euro+Med, 2017). Of these, 1,826 species
have been evaluated for the European Red List of Vascular Plants, comprising species listed as priority
for conservation in multilateral environmental agreements (Habitats Directive, Bern Convention,
CITES, EU Wildlife Trade Regulation), crop wild relatives and aquatic plants. About one third (467
species; 26%) is threatened with extinction. 45% and 10% of the MEA-listed species are listed as
threatened or near threatened, respectively, 12% and 5% of the crop wild relatives, and 7% and 7% of
the aquatic species. The percentage of species with an unknown population trend is notable, as this
has been determined for only half of the crop wild relative species (48%), approx. one third of the
policy species (37%) and about one fifth (19%) of the aquatic plants. Of the evaluated plants, 38% of
the policy species, 16% of the aquatic plants and 11% of the crop wild relative species are declining,
while the populations of 22% of the species listed in multilateral environmental agreements, 39% of
the crop wild relatives species, and 64% of the aquatic plants are stable. However, population trend
analyses are often based on survey data from only a small part of the species range or on subjective
assessments based on known threats or habitat decline. Moreover, these percentages might be biased
as probably more threatened than unthreatened species have been evaluated (Bilz et al., 2011). Sixty-
four species are known to have gone extinct (Silva et al., 2008). Currently 6,190 endemic taxa (164
species groups, 5191 species, 835 subspecies) are listed for Europe and about 50% of them are in
danger of extinction. About 3,000 taxa are considered as local endemics, only occurring in one country
or one archipelago. Particularly high numbers of endemic taxa are found in the Mediterranean and the
Macaronesian Islands (Blondel et al., 2010; Bruchmann, 2011; Cañadas et al., 2014).
Eastern Europe, and more particularly Russia, harbors about 11400 vascular plant species (Chandra &
Idrisova, 2011), 676 of them are considered threatened (Govenment of the Russian Federation, 2015).
Only 53 species are evaluated in the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2017b).
Central Asian countries harbor at least 7,000 vascular plant species. Endemism is particularly high,
ranging from <1% to 15% depending on the country (Chemonics International, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c,
2001d, 2001e, 2001f; Nowak et al., 2011) and especially high in the mountains of the Caucasus region.
IUCN lists only 38 species as threatened (IUCN, 2017b), which very likely is strongly underestimated.

Drivers of change
Major threats to the diversity of vascular plants in the region are related to habitat destruction and
degradation. Habitat loss is the primary cause of risk for 83% of endangered plant species (Silva et al.,
2008). Particularly vulnerable are species with small distribution ranges (e.g. endemic species),
specialized habitat and/or microhabitat requirements, narrow environmental tolerances and poor
dispersal and competitive ability (Bilz et al., 2011; IUCN, 2017b; Pauli et al., 2012). The intensification
of agriculture is suggested to have the most severe impacts (Table 3.11) (Allan et al., 2014; Bilz et al.,
2011; Government of the Russian Federation, 2015; Werger & van Staalduinen, 2012). Land-use
intensification promotes generalist species while specialists are decreasing, leading to large-scale
homogenization and loss of ecosystem functions (Gossner et al., 2016; Soliveres, Manning, et al., 2016;
Soliveres, van der Plas, et al., 2016; van der Plas et al., 2016b).
While the abandonment of intensive land-use regimes can lead to a recovery of grassland ecosystems
(Brinkert et al., 2016; Kämpf et al., 2016), the abandonment of traditional non-intensive land-use
regimes, can also lead to the disappearance of plant species with the growth of shrubland or forest,

408
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

especially in mountain or steppe regions (MacDonald et al., 2000; Mathar et al., 2015; Orlandi et al.,
2016; Stöcklin et al., 2007).
Recreational human activities, invasive alien species, pollution (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides), habitat
fragmentation, habitat loss and overexploitation are also major threats (Bilz et al., 2011; IUCN, 2017b;
Government of the Russian Federation, 2015; Sekercioglu et al., 2011; Silva et al., 2008). Islands with
high proportions of endemic species are particularly vulnerable to invasive alien species, especially the
Macaronesian and the Mediterranean islands (Bruchmann, 2011; Celesti-Grapow et al., 2016; IUCN,
2017b; Silva et al., 2008). However, studies of the impact of invasive alien species on the diversity of
native species are largely missing across Europe and Central Asia and statements on negative impacts
often anecdotal (Künzi et al., 2015).
Numerous vascular plant species are used for medicinal, ornamental and cultural purposes as well as
in traditional agriculture (IPBES, 2016b), in some cases causing overexploitation, i.e. East-
Mediterranean orchids used for salep production (Ghorbani et al., 2014).

3.4.10 Bryophytes
Status and trends
Bryophytes are photosynthetic non-vascular plants that reproduce by spores. Despite the wide range
of substrates colonized by bryophytes as a group, many species are restricted to narrow ecological
niches with specific requirements concerning substrates and habitat persistence. Bryophytes
constitute an important component of vegetation, biodiversity and biomass in various ecosystems (e.g.
forest, wetland, mountain, tundra) and thereby make essential contributions to ecosystem functions
(e.g., soil stabilization, water retention, carbon sinks in peatlands).
Across Europe and Central Asia, only 14 bryophyte species have been evaluated in the IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2017b). In Europe, nearly 2,000 bryophyte species occur (1,342 mosses,
494 liverworts and hornworts), representing around 10% of the worlds’ bryophyte diversity. Fifty-one
per cent of these are endangered (693 moss and 242 liverwort and hornwort taxa; (Hodgetts, 2015).
A checklist for Eastern Europe and northern Asia (including Central Asia) includes 1,302 moss species
and complements the European checklist (Ignatov et al., 2006). Although globally and across Europe
and Central Asia, only very few bryophyte species have become extinct (Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001),
locally or on the country scale many species are endangered or have even become extinct. However,
data on population trends are largely missing. Existing trend analyses are often based on survey data
from only small parts of the species range or on subjective assessments. This calls for further
investigation, especially in less surveyed countries.

Drivers of change
As bryophytes are sensitive to changes, habitat destruction or degradation can eradicate local
bryophyte populations leading to decreasing range sizes (Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001; Hodgetts,
2015; Akatov et al., 2012; Natcheva et al., 2006; Sabovljevit et al., 2001). For example, deforestation
and the replacement of natural forests in combination with short forestry rotation cycles causes a
general lack of over-mature trees and deadwood. This can reduce species richness and change
community composition. In particular, habitat specialists, such as old-growth forest species, are then
replaced by habitat generalists (Bardat & Aubert, 2007; Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001; Hofmeister et
al., 2015; Paillet et al., 2010; Sabovljevit et al., 2001; Vanderpoorten et al., 2004).
In non-forested ecosystems, bryophytes profit from non-intensive management regimes, habitat
heterogeneity and low competition (Bergamini et al., 2001; Hejcman et al., 2010; Möls et al., 2013;

409
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Müller et al., 2012; Takala et al., 2014; Zechmeister & Moser, 2001). Large-scale habitat conversion,
peatland drainage, peat extraction and land-use intensification over recent decades has led to habitat
degradation and homogenization at the landscape level. This has greatly reduced the extent of high-
quality bryophyte habitats in line with a drastic decline of bryophyte diversity and a persistent loss of
bryophyte species, even after applying different regeneration methods (Bergamini et al., 2009;
Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001; Hedberg et al., 2012; Hodgetts, 1992; Sabovljevit et al., 2001; Shustov,
2015).
In particular the application of fertilizer promotes competitive vascular plant and bryophyte species
that suppress species adapted to poor soil conditions (Alatalo et al., 2015b; Aude & Ejrnæs, 2005;
Bergamini & Pauli, 2001; Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001; Heino et al., 2005; Hejcman et al., 2010; Müller
et al., 2012; Van Der Wal et al., 2005; Virtanen et al., 2000).
While the abandonment of intensive land-use regimes can lead to the recovery of grassland
ecosystems (Brinkert et al., 2016; Kämpf et al., 2016), the abandonment of traditional non-intensive
land-use regimes in grasslands, can also lead to the development of shrubland or forest ecosystems.
This can result in the loss of bryophyte diversity (Takala et al., 2012).
Environmental pollution can have severe effects on bryophyte diversity, population sizes, regional
species pools and bryophyte performance, for example, SO2 deposition (Bates & Farmer, 1992;
Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001; Akatov et al., 2012; Sabovljevit et al., 2001; Zotz & Bader, 2009; Zvereva
& Kozlov, 2011), high nitrogen deposition in large parts of Western and Central Europe (Armitage et
al., 2014; Bobbink et al., 2010; Field et al., 2014; Kumpula et al., 2012; Phoenix et al., 2012), and various
other pollutants (Sabovljevit et al., 2001; Zvereva & Kozlov, 2011).
Climate warming might lead to expanding distribution ranges of warmth-loving bryophyte species
northwards and to higher altitudes, but might also consistently negatively affect the abundance and
diversity of bryophytes with a particular future threat for oceanic bryophytes across Western and
Central Europe (Bergamini et al., 2009; Delgado & Ederra, 2013; Hodd et al., 2014; Zotz & Bader, 2009).
Warming experiments further suggest a future productivity increase and shrub encroachment in
tundra regions with consistently negative effects on abundance and diversity of bryophytes (well
established; Alatalo et al., 2015b; Cornelissen et al., 2001; Elmendorf et al., 2012; Lang et al., 2012;
Pajunen et al., 2011; Virtanen et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2006).
Data on the impact of invasive species on bryophyte diversity is largely missing (but see Hallingbäck &
Hodgetts, 2001). The rapid colonization of sand dunes and heathlands in 21 European countries by the
invasive moss Campylopus introflexus suppresses other species (Essl & Lambdon, 2009; Essl et al.,
2013).
A relatively minor threat is overexploitation (e.g. use bryophytes for commercial, scientific or private
purposes). However, collecting by bryologists has led to the extinction of one Portuguese species
(Hallingbäck & Hodgetts, 2001).

3.4.11 Lichens
Status and trends
Lichens are symbiotic associations between mycobiontic (fungi) and photobiontic (algae) partners.
They are an important component of vegetation and biodiversity in various ecosystems and contribute
to ecosystem functions (e.g. biogeochemical cycling, carbon storage, food-webs; (Cornelissen et al.,
2007; Curtis et al., 2005; Edwards et al., 1960; Gerson & Seaward, 1977; Pettersson et al., 1995;
Seaward, 2008). Despite the wide range of substrates colonized by lichens as a group, many lichen

410
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

species are restricted to narrow ecological niches with specific requirements concerning substrate or
habitat variables (Nash, 2008a).
Global estimates for lichen species numbers range from 13,500 (Hawksworth et al., 1996) to 25,000
(Wirth & Hauck, 2013). In Europe (all 3 subregions, but excluding Russia) around 7,000 species occur
(Feuerer, 2013), Russia harbors 3,388 species (Urbanavichus, 2010). Across Europe and Central Asia,
only five lichen species have been evaluated in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2017b).
National red lists across the region often comprise only parts of the occurring lichen flora and a
comprehensive supra-national red list, applying the IUCN criteria, is completely missing. However, the
proportion of nationally endangered or extinct species is generally high (Aptroot et al., 1998; Cieslinski
et al., 2003; Liška et al., 2012; Nascimbene et al., 2013a; Randlane et al., 2008; Scheidegger & Clerc,
2002; Serusiaux, 1989; Timdal, 2015; Türk & Hafellner, 1999; Westling, 2015; Wirth et al., 2011; Woods
& Coppins, 2012; Zamin et al., 2010). Lichens were not considered in the Natura 2000 programme and
the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Nascimbene et
al., 2013b). This indicates the general need to fill this gap in line with the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity
Targets.
Knowledge on endemic lichen species is scarce. An attempt was made by the Arctic Council, listing 133
lichen species which were never found outside Panarctic countries. Of these, 61 lichen species only
occur in Europe and Central Asia (Kristinsson et al., 2010). Moreover, 34 lichen species were so far
recorded only from the British Isles (Woods & Coppins, 2012) and 12 from the Madeira archipelago
(Carvalho et al., 2008). In addition, data on bryophyte population trends are largely missing. Existing
trend analyses are often based on survey data from only small parts of the species range or on
subjective assessments. This calls for the need of further investigation, especially in less surveyed
countries.

Drivers of change
Lichens are very sensitive to changes in their environment. Therefore, pollution, environmental, land-
use and climatic changes, and habitat destruction can eradicate local lichen populations leading to a
decline in range size. For example, deforestation and the replacement of natural forests with
plantations, in combination with short forestry rotation cycles, cause a general lack of over-mature
trees and deadwood, and lack of forest structure. This can lead to homogenous lichen communities
and the isolation of dispersal or establishment-limited species, reducing the species richness and the
genetic diversity of lichens (Cornelissen et al., 2001; Ellis, 2012, 2015; Hauck et al., 2013; Hofmeister
et al., 2015; Nascimbene et al., 2013a; Paillet et al., 2010; Scheidegger & Werth, 2009; Wolseley, 1995).
In non-forested ecosystems, lichens profit from non-intensive management regimes, habitat
heterogeneity and low competition. Large-scale conversion and land-use intensification over recent
decades has led to habitat degradation and homogenization at the landscape level in line with a drastic
decline of lichen diversity (Boch et al., 2016; Dengler et al., 2014; Gossner et al., 2016; Hölzel et al.,
2002; Kamp et al., 2011; Korotchenko & Peregrym, 2012; Mathar et al., 2015; Akatov et al., 2012;
Shustov, 2015; Stofer et al., 2006; The Russian Academy of Sciences, 2014; Werger & van Staalduinen,
2012; Wirth et al., 2011; Wolseley, 1995). The abandonment of traditional non-intensive land-use
regimes in grasslands is leading to the loss of soil-dwelling lichens (Hauck, 2009; Leppik et al., 2013).
Environmental pollution can have severe effects on lichen diversity, population sizes, regional species
pools and lichen performance. For example, sulphate deposition eradicated the lichen diversity in large
parts of Europe (Bates & Farmer, 1992; Gilbert, 1992; Hauck, 2009; Hauck et al., 2013; Insarov &
Insarova, 2013; Kirschbaum et al., 2006; Akatov et al., 2012; Nash, 2008b; Purvis, 2015; Purvis et al.,
2010; Sedelnikova, 1988; Zotz & Bader, 2009). In addition, the high nitrogen deposition in large parts

411
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of Europe promotes nitrophytic species to the detriment of acidophytic ones (Hauck, 2010; Insarov et
al., 2010; Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008; Liška et al., 2012; Lisowska, 2011; van Herk, 2001);
increases the growth of competing species such as vascular plants; and suppresses soil-dwelling lichens
(Armitage et al., 2014; Britton & Fisher, 2010; Field et al., 2014; Phoenix et al., 2012).
Climate-warming might lead to expanding distribution ranges of warmth-loving lichen species
northwards, but also might consistently negatively affect the abundance and diversity of lichens
(Aptroot & van Herk, 2007; Davydov et al., 2013; Insarov & Schroeter, 2002; Zotz & Bader, 2009), for
example by productivity increase and shrub encroachment in tundra regions (Alatalo et al., 2015a;
Cornelissen et al., 2001; Elmendorf et al., 2012; Lang et al., 2012; Pajunen et al., 2011; Virtanen et al.,
2013; Walker et al., 2006) or the replacement of lichen-rich forests (Andreev et al., 2014).
Data on the impact of invasive species on lichen diversity is largely missing. However, the invasive moss
Campylopus introflexus is causing a decline of lichen abundance and diversity in sand dunes and
heathlands of 21 European countries (Biermann & Daniels, 1997; Essl & Lambdon, 2009; Hassel &
Soderstrom, 2005; Ketner-Oostra & Sýkora, 2004; Sparrius & Kooijman, 2011). Moreover, the
replacement of native forests by stands of non-native tree species negatively affects lichen diversity,
for example Robinia pseudoacacia stands (Nascimbene et al., 2015). The invasive box tree moth
(Cydalima perspectalis) is depleting natural European box (Buxus sempervirens) forests in the Caucasus
region (Russian Forest Protection Centre, n.d.). As many rare epiphyllous lichen species are growing
on the evergreen leaves of the European box (Vězda, 1983), this severely threatens their populations.
In addition, epidemic tree pests, such as the current large-scale European ash borer, a species of jewel
beetle (Agrilus planipennis)across Europe threatens many lichen species, as ash is the host tree of a
large number of specialized and threatened epiphytic lichens (Ellis et al., 2014; Ellis et al., 2012; Jönsson
& Thor, 2012; Lõhmus & Runnel, 2014; Marmor et al., 2017; Rigling et al., 2016).

3.4.12 Fungi
Fungi contribute a large share of terrestrial species richness and are key players in ecosystem processes
(Peay et al., 2016). Estimates of the global number of fungal species range between 2.2 to 3.8 million,
of which 120,000 currently are described and accepted species. Fungi are, for practical reasons, often
divided into macro- and microfungi. The overwhelming number are microfungi, i.e. species without
sporocarps like molds and yeast or sporocarps smaller than 1 mm. These are not dealt with here,
similar to microorganisms, due to insufficient knowledge of their distribution and ecology and lack of
IUCN Red List assessments. Macrofungi (phyla Basidiomycota and Ascomycota), have visible
sporocarps (> 1mm), constitute about 30% of known fungi, and are undergoing extinction risk
assessments according to the categories and criteria of IUCN (Dahlberg & Mueller, 2011). Due to their
largely hidden mycelial nature and frequently sporadic and short-lived sporocarps, fungi are more
poorly understood and appreciated than plants and animals. Hence, fungi have largely been invisible
to the conservation community and policymakers and often overlooked in national and international
nature conservation actions. During the last decades, however, the knowledge has significantly
increased of the status and trends for fungi, how human activities affect fungal diversity and how to
counteract threats (Dahlberg & Mueller, 2011; Heilmann-Clausen et al., 2015).

Status and trends

Macrofungal checklists exist for most European countries and for most Russian regions, but have
varying degrees of completeness (Senn-irlet et al., 2007). However, there is no combined checklist for
Europa or Central Asia. Species richness of macrofungi in Europe has been estimated to be at least

412
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

15,000 (Dahlberg et al., 2010) and 8,000 in Russia (Kovalenko et al., 2005, Svetasheva, pers. com).
The total species richness of fungi in Europe (Western and Central Europe including Turkey but
excluding Isarel), is considered to exceed 75,000 – 100,000 (Senn-irlet et al., 2007). In 2005, the
number of known fungi in Russia was 11,000 and the total number of fungi exceeded 25,000
(Kovalenko et al., 2005). Only twenty-five macrofungal species have been globally assessed for
extinction risk according to the IUCN Red List categories and criteria (IUCN, 2017c), but the list is
growing thanks to a dedicated Red List Initiative for fungi29. Of these, 13 species are distributed in
Europe and Central Asia, of which 10 are distributed in geographic Europe (including
geographically European Russia west of the Ural mountains, but not Turkey and Israel) and
three in the whole region. Ten of the 13species are threatened (one EN and nine VU). At least
33 national fungal Red Lists exist in Western and Central Europe, which are widely used for
management and conservation actions across Europe (Dahlberg et al., 2010). Similarly, Russia has a
national Red Data Book (2008) with 24 listed species of fungi and in addition, 82 of the 85 regions
in Russia have regional Red Data Books, which in total include 700 macrofungal species
(Svetasheva, 2017). In total, 5,500 macrofungal species are red-listed in at least one European
country, of which at least 1,664 species are considered to qualify as red-listed also at the European
level (Dahlberg et al., 2010). In European countries with comprehensive fungal red-list
assessment, about 20 % of known species are red-listed and 10% categorized as threatened (e.g.
in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden; Tingstad et al., 2017). These figures
imply that about 5% of the European and Central Asian macrofungi would be threatened with
extinction (categories vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered) if such a red-list assessment
would take place.
The lack of fungi in global and European Red Lists have hindered the inclusion of fungi in international
conservation agreements such as in the Annex II, IV and V of the European Union Habitat Directive.
Forest ecosystems are by far the most species-rich habitats for macrofungi. Natural and extensively
used European and Asian forests provided different conditions and dynamics to fungal diversity than
the managed forests of today (Nordén et al., 2014). Accordingly, about 75% of the nationally and
globally threatened macrofungi are dependent on woodlands, mainly as associates with coarse dead
wood or as ectomycorrhizal fungi with particular habitat requirements, and restricted to old-growth
forests conditions. The persistence of threatened woodland fungi is determined by a combination of
stand level factors together with factors related to the surrounding landscape matrix such as
proximity and extent of intensively managed forests and old growth forest habitats (Jönsson et al.
2017). Other habitats of large importance for fungal conservation are semi-natural grassland and
natural steppe, containing some of the most threatened species, and totalling about 10-20% of
national and globally threatened species. These habitats have dramatically declined throughout
Europe and Asia due to conversion to arable crops, tree plantations and scrublands (Emanuelsson,
2010). Many grassland fungal species have evolved in nutrient poor and stable conditions, and
disappear when artificial fertilizers are applied and decline due to atmospheric deposition of nitrogen
(Arnolds, 2001). Furthermore, some types of wetland, e.g. mires and alkaline fens, are important
habitats for about 5% of nationally threatened fungi in Europe. These species are sensitive to any
change of hydrological regime and eutrophication (Fraiture & Otto, 2015; Svetasheva, 2015). Alcaline
fens are of high conservation priority due to extensive past drainage (Šefferová Stanová et al., 2008).
There is strong evidence of a decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi due to eutrophication and linked to the
level of nitrogen deposition in Europe (e.g. Arnolds, 2010; Dahlberg et al., 2010).

Drivers of change
29 http://iucn.ekoo.se/en/iucn/welcome

413
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The major threats to threatened macrofungi in the region are (i) habitat decline and degradation due
to intensified land use of forests, semi-natural grasslands and steppe, (ii) land-use change of forests,
semi-natural grasslands and steppe, followed by (iii) eutrophication and (iv) effects of invasive
pathogens on native tree species (Senn-Erlet et al. 2007; Dahlberg et al., 2010). Climate change is an
emergent threat likely to directly and indirectly affect fungal diversity (Heilmann-Clausen et al., 2015).
The invasion of the alien fungal pathogens Dutch elm disease and ash decline have been devastating
for the distribution of elm and ash in Europe and caused declines in fungal diversity associated with
these trees (Brasier & Buck, 2001; Landolt et al., 2016). Ecological impacts of alien invasive pathogens
are projected to continue to increase in the future due to trade and climate (Santini et al., 2013).
Long-term Pan-European studies imply climate to drive community changes and range expansion, so
far manifested by increased fungal fruiting periods (e.g. Kauserud et al., 2012). Forest management
has a potential to compensate negative effects of climate change by increasing set-aside forests to
prevent the decline of old-forest species under climate change (Mair et al., 2017). Climate is also
affecting the distribution of invasive tree pathogens native to Europe that may become negative for
native tree species, e.g. the northerly range expansion of the pathogen Diplodia to Scots pine (Oliva et
al., 2013). Furthermore, climatic change increasingly fosters alien tree species, e.g. Acer negundo and
Robinia pseudacacia to invade forests and grasslands, thereby changing fungal communities and
driving threatened species out of these habitats (Kleinbauer et al., 2010).

414
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 3.11: Summary of past and current trends in the biodiversity of different taxa in Europe and Central Asia and of the attribution of these trends to
direct drivers of change (3.4.2-3.4.12). ECA=Europe and Central Asia, WE=Western Europe, CE=Central Europe, EE= Eastern Europe, CA=Central Asia. ↑/↓
denote strong and consistent increase/decrease in the indicator; ↗/↘ denote moderate and consistent increase/decrease in the indicator; ↔ stable
indicator; ↕ variable trend in the indicator.

415
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.4.13 Progress towards Multilateral Environmental Agreements for species

conservation
European Union Biodiversity Strategy
Target 1 of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy calls for halting the “deterioration in the status
of all species and habitats covered by European Union nature legislation (Habitats and Birds
Directives), and achieving a significant and measurable improvement in their status so that, by 2020,
compared with current assessments:
(a) 100% more habitat assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive
show [a favourable or ] an improved conservation status [with respect to the last reporting period at
the time of adoption of the European Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: that is the 2001-2006
reporting period];
(b) 50% more species assessments under the Birds Directive [with respect to 2001-2006 as with the
Habitat Directive] show a secure or improved status”.
For the Birds Directive, the baseline was 52% of the 447 species naturally occurring in the European
Union having a secure status. In the last reporting period (2007-2012), this figure was unchanged, and
8.5% were assessed as threatened but improving. Therefore, there is still a 17.5% shortfall in the
percentage of species that should be secure or improving with respect to 2001, for the European Union
target to be met (EEA, 2015a).
An additional 17% of the bird species naturally occurring in the European Union were assessed as
threatened, and 15% were assessed as near-threatened or declining or having depleted populations.
The remaining 16% of the species had unknown population status. There are no discernible geographic
patterns in these status and trends, but there are ecosystem-level and taxonomic differences:
grassland, heathland and coastal species, petrels, shearwaters and galliforms have a higher proportion
of threatened, near-threatened and declining species than other groups (EEA, 2015a) (Section 3.4.2).
Moreover, short-term declining trends are more prevalent among bird species in all marine
ecosystems than species in other ecosystems (EEA, 2015a).
For the Habitat Directive, the baseline in 2001 initially assessed 15% of species as being favourable but,
when further data became available, a retrospective analysis corrected this baseline to 23%. This
means that, for the European Union biodiversity target 1 to be met, 35% of species assessments should
be favourable or improving by 2020 (150% of 23%). Overall, 118 monitored species of plants and
animals in the European Union have unfavourable conservation status but improving trends, 572 have
unfavourable conservation status and deteriorating trends and 905 have unfavourable status and
stable trends (EEA, 2015a).
Overall, in the 2007-2012 reporting period, 23% of the assessment were still favourable, 60% were
unfavourable and 17% had unknown conservation status. Looking at trends of unfavourable species,
4% of the species assessments were unfavourable but improving 20% were unfavourable stable, 21%
unfavourable and deteriorating and 14% unfavourable with unknown trends. There is therefore a 8%
shortfall in species assessments that should be favourable or improving with respect to 2001 for the
European Union target to be met (EEA, 2015a).
The terrestrial and freshwater species faring worst in terms of status and trends are slightly more
prevalent in the Pannonian and Steppic biogeographic regions of Central Europe (Hungary, part of
Slovakia and Czech Republic, part of Romania) and the Continental, Atlantic and Mediterranean
biogeographic regions (all of Western and Central Europe part of European Union , except Hungary,
Scandinavia, and the Baltic Countries) (EEA, 2015a). The Macaronesian islands stand out by having the

416
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

highest number of unfavourable but improving population assessments (12.1%) followed by Boreal
and Atlantic regions (9% and 6.8% of assessment, respectively).
Assessing progress towards the European Union Biodiversity Strategy for marine species is marred by
uncertainty in status and trends (Section 3.4.6), over half of the assessments having unknown trends.
The exception is the Baltic Marine Bioregion, for which all trends are considered known and 60% are
improving.
The main drivers of recent past population declines across all realms are agriculture (use of biocides
and chemicals affected 73% of assessed populations, intensification 42%, modification of cultivation
practices 36%); reduction of habitat connectivity (55%); pollution of surface waters (56%); invasive
alien species (46%); human induced changes in hydraulic conditions (43%); and forestry (removal of
dead trees (39%), clearance (38%), logging of natural and plantation forests (38%) (EEA, 2015a).
Across all species and realms, 99% of the favourable assessments for species in the 2007–2012 period
were already favourable in the 2001–2006 period; this means that only 0.4% (11 assessments) truly
changed from unfavourable to favourable (EEA, 2015a). At this rate, European Union Biodiversity
target 1 will not be met for species.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Strategic
Vision for 2020 includes Goal 3 “Contribute to significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and to
achieving relevant globally agreed goals and targets by ensuring that CITES and other multilateral
instruments and processes are coherent and mutually supportive”. CITES is legally binding and
regulates trade in live plants and animals, their parts and products derived from them. Species subject
to regulations are listed in three Appendices 30. 529 species in Appendices of CITES occur in Europe and
Central Asia. Of the 334 species with known population trends, 74% are declining (Table 3.12).
Importantly, 206 of these species continue to be threatened by direct large-scale overexploitation and
23 of these are endemic of Europe and Central Asia. It was not possible to track the trade flows of
these species, however 17 of these are endemic, and therefore their unsustainable harvest occurs
within the region. These are nearly 50% of the 40 endemic species listed in CITES annexes. This suggest
that countries in Europe and Central Asia are moving away from achieving the CITES vision for 2020 31.

Table 3.12: Trends in CITES-listed species in Europe and Central Asia. Data obtained from analysing
IUCN assessment data retrieved in September 2017 (IUCN, 2017c). Species lists for CITES were
obtained by querying https://www.speciesplus.net.
Increasing Stable Declining Unknown
Appendix I 11 6 23 7

30 Those in Annex I are particularly threatened and their commercial trade is banned; those in Annex II are those for which
permits are needed for their international trade; those in Annex III are species included at the request of a Party that already
regulates trade in the species and that needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent unsustainable or illegal
exploitation; these species also require permits. Some species, including the gray wolf, are in Annex I in some countries and
in Annex II in other.
31 Number obtained by intersecting IUCN data on direct threats to species with population trends from the IUCN Red List

Database version 2017.1 (IUCN, 2017c) on the subset of species listed in the CITES Annexes and whose range overlap with
the Europe and Central Asia region. The list of threats considered where: Hunting & collecting terrestrial animals (threat code
5.1.1: target species, threat code 5.1.4: motivation unknown or unrecorded ), Gathering terrestrial plants (threat code 5.2.1:
target species, threat code 5.2.4: motivation unknown or unrecorded), Logging and wood harvesting (threat code 5.3.2: target
species, large scale harvest, threat code 5.3.5: motivation unknown or unrecorded), Fishing & harvesting aquatic resources
(threat code 5.4.2: target species, large scale harvest; threat code 5.46: motivation unknown or unrecorded).

417
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Appendix II 15 50 216 183

Appendix I and II 0 3 0 1
Appendix III 1 1 8 4

Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Here we report on progress towards Aichi Biodiversity Targets 12 and 13, the only ones exclusively
focusing on species. Aichi Biodiversity Target 12 calls for halting species extinctions and improving the
conservation status of threatened species by 2020. The indicators identified to monitor progress
towards this target are the Red List Index and the Living Planet Index, although any credible measure
of population trends or conservation status can be used to assess progress at national or regional scale.
The Red List Index for Europe and Central Asia is declining and the Living Planet Index, only available
for selected terrestrial vertebrates, is slightly declining since 2004 (Figure 3.54). Our independent
review of the conservation status of all reported taxa in Europe and Central Asia (Table 3.11) confirms
the trends reported by these two indicators, which, unlike our review, are taxonomically biased
towards vertebrates and selected plant groups. There are notable exceptions to these general trends.
For instance, the conservation status of large mammalian carnivores and bird species that have
benefited from conservation attention has improved in the last two decades (Paragraphs 3.4.2, 3.4.3).
Nevertheless, 44.4 % of the species extant in Europe and Central Asia with known population trends
in the IUCN Red List are declining (over a total of 5244 species extant in the region and with known
trends of July 2017), 50.2% are stable and only 5.3% are increasing.
For marine species these figures are 436 decreasing, 410 stable, and 59 increasing, respectively, i.e.
48.2%, 45.3% and 6.5%; for terrestrial species 42%, 51.7%, and 6.3%; and for freshwater species 50.2%,
7.3% and 42.5%. Note, however, that population trends are assessed throughout a species range which
could extend outside the region 32. These results combined suggest that, despite decelerating trends in
extinction risk, countries in Europe and Central Asia are not on track to meet Aichi Biodiversity Target
12.
Aichi Biodiversity Target 13 calls for the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and
domesticated animals and of wild relatives to be maintained by 2020. The indicator chosen for animals
is the trend in conservation status of domestic breeds. In 2005, 2,228 domesticated breeds of
mammals and 976 domesticated breeds of birds were recorded for Europe and the Caucasus by the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Of these, a minimum of 50.7% and a
maximum of 74.6% were either extinct or at risk of extinction, depending on how many species with
unknown trends were assumed to be at risk. In 2015 a further 540 mammal breeds and 426 avian
breeds were listed in Europe and Central Asia. The minimum number of breeds extinct or at risk had
decreased to 45.3% but the maximum number increased to 80.4% or, put in a different way, the
number of certainly safe breeds decreased by 5.8% in 10 years (FAO, 2007, 2015a).
For plant species, the indicators are more complex. A common proxy is the number of crop varieties
grown in a country or region. However, this is not always correlated with genetic diversity. While
genetic erosion was reported in several countries in Europe and Central Asia, a recent meta-analysis
found that, overall, there appears to have been no substantial reduction in genetic diversity as a result
of crop breeding in the twentieth century (van de Wouw et al., 2010). In addition, the threat of
hybridization of ornamental species with domestic congeners seems not to be high (Klonner et al.,
2017). On the other hand, several local crop varieties were lost due to replacement by higher-yielding
crops, for instance all local maize and wheat varieties in Albania (FAO, 2010). As the latest FAO report

32 Data obtained by analyzing population trends and geographic range from IUCN (2017b)

418
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

on genetic diversity of cultivated plants and wild relatives puts it, “convincing evidence may be lacking
for genetic erosion in farmer varieties on the one hand and released varieties on the other hand, far
greater consensus exists on the occurrence of genetic erosion as a result of the total shift from
traditional production systems depending on farmer varieties to modern production systems
depending on released varieties” (FAO, 2010). Based on these conclusions and those of the FAO reports
on domestic animal breeds it appears that, despite efforts to protect rare domestic breeds and
germoplasms of cultivated plant varieties, Aichi Biodiversity Target 13 is not on track to be met for
Europe and Central Asia.

Convention on Migratory Species

The Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals is more commonly known as
the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). Its Strategic Plan for Migratory Species (2015-2023),
mirrors the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Its target 8 is, “[by 2023] the conservation status
of all migratory species, especially threatened species, has considerably improved throughout their
range”.
To report on progress towards this target for Europe and Central Asia, we intersected information from
the IUCN Red List database, reporting global population trends for over 12,000 species in Europe and
Central Asia, with the list of species in Appendices I 33 and II 34 of the CMS.

33 Appendix I comprises migratory species that have been assessed as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of their range. Source: http://www.cms.int/en/page/appendix-i-ii-cms
Parties that are a Range State to a migratory species listed in Appendix I shall endeavour to strictly protect them by:
prohibiting the taking of such species, with very restricted scope for exceptions; conserving and where appropriate restoring
their habitats; preventing, removing or mitigating obstacles to their migration and controlling other factors that might
endanger them.
34 Appendix II covers migratory species that have an unfavourable conservation status and that require international

agreements for their conservation and management, as well as those that have a conservation status which would
significantly benefit from the international cooperation that could be achieved by an international agreement. The
Convention encourages the Range States to species listed on Appendix II to conclude global or regional Agreements for the

419
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

There are 371 migratory bird species listed in the annexes of the Convention occurring in Europe and
Central Asia. 150 of them have declining trends, 111 are stable, 67 increasing and 43 have unknown
trends. Among the long-distance migrants, most engage in various Afro-Palearctic flyways. The
majority of these species have long-term population declines, especially over the period 1970-1990, in
particular those that winter in open savannas and breed on agricultural land (Vickery et al., 2014).
More recently, Sahelian-wintering birds have shown some sign of recovery, whereas birds wintering in
less arid parts of sub-Saharan Africa have shown a continued decline (Vickery et al., 2014).
Migrating ungulates have not fared better. Six out of eight have declining trends, including the saiga
antelope which has twice suffered population collapses since the early 1990s, due to hunting and
infectious diseases (Section 3.4.3). Of the 42 migratory bat species in Europe and Central Asia, 15 are
declining, nine are stable, one is improving and 17 have unknown trends.
Among marine species listed in the appendices of the Convention on Migratory Species, all three sea-
turtles in Europe and Central Asia - loggerhead, green and leatherback - have declining population
trends. Twenty-three out of 27 cetaceans have unknown trends. Of the remaining four, three are
increasing (blue, humpback and bowhead whale) and one, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, is
declining.
Twelve of 13 migratory sharks and rays have overall population declines, while the great white shark
has unknown trends in Europe and Central Asia.
The only bony fishes listed in the Convention appendices from Europe and Central Asia are 14 sturgeon
fishes, of which 13 are declining, while the Syr darya shovelnose sturgeon has unknown trends. A 15th
species of the same family occurring in Europe and Central Asia, the Siberian sturgeon Acipenser baerii,
is not listed by the Convention despite being migratory, and is also declining. There are no migratory
invertebrates listed in the Convention appendices.
Overall, these results show that Europe and Central Asia countries are moving away from achieving
Convention on Migratory Species targets (Table 3.13).

Table 3.13: Trends in species listed in appendices of the Convention on Migratory Species in Europe
and Central Asia. Data obtained from analysing IUCN assessment data retrieved in September 2017
(IUCN, 2017c). Species lists for the Convention were obtained by querying
https://www.speciesplus.net.

Increasing Stable Declining Unknown

Appendix I 5 0 13 4
Appendix II 64 118 158 76
Appendix I and II 5 4 30 7

conservation and management of individual species or groups of related species. Source:

http://www.cms.int/en/page/appendix-i-ii-cms

420
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.5 Future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems

3.5.1 Terrestrial systems

3.5.1.1 Species distribution and conservation status
Short term projections of the impact of climate change on plants, mammals and birds to 2020 indicate
widespread contractions in suitable climatic ranges spanning from 10% to 55% depending on climate
scenario and taxonomic group considered (Casazza et al., 2014; Thuiller et al., 2011). Extrapolations of
trends in farmland bird abundance to 2020 assuming business-as-usual socio-economic trends and full
implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union also show overall declines
across the region, as well as national declines for 15 out of 26 countries considered (Scholefield et al.,
2011).
Few studies investigated projections for a period relevant to the lifespan of the Sustainable
Development Goals (2030). Disaggregated results of species richness intactness (ratio of species native
to a pristine community extant in a given location) of plant and animals for the region from Newbold
et al. (2015), report an 8% decline by 2035 under two alternative scenarios of land use, compatible
with relative concentration pathways scenarios IMAGE 2.6 (w/m2 of radiating forcing), and AIM 6.0
(w/m2). For 2030, Verboom et al. (2007) found a 4% decline in relative richness under the 4 Special
Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).
Combined effects of land-use and climate change under business-as-usual scenarios for the second
part of the 21st century, are projected to cause widespread range shift and contraction and local
population declines across animal and plant species. On average, ranges of mammalian carnivore and
ungulate species in Europe (excluding the Russian Federation) are expected to contract by 8%
assuming that all species can adapt locally to climate change (therefore declining exclusively due to
habitat loss); by 15% if they are allowed to track suitable climatic conditions by dispersing at their
maximum physiological dispersal; or by 24% if it is assumed that they cannot disperse (Rondinini and
Visconti, 2015). Under these conditions, range shifts and contractions are predicted by 2050 for two-
thirds of European breeding birds (Barbet-Massin et al., 2012), for tree species in France (Cheaib et al.,
2012) and for alpine plants in Europe with about 50% average reduction in range size by 2100 (Dullinger
et al., 2012; Engler et al., 2011).
On average, across all plant and animal groups, local richness and mean species abundance are
projected to continue to decline throughout the region, under business-as-usual socio-economic
scenarios (Figure 3.55, Figure 3.56). Declines are widespread throughout Europe and Central Asia with
the exception of the arid parts of Central Asia and the Russian Federation which are less suitable to
agricultural expansions and therefore are not projected to incur further habitat loss (Figure 3.55).

421
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

422
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Extinction risk prognoses assessed through IUCN Red List criteria, are projected to deteriorate for one
to eight species of large mammals in Western and Central Europe (out of 27 investigated), depending
on the assumption made with regards to ability to track climate change (Rondinini & Visconti, 2015;
Visconti et al., 2016).
Overall, these results provide evidence that, under business-as-usual socio-economic trends and in
absence of new policies for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the Convention on
Biological Diversity vision to halt the loss of biodiversity, will not be met by 2050 and beyond for Europe
and Central Asia. Normative scenarios that aim to meet these targets have been produced (PBL, 2010,
2012, 2014). These studies showed that policies to mitigate climate change that involve replacing
intensive forestry with reduced-impact logging, and increasing yields to spare land from cultivation,
can together stem biodiversity losses expected under baseline patterns of consumption and
production (see also Chapter 5 on normative scenarios designed to meet biodiversity goals).

3.5.1.2 Community composition

Local taxonomic richness of native species (alpha diversity) across plants, fungi and animal taxa in the
terrestrial environment is expected to decline across all of Europe and Central Asia under business-as-
usual scenarios of habitat loss (ignoring other drivers of change), except for boreal forests in
Fennoscandia and Russia and for the arid regions of central Asia which are not projected to incur
agricultural expansion (Newbold et al., 2015). Similar richness patterns are found in freshwater
environments (below).
Species range shift, ecological filtering through loss of native vegetation, and the introduction of new
species are projected to result in increased temporal turnover of species across most terrestrial
ecosystems (Barbet-Massin & Jetz, 2014; Newbold et al., 2015; Verboom et al., 2007). Similarly, local
functional diversity is also expected to increase, at least for birds across all subregions of Europe and
Central Asia, as a result of climate-driven range shifts (Barbet-Massin & Jetz, 2014). Climate-driven

423
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

range shifts, and species introductions are likely to lead to declines in beta (i.e. between-site) diversity
across the region, with resulting spatial biotic homogenization. For instance, beta taxonomic diversity
of plant species in the French Alps is expected to decline by 10-23% by 2050, depending on the climatic
model applied (Thuiller et al., 2014a). Beta phylogenetic diversity in Europe for birds and mammals is
expected to decrease by 32% and 30% by 2080 under BAU socio-economic scenarios, as a consequence
of climate-induced range shifts, expansions and contractions (Thuiller et al., 2011).

3.5.1.3 Ecosystem extent, function and structure

Within Europe and Central Asia, the extent of coniferous forests is expected to be maintained or even
increase. Meanwhile, tundra, other Alpine ecosystems, Mediterranean ecosystems, and broad-leaved
and mixed forests are expected to substantially contract, because of climate and land-use change
(Benito Garzon et al., 2008; Lehsten et al., 2015; Verboom et al., 2007). Increasing water deficit
(aridification) may lead to range contractions of some tree species, especially those with limited
migration ability, such as European beech (Saltré et al., 2015). A rapid upward shift of mountain
vegetation belts by ca. 500 m and treeline positions of ca. 2500 m a. s. l. by the end of this century is
also predicted (Schwörer et al., 2014).
Alpine, Scandinavian, and Icelandic glaciers are projected to retreat. The range of losses depends of
climate modelling scenario and varies from 20% to 90% from the 2006 ice volume (IPCC, 2014b).The
extent of tundra in the region is limited northward by the ocean and by a small area of Arctic
desert. Shrinking of the tundra belt due to loss of permafrost, most active in Siberia and in the
southern Arctic (IPCC, 2014a), with subsequent replacement by coniferous forests is expected by
the end of the 21st century (Lindner et al., 2010, Kharuk et al., 2006).
It is likely that aridification will reduce the geographical ranges of broadleaved forests, and that Euro-
Siberian conifers at medium and high elevations will be displaced by Mediterranean sclerophyll
species. Mediterranean mountains might lose their key role as refugia for cold-adapted species and
this may have a disproportionate impact on phylogenetic diversity (Barbet-Massin et al., 2012; Benito
Garzon et al., 2008; Ruiz-Labourdette et al., 2012; Thuiller et al., 2011, 2014a).
Mediterranean-type ecosystems will suffer from rising temperature, rainfall change (declining in most
cases), increased drought, and increased fire frequency (IPCC, 2014b).
Increased seasonal thawing of permafrost due to climate warming may alter the hydrological and
thermal regime of polygon and palsa peatlands, as well as their spatial structure (Minayeva & Sirin,
2009, 2010; Minayeva et al., 2017b). However, many forecasts of the effect of climate change are
ambiguous. Climate change may lead to permafrost degradation in the southern parts of the Asian
territory of Russia, whereas forest is likely to expand into in the forest tundra. Fires on peatlands and
other paludified habitats have already become more frequent from the tundra to the steppe
(Minayeva et al., 2013).
The carbon stored in natural vegetation is likely to increase under business-as-usual scenarios of
climate change (Friend et al., 2014). However, changes in plant respiration and release in soil carbon
will be such that there will be a net release of soil carbon in forest and grassland ecosystems (Wolf et
al., 2012). The potential standing stock of plant biomass in Russia is predicted to increase in response
to elevated precipitation (Shuman & Shugart, 2009).
Box 3.2: 21st century scenarios for mountain ecosystems.

Trends in future climate, land use and invasion projections for mountain systems

424
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Similar to other regions of the world, mountain systems in Europe and Central Asia are projected to warm at a
higher rate than other areas (Rangwala et al., 2013). Climate models predict an average temperature change for
mountain ranges worldwide of 2-3°C by 2070 and 3-5°C by the end of the century (Nogués-Bravo et al., 2007),
with greater increases for mountains in northern latitudes than in temperate and Mediterranean climates, with
severe impacts expected on biodiversity. Additional threats on biodiversity are represented by invasive species,
predicted to increasingly invade mountains under climate change (e.g. Pauchard et al., 2009; Petitpierre et al.,
2015) and by land-use change and pollution (Yoccoz et al., 2010). Biological responses to ongoing global changes
were already evidenced, and these trends are expected to intensify in the future (Pereira et al., 2010), with
complex biophysical dynamics in mountain systems (Bugmann et al., 2007).
Vegetation
Both mechanistic and correlative modelling approaches predict an advance of the treeline, and a consequent
reduction of the alpine and nival areas (Körner, 2012; Pellissier et al., 2013). Currently, however, the main driver
of upward treeline shifts is land abandonment (Gehrig-Fasel et al., 2007), which shows the importance of
considering land-use changes in combination with climate change. Most models project strong changes in
composition and structure of temperate and Mediterranean mountain forests, affecting biodiversity and
ecosystem services, such as protection against rockfalls and avalanches (Elkin et al., 2013). 21st century climate
change scenarios predict a massive reduction of high-elevation grassland plant diversity and high community
turnover, possibly changing the structures of current natural ecosystems (Engler et al., 2011), but first extinctions
may only be observed in several decades (e.g. 40 years at high elevation in the Swiss Alps; Engler et al. 2009).
For the whole European Alps, Dullinger et al. (2012) predicted a range reduction around 44-50% for 150 high-
mountain species, including several endemics, with possible delays in extinctions (extinction debt). Species that
already occur near mountain tops with no possible escape upward have a greater risk of extinction, as predicted
for Europe (e.g. Dirnböck et al., 2011; Dullinger et al., 2012; Engler et al., 2011; Randin et al., 2009; Thuiller et
al., 2005), Spain (Felicísimo et al., 2011), or Norway (Wehn et al., 2014). On the other hand, mountain systems
that have pronounced microclimatic variations may allow species to persist locally (Randin et al., 2009; Scherrer
& Körner, 2011; Trivedi et al., 2008). The melting of permanent snow and ice may also provide new potential
habitats at higher elevations than currently found, although the formation of soils may take several hundred
years (Engler et al., 2011; Guisan & Theurillat, 2001). In the lower alpine areas, losses of grasslands are to be
expected by upward shift of treelines (Dirnböck et al., 2003; Körner, 2012; Pellissier et al., 2013), with a 2.2
degree warming leading to an upward shift of the treeline of about 400m, to a reduction of the lower alpine
zone of more than 20% and of the upper alpine and nival zones of more than 50% (Körner, 2012; see Theurillat
& Guisan, 2001 for 3.3 degree warming). Counteracting these trends in alpine habitat losses would require the
maintenance of large summer farms (Dirnböck et al., 2003). Model simulations show that pasture-woodland
systems on lower elevation mountains (e.g. Jura mountain in Western Europe), in particular, may suffer from
increased drought, resulting in progressive shifts from Norway spruce to beech under moderate warming, or to
Scots pine under extreme warming.This may require changes in silvopastoral practices, such as intensifying
pasturing and moving to mixed herds (e.g. cattle, horses, sheep, and goats) to prevent forest encroachment and
the loss of species-rich open grasslands and forest-grassland ecotones (Peringer et al., 2013). Also using
simulations combining land-use and climate change scenarios for the Larch in the French Alps, Albert et al. (2008)
conclude that ongoing and future agri-environmental policies have to be quickly adapted to protect biodiversity
and ecosystem services provided by subalpine grasslands.
Much fewer modelling studies exist that examine the effects of pollution on plant species and vegetation in
mountains of Europe and Central Asi. In the Jizera Mts of Northern Bohemia, ongoing nitrogen deposition results
in an unbalanced nutrition of Norway spruce, causing crown defoliation that may ultimately decrease the upper
optimal limit for the young spruce stands (Lomský et al., 2012), but positive effects of nitrogen deposition
combined with climate warming were also observed in other mountains (Hauck et al., 2012), making prediction
of pollution effects on vegetation still uncertain.
More studies exist on invasions by exotic plants in mountain areas. Although mountains areas were long
considered as more preserved than lowlands from biological invasions (Pauchard et al., 2009), recent modelling
studies predict increasing threats by invasive alien species in mountains of the region under climate change,

425
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

sometimes combined with land-use change (Cervenkova & Münzbergová, 2009; Hof, 2015; Kašák et al., 2015;
Petitpierre et al., 2015; Simpson & Prots, 2013).
End of Box 3.4

3.5.1.4 Emerging drivers of change

Russian tundra is expected to be further fragmented, polluted and degraded by projected transport
systems, settlements and industrial sites (Government of the Russian Federation, 2013). A warmer
climate and longer period of open sea water will make territories of Polar Islands more available for
tourism which can become a negative factor of disturbance for animals and birds (Bagin et al., 2011).

3.5.2 Freshwater systems

3.5.2.1 Species distribution and conservation status
Freshwater molluscs, most aquatic insects, headwater fishes and crustaceans are expected to contract
their ranges due to climate change with greater than 2˚ C warming by 2070 (IPCC Assessment Report
4, scenarios A1B and A2), while aquatic macrophytes, dragonflies and downstream fishes have the
potential to expand their range, assuming they are able to disperse and that no other threats will
impede their expansion (Alahuhta et al., 2011; Capinha et al., 2013; Cordellier et al., 2012; Domisch et
al., 2011). Stenothermal species (with narrow thermal ranges, such as Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus)
will probably shift range or become locally extinct, whereas eurythermal species (with a wide thermal
tolerance, such as common carp, Cyprinus carpio) will likely be able to adapt to new thermal regimes.
At high latitudes, cold-adapted species, such as salmonids, and amongst them notably the
northernmost freshwater fish species, Arctic charr, will likely experience major population reductions,
a continuation of current trends (Brucet et al., 2010; Moss, 2015).
In a large analysis of projected bioclimatic envelopes for 323 freshwater plants, 470 fishes, 659
molluscs, 133 odonates, 54 amphibians, five crayfish and four turtles across 18,783 European
catchments Markovic et al. (2014) found that in Europe under the climate change scenario A1B for
2050, 6% of common and 77% of rare species are predicted to lose more than 90% of their current
range and 59% of all freshwater species are predicted to lose habitat suitability across more than 50%
of their current range. They forecasted that nine molluscs and eight fish species should experience
100% range loss. As the most species-rich group, molluscs are particularly vulnerable due to the high
proportion of rare species and their relatively limited ability to disperse. Furthermore, around 50% of
molluscs and fish species will have no protected area coverage given their projected distributions.
Dragonflies might be able to shift or even expand their ranges, assuming they are able to disperse to
track suitable climate.
Caddiesflies (order Trichoptera) are among the most sensitive taxa to climate change. About 20% of
the Trichoptera species in most southern European ecoregions and about 10% in high mountain range
possess characteristics that make them vulnerable to climate change (Hering et al., 2009).
Macroinvertebrate communities are central to ecological assessments of river and stream ecological
quality under the Water Framework Directive. Systems by which these assessments are made could
be upset by effects of climate change (Hassall et al., 2010). For example, range shifts in Odonata could
change scores derived from the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) system that is used and
have effects consequently on conservation monitoring and assessments (Moss 2015). The Plecoptera
are particularly crucial, since they have been allocated some of the highest BMWP scores and have

426
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

been shown to be “cold-adapted” and to decline in species richness with increasing temperature
(Heino et al., 2009).
Many southern countries in Europe, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey are home to high
numbers of endemic and threatened species. The consumption of freshwater is expected to increase
in the coming years, both as a result of increasing demand and climate change, posing a threat to
freshwater habitats and species (Freyhof & Brooks, 2011). This is also true for the Crimean Peninsula
where a highly endemic fish fauna is restricted to a few small streams, from which water is already
extracted in large and unsustainable amounts.

3.5.2.2 Community composition

Under scenarios of strong climatic impacts (e.g. SRES A1B and A2), freshwater ecosystems are
projected to undergo large changes in community structures and therefore loss of ecological integrity.
Local species richness in freshwater systems is projected to decline for most taxa due to climate
change, but this is expected to be partially compensated by colonisation of new species; species
turnover for instance is projected to increase for freshwater stream fishes in France by about 60% by
2080 (Buisson et al., 2008), and aquatic plants and dragonflies local richness is expected to increase in
Western Europe assuming unlimited dispersal (Markovic et al. 2014). Floating invasive alien plant
species are projected to become more prevalent in the region (Meerhoff et al., 2012; Moss, 2015).
Global warming and associated changes in water level and salinity will likely seriously affect community
composition in lakes and ponds (Brucet et al., 2009, 2012; Jeppesen et al., 2012, 2015) with some
effects already being observed. For example, complex changes in fish community structure may be
expected owing to the direct and indirect effects of temperature, and indirect effects of
eutrophication, water-level changes and salinisation on fish metabolism, biotic interaction and
geographical distribution (Jeppesen et al., 2010). Local extinctions and changes in community
composition are likely in the coldest and the most arid regions, after the expansion of the warm
adapted species. Fish species richness will likely increase in many continental lakes owing to a
poleward expansion of warm-tolerant species.
Enhanced salinization may also promote changes in fish assemblages leading to a greater importance
of small-bodied or planktivorous species, and therefore, a strengthening of eutrophication effects
(Brucet et al., 2010; Jeppesen et al., 2010).
Several studies have reported projected impacts on community composition of invasive alien species,
in isolation or in combination with climate change. For example the Louisiana red swamp crayfish
Procambarus clarkia, a highly invasive species, is projected to expand its range throughout Europe in
the coming decades (Ellis et al., 2012), the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis is expected to become
invasive in Europe (Ihlow et al. 2016), as is the Asian gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva, which has been
predicted to expand its invasive range throughout Europe and Central Asia with significant ecological
implications for its fish diversity (Fletcher et al., 2016). In some instances, the extent of overlap
between native species and their invasive alien competitors is projected to increase, this is the case of
the native depressed river mussel (Pseudanodonta complanata) and its invasive competitor Dreissenia
polimorpha. In other cases, climate change can partially reduce the overlaps between invasive and
native species. This is the case for the invasive Pacifastacus leniusculus, which is projected to lose
suitable habitat due to climate more than the native white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes
(Gallardo & Aldridge, 2013). Most of these patterns also emerge with lower emission scenarios (e.g.
SRES B1 and B2 climate scenarios) but with less dramatic change (Capinha et al., 2013; Cordellier et
al., 2012; Sauer et al., 2011).

427
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

An increase in species richness at warmer temperature is predicted for phytoplankton and periphyton
in shallow lakes, while the opposite is true for macroinvertebrates and zooplankton (Brucet et al.,
2012; Jeppesen et al., 2012; Meerhoff et al., 2012). Another study (Shurin et al., 2010) suggested that
potential impacts of global change on lake zooplankton biodiversity will depend on the relative
magnitudes and interactions between shifts in chemistry and temperature. The study shows that
temporal fluctuations in the chemical environment tend to exclude zooplankton species whereas
temperature variability tends to promote greater richness. Thus, increasing frequency of extreme
events and greater ranges of variability may be as or more important than changes in average
conditions as drivers of zooplankton community diversity.

3.5.2.3 Ecosystem functioning

In inland waters, total biomass stock of planktonic autotrophs has been projected to either remain
stable or increase under business-as-usual climate projections for the 21st century (Elliot et al., 2005;
Markensten et al. 2010, Arheimer et al., 2005). Mooij et al. (2007) predict that cyanobacteria blooms
will increase productivity despite related declines in diatoms and green algae. Cyanobacteria being a
poor food source for zooplankton, these and higher trophic levels are likely to decline as a result of
climate change. Moreover, due to reduced critical nutrient loading and eutrophication, temperate
lakes (with temperature varying between 2 and 22 degrees) are likely to switch from the clear to the
turbid state in a 3 degree-warming scenario.
Changes in important functional traits are expected in the future due to global warming. For example,
the body size of fish and zooplankton is expected to decrease under higher temperature with negative
consequences for the functioning of the food web and the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems
(Daufresne et al., 2009; Emmrich et al., 2014; Meerhoff et al., 2012). Global warming is also expected
to affect other fish life-history traits (e.g. shorter life span, earlier and less synchronized reproduction),
as well as the feeding mode (i.e. increased omnivory and herbivory); behaviour (i.e. stronger
association with littoral areas and a greater proportion of benthivores); and winter survival (Jeppesen
et al., 2010). The increased dominance of smaller fish and omnivory will lead to stronger predation by
fish on zooplankton and weaker grazing pressure of zooplankton on phytoplankton in warmer lakes
(Jeppesen et al., 2014). This will have negative consequences for the ecological status of shallow lakes.
Importantly, changes in fish communities that occur with global warming partly resemble those
triggered by eutrophication. This implies a need for lower nutrient thresholds to obtain clear-water
conditions and good ecological status in the future (Jeppesen et al., 2010; Meerhoff et al., 2012).
Increased salinity due to global warming, water abstraction and pollution may also have negative
consequences for the ecosystem structure, function, biodiversity and ecological state of lakes,
temporary and permanent ponds, wetlands and reservoirs (Brucet et al., 2009; Cañedo-Argüelles et
al., 2016; Jeppesen et al., 2015).

3.5.2.4 Emerging drivers of change

Aquaculture is growing worldwide, already providing more than 50% of the fish and other aquatic
organisms on the market. Development of aquaculture, which is now mainly focused on intensive
technologies, including integrated agriculture-aquaculture multi-trophic farming, pond culture, cage-
culture, recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) technologies (Karimov, 2011; Thorpe et al., 2011)
might have contrasting effects on biodiversity. On one hand aquaculture might substitute the demand
for natural fish and other aquatic species and will promote the conservation of biodiversity. On the

428
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

other hand, aquaculture has historically been the source of invasions in some parts of the region,
specifically in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Lack of adequate management, development of
aquaculture and use of genetically modified organisms can further increase invasions of alien species
and threaten biodiversity and/or endemic species.
The Brönmark & Hansson (2002) review on environmental threats to lakes and ponds predicted that
biodiversity in fresh waters will, in most parts of the world, have decreased considerably by the year
2025. Changes in biodiversity may in turn affect freshwater ecosystem processes such as primary
productivity, detritus processing and nutrient transport at the water-sediment interface. In addition,
loss of species at higher trophic levels may have strong repercussions down the food chain (Brönmark
& Hansson, 2002). Furthermore, these authors suggested that “old” problems such as eutrophication,
acidification and contamination, may become less of a problem in the future, whereas “new” threats
such as global warming, UV radiation, invasive alien species and endocrine disruptors most likely will
increase in importance.

3.5.3 Marine systems

3.5.3.1 Species distribution and conservation status
Direct and indirect impacts of climate change on species distribution and abundance have been
predicted for all marine systems and virtually all taxonomic groups investigated.
Climate change effects on Arctic and sub-Arctic marine mammal and bird species will vary by life
history, distribution, and habitat specificity with some major negative effects on ice-obligate species
(such as hooded seal, narwhal and ivory gull; Moore & Huntington, 2008); some species coming to the
region seasonally may benefit from ice loss (killer whale, grey whale) (Larsen et al., 2014). It is
projected that polar bear number will decrease dramatically with approximately two-thirds of the
world’s polar bears extirpated by the middle of the 21st century under A1B scenario (Amstrup et al.,
2008; Larsen et al., 2014). There is a risk that Arctic shelf species might become locally extinct due to
shortage of climatically suitable shelf habitat (Fossheim et al., 2015a).
In the North East Atlantic, pelagic ecosystems and taxa are projected to display higher modifications
than demersal communities, a pattern explained in some regions by the influence of regional
topography (e.g. North Sea; Weinert et al. 2016). This does not mean that demersal species are not
affected by the projected changes, only that rates are variable. For instance, marine fish in the North
Sea have projected poleward shifts which can be up to two times higher than the observed current
rate of shift (Cheung et al., 2016). Benthic communities of the North Sea were also shown to be
strongly impacted under the IPCC AR4 scenario A1B, with latitudinal northward shift projected in 2099
for 64% of the 75 species examined by Weinert et al. (2016). Seabirds, which are often faithful to
breeding colonies, are also expected to show important changes in their distribution in the North East
Atlantic. For example, the ranges of 65% or 70% of 23 seabirds from the British Isles are expected to
shrink by 2100 under two emission scenarios (IPCC AR4 climate change scenario A1B and A2
respectively) and under the hypothesis of unlimited dispersal; this value increases to 100% (and all of
them lose at least 25% of their range) with no dispersal (Russell et al., 2015).
Less information is available on projected impacts of fisheries in the region. For the Atlantic cod and
the European seabass, under a scenario of an increase in demand of 5.6% per year, a decline of the
spawning stock sizes of the North Sea cod by 97% is predicted toward by 2050, compared with a
scenario with a stable demand (Quaas et al., 2016). Cascading effects are also projected along the
trophic network: by 2040, climate change, in particular summer warming, is projected to lower the

429
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

abundance of the copepod Calanus finmarchicus which is used as a prey by cod in the North East
Atlantic (Kamenos, 2010).
Some catch species will also have reduced survival and fertility due to direct and indirect impact of
climate change. For instance, Baltic Sea cod eggs require certain environmental conditions regarding
oxygen (>2 ml/l oxygen) and salinity (> than 11 g/kg). Physical and chemical changes in the Baltic will
reduce cod reproductive potential by 75% by 2100 (Neumann, 2010).

3.5.3.2 Community composition

Species turnover is projected across all marine systems in the region and across a large range of marine
habitats and taxa. Reductions in sea ice in the central Arctic are likely to enhance invasion of benthic
taxa from the Pacific to the Atlantic due to more freely flowing currents (Hunt et al., 2016, Renaud et
al., 2015). The Chukchi and the Barents Seas along with the western part of the Kara Sea are the most
likely locations for the expansion of some boreal benthic species and communities (Renaud et al.,
2015).
The advection of zooplankton to the Arctic Basin along the Eurasian shelf is projected to cease during
the 21st century, as revealed by models based on climate scenario A1B, with increased participation
of the species of temperate origin in the communities of the Eurasian Arctic Seas (Wassmann et al.,
2015). In particular, for the Barents Sea by 2059, zooplankton of Atlantic origin will increase and
zooplankton of Arctic origin will decrease under moderate climate change (SRES B2 scenario, Ellingsen
et al., 2008).
Boreal fish species replacing Arctic species are known to be opportunistic generalists, and their
expansion is known to alter the structure of Arctic food webs and is predicted to increase the
connectivity between benthic and pelagic habitats. As a result, more densely connected and less
modular Arctic marine food-webs are expected to emerge (Kortsch et al., 2015).
Models of fish invasions have shown that the rate of spread of non-native species in the Barents Sea
are five times higher than the global average, with the central Barents Sea fish community spreading
northwards and Arctic community retreating. This shift appears to be taking place at a speed at >159
km per decade.
For some marine alien species already introduced in the North East Atlantic, like the American clam,
Ensis directus (Raybaud et al., 2014), and the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Jones et al., 2013),
expansion of their current range is projected with high level of confidence by the end of the 21st
century, under medium to severe climate change scenarios.
In the North East Atlantic, 21st century scenarios of moderate (e.g. IPCC RCP 4.5, 550ppm B1) to severe
climatic change (e.g. IPCC RCP 6.0 or RCP 8.5, 720ppm A1B), are projected to generate important
changes in marine community structure, population abundance, and species range and richness
(Beaugrand et al., 2015; Blois et al., 2013; Cheung et al., 2009; Garciá Molinos et al., 2016; Jones &
Cheung, 2015). These scenarios establish with high confidence that communities are modified because
of the joint effect of loss of species and colonization by new species (i.e. species turnover). In addition,
the projections highlight that expansion of species ranges are prevailing over species loss or range
contraction, thus leading to a transient net local increase in richness, particularly around the 40-30°N
line of latitude (Figure 3.57).

430
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.5.3.3 Ecosystem extent and function

Across all marine systems and habitats, 21st century climate change and ocean acidification are
projected to induce changes in extent and functioning of ecosystems. Most of the Eurasian Arctic Seas
lie within today’s seasonal ice zone. The general trend of “borealization” of the region is expected to
continue (Fossheim et al., 2015), inducing habitat gains and losses and a large species turnover;
changes in phenology and production; substantial food web reorganizations; and changes in
ecosystem functioning (Kortsch et al., 2015; Larsen et al., 2014).
In the Baltic Seas, maximum sea-ice cover is expected to decline by 75% under high climate change
(SRES A1B) and by half under the most optimistic scenarios of climate change (B1) by the end of the
21st century. Melting sea ice will decrease water salinity and the resulting warming and changes in

431
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

water density are projected to promote instability in water stratification thereby reducing the areas of
suboxic water (with < 2 ml/L of oxygen) (Neumann, 2010).
Kelp forest ecosystems (Laminaria hyperborea) are expected to expand to northern territories under
all plausible climate change scenarios. This, coupled with significant loss of suitable habitats, is
projected at low latitude range margins, including in areas where long-term persistence was inferred
(e.g. north-western Iberia) (Assis et al., 2016b), might have important consequences on the genetic
diversity, and adaptive potential, of these habitat-structuring species (Assis et al., 2018). A significant
loss of maerl beds, dominated by coralline algae, is also predicted to occur by 2100 in the North East
Atlantic, due to elevated pCO2 (Brodie et al., 2014).
Species range changes, phenological reactions, and variations in production, is expected to cause the
Eurasian Arctic Seas ecosystem structure and functions to change (Larsen et al., 2014).
Though primary production on ocean shelves is expected to increase (Hunt et al., 2016), so far no
unidirectional changes in the primary production in the individual Eurasian Arctic Seas have been
observed. Reliable trends in its variation (increasing) were ascertained for the Barents, and Kara seas
(Vetrov & Romankevich, 2011). There are two peaks in primary production in the Arctic Seas: spring
ice algal peak and consecutive phytoplankton bloom. The role of the first one is expected to diminish;
the timing of maximum phytoplankton production is expected to change and to influence the
variability in time-lags between ice algal and phytoplankton peak production (from 45 to 90 days; Ji et
al., 2013, Kȩdra et al., 2015). The frequency of mismatch between peak in demand from marine grazers
and supply of their food, will increase. This will alter trophic flows throughout the food chain (Ji et al.,
2013). The spatio-temporal mismatch between the breeding season and the peak in food availability
will potentially have a negative impact on seabird populations (Grémillet & Boulinier, 2009).
Phenological changes due to climate change and chemical changes have been already observed and
further projected in the future. For instance, the decrease of anadromy prevalence of Arctic char (over
50% to the end of 21st century with high-levels of global warming, under the IPCC AR4, A2 emission
scenario) because of the increase of lake and terrestrial catchments productivity (Finstad & Hein,
2012). Seasonal Cyanobacteria blooms in the Baltic are projected to to start earlier and last a month
longer by the end of the 21st century (Neumann, 2010). Invasive species like the Pacific oyster,
Crassotrea gigas, have also shown phenological changes. Specifically, reproductive effort and
spawning periods are changing as a response to increased seawater and phytoplankton concentration
(Thomas et al., 2016).
In the North East Atlantic and the North Sea, the projected general trends point to accelerating changes
in ecosystem functioning, notably due to the effect of climate change on nutrient availability, and
changes in timing of phytoplankton production, phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass, with
cascading effects on the trophic network (Friocourt et al., 2012 and examples in Soto, 2001). For
instance, larval cod survival probability is declining by 22-44% in the North Atlantic, notably because
of starvation effect due to food limitations (Kristiansen et al., 2014). And the growth and weight of
adult cod is also projected to be declining under IPCC Assessment Report scenario RCP 8.5 (highest
green-house emission scenario for this assessment), because of physiological constraints (Butzin &
Pörtner, 2016). Physiological processes as well as metabolic pathways will thus be modified as a
response to climate change and ocean acidification. Responses may, however, be very different across
taxa: for instance, autotrophs like seagrasses and many macroalgae are expected to display higher
growth and photosynthetic rates under elevated pCO2 (Koch et al., 2013), whereas calcareous algae
like maerl are likely to suffer from ocean acidification (Brodie et al., 2014). Particularly well
documented are changes in breeding phenology and success and the timing of migration of seabirds
of the North East Atlantic (e.g. effect on breeding phenology; Frederiksen et al., 2004). Among other

432
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

documented changes are migration patterns. For instance, migration patterns of the North East
Atlantic mackerel are projected to change under moderate and high climate change scenarios (RCP 4.5
and 8.5, respectively). The outcome of these scenarios is that this living natural resource could expand
in the near future.

3.5.3.4 Emerging drivers of change

Discovery of gas and oil fields across Europe and Central Asia, especially in the Arctic circle and the far
north-east of the region (Sakhalin shelf and Kamchatka) pose a threat to terrestrial and marine
biodiversity (Kontorovich et al., 2013).
Enormous amounts of manganese, copper, nickel and cobalt are found on or beneath the seafloor
(World Ocean Review, 2014). Demand for these resources are set to increase since they are needed
for developing clean technologies, such as making wind turbines or hybrid cars. Deep-sea mining has
not yet begun, mostly for technical reasons, but there has been an increase in the number of
applications for mining contracts and it is estimated that by the end of 2017 there will be about 27
projects worldwide (Wedding et al., 2015). Research to determine the impacts of deep sea mining has
shown that deep-sea mining cannot be done without directly destroying habitats and species, resulting
in biodiversity loss (Vanreusel et al., 2016) and indirectly degrading large volumes of the water and
seabed area with the polluted sediment plume it generates (Van Dover et al., 2017). This mining
requires enormous areas: a single 30-year operation license to mine metal-rich nodules will involve an
area about the size of Austria. Most mining-induced loss of biodiversity in the deep sea will not recover
for decades or centuries, given the very slow rates of recovery of many deep-sea species and
ecosystems (Vanreusel, et al. 2016).
Shipping is expected to double by 2050, emphasizing the need for alternative shipping routes.
Alternative routes are essential to minimalize impacts caused by the increased threats from shipping
accidents and oil spills (Kotta et al., 2016).
With projected sea-ice declines, large swaths of Arctic Ocean will be opened up to shipping and
fisheries (Jørgensen et al., 2016a; Mullon et al., 2016). This will cause additional pressure on the
biodiversity of the region, speeding introductions of boreal fauna (Renaud et al., 2015), and possibly
reducing bottom complexity. Changes in advection are projected to accelerate the transboundary
pollution effects increasing the number of contaminants in the food web (Jørgensen et al., 2016a).
The continuing enlargement of the Suez Canal will allow greater cohorts of deeper living biota to enter
the Mediterranean Sea, enhancing the risk of establishment and spread (Galil et al., 2017). Increase in
commercial shipping and recreational boating will enhance the introduction and secondary spread of
non-native biota.

3.6 Knowledge gaps

Knowledge gaps concern a) the full geographic (and temporal) coverage of past, current, and future
trends of some ecosystem types and some taxa across Europe and Central Asia, b) patterns and
underlying mechanisms of the biodiversity – ecosystem service relationship, and c) consideration of
indigenous and local knowledge for all ecosystem types and taxa.
Geographic gaps

433
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Overall, we found large gaps in knowledge on habitat extent and intactness, and species conservation
status and trends for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. For instance, there is no systematic monitoring
of plant and animal species across the range of these subregions. This is of particular concern given
the size of these subregions and the diversity of habitat and species there. Outside the European Union
long-term monitoring data is available almost exclusively for protected areas, which poses the risk of
underestimating overall biodiversity trends in these regions.
Role of drivers
Information on future trends in biodiversity was predominantly focused on the impact of climate
change, especially on plants and vertebrate species. There were very few studies investigating the
impact of land-use change and even fewer investigating future projected impacts of pollution, invasive
species, fishing and other drivers of change.
It was often impossible to quantify the relative role of drivers of change in determining trends in
species and ecosystems. This was due to lack of synthetic studies on this subject and the limited ability
to meta-analyze the literature to provide this evidence. Therefore, the attribution of drivers to trends
was based on the qualitative expert assessment of the authors rather than on quantitative empirical
evidence from experimental or quasi-experimental studies.
Marine systems
Most marine systems are hidden to human eye and therefore lack of visibility, knowledge gaps, and
lack of concerted actions are regularly pointed out for marine systems (e.g. Allison & Bassett, 2015;
Mccauley et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, the rate of description of new marine species has been increasing, since 1955, at a higher
rate than for terrestrial species (Appeltans et al., 2012). Still, it is estimated that between one-third
and two-thirds of marine species are still to be described, with estimates of the total number falling in
the range of 0.7 to 1 million (as compared to the 226,000 species currently described). Under-
estimation of marine diversity is not restricted to remote and under-studied locations. It also holds in
Europe and Central Asia, with the increasing discovery of cryptic species (i.e. species that are not, or
are hardly, distinguished according to morphological criteria). This underestimation of marine diversity
implies that the trends are incomplete for most marine taxa.
An important gap in knowledge regarding current as well as future changes is genetic responses to
environmental changes. Only few taxa, among them fishes and algae, have been studied so far (e.g.
Araújo et al., 2016; Assis et al., 2016a; Hutchinson et al., 2003; Nicastro et al., 2013), but these studies
indicate changes in genetic diversity and genetic structure of marine species. Integration of a genetic
component is of paramount importance for conservation of genetic resources as well as for modelling
of future trends in marine biodiversity (Arrieta et al., 2010; Gotelli & Stanton-Geddes, 2015).
Until recently, scant attention was paid to marine ecosystems and most marine taxa in conservation
policies (e.g. see Habitat directive and species lists in the European Union). Only a small number of
species and few habitat types are included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive (EEA, 2015a). The gap
in knowledge is exemplified by the large percentage of species in the “unknown” category in the first
assessment of “good environmental status” in light of the newer Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(2008) in the European Union (Figure 3.58).

434
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Most long-term marine datasets (since the 1950s) concern pelagic ecosystems (e.g. Beaugrand et al.
2002), intertidal rocky shores (e.g. Mieszkowska et al., 2006), or specific taxa or taxonomic groups (in
particular fishes, marine mammals or seabirds). Almost no data are available to document changes in
subtidal rocky areas although they are rich in biodiversity and support key engineer species, for
instance in subtidal kelp forests (Smale et al., 2013).
Open ocean plankton communities are also poorly known. It is estimated that, in each litre of seawater,
there are on average 10 billion organisms, including viruses, prokaryotes, unicellular eukaryotes, and
metazoans.
The most notable knowledge gap in marine biodiversity for Europe and Central Asia is the lack of data
on status and trends of biodiversity in deep-sea areas (>200 m) despite canyons, seamounts and other
important deep-sea habitats and ecosystems being present in Europe and Central Asia Seas and
Oceans. Less than 1% of the deep-sea floor (UNEP, 2007; Rogers et al., 2015) and 0.4-4% of known
seamounts (Kvile et al., 2014) have been sampled. Those that are known are mainly areas with sandy
bottoms that can be trawled. This highlights significant gaps in basic knowledge, including lack of
baseline data on biodiversity, abundance and biomass and its spatial and temporal variations. New
habitat types and species are still being discovered on almost every deep-sea scientific cruise.
Some progress in addressing these knowledge gaps is signified by recent marine assessments. For
instance, an assessment of data available and surveys needed was recently reviewed for kelp in the
North East Atlantic (Araújo et al., 2016). The results from Tara Oceans and Malespina cruises and Ocean
Sampling Day program, which collected genetic, morphological, and physico-chemical samples from
stations around the world (about 35,000 biological samples and about 13,000 contextual measure
taken a three different depths just for Tara Oceans) is now being analysed by a large international team
of scientists. Metagenomes and meta-barcodes from stations are being built as well as quantitative
and high-resolution image databases, and the first global studies are being published (e.g TARA Ocean
(https://www.embl.de/tara-oceans/start/). IUCN recently coordinated an assessment dedicated to the
Anthozoans of the Mediterranean Sea, which include, for instance, iconic species like the red coral
(Otero et al., 2017).
Freshwater systems

435
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The chemical status of 40% of Europe's surface waters remains unknown (EEA, 2015d), considering
that good chemical status was only achieved for all surface bodies in five of the 27 European Union
member States, it is likely that the environmental conditions of some of these water bodies are poor.
Agricultural areas
Overall information on biodiversity trends in agricultural areas decreases from west to east. In
particular, studies on biodiversity and agriculture for Eastern Europe and Central Asia often focus on
drivers of biodiversity in agricultural areas rather than biodiversity trends (Smelansky, 2003), while
biodiversity is surveyed for semi-natural ecosystems rather than more productive agroecosystems in
these countries. Capacity building for monitoring biodiversity in agricultural areas in the eastern part
of the region is thus needed.
The level of knowledge on biodiversity trends in agricultural areas and main direct drivers has
increased substantially during the last decade. However, most studies have used species richness or
abundance (and genetic diversity for animal breeds and plant varieties) as indicators of biodiversity.
Promoting a stronger focus on functional diversity in future studies and monitoring schemes may be
the best way to complement previous approaches. To better understand and predict biodiversity
trends in agricultural areas in Europe and Central Asia, it will be necessary: (i) to reinforce the
knowledge basis on the demography and population dynamics of species (including the role of
behaviour, density-dependent effects, and extinction debt); (ii) to account for small-scale spatio-
temporal effects and scale up biodiversity changes and trends from local to national and regional
levels; and (iii) to detail the effects of changes in agricultural practices (characteristics of the varieties
grown, harvesting techniques, types of pesticides used, etc.) to a greater extent (Kleijn et al., 2011).
Urban areas
The data available for urban areas are mostly for the larger and more easily observed taxa, such as
vascular plants, birds and mammals. There is good data for bats, and reasonably good data on
amphibians, reptiles and some insect taxa, including butterflies. The small amount of data available on
taxa more difficult to observe and distinguish, such as Syrphids and other Diptera, suggest high levels
of diversity and numerous rare and threatened species (Kelcey, 2015). Thus, more surveying of such
taxa would generate valuable new knowledge on urban biodiversity.
Taxonomic gaps
While birds are arguably the most studied and best known group in Europe and Central Asia, there is
still one species, the large-billed reed-warbler, Acrocephalus orinus listed as being data deficient by
the IUCN and therefore having unknown extinction risk, and there are also 79 species with unknown
population trends in the European Union (EEA, 2015a). Long-term trends are rarely available. Low
capacity or difficult access means that regions such as Caucasus, the Arctic part of Europe, Romania,
Croatia, the Faroe Islands and the Azores are underrepresented in bird conservation status
assessments (BirdLife International, 2015).
More substantial knowledge gaps exist for other terrestrial vertebrate groups. There are, respectively,
55 mammals, 11 reptiles and three amphibians that are classified as data deficient by the IUCN. In
addition, population trends are unknown for 100 of 1,026 bird species extant in the region and
assessed by IUCN as well as 263 of 537 mammals, 7 of 129 amphibians and 56 of the 268 species of
reptiles (IUCN, 2017c).
There are at least 100,000 species of insects known in Europe, and an unknown number of
earthworms, arachnids, snails and other invertebrate species. However, it is plausible that several
hundreds of thousands of species of invertebrates occur in Europe and Central Asia. Despite this

436
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

extremely high diversity, and importance for ecosystem services, only a very small proportion is listed
in the IUCN Red List. More specifically, there are only 2,132 species of terrestrial invertebrates in the
IUCN Red List that are extant in the Europe and Central Asia region. The majority of these are European
bees, which include 1,965 species (Nieto et al., 2014). Moreover, almost nothing is known about
species, trends and threats for this taxonomic group from Central Asia.
There are no meaningful trends in geographic extent or population size of freshwater species available
for Europe and Central Asia. Therefore, a table of trends and importance of drivers was impossible to
produce. Of particular concern is the lack of data for freshwater invertebrates, for which even current
status is available only for a minority of species (EEA, 2010). For example, several freshwater crab
species have data deficient status according to the IUCN Red List, which highlights the need to increase
monitoring efforts globally but also in Europe and Central Asia.
Similarly, almost a quarter of all European freshwater molluscs are data deficient and many might
prove to be threatened once enough data become available to evaluate their extinction risk. However,
the number of data-deficient species may well increase, since 76% of freshwater fishes and 83% of
freshwater molluscs have unknown population trends (Cuttelod et al., 2011). Data are also deficient
for many other freshwater invertebrate groups (Balian et al., 2008). This is owing to several reasons
such as lack of taxonomic information, knowledge gaps in geographical coverage of data and lack of
long-term data. These gaps need to be assessed urgently, by fostering taxonomic research and
monitoring and by making proprietary databases and databases under pay-wall freely and openly
available.
Biases across taxonomic groups in marine systems are also largely documented (McCauley et al., 2015;
Poloczanska et al., 2013) (Figure 3.59). For instance, no extinction of marine animal species has been
documented in the past five decades (IUCN, 2017b), but only a small fraction of described marine
mammals has been evaluated and 17 that were assessed were determined to be data deficient (IUCN,
2017c; McCauley et al., 2015). This is exemplified by the extensive work carried out by Brooks et al.
(2016) in which marine taxa are not included, except for decapods. This is not surprising, since trend
data are not available even for 69% of the best-known group of marine organisms, the European
marine fish species.
Availability of regional information on marine plankton and invertebrates is varied across Europe and
Central Asia, with certain systems having more information on biodiversity status available (e.g. the
North East Atlantic (OSPAR, 2017); the Mediterranean (Coll et al., 2010a); and the Baltic (Ojaveer et
al., 2010). Most often, information remains descriptive: existence, abundance, geographical
distributions of species for instance, but little meta-information is available yet to discern conservation
status. OSPAR (OSPAR, 2008) lists five marine invertebrate species as threatened or declining in the
North Atlantic and North Sea since 2003, as well as a series of habitats formed by marine invertebrates
(e.g. mussel beds, deep sea sponge aggregations). In the Mediterranean, while much information is
available, marine invertebrate knowledge is often considered to be limited, with new species still being
described. There is also a high proportion of endemic species in the Mediterranean, especially sponges
and mysids (Coll et al., 2010a). Mediterranean anthozoans have been reviewed in detail by IUCN,
showing that 13% of them are threatened while almost half lack sufficient data for assessing risk of
extinction (Otero et al., 2017).

437
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Marine microbes may represent more than 90% of the ocean’s biomass, are the major drivers of its
biogeochemical cycles (Danovaro et al., 2017), and can be found in the whole water column up to
2,000 metres below the seafloor. Although there has been an exponential increase in research on
marine archaea, bacteria and viruses, and evidence that archaea and viruses may increase in
importance with depth (Danovaro et al., 2015) their biodiversity and functioning is still largely
unknown.
At least 7,000 species of lichens are known to occur in Europe (excluding Russia), while across the
whole of Europe and Central Asia only five lichen species have been assessed in the IUCN Red List and
have known conservation status (IUCN, 2017b).
Less than 10% of all species of vascular plants known to occur in the region have been assessed by the
IUCN Red List (2,483 species for an estimated >30,000 for the region) (IUCN, 2017c). Among those
assessed, 46.2% have unknown population trends. These also include species of conservation concern,
such as 20% of the species included in the European Red List of Vascular Plants; (Bilz et al., 2011). These
knowledge gaps are caused by lack of field data, difficulties in accessing data for some countries, and
uncertain taxonomy. Processes threatening vascular plants are also unknown for several species.
The number of fungus species in Europe exceeds 75,000, 15,000 of which are macrofungi (Senn-irlet
et al., 2007). Currently there are no regional or continental data on status and trends of fungi.
We were unable to assess status and trends in diversity, biomass and community composition of soil
and freshwater micro-organisms: Protozoa, Bacteria, Rotifera, Nematoda, Tardigrada, despite the key
role of these organisms in soil formation, nutrient and carbon cycling, and water retention (Orgiazzi et
al., 2016).

438
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function and services

For some ecosystem services, there is insufficient data to evaluate the relationship between
biodiversity and ecosystem service provision. For example, the effects of fish diversity on fisheries yield
and the effects of biodiversity on flood regulation are inconclusive (Cardinale et al., 2012). Additionally,
ecosystem services provided by taxa other than plants are only beginning to be studied. Finally, the
majority of studies reviewed focused on taxonomic diversity at the community level (i.e. species
richness or diversity), rather than on intraspecific, functional phylogenetic diversity.

439
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

3.7 References

Abasov, M. M., Ponomaryov, V. L., Nesterenkova, A. E., Loginov, A. N., & Fedosov, S. A. [Абасов, М.
М., Пономарёв, В. Л., Нестеренкова, А. Э., Логинов, А. Н., & Федосов, С. А.]. (2016).
Разработка мер интегрированной защиты самшита от самшитовой огнёвки [Integrated
protection measures of Buxus against Cydalima perspectalis]. Сборник Научных Трудов
Государственного Никитского ботанического сада [Рroceedings of Nikitsky Botanical
Garden], 142, 102–113.
Abdul Malak, D. Livingstone, S. R., Pollard, D., Polidoro, B. A., Cuttelod, A., Bariche, M., Bilecenoglu,
M., Carpenter, K. E., Collette, B. B., Francour, P., Goren, M., Kara, M. H., Massutí, E.,
Papaconstantinou, C., & Tunesi, L. (2011). Overview of the conservation status of the marine
fishes of the Mediterranean Sea. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Abdulla, A., Gomei, M., Maison, E., & Piante, C. (2008). Status of marine protected areas in the
Mediterranean Sea - A collaborative study by IUCN, WWF and MedPan. Malaga, Spain: IUCN.
Abdurakhmanov, G. M., Krivolutsky, D. A., Mjalo, E. G., & Ogureeva, G. N. [Абдурахманов, Г. М.,
Криволуцкий, Д. А., Мяло, Е. Г., & Огуреева, Г. Н.]. (2003). Биогеография [Biogeography].
Moscow, Russian Federation: Publishing Centre “Academia”.
Abell, R., Thieme, M. L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., Coad, B., Mandrak, N.,
Balderas, S. C., Bussing, W., Stiassny, M. L. J., Skelton, P., Allen, G. R., Unmack, P., Naseka, A., Ng,
R., Sindorf, N., Robertson, J., Armijo, E., Higgins, J. V., Heibel, T. J., Wikramanayake, E., Olson, D.,
López, H. L., Reis, R. E., Lundberg, J. G., Sabaj Pérez, M. H., & Petry, P. (2008). Freshwater
ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity
conservation. BioScience, 58(5), 403. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580507
Abellán, P., & Sánchez-Fernández, D. (2015). A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000
and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(6), 1377–1390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0862-3
Adrianov, A. V., & Tarasov, V. G. [Адрианов, А. В., & Тарасов, В. Г.]. (2007). Современные проблемы
экологической безопасности морских акваторий Дальнего Востока РФ [Modern problems of
ecological safety of the marine areas of the Russian Far East]. In N. A. Dashko & V. G. Tarasov [Н.
А. Дашко & В. Г. Тарасов] (Eds.), Динамика морских экосистем и современные проблемы
сохранения биологического потенциала морей России [Dynamics of marine ecosystems and
modern problems of preservation of biological potential of Russian seas] (pp. 177–194).
Vladivostok, Russian Federation: Dalnauka.
Adrianov, A. V. [Адрианов, А. В.]. (2011). Экологическая безопасность дальневосточных морей
России [Ecological safety of the Russian Far East seas]. Вестник Российской Академии Наук
[Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 81(2), 111–119.
Aerts, R., & Heil, G. (Eds.). (2013). Heathlands: patterns and processes in a changing environment (Vol.
20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
Airoldi, L., Beck, M. W. (2007). Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe. In R. N.
Gibson, R. J. A. Atkinson, & J. D. M. Gordon, Oceanography and marine biology, Volume 45 (pp.
345–405. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Akatov V. V., Akatova T. V., Trepet S.A., & Sirotiuk E. A. [Акатов, В. В., Акатова, Т. В., Трепет, С. А., &
Сиротюк, Э. А.]. (2003). Туризм – новая угроза видовому разнообразию территории
Всемирного природного наследия Западного Кавказа [Tourism – a new threat to species

440
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

diversity in the territory of world natural heritage site western Caucasus]. In V. V. Kovalev, E. A.
Sirotiuk, V. V. Akatov, & S. A. Trepet. [В. В. Ковалев, Э. А. Сиротюк, В. В. Акатов, & С. А. Трепет]
(Eds.), Туризм в горных регионах: путь к устойчивому развитию [Tourism in mountain
regions: the way to sustainable development] (pp. 121–130). Maikop, Russian Federation:
Caucasus Reserve.
Akatov, V. V., Akatova, T. V., Varzareva, V. G., Dvoretskaya, E. V., Zagurnaya, Yu. S., Eskina, T. G.,
Ignatov, M. S., Ignatova, E. A., Kijashko, A. A., Konstantinova, N. A., Kuranova, N. G., Litvinskaya,
S. A., Nagalevsky, M. V., Otte, V., Rezchikova, O. N., Sirotjuk, E. A., Timukhin, I. N., Tuniev, B. S.,
Urbanavichine, I. N., Urbanavichus, G. P., Chich, S. K., & Shadzhe, A. E. [Акатов, В. В., Акатова, Т.
В., Варзарева, В. Г., Дворецкая, Е. В., Загурная, Ю. С., Ескина, Т. Г., Игнатов, М. С., Игнатова,
Е. А., Кияшко, А. А., Константинова, Н. А., Куранова, Н. Г., Литвинская, С. А., Нагалевский, М.
В., Отте, Ф., Резчикова, О. Н., Сиротюк, Э. А., Тимухин, И. Н., Туниев, Б. С., Урбанавичине, И.
Н., Урбанавичюс, Г. П., Чич, С. К., & Шадже, Е. А.]. (2012). Красная книга Республики Адыгея.
Редкие и находящиеся под угрозой исчезновения объекты животного и растительного
мира. Часть 1. Введение. Растения и грибы. Издание второе. [The Red Data Book of the
Republic of Adygheya. Rare and threatened representatives of the regional fauna and flora. Part
1. Introduction. Vegetabilia and Mycota. Second edition] A. S. Zamotaylov, E. A. Sirotyuk, T. V.
Akatova, & O. N. Lipka [А. С. Замотайлов, Э. А. Сиротюк, Т. В. Акатова, & О. Н. Липка] (Eds.).
Maykop, Russian Federation: Katchestvo.
Akhani, H., Djamali, M., Ghorbanalizadeh, A., & Ramezani, E. (2010). Plant biodiversity of Hyrcanian
relict forests, N Iran: an overview of the flora, vegetation, palaeoecology and conservation.
Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42, 231–258.
Akzhygitova, N. I., Brekle, S.-W., Winkler, G., Volkova, E. A., Wucherer, W., Kurochkina, L. J.,
Makulbekova, G. B., Ogar, N. P., Rachkovskaya, E. I., Safronova, I. N., & Khramtsov, V. N.
[Акжигитова, Н. И., Брекле, З.-В., Винклер, Г., Волкова, Е. А., Вухрер, В., Курочкина, Л. Я.,
Макулбекова, Г. Б., Ogar, Н. П., Рачковская, Е. И., Сафронова, И. Н. & Храмцов, В. Н.]. (2003).
In E. I. Rachkovskaya, E. A. Volkova, & V. N. Khramtsov [Е. И. Рачковская, Е. А. Волкова, & В. Н.
Храмцов] (Eds.) Ботаническая география Казахстана и Средней Азии (в пределах
пустынной области) [Botanical geography of Kazakhstan and Middle Asia (desert region)]. St.
Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Aladin, N., Chida, T., Cretaux, J.-F., Ermakhanov, Z., Jollibekov, B., Karimov, B., Kawabata, Y., Keyser, D.,
Kubota, J., Micklin, P., Mingazova, N., Plotnikov, I., & Toman, M. (2017). Current status of Lake
Aral – challenges and future opportunities. In Proceedings of the 16th World Lake Conference
“Lake ecosystem health and its resilience: Diversity and risks of extinction”, November 7-11th,
2016, Bali – Indonesia.
Aladin N. V., & Plotnikov I. S. [Аладин, Н. В., & Плотников, И. С.]. (2008). Современная фауна
остаточных водоемов, образовавшихся на месте бывшего Аральского моря [Modern fauna
of residual water bodies formed on the place of the former Aral Sea]. Труды Зоологического
Института РАН [Proceedings of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences],
312(1/2), 145–154.
Alahuhta, J., Heino, J., & Luoto, M. (2011). Climate change and the future distributions of aquatic
macrophytes across boreal catchments. Journal of Biogeography, 38, 383–393.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02412.x
Alatalo, J. M., Jägerbrand, A. K., & Čuchta, P. (2015a). Collembola at three alpine subarctic sites
resistant to twenty years of experimental warming. Scientific Reports, 5, 18161.

441
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18161
Alatalo, J. M., Jägerbrand, A. K., & Molau, U. (2015b). Testing reliability of short-term responses to
predict longer-term responses of bryophytes and lichens to environmental change. Ecological
Indicators, 58, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.050
Albert, C. H., Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Davies, I. D., & Garbolino, E. (2008). Land-use change and
subalpine tree dynamics: Colonization of Larix decidua in French subalpine grasslands. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 45(2), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01416.x
Alcantara, C., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A. V., & Radeloff, V. C. (2012). Mapping abandoned
agriculture with multi-temporal MODIS satellite data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 124, 334–
347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.019
Aleksandrova, V. D. (1970). The vegetation of the tundra zones in the USSR and data about its
productivity. In W. A. Fuller & P. G. Kevan (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on productivity
and conservation in northern circumpolar lands. Edmonton, Alberta 15 to 17 October 1969.
Aleksandrova, V. D. [Александрова В. Д. (1983). Растительность полярных пустынь СССР [The
vegetation of the Polar Deserts of the USSR]. Leningrad, USSR: Наука [Science].
Aleynikov, A. A., Aleynikova, A. M., Bocharnikov, M. V., Glazov, P. M., Golovlev, P. P., Golovleva, V. O.,
Gruza, G. V., Dobrolyubova, K. O., Evina, A. I., Lipka, O. N., Zhbanova, P. I., Zamolodchikov, D. G.,
Zenin, E. A., Kalashnikova, Yu. A., Kozhin, M. N., Kokorin, A. O., Krylenko, I. V., Krylenko, I. N.,
Kushcheva, Yu. V., Miklyayev, I. A., Miklyayeva, I. M., Nikiforov, V. V., Pavlova, A. D., Postnova, A.
I., Pukhova, M. A., Rankova, E. Ya., Stishov, M. S., Sutkaytis, O. K., Uvarov, S. A., Fomin, S. Yu., &
Khokhlov, S. F. [Алейников А. А., Алейникова А. М., Бочарников М. В., Глазов П. М., Головлев
П. П., Головлева В. О., Груза Г. В., Добролюбова К. О., Евина А. И., Жбанова П. И.,
Замолодчиков Д. Г., Зенин Е. А., Калашникова Ю. А., Кожин М. Н., Кокорин А. О., Крыленко
И. В., Крыленко И. Н., Кущева Ю. В., Липка О. Н., Микляев И. А., Микляева И. М., Никикфоров
В. В., Павлова А. Д., Постнова А. И., Пухова М. А., Ранькова Э. Я., Стишов М. С., Суткайтис О.
К., Уваров С. А., Фомин С. Ю. & Хохлов С. Ф.]. (2014). In O. N. Lipka [О. Н. Липка] (Ed.), Остров
Вайгач: природа, климат и человек [Vaigach Island: nature, climate and people]. Moscow,
Russian Federation: WWF Russia. Retrieved from http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/book/964
Alikhonov, B. (Ed.). (2011). Uzbekistan’s nature. Devoted to 20th anniversary of the State independence
of the Republic of the Uzbekistan. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Chinor ENK.
Aljes, M., Heinicke, T., & Zeitz, J. (2016). Peatland ecosystems in Kyrgyzstan: Distribution, peat
characteristics and a preliminary assessment of carbon storage. Catena, 144, 56–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.04.021
Allan, E., Bossdorf, O., Dormann, C. F., Prati, D., Gossner, M. M., Tscharntke, T., Blüthgen, N., Bellach,
M., Birkhofer, K., Boch, S., Böhm, S., Börschig, C., Chatzinotas, A., Christ, S., Daniel, R., Diekötter,
T., Fischer, C., Friedl, T., Glaser, K., Hallmann, C., Hodac, L., Hölzel, N., Jung, K., Klein, A. M., Klaus,
V. H., Kleinebecker, T., Krauss, J., Lange, M., Morris, E. K., Müller, J., Nacke, H., Pašalić, E., Rillig,
M. C., Rothenwöhrer, C., Schall, P., Scherber, C., Schulze, W., Socher, S. A., Steckel, J., Steffan-
Dewenter, I., Türke, M., Weiner, C. N., Werner, M., Westphal, C., Wolters, V., Wubet, T., Gockel,
S., Gorke, M., Hemp, A., Renner, S. C., Schöning, I., Pfeiffer, S., König-Ries, B., Buscot, F.,
Linsenmair, K. E., Schulze, E.-D., Weisser, W. W., & Fischer, M. (2014). Interannual variation in
land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 111(1), 308–313.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312213111

442
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Allan, E., Manning, P., Alt, F., Binkenstein, J., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., Böhm, S., Grassein, F., Hölzel, N.,
Klaus, V. H., Kleinebecker, T., Morris, E. K., Oelmann, Y., Prati, D., Renner, S. C., Rillig, M. C.,
Schaefer, M., Schloter, M., Schmitt, B., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Solly, E., Sorkau, E., Steckel, J.,
Steffen-Dewenter, I., Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka, M., Weiner, C. N., Weisser, W. W., Werner, M.,
Westphal, C., Wilcke, W., & Fischer, M. (2015). Land use intensification alters ecosystem
multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecology Letters,
18(8), 834–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12469
Allen, H. D. (2014). Mediterranean ecogeography. New York, USA: Routlege. Retrieved from
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mediterranean-Ecogeography-Series-Harriett-Allen/dp/0582404525
Allison, E. H., & Bassett, H. R. (2015). Climate change in the oceans: Human impacts and responses.
Science, 350(6262), 778–782. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac8721
Alomar, C., Deudero, S., Andaloro, F., Castriota, L., Consoli, P., Falautano, M., & Sinopoli, M. (2016).
Caulerpa cylindracea Sonder invasion modifies trophic niche in infralittoral rocky benthic
community. Marine Environmental Research, 120, 86–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.07.010
Alsterberg, C., Roger, F., Sundbäck, K., Juhanson, J., Hulth, S., Hallin, S., & Gamfeldt, L. (2017). Habitat
diversity and ecosystem multifunctionality — The importance of direct and indirect effects.
Science Advances, 3(2): e1601475. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601475
Altermatt, F., Alther, R., Fišer, C., Jokela, J., Konec, M., Küry, D., Machler, E., Stucki, P., & Westram, A.
M. (2014) Diversity and distribution of freshwater amphipod species in Switzerland (Crustacea:
Amphipoda). PLoS ONE 9(10): e110328. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110328
Altukhov, Yu. P. [Алтухов, Ю. П.]. (2003). Genetic processes in populations [Генетические процессы
в популяциях]. Moscow, Russian Federation: PTC “Academkniga”.
AMAP. (2012). Arctic climate issues 2011: Changes in Arctic snow, water, ice and permafrost. Retrieved
May 22, 2016, from http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-climate-issues-2011-changes-
in-arctic-snow-water-ice-and-permafrost/129
Amstrup, S. C., Marcot, B. G., & Douglas, D. C. (2008). A Bayesian network modeling approach to
forecasting the 21st century worldwide status of polar bears. In E. T. DeWeaver, C. M. Bitz, & L.-
B. Tremblay (Eds.), Arctic sea ice decline: observations, projections, mechanisms, and implications
(pp. 213–268). Washington DC, USA: American Geophysical Union.
https://doi.org/10.1029/180GM14
Ananjeva, N., & Agasyan, A. (2009). Phrynocephalus horvathi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T164759A5923724.en
Andersen, J. H., Dahl, K., Goke, C., Hartvig, M., Murray, C., Rindorf, A., Skov, H., Vinther, M., & Korpinen,
S. (2014). Integrated assessment of marine biodiversity status using a prototype indicator-based
assessment tool. Frontiers in Marine Science, 1(55), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2014.00055
Andersen, J. H., Halpern, B. S., Korpinen, S., Murray, C., & Reker, J. (2015). Baltic Sea biodiversity status
vs. cumulative human pressures. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 161, 88–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.002
Anderson, B. J., Armsworth, P. R., Eigenbrod, F., Thomas, C. D., Gillings, S., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D. B.,
& Gaston, K. J. (2009), Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service
priorities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

443
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2664.2009.01666.x
Anderson, S., Turiyev, B., & Bafti, S.S. (2009). Phrynocephalus persicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T164647A5915480.en
Andreev, M. P., Ahti T., Voitsekhovitch, A. A., Gagarina, L. V., Himelbrant D. E., Davydov E. A., Konoreva
L. A., Kuznetsova E. S., Makry T. V., Nadeina O. V., Randlane T., Saag A., Stepanchikova I. S., &
Urbanavichus G. P. [Андреев, М. П., Ахти, Т., Войцехович, А. А., Гагарина, Л. В., Гимельбрант,
Д. Е., Давыдов, Е. А., Конорева, Л. А., Кузнецова, Е. С., Макрый, Т. В., Надеина, О. В.,
Рандлане, Т., Сааг, А., Степанчикова, И. С., & Урбанавичюс, Г. П.]. (2014). Флора лишайников
России: биология, экология, разнообразие, распространениеи методы изучения
лишайников [The lichen flora of Russia: biology, ecology, diversity, distribution and methods on
studying lichens]. M. P. Andreev & D. E. Himelbrant (Eds.). Moscow, Russian Federation: KMK.
Angeler, D. G., & Johnson, R. K. (2012). Temporal scales and patterns of invertebrate biodiversity
dynamics in boreal lakes recovering from acidification. Ecological Applications, 22(4), 1172–1186.
http://doi.org/10.1890/11-1474.1
Anker, Y., Rosenthal, E., Shulman, H., & Flexer, A. (2009). Runoff geochemical evolution of the
hypersaline lower Jordan valley basin. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 58(1), 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1560/IJES.58.1.41
Antonchikov, A. N. (2005). A review of the conservation status of steppe birds of the northern part of
the Eastern Palearctic. In G. Bota, M. B. Morales, & S. Manosa (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation
of Steppe-land birds. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions.
Antonov, N. P., Klovatch, N. V., Orlov, A. M., Datsky, A. V., Lepskaya, V. А., Kuznetsov, V. V.,
Yarzhombek, А. А., Abramov, А. А., Alekseev D. О., Moiseev S. I., Evseeva N. А., & Sologub D. О.
[Антонов Н. П., Кловач Н. В., Орлов А. М., Датский А. В., Лепская В. А., Кузнецов В. В.,
Яржомбек А. А., Абрамов А. А., Алексеев Д. О., Моисеев С. И., Евсеева Н. А., & Сологуб Д.
О.]. (2013). Рыболовство в Дальневосточном рыбохозяйственном бассейне в 2013 г. [Fishing
in the Russian Far East fishery basin in 2013]. Труды ВНИРО [Proceedings of VNIRO], 160, 133–
211.
Appeltans, W., Ahyong, S. T., Anderson, G., Angel, M. V., Artois, T., Bailly, N., Bamber, R., Barber, A.,
Bartsch, I., Berta, A., Błażewicz-Paszkowycz, M., Bock, P., Boxshall, G., Boyko, C. B., Brandão, S.
N., Bray, R. A., Bruce, N. L., Cairns, S. D., Chan, T.-Y., Cheng, L., Collins, A. G., Cribb, T., Curini-
Galletti, M., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Davie, P. J. F., Dawson, M. N., De Clerck, O., Decock, W.,
De Grave, S., de Voogd, N. J., Domning, D. P., Emig, C. C., Erséus, C., Eschmeyer, W., Fauchald, K.,
Fautin, D. G., Feist, S. W., Fransen, C. H. J. M., Furuya, H., Garcia-Alvarez, O., Gerken, S., Gibson,
D., Gittenberger, A., Gofas, S., Gómez-Daglio, L., Gordon, D. P., Guiry, M. D., Hernandez, F.,
Hoeksema, B. W., Hopcroft, R. R., Jaume, D., Kirk, P., Koedam, N., Koenemann, S., Kolb, J. B.,
Kristensen, R. M., Kroh, A., Lambert, G., Lazarus, D. B., Lemaitre, R., Longshaw, M., Lowry, J.,
Macpherson, E., Madin, L. P., Mah, C., Mapstone, G., McLaughlin, P. A., Mees, J., Meland, K.,
Messing, C. G., Mills, C. E., Molodtsova, T. N., Mooi, R., Neuhaus, B., Ng, P. K. L., Nielsen, C.,
Norenburg, J., Opresko, D. M., Osawa, M., Paulay, G., Perrin, W., Pilger, J. F., Poore, G. C. B., Pugh,
P., Read, G. B., Reimer, J. D., Rius, M., Rocha, R. M., Saiz-Salinas, J. I., Scarabino, V., Schierwater,
B., Schmidt-Rhaesa, A., Schnabel, K. E., Schotte, M., Schuchert, P., Schwabe, E., Segers, H., Self-
Sullivan, C., Shenkar, N., Siegel, V., Sterrer, W., Stöhr, S., Swalla, B., Tasker, M. L., Thuesen, E. V.,
Timm, T., Todaro, M. A., Turon, X., Tyler, S., Uetz, P., van der Land, J., Vanhoorne, B.,
van Ofwegen, L. P., van Soest, R. W. M., Vanaverbeke, J., Walker-Smith, G., Walter, T. C., Warren,
A., Williams, G. C., Wilson, S. P., & Costello, M. J. (2012). The magnitude of global marine species

444
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

diversity. Current Biology, 22(23), 2189–2202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.036

Aptroot, A., & van Herk, C. M. (2007). Further evidence of the effects of global warming on lichens,
particularly those with Trentepohlia phycobionts. Environmental Pollution, 146(2), 293–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2006.03.018
Aptroot, A., van Herk, C. M., van Dobben, H. F., van den Boom, P. P. G., Brand, A. M., & Spier, L. (1998).
Rode lijst van Nederlandse korstmossen [Red List of the lichens of the Netherlands].
Buxbaumiella, 46, 1–101.
Araújo, M. B., Thuiller, W., & Pearson, R. G. (2006). Climate warming and the decline of amphibians
and reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography, 33(10), 1712–1728.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01482.x
Araújo, R. M., Assis, J., Aguillar, R., Airoldi, L., Bárbara, I., Bartsch, I., Bekkby, T., Christie, H., Davoult,
D., Derrien-Courtel, S., Fernandez, C., Fredriksen, S., Gevaert, F., Gundersen, H., Le Gal, A.,
Lévêque, L., Mieszkowska, N., Norderhaug, K. M., Oliveira, P., Puente, A., Rico, J. M., Rinde, E.,
Schubert, H., Strain, E. M., Valero, M., Viard, F, & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2016). Status, trends and drivers
of kelp forests in Europe: an expert assessment. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(7), 1319–1348.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1141-7
Arctic Council. (2013). Arctic Resilience Interim Report 2013. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm
Environment Institute.
Arheimer, B., Andréasson, J., Fogelberg, S., Johnsson, H., Pers, C. B, & Persson, K. (2005). Climate
Change Impact on Water Quality: Model Results from Southern Sweden. Ambio, 34(7), 559-566.
https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.7.559
Arianoutsou, M. (2001). Landscape changes in Mediterranean ecosystems of Greece: implications for
fire and biodiversity issues. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology, 2, 165–178.
Arizaga, J., & Laso, M. (2015). A quantification of illegal hunting of birds in Gipuzkoa (north of Spain).
European Journal of Wildlife Research, 61(5), 795–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-
0940-6
Armitage, H. F., Britton, A. J., van der Wal, R., & Woodin, S. J. (2014). The relative importance of
nitrogen deposition as a driver of Racomitrium heath species composition and richness across
Europe. Biological Conservation, 171, 224-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.01.039
Arnolds, E. (1991). Decline of ectomycorrhizal fungi in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 35(2–3), 209–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90052-Y
Arnolds, E. (2001). The future of fungi in Europe: threats, conservation and management. In D. Moore,
M. Nauta, S. Evans, & M. Rotheroe (Eds.), Fungal conservation, issues and solutions (pp. 64–80).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Arnolds, E. (2010). The fate of hydnoid fungi in The Netherlands and northwestern Europe. Fungal
Ecology, 3(2), 81–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2009.05.005
Arntzen, J.W., Denoël, M., Miaud, C., Andreone, F., Vogrin, M., Edgar, P., Crnobrnja Isailovic, J., Ajtic,
R., & Corti, C. (2009). Proteus anguinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T18377A8173419.en
Arrieta, J. M., Arnaud-Haond, S., & Duarte, C. M. (2010). What lies underneath: conserving the oceans’
genetic resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 107(43), 18318–24. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911897107

445
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Artemov, I. A., Bliakharchuk, T. A. , Bykov, N. I., Vasilchenko, A. A. , Vinogradov, V. V., Vlasenko, V. I.,
Gurov, A. V., Insarov, G. E., Kariakin, I. V., Knorre, A. A., Koshkarov, A. D., Koshkarova, V. L.,
Kuprianov, A. N., Larin, S. I., Lysanova, G. I., Mikhailov, A. Yu., Mikhailov, N. N., Ostanin, O. V.,
Paltsyn, M. Yu., Parfenova, E. I., Smirnov, M. N., Sukhova, M. G., Timoshkin, V. B., Kharlamova, N.
F., Chebakova, N. M., Cherhykh, D. V., Shishkin, A. S., & Shmakin A. B. [Артемов, И. А., Бляхарчук,
Т. А., Быков, Н. И., Васильченко, А. А., Виноградов, В. В., Власенко, В. И., Гуров, А. В., Инсаров,
Г. Э., Карякин, И. В., Кноре, А. А., Кошкаров, А. Д., Кошкарова, В. Л., Куприянов, А. Н., Ларин,
С. И., Лысанова, Г. И., Михайлов, А. Ю., Михайлов, Н. Н., Останин, О. В., Пальцын, М. Ю.,
Парфенова, Е. И., Смирнов, М. Н., Сухова, М. Г., Тимошкин, В. Б., Харламова, Н. Ф., Чебакова,
Н. М., Черных, Д. В., Шишкин, А. С., & Шмакин, А.Б. (2013). In N. N. Mikhailov [Н. Н.Михайлов]
(Ed.), Изменение климата и биоразнообразие в российской части Алтае-Саянского
экорегиона [Climate change and biodiversity in the Russian part of the Altay-Sayan ecoregion].
Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation: UNDP.
Artyukhin, Y. B., & Burkanov, V. N., [Артюхин, Ю. Б., & Бурканов, В. Н.]. (1999). Морские птицы и
млекопитающие Дальнего Востока России: полевой определитель [Marine birds and
mammals of the Russian Far East: a field guide]. Moscow, Russian Federation: АСТ [AST].
Assis, J., Araújo, M. B., & Serrão, E. A. (2018). Projected climate changes threaten ancient refugia of
kelp forests in the North Atlantic. Global Change Biology, 24(1), e55-e66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13818
Assis, J., Coelho, N. C., Lamy, T., Valero, M., Alberto, F., & Serrão, E. A. (2016a). Deep reefs are climatic
refugia for genetic diversity of marine forests. Journal of Biogeography, 43(4), 833–844.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12677
Assis, J., Lucas, A. V, Bárbara, I., & Serrão, E. A. (2016b). Future climate change is predicted to shift
long-term persistence zones in the cold-temperate kelp Laminaria hyperborea. Marine
Environmental Research, 113, 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.11.005
Asykulov T., & Chordonova N. [Асыкулов, Т., & Чордонова, Н.]. (2015). Состояние орехово-
плодовых лесов Кыргызстана [Status of walnut-fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan]. Наука, Новые
Технологии И Инновации [Science, New Technologies and Innovations], 10, 4–7.
Aude, E., & Ejrnæs, R. (2005). Bryophyte colonisation in experimental microcosms: The role of
nutrients, defoliation and vascular vegetation. Oikos, 109(2), 323–330.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.13268.x
Augustine, D. J., & Mcnaughton, S. J. (1998). Ungulate effects on the functional species composition of
plant communities: Herbivore selectivity and plant tolerance. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 62(4), 1165–1183. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801981
Aukema, B., Rieger, C., & Rabitsch, W. (2013). Catalogue of the Heteroptera of the palaearctic region,
Volume 6: Supplement. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: The Netherlands Entomology Society.
Aunins, A., & Martin, G. (2014). Biodiversity assessment of MARMONI project areas.
Azovsky, A. I. [Азовский, А. И.]. (1989). Нишевая структура сообщества морских псаммофильных
инфузорий. I. Расположение ниш в пространстве ресурсов [Niche community structure of
marine psammophilous ciliates. I. Location of niches in space of resources]. Журнал общей
биологии [Journal of General Biology], 50(3), 329–341.
Babai, D., & Molnár, Z. (2014). Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in
the Carpathians. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 182, 123–130.

446
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.018
Badino, G. (2004). Cave temperatures and global climatic change. International Journal of Speleology,
33, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.33.1.10
Bagella, S., Gascón, S., Filigheddu, R., Cogoni, A., & Boix, D. (2016). Mediterranean temporary ponds:
new challenges from a neglected habitat. Hydrobiologia, 782(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-2962-9
Bagin, A. M., Melnikov, B. P., & Tambiev, S. B. (2011). Diagnostic analysis of the environment of the
Arctic zone of the Russian Federation (extended summary). B. A. Morgunov (Ed.). Moscow,
Russian Federation: Scientific World.
Bai, Y. G., Broersma, K., Thompson, D., & Ross, T. J. (2004). Landscape-level dynamics of grassland-
forest transitions in British Columbia. Journal of Range Management, 57(1), 66–75.
https://doi.org/10.2307/4003956
Bailey, D., Collins, M., Gordon, J. D. M., Zuur, A., & Priede, I. G. (2009). Long-term changes in deep-
water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic: a deeper reaching effect of fisheries?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 1965-1969.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0098
Balata, D., Piazzi, L., & Bulleri, F. (2015). Sediment deposition dampens positive effects of substratum
complexity on the diversity of macroalgal assemblages. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology
and Ecology, 467, 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2015.03.005
Baldrighi, E., Giovannelli, D., D’Errico, G., Lavaleye, M., & Manini, E. (2017). Exploring the relationship
between macrofaunal biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the deep sea. Frontiers in Marine
Science, 4, 198. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00198
Balian, E. V., Segers, H., Lévèque, C., & Martens, K. (2008). The freshwater animal diversity assessment:
An overview of the results. Hydrobiologia, 595(1), 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-
007-9246-3
Bálint, M., Domisch, S., Engelhardt, C. H. M., Haase, P., Lehrian, S., Sauer, J., Theissinger, K., Pauls, S.
U., & Nowak, C. (2011) Cryptic biodiversity loss linked to global climate change. Nature Climate
Change, 1(6), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1191
BalticSTERN. (2013). State of the Baltic Sea: background paper.
Balushkina, E. V., Golubkov, S. M., Golubkov, M. S., Litvinchuk, L. F., & Shadrin, N. V. [Балушкина, Е.
В., Голубков, С. М., Голубков, М. С., Литвинчук, Л. Ф., & Шадрин, Н. В.]. (2008). Влияние
абиотических и биотических факторов на структурно-функциональную организацию
экосистем соленых озер Крыма [Effect of abiotic and biotic factors on the structural and
functional organization of the saline lake ecosystems in Crimea]. Журнал Общей Биологии
[Journal of General Biology], 70(6), 504–514.
Balvanera P., Siddique I., Dee L., Paquette A., Isbell F., Gonzalez A., Byrnes J., O’Connor M. I., Hungate
B. A., & Griffin J. N. (20140. Linking biodiversity and ecosystem services: Current uncertainties
and the necessary next steps. BioScience, 64(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit003
Bannikov, A. G., & Zhirnov, L. V. (1971). The Bokharan deer in the USSR. Oryx, 11(1), 50-61.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605300009443
Barannik, V., Borysova, O., & Stolberg, F. (2004). The Caspian Sea region: Environmental change.
Ambio, 33(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.1.45

447
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Barbet-Massin, M., & Jetz, W. (2014). A 40-year, continent-wide, multispecies assessment of relevant
climate predictors for species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions, 20(11), 1285–
1295. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12229
Barbet-Massin, M., Thuiller, W., & Jiguet, F. (2012). The fate of European breeding birds under climate,
land-use and dispersal scenarios. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2011.02552.x
Barceló, C., Ciannelli, L., Olsen, E. M., Johannessen, T., & Knutsen, H. (2016). Eight decades of sampling
reveal a contemporary novel fish assemblage in coastal nursery habitats. Global Change Biology,
22(3), 1155–1167. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13047
Bardat, J., & Aubert, M. (2007). Impact of forest management on the diversity of corticolous bryophyte
assemblages in temperate forests. Biological Conservation, 139(1), 47–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.06.004
Bardgett, R. D, & van der Putten, W. H. (2014). Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.
Nature, 515, 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13855
Barenboim, G. M., Danilov-Danilyan, V. I., Gelfan, A. N., & Motovilov, Y. G. (2013). On the problems of
water quality in Russia and some approaches to their solution. In B. Arheimer, A. Collins, V.
Krysanova, E. Lakshmanan, M. Meybeck, & M. Stone. (Eds.), Understanding freshwater problems
in a changing world, Volume 361 (pp. 77-86). Retrieved from
https://istina.msu.ru/media/publications/article/817/fb7/24998371/RedBookr361_end.pdf
Bargmann, T., Hatteland, B. A., & Grytnes, J.-A. (2015). Effects of prescribed burning on carabid beetle
diversity in coastal anthropogenic heathlands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(10), 2565–
2581. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0945-1
Barnett, E.A., Fletcher, M.R., Hunter, K., & Sharp, E.A. (2006). Pesticide poisoning of animals 2005:
Investigations of suspected incidents in the United Kingdom. Report of the environmental panel
of the advisory committee on pesticides. London, UK: Defra.
Bassin, S., Volk, M., Suter, M., Buchmann, N., & Fuhrer, J. (2007). Nitrogen deposition but not ozone
affects productivity and community composition of subalpine grassland after 3 yr of treatment.
New Phytologist, 175(3), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02140.x
Batary, P., Baldi, A., Kleijn, D., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of
agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 278(1713), 1894–1902. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1923
Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). The role of agri-environment schemes in
conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1006–1016.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536
Bates, J., & Farmer, A. (1992). Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.
Beaugrand, G. (2004). The North Sea regime shift: Evidence, causes, mechanisms and consequences.
Progress in Oceanography, 60(2–4), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2004.02.018
Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., Raybaud, V., Goberville, E., & Kirby, R. R. (2015). Future vulnerability of
marine biodiversity compared with contemporary and past changes. Nature Climate Change,
5(7), 695–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2650
Beaugrand, G., Luczak, C., & Edwards, M. (2009). Rapid biogeographical plankton shifts in the North

448
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Atlantic Ocean. Global Change Biology, 15(7), 1790–1803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

2486.2009.01848.x
Beaugrand, G., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Edwards, M., & Goberville, E. (2013). Long-term responses of
North Atlantic calcifying plankton to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(3), 263–267.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1753
Beaugrand, G., Reid, P. C., Ibañez, F., Lindley, J. A., & Edwards, M. (2002). Reorganization of North
Atlantic marine copepod biodiversity and climate. Science, 296(2002), 1692–1694.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071329
Beebee, T. J. C., & Griffiths, R. A. (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation
biology? Biological Conservation 125(3), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.04.009
Belan, T. A. (2003). Benthos abundance pattern and species composition in conditions of pollution in
Amursky Bay (the Peter the Great Bay, the Sea of Japan). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(9), 1111–
1119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(03)00242-X
Belimov, G. T., & Sedalishchev, V. T. [Белимов Г. Т., & Седалищев В. Т.]. (1980). Озерная лягушка
(Rana ridibunda) (Amphibia, Anura) в водоемах Якутска [The marsh frog, Rana ridibunda
(Amphibia, Anura). Water bodies of the city of Yakutsk]. Vestnik Zoologii [Journal of Zoology], 3,
74–75.
Belonovskaya, E. A. (1995). The human-induced transformation of the ecosystems of the Caucasus
Mountains. In EURO-MAB IV. “Mountain zonality facing global change”. Conf. Papers 21 (pp. 41–
57). Warszawa: IgiPZ PAN.
Benejam, L., Mello, F. T., Meerhoff, M., Loureiro, M., Jeppesen, E., & Brucet, S. (2016). Assessing effects
of change in land use on size-related variables of fish in subtropical streams. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 73, 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2015-0025
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, A. C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity
and abundance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 261–269.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x
Benito Garzon, M., Sanchez de Dios, R., & Sainz Ollero, H. (2008). Effects of climate change on the
distribution of Iberian tree species. Applied Vegetation Science, 11(2), 169–178.
https://doi.org/10.3170/2008-7-18348
Benton, T. G., Bryant, D. M., Cole, L., & Crick, H. Q. P. (2002). Linking agricultural practice to insect and
bird populations: A historical study over three decades. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(4), 673–
687. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00745.x
Berendse, F., Chamberlain, D., Kleijn, D., & Schekkerman, H. (2004). Declining biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Ambio, 33(8), 499–
502. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.499
Berg, L. S. (1949). Freshwater fishes of the USSR and adjacent countries, part. 2. Moskva–Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.
Bergamini, A., & Pauli, D. (2001). Effects of increased nutrient supply on bryophytes in montane
calcareous fens. Journal of Bryology, 23(4), 331–339. https://doi.org/10.1179/jbr.2001.23.4.331
Bergamini, A., Peintinger, M., Fakheran, S., Moradi, H., Schmid, B., & Joshi, J. (2009). Loss of habitat
specialists despite conservation management in fen remnants 1995-2006. Perspectives in Plant
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 11(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2008.10.001

449
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bergamini, A., Peintinger, M., Schmid, B., & Urmi, E. (2001). Effects of management and altitude on
bryophyte species diversity and composition in montane calcareous fens. Flora, 196(3), 180–193.
https://doi.org/0367-2530/01/196/03-180
Bergamini, A., Ungricht, S., & Hofmann, H. (2009). An elevational shift of cryophilous bryophytes in the
last century - An effect of climate warming? Diversity and Distributions, 15(5), 871–879.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00595.x
Berseneva, L. A. [Берсенева, Л. А.]. (2006). Клииматы аридной зоны Азии [Climates of Asia’s arid
zone]. In P. D. Gunin [П. Д. Гунин] (Ed.), Biological resources and natural conditions of Mongolia:
Proceedings of the joint Russian-Mongolian complex biological expedition Vol. 46. Moscow,
Russian Federation: Nauka.
Bertocci, I., Araújo, R., Oliveira, P., & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2015). Potential effects of kelp species on local
fisheries. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1216–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12483
Bespalova, L. A., & [Беспалова, Л. А.]. (2016). Экологическая диагностика и оценка устойчивости
ландшафтной структуры Азовского моря [Environmental diagnosis and assessment of the
sustainability of the landscape structure of the Azov Sea]. Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation:
Rostov University.
Bhatt, U. S., Walker, D. A., Raynolds, M. K., Comiso, J. C., Epstein, H. E., Jia, G. S., Gens, R., Pinzon, J. E.,
Tucker, C. J., Tweedie, C. E., & Webber, P. J. (2010). Circumpolar Arctic tundra vegetation change
is linked to sea ice decline. Earth Interactions, 14, 8. http://doi.org/10.1175/2010EI315.1
Bianchi, C. N., Morri, C., Chiantore, M., Montefalcone, M., Parravicini, V., & Rovere, A. (2012).
Mediterranean Sea biodversity between the legacy from the past and a future of change. In N.
Stambler (Ed.), Life in the Mediterranean Sea: A look at habitat changes (pp. 1-55). New York,
USA: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved from
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=21851
Biermann, R., & Daniels, F. (1997). Changes in a lichen-rich dry sand grassland vegetation with special
reference to lichen synusiae and Campylopus introflexus. Phytocoenologia, 27(2), 257–273.
https://doi.org/10.1127/phyto/27/1997/257
Biesmeijer, J. C., Roberts, S. P. M., Reemer, M., Ohlemüller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A.
P., Potts, S. G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C. D., Settele, J., & Kunin, W. E. (2006). Parallel declines in
pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science, 313(5785), 351–
354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863
Bikirov, Sh. B. [Бикиров, Ш. Б.]. (2012). Лесные ресурсы Западного Тянь-Шаня [Forest resources of
the western Tian-Shan]. Хвойные Бореальной Зоны [Conifers of the Boreal Zone], 33(3–4), 220–
223.
Bilandžija, H., Čuković, T., & Puljas, S. (2014). Protokol praćenja stanja vrsta Congeria kusceri Bole, 1962
i Congeria jalzici Morton & Bilandžija, 2013 u Republici Hrvatskoj. [State monitoring protocol of
the species Congeria kusceri Bole, 1962 and Congeria jalzici Morton and Bilandžija, 2013 in the
Republic of Croatia].
Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Bukacek, R.,
Burel, F., Cerny, M., De Blust, G., De Cock, R., Diekötter, T., Dietz, H., Dirksen, J., Dormann, C.,
Durka, W., Frenzel, M., Hamersky, R., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Koolstra, B., Lausch, A.,
Le Coeur, D., Maelfait, J. P., Opdam, P., Roubalova, M., Schermann, A., Schermann, N., Schmidt,
T., Schweiger, O., Smulders, M. J. M., Speelmans, M., Simova, P., Verboom, J., Van Wingerden,

450
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

W. K. R. E., Zobel, M., & Edwards, P. J. (2008). Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes:
A pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1), 141–150.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01393.x
Bilz, M., Kell, S. P., Maxted, N., & Lansdown, R. V. (2011). European red list of vascular plants.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/8515
Birchenough, S. N. R., Reiss, H., Degraer, S., Mieszkowska, N., Borja, Á., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Braeckman,
U., Craeymeersch, J., De Mesel, I., Kerckhof, F., Kröncke, I., Parra, S., Rabaut, M., Schröder, A.,
Van Colen, C., Van Hoey, G., Vincx, M., & Wätjen, K. (2015). Climate change and marine benthos:
a review of existing research and future directions in the North Atlantic. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews - Climate Change, 6(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.330
BirdLife International. (2008). Palearctic-African migratory birds have suffered substantial declines.
Retrieved July 26, 2017, from http://datazone.birdlife.org/sowb/casestudy/palearctic-african-
migratory-birds-have-suffered-substantial-declines
BirdLife International. (2015). European red list of birds. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/975810
BirdLife International. (2016). Data zone. Retrieved from http://datazone.birdlife.org/
BirdLife International. (2017). European birds of conservation concern: populations, trends and
national responsibilities. Cambridge, UK.
Bliss, L.C., Heal, O.W., & Moore, J.J. (Eds.). (1981). Tundra ecosystems: A comparative analysis.
Cambride, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bliss, L. C., & Matveyeva. (1992). Circumpolar Arctic vegetation. In F. S. Chaplin III (Ed.), Arctic
ecosystems in a changing climate (pp. 59-90). San Diego, USA: Academic Press, Inc.
Blois, J. L., Zarnetske, P. L., Fitzpatrick, M. C., & Finnegan, S. (2013). Climate change and the past,
present, and future of biotic interactions. Science, 341(6145), 499–504.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1237184
Blondel, J., Aronson, J., Bodiou, J. Y., & Boeuf, G. (2010). The Mediterranean region. Biological diversity
in space and time. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
Blüthgen. N., Simons, N. K., Jung, K., Prati, D., Renner, S. C., Boch, S., Fischer, M., Hölzel, N., Klaus, V.
H., Kleinebecker, T., Tschapka, M., Weisser, W. W., & Gossner, M. M. (2016). Land use imperils
plant and animal community stability through changes in asynchrony rather than diversity.
Nature Communications 7, 10697. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10697
Bobbink, R., Hicks, K., Galloway, J., Spranger, T., Alkemade, R., Ashmore, M., Bustamante, M., Cinderby,
S., Davidson, E., Dentener, F., Emmett, B., Erisman, J.- W., Fenn, M., Gilliam, F., Nordin, A., Pardo,
L., & De Vries, W. (2010). Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant
diversity: a synthesis. Ecological Applications, 20(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1140.1
Boch, S., Prati, D., Schöning, I., & Fischer, M. (2016). Lichen species richness is highest in non-intensively
used grasslands promoting suitable microhabitats and low vascular plant competition.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1037-y
Bockheim, J. G. & Tarnocai, C. (1998). Nature, occurrence and origin of dry permafrost. International
Conference on Permafrost, Yellowknife (Canada), Collection Nordicana, 55, 57-63.
Boero, F. (2013). Review of jellyfish blooms in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. Studies and Reviews.
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, 92.

451
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bogatov, V. V, & Fedorovskiy, A. S. (2016). Freshwater ecosystems of the southern region of the Russian
Far East are undergoing extreme environmental change. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic
Ecosystems, 417, 34. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2016021
Böhm, M., Collen, B., Baillie, J., Bowles, P., Chanson, J., Cox, N., Hammerson, G., Hoffmann, M.,
Livingstone, S. R., Ram, M., Rhodin, A. G. J., Stuart, S. N., van Dijk, P. P., Young, B. E., Afuang, L. E.,
Aghasyan, A., García, A., Aguilar, C., Ajtic, R., Akarsu, F., Alencar, L. R. V, Allison, A., Ananjeva, N.,
Anderson, S., Andrén, C., Ariano-Sánchez, D., Arredondo, J. C., Auliya, M., Austin, C. C., Avci, A.,
Baker, P. J., Barreto-Lima, A. F., Barrio-Amorós, C. L., Basu, D., Bates, M. F., Batistella, A., Bauer,
A., Bennett, D., Böhme, W., Broadley, D., Brown, R., Burgess, J., Captain, A., Carreira, S.,
Castañeda, M. del R., Castro, F., Catenazzi, A., Cedeño-Vázquez, J. R., Chapple, D. G., Cheylan, M.,
Cisneros-Heredia, D. F., Cogalniceanu, D., Cogger, H., Corti, C., Costa, G. C., Couper, P. J.,
Courtney, T., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Crochet, P. A., Crother, B., Cruz, F., Daltry, J. C., Daniels, R. J.
R., Das, I., de Silva, A., Diesmos, A. C., Dirksen, L., Doan, T. M., Dodd, C. K., Doody, J. S., Dorcas,
M. E., Duarte de Barros Filho, J., Egan, V. T., El Mouden, E. H., Embert, D., Espinoza, R. E.,
Fallabrino, A., Feng, X., Feng, Z. J., Fitzgerald, L., Flores-Villela, O., França, F. G. R., Frost, D.,
Gadsden, H., Gamble, T., Ganesh, S. R., Garcia, M. A., García-Pérez, J. E., Gatus, J., Gaulke, M.,
Geniez, P., Georges, A., Gerlach, J., Goldberg, S., Gonzalez, J. C. T., Gower, D. J., Grant, T.,
Greenbaum, E., Grieco, C., Guo, P., Hamilton, A. M., Hare, K., Hedges, S. B., Heideman, N., Hilton-
Taylor, C., Hitchmough, R., Hollingsworth, B., Hutchinson, M., Ineich, I., Iverson, J., Jaksic, F. M.,
Jenkins, R., Joger, U., Jose, R., Kaska, Y., Kaya, U., Keogh, J. S., Köhler, G., Kuchling, G., Kumlutas,
Y., Kwet, A., La Marca, E., Lamar, W., Lane, A., Lardner, B., Latta, C., Latta, G., Lau, M., Lavin, P.,
Lawson, D., LeBreton, M., Lehr, E., Limpus, D., Lipczynski, N., Lobo, A. S., López-Luna, M. A.,
Luiselli, L., Lukoschek, V., Lundberg, M., Lymberakis, P., Macey, R., Magnusson, W. E., Mahler, D.
L., Malhotra, A., Mariaux, J., Maritz, B., Marques, O. A. V, Márquez, R., Martins, M., Masterson,
G., Mateo, J. A., Mathew, R., Mathews, N., Mayer, G., McCranie, J. R., Measey, G. J., Mendoza-
Quijano, F., Menegon, M., Métrailler, S., Milton, D. A., Montgomery, C., Morato, S. A. A., Mott,
T., Muñoz-Alonso, A., Murphy, J., Nguyen, T. Q., Nilson, G., Nogueira, C., Núñez, H., Orlov, N., Ota,
H., Ottenwalder, J., Papenfuss, T., Pasachnik, S., Passos, P., Pauwels, O. S. G., Pérez-Buitrago, N.,
Pérez-Mellado, V., Pianka, E. R., Pleguezuelos, J., Pollock, C., Ponce-Campos, P., Powell, R., Pupin,
F., Quintero Diaz, G. E., Radder, R., Ramer, J., Rasmussen, A. R., Raxworthy, C., Reynolds, R.,
Richman, N., Rico, E. L., Riservato, E., Rivas, G., da Rocha, P. L. B., Rödel, M. O., Rodríguez
Schettino, L., Roosenburg, W. M., Ross, J. P., Sadek, R., Sanders, K., Santos-Barrera, G., Schleich,
H. H., Schmidt, B. R., Schmitz, A., Sharifi, M., Shea, G., Shi, H. T., Shine, R., Sindaco, R., Slimani, T.,
Somaweera, R., Spawls, S., Stafford, P., Stuebing, R., Sweet, S., Sy, E., Temple, H. J., Tognelli, M.
F., Tolley, K., Tolson, P. J., Tuniyev, B., Tuniyev, S., Üzüm, N., van Buurt, G., Van Sluys, M., Velasco,
A., Vences, M., Vesely, M., Vinke, S., Vinke, T., Vogel, G., Vogrin, M., Vogt, R. C., Wearn, O. R.,
Werner, Y. L., Whiting, M. J., Wiewandt, T., Wilkinson, J., Wilson, B., Wren, S., Zamin, T., Zhou, K.,
& Zug, G. (2013). The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation, 157,
372-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015
Bohn, U., Gollub, G., Hettwer, C., Neuhäuslová, Z., Raus, T., Schlüter, H., & Weber, H. (2000). Karte der
natürlichen Vegetation Europas, Maßstab 1: 2 500 000 [Map of the natural vegetation of Europe.
Scale 1: 2 500 000]. Bonn, Germany: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) / Federal Agency for
Nature Conservation.
Bohn, U., Gollub, G., Hettwer, C., Neuhäuslová, Z., Raus, T., Sch lüter, H., Weber, H. & Hennekens, S.
(2004). Karte der natürlichen Vegetation Europas, Maßstab 1: 2 500 000 [Map of the natural
vegetation of Europe. Scale 1: 2 500 000]. Interactive CD-ROM: explanatory text, legend, maps.
Bonn, Germany: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) / Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.

452
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Boix, D., Kneitel, J., Robson, B. J., Duchet, C., Zúñiga, L., Day, J., Gascón, S., Sala, J., Quintana, X. D., &
Blaustein, L. (2016). Invertebrates of freshwater temporary ponds in Mediterranean climates. In
D. Batzer & D. Boix (Eds.), Invertebrates in freshwater wetlands (pp. 141-189). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24978-0
Boll, T., Levi, E. E., Bezirci, G., Özuluğ, M., Tavşanoğlu, Ü. N., Çakıroğlu, A. İ., Özcan, S., Brucet, S.,
Jeppesen, E., & Beklioğlu, M. (2016). Fish assemblage and diversity in lakes of western and central
Turkey: role of geo-climatic and other environmental variables. Hydrobiologia, 771(1), 31–44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2608-3
Bolnick, D. I., Amarasekare, P., Araújo, M. S., Bürger, R., Levine, J. M., Novak, M., Rudolf, V. H. W.,
Schreiber, S. J., Urban, M. C., & Vasseur, D. (2011). Why intraspecific trait variation matters in
community ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26,183-192
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009
Bolnyk, S. I., & Vengerov, P. D. [Больных, С. И., & Венгеров, П. Д.]. (2011). Динамика фауны и
ПОПУЛЯЦИИ птиц на залежных в лесостепи и степных зонах [Dynamics of fauna and the
population of birds on the fallow lands in forest-steppe and steppe zones]. Scientific statements
of the Belgorod state University. Series: Natural Sciences, 15(9), 104. Retrieved from
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/dinamika-fauny-i-naseleniya-ptits-na-zalezhah-v-lesostepnoy-
i-stepnoy-zonah
Bologa, A. S., & Sava, D. (2012). Present state and evolution trends of biodiversity in the Black Sea:
decline and restoration. Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment, 18(2), 144–154.
Retrieved from http://www.blackmeditjournal.org/pdf/vol18no2pdf5.pdf
Bond E. M. & Chase J. M. (2002). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at local and regional spatial
scales. Ecology Letters, 5(4), 467–470. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00350.x
Bonn, A., Allott, T., Evans, M., Joosten, H., & Stoneman, R. (2016). Peatland restoration and ecosystem
services: Science, policy and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bonnin, I., Bonneuil, C., Goffaux, R., Montalent, P., & Goldringer, I. (2014). Explaining the decrease in
the genetic diversity of wheat in France over the 20th century. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 195, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.003
Boomer, I., Aladin, N., Plotnikov, I., & Whatley, R. (2000). The palaeolimnology of the Aral Sea: a review.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 19(13), 1259–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-
3791(00)00002-0
Borisov, V. V., Scheblykina, L. S. & Uriadova, L. P. [Борисов, В. В., Щеблыкина, Л. С., & Урядова, Л.
П.]. (2014). The dynamics of the species composition and bird habitats on abandoned arable lands
with different degrees of overgrowth [Динамика видового состава и структура населения птиц
Заброшенных пашен с разной степенью ИХ ЗАРАСТАНИЯ]. Bulletin of the Pskov State
University. Series: Natural and Physico-mathematical Sciences, 5. Retrieved from
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/dinamika-vidovogo-sostava-i-struktury-naseleniya-ptits-
zabroshennyh-pashen-s-raznoy-stepenyu-ih-zarastaniya
Bornand, C., Gygax, A., Juillerat, P., Jutzi, M., Möhl, A., Rometsch, S., Sager, L., Santiago, H, &
Eggenberg, S. (2016). Rote Liste Gefässpflanzen. Gefährdete Arten der Schweiz (Vol. 1621) [Red
List of vascular plants. Endangered species in Switzerland (Vol. 1621)]. Bern, Switzerland:
Bundesamt für Umwelt and Geneva, Switzerland: Info Flora.
Boros, E., Ecsedi, Z., & Oláh, J. (2013). Ecology and management of soda pans in the Carpathian Basin.

453
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Balmazújváros, Hungary: Hortobágy Environmental Association.

Borsch, T., Dürbye, T., Gasparyan, A., Akhalkatsi, M., Henkel, M., Korotkova, N., Maharromova, E.
Mansion, G. & Stevens, A.-D. (2014). Caucasus. Plant diversity between the Black and Caspian
Seas. G. Parolly, K. Grotz, W. Lack, & N. J. Turland (Eds.). Berlin, Germany: Botanischer Garten
und Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem.
Boudouresque, C. F., Bernard, G., Pergent, G., Shili, A., & Verlaque, M. (2009). Regression of
Mediterranean seagrasses caused by natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances and
stress: A critical review. Botanica Marina, 52(5), 395–418.
https://doi.org/10.1515/BOT.2009.057
Brasier, C. M., & Buck, K. W. (2001). Rapid evolutionary changes in a globally invading fungal pathogen
(Dutch elm disease). Biological Invasions, 3(3), 223–233.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015248819864
Breckle, S. -W., & Wucherer, W. (2006). Vegetation of the Pamir (Tajikistan): Land use and
desertification problems. In E. M. Spehn, M. Liberman, & C. Körner (Eds.), Land use change and
mountain biodiversity (pp. 225–238). Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Breckle, S.-W., Wucherer, W., Dimeyeva, L., & Ogar, N. (Eds.). (2012). The Aralkum, a man-made desert
on the desiccated floor of the Aral Sea (Central Asia). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21117-1_1
Breeze, T. D., Vaissière, B. E., Bommarco, R., Petanidou, T., Seraphides, N., Kozák, L., Scheper, J.,
Biesmeijer, J. C., Kleijn, D., Gyldenkærne, S., Moretti, M., Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I.,
Stout, J. C., Pärtel, M., Zobel, M., & Potts, S. G. (2014). Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee
pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e82996.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082996
Brinkert, A., Hölzel, N., Sidorova, T. V., & Kamp, J. (2016). Spontaneous steppe restoration on
abandoned cropland in Kazakhstan: grazing affects successional pathways. Biodiversity and
Conservation 25(12), 2543-2561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1020-7
Britton, A. J., Beale, C. M., Towers, W., & Hewison, R. L. (2009). Biodiversity gains and losses: evidence
for homogenisation of Scottish alpine vegetation. Biological Conservation, 142(8), 1728–1739.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.010
Britton, A. J., & Fisher, J. M. (2010). Terricolous alpine lichens are sensitive to both load and
concentration of applied nitrogen and have potential as bioindicators of nitrogen deposition.
Environmental Pollution, 158(5), 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.01.015
Britton, A. J., Hester, A. J., Hewison, R. L., Potts, J. M., & Ross, L. C. (2017). Climate, pollution and grazing
drive long-term change in moorland habitats. Applied Vegetation Science, 20(2), 194–203.
http://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12260
Brochet, A.-L., Van den Bosschen, W., Jbour, S., Ndang’ang’a, P. K., Jones, V. R., Abdou, W. A. L. I., Al-
Hmoud, A. R., Asswad, N. G., Atienza, J. C., Atrash, I., Barbara, N., Bensusan, K., Bino, T., Celada,
C., Cherkaoui, S. I., Costa, J., Deceuninck, B., Etayeb, K. S., Feltrup-Azafzaf, C., Figelj, J., Gustin, M.,
Kmecl, P., Kocevski, V., Korbetti, M., Kotrosan, D., Mula Laguna, J., Lattuada, M., Leitão, D., Lopes,
P., López-Jiménez, N., Lucić, V., Micol, T., Moali, A., Perlman, Y., Piludu, N., Portolou, D., Putilin,
K., Quaintenne, G., Ramadan-Jaradi, G., Ružić, M., Sandor, A., Sarajli, N., Saveljic, D., Sheldon, R.
D., Shialis, T., Tsiopelas, N., Vargas, F., Thompson, C., Brunner, A., Grimmett, R., & Butchart, S. H.
M. (2016). Preliminary assessment of the scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in

454
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the Mediterranean. Bird Conservation International, 26(1), 1–28.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270915000416
Brodie, J., Williamson, C. J., Smale, D. A., Kamenos, N. A., Mieszkowska, N., Santos, R., Cunliffe, M.,
Steinke, M., Yesson, C., Anderson, K. M., Asnaghi, V., Brownlee, C., Burdett, H. L., Burrows, M. T.,
Collins, S., Donohue, P. J. C., Harvey, B., Foggo, A., Noisette, F., Nunes, J., Ragazzola, F., Raven, J.
A., Schmidt, D. N., Suggett, D., Teichberg, M., & Hall-Spencer, J. M. (2014). The future of the
northeast Atlantic benthic flora in a high CO2 world. Ecology and Evolution, 4(13), 2787–2798.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1105
Broggi, M. F. & Waldburger, E. (1984). Rote Liste der gefährdeter und seltenen Gefässpflanzen- arten
des Fürstentums Liechtenstein [Red List of endangered and rare vascular plants. Types of the
Principality of Liechtenstein]. Liechtenstein: Naturkundliche Forschung im Fürstentum.
Brönmark, C., & Hansson, L.-A. (2002). Environmental issues in lakes and ponds: current state and
perspectives. Environmental Conservation, 29(3), 290–307.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000218
Brooks, T. M., Akçakaya, H. R., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Juffe-
Bignoli, D., Kingston, N., MacSharry, B., Parr, M., Perianin, L., Regan, E. C., Rodrigues, A. S. L.,
Rondinini, C., Shennan-Farpon, Y., & Young, B. E. (2016). Analysing biodiversity and conservation
knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.7
Brown, L. E., Hannah, D. M., & Milner, A. M. (2007). Vulnerability of alpine stream biodiversity to
shrinking glaciers and snowpacks. Global Change Biology, 13(5), 958–966.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01341.x
Brucet, S., Boix, D., Gascón, S., Sala, J., Quintana, X. D., Badosa, A., Sondergaard, M., Lauridsen, T. L., &
Jeppesen, E. (2009). Species richness of crustacean zooplankton and trophic structure of brackish
lagoons in contrasting climate zones: North temperate Denmark and Mediterranean Catalonia
(Spain). Ecography, 32(4), 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05823.x
Brucet, S., Boix, D., Nathansen, L. W., Quintana, X. D., Jensen, E., Balayla, D., Meerhoff, M., & Jeppesen,
E. (2012). Effects of temperature, salinity and fish in structuring the macroinvertebrate
community in shallow lakes: implications for effects of climate change. PLoS ONE, 7(2), e30877.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030877
Brucet, S., Boix, D., Quintana, X. D., Jensen, E., Nathansen, L. W., Trochine, C., Meerhoff, M., Gascon,
S., & Jeppesen, E. (2010). Factors influencing zooplankton size structure at contrasting
temperatures in coastal shallow lakes: Implications for effects of climate change. Limnology and
Oceanography, 55(4), 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2010.55.4.1697
Brucet, S., Pédron, S., Mehner, T., Lauridsen, T. L., Argillier, C., Winfield, I. J., Volta, P., Emmrich, M.,
Hesthagen, T., Holmgren, K., Benejam, L., Kelly, F., Krause, T., Palm, A., Rask, M., & Jeppesen, E.
(2013). Fish diversity in European lakes: Geographical factors dominate over anthropogenic
pressures. Freshwater Biology, 58(9), 1779–1793. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12167
Bruchmann, I. (2011). Plant endemism in Europe: spatial distribution and habitat affinities of endemic
vascular plants.
Brühl, C. A., Schmidt, T., Pieper, S., & Alscher, A. (2013). Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians:
An underestimated cause of global decline? Scientific Reports, 3(1), 1135.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01135

455
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Brunet, J., Hedwall, P. O., Holmström, E., & Wahlgren, E. (2016). Disturbance of the herbaceous layer
after invasion of an eutrophic temperate forest by wild boar. Nordic Journal of Botany, 34(1),
120–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/njb.01010
BSC. (2008). State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2001 - 2006/7). Istanbul, Turkey: Commission
on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC). Retrieved from http://www.blacksea-
commission.org/_publ-SOE2009.asp
Bugmann, H., Gurung, A. B., Ewert, F., Haeberli, W., Guisan, A., Fagre, D., & Kaab, A. (2007). Modeling
the biophysical impacts of global change in mountain biosphere reserves. Mountain Research and
Development, 27(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2007)27[66:MTBIOG]2.0.CO;2
Buisson, L., Thuiller, W., Lek, S., Lim, P., & Grenouillet, G. (2008). Climate change hastens the turnover
of stream fish assemblages. Global Change Biology, 14(10), 2232–2248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01657.x
Bukvareva, E. (2014). The summary of the principle of optimal diversity of biosystems.
Bukvareva, E. N., & Aleshchenko, G. M. [Букварева, Е. Н., & Алещенко, Г. М.]. (2013). Принцип
оптимального разнообразия биосистем [The principle of optimal diversity of biological
systems]. Moscow, Russian Federation: KMK - Association of Scientific Publications.
Bulleri, F., & Piazzi, L. (2014). Variations in importance and intensity of competition underpin context
dependency in the effects of an invasive seaweed on resident assemblages. Marine Biology,
162(2), 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2563-y
Bullock J., Jeffersen, R. G., Blackstock, T. H., Pakeman, R. J., Emmett, B. A., Pywell, R. J., Grime, J. P., &
Silvertown, J. (2011). Semi‐natural grasslands. In UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical
Report (pp. 161-196). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Burdin, A. M., Filatova, O. A., & Khoit, E. [Бурдин, А. М., Филатова, О. А., & Хойт, Э.]. (2009). Морские
млекопитающие России [Marine mammals of Russia]. Kirov, Russian Federation: Волго-
Вятское книжное издательство [Volga-Vyatka book publishing house].
Burgmer, T., Hillebrand, H., & Pfenninger, M. (2007). Effects of climate-driven temperature changes on
the diversity of freshwater macroinvertebrates. Oecologia, 151(1), 93–103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0542-9
Burkhanov, A. M., & [Бурханов, А. М.]. (2013). Обзор и анализ деятельности лесной отрасли и
существующей информации о лесных экосистемах, их важности для благосостояния
людей и социально-экономического развития, тенденциях в этой области, основные
прямые и непрямые приводные механизмы, вызывающие изменения [Review and analysis
of forest industry activities and existing information on forest ecosystems, their importance to
human well-being and socio-economic development, trends, major direct and indirect drive
mechanisms causing changes]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: UNDP.
Burls, K. J., Shapiro J., Forister M. L., Hoelzer G. A. (2014). A nonlinear relationship between genetic
diversity and productivity in a polyphagous seed beetle. Oecologia 175, 151–161.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2893-y
Butzin, M., & Pörtner, H. O. (2016). Thermal growth potential of Atlantic cod by the end of the 21st
century. Global Change Biology, 22(12), 4162–4168. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13375
Byrnes, J. E. K., Gamfeldt, L., Isbell, F., Lefcheck, J.S., Griffin, J. N., Hector, A., Cardinal, B. J., Hooper, D.
U., Dee. L. E., & Duffy, J. E. (2014). Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and
ecosystem multifunctionality: challenges and solutions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(2),

456
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

111–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12143
Cacho, O. J., Spring, D., Pheloung, P., & Hester, S. (2006). Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an
invasion. Biological Invasions, 8, 903–917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-005-4733-9
Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K., & Mirotchnick, N. (2011). Beyond species: functional diversity and the
maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 1079–1087.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02048.x
Caesar S., Karlsson M., Forsman A. 2010. Diversity and relatedness enhance survival in colour
polymorphic grasshoppers. PLoS ONE, 5(5), e10880.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010880
CAFF. (2013). Arctic biodiversity assessment. Status and trends in Arctic biodiversity. Conservation of
Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), Arctic Council.
CAFF. (2017). State of the Arctic marine biodiversity report. Akureyri, Iceland: Conservation of Arctic
Flora and Fauna International Secretariat. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-
council.org/handle/11374/1945
Callaghan, T. V., Björn, L. O. Chapin III, F. S., Chernov, Y., Christensen, T. R., Huntley, B., Ims, R. A.,
Johansson, M., Riedlinger, D. J., Jonasson, S., Matveyeva, N., Oechel, W., Panikov, N., Shaver, G.,
Elster, J., Henttonen, H., Jónsdóttir I. S., Laine K., Schaphoff S., Sitch S., Taulavuori E., Taulavuori
K., & Zöckler, C. (2005). Arctic tundra and polar desert ecosystems. In C. Symon, L. Arris, & B. Heal
(Eds.), Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (pp. 243-352). New York, USA: Cambridge University
Press.
Callaghan, T. V, Björn, L. O., Chernov, Y., Chapin III, T., Christensen, T. R., Huntley, B., Ims, R. A,
Johansson, M., Jolly, D., Jonasson, S., Matveyeva, N., Panikov, N., Oechel, W., Shaver, G., Elster,
J., Henttonen, H., Laine, K., Taulavuori, K., Taulavuori, E., & Zöckler, C. (2004). Biodiversity,
distributions and adaptations of Arctic species in the context of environmental change. Ambio,
33(1), 404–417. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.7.404
Cañadas, E. M., Fenu, G., Peñas, J., Lorite, J., Mattana, E., & Bacchetta, G. (2014). Hotspots within
hotspots: Endemic plant richness, environmental drivers, and implications for conservation.
Biological Conservation, 170, 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.007
Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Hawkins, C. P., Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B., Dyack, B. J., Brucet, S., Buchwalter,
D., Dunlop, J., Frör, O., Lazorchak, J., Coring, E., Fernandez, H. R., Goodfellow, W., González
Achem, A. L., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Karimov, B. K., Mensah, P., Olson, J. R., Piscart, C., Prat, N., Ponsá,
S., Schulz, C.-J., & Timpano, A. J. (2016). Saving freshwater from salts. Science, 351(6276), 914-
916. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad3488
Capinha, C., Larson, E. R., Tricarico, E., Olden, J. D., & Gherardi, F. (2013). Effects of climate change,
invasive species, and disease on the distribution of native European crayfishes. Conservation
Biology, 27(4), 731–740. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12043
Cardador, L., De Cáceres, M., Bota, G., Giralt, D., Casas, F., Arroyo, B., Mougeot, F., Cantero-Martíez,
C., Moncunill, J., Butler, S. J., & Brotons, L. (2014). A resource-based modelling framework to
assess habitat suitability for steppe birds in semiarid Mediterranean agricultural systems. PLoS
ONE, 9(3), e92790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092790
Cardinale, B. J., Srivastava, D. S., Duffy, J. E., Wright, J. P., Downing, A. L., Sankaran, M., & Jouseau, C.
(2006). Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic groups and ecosystems. Nature, 443,
989-992. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05202

457
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G.
M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D. A., Kinzig, A. P., Daily, G. C., Loreau, M., Grace, J. B., Larigauderie, A.,
Srivastava, D. S., & Naeem, S. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature,
486(7401), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Cardinale, M., & Scarcella, G. (2017). Mediterranean Sea: A failure of the European fisheries
management system. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 72.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00072
Cardinale, M., & Svedäng, H. (2011). The beauty of simplicity in science: Baltic cod stock improves
rapidly in a “cod hostile” ecosystem state. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 425, 297–301.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09098
Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R. S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah,
A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A, Pereira, H. M., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem
services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305–1312.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808772106
Carrizo, S. F., Lengyel, S., Kapusi, F., Szabolcs, M., Kasperidus, H. D., Scholz, M., Markovic, D., Freyhof,
J., Cid, N., Cardosa, A. C., & Darwall, W. (2017). Critical catchments for freshwater biodiversity
conservation in Europe: identification, prioritisation and gap analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology,
54(5), 1209-1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12842
Carstensen, J., Andersen, J. H., Gustafsson, B. G., & Conley, D. J. (2014). Deoxygenation of the Baltic
Sea during the last century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 111(15), 5628–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1323156111
Carvalheiro, L. G., Kunin, W. E., Keil, P., Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J., Ellis, W. N., Fox, R., Groom, Q., Hennekens,
S., Van Landuyt, W., Maes, D., Van de Meutter, F., Michez, D., Rasmont, P., Ode, B., Potts, S. G.,
Reemer, M., Roberts, S. P. M., Schaminée, J., Wallisdevries, M. F., & Biesmeijer, J. C. (2013).
Species richness declines and biotic homogenisation have slowed down for NW-European
pollinators and plants. Ecology Letters, 16(7), 870–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12121
Carvalho, P., Figueira, R., & Jones, M. P. (2008). List of lichens and lichenicolous fungi (Fungi). In P.
Borges, C. Abreu, A. Aguiar, P. Carvalho, R. Jardim, I. Melo, P. Oliveira, C. Sérgio, A. Serrano, & P.
Vieira (Eds.), A list of the terrestrial fungi, flora and fauna of Madeira and Salvagens Archipelagos
(pp. 105–122). Funchal, Portugal: Direcção Regional do Ambiente da Madeira and Universidade
dos Açores, Funchal and Angra do Heroísmo.
Casale, P., & Margaritoulis, D. (Eds.). (2010). Sea turtles in the Mediterranean: distribution, threats and
conservation priorities. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Casas, F., Mougeot, F., Viñuela, J., & Bretagnolle, V. (2009). Effects of hunting on the behaviour and
spatial distribution of farmland birds: Importance of hunting-free refuges in agricultural areas.
Animal Conservation, 12(4), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00259.x
Casazza, G., Giordani, P., Benesperi, R., Foggi, B., Viciani, D., Filigheddu, R., Farris, E., Bagella, S., Pisanu,
S., & Mariotti, M. G. (2014). Climate change hastens the urgency of conservation for range-
restricted plant species in the central-northern Mediterranean region. Biological Conservation,
179, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.015
Cavanagh, R. D., & Gibson, C. (2007). Overview of the conservation status of cartilaginous fishes
(Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Malaga, Spain: IUCN.

458
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/med_shark_rep_en_1.pdf
CBD. (2017). Protected areas. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/protected/
Celesti-Grapow, L., Bassi, L., Brundu, G., Camarda, I., Carli, E., D’Auria, G., Del Guacchio, E., Domina, G.,
Ferretti, G., Foggi, B., Lazzaro, L., Mazzola, P., Peccenini, S., Pretto, F., Stinca, A., & Blasi, C. (2016).
Plant invasions on small Mediterranean islands: An overview. Plant Biosystems, 150(5), 1119–
1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2016.1218974
CEP. (2007). Caspian environment programme transboundary diagnostic analysis revisit. Retrieved
from http://www.ais.unwater.org/ais/aiscm/getprojectdoc.php?docid=1058
CEPF. (2004). Ecosystem profile. Caucasus biodiversity hotspot.
CEPF. (2010a). Ecosystem profile: Mediterranean basin biodiversity hotspot.
CEPF. (2010b). Caucasus biodiversity hotspot program for consolidation.
Céréghino, R., Biggs, J., Oertli, B., & Declerck, S. (2008). The ecology of European ponds: Defining the
characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia, 597(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9225-8
Cerqueira, Y., Navarro, L. M., Maes, J., Marta-Pedroso, C., Honrado, J. P., & Pereira, H. M. (2015).
Ecosystem services: the opportunities of rewilding in Europe. In H. M. Pereira & L. Navarro (Eds.),
Rewilding European Landscapes (pp. 47–64). Springer International Publishing.
Cervenkova, Z., & Münzbergová, Z. (2009). Susceptibility of the landscape of the Giant Mountains,
Czech Republic, to invasion by Rumex alpinus. In P. Pysek & J. Pergl (Eds.), Biological Invasions:
Towards a Synthesis. Proceedings of the 5th Neobiota conference (Vol. 8, pp. 75–85). Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0177613
Chandra, A., & Idrisova, A. (2011). Convention on Biological Diversity: A review of national challenges
and opportunities for implementation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(14), 3295–3316.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0141-x
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Arx, M. von, Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec,
M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser,
U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C.,
Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F.,
Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A.,
Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek,
R. W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H.,
Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov,
A., Swenson, J. E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R.,
Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., & Boitani, L. (2014). Recovery
of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346(6216), 1517–
1519. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553
Cheaib, A., Badeau, V., Boe, J., Chuine, I., Delire, C., Dufrêne, E., François, C., Gritti, E. S., Legay, M.,
Pagé, C., Thuiller, W., Viovy, N., & Leadley, P. (2012). Climate change impacts on tree ranges:
model intercomparison facilitates understanding and quantification of uncertainty. Ecology
Letters, 15(6), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2012.01764.x
Cheffings, C., & Farrell, L. (2005). The Vascular Plant Red Data List for Great Britain.
Chemonics International. (2001a). Biodiversity assessment for Central Asia: Regional overview.

459
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Chemonics International. (2001b). Biodiversity assessment for Kazakhstan.

Chemonics International. (2001c). Biodiversity assessment for Kyrgyzstan.
Chemonics International. (2001d). Biodiversity assessment for Tajikistan.
Chemonics International. (2001e). Biodiversity assessment for Turkmenistan.
Chemonics International. (2001f). Biodiversity assessment for Uzbekistan.
Cheung, W. W. L., Jones, M. C., Reygondeau, G., Stock, C. A., Lam, V. W. Y., & Frölicher, T. L. (2016).
Structural uncertainty in projecting global fisheries catches under climate change. Ecological
Modelling, 325, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.018
Cheung, W. W. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Sarmiento, J. L., Kearney, K., Watson, R., & Pauly, D. (2009). Projecting
global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries, 10(3), 235–
251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x
Chitanava, C. M. [Читанава, С. М.]. (2007). Флора Колхиды. Автореферат диссертации на
соискание ученой степени кандидата биологических наук [The flora of Colchis. An abstract
of a PhD dissertation (biology)]. Komarov Botanical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Retrieved from http://www.binran.ru/files/phd/Chitanava_Abstract_Thesis.pdf
Cieslinski, S., Czyzewska, K., & Fabiszewski, J. (2003). Czerwona lista porostów wymarłych i zagrożonych
w Polsce [Red List of extinct and threatened lichens in Poland]. Monographiae Botanicae, 91.
Čížková, H., Květ, J., Comín, F. A., Laiho, R., Pokorný, J., & Pithart, D. (2013). Actual state of European
wetlands and their possible future in the context of global climate change. Aquatic Sciences,
75(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0233-4
Clark, M. R., Althaus, F., Schlacher, T. A., Williams, A., Bowden, D. A., & Rowden, A. A. (2016). The
impacts of deep-sea fisheries on benthic communities: a review. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
73(Suppl.), 51-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv123
Claudet, J., Osenberg, C. W., Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Domenici, P., García-Charton, J. A., Pérez-Ruzafa, Á.,
Badalamenti, F., Bayle-Sempere, J., Brito, A., Bulleri, F., Culioli, J. M., Dimech, M., Falcón, J. M.,
Guala, I., Milazzo, M., Sánchez-Meca, J., Somerfield, P. J., Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F., Valle, C., &
Planes, S. (2008). Marine reserves: Size and age do matter. Ecology Letters, 11(5), 481–489.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01166.x
Coll, M., Carreras, M., Ciércoles, C., Cornax, M. J., Gorelli, G., Morote, E., & Sáez, R. (2014). Assessing
fishing and marine biodiversity changes using fishers’ perceptions: The Spanish Mediterranean
and Gulf of Cadiz case study. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e85670.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085670
Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Kaschner, K., Ben Rais Lasram, F., Aguzzi, J., Ballesteros, E., Bianchi,
C. N., Corbera, J., Dailianis, T., Danovaro, R., Estrada, M., Froglia, C., Galil, B. S., Gasol, J. M.,
Gertwage, R., Gil, J., Guilhaumon, F., Kesner-Reyes, K., Kitsos, M. S., Koukouras, A., Lampadariou,
N., Laxamana, E., de la Cuadra, C. M. L. F., Lotze, H. K., Martin, D., Mouillot, D., Oro, D., Raicevich,
S., Rius-Barile, J., Saiz-Salinas, J. I., Vicente, C. S., Somot, S., Templado, J., Turon, X., Vafidis, D.,
Villanueva, R., & Voultsiadou, E. (2010a). The biodiversity of the Mediterranean Sea: estimates,
patterns, and threats. PloS ONE, 5(8), e11842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011842
Coll, M., Shannon, L. J., Yemane, D., Link, J. S., Ojaveer, H., Neira, S., Jouffre, D., Labrosse, P., Heymans,
J. J., Fulton, E. A., & Shin, Y.-J. (2010b). Ranking the ecological relative status of exploited marine
ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 67(4), 769–786.

460
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp261
Colloca, F., Cardinale, M., Maynou, F., Giannoulaki, M., Scarcella, G., Jenko, K., Bellido, J. M., &
Fiorentino, F. (2013). Rebuilding Mediterranean fisheries: A new paradigm for ecological
sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, 14(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
2979.2011.00453.x
Comin, F., & Alonso, M. (1988). Spanish salt lakes: Their chemistry and biota. Hydrobiologia, 158, 237–
245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00026281
Conley, D. J., Carstensen, J., Aigars, J., Axe, P., Bonsdorff, E., Eremina, T., Haahti, B. M., Humborg, C.,
Jonsson, P., Kotta, J., Lännegren, C., Larsson, U., Maximov, A., Medina, M. R., Lysiak-Pastuszak,
E., Remeikaitè-Nikienè, N., Walve, J., Wilhelms, S., & Zillén, L. (2011). Hypoxia is increasing in the
coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(16), 6777–6783.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es201212r
Conservation International. (2011). Biological diversity in the Mediterranean Basin. Retrieved from
http://editors.eol.org/eoearth/wiki/Biological_diversity_in_the_Mediterranean_Basin
Conti, F., Manzi, A., & Pedrotti, F. (1992). Libro rosso delle plante d’Italia [Red book of the plants of
Italy]. Rome, Italy: WWF Italia.
Corbett, K. (1989). Conservation of European reptiles and amphibians. London, UK: C. Helm.
Cordellier, M., Pfenninger, A., Streit, B., & Pfenninger, M. (2012). Assessing the effects of climate
change on the distribution of pulmonate freshwater snail biodiversity. Marine Biology, 159,
2519–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-012-1894-9
Cornelissen, J. H. C., Callaghan, T. V., Alatalo, J. M., Michelsen, A., Graglia, E., Hartley, A. E., Hik, D. S.,
Hobbie, S. E., Press, M. C., Robinson, C. H., Henry, G. H. R., Shaver, G. R., Phoenix, G. K., Jones, D.
G., Jonasson, S., Chapin, F. S., Molau, U., Neill, C., Lee, J. A., Melillo, J. M., Sveinbjornsson, B., &
Aerts, R. (2001). Global change and arctic ecosystems: Is lichen decline a function of increases in
vascular plant biomass? Journal of Ecology, 89(6), 984–994. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2745.2001.00625.x
Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lang, S. I., Soudzilovskaia, N. A., & During, H. J. (2007). Comparative cryptogam
ecology: A review of bryophyte and lichen traits that drive biogeochemistry. Annals of Botany,
99(5), 987–1001. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm030
Cornulier, T., Yoccoz, N. G., Bretagnolle, V., Brommer, J. E., Butet, A., Ecke, F., Elston, D. A., Framstad,
E., Henttonen, H., Hornfeldt, B., Huitu, O., Imholt, C., Ims, R. A., Jacob, J., Jedrzejewska, B., Millon,
A., Petty, S. J., Pietiainen, H., Tkadlec, E., Zub, K., & Lambin, X. (2013). Europe-wide dampening of
population cycles in keystone herbivores. Science, 340(6128), 63-66.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228992
Costello, M. J., & Ballantine, B. (2015). Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take marine
reserves: 94% of marine protected areas allow fishing. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(9),
507–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.011
Costello, M. J., Coll, M., Danovaro, R., Halpin, P., Ojaveer, H., & Miloslavich, P. (2010). A census of
marine biodiversity knowledge, resources, and future challenges. PLoS ONE, 5(8).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012110
Coulson, S. J. (2015). The alien terrestrial invertebrate fauna of the high Arctic Archipelago of Svalbard:
potential implications for the native flora and fauna. Polar Research, 34, 27364.

461
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Cox, N.A., & Temple, H.J., (2009). European red list of reptiles. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. https://doi.org/10.2779/74504
Crosa, G., Froebrich, J., Nikolayenko, V., Stefani, F., Galli, P., & Calamari, D. (2006). Spatial and seasonal
variations in the water quality of the Amu Darya River (Central Asia). Water Research, 40(11),
2237–2245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.04.004
Cumberlidge, N. Ng, P. K. L., Yeo, D. C. J., Magalhães, C., Campos, M. R., Alvarez, F., Naruse, T., Daniels,
S. R., Esser, L. J., Attipoe, F. Y. K., Clotilde-Ba, F., Darwall, W., McIvor, A., Baillie, J. E. M., Collen,
B., & Ram, M. (2009). Freshwater crabs and the biodiversity crisis: Importance, threats, status,
and conservation challenges. Biological Conservation, 142(8), 1665-1673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.038
Culver, D. C., Deharveng, L., Bedos, A., Lewis, J. J., Madden, M., Reddell, J. R., Sket, B., Trontelj, P., &
White, D. (2006). The mid-latitude biodiversity ridge in terrestrial cave fauna. Ecography 29, 120-
128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2005.0906-7590.04435.x
Culver, D. C., & Pipan, T. (2013). Subterranean Ecosystems. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 7, 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00224-0
Culver, D. C., & Pipan, T. (2014). Shallow subterranean habitats. Ecology, evolution, and conservation.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Culver, D. C., & Sket, B. (2000). Hotspots of subterranean biodiversity in caves and wells. Journal of
Cave and Karst Studies, 62(1), 11–17.
Curtis, C. J., Emmett, B. A., Grant, H., Kernan, M., Reynolds, B., & Shilland, E. (2005). Nitrogen saturation
in UK moorlands: The critical role of bryophytes and lichens in determining retention of
atmospheric N deposition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(3), 507–517.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01029.x
Curtis T.G.F., & McGough, H. N. (1988). The Irish Red Data Book: 1) Vascular plants. Dublin, Ireland:
Wildlife Service Ireland Stationary Office.
Cuttelod, A., Seddon, M., & Neubert, E. (2011). European red list of non-marine molluscs. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/84538
Daan, N., Gislason, H., Pope, J. G., & Rice, J. C. (2005). Changes in the North Sea fish community:
Evidence of indirect effects of fishing? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 62(2), 177–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.08.020
Dahlberg, A., Genney, D. R., & Heilmann-Clausen, J. (2010). Developing a comprehensive strategy for
fungal conservation in Europe: current status and future needs. Fungal Ecology, 3(2), 50–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2009.10.004
Dahlberg, A., & Mueller, G. M. (2011). Applying IUCN red-listing criteria for assessing and reporting on
the conservation status of fungal species. Fungal Ecology, 4(2), 147–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2010.11.001
Dahlgren, S., & Kautsky, L. (2004). Can different vegetative states in shallow coastal bays of the Baltic
Sea be linked to internal nutrient levels and external nutrient load? Hydrobiologia, 514, 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:hydr.0000018223.26997.b0
Dalpadado, P., Arrigo, K. R., Hjøllo, S. S., Rey, F., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Sperfeld, E., van Dijken, G. L., Stige,
L. C., Olsen, A., & Ottersen, G. (2014). Productivity in the Barents Sea - Response to Recent
Climate Variability. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e95273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095273

462
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Danielopol, D., Griebler, C., Gunatilaka, A., & Notenboom, J. (2003). Present state and future prospects
for groundwater ecosystems. Environmental Conservation, 30(2), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000
Danilov-Danilyan, V. I., Amirkhanov, A. M., Pavlov, D. S., Sokolov, B. E., Alimov, A. F., Darevsky, I. S.,
Dezhkin, V. V., Ilyashenko, V. U., Mazni, L. N., Rozhnov, V. V., Scarlato, U. A., Flint, V. E., &
Yablokov, A. V. [Данилов-Данильян, В. И., Амирханов, А. М., Павлов, Д. С., Соколов, B. E.,
Алимов, А. Ф., Даревский, И. С., Дежкин, В. В., Ильяшенко, В. Ю., Мазни, Л. Н., Рожнов, В. В.,
Скарлато, Ю. А., Флинт, В. Е., & Яблоков, А. В.] (Eds.). (2001). Красная книга Российской
Федерации (животные) [Red data book of the Russian Federation (animals)]. Moscow, Russian
Federation: АСТ-Астрель [AST-Astrel]. Retrieved from http://biodat.ru/db/rb/
Danovaro, R., Company, J. B., Corinaldesi, C., D’Onghia, G., Galil, B., Gambi, C., Gooday, A.
J., Lampadariou, N., Luna, G. M., Morigi, C., Olu, K., Polymenakou, P., Ramirez-Llodra, E.,
Sabbatini, A., Sarda, F., Sibuet, M., & Tselepides, A. (2010). Deep-sea biodiversity in the
Mediterranean Sea: The known, the unknown, and the unknowable. PLoS ONE, 5(8), e11832.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011832
Danovaro, R., Corinaldesi, C., Rastelli, E., & Dell’Anno, A. (2015). Towards a better quantitative
assessment of the relevance of deep-sea viruses, bacteria and archaea in the functioning of the
ocean seafloor. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 75, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01747
Danovaro, R., Gambi, C., Dell’Anno, A., Corinaldesi, C., Fraschetti, S., Vanreusel, A., Vincx, M., &
Gooday, A. J. (2008). Exponential decline of deep-sea ecosystem functioning linked to benthic
biodiversity loss. Current Biology, 18(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.056
Danovaro, R., Rastelli, E., Corinaldesi, C., Tangherlini, M., & Dell’Anno, A. (2017). Marine archaea and
archaeal viruses under global change. F1000Research, 6, 1241.
http://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11404.1
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K., & Sommer, U. (2009). Global warming benefits the small in aquatic
ecosystems. PNAS, 106, 12788–12793. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902080106
Davidson, A. D., Detling, J. K., & Brown, J. H. (2012). Ecological roles and conservation challenges of
social, burrowing, herbivorous mammals in the world’s grasslands. Frontiers in Ecolology and the
Environment, 10, 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1890/110054
Davies, G. M., Kettridge, N., Stoof, C. R., Gray, A., Marrs, R., Ascoli, D., Fernandes, P. M., Allen, K. A.,
Doerr, S. H., Clay, G. D., McMorrow, J., & Vandvik, V. (2016). Informed debate on the use of fire
for peatland management means acknowledging the complexity of socio-ecological systems.
Nature Conservation, 16, 59–77. http://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.16.10739
Davydov, E. A., Insarov, G. E., & Sundetpaev, A. K. (2013). Lichen monitoring in Katon-Karagai National
Park, eastern Kazakhstan, in context of climate change. Problems of Ecological Monitoring and
Ecosystem Modelling, 25, 428–441.
De Beaulieu, J. L., Miras, Y., Andrieu-Ponel, V., & Guiter, F. (2005). Vegetation dynamics in northern-
western Mediterranean regions: instability of the Mediterranean bioclimate. Plant Biosystems,
139, 114–126.
de Castro, M. C. T., Fileman, T. W., & Hall-Spencer, J. M. (2017). Invasive species in the northeastern
and southwestern Atlantic Ocean: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 116, 41-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.048
De Frenne, P., Rodríguez-Sánchez, F., Coomes, D. A., Baeten, L., Verstraeten, G., Vellend, M.,

463
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Brown, C. D., Brunet, J., Cornelis, J., Decocq, G. M., Dierschke, H.,
Eriksson, O., Gilliam, F. S., Hédl, R., Heinken, T., Hermy, M., Hommel, P., Jenkins, M. A., Kelly, D.
L., Kirby, K. J., Mitchell, F. J. G., Naaf, T., Newman, M., Peterken, G., Petrík, P., Schultz, J., Sonnier,
G., Van Calster, H., Waller, D. M., Walther, G.-R., White, P. S., Woods, K. D., Wulf, M., Graae, B.
J., & Verheyen, K. (2013). Microclimate moderates plant responses to macroclimate warming.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(46),
18561–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1311190110
De Rigo, D., Bosco, C., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Houston Durrant, T., Barredo, J. I., Strona, G., Caudullo, G.,
Di Leo, M., & Boca, R. (2016). Forest resources in Europe: an integrated perspective on ecosystem
services, disturbances and threats. In J. San-Miguel-Ayanz, D. de Rigo, G. Caudullo, T. Houston
Durrant, & A. Mauri. (Eds.), The European atlas of forest tree species (pp. 8-19). Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Deckers, B., Kerselaers, E., Gulinck, H., Muys, B., & Hermy, M. (2005). Long-term spatio-temporal
dynamics of a hedgerow network landscape in Flanders, Belgium. Environmental Conservation,
32(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0376892905001840
Deharveng, L., Stoch, F., Gibert, J., Bedos, A., Galassi, D., Zagmajster, M., Brancelj, A., Camacho, A.,
Fiers, F., Martin, P., Giani, M., Magniez, G., & Marmonier, P. (2009). Groundwater biodiversity in
Europe. Freshwater Biology, 54, 709-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.01972.x
Dehling, D. M., Hof, C., Brändle, M., & Brandl, R. (2010). Habitat availability does not explain the species
richness patterns of European lentic and lotic freshwater animals. Journal of Biogeography,
37(10), 1919–1926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02347.x
Delgado, V., & Ederra, A. (2013). Long-term changes (1982-2010) in the bryodiversity of Spanish beech
forests assessed by means of Ellenberg indicator values of temperature, nitrogen, light and pH.
Biological Conservation, 157, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.022
Dengler, J., Bergmeier, E., Willner, W., & Chytrý, M. (2013). Towards a consistent classification of
European grasslands. Applied Vegetation Science, 16(3), 518–520.
http://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12041
Dengler, J., Janišová, M., Török, P., & Wellstein, C. (2014). Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: A
synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 182, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.12.015
Deudero, S., Box, A., Alós, J., Arroyo, N. L., & Marbà, N. (2011). Functional changes due to invasive
species: Food web shifts at shallow Posidonia oceanica seagrass beds colonized by the alien
macroalga Caulerpa racemosa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 93(2), 106–116.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.03.017
Diagelets, E. Y., Knizhnikov, A. Y., Mnatsekanov, R. A., & Pegova, O. V. [Дягилец, Е. Ю., Книжников, А.
Ю., Мнацеканов, Р. А., & Пегова, О. В.]. (2014). Люди, нефть, птицы. Рекомендации для
практических мероприятий [People, oil, birds. Recommendations for practical activities].
Moscow, Russian Federation: WWF Russia.
Diakonov, K. N., Puzachrenko, Yu. G., Aleschenko, G. M., Sysuev, V. V., & Mamay, I. I. [Дьяконов, К.Н.,
Пузаченко, Ю. Г., Алещенко, Г. М., Сысуев, В. В., & Мамай, И. И.]. (2004). География,
общество, окружающая среда. Том 2. Функционирование и современное состояние
ландшафтов [Geography, Society and Environment. Volume II: Contemporary Landscape
Processess]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Gorodets.

464
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Dias, E., Mendes, C., Melo, C., Pereira, D., & Elias, R. (2005). Azores central islands vegetation and flora
field guide. Quercetea, 7, 123–173.
Dias, F. S., Miller, D. L., Marques, T. A., Marcelino, J., Caldeira, M. C., Orestes Cerdeira, J., & Bugalho,
M. N. (2016). Conservation zones promote oak regeneration and shrub diversity in certified
Mediterranean oak woodlands. Biological Conservation, 195, 226–234.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.01.009
Diaz, A., Keith, S. A., Bullock, J. M., Hooftman, D. A. P., & Newton, A. C. (2013). Conservation
implications of long-term changes detected in a lowland heath plant metacommunity. Biological
Conservation, 167, 325–333. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.018
Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Falczuk, V., Casanoves, F., Milchunas, D. G., Skarpe, C., Rusch, G.,
Sternberg, M., Noy-Meir, I., Landsberg, J., Zhang, W., Clark, H., & Campbell, B. D. (2007). Plant
trait responses to grazing - A global synthesis. Global Change Biology, 13(2), 313–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01288.x
Diemont, W.H., Webb, N., & Degn, H. J. (1996). A pan European view on heathland conservation. In:
Proceedings of the National Heathland Conference, 18-20 September 1996, New Forest,
Hampshire.
Diemont, W. H., & Jansen, J. (1998). A cultural view of European heathlands. Suffolk Natural History,
34, 32–34.
Diemont, W. H., Siepel, H., Webb, N. R., & Heijman, W. J. M. (Eds.). (2013). Economy and Ecology of
Heathlands. Zeist, The Netherlands: KNNV Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1163/9789004277946
Dicks, L.V., Wright, H.L., Ashpole, J.E., Hutchison, J., McCormack, C.G., Livoreil, B., Zulka, K.P., &
Sutherland, W.J. (2016) What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised
evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture. Biodiversity and
Conservation 25, 1383-1399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1133-7
Dirnböck, T., Dullinger, S., & Grabherr, G. (2003). A regional impact assessment of climate and land-
use change on alpine vegetation. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 401-417.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00839.x
Dirnböck, T., Essl, F., & Rabitsch, W. (2011). Disproportional risk for habitat loss of high-altitude
endemic species under climate change. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 990–996.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02266.x
Dixon, M. J. R., Loh, J., Davidson, N. C., Beltrame, C., Freemen, R., & Walpole, M. (2016). Tracking global
change in ecosystem area: The Wetland Extent Trends index. Biological Conservation 193, 27–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.10.023
Dobrovolskii, A. D., & Zalogin, B. S. [Добровольский, А. Д., & Залогин, Б. С.]. (1982). Моря СССР [The
Seas of the USSR]. Moscow, Russian Federation: МГУ [Moscow State University].
Doğan, D. (n.d.). Global climate change and its effects in Turkey. Retrieved from
https://ru.scribd.com/document/84374702/Global-Climate-Change-and-Its-Effects-in-Turkey
Dolev Pervolutzki, A. A. (2004). Endangered species in Israel. Red list of threatened animals.
Vertebrates. Jerusalem, Israel: The Nature Reserves and Park Authority and the Society for
Conservation of Nature.
Dominoni, D. M., & Partecke, J. (2015). Does light pollution alter daylength? A test using light loggers
on free-ranging European blackbirds (Turdus merula). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

465
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1667), UNSP 20140118.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0118
Domisch, S., Araújo, M. B., Bonada, N., Pauls, S. U., Jähnig, S. C., & Haase, P. (2013). Modelling
distribution in European stream macroinvertebrates under future climates. Global Change
Biology, 19(3), 752–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12107
Domisch, S., Jähnig, S. C., & Haase, P. (2011). Climate-change winners and losers: stream
macroinvertebrates of a submontane region in Central Europe. Freshwater Biology, 56(10), 2009–
2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02631.x
Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., & Heath, M. F. (2001). Agricultural intensification and the collapse of
Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
268(1462), 25–29. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1325
Donald, P. F., Sanderson, F. J., Burfield, I. J., & van Bommel, F. P. J. (2006). Further evidence of
continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990-2000.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 116(3–4), 189–196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.02.007
Doxa, A., Paracchini, M. L., Pointereau, P., Devictor, V., & Jiguet, F. (2012). Preventing biotic
homogenization of farmland bird communities: The role of high nature value farmland.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 148, 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.020
Drobyshev, I., Niklasson, M., & Linderholm, H. W. (2012). Forest fire activity in Sweden: Climatic
controls and geographical patterns in 20th century. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 154–
155, 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.11.002
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z.-I., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.
J., Prieur-Richard, A. H. Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81(2), 163–82.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Duffus, A. L. J., & Cunningham, A. A. (2010). Major disease threats to European amphibians.
Herpetological Journal, 20, 117–1. Retrieved from http://faculty.gordonstate.edu/aduffus/duffus
and cunningham 2010.pdf
Duffy, J. E., Srivastava, D. S., McLaren, J., Sankaran, M., Solan, M., Griffin, J., Emmerson, M., & Jones,
K. E. (2009). Forecasting decline in ecosystem services under realistic scenarios of extinction. In
S. Naeem, D. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, & C. Perrings, Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and
human well-being: An ecological and economic perspective (pp. 60-77). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University.
Dullinger, S., Gattringer, A., Thuiller, W., Moser, D., Zimmermann, N. E., Guisan, A., Willner, W., Plutzar,
C., Leitner, M., Mang, T., Caccianiga, M., Dirnböck, T., Ertl, S., Fischer, A., Lenoir, J., Svenning, J.-
C., Psomas, A., Schmatz, D. R., Silc, U., Vittoz, P., & Hülber, K. (2012). Extinction debt of high-
mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 619–
622. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1514
Dulvy, N. K., Rogers, S. I., Jennings, S., Stelzenmüller, V., Dye, S. R., & Skjoldal, H. R. (2008). Climate
change and deepening of the North Sea fish assemblage: A biotic indicator of warming seas.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(4), 1029–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2008.01488.x

466
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Dumont, H., Mamaev, V. O., & Zaitsev, Y. P. (1999). Black Sea Red Data Book. New York, USA: United
Nations Office for Project Services.
Duprè, C., Stevens, C. J., Ranke, T., Bleeker, A., Peppler-Lisbach, C., Gowing, D. J. G., Dise, N. B., Dorland,
E., Bobbink, R., & Diekmann, M. (2010). Changes in species richness and composition in European
acidic grasslands over the past 70 years: The contribution of cumulative atmospheric nitrogen
deposition. Global Change Biology, 16(1), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2009.01982.x
Durance, I., & Ormerod, S. J. (2009). Trends in water quality and discharge confound long-term
warming effects on river macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology, 54(2), 388–405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02112.x
EBCC. (2013). European Bird Census Council. http://www.ebcc.info/index.php
EBCC. (2017). European wild bird indicators, 2017 update. Retrieved
from https://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=632
Edgar, G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Willis, T. J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S. C., Banks, S., Barrett, N. S., Becerro,
M. A., Bernard, A. T. F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C. D., Campbell, S. J., Cooper, A. T., Davey, M., Edgar,
S. C., Försterra, G., Galván, D. E., Irigoyen, A. J., Kushner, D. J., Moura, R., Parnell, P. E., Shears, N.
T., Soler, G., Strain, E. M. A., & Thomson, R. J. (2014). Global conservation outcomes depend on
marine protected areas with five key features. Nature, 506(7487), 216–220.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13022
Edwards, M., & Richardson, A. J. (2004). Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and
trophic mismatch. Nature, 430(7002), 881–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02808
Edwards, R., Soos, J., & Ritcey, R. (1960). Quantitative observations on epidendric lichens used as food
by caribou. Ecology, 41(3), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.2307/1933317
EEA. (2002). Europe’s biodiversity - biogeographical regions and seas. EEA Report No 1/2002. Retrieved
from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909
EEA. (2004). Biogeographical regions in Europe. The Mediterranean biogeographical region - long
influence from cultivation, high pressure from tourists, species rich, warm and drying. Retrieved
from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/report_2002_0524_154909/biogeographical-
regions-in-europe/mediterranean_biogeografical_region.pdf/view
EEA. (2010). Assessing biodiversity in Europe — the 2010 report. Europe.
https://doi.org/10.2800/42824
EEA. (2012). European waters — current status and future challenges: Synthesis, EEA Report No
9/2012. http://doi.org/10.2800/63931
EEA. (2013). The European grassland butterfly indicator: 1990–2011. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2800/89760
EEA. (2015a). The European environment — state and outlook 2015: Synthesis report. Copenhagen,
Denmark: European Environment Agency. http://doi.org/10.2800/944899
EEA. (2015b). Spatial analysis of marine protected area networks in Europe’s seas.
http://doi.org/10.2800/406625
EEA. (2015c). State of Europe’s seas. http://doi.org/10.2800/0466
EEA. (2015d). The state of nature in the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2800/603862

467
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

EEA. (2016). European forest ecosystems - state and trends. https://doi.org/10.2800/964893

Eeva, T., Belskii, E., Gilyazov, A. S., & Kozlov, M. V. (2012). Pollution impacts on bird population density
and species diversity at four non-ferrous smelter sites. Biological Conservation, 150(1), 33–41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.004
Eeva, T., Belskii, E., & Kuranov, B. (2006). Environmental pollution affects genetic diversity in wild bird
populations. Mutation Research, 608, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2006.04.021
Elkin, C., Gutiérrez, A. G., Leuzinger, S., Manusch, C., Temperli, C., Rasche, L., & Bugmann, H. (2013). A
2 degrees C warmer world is not safe for ecosystem services in the European Alps. Global Change
Biology, 19(6), 1827–1840. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12156
Ellenberg, H., & Leuschner, C. (2010). Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen, 6. Auflage [Vegetation
of Central Europe and the Alps, sixth edition]. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
Ellingsen, I. H., Dalpadado, P., Slagstad, D., & Loeng, H. (2008). Impact of climatic change on the
biological production in the Barents Sea. Climatic Change, 87(1–2), 155–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9369-6
Elliot, J. A., Thackeray, S. J., Huntingford, C., & Jones, R. G. (2005). Combining a regional climate model
with a phytoplankton community model to predict future changes in phytoplankton in lakes.
Freshwater Biology 50, 1404–1411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01409.x
Ellis, A., Jackson, M. C., Jennings, I., England, J., & Phillips, R. (2012). Present distribution and future
spread of Louisiana red swamp crayfish Procambarus clarkii (Crustacea, Decapoda, Astacida,
Cambaridae) in Britain: Implications for conservation of native species and habitats. Knowledge
and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 406, 5. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2012022
Ellis, C. J. (2012). Lichen epiphyte diversity: A species, community and trait-based review. Perspectives
in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 14(2), 131–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.10.001
Ellis, C. J. (2015). Ancient woodland indicators signal the climate change risk for dispersal-limited
species. Ecological Indicators, 53, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.01.028
Ellis, C. J., Coppins, B. J., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2012). Lichens under threat from ash dieback. Nature,
491(29), 672-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.042
Ellis, C. J., Eaton, S., Theodoropoulos, M., Coppins, B. J., Seaward, M. R. D., & Simkin, J. (2014). Response
of epiphytic lichens to 21st century climate change and tree disease scenarios. Biological
Conservation 180, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.046
Elmendorf, S. C., Henry, G. H. R., Hollister, R. D., Björk, R. G., Bjorkman, A. D., Callaghan, T. V., Collier,
L. S., Cooper, E. J., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Day, T. A., Fosaa, A. M., Gould, W. A., Grétarsdóttir, J.,
Harte, J., Hermanutz, L., Hik, D. S., Hofgaard, A., Jarrad, F., Jónsdóttir, J. S., Keuper, F., Klanderud,
K., Klein, J. A., Koh, S., Kudo, G., Lang, S. I., Loewen, V., May, J. L., Mercado, J., Michelsen, A.,
Molau, U., Myers-Smith, I. H., Oberbauer, S. F., Pieper, S., Post, E., Rixen, C., Robinson, C. H.,
Schmidt, N. M., Shaver, G. R., Stenström, A., Tolvanen, A., Totland, Ö., Troxler, T., Wahren, C. H.,
Webber, P. J., Welker, J. M., & Wookey, P. A. (2012). Global assessment of experimental climate
warming on tundra vegetation: Heterogeneity over space and time. Ecology Letters, 15(2), 164–
175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01716.x
Emanuelsson, U. (2010). The rural landscapes of Europe. How man has shaped European nature.
Emmrich, M., Pédron, S., Brucet, S., Winfield, I. J., Jeppesen, E., Volta, P., Argillier, C., Lauridsen, T. L.,

468
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Holmgren, K., Hesthagen, T., & Mehner, T. (2014). Geographical patterns in the body-size
structure of European lake fish assemblages along abiotic and biotic gradients. Journal of
Biogeography, 41(12), 2221–2233. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12366
Engler, E., Randin, C. F., Vittoz, P. Cza ́ka, T., Beniston, M., Zimmermann, N. E., & Guisan, A. (2009).
Predicting future distributions of mountain plants under climate change: does dispersal capacity
matter? Ecography 32, 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05789.x
Engler, R., Randin, C. F., Thuiller, W., Dullinger, S., Zimmermann, N. E., Araújo, M. B., Pearman, P. B.,
Le Lay, G., Piedallu, C., Albert, C. H., Choler, P., Coldea, G., De Lamo, X., Dirnböck, T., Gégout, J.
C., Gómez-García, D., Grytnes, J. A., Heegaard, E., Høistad, F., Nogués-Bravo, D., Normand, S.,
Puşcaş, M., Sebastià, M. T., Stanisci, A., Theurillat, J. P., Trivedi, M. R., Vittoz, P., & Guisan, A.
(2011). 21st century climate change threatens mountain flora unequally across Europe. Global
Change Biology, 17(7), 2330–2341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02393.x
ENPI-FLEG. (2015). Analyses approaches to sustainable methods for Tugai forest rehabilitation in
Azerbaijan. Final Report.
Eremeev, V. N., Gaevskaya, A. V., Shulman, G. E., & Zagorodnyaya, J. A. [Еремеев, В. Н., Гаевская, А.
В., Шульман, Г. Е., & Загородняя, Ю. А.] (Eds.). (2011). Промысловые биоресурсы Черного и
Азовского морей [Biological resources of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov]. Sevastopol, Ukraine:
EKOSI-Gidrofizika.
Erkakan, F., & Ozdemir, F. (2012). The first new cave fish species, Cobitis damlae (Teleostei: Cobitidae)
from Turkey, Hacettepe Journal of Biology & Chemistry, 42(2), 275–279.
Ermakhanov, Z. K., Plotnikov, I. S., Aladin, N. V., & Micklin, P. (2012). Changes in the Aral Sea
ichthyofauna and fishery during the period of ecological crisis. Lakes and Reservoirs: Research
and Management, 17(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1770.2012.00492.x
Eskildsen, A., Carvalheiro, L. G., Kissling, W. D., Biesmeijer, J. C., Schweiger, O., & Høye, T. T. (2015).
Ecological specialization matters: Long-term trends in butterfly species richness and assemblage
composition depend on multiple functional traits. Diversity and Distributions, 21(7), 792–802.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12340
Essl, F., & Lambdon, P. W. (2009). Alien bryophytes and lichens of Europe. In DAISIE, Handbook of alien
species in Europe (pp. 29–41). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8280-1_3
Essl, F., Moser, D., Dullinger, S., Mang, T., & Hulme, P. E. (2010). Selection for commercial forestry
determines global patterns of alien conifer invasions. Diversity and Distributions, 16(6), 911–921.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00705.x
Essl, F., Steinbauer, K., Dullinger, S., Mang, T., & Moser, D. (2013). Telling a different story: A global
assessment of bryophyte invasions. Biological Invasions, 15(9), 1933–1946.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0422-2
Estrada, A., Morales-Castilla, I., Caplat, P., & Early, R. (2016). Usefulness of species traits in predicting
range shifts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 31(3), 190–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.12.014
ETC/ICM. (2014). Initial Assessment of European Seas based on Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Article 8 reporting: Analysis of features and characteristics reported under MSFD 8.a. Retrieved
16 June, 2015, from http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-marine-coastal-and-
maritime/library/former-interest-groups-related-coastal-marine-and-maritime/nrc-marine-and-

469
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

coastal-environment/background-reports-etc-icm-technical-report-1-2015-msfd-article-8-
reporting
Euro+Med. (2017). Euro+Med PlantBase - the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant
diversity. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html
European Commission. (2009). European Redlist - Environment - European Commission. Retrieved
September 20, 2017, from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/amphibians/status.htm
European Commission. (2016). European Red List of Habitats. Part 2. Terrestrial and freshwater
habitats. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2779/091372
European Reptile & Amphibian Specialist Group. (1996). Trionyx triunguis (Mediterranean
subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.1996.RLTS.T22200A9364253.en
European Union. (2007). Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally
absent species in aquaculture. Official Journal of the European Union (28.6.2007), L 168/1.
Evenari, M., Shanan, L., & Tadmor, N. (1982). The Negev: The challenge of a desert (2nd ed.). Boston,
USA: Harvard University Press.
Ewald, J., Hennekens, S. M., Conrad, S., Wohlgemuth, T., Jansen, F., Jenssen, M., Cornlis, J., Michiels,
H., Kayser, J., Chytry, M., Gegout, J. C., Breuer, M., Abs, C., Walentowski, H., Starlinger, F., &
Godefroid, S. (2013). Spatial and temporal patterns of Ellenberg values for nutrients in forests of
Germany and adjacent regions - a survey based on phytosociological databases. Tuexenia, 33, 93-
109.
Faber-Langendoen, D., & Josse, C. (2010). World grasslands and biodiversity patterns: A report to IUCN
ecosystem management programme. Arlington, USA: Natureserve.
Fagúndez, J. (2013). Heathlands confronting global change: Drivers of biodiversity loss from past to
future scenarios. Annals of Botany, 111(2), 151–172. http://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs257
Faith, D. P. (1992). Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biological Conservation, 61(1),
1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3
Faith, D. P. (2017). A general model for biodiversity and its value. In J. Garson, A. Plutynski, & S. Sarkar
(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of biodiversity (pp. 69-85). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Falasco, E., Ector, L., Isaia, M., Wetzel, C. E., Hoffmann, L., & Bona, F. (2014). Diatom flora in
subterranean ecosystems: A review. International Journal of Speleology, 43(3), 231–251.
https://doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.43.3.1
Falcucci, A., Maiorano, L., Boitani, & L. (2007) Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their
implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecology, 22, 617-631.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9056-4
FAO. (1989). Arid zone forestry: A guide for field technicians. FAO Conservation Guide, 20.
FAO. (2007). The first report on the state of world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture.
FAO. (2010). The second report on the state of the world's plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture.

470
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

FAO. (2011). Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper (Vol. 569).
FAO. (2013a) FAO statistical yearbook - World food and agriculture.
FAO. (2013b). State of forest resources in the Mediterranean region. State of Mediterranean forests
2013.
FAO. (2015a). The second report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and
agriculture.
FAO. (2015b). World reference base for soil resources 2014: International soil classification system for
naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. Update 2015. World soil resources report 106.
Favarger, C. (1972). Endemism in the montane floras of Europe. In D. H. Valentine (Ed.), Taxonomy,
Phytogeography and Evolution (pp. 191–204). London, UK: Academic Press.
Fayvush, G., & Aleksayan, A. (2016). Habitats of Armenia. Yerevan: Institute of Botany.
Federal Forestry Agency [Рослесхоз). (2013). Леса и лесные ресурсы Российской Федерации
[Forests and Forest Resources of the Russian Federation].
In Ежегодный доклад «Осостоянии и использовании лесов Российской Федерации за 2011
год» [Annual report “On stage and using of forests in the Russian Federation in 2011”] (pp. 3–
24). Moscow, Russian Federation: Rosleskhoz.
Fedoriak, M., Rudenko, S., Iaroshynska, O., & Zhukovets, E. (2012). Spiders (Aranaea) of Chernivtsi City
(Ukraine). Arachnologische Mitteilungen, 43, 37–50.
Feest, A., Van Swaay, C., & Van Hinsberg, A. (2014). Nitrogen deposition and the reduction of butterfly
biodiversity quality in the Netherlands. Ecological Indicators, 39, 115-119.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.12.008
Feistel, R., Nausch, G., & Wasmund, N. (Eds.). (2008). State and evolution of the Baltic Sea, 1952-2005:
a detailed 50-year survey of meteorology and climate, physics, chemistry, biology, and marine
environment. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Felicísimo, Á. M., Muñoz, J., Villalba, C. J., & Mateo, R. G. (2011). Impactos, vulnerabilidad y adaptación
al Cambio Climático de la biodiversidad española. 2. Flora y vegetación. [Impacts, vulnerability
and adaptation to climate change of Spanish biodiversity. 2. Flora and vegetation] Madrid, Spain:
Ministry of the Environment.
Felline, S., Mollo, E., Ferramosca, A., Zara, V., Regoli, F., Gorbi, S., & Terlizzi, A. (2014). Can a marine
pest reduce the nutritional value of Mediterranean fish flesh? Marine Biology, 161(6), 1275–
1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2417-7
Fernandes, P. G., Ralph, G. M., Nieto, A., García Criado, M., Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D., Cook,
R. M., Pollom, R. A., Kovačić, M., Pollard, D., Farrell, E. D., Florin, A.-B., Polidoro, B. A., Lawson, J.
M., Lorance, P., Uiblein, F., Craig, M., Allen, D. J., Fowler, S. L., Walls, R. H. L., Comeros-Raynal, M.
T., Harvey, M. S., Dureuil, M., Biscoito, M., Pollock, C., McCully Phillips, S. R., Ellis, J. R.,
Papaconstantinou, C., Soldo, A., Keskin, Ç., Knudsen, S. W., Gil de Sola, L., Serena, F., Collette, B.
B., Nedreaas, K., Stump, E., Russell, B. C., Garcia, S., Afonso, P., Jung, A. B. J., Alvarez, H., Delgado,
J., Dulvy, N. K., & Carpenter, K. E. (2017). Coherent assessments of Europe’s marine fishes show
regional divergence and megafauna loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(7), UNSP 0200.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0170
Ferrante, M., Conti, G. O., Fiore, M., Rapisarda, V., & Ledda, C. (2013). Harmful algal blooms in the

471
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Mediterranean Sea: Effects on human health. EuroMediterranean Biomedical Journal, 8(6), 25-
34. https://doi.org/10.3269/1970-5492.2013.8.6
Feuerer, T. (2013). Checklists of lichens - A global information system for the biodiversity of lichens.
Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://www.lichens.uni-
hamburg.de/lichens/portalpages/portalpage_checklists_switch.htm
Field, C. D., Dise, N. B., Payne, R. J., Britton, A. J., Emmett, B. A., Helliwell, R. C., Hughes, S., Jones, L.,
Lees, S., Leake, J. R., Leith, I. D., Phoenix, G. K., Power, S. A., Sheppard, L. J., Southon, G. E.,
Stevens, C. J., & Caporn, S. J. M. (2014). The role of nitrogen deposition in widespread plant
community change across semi-natural habitats. Ecosystems, 17(5), 664-877.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-014-9765-5
Fijen, T. P. M., Kamp, J., Lameris, T. K., Pulikova, G., Urazaliev, R., Kleijn, D., & Donald, P. F. (2015).
Functions of extensive animal dung pavements around the nests of the black lark (Melanocorypha
yeltoniensis). Auk, 132(4), 878–892. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-15-38.1
Filibeck, G., Arrigoni, P. V, & Blasi, C. (2004). Some phytogeographical remarks on the forest vegetation
of Colchis (western Georgia). Webbia, 59, 189–214.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00837792.2004.10670768
Filippov, D. M., & [Филиппов, Д. М.]. (1968). Циркуляция и структура вод Черного моря
[Circulation and structure of waters of the Black Sea]. Moscow, USSR: Наука [Science].
Finstad, A. G., & Hein, C. L. (2012). Migrate or stay: terrestrial primary productivity and climate drive
anadromy in Arctic char. Global Change Biology, 18(8), 2487–2497.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02717.x
Fletcher, D. H., Gillingham, P. K., Britton, J. R., Blanchet, S., & Gozlan, R. E. (2016). Predicting global
invasion risks: a management tool to prevent future introductions. Scientific Reports, 6, 26316.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26316
Flowerdew, J.R. (1997). Mammal biodiversity in agricultural habitats. In R. C. Kirkwood (Ed.),
Biodiversity and conservation in agriculture (pp. 25–40). Brighton, UK: British Crop Protection
Council.
Fochetti, R., & Tierno De Figueroa, J. M. (2008). Global diversity of stoneflies (Plecoptera; Insecta) in
freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595(1), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9031-3
Fominykh, A. S., & Lyapkov, S. M. (2011). The formation of new characteristics in life cycle of the marsh
frog (Rana ridibunda) in thermal pond condition. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii, 72(6), 403–421.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086412030036
Ford, D., & Williams, P. (2007). Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118684986
Forsman, A. (2014). Effects of genotypic and phenotypic variation on establishment are important for
conservation, invasion and infection biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 111, 302–307. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317745111
Forsman A., & Wennersten, L. (2016). Inter-individual variation promotes ecological success of
populations and species: evidence from experimental and comparative studies. Ecography, 39,
630–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01357
Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s Forests 2015.
Fossheim, M., Primicerio, R., Johannesen, E., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Aschan, M. M., & Dolgov, A. V. (2015).

472
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Recent warming leads to a rapid borealization of fish communities in the Arctic. Nature Climate
Change, 5, 673-677. http://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2647
Fraiture, A., & Otto, P. (2015). Distribution, ecology and status of 51 macromycetes in Europe: Results
of the ECCF Mapping Programme. Scripta Botanica Belgica, 53, 1–246.
Frederiksen, M. (2010). Appendix 1: seabirds in the North East Atlantic. A review of status, trends and
anthropogenic impact. TemaNord, 587, 47–122.
Frederiksen, M., Anker-Nilssen, T., Beaugrand, G., & Wanless, S. (2013). Climate, copepods and
seabirds in the boreal Northeast Atlantic - current state and future outlook. Global Change
Biology, 19(2), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12072
Frederiksen, M., Harris, M. P., Daunt, F., Rothery, P., & Wanless, S. (2004). Scale-dependent climate
signals drive breeding phenology of three seabird species. Global Change Biology, 10(7), 1214–
1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2003.00794.x
Frederiksen, M., Krause-Jensen, D., Holmer, M., & Laursen, J. S. (2004). Long-term changes in area
distribution of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Danish coastal waters. Aquatic Botany, 78(2), 167–
181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2003.10.002
Freyhof, J. (2011). European red list of freshwater fishes. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:European+Red+List+of+Fresh
water+Fishes#0%5Cnhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Europea
n+red+list+of+freshwater+fishes%230
Freyhof, J., & Brooks, E. (2011). European red list of freshwater fishes. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/85903
Friend, A. D., Lucht, W., Rademacher, T. T., Keribin, R., Betts, R., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B.,
Dankers, R., Falloon, P. D., Ito, A., Kahana, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M. R., Nishina, K., Ostberg, S.,
Pavlick, R., Peylin, P., Schaphoff, S., Vuichard, N., Warszawski, L., Wiltshire, A., & Woodward, F. I.
(2014). Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to
future climate and atmospheric CO2. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 111(9), 3280–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222477110
Friocourt, Y. F., Skogen, M., Stolte, W., & Albretsen, J. (2012). Marine downscaling of a future climate
scenario in the North Sea and possible effects on dinoflagellate harmful algal blooms. Food
Additives and Contaminants - Part A Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment,
29(10), 1630–1646. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2012.714079
Fuchs, R., Herold, M., Verburg, P. H., Clevers, J. G. P. W., & Eberle, J. (2015). Gross changes in
reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. Global Change
Biology, 21(1), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12714
Fujikura, K., Lindsay, D., Kitazato, H., Nishida, S., & Shirayama, Y. (2010). Marine biodiversity in
Japanese waters. PLoS ONE, 5(8), e11836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011836
Fuller, R. J., Norton, L. R., Feber, R. E., Johnson, P. J., Chamberlain, D. E., Joys, A. C., Mathews, F., Stuart,
R. C., Townsend, M. C., Manley, W. J., Wolfe, M. S., MacDonald, D. W., & Firbank, L. G. (2005).
Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biology Letters, 1(4), 431–434.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0357
Fundukchiev, S. E. (1987). Anthropogenic transformation of the bird populations in “Golodnaya Steppe”
(Abstract of the thesis for Candidate of Biological Sciences).

473
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Fung, T., Farnsworth, K., Shephard, S., Reid, D., & Rossberg, A. (2013). Why the size structure of marine
communities can require decades to recover from fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 484,
155–171. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10305
Gabriel, D., Carver, S. J., Durham, H., Kunin, W. E., Palmer, R. C., Sait, S. M., Stagl, S., & Benton, T. G.
(2009). The spatial aggregation of organic farming in England and its underlying environmental
correlates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 323–333. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2009.01624.x
Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Hodgson, J. A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W. E., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scale matters:
The impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Letters, 13(7),
858–869. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01481.x
Gabriel, D., I. Roschewitz, T. Tscharntke, and C. Thies. (2006). Beta diversity at different spatial scales:
plant communities in organic and conventional agriculture. Ecological Applications 16, 2011-
2021. http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[2011:BDADSS]2.0.CO;2
Gage, J. D., & Tyler, P. A. (1991). Deep-sea biology: a natural history of organisms at the deep-sea floor.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gagic, V., Bartomeus, I., Jonsson, T., Taylor, A., Winqvist, C., Fischer, C., Slade, E. M.,
Steffan-
Dewenter, I., Emmerson, M., Potts, S. G.,
Tscharntke, T., Weisser, W., & Bommarco, R. (2015).
Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-
based indices. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1801), 20142620.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2620
Gallardo, B., & Aldridge, D. C. (2013). The “dirty dozen”: Socio-economic factors amplify the invasion
potential of 12 high-risk aquatic invasive species in Great Britain and Ireland. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50(3), 757–766. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12079
Galil, B., Marchini, A., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., & Ojaveer, H. (2017). The enlargement of the Suez
Canal—Erythraean introductions and management challenges. Management of Biological
Invasions, 8(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2017.8.2.02
Galil, B. S. (2007). Loss or gain? Invasive aliens and biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 55(7–9), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.11.008
Galil, B. S., Boero, F., Campbell, M. L., Carlton, J. T., Cook, E., Fraschetti, S., Gollasch, S., Hewitt, C. L.,
Jelmert, A., Macpherson, E., Marchini, A., McKenzie, C., Minchin, D., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A.,
Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S., Piraino, S., & Ruiz, G. M. (2015). “Double trouble”: the expansion of the
Suez Canal and marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological Invasions, 17(4), 973–
976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0778-y
Galil, B. S., Marchini, A., & Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. (2015). East is east and West is west? Management
of marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 201, 7-16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.021
Galil, B. S., Marchini, A., Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A., Minchin, D., Narščius, A., Ojaveer, H., & Olenin, S.
(2014). International arrivals: widespread bioinvasions in European Seas. Ethology Ecology &
Evolution, 26(2–3), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2014.897651
Gamero, A. Brotons, L., Brunner, A., Foppen, R., Fornasari, L., Gregory, R. D., Herrando, S., Hořák, D.,
Jiguet, F., Kmecl, P., Lehikoinen, A., Lindström, Å., Paquet, J. Y., Reif, J., Sirkiä, P. M., Škorpilová,
J., van Strien, A., Szép, T., Telenský, T., Teufelbauer, N., Trautmann, S., van Turnhout, C. A. M.,
Vermouzek, Z., Vikstrøm, T., & Voříšek, P. (2016). Tracking progress towards EU biodiversity

474
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

strategy targets: EU policy effects in preserving its common farmland birds. Conservation Letters,
10(4), 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12292
Gamfeldt, L., Snäll, T., Bagchi, R., Jonsson, M., Gustafsson, L., Kjellander, P., Ruiz-Jaen, M. C., Fröberg,
M., Stendahl, J., Philipson, C. D., Mikusiński, G., Andersson, E., Westerlund, B., Andrén,
H., Moberg, F., Moen, J., & Bengtsson, J. (2013). Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are
found in forests with more tree species. Nature Communications, 4, 1340.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2328
Gamfeldt, L., Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., & Griffin, J. N. (2015). Marine
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: what’s known and what’s next? Oikos, 124, 252-265.
https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01549
Gamfeldt, L., Hillebrand, H., & Jonsson, P. R. (2008). Multiple functions increase the importance of
biodiversity for overall ecosystem functioning. Ecology 89(5), 1223–1231.
https://doi.org/10.1890/06-2091.1
Gamfeldt, L., & Roger, F. (2017). Revisiting the biodiversity-ecosystem multifunctionality relationship.
Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(7), 0168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0168
García-Charton, J. A., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., Claudet, J., Badalamenti, F., Benedetti-Cecchi, L.,
Falcón, J. M., Milazzo, M., Schembri, P. J., Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F., Brito, A., Chemello, R.,
Dimech, M., Domenici, P., Guala, I., Le Diréach, L., Maggi, E., & Planes, S. (2008). Effectiveness of
European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: Do they accomplish the expected effects on
populations, communities and ecosystems? Journal for Nature Conservation, 16(4), 193–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.09.007
García Molinos, J., Halpern, B. S., Schoeman, D. S., Brown, C. J., Kiessling, W., Moore, P. J., Pandolfi, J.
M., Poloczanska, E. S., Richardson, A. J., & Burrows, M. T. (2016). Climate velocity and the future
global redistribution of marine biodiversity. Nature Climate Change, 6(1), 83–88.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2769
Gascon, C., Brooks, T. M., Contreras-MacBeath, T., Heard, N., Konstant, W., Lamoreux, J., Launay, F.,
Maunder, M., Mittermeier, R., Molur, S., Al Mubarak, A., Parr, M., Rhodin, A., Ry, A., & Vié, J.-C.
(2015). The importance and benefits of species. Current Biology, 25(10), R431–R438.
http://doi.org/10.1016/J.CUB.2015.03.041
Gauquelin, T., Michon, G., Joffre, R., Duponnois, R., Génin, D., Fady, B., Bou Dagher-Kharrat, M., Derridj,
A., Slimani, S., Badri, W., Alifriqui, M., Auclair, L., Simenel, R., Aderghal, M., Baudoin, E., Galiana,
A., Prin, Y., Sanguin, H., Fernandez, C., & Baldy, V. (2016). Mediterranean forests, land use and
climate change: a social-ecological perspective. Regional Environmental Change, 18(3), 623-636.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0994-3
Gauthier, G., Bêty, J., Cadieux, M.-C., Legagneux, P., Doiron, M., Chevallier, C., Lai, S., Tarroux, A., &
Berteaux, D. (2013). Long-term monitoring at multiple trophic levels suggests heterogeneity in
responses to climate change in the Canadian Arctic tundra. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1624), 20120482.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0482
Gegechkori, A. M. (2011). The results of biogeographical study of Arcto-Tertiary refugia (Colchis And
Talysh) of southern Caucasus. Annals of Agrarian Science, 9(1), 10–16.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2
Gehrig-Fasel, J., Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2007). Tree line shifts in the Swiss Alps: Climate

475
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

change or land abandonment? Journal of Vegetation Science, 18(4), 571–582.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2007.tb02571.x
Gehrig-Fasel, J., Guisan, A., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2008). Evaluating thermal treeline indicators based
on air and soil temperature using an air-to-soil temperature transfer model. Ecological Modelling,
213(3–4), 345–355. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.01.003
Gennaro, P., Piazzi, L., Persia, E., & Porrello, S. (2015). Nutrient exploitation and competition strategies
of the invasive seaweed Caulerpa cylindracea. European Journal of Phycology, 50(4), 384–394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2015.1055591
Georgiadi, A. G., Koronkevich, N. I., Milyukova, I. P., & Barabanova, E. A. (2014). The ensemble
scenarios projecting runoff changes in large Russian river basins in the 21st century. Proceedings
of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 364, 210-2015.
https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-364-210-2014
Georgievsky, M. (2016). Water resources of the Russian rivers and their changes. Proceedings of the
International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 374, 75–77. https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-
374-75-2016
Geptner, V. G., Chapskiy, K. K., Arseniev, V. A., & Sokolov, V. E., [Гептнер, В. Г., Чапский, К. К.,
Арсеньев, В. А. & Соколов, В. E.]. (1976). Млекопитающие Советского Союза. Том 2/3.
Ластоногие и зубатые киты [Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume 2/3. Pinnipeds and
toothed whales]. Moscow, USSR: Высшая школа [Higher School].
Gerasimov, I. P., Davitaia, F. F., Budyko, M. I. & Lavrenko, E. M. [Герасимов И. П, Давитая Ф. Ф.,
Будыко М. И. & Лавренко Е. М.] (Eds.). (1964). Физико-географический атлас мира [Physico-
geographical atlas of the world]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Academy of Science of the USSR
and the Main Agency of Geodesia and Cartography of the USSR. Retrieved from
http://geochemland.ru/uchebnye-materialy/fgam
Gerson, U., & Seaward, M. R. D. (1977). Lichen-invertebrate associations. In M. R. D. Seaward (Ed.),
Lichen ecology (pp. 69–119). London, UK: Academic Press.
Gerten, D., & Adrian, R. (2002). Species-specific changes in the phenology and peak abundance of
freshwater copepods in response to warm summers. Freshwater Biology, 47(11), 2163–2173.
http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00970.x
Ghorbani, A., Gravendeel, B., Naghibi, F., & de Boer, H. (2014). Wild orchid tuber collection in Iran: a
wake-up call for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(11), 2749–2760.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0746-y
Giakoumi, S. (2014). Distribution patterns of the invasive herbivore Siganus luridus (Rüppell, 1829) and
its relation to native benthic communities in the central Aegean Sea, northeastern
Mediterranean. Marine Ecology, 35(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12059
Giakoumi, S., Scianna, C., Plass-Johnson, J., Micheli, F., Grorud-Colvert, K., Thiriet, P., Claudet, J., Di
Carlo, G., Di Franco, A., Gaines, S. D., García-Charlton, J. A., Lubchenko, J., Reimer, J., Sala, E., &
Guidetti, P. (2017). Ecological effects of full and partial protection in the crowded Mediterranean
Sea: a regional meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 8940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-
08850-w
Gibert, J., & Culver, D. C. (2005). Diversity patterns in Europe. In D. C. Culver & W. B. White (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of caves (pp. 196–201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Press.
Gibert, J., & Deharveng, L. (2002). Subterranean ecosystems: A truncated functional biodiversity.

476
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

BioScience, 52(6), 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-

3568(2002)052[0473:SEATFB]2.0.CO;2
Gil-Tena, A., Saura, S., & Brotons, L. (2007). Effects of forest composition and structure on bird species
richness in a Mediterranean context: Implications for forest ecosystem management. Forest
Ecology and Management, 242(2–3), 470–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.01.080
Gilbert, O. L. (Ed.). (1989). The ecology of urban habitats. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Gilbert, O. L. (1992). Lichen reinvasion with declining air polution. In J. Bates & A. Farmer (Eds.),
Bryophytes and lichens in a changing environment (pp. 159–177). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Gimingham, C. H. (1972). Ecology of Heathlands. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
Gladyshev, M. I., Sushchik, N. N., Anishchenko, O. V., Makhutova, O. N., Kolmakov, V. I., Kalachova, G.
S., Kolmakova, A. A., & Dubovskaya, O. P. (2011). Efficiency of transfer of essential
polyunsaturated fatty acids versus organic carbon from producers to consumers in a eutrophic
reservoir. Oecologia, 165, 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1843-6
Glantz, M. H., & Zonn, I. S. (1997). Scientific, environmental, and political issues in the circum-Caspian
region. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Glazovsky, N. F., & Orlovsky, N. S. [Глазовский, Н. Ф., & Орловский, Н. С.]. (1996). Проблемы
опустынивания и засух в СНГ и пути их решения [The problems of desertification and drought
in the CIS countries and ways to solve them]. Ивестия РАН, Серия Географическая [Izvestiya
RAS, Geographical Series], 4, 7–23.
Glazovsky, N. F. [Глазовский, Н. Ф.]. (1990). Аральский кризис: Причины возникновения и пути
выхода [The Aral crisis: causes and ways out]. Moscow, USSR: Наука [Science].
Glover, A. G., Gooday, A. J., Bailey, D. M., Billett, D. S. M., Chevaldonné, P., Colaço, A., Copley, J.,
Cuvelier, D., Desbruyères, D., Kalogeropoulou, V., Klages, M., Lampadariou, N., Lejeusne, C.,
Mestre, N. C., Paterson, G. L. J., Perez, T., Ruhl, H., Sarrazin, J., Soltwedel, T., Soto, E. H., Thatje,
S., Tselepides, A., Van Gaever, S., & Vanreusel, A. (2010). Temporal change in deep-sea benthic
ecosystems. A review of the evidence from recent time-series studies. Advances in Marine
Biology, 58, 1-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381015-1.00001-0
Gninenko, Yu. I., Shiryaeva, N. V., & Schurov, V. I. [Гниненко, Ю. И., Ширяева, Н. В., & Щуров, В. И.].
(2014). Самшитовая огневка – новый инвазивный организм в лесах российского Кавказа
[Cydalima perspectalis - a new invasive organism in the Russian Caucasus forests]. Карантин
Растений. Наука И Практика [The Plant Quarantine. Science and Practice], 1(7), 32–39.
Godbold, J. A., Bailey, D. M., Collins, M. A., Gordon, J. D. M., Spallek, W. A., & Priede, I. G. (2013).
Putative fishery-induced changes in biomass and population size structures of demersal deep-sea
fishes in ICES sub-area VII, northeast Atlantic Ocean. Biogeosciences, 10(1), 529–539.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-529-2013
Gomoiu, M.-T., Begun, T., Caraus, I., Muresan, M., Oaie, G., Opreanu, P., Secrieru, D.; Teaca, A., &
Vasiliu, D. (2012). Studying the Romanian Shelf benthic community in EU FP7 HYPOX project:
ecosystem recovery trends vs. fish kill events. In EGU General Assembly (pp. 9474-9474).
Goodman, S., & Dmitrieva, L. (2016). Pusa caspica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41669A45230700.en
Google (n.d.). Google Earth. Retrieved from
https://earth.google.com/web/@49.20982722,155.46660111,-

477
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

802.35379665a,11719842.44755626d,35y,-0h,0t,0r
Gossner, M. M., Lewinsohn, T. M., Kahl, T., Grassein, F., Boch, S., Prati, D., Birkhofer, K., Renner, S. C.,
Sikorski, J., Wubet, T., Arndt, H., Baumgartner, V., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., Börschig, C., Buscot, F.,
Diekötter, T., Jorge, L. R., Jung, K., Keyel, A. C., Klein, A.-M., Klemmer, S., Krauss, J., Lange, M.,
Müller, J., Overmann, J., Pašalić, E., Penone, C., Perović, D. J., Purschke, O., Schall, P., Socher, S.
A., Sonnemann, I., Tschapka, M., Tscharntke, T., Türke, M., Venter, P. C., Weiner, C. N., Werner,
M., Wolters, V., Wurst, S., Westphal, C., Fischer, M., Weisser, W. W., & Allan, E. (2016). Land-use
intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities. Nature, 540, 266-
269. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20575
Gotelli, N. J., & Stanton-Geddes, J. (2015). Climate change, genetic markers and species distribution
modelling. Journal of Biogeography, 42(9), 1577–1585. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12562
Gottfried, M., Pauli, H., Futschik, A., Akhalkatsi, M., Barančok, P., Alonso, B., Luis, J., Coldea, G., Dick,
J., Erschbamer, B., Calzado, F., Rosa, M., Kazakis, G., Krajči, J., Larsson, P., Mallaun, M., Michelsen,
O., Moiseev, D., Moiseev, P., Molau, U., Merzouki, A., Nagy, L., Nakhutsrishvili, G., Pedersen, B.,
Pelino, G., Puscas, M., Rossi, G., Stanisci, A., Theurillat, J.-P., Tomaselli, M., Villar, L., Vittoz, P.,
Vogiatzakis, I., & Grabherr, G. (2012). Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate
change. Nature Climate Change, 2(2), 111-115. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1329
Goulson, D., Lye, G., & Darvill, B. (2008). Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annual Review of
Entomology, 53, 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454
Government of Armenia. (2015). Armenia’s third national communication on climate change. Yerevan,
Armenia: Lusabats Publishing House.
Government of Azerbaijan. (2014). Azerbaijan fifth national report. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Kazakhstan. (2015). The fifth national report on progress in implementation of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Kyrgyzstan [Правительтво Кыргызской Республики]. (2014). Приоритеты
сохранения биологического разнообразия Кыргызской Республики на период до 2024 года
[Biodiversity conservation priorities of the Kyrgyz Republic untill 2024].
Government of the Russian Federation [Правительство Российской Федерации]. (2013). Стратегия
развития Арктической зоны Российской Федерации и обеспечения национальной
безопасности на период до 2020 года [Strategy of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation
development and national security for the period up to 2020]. Retrieved from
http://government.ru/info/18360/
Government of the Russian Federation [Правительство Российской Федерации]. (2015). Пятый
национальный доклад «Сохранение биоразнообразия в Российской Федерации» [5th
national report ‘Conservation of biodiversity in the Russian Federation’]. Moscow, Russian
Federation: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation.
Government of Tajikistan. (2014). Fifth national report on preservation of biodiversity of the Republic
of Tajikistan. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Tajikistan [Правительство Таджикистана]. (2016). Национальная стратегия и план
действий по сохранению биоразнообразия до 2020 гг. [National biodiversity strategy and
action plan till 2020]. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/tj/tj-nbsap-v2-ru.pdf
Government of Turkey. (2014). Fifth national report. Retrieved from

478
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Turkmenistan [Правительство Туркменистана]. (2015). Пятый Доклад по
осуществлению решений конвенции ООН о биологическом разнообразии на
национальном уровне [Fifth national report to CBD]. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Uzbekistan. (2015). Fifth national report of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Conservation
of Biodiversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Gozlan, R. E. (2008). Introduction of non-native freshwater fish: is it all bad? Fish and Fisheries, 9, 106–
115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00267.x
Gozlan, R. E. (2015). Role and impact of non-native species on inland fisheries: The Janus syndrome. In
J. F. Craig (Ed.), Freshwater fisheries ecology (pp. 770-778). London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
publisher.
Gozlan, R. E. (2016). Interference of non-native species with fisheries and aquaculture. In M. Vilà & P.
E. Hulme (Eds.), Impact of biological invasions on ecosystem services, (pp. 119–137). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45121-3
Gozlan, R. E., St-Hilaire, S., Feist, S. W., Martin, P., & Kent, M. L. (2005). Biodiversity - Disease threat to
European fish. Nature, 435(7045), 1046-1046. https://doi.org/10.1038/4351046a
Grabherr, G., Gottfried, M., Gruber, A., & Pauli, H. (1995). Patterns and current changes in alpine plant
diversity. In Ecological Studies 113: Arctic and Alpine Biodiversity (Vol. 113, pp. 169–181). Berlin
and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78966-3_12
Grabherr, G., Gottfried, M., & Pauli, H. (2010). Climate change impacts in alpine environments.
Geography Compass, 4(8), 1133-1153.
Grace, J. B., Anderson, T. M., Seabloom, E. W., Borer, E. T., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Hautier, Y.,
Hillebrand, H., Lind, E. M., Pärtel, M., Bakker, J. D., Buckley, Y. M., Crawley, M. J., Damschen, E. I.,
Davies, K. F., Fay, P. A., Firn, J., Gruner, D. S., Hector, A., Knops, J. M., MacDougall, A. S.,
Melbourne, B. A., Morgan, J. W., Orrock, J. L., Prober, S. M., & Smith, M. D. (2016). Integrative
modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature, 529, 390–
393. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature16524
Gravel, D., Albouy, C., & Thuiller, W. (2016). The meaning of functional trait composition of food webs
for ecosystem functioning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
371(1694), 20150268. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0268.
Greenstreet, S. P. R., Rossberg, A. G., Fox, C. J., Le Quesne, W. J. F., Blasdale, T., Boulcott, P., Mitchell,
I., Millar, C., & Moffat, C. F. (2012). Demersal fish biodiversity: species-level indicators and trends-
based targets for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
69(10), 1789–1801. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fss148
Gregory, R. D., Vorisek, P., Van Strien, A., Gmelig Meyling, A. W., Jiguet, F., Fornasari, L., Reif, J.,
Chylarecki, P., & Burfield, I. J. (2007). Population trends of widespread woodland birds in Europe.
Ibis, 149(Suppl.), 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00698.x
Greifswald. (2010). The Hyrcan forest - Restoration of forest landscape in Talish region, Azerbaijan. A
report to KfW.
Grémillet, D., & Boulinier, T. (2009). Spatial ecology and conservation of seabirds facing global climate
change: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, 121–138.

479
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.2307/24873660
Griffin, J. N., O’Gorman, E. J., Emmerson, M. C., Jenkins, S. R., Klein, A. -M., Loreau, M., & Symstad, A.
(2009). Biodiversity and the stability of ecosystem functioning. In S. Naeem, D. E. Bunker, A.
Hector, M. Loreau, & C. Perrings (Eds.), Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human
Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective (pp. 78-93). Oxford, UK, Oxford University
Press.
Griffiths, H. I., Krystufek, B., & Reed, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). Balkan biodiversity: Pattern and process in the
European hotspot. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gross, K., Cardinale, B. J., Fox, J. W., Gonzalez, A., Loreau, M., Polley, H. W., Reich, P. B., & van Ruijven,
J. (2014). Species richness and the temporal stability of biomass production: a new analysis of
recent biodiversity experiments. American Naturalist, 183(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1086/673915
Grossheim, A. A. [Гроссгейм А. А.]. (1926). Эспарцеты Кавказа [Caucasus Esparset]. In Записки
научно-прикладного отдела Тифлисского ботанического сада [Scientific Papers of Applied
Section of Tiflis Botanical Garden], 5, 149–168. Tiflis, USSR: Tiflis Botanical Garden
Gubbay, S., Sanders, N., Haynes, T., Janssen, J. A. M., Rodwell, J. R., Nieto, A., García Criado, M., Beal,
S., Borg, J., Kennedy, M., Micu, D., Otero, M., Saunders, G., & Calix, M. (2016). European red list
of habitats. Part 1. Marine habitats. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2779/032638
Guerold, F., Boudot, J. P., Gilles, J., Vein, D., Merlet, D., & Rouiller, J. (2000). Macroinvertebrate
community loss as a result of headwater stream acidification in the Vosges Mountains (N-E
France). Biodiversity & Conservation, 9, 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008994122865
Guidetti, P. (2006a). Marine reserves reestablish lost predatory interactions and cause community
changes in rocky reefs. Ecological Applications, 16, 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2006)016[0963:MRRLPI]2.0.CO;2
Guidetti, P. (2006b). Potential of marine reserves to cause community-wide changes beyond their
boundaries. Conservation Biology, 21(2), 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1939.2007.00657.x
Guidetti, P., Baiata, P., Ballesteros, E., Di Franco, A., Hereu, B., Macpherson, E., Micheli, F., Pais, A.,
Panzalis, P., Rosenberg, A. A., Zaala, M., & Sala, E. (2014). Large-scale assessment of
Mediterranean marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e91841.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091841
Guisan, A., & Theurillat, J. -P. (2001). Assessing alpine plant vulnerability to climate change: a modeling
perspective. Integrated Assessment, 1(1), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018912114948
Gupta, R., Kienzler, K., Martius, C., Mirzabaev, A., Oweis, T., de Pauw, E., Qadir, M., Shideed, K.,
Sommer, R., Thomas, R., Sayre, K., Carli, C., Saparov, A., Bekenov, M., Sanginov, S., Nepesov, M.,
& Ikramov, R. (2009). Research prospectus: A vision for sustainable land management research in
Central Asia. ICARDA Central Asia and Caucasus Program. Sustainable Agriculture in Central Asia
and the Caucasus Series No.1. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: CGIAR-PFU.
Gurevich E. (2009). Influence of air temperature on the river runoff in winter (the Aldan river
catchment case study). Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 34(9), 628–633.
https://doi.org/10.1007/10.3103/S1068373909090088
Haaland, S. (2002). Fem tusen år med flammer. Det europeiske lyngheilandskapet. [Five thousand years

480
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of flames. The European heathland landscape]. Bergen, Norway: Vigmostad & Bjørke.
Haase, D., & Gläser, J. (2009). Determinants of floodplain forest development illustrated by the
example of the floodplain forest in the District of Leipzig. Forest Ecology and Management,
258(5), 887-894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.025
Habel, J. C., Dengler, J., Janisova, M., Török, P., Wellstein, C., & Wiezik, M. (2013). European grassland
ecosystems: threatened hotspots of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22, 2131–2138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0537-x
Habel, J. C., Rodder, D., Schmitt, T. & Neve, G. (2011). Global warming will affect the genetic diversity
and uniqueness of Lycaena helle populations. Global Change Biology, 17, 194-205.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02233.x
Halada, L., Evans, D., Romão, C., & Petersen, J. E. (2011). Which habitats of European importance
depend on agricultural practices? Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(11), 2365–2378.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-9989-z
Hall-Spencer, J. M., Pike, J., & Munn, C. B. (2007). Diseases affect cold-water corals too: Eunicella
verrucosa (Cnidaria: Gorgonacea) necrosis in SW England. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 76(2),
87–97. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao076087
Hall–Spencer, J., Allain, V., & Fosså, J. H. (2002). Trawling damage to northeast Atlantic ancient coral
reefs. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269(1490), 507-511.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1910
Hällfors, H., Backer, H., Leppänen, J. M., Hällfors, S., Hällfors, G., & Kuosa, H. (2013). The northern Baltic
Sea phytoplankton communities in 1903-1911 and 1993-2005: A comparison of historical and
modern species data. Hydrobiologia, 707(1), 109–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-
1414-4
Hallingbäck, T., & Hodgetts, N. (2001). Status survey and conservation action plan for bryophytes:
Mosses, liverworts and hornworts. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Retrieved from
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2000-074.pdf
Hallmann, C. A., Foppen, R. P. B., Van Turnhout, C. A. M., de Kroon, H., & Jongejans, E. (2014). Declines
in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature, 511(7509),
341–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13531
Hallmann, C. A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., Hofland, N., Schwan, H., Stenmans, W., Müller, A.,
Sumser, H., Hörren, T., Goulson, D., & De Kroon, H. (2017). More than 75 percent decline over 27
years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE, 12(10), e0185809.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K. S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., Lowndes, J. S., Rockwood,
R. C., Selig, E. R., Selkoe, K. A., & Walbridge, S. (2015). Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative
human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nature Communications, 6, 7615.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615
Halvorsen, R., Bryn, A., Erikstad, L., & Lindgaard, A. (2015). Natur i Norge - NiN Versjon 2.0.0. [Nature
in Norway – NiN Version 2.0.0.] V. 17. Trondheim: Artsdatabanken.
Hamel, S., Killengreen, S. T., Henden, J. -A., Yoccoz, N., & Ims, R. A. (2013). Disentangling the
importance of interspecific competition, food availability, and habitat in species occupancy:
recolonization of the endangered Fennoscandian arctic fox. Biological Conservation, 160, 114–
120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.011

481
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hamer, A. J., & McDonnell, M. J. (2008). Amphibian ecology and conservation in the urbanising world:
A review. Biological Conservation, 141(10) 2432-2449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.020
Hammond, P. S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K. A., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W., Scott, M.
D., Wang, J. Y., Wells, R. S. & Wilson, B. (2008). Phocoena phocoena (Baltic Sea subpopulation).
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T17031A6739565.en
Handa, I. T., Aerts, R., Berendse, F., Berg, M. P., Bruder, A., Butenschoen, O., Chauvet, E., Gessner, M.
O., Jabiol, J., Makkonen, M., McKie, B. G., Malmqvist, B., Peeters, E. T., Scheu, S., Schmid, B., van
Ruijven, J., Vos, V. C., & Hättenschwiler, S. (2014). Consequences of biodiversity loss for litter
decomposition across biomes. Nature 509, 218–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13247
Hanski, I. (2014). Biodiversity, microbes and human well-being. Ethics in Science and Environmental
Polititics, 14, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00150
Hanski, I., von Hertzen, L., Fyhrquist, N., Koskinen, K., Torppa, K., Laatikainen, T., Karisola, P., Auvinen,
P., Paulin, L., Makela, M. J., Vartiainen, E., Kosunen, T. U., Alenius, H., & Haahtela, T. (2012).
Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(21) 8334-8339.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205624109
Harding, K. C., & Härkönen, T. J. (1999). Development in the Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) and
ringed seal (Phoca hispida) Populations during the 20th Century. Ambio, 28(7), 619–627.
Härdtle, W., von Oheimb, G., Gerke, A.-K., Niemeyer, M., Niemeyer, T., Assmann, T., Drees, C., Matern,
A., & Meyer, H. (2009). Shifts in N and P budgets of heathland ecosystems: Effects of management
and atmospheric inputs. Ecosystems, 12(2), 298–310. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-008-9223-
3
Härkönen, T. (2015). Pusa hispida ssp. botnica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41673A66991604.en
Harkonen, T., Harding, K. C., Wilson, S., Baimukanov, M., Dmitrieva, L., Svensson, C. J., & Goodman, S.
J. (2012). Collapse of a marine mammal species driven by human impacts. PLoS ONE, 7(9),
e43130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043130
Harrison, P. A., Berry, P. M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J. R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M., Dunford, R., Egoh, B.,
Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., Geertsema, W., Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., & Turkelboom,
F. (2014). Linkages between biodiversity attributes and ecosystem services: A systematic review.
Ecosystem Services, 9, 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.006
Hartel, T., Schweiger, O., Öllerer, K., Cogǎlniceanu, D., & Arntzen, J. W. (2010). Amphibian distribution
in a traditionally managed rural landscape of Eastern Europe: Probing the effect of landscape
composition. Biological Conservation, 143(5), 1118–1124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.006
Hassall, C., Thompson, D. J., & Harvey, I. F. (2010). The impact of climate-induced distributional changes
on the validity of biological water quality metrics. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
160, 451–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0709-4
Hassel, K., & Soderstrom, L. (2005). The expansion of the alien mosses Orthodontium lineare and
Campylopus introflexus in Britain and continental Europe. Journal of the Hattori Botanical
Laboratory, 97, 183–193.

482
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hauck, M. (2009). Global warming and alternative causes of decline in arctic-alpine and boreal-
montane lichens in north-western Central Europe. Global Change Biology, 15(11), 2653–2661.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01968.x
Hauck, M. (2010). Ammonium and nitrate tolerance in lichens. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), 1127–
1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.12.036
Hauck, M., Bruyn, U. de, & Leuschner, C. (2013). Dramatic diversity losses in epiphytic lichens in
temperate broad-leaved forests during the last 150 years. Biological Conservation, 157, 136–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.015
Hauck, M., Zimmermann, J., Jacob, M., Dulamsuren, C., Bade, C., Ahrends, B., & Leuschner, C. (2012).
Rapid recovery of stem increment in Norway spruce at reduced SO2 levels in the Harz Mountains,
Germany. Environmental Pollution, 164, 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.01.026
Hautier Y, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Hillebrand H, Lind EM, MacDougall, A. S.,
Stevens, C. J., Bakker, J. D., Buckley, Y. M., Chu, C., Collins, S. L., Daleo, P., Damschen, E. I., Davies,
K. F., Fay, P. A., Firn, J., Gruner, D. S., Jin, V. L., Klein, J. A., Knops, J. M. H., La Pierre, K. J., Li, W.,
McCulley, R. L., Melbourne, B. A., Moore, J. L., O’Halloran, L. R., Prober, S. M., Risch, A. C.,
Sankaran, M., Schuetz, M., & Hector, A. (2014). Eutrophication weakens stabilizing effects of
diversity in natural grasslands. Nature, 508(7497), 521-525.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13014
Hawksworth, D. L., Kirk, P. M., Sutton, B. C., & Pegler, D. N. (1996). Ainsworth & Bisby’s dictionary of
the fungi. Revista Do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de São Paulo, 38(4), 272–272.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-46651996000400018
Hector, A., Hautier, Y., Saner, P., Wacker, L., Bagchi, R., Joshi, J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Spehn, E. M.,
Bazeley-White, E., Weilenmann, M., Caldeira, M. C., Dimitrakopoulos, P. G., Finn, J. A., Huss-
Danell, K., Jumpponen, A., Mulder, C. P. H., Palmborg, C., Pereira, J. S., Siamantziouras, A. -S. D.,
Terry, A. C., Troumbis, A. Y., Schmid, B., & Loreau, M. (2010). General stabilizing effects of plant
diversity on grassland productivity through population asynchrony and overyielding. Ecology,
91(8), 2213−2220. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1162.1
Hector, A. & Bagchi, R. (2007). Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature, 448(7150), 188–
190. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05947
Hedberg, P., Kotowski, W., Saetre, P., Mälson, K., Rydin, H., & Sundberg, S. (2012). Vegetation recovery
after multiple-site experimental fen restorations. Biological Conservation, 147(1), 60–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.039
Hédl, R., Petřík, P., & Boublík, K. (2011). Long-term patterns in soil acidification due to pollution in
forests of the Eastern Sudetes Mountains. Environmental Pollution, 159(10), 2586–2593.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.014
Hedwall, P. O., & Brunet, J. (2016). Trait variations of ground flora species disentangle the effects of
global change and altered land-use in Swedish forests during 20 years. Global Change Biology,
22(12), 4038–4047. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13329
Heilmann-Clausen, J., Barron, E. S., Boddy, L., Dahlberg, A., Griffith, G. W., Nordén, J., Ovaskainen, O.,
Perini, C., Senn-Irlet, B., & Halme, P. (2015). A fungal perspective on conservation biology.
Conservation Biology, 29(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12388
Heino, J. (2002). Concordance of species richness patterns among multiple freshwater taxa: a regional
perspective. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 137–147.

483
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014075901605
Heino, J., Virkkala, R., & Toivonen, H. (2009). Climate change and freshwater biodiversity: Detected
patterns, future trends and adaptations in northern regions. Biological Reviews, 84(1), 39–54.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00060.x
Heino, J., Virtanen, R., Vuori, K. M., Saastamoinen, J., Ohtonen, A., & Muotka, T. (2005). Spring
bryophytes in forested landscapes: Land use effects on bryophyte species richness, community
structure and persistence. Biological Conservation, 124(4), 539-545.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.03.004
Hejcman, M., Hejcmanová, P., Pavlů, V., & Beneš, J. (2013). Origin and history of grasslands in Central
Europe - A review. Grass and Forage Science, 68(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12066
Hejcman, M., Száková, J., Schellberg, J., Šrek, P., Tlustoš, P., & Balík, J. (2010). The Rengen grassland
experiment: Bryophytes biomass and element concentrations after 65 years of fertilizer
application. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 166(1–4), 653–662.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-009-1030-6
HELCOM. (2009). Biodiversity in the Baltic Sea.
HELCOM. (2010). Ecosystem health of the Baltic sea 2003-2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment.
Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Commission
HELCOM. (2013). HELCOM red list of Baltic Sea species in danger of becoming extinct. Baltic Sea
Environment Proceedings, 140, 110.
HELCOM. (2016). Towards an assessment of ecological coherence of the marine protected areas
network in the Baltic Sea region, (i), 141. Retrieved from
http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature13022
HELCOM. (2017a). Abundance of coastal key fish species. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance-of-key-coastal-fish-species
HELCOM. (2017b). Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance-of-waterbirds-in-the-breeding-
season/
HELCOM. (2017c). Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance-of-waterbirds-in-the-wintering-
season/
HELCOM. (2017d). Distribution of Baltic seals. HELCOM core indicator report. Retrieved July 26, 2017,
from http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/distribution-of-baltic-seals/
HELCOM. (2017e). First version of the “State of the Baltic Sea” report – June 2017 – to be updated in
2018. Available at: http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi
HELCOM. (2017f). State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/state-of-the-soft-bottom-macrofauna-
community/
HELCOM. (2017g). Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from
http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/trends-in-arrival-of-new-non-indigenous-
species/
Henden, J.A., Ims, R.A., Yoccoz, N.G., Hellström, P., & Angerbjörn, A. (2010). Strength of asymmetric

484
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

competition between predators in food webs ruled by fluctuating prey: The case of foxes in
tundra. Oikos,119(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17604.x
Henwood, W. D. (2010). Toward a strategy for the conservation and protection of the world’s
temperate grasslands. Great Plains Research, 20(1), 121–134. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch
Hering, D., Schmidt-Kloiber, A., Murphy, J., Lücke, S., Zamora-Muñoz, C., López-Rodríguez, M. J., Huber,
T., & Graf, W. (2009). Potential impact of climate change on aquatic insects: A sensitivity analysis
for European caddisflies (Trichoptera) based on distribution patterns and ecological preferences.
Aquatic Sciences, 71(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-009-9159-5
Hermy, M., Honnay, O., Firbank, L., Grashof-Bokdam, C., & Lawesson, J. E. (1999). An ecological
comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for
forest conservation. Biological Conservation, 91(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-
3207(99)00045-2
Herrera, P. M., García “Petu,” J. A., & Balmori, A. (2015). Valladolid. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and
invertebrates of European cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp. 207–253). New York, USA:
Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6
Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R., & Thomas, C. D. (2006). The distributions of a wide range of
taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change Biology, 12(3), 450–455.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01116.x
Hiddink, J. G., Burrows, M. T., & García Molinos, J. (2015). Temperature tracking by North Sea benthic
invertebrates in response to climate change. Global Change Biology, 21(1), 117–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12726
Hiddink, J. G., & ter Hofstede, R. (2008). Climate induced increases in species richness of marine fishes.
Global Change Biology, 14(3), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01518.x
Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., & Troxler, T. G. (2014).
IPCC 2014, 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories:
Wetlands.
Hobohm, C., & Bruchmann, I. (2009). Endemische Gefäßpflanzen und ihre Habitate in Europa–Plädoyer
für den Schutz der Grasland-Ökosysteme [Endemic vascular plants and their habitats in Europe –
plea for the protection of grassland ecosystems]. Berichte Der Reinhold-Tüxen-Gesellschaft, 21,
142–161.
Hochkirch, A., Nieto, A., Braud, Y., Buzzetti, F. M., Chobanov, D., Willemse, L., & Zuna-kratky, T. (2016).
European red list of grasshoppers, crickets and bush-crickets. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/60944
Hodd, R. L., Bourke, D., & Skeffington, M. S. (2014). Projected range contractions of European
protected oceanic montane plant communities: Focus on climate change impacts is essential for
their future conservation. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95147.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095147
Hodgetts, N. (2015). Checklist and country status of European bryophytes – towards a new red list for
Europe. Irish Wildlife Manuals. Ireland: National Parks and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2262/73373
Hodgetts, N. G. (1992). Measures to protect bryophytes in Great Britain. Biological Conservation, 59(2–
3), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(92)90594-D

485
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hof, A. R. (2015). Alien species in a warming climate: a case study of the nutcracker and stone pines.
Biological Invasions, 17(5), 1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0813-z
Hofmeister, J., Hošek, J., Brabec, M., Dvořák, D., Beran, M., Deckerová, H., Burel, J., Kříž, M., Borovička,
J., Běťák, J., Vašutová, M., Malíček, J., Palice, Z., Syrovátková, L., Steinová, J., Černajová, I., Holá,
E., Novozámská, E., Čížek, L., Iarema, V., Baltaziuk, K., & Svoboda, T. (2015). Value of old forest
attributes related to cryptogam species richness in temperate forests: A quantitative assessment.
Ecological Indicators, 57, 497–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.015
Holsinger, J. R. (1988). Troglobites: the evolution of cave-dwelling organisms. American Scientist, 76(2),
146–153.
Hölzel, N., Haub, C., Ingelfinger, M. P., Otte, A., & Pilipenko, V. N. (2002). The return of the steppe
large-scale restoration of degraded land in southern Russia during the post-Soviet era. Journal
for Nature Conservation, 10(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1078/1617-1381-00009
Hooper, D. U., Adair, E. C., Cardinale, B. J., Byrnes, J. E. K., Hungate, B. A., Matulich, K. L., Gonzalez, A,
Duffy, J. E., Gamfeldt, L., & O’Connor, M. I. (2012). A global synthesis reveals biodiversity loss as
a major driver of ecosystem change. Nature 486, U105–U129.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11118
Hudson, J. M. G., & Henry, G. H. R. (2009). Increased plant biomass in a high Arctic heath community
from 1981 to 2008. Ecology, 90(10), 2657–2663. http://doi.org/10.1890/09-0102.1
Hughes, A. R., Inouye, B. D., Johnson, M. T. J., Underwood, N., & Vellend, M. (2008). Ecological
consequences of genetic diversity. Ecology Letters 11, 609–623. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-
0248.2008.01179.x
Hunkeler, P. (2007). Standing committee 27th meeting report for on-the-spot appraisal construction
of the hydro-electric power station Lesce on the Dobra River (Croatia). In Report of the on-the-
spot appraisal (5-6 June 2007).
Hunt, G. L., Drinkwater, K. F., Arrigo, K., Berge, J., Daly, K. L., Danielson, S., Daase, M., Hop, H., Isla, E.,
Karnovsky, N., Laidre, K., Mueter, F. J., Murphy, E. J., Renaud, P. E., Smith, W. O., Trathan, P.,
Turner, J., & Wolf-Gladrow, D. (2016). Advection in polar and sub-polar environments: Impacts
on high latitude marine ecosystems. Progress in Oceanography, 149, 40–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2016.10.004
Hunt, G. L., Katō, H., & McKinnell, S. M. (2000). Predation by marine birds and mammals in the subarctic
North Pacific Ocean. PICES Scientific Report No. 14.
Huntington, H., Weller, G., Bush, E., Callaghan, T. V., Kattsov, V. M., Nuttall M. (2005). Arctic climate
impact assessment (ACIA). In C. Symon, L. Arris, & B. Heal (Eds.), An introduction to the Arctic
climate impact assessment (pp. 10-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, W. F., van Oosterhout, C., Rogers, S. I., & Carvalho, G. R. (2003). Temporal analysis of
archived samples indicates marked genetic changes in declining North Sea cod (Gadus morhua).
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 270(1529), 2125–2132.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2493
Icelandic Natural History Institute. (1996). Valisti 1 Plöntur [Red Data List (1) Plants].
Ignatov, M., Afonina, O., & Ignatova, E. (2006). Check-list of mosses of East Europe and North Asia.
Arctoa, 15, 1–130.
Ihlow, F., Courant, J., Secondi, J., Herrel, A., Rebelo, R., Measey, G. J., Lillo, F., De Villiers, F. A., Vogt, S.,

486
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

De Busschere, C., Backeljau, T., & Rodder, D. (2016). Impacts of climate change on the global
invasion potential of the African clawed frog Xenopus laevis. PLoS ONE, 11(6), e0154869.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154869
Inger, R., Gregory, R., Duffy, J. P., Stott, I., Voříšek, P., & Gaston, K. J. (2015). Common European birds
are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecology Letters, 18(1), 28–
36. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12387
Innocenti, G., Stasolla, G., Goren, M., Stern, N., Levitt-Barmats, Y., Diamant, A., & Galil, B. S. (2017).
Going down together: invasive host, Charybdis longicollis (Decapoda: Brachyura: Portunidae) and
invasive parasite, Heterosaccus dollfusi (Cirripedia: Rhizocephala: Sacculinidae) on the upper
slope off the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Marine Biology Research, 13(2), 229–236.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2016.1240873
Insarov, G., & Insarova, I. (2013). Lichens and plants in urban environment. In D. Malkinson, D.
Czamanski, & I. Benenson (Eds.), Modeling of Land-Use and Ecological Dynamics (pp. 167–193).
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Insarov, G., Moutchnik, E., & Insarova, I. [Инсаров, Г. Э., Мучник, Е. Э., & Инсарова, И. Д.]. (2010).
Эпифитные лишайники в условиях загрязнения атмосферы Москвы: методология
долговременного мониторинга [Epiphytic lichens under air pollution stress in Moscow:
Methodology for long-term monitoring]. Проблемы экологического мониторинга и
моделирования экосистем [Problems of Ecological Monitoring and Ecosystem Modelling], 23,
277–296.
Insarov, G., & Schroeter, B. (2002). Lichen monitoring and climate change. In P. L. Nimis, C. Scheidegger,
& P. A. Wolseley (Eds.), Monitoring with Lichens - Monitoring Lichens (pp. 183–201). The Hague,
The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ionov R.N., & Lebedeva L.P. [Ионов, Р. Н., & Лебедева, Л. Р.]. (2004). Растительный Покров
Западного Тянь-Шаня (Обзор современного состояния флоры). Трансграничный проект по
Центральной Азии по сохранению биоразнообразия Западного Тянь-Шаня [Plant cover of
western Tien Shan (review of the modern status on flora). Transbounda. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan:
Global Environment Facility/World Bank.
IPBES. (2016a). 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,
& B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. (2016b). 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, & B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T. F. Stocker, D. Qin,

487
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

G. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley

(Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014a). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral
aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T.
E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy,
S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC. (2014b). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects.
contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate. V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Billir, M.
Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea & L. L. White (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W. S., Reich, P. B., Scherer-Lorenzen, M.,
Schmid, B., Tilman, D., Van Ruijven, J., Weigelt, A., Wilsey, B. J., Zavaleta, E. S., & Loreau, M.
(2011). High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature, 477(7363), 199–
202. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature10282
IUCN. (2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1. Retrieved from
http://www.iucnredlist.org
IUCN. (2017a). How many species are threatened? Retrieved from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics
IUCN. (2017b). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Retrieved January 31, 2017, from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
IUCN. (2017c). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017-1. Retrieved from
http://www.iucnredlist.org
Ivanov, O. A., & Sukhanov, V. V. (2015). Species structure of pelagic Ichthyocenes in Russian waters of
far eastern seas and the Pacific Ocean in 1980–2009. Journal of Ichthyology, 55(4), 497–526.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S0032945215040037
Jähnig, S. C., Kuemmerlen, M., Kiesel, J., Domisch, S., Cai, Q., Schmalz, B., & Fohrer, N. (2012). Modelling
of riverine ecosystems by integrated models: conceptual approach, a case study and research
agenda. Journal of Biogeography, 39, 2253–2263. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12009
Janick, J. (Ed.). (2003). Horticultural Reviews, Volume 29: Wild apple and fruit trees of Central Asia. New
York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Janssen, J. A. M., Rodwell, J. S., García Criado, M., Gubbay, S., Haynes, T., Nieto, A., Sanders, N.,
Landucci, F., Loidi, J., Ssymank, A.,
Tahvanainen, T., Valderrabano, M., Acosta, A., Aronsson, M.,
Arts, G., Attorre, F., Bergmeier, E., Bijlsma, R.-J., Bioret, F., Biţă-Nicolae, C., Biurrun, I., Calix, M.,
Capelo, J., Čarni, A., Chytrý, M., Dengler, J., Dimopoulos, P., Essl, F., Gard ell, H., Gigante, D.,
Giusso del Galdo, G., Hájek, G., Jansen, F., Jansen, J., Kapfer, J., Mickolajczak, A., Molina, J. A.,
Molnár, Z., Paternoster, D., Piernik, A., Poulin, B. Renaux, B., Schaminée, J. H. J., Šumberová, K.,
Toivonen, H., Tonteri, T., Tsiripidis, I., Tzonev, R., & Valachovič, M. (2016). European red list of
habitats. Part 2. Terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/091372
Jansen, J., Rego, F., Goncalves, P., & Silveira, S. (1997). Fire, a strong land shaping element in the Sierra

488
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

da Estrela (Portugal). NNA Berichte, 10, 150–162.

Jelić, D., Kuljerić, M., Koren, T., Treer, D., Šalamon, D., Lončar, M., Podnar Lešić, M., Janev Hutinec, B.,
Bogdanović, T., Mekinić, S., & Jelić, K. (2012): Red book of amphibians and reptiles of Croatia.
Ministry of Environmental and Nature protection, State Institute for Nature Protection.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264938275_Red_book_of_Amphibians_and_Reptile
s_of_Croatia
Jenkins, C., Pimm, S. L., & Joppa, L. N. (2013). Global bird diversity. Retrieved January 28, 2017, from
www.BiodiversityMapping.org
Jeppesen, E., Brucet, S., Naselli-Flores, L., Papastergiadou, E., Stefanidis, K., Nõges, T., Attayde, J. L.,
Zohary, T., Coppens, J., Bucak, T., Menezes, R. F., Freitas, F. R. S., Kernan, M., Søndergaard, M., &
Beklioğlu, M. (2015). Ecological impacts of global warming and water abstraction on lakes and
reservoirs due to changes in water level and related changes in salinity. Hydrobiologia, 750(1),
201–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-014-2169-x
Jeppesen, E., Kronvang, B., Meerhoff, M., Søndergaard, M., Hansen, K. M., Andersen, H. E., Lauridsen,
T. L., Liboriussen, L., Beklioglu, M., Ozen, A., & Olesen, J. E. (2009). Climate change effects on
runoff, catchment phosphorus loading and lake ecological state, and potential adaptations.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 38, 1930–1941. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0113
Jeppesen, E., Meerhoff, M., Davidson, T. A., Trolle, D., Søndergaard, M., Lauridsen, T. L., Beklioglu, M.,
Brucet, S., Volta, P., Gonzalez-Bergonzoni, I., & Nielsen, A. (2014). Climate change impacts on
lakes: An integrated ecological perspective based on a multi-faceted approach, with special focus
on shallow lakes. Journal of Limnology, 73(Suppl.), 88–111.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2014.844
Jeppesen, E., Meerhoff, M., Holmgren, K., González-Bergonzoni, I., Teixeira-de Mello, F., Declerck, S.
A. J., De Meester, L., Søndergaard, M., Lauridsen, T. L., Bjerring, R., Conde-Porcuna, J. M., Mazzeo,
N., Iglesias, C., Reizenstein, M., Malmquist, H. J., Liu, Z., Balayla, D., & Lazzaro, X. (2010). Impacts
of climate warming on lake fish community structure and potential effects on ecosystem
function. Hydrobiologia, 646(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0171-5
Jeppesen, E., Mehner, T., Winfield, I. J., Kangur, K., Sarvala, J., Gerdeaux, D., ask, M., Malmquist, H. J.,
Holmgren, K., Volta, P., Romo, S., Eckmann, R., Sandström, A., Blanco, S., Kangur, A., Ragnarsson
Stabo, H., Tarvainen, M., Ventelä, A. M., Søndergaard, M., Lauridsen, T. L., & Meerhoff, M. (2012).
Impacts of climate warming on the long-term dynamics of key fish species in 24 European lakes.
Hydrobiologia, 694(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1182-1
Jeppesen, E., Sondergaard, M., Jensen, J. P., Havens, K. E., Anneville, O., Carvalho, L., Coveney, M. F.,
Deneke, R., Dokulil, M. T., Foy, B., Gerdeaux, D., Hampton, S. E., Hilt, S., Kangur, K., Kohler, J.,
Lammens, E. H. H. R., Lauridsen, T. L., Manca, M., Miracle, M. R., Moss, B., Noges, P., Persson, G.,
Phillips, G., Portielje, R., Romo, S., Schelske, C. L., Straile, D., Tatrai, I., Willen, E., & Winder, M.
(2005). Lake responses to reduced nutrient loading - an analysis of contemporary long-term data
from 35 case studies. Freshwater Biology, 50(10), 1747–1771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2427.2005.01415.x
Jeppesen, E., Søndergaard, M., & Liu, Z. (2017). Lake restoration and management in a climate change
perspective: An introduction. Water, 9(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9020122
Jeppesen, E., Winfield, I. J., Trochine, C., Brucet, S., Argillier, C., Arranz, I., Beklioglu, M., Benejam, L.,
Ferreira, T., Hesthagen, T, Kerstin Holmgren, K., Jeppesen, E., Kelly, F., Krause, T., Rask, M., Volta,
P., Winfield, I. J., & Hesthagen, T. (2017). Non-native fish occurrence and biomass in 1943 western

489
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Palearctic lakes and reservoirs and their abiotic and biotic correlates. Ecosystems, 21(3), 395-409.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-017-0156-6
Jepson, P. D., Deaville, R., Barber, J. L., Aguilar, À., Borrell, A., Murphy, S., Barry, J., Brownlow, A.,
Barnett, J., Berrow, S., Cunningham, A. A., Davison, N. J., Ten Doeschate, M., Esteban, R., Ferreira,
M., Foote, A. D., Genov, T., Giménez, J., Loveridge, J., Llavona, Á., Martin, V., Maxwell, D. L.,
Papachlimitzou, A., Penrose, R., Perkins, M. W., Smith, B., De Stephanis, R., Tregenza, N.,
Verborgh, P., Fernandez, A., & Law, R. J. (2016). PCB pollution continues to impact populations of
orcas and other dolphins in European waters. Scientific Reports, 6, 18573.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18573
Ji, R., Jin, M., & Varpe, Ø. (2013). Sea ice phenology and timing of primary production pulses in the
Arctic Ocean. Global Change Biology, 19(3), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12074
Jiménez-Alfaro, B., Gavilán, R. G., Escudero, A., Iriondo, J. M., & Fernández-González, F. (2014). Decline
of dry grassland specialists in Mediterranean high-mountain communities influenced by recent
climate warming. Journal of Vegetation Science, 25(6), 1394–1404.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12198
Johannesen, E., Mørk, H. L., Korsbrekke, K., Wienerroither, R., Eriksen, E., Fossheim, M., Wenneck, T.,
Dolgov, A. V., Prokhorova, T., & Prozorkevich, D. (2017). Arctic fishes in the Barents Sea 2004-
2015: Changes in abundance and distribution.
Johnson, M. S., Putwain, P. D., & Holliday, R. J. (1978). Wildlife conservation value of derelict
metalliferous mine workings in Wales. Biological Conservation, 14(2), 131–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(78)90029-0
Jonason, D., Andersson, G. K. S., Öckinger, E., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G., & Bengtsson, J. (2011).
Assessing the effect of the time since transition to organic farming on plants and butterflies.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 543–550. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01989.x
Jones, M. C., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2015). Multi-model ensemble projections of climate change effects
on global marine biodiversity. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72(3), 741–752.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu172
Jones, M. C., Dye, S. R., Pinnegar, J. K., Warren, R., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2013). Applying distribution
model projections for an uncertain future: The case of the Pacific oyster in UK waters. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 23(5), 710–722.
https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2364
Jönsson, M. T., Ruete, A., Kellner, O., Gunnarsson, U, & Snall, T. (2017). Will forest conservation areas
protect functionally important diversity of fungi and lichens over time? Biodiversity and
Conservation 26(11), 2547-2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1035-0
Jönsson, M. T., & Thor, G. (2012). Estimating coextinction risks from epidemic tree death: Affiliate
lichen communities among diseased host tree populations of Fraxinus excelsior. PLoS ONE, 7(9),
e45701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045701
Joosten, H., Tanneberger, F., & Moen, A. (Eds.). (2017). Mires and peatlands of Europe: Status,
distribution and conservation. Stuttgart, Germany: Schweizerbart Science Publishers.
Joosten, H., & Clarke, D. (2002). Wise use of mires and peatlands – Background and principles including
a framework for decision-making. Devon, UK: International Mire Conservation Group and
International Peat Society.
Joppa, L. N., O’Connor, B., Visconti, P., Smith, C., Geldmann, J., Hoffmann, M., Watson, J. E. M.,

490
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Butchart, S. H. M., Virah-Sawmy, M., Halpern, B. S., Ahmed, S. E., Balmford, A., Sutherland, W. J.,
Harfoot, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Foden, W., Minin, E. Di, Pagad, S., Genovesi, P., Hutton, J., &
Burgess, D. N. (2016). Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science, 352(6284), 416–418.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3565
Jørgensen, L., Archambault, P., Armstrong, C., Dolgov, A., Edinger, E., Gaston, T., Hildebrand, J.,
Piepenburg, D., Smith, W., von Quillfeldt, C., Vecchione, M., & Rice, J. (2016a). Chapter 36G. Arctic
Ocean. In The first global integrated marine assessment - World ocean assessment I. New York,
USA: United Nations.
Jørgensen, P. S., Böhning-Gaese, K., Thorup, K., Tøttrup, A. P., Chylarecki, P., Jiguet, F., Lehikoinen, A.,
Noble, D. G., Reif, J., Schmid, H., van Turnhout, C., Burfield, I. J., Foppen, R., Voříšek, P., van Strien,
A., Gregory, R. D., & Rahbek, C. (2016b). Continent-scale global change attribution in European
birds - combining annual and decadal time scales. Global Change Biology, 22(2), 530–543.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13097
Jovanović Glavaš, O., Jalžić, B., & Bilandžija, H. (2017). Population density, habitat dynamic and aerial
survival of relict cave bivalves from genus Congeria in the Dinaric karst. International Journal of
Speleology, 46(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.46.1.2020
Juberthie, C. (2000). Conservation of subterranean habitats and species. In H. Wilkens, D. C. Culver, &
W. Humphreys (Eds.), Ecosystems of the world: Subterranean ecosystems (pp. 691–700).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Jucker, T., Bouriaud, O., Avacaritei, D., & Coomes, D.A. (2014). Stabilizing effects of diversity on
aboveground wood production in forest ecosystems: linking patterns and processes. Ecology
Letters, 17(12), 1560–1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12382
Jucker, T., Avăcăriței, D., Bărnoaiea, I., Duduman, G., Bouriaud, O. and Coomes, D. A. (2016), Climate
modulates the effects of tree diversity on forest productivity. Journal of Ecology, 104(2), 388–
398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12522
Jungius, H. (2012). Biodiversity preservation and integrated river basin development in the Syrdaria
River valley of Kazakhstan. Final Evaluation Report.
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2013). Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990-2006. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 110, 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.017
Kaiser, J., Clarke, K. R., Hinz, H., Austen, M. C. V, Somerfield, P. J., & Karakassis, I. (2006). Global analysis
of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 311, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps311001
Kaland, P. E. (1986). The origin and management of Norwegian coastal heaths as reflected by pollen
analysis. In K.-E. Behre (Ed.), Anthropogenic indicators in pollen diagrams (pp. 19–36). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Kalkman, V. J., Boudot, J.-P., Bernard, R., Conze, K.-J., De Knijf, G., Dyatlova, E., Ferreira, S., Jović, M.,
Ott, J., Riservato, A., & Sahlén, G. (2010). European red list of dragonflies. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/84650
Kamakhina, G. L. [Камахина, Г. Л.]. (2008). Ключевые инвазии чужеродных видов флоры и фауны
Туркменистана [Key invasions of alien species of flora and fauna of Turkmenistan]. Проблемы
Освоения Пустынь [Problems of Desert Development], 4, 34–38.
Kamenos, N. A. (2010). North Atlantic summers have warmed more than winters since 1353, and the
response of marine zooplankton. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

491
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

States of America, 107(52), 22442–22447. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006141107

Kamilov, G. K. [Камилов Г. К.]. (1973). Рыбы и биологические основы рыбохозяйственного
освоения водохранилищ Узбекистана [Fishes and biological basis of fishery use of in
Uzbekistan reservoirs]. Tashkent, USSR: Fan.
Kamp, J., Koshkin, M. A., Bragina, T. M., Katzner, T. E., Milner-Gulland, E. J., Schreiber, D., Sheldon, R.,
Shmalenko, A., Smelansky, I., Terraube, J., & Urazaliev, R. (2016). Persistent and novel threats to
the biodiversity of Kazakhstan’s steppes and semi-deserts. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(12),
2521-2541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1083-0
Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., Lamb, A. J., & Phalan, B. (2015).
Agricultural development and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Eurasian steppes: A
comparison of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(6),
1578–1587. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12527
Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Donald, P. F., & Hölzel, N. (2011). Post-Soviet agricultural change predicts future
declines after recent recovery in Eurasian steppe bird populations. Biological Conservation,
144(11), 2607–2614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.010
Kämpf, I., Mathar, W., Kuzmin, I., Hölzel, N., & Kiehl, K. (2016). Post-Soviet recovery of grassland
vegetation on abandoned fields in the forest steppe zone of western Siberia. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 25(12), 2563-2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1078-x
Karimov, B. (2011). An overview on desert aquaculture in Central Asia (Aral Sea Drainage Basin). In
Aquaculture in desert and arid lands (pp. 61–84). Rome, Italy: FAO.
Karimov, B. K., Kamilov, B. G., & Matthies, M. (2014a). Unconventional water resources of agricultural
origin and their re-utilization potential for development of desert land aquaculture in the Aral
Sea basin. In The global water system in the Anthropocene: Challenges for science and governance
(pp. 183–200). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Karimov, B., Kamilov, B. G., Upare, M., Van Anrooy, R., Bueno, P., & Shohimardonov, D. R. (2009). FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1030/1. Inland capture fisheries and aquaculture in the
republic of Uzbekistan: Current status and planning.
Karimov B. K., Matthies, M., & Kamilov, B. G. (2014b). Unconventional water resources of agricultural
origin and their re-utilization potential for development of desert land aquaculture in the Aral
Sea basin. In A. Bhaduri, J. Bogardi, J. Leentvaar, & S. Marx (Eds.), The global water system in the
Anthropocene: Challenges for science and governance (pp. 183–200). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Kašák, J., Mazalová, M., Šipoš, J., & Kuras, T. (2015). Dwarf pine: invasive plant threatens biodiversity
of alpine beetles. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(10), 2399–2415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0929-1
Kasymov, A. G. [Касымов, А. Г.]. (1987). Каспийское море [The Caspian Sea]. Leningrad, USSR:
Гидрометеоиздат [Gidrometeoizdat].
Kats, N. Y. [Кац, Н. Я.]. (1971). Болота Земного шара [Swamps of the Earth]. Moscow, USSR: Наука
[Nauka].
Kauserud, H., Heegaard, E., Büntgen, U., Halvorsen, R., Egli, S., Senn-Irlet, B., Krisai-Greilhuber, I.,
Dämon, W., Sparks, T., Nordén, J., Høiland, K., Kirk, P., Semenov, M., Boddy, L., & Stenseth, N. C.
(2012). Warming-induced shift in European mushroom fruiting phenology. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(36), 14488–14493.

492
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200789109
Kazanci, N., Girgin, S., & Dügel, M. (2004). On the limnology of Salda Lake, a large and deep soda lake
in southwestern Turkey: future management proposals. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems, 14(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.609
Kazantcheev, E. N. [Казанчеев, Е. Н.]. (1981). Рыбы Каспийского моря [Fishes of the Caspian Sea].
Moscow, USSR: Легкая и пищевая промышленность [Legkaya I pischevaya promyshlennost].
Kazstat. (2005). Kazstat. Retrieved from www.stat.gov.kz
Kazstat. (2016). Kazstat. Retrieved from www.stat.gov.kz
Kearns, C. A., Inouye, D. W., & Waser, N. M. (1998). Endangered mutualisms: The conservation of plant-
pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 83–112.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83
Kȩdra, M., Moritz, C., Choy, E. S., David, C., Degen, R., Duerksen, S., Ellingsen, I., Górska, B., Grebmeier,
J. M., Kirievskaya, D., van Oevelen, D., Piwosz, K., Samuelsen, A., & Wȩsławski, J. M. (2015). Status
and trends in the structure of Arctic benthic food webs. Polar Research, 34, 23775.
https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v34.23775
Keeley, J. E., Bond, W. J., Bradstock, R. A., Pausas, J. G., & Rundel, P. W. (2012). Fire in Mediterranean
ecosystems: Ecology, evolution and management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Keenleyside, C., & Tucker, G. (2010). Farmland abandonment in the EU: an assessment of trends and
prospects. London, UK: Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Keith, S. A., Newton, A. C., Morecroft, M. D., Bealey, C. E., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Taxonomic
homogenization of woodland plant communities over 70 years. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 276(1672), 3539–3544. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0938
Kelcey, J. (Ed.). (2015). Vertebrates and invertebrates of European cities: Selected non-avian fauna. (1st
ed.). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-
1698-6
Kelcey, J., & Rheinwald, G. (2005). Conclusions. In J. Kelcey & G. Rheinwald (Eds.), Birds in European
cities (pp. 417–422). St. Katharinen, Germany: Ginster Verlag.
Kell, S. P., Maxted, N., & Bilz, M. (2012). European crop wild relative threat assessment: knowledge
gained and lessons learnt. In N. Maxted, M. E. Dulloo, B. Ford-Lloyd, L. Frese, J. Iriondo, & M.
Pinheiro de Carvalho (Eds.), Agrobiodiversity conservation: Securing the diversity of crop wild
relatives and landraces (pp. 218‒242). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Kenis, M., & Branco, M. (2010). Impact of alien terrestrial arthropods in Europe. Chapter 5. BioRisk,
4(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.4.42
Kestrup, Å. M., Smith, D. L., & Therriault, T. W. (Eds.). (2015). PICES scientific report No. 48. Report of
working group 21 on non-indigenous aquatic species.
Kessler, A, & Smith, A. T. (2014). The status of the great bustard (Otis tarda tarda) in Central Asia: from
the Caspian Sea to the Altai. Aquila, 121, 115–132.
Ketelaars, H. A. M., Lambregts-van De Clundert, F. E., Carpentier, C. J., Wagenvoort, A. J., &
Hoogenboezem, W. (1999). Ecological effects of the mass occurrence of the Ponto-Caspian
invader, Hemimysis anomala G.O. Sars, 1907 (Crustacea: Mysidacea), in a freshwater storage
reservoir in the Netherlands, with notes on its autecology and new records. Hydrobiologia, 394,

493
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

233–248. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003619631920
Ketner-Oostra, R., & Sýkora, K. V. (2004). Decline of lichen-diversity in calcium-poor coastal dune
vegetation since the 1970s, related to grass and moss encroachment. Phytocoenologia, 34(4),
521–549. https://doi.org/10.1127/0340-269X/2004/0034-0521
Kharin, N. G. (2002). Vegetation degradation in Central Asia under the impact of human activities.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0425-1
Kharuk, V. I., Ranson, K. J., Im, S. T., & Naurzbaev, M. M. (2006). Forest-tundra larch forests and climatic
trends. Russian Journal of Ecology, 37(5), 291–298.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413606050018
Khrustalev, Y. P., Ivlieva, O. V., Bespalova, A. A., & Pirumova, E. I., [Хрусталев, Ю. П., Ивлиева, О. В.,
Беспалова, А. Ф., & Пирумова, Е. И.]. (2001). Ландшафты Азовского моря и их
преобразование под влиянием хозяйственной деятельности [Landscapes of the Azov sea and
their transformation under the impact of economic activity]. In Экологические проблемы
природопользования [Ecological problems of nature management] (pp. 110–123). Taganrog,
Russian Federation: FGU “Azovmorvod”.
Kideys, A. E. (2002). Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystem. Science, 297(5586), 1482–1484.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073002
Killengreen, S.T., E. Strømseng, N.G. Yoccoz, & R.A. Ims. (2012). How ecological neighbourhoods
influence the structure of the scavenger guild in Low Arctic tundra. Diversity and Distributions
18(6), 563–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00861.x
Kipriyanova, L. M., Yermolaeva, N. I., Bezmaternykh, D. M., Dvurechenskaya, S. Y., & Mitrofanova, E. Y.
(2007). Changes in the biota of Chany Lake along a salinity gradient. Hydrobiologia, 576, 83–93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0295-9
Kirby, R. R., & Beaugrand, G. (2009). Trophic amplification of climate warming. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1676), 4095–103. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.1320
Kirschbaum, U., Windisch, U., Vorbeck, A., & Hanewald, K. (2006). Mapping lichen diversity in Wetzlar
and Giessen as an indicator of air quality: Comparison between the surveys of 1970, 1985, 1995
and 2005. Gefahrstoffe Reinhaltung Der Luft, 66(6), 272–280.
Klanderud, K., & Birks, H. J. B. (2003). Recent increases in species richness and shifts in altitudinal
distributions of Norwegian mountain plants. The Holocene, 13(1), 1–6.
http://doi.org10.1191/0959683603hl589ft
Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F.,
Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E. J. P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T.,
Verhulst, J., West, T. M., & Yela, J. L. (2006). Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment
schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters, 9(3), 243–254.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x
Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Does conservation on farmland
contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(9), 474–481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009
Kleinbauer, I., Dullinger, S., Peterseil, J., & Essl, F. (2010). Climate change might drive the invasive tree
Robinia pseudacacia into nature reserves and endangered habitats. Biological Conservation,
143(2), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.10.024

494
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Klimanov, V. A., & Sirin, A. A. (1997). The dynamics of peat accumulation by mires of northern Eurasia
during the last three thousand years. In Northern forested wetlands: Ecology and management
(pp. 313–324). Raton, USA: CRC Press.
Klonner, G., Dullinger, I., Wessely, J., Bossdorf, O., Carboni, M., Dawson, W., Essl, F., Gattringer, A.,
Haeuser, E., van Kleunen, M., Kreft, H., Moser, D., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Thuiller, W., Weigelt, P.,
Winter, M., & Dullinger, S. (2017). Will climate change increase hybridization risk between
potential plant invaders and their congeners in Europe? Diversity and Distributions, 23(8), 934–
943. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12578
Knop, E., Zoller, L., Ryser, R., Gerpe, C., Hörler, M., & Fontaine, C. (2017). Artificial light at night as a
new threat to pollination. Nature 548, 206–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23288
Kobelt, M., & Nentwig, W. (2008). Alien spider introductions to Europe supported by global trade.
Diversity and Distributions, 14(2), 273-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00426.x
Koch, M., Bowes, G., Ross, C., & Zhang, X.-H. (2013). Climate change and ocean acidification effects on
seagrasses and marine macroalgae. Global Change Biology, 19(1), 103–132.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02791.x
Kochnev, A. A. [Кочнев, А. А.]. (2004). Белый медведь на Чукотке: тревоги и надежды [Polar bear
in Chukotka: concerns and hopes]. Охрана Дикой Природы [Wildlife Conservation], 3(29), 7–14.
Kochnev, A., & Zdor, E. (2014). Harvest and use of polar bears in Chukotka: Results of 1999-2012
studies. Moscow, Russian Federation: Pi Kvadrat.
Koh, L. P. (2004). Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science, 305(5690), 1632–1634.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101101
Kokorin, A., Blyakharchuk, T. A., Gerasimchuk, I. V., Gruza, G. V., Kamennova, I. E., Parfenova, Y. I.,
Rankova, E. Y., Semenov, V. A., & Tchebakova, N. M. (2011). Assessment report: Climate change
and its impact on ecosystems, population and economy of the Russian portion of the Altai-Sayan
ecoregion. A. Kokorin (Ed.). Moscow, Russian Federation: WWF Russia. Retrieved from
http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/book/eng/486
Kolman, R., Kapusta, A., & Duda, A. (2011). Re-establishing the Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus Mitchill) in Poland. In P. Williot, E. Rochard, J. Gessner, & F. Kirschbaum (Eds.), Biology
and Conservation of the European Sturgeon Acipenser sturio L. 1758 (pp. 573–581). Berlin,
Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20611-5
König, Cl., & Weick, F. (2008). Owls of the world. London, UK: Christopher Helm.
Kontorovich, A. E., Eder, L. V., Filimonova, I. V., Nemov, V. U., & Provornaya, I. V. [Конторович, А. Е.,
Эдер, Л. В., Филимонова, И. В., Немов, В. Ю., & Проворная, И. В.]. (2013). Нефтяная
промышленность Дальнего Востока: современное состояние и перспективы развития [Oil
industry of the Russian Far East: modern state and development perspectives]. Бурение и Нефть
[Drilling and Olil], 7–8, 3–9.
Konvička, M., Fric, Z., & Beneš, J. (2006). Butterfly extinctions in European states: Do socioeconomic
conditions matter more than physical geography? Global Ecology and Biogeography, 15(1), 82–
92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00188.x
Kopecký, M., Hédl, R., & Szabó, P. (2013). Non-random extinctions dominate plant community changes
in abandoned coppices. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12010

495
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Korovin, V. A. (2015). Long-term changes in the community of birds of the agricultural landscape in the
Middle Urals. Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 8(2), 227–231.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425515020092
Körner, C. (2003). Alpine plant life: functional plant ecology of high mountain ecosystems (2nd Edition).
Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Körner, C., Paulsen, J., & Spehn, E. M. A. (2011). A definition of mountains and their bioclimatic belts
for global comparisons of biodiversity data. Alpine Botany, 121(2), 73-78.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-011-0094-4
Körner, C. (2012). Alpine treelines: functional ecology of the global high elevation tree limits. Basel,
Switzerland: Springer.
Korotchenko, I., & Peregrym, M. (2012). Ukrainian steppes in the past, at present and in the future. In
M. J. A. Werger & M. A. van Staalduinen (Eds.), Eurasian steppes. Ecological problems and
livelihoods in a changing world (pp. 173–196). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3886-7_5
Korotenko, V. A., & Domashov, I. A. [Коротенко, В. А., & Домашов, И. А.]. (2014). Экологическое
изменение развития Кыргызстана [Ecological dimension of Kyrgyzstan development].
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: БИОМ [BIOM].
Korpinen, S., & Jormalainen, V. (2008). Grazing and nutrients reduce recruitment success of Fucus
vesiculosus L. (Fucales: Phaeophyceae). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 78(2), 437–444.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.01.005
Kortsch, S., Primicerio, R., Fossheim, M., Dolgov, A. V., & Aschan, M. (2015). Climate change alters the
structure of arctic marine food webs due to poleward shifts of boreal generalists. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1814), 31-39. Retrieved from
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1814/20151546
Koslow, J. A., Auster, P., Bergstad, O. A., Roberts, J. M., Rogers, A., Vecchione, M., Harris, P., Rice, J, &
Bernal, P. (2016). Chapter 51. Biological communities on seamounts and other submarine
features potentially threatened by disturbance. In The first global integrated marine assessment
- World ocean assessment I. New York, USA: United Nations.
Kotlyakov, V. M. [Котляков, В. М.] (Ed.). (2000). National atlas of Russia [Национальный Атлас
России]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Федеральное агентство геодезии и картографии [The
Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography]. Retrieved from
http://национальныйатлас.рф/cd2/index.html
Kotlyakov, V. M. [Котляков, В. М.]. (2004). Азовское море [The Azov Sea]. In Национальный атлас
России [The National Atlas of Russia] (pp. 254–257). Moscow, Russian Federation: The Federal
Agency of Geodesy and Cartography.
Kotlyakov, V. M. (2010). Криосфера и климат [The cryosphere and climate]. Экология и жизнь
[Ecology and life], 11, 51-60.
Kotova, I., Kayukova, E., & Kotov, S. (2016). Peloids of Crimean salt lakes and the Dead Sea: controls on
composition and formation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(16), 1207.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5999-1
Kotta, J, Almroth-Rosell, E, Andersson, H., Eero, M., Eilola, M., Hinrichsen, H., Jänes, H., MacKenzie, B.,
Meier, H. E. M., Ojaveer, H., Pärnoja, M., Skov, H, & von Dewitz, B. (2016). Report on the nature
and types of driver interactions including their potential future. BIO-C3 Deliverable, D3.2.

496
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.3289/BIO-C3_D3.2
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., & Rubel, F. (2006). World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate
classification updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15(3), 259–263.
http://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130
Kotze, J., Venn, S., Niemelä, J., & Spence, J. (2014). Effects of urbanization on the ecology and evolution
of arthropods. Urban Ecology Patterns, Processes, and Applications, 6(38), 45–66.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof
Kouba, Y., Martínez-García, F., De Frutos, Á., & Alados, C. L. (2015). Effects of previous land-use on
plant species composition and diversity in Mediterranean forests. PLoS ONE, 10(9), 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139031
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Li, J. L., Pettis, J., Settele, J., Aneni, T., Espíndola, A., Kahono, S., Hajnalka, S.,
Thompson, H., Vanbergen, A., & Vandame, R. (2016). Chapter 2: Drivers of change of pollinators,
pollination networks and pollination. In 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, & B. F. Viana (Eds.),
Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production (pp. 27-149). Bonn, Germany:
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services.
Kovalenko, A. E., Bondartseva, M. A., Karatygin, I. V., Melnik, V. A., Novozhilov, Y. K., Popov, E. S., &
Pystina, K. A. [Коваленко, А. Е., Бондарцева, М. А., Каратыгин, И. В., Мельник, В.
А., Новожилов, Ю. К., Попов, Е. С., & Пыстина, К.А.]. (2005). Состояние изученности и оценка
видового разнообразия грибов и миксомицетов России [State of the study and estimation of
the species diversity of fungi and myxomycetes of Russia - Fungi in natural and anthropogenic
ecosystems]. In Труды международной конференции «Грибы в природных и антропогенных
экосистемах», посвященной столетию со дня начала работы профессора А. С.
Бондарцева в Ботаническом институте им. Комарова РАН [Proceedings of international
conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the work of prof. A.S.
Bondartsev in the Komarov Botanical Institute Russian Academy of Science] (pp. 267–270). Saint-
Petersburg, Russian Federation: Ботанический институт им. Комарова [Komarov Botanical
Institute].
Kovalevskaya, S. S., Bondarenko, O. N., Nabiev, M. M., & Pakhomova, M. G. [Бондаренко, О. Н.,
Набиев, М. М., Пахомова, М. Г., & Цукерваник, Т. И.] (Eds.). (1968-1993). Определитель
растений Средней Азии: критический конспект флоры Средней Азии. Т. 1-10 [Guide to
plants of Central Asia: a critical synopsis of the flora of Central Asia. V. 1-10]. Tashkent,
Uzbekistan: Fan.
Krader, L. (1955). Ecology of Central Asian pastoralism. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11(4),
301–326. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.11.4.3628907
Kraemer, R., Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., Kuemmerle, T., Radeloff, V. C., Dara, A., Terekhov, A., &
Frühauf, M. (2015). Long-term agricultural land-cover change and potential for cropland
expansion in the former Virgin Lands area of Kazakhstan. Environmental Research Letters, 10(5),
54012. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054012
Krám, P., Hruška, J., & Shanley, J. B. (2012). Streamwater chemistry in three contrasting monolithologic

497
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Czech catchments. Applied Geochemistry, 27(9), 1854–1863.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2012.02.020
Kraus, D., & Krumm, F. (2013). Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest
biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 71(2), 226-227.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2014.889472
Kresin, V. S., Eremenko, E. V., Zakharchenko, M. A., & Yurchenko, A. I., [Кресин, В. С., Еременко, Е. В.,
& Захарченко, М. А. Юрченко, А. И.]. (2008). Динамика поступления соединений фосфора в
украинские прибрежные воды Черного моря и комплекс водоохранных мероприятий
[Dynamics of phosphorus compounds arrivals in the Ukrainian coastal Black Sea water and
complex of water conservation measures]. Экология Окружающей Среды И Безопасность
[Ecology Environment and Safety], 5, 28–33.
Kricsfalusy, V., Mróz, W., & Popov, S. (2008). Historical changes of the upper tree line in the Carpathian
Mountains (Ukraine). Mountain Forum Bulletin, 8, 15–18.
Kristiansen, T., Stock, C., Drinkwater, K. F., & Curchitser, E. N. (2014). Mechanistic insights into the
effects of climate change on larval cod. Global Change Biology, 20(5), 1559–1584.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12489
Kristinsson, H., Zhurbenko, M., & Steen Hansen, E. (2010). Panarctic checklist of lichens and
lichenicolous. CAFF Technical Report No. 20. Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International Secretariat.
Kuemmerle, T., Levers, C., Erb, K., Estel, S., Jepsen, M. R., Müller, D., Plutzar, C., Sturck, J., Verkerk, P.
J., Verburg, P. H., & Reenberg, A. (2016). Hotspots of land use change in Europe. Environmental
Research Letters, 11(6), 64020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/6/064020
Kuijper, D. P. J., Jedrzejewska, B., Brzeziecki, B., Churski, M., Jedrzejewski, W., & Zybura, H. (2010).
Fluctuating ungulate density shapes tree recruitment in natural stands of the Białowieza Primeval
Forest, Poland. Journal of Vegetation Science, 21(6), 1082–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-
1103.2010.01217.x
Kuksa, V. I. [Кукса, В. И.]. (1994). Южные моря (Аральское, Каспийское, Азовское и Черное) в
условиях антропогенного стресса [Southern Seas (Aral, Caspian, Azov and Black) in
anthropogenic stress conditions]. St. Peterburg, Russian Federation: Hydrometeoizdat.
Kulagin, V. M., Markov, P. A., & Tishkov, A. A. [Кулагин, В. М., Марков, П. А., & Тишков, А. А.]. (1990).
Иссык-Кульский заповедник [Issyk-Kul strict natural reserve]. In Заповедники Средней Азии и
Казахстана. Заповедники СССР [Strict natural reserves of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Strict
natural reserves of the USSR] (p. 399). Moscow, USSR: Мысль [Mysl].
Kull, K. & Zobel, M. (1991). High species richness in an Estonian wooded meadow. Journal of Vegetation
Science, 2, 711-714. https://doi.org/10.2307/3236182
Kumpula, T., Forbes, B. C., Stammler, F., & Meschtyb, N. (2012). Dynamics of a coupled system: Multi-
resolution remote sensing in assessing social-ecological responses during 25 years of gas field
development in Arctic Russia. Remote Sensing, 4(4), 1046–1068.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs40401046
Kumpula, T., Pajunen, A., Kaarlejärvi, E., Forbes, B. C., & Stammler, F. (2011). Land use and land cover
change in Arctic Russia: Ecological and social implications of industrial development. Global
Environmental Change, 21(2), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.010
Künzi, Y., Prati, D., Fischer, M., & Boch, S. (2015). Reduction of native diversity by invasive plants
depends on habitat conditions. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 6, 2718–2733.

498
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2015.617273
Kupianskaya, A. N., Proshchalykin, M. Y., & Lelej, A. S. (2014). Contribution to the fauna of bumble bees
(Hymenoptera, Apidae: Bombus Latreille, 1802) of the Republic of Tyva, Eastern Siberia.
Euroasian Entomological Journal, 13(3), 290–294.
Kurtov, A. A. [Куртов, А. А.]. (2013). Центральная Азия: водные артерии как новые узлы
противоречий [Central Asia: Waterways as New Contradictions]. In K. A. Kokarev, D. A.
Aleksandrov, & I. Y. Frolova. [К.А. Кокарев, Д.А. Александров, & И.Ю. Фролова] (Eds.),
Центральная Азия: проблемы и перспективы (взгляд из России иКитая) [Central Asia:
Problems and Perspectives (A View from Russia and China)] (pp. 155–230). Moscow, Russian
Federation: RISI. Retrieved from http://www.studfiles.ru/preview/5771470/
Kuz’mina, Z. V., & Treshkin, S. E. (1997). Soil salinization and dynamics of tugai vegetation in the
southeastern Caspian Sea region and in the Aral Sea coastal region. Eurasian Soil Science, 30(6),
642–649.
Kvile, K. O., Taranto, G. H., Pitcher, T. J., & Morato, T. (2014). A global assessment of seamount
ecosystems knowledge using an ecosystem evaluation framework. Biological Conservation, 173,
108–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.10.002
Laidre, K. L., Stern, H., Kovacs, K. M., Lowry, L., Moore, S. E., Regehr, E. V., Ferguson, S. H., Wiig, Ø.,
Boveng, P., Angliss, R. P., Born, E. W., Litovka, D., Quakenbush, L., Lydersen, C., Vongraven, D., &
Ugarte, F. (2015). Arctic marine mammal population status, sea ice habitat loss, and conservation
recommendations for the 21st century. Conservation Biology, 29(3), 724–737.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12474
Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming
land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienes of the United States of America,
108(9), 3465–3472. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100480108
Landolt, J., Gross, A., Holdenrieder, O., & Pautasso, M. (2016). Ash dieback due to Hymenoscyphus
fraxineus: what can be learnt from evolutionary ecology? Plant Pathology, 65(7), 1056–1070.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12539
Landsat-8. (2016). Lake Chany. Retrieved from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Lang, S. I., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Shaver, G. R., Ahrens, M., Callaghan, T. V., Molau, U., Ter Braak, T. J. F.,
Holzer, A., & Aerts, R. (2012). Arctic warming on two continents has consistent negative effects
on lichen diversity and mixed effects on bryophyte diversity. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 1096–
1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02570.x
Larsen, J. N., Anisimov, O. A., Constable, A., Hollowed, A. B., Maynard, N. Prestrud, P. Prowse, T. D. &
Stone, J. M. R. (2014). Polar regions. In V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea,
K. J. Mach, T. E. Billir, M. Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel,
A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea & L. L. White (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability: Working group II contribution to the fifth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1567–1612). Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.citeulike.org/group/15400/article/13497155
Latvian Academy of Science. (1997). Red Data Book of Latvia - Vascular Plants and Mosses.
Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W., Molina, J., & Debussche, M. (2005). Environmental and human factors
influencing rare plant local occurrence, extinction and persistence: A 115-year study in the

499
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Mediterranean region. Journal of Biogeography, 32(5), 799–811. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

2699.2005.01207.x
Lavergne, S., Mouquet, N., Ronce, O., & Thuiller, W. (2010). Biodiversity and climate change:
Integrating evolutionary and ecological responses of species and communities. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 41, 321–350. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-
102209-144628
Lavrinenko, O. V., & Lavrinenko, I. A., [Лавриненко О.В., & Лавриненко, И. А. (Eds.). (2006). Красная
книга Ненецкого автономного округа [Red Data Book of the Nenets Autonomus Okrug].
Narian-Mar, Russian Federation: Ненецкий информационно-аналитический центр [Nenets
Informational-Analitic Centre].
Le Roux, X, Barbault, R., Baudry, J., Burel, F., Doussan, I., Garnier, E., Herzog, F., Lavorel, S., Lifran, R.,
Roger-Esrade, L., Sarthou, J. P., & Trommetter, M. (2008). Agriculture and biodiversity: Benefiting
from synergies.
Le Roux, X., Barbault, R. Baudry, J. Burel, F. Doussan, I. Garnier, E. Herzog, F. Lavorel, S. Lifran, R. Roger-
Estrade, J. Sarthou, J. & Trommetter, M. (2009). Agriculture and biodiversity: benefiting from
synergies. Multidisciplinary Scientific Assessment, Synthesis Report, INRA.
Le Viol, I., Jiguet, F., Brotons, L., Herrando, S., Lindström, A., Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Reif, J., Van
Turnhout, C., & Devictor, V. (2012). More and more generalists: two decades of changes in the
European avifauna. Biology Letters, 8(5), 780–2. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0496
Leeuwen, C. V., Emeljanenko, T., & Popova, L. (1994). Nomads in Central Asia: animal husbandry and
culture in transition (19th-20th century). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Koninklijk Instituut voor
de Tropen (KIT) (Royal Tropical Institute, RTI). Retrieved from
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19951800186
Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Isbell, F., Gamfeldt, L., Griffin, J. N., Eisenhauer, N., Hensel, M. J. S.,
Hector, A., Cardinale, B. J., & Duffy, J. E. (2015). Biodiversity enhances ecosystem
multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Communications, 6, 6936.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7936
Lefèvre, F., & Fady, B. (2016). Introduction to Mediterranean forest systems: Mediterranean basin. In
T. D. Paine & F. Lieitier (Eds.), Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems (pp. 7–28).
Switzerland: Springer.
Lehsten, V., Sykes, M. T., Scott, A. V., Tzanopoulos, J., Kallimanis, A., Mazaris, A., Verburg, P. H., Schulp,
C. J. E., Potts, S. G., & Vogiatzakis, I. (2015). Disentangling the effects of land-use change, climate
and CO2 on projected future European habitat types. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(6),
653-663. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12291
Lelej, A. S., & Storozhenko, S. Y. (2010). Insect taxonomic diversity in the Russian Far East.
Entomological Review, 90(2), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1134/S001387381003005X
Lenoir, J., Gégout, J. C., Marquet, P. A., de Ruffray, P., & Brisse, H. (2008). A significant upward shift in
plant species optimum elevation during the 20th century. Science, 320(5884), 1768–1771.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1156831
Leppäkoski, E., Gollasch, S., Gruszka, P., Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S., & Panov, V. (2002). The Baltic sea of
invaders. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59(7), 1175–1188.
https://doi.org/10.1139/f02-089
Leppik, E., Jüriado, I., Suija, A., & Liira, J. (2013). The conservation of ground layer lichen communities

500
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

in alvar grasslands and the relevance of substitution habitats. Biodiversity and Conservation,
22(3), 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0430-z
Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J. Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D., Airamé, S., &
Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 348, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08029
Levers, C., Müller, D., Erb, K., Haberl, H., Jepsen, M. R., Metzger, M. J., Meyfroidt, P., Plieninger, T.,
Plutzar, C., Stürck, J., Verburg, P. H., Verkerk, P. J., & Kuemmerle, T. (2015). Archetypical patterns
and trajectories of land systems in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 18(3), 715-732.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0907-x
Levin, L. A., Mengerink, K., Gjerde, K. M., Rowden, A. A., Van Dover, C. L., Clark, M. R., Ramirez-Llodra,
E., Currie, B., Smith, C. R., Sato, K. N., Gallo, N., Sweetman, A K., lily, H., Armstrong, C. W., & Brider,
J. (2016). Defining “serious harm” to the marine environment in the context of deep-seabed
mining. Marine Policy, 74(October), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.032
Lewandowska, A. M., Biermann, A., Borer, E. T., Cebrián-Piqueras, M. A., Declerck, S. A., De Meester,
L., Van Donk, E., Gamfeldt, L., Gruner, D. S., Hagenah, N., Harpole, W. S., Kirkman, K. P.,
Klausmeier, C. A., Kleyer, M., Knops, J. M., Lemmens, P., Lind, E. M., Litchman, E., Mantilla-
Contreras, J., Martens, K., Meier, S., Minden, V., Moore, J. L., Venterink, H. O., Seabloom, E. W.,
Sommer, U., Striebel, M., Trenkamp, A., Trinogga, J., Urabe, J., Vyverman, W., Van de Waal, D. B.,
Widdicombe, C. E., & Hillebrand, H. (2016). The influence of balanced and imbalanced resource
supply on biodiversity-functioning relationship across ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371, 1694. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0283
Lilleleht, V. (1998). Eesti Puname Raama. Ohustatud seened, taimed ja loomad [Red data book of
Estonia. Threatened fungi, plants and animals]. Tartu, Estonia: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia,
Looduskaitse Komisjon.
Lindgaard, A., & Henriksen, S. (Eds.). (2011). Norsk rødliste for naturtyper [Norwegian Red List for
Ecosystems and Habitat Types]. Trondheim, Norway: Artsdatabanken.
Lindner, M. M., Maroschek, S., Netherer, A., Kremer, A., Barbati, J., Garcia-Gonzalo, R., Seidl, R., Delzon,
S., Corona, P., Kolstrom, M., Lexer, M. J., & Marchetti, M. (2010). Climate change impacts,
adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and
Management, 259(4), 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.023
Lindsey, R. (2016). Shrinking Aral Sea. Retrieved from
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php
Liška, J., Zdeněk, P., & Slavíková, Š. (2012). Lichen flora of the Czech Republic. Preslia, 84(3), 851–862.
Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84865453402&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Lisowska, M. (2011). Lichen recolonisation in an urban-industrial area of southern Poland as a result of
air quality improvement. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 179(1–4), 177–190.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1727-6
Liu, Y., Webber, S., Bowgen, K., Schmaltz, L., Bradley, K., Halvarsson, P., Abdelgadir, M., & Griesser, M.
(2013). Environmental factors influence both abundance and genetic diversity in a widespread
bird species. Ecology and Evolution, 3(14), 4683–4695. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.856
Living Black Sea. (2016). Evolution of the Black Sea ecosystem. Retrieved from http://blacksea-
education.ru/e2-1.shtml

501
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Lõhmus, A., Nellis, R., Pullerits, M., & Leivits, M. (2016). The potential for long-term sustainability in
seminatural forestry: A broad perspective based on woodpecker populations. Environmental
Management, 57(3), 558–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0638-2
Lõhmus, A., & Runnel, K. (2014). Ash dieback can rapidly eradicate isolated epiphyte populations in
production forests: A case study. Biological Conservation, 169, 185–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.031
Lomský, B., Šrámek, V., & Novotný, R. (2012). Changes in the air pollution load in the Jizera Mts.: Effects
on the health status and mineral nutrition of the young Norway spruce stands. European Journal
of Forest Research, 131(3), 757–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-011-0549-6
Loreau, M. (2000) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: recent theoretical advances. Oikos, 91, 3–
17. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.910101.x
Loreau, M. (2008). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: The mystery of the deep sea. Current
Biology, 18, R126–R128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.11.060
Loreau, M. (2010). Linking biodiversity and ecosystems: towards a unifying ecological theory.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 49–60.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0155
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D. U., Huston, M.
A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., & Wardle, D. A. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804-808.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1064088
Lozano, F. D. (Ed.). (2000). Lista roja de Flora vascular Española [Red list of Spanish vascular flora].
LPI. (2016). Living Planet Index. 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.livingplanetindex.org/projects?main_page_project=LivingPlanetReport&home_flag
=1
Ludwig, G., & Schnittler, M. (1996). Rote Liste gefährdeter Pflanzen Deutschlands [Red List of
endangered plants in Germany].
Lukić-Bilela, L., Ozimec, R., Miculinić, K., & Basara, D. (2013). A comprehensive valorisation of Megara
cave with a view to preservation and protection. Natura Montenegrina, 12(3), 1–17.
Lukoyanov, V. A. [В.А. Лукоянов]. (2013). Доклад о состоянии природопользования и обохране
окружающей среды Краснодарскогокрая в 2012 году [Report about the state of natural
resources and environmental protection of the Krasnodar region in 2012]. Krasnodar:
Administration and Ministry of Natural Resources of Krasnodar Region. Retrieved
from http://www.mprkk.ru/media/main/attachment/attach/df4e573261d9d541c06e3036616b
6f5c.pdf
Luryeva, I. I. [Лурыева, И.И.]. (2014). Экологические аспекты разработки газовых месторождений
[Ecological aspects of the development of gas fields]. Проблемы Освоения Пустынь [Problems
of Desert Development], 3–4, 85–87.
Lynam, C. P., & Rossberg, A. G. (2017). New univariate characterization of fish community size structure
improves precision beyond the large fish indicator. Retrieved from
http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06569
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Lazpita, J. G., & Gibon, A.
(2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences

502
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 47–69.

https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335
Mace, G. M., Gittleman, J. L. & Purvis, A. (2003). Preserving the tree of life. Science, 300(5626), 1707–
1709. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085510
Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered
relationship. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 27, 19–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Madre, F., Vergnes, A., Machon, N., & Clergeau, P. (2013). A comparison of 3 types of green roof as
habitats for arthropods. Ecological Engineering, 57, 109-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.04.029
Maes, J., Paracchini, M. L., & Zulian, G. (2011). A European assessment of the provision of ecosystem
services: Towards an atlas of ecosystem services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/63557
Maes, J., Paracchini, M. L., Zulian, G., Dunbar, M. B., & Alkemade, R. (2012). Synergies and trade-offs
between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe.
Biological Conservation, 155, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016
Maestre, F. T., Eldridge, D. J., Soliveres, S., Kéfi, S., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Bowker, M. A., García-
Palacios, P., Gaitán, J., Gallardo, A., Lázaro, R., & Berdugo, M. (2016). Structure and functioning
of dryland ecosystems in a changing world. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 47, 215-237. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032311
Maestre, F. T., Quero, J. L., Gotelli, N. J., Escudero, A., Ochoa, V., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., García-Gómez,
M., Bowker, M. A., Soliveres, S., Escolar, C., García-Palacios, P., Berdugo, M., Valencia, E., Gozalo,
B., Gallardo, A., Aguilera, L., Arredondo, T., Blones, J., Boeken, B., Bran, D., Conceição, A. A.,
Cabrera, O., Chaieb, M., Derak, M., Eldridge, D. J., Espinosa, C. I., Florentino, A., Gaitán, J., Gabriel
Gatica, M., Ghiloufi, W., Gómez-González, S., Gutiérrez, J. R., Hernández, R. M., Huang, X., Huber-
Sannwald, E., Jankju, M., Miriti, M., Monerris, J., Mau, R. L., Morici, E., Naseri, K., Ospina, A., Polo,
V., Prina, A., Pucheta, E., Ramírez-Collantes, D. A., Romão, R., Tighe, M., Torres-Díaz, C., Val, J.,
Veiga, J. P., Wang, D., & Zaady, E. (2012). Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality
in global drylands. Science, 335(6065), 214-218. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215442
Magurran, A. E., Dornelas, M., Moyes, F., Gotelli, N. J., & McGill, B. (2015). Rapid biotic homogenization
of marine fish assemblages. Nature Communications, 6, 8405.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9405
Maharramova, E. H., Safarov, H. M., Kozlowski, G., Borsch, T., & Muller, L. A. (2015). Analysis of nuclear
microsatellites reveals limited differentiation between colchic and hyrcanian populations of the
wind-pollinated relict tree Zelkova carpinifolia (Ulmaceae). American Journal of Botany, 102(1),
119–128. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1400370
Mair, L., Harrison, P. J., Räty, M., Bärring, L., Strandberg, G., & Snäll, T. (2017). Forest management
could counteract distribution retractions forced by climate change: Ecological Applications, 27(5),
1485–1497. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1541
Mäkeläinen, S., De Knegt, H. J., Ovaskainen, O., & Hanski, I. K. (2016). Home-range use patterns and
movements of the Siberian flying squirrel in urban forests: Effects of habitat composition and
connectivity. Movement Ecology, 4(5), UNSP 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-016-0071-z
Makoedov, A. N., & Kozhemiako, O. H., [Макоедов, А. Н., & Кожемяко, О. Н.]. (2007). Основы

503
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

рыбохозяйственной политики России [The principles of fishery policy in Russian Federation].

Moscow, Russia Federation: National Fish Resources.
Malaj, E., von der Ohe, P. C., Grote, M., Kühne, R., Mondy, C. P., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Brack, W., &
Schäfer, R. B. (2014). Organic chemicals jeopardize the health of freshwater ecosystems on the
continental scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111(26), 9549–9554. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321082111
Malanson, G. P., Rose, J. P., Schroeder, P. J., & Fagre, D. B. (2011). Contexts for change in alpine tundra.
Physical Geography, 32(2), 97–113. http://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.32.2.97
Máliš, F., Kopecký, M., Petřík, P., Vladovič, J., Merganič, J., & Vida, T. (2016). Life stage, not climate
change, explains observed tree range shifts. Global Change Biology, 22(5), 1904–1914.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13210
Malyshev, L., & Nimis, P. L. (1997). Climatic dependence of the ecotone between alpine and forest
orobiomes in southern Siberia. Flora, 192, 109–120.
Mamaev, V. (2002). The Caspian Sea - enclosed and with many endemic species. In Europe’s
biodiversity - biogeographical regions and seas. Seas around Europe. EEA Report No 1/2002.
Manca, M., & DeMott, W. R. (2009). Response of the invertebrate predator Bythotrephes to a climate-
linked increase in the duration of a refuge from fish predation. Limnology and Oceanography,
54(6), 2506–2512. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2009.54.6_part_2.2506
Mannerla, M., Andersson, M., Birzaks, J., Debowski, P., Degerman, E., Huhmarniemi, A., Häggström,
H., Ikonen, E., Jokikokko, E., Jutila, E., Kesler, M., Kesminas, V., Kontautas, A., Pedersen, S,
Persson, S., Romakkaniemi, A., Saura, A., Shibaev, S., Titov, S., Tuus, H., Tylik, K., & Yrjänä, T.
(2011). Salmon and sea trout populations and rivers in the Baltic Sea. Helsinki, Finland: HELCOM.
Mansuroglu, S., Ortacesme, V., & Karaguzel, O. (2006). Biotope mapping in an urban environment and
its implications for urban management in Turkey. Journal of Environmental Management, 81(3),
175-187). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.10.008
Manu, M., Szekely, L., Oromulu, L. V., Bărbuceanu, D., Honciuc, V., Maican, S., Fiera, C., Purice, D., &
Ion, M. (2015). Bucharest. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and invertebrates of European cities:
Selected non-avian fauna (pp. 257–322). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6
Marhold, K. & Hindák, F. (1999). Zoznam nizsích a vyssích rastlín Slovenska [Check List of Non-vascular
and Vascular Plants of Slovakia]. Bratislava, Slovakia: Veda.
Marian, S. (1903). Insectele în limba: credințele, si obiceiurile Românilor [Insects in language: the beliefs
and the customs of the Romanians].
Markensten, H., Moore, K., & Persson, I. (2010). Simulated lake phytoplankton composition shifts
toward cyanobacteria dominance in a future warmer climate. Ecological Applications, 20(3), 752-
767. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-2109.1
Markovic, D., Carrizo, S., Freyhof, J., Cid, N., Lengyel, S., Scholz, M., Kasperdius, H., & Darwall, W.
(2014). Europe’s freshwater biodiversity under climate change: Distribution shifts and
conservation needs. Diversity and Distributions, 20(9), 1097-1107.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12232
Marmor, L., Randlane, T., Jüriado, I., & Saag, A. (2017). Host tree preferences of red-listed epiphytic
lichens in Estonia. Baltic Forestry, 23(2), 364–373.

504
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Martin-Mehers, G. (2016). Western gray whale advisory panel: Stories of influence. IUCN, WWF, IFAW.
Martin, A. (2009). The Loch Ness monster and La Palma giant lizard Gallotia auaritae: are they really
extant? Oryx, 43, 17-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605308431071
Masterman, E. W. G. (1921). Crocodiles in Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statement,
1920, 19–21.
Mateo Miras, J. A., & Martínez-Solano, I. (2009). Gallotia auaritae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T61501A12492629.en
Mathar, W., Kleinebecker, T., & Hölzel, N. (2015). Environmental variation as a key process of co-
existence in flood-meadows. Journal of Vegetation Science, 26(3), 480–491.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12254
Mathar, W. P., Kämpf, I., Kleinebecker, T., Kuzmin, I., Tolstikov, A., Tupitsin, S., & Hölzel, N. (2015).
Floristic diversity of meadow steppes in the western Siberian Plain: effects of abiotic site
conditions, management and landscape structure. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(12), 2361-
2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-1023-4
Matveeva, N. V. (2015). Plants and fungi of the polar deserts in the Northern hemisphere. Saint-
Petercburg, Russian Federation: Marafon Publlishing.
Mazzoleni, S., di Pasquale, G., Mulligan, M., di Martino, P., & Rego, F. (2004). Recent dynamics of
Mediterranean vegetation and landscape. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
McCarthy, T., Mallon, D., Jackson, R., Zahler, P., & McCarthy, K. (2017). Panthera uncia. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-
2.RLTS.T22732A50664030.en
Mccauley, B. D. J., Woods, P., Sullivan, B., Bergman, B., Jablonicky, C., Roan, A., Hirshfield, M., Boerder,
K., & Worm, B. (2016). Ending hide and seek at sea. Science, 351(6278), 1148–1150.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5686
McCauley, D. J., Pinsky, M. L., Palumbi, S. R., Estes, J. A., Joyce, F. H., & Warner, R. R. (2015). Marine
defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science, 347(6219), 247–254.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255641
McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation, 127(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005
McNeill, D. C. (2010). Translocation of a population of great crested newts (Triturus cristatus): a
Scottish case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2184/
McQuatters-Gollop, A., Raitsos, D. E., Edwards, M., & Attrill, M. J. (2007). Spatial patterns of diatom
and dinoflagellate seasonal cycles in the NE Atlantic Ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 339,
301–306. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps339301
McRae, L., Deinet, S., Gill, M. & Collen, B. (2012). The Arctic species trend index: Tracking trends in
Arctic marine populations. CAFF Assessment Series No. 7. Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International
Secretariat. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-
council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/219/ASTI_Tracking_Trends_Arctic_Marine_Populations_A
pril_2012.pdf?sequence=1
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Médail, F., & Diadema, K. (2009). Glacial refugia influence plant diversity patterns in the Mediterranean

505
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Basin. Journal of Biogeography, 36(7), 1333–1345. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

2699.2008.02051.x
MedPAN & RAC/SPA. (2016). The 2016 status of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean. Main
findings. Retrieved from http://www.oceanactionhub.org/2016-status-marine-protected-areas-
mediterranean-main-findings
Meerhoff, M., Teixeira-de Mello, F., Kruk, C., Alonso, C., González-Bergonzoni, I., Pacheco, J. P., Lacerot,
G., Arim, M., Beklioglu, M., Brucet, S., Goyenola, G., Iglesias, C., Mazzeo, N., Kosten, S., &
Jeppesen, E. (2012). Environmental warming in shallow lakes. A review of potential changes in
community structure as evidenced from space-for-time substitution approaches. Advances in
Ecological Research, 46, 259-349. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396992-7.00004-6
Meiri, S., Bauer, A., Allen, A., Castro-Herrera, F., Chirio, L., Colli, G., Das, I., Doan, T., Glaw, F., Grismer,
L., Hoogmoed, M., Kraus, F., LeBreton, M., Meirte, D., Nagy, Z., Nogueira, C., Oliver, P., Pincheira-
Donoso, D., Shea, G., Sindaco, R., Tallowin, O., Torres, S., Trape, J., Uetz, P., Wagner, P., Wang, Y.
Z., Ziegler, T., & Roll, U. (2018). Extinct, obscure or imaginary: the lizard species with the smallest
ranges. Diversity & Distributions,
Meliadou, A., & Troumbis, A. Y. (1997). Aspects of heterogeneity in the distribution of diversity of the
European herpetofauna. Acta Oecologica, 18(4), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1146-
609X(97)80031-8
Meltofte, H., Barry, T., Berteaux, D., Bültmann, H., Christiansen, J. S., Cook, J. A., Dahlberg, A., Daniëls,
F, J. A., Ehrich, D.,Fjeldså, J., Friðriksson, F., Ganter, B., Gaston, A. J., Gillespie, L. J., Grenoble, L.,
Hoberg, E. P., Hodkinson, I. D., Huntington, H. P., Ims, R. A., Josefson, A. B., Kutz, S. J., Kuzmin, S.
L., Laidre, K. L., Lassuy, D. R., Lewis, P. N., Lovejoy, C., Michel, C., Mokievsky, V., Mustonen, T.,
Payer, D. C.,Poulin, M., Reid, D. G., Reist, J. D., Tessler, D. F., Wrona, F. J. (2013). Arctic Biodiversity
Assessment. Synthesis. Akureyri, Iceland: Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF).
Mengerink, K. J., Dover, C. L. Van, Ardron, J., Baker, M., Escobar-briones, E., Gjerde, K., Koslow, J. A.,
Ramirez-Llodra, E., Lara-Lopez, A., Squires, D., Sutton, T., Sweetman, A. K., & Levin, L. A. (2014).
A call for deep-ocean stewardship. Science, 344(6185), 696-698.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251458
Merunková, K., Preislerová, Z., & Chytrý, M. (2014). Environmental drivers of species composition and
richness in dry grasslands of northern and central Bohemia, Czech Republic. Tuexenia, 34(1), 447–
466. https://doi.org/10.14471/2014.34.017
Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I., & Schmitt, O. (2016). Estimating the volume and age
of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nature Communications, 7,
13603. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13603
Meyer, S., Wesche, K., Krause, B., & Leuschner, C. (2013). Dramatic losses of specialist arable plants in
central Germany since the 1950s/60s - a cross-regional analysis. Diversity and Distributions, 19(9),
1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12102
Micheli, F., Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Ciriaco, S., Ferretti, F., Fraschetti, S., Lewison, R., Nykjaer, L.,
& Rosenberg, A. A. (2013). Cumulative Human Impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea Marine
Ecosystems: Assessing Current Pressures and Opportunities. Plos ONE, 8(12), e79889.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079889
Micklin, P. (2007). The Aral Sea disaster. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35(1), 47–72.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120

506
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Mieszkowska, N., Kendall, M. A., Hawkins, S. J., Leaper, R., & Williamson, P. (2006). Changes in the
range of some common rocky shore species in Britania response to climate change.
Hydrobiologia, 555, 241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-1120-6
Mieszkowska, N., Sugden, H., Firth, L. B., & Hawkins. (2014). The role of sustained observations in
tracking impacts of environmental change on marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 372(2025),
20130339. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0339
Milkov, F. N. & Gvozdetskiy, N. A. [Мильков, Ф. Н., & Гвоздецкий, Н. А.]. (1969). Физическая
география СССР. Общий обзор. Европейская часть СССР. Кавказ [The physical geography of
the USSR. Overview. The European part of the USSR. The Caucasus]. Moscow, Russian Federation:
Mysl.
Milkov, F. N. [Мильков, Ф. Н.]. (1977). Природные зоны СССР [Natural zones of the USSR]. Moscow,
Russian Federation: Мысль [Mysl].
Millaku, F., Rexhepi, F., Krasniqi, E., Pajazitaj, Q., Mala, X., & Berisha, N. (2013). Libri i Kuq i Florës
Vaskulare të Republikës së Kosovës [The red book of vascular flora of the Republic of Kosovo].
Retrieved from http://www.ammk-
rks.net/repository/docs/Libri_i_Kuq_i_Flores_vaskulare_Shqip_(permbledhje).pdf
Millon, A., Petty, S. J., Little, B., Gimenez, O., Cornulier, T., & Lambin, X. (2014). Dampening prey cycle
overrides the impact of climate change on predator population dynamics: A long‐term
demographic study on tawny owls. Global Change Biology, 20(6), 1770–81.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12546
Milner-Gulland, E. J., Kreuzberg-Mukhina, E., Grebot, B., Ling, S., Bykova, E., Abdusalamov, I., Bekenov,
A., Gärdenfors, U., Hilton-Taylor, C., Salnikov, V., & Stogova, L. (2006). Application of IUCN red
listing criteria at the regional and national levels: a case study from Central Asia. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 15(6), 1873-1886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-4304-5
Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Singh, N. J. (2016). Two decades of saiga antelope research. In J. Bro‐Jørgensen,
& D. P. Mallon, Antelope Conservation (pp. 297–314). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118409572.ch15
Minayeva, T. Y., Bragg, O. M., & Sirin, A. A. (2017a). Towards ecosystem-based restoration of peatland
biodiversity. Mires and Peat, 19, UNSP 01. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2013.OMB.150
Minayeva, T., & Sirin, A. (2005). Use and conservation of mires in Russia. In G. M. Steiner (Ed.), Mires
– from Siberia to Tierra del Fuego (pp. 275–292). Linz, Austria: Biologiezentrum
Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum.
Minayeva, T., & Sirin, A. (2009). Wetlands – Threatened Arctic ecosystems: Vulnerability to climate
change and adaptation options. In Climate change and Arctic sustainable development (pp. 76–
83). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Minayeva, T., & Sirin, A. (2010). Arctic peatlands. In Arctic biodiversity trends 2010 – Selected indicators
of change (pp. 71–74). Akureyri, Iceland: CAFF International Secretariat.
Minayeva, T. Y., & Sirin, A. A. (2012). Peatland biodiversity and climate change. Biology Bulletin
Reviews, 2(2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1134/S207908641202003X
Minayeva, T., Sirin, A., Kershaw, P., & Bragg, O. (2017b). Arctic peatlands. In The wetland book II:
Distribution, description and conservation (pp. 1–15). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6173-5_109-2

507
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Minayeva, T., Sirin, A., & Bragg, O. (2009). A quick scan of peatlands in Central and Eastern Europe.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.
Minayeva, T., Sirin, A., & Stracher, G. (2013). The peat fires of Russia. In G. Stracher (Ed.), Coal and peat
fires: A global perspective (pp. 376–394). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier B.V.
Mirzoyan, Z. A., Volovik, S. P., & Martyniuk, M. L. [Мирзоян, З. А., Воловик, С. П., & Мартынюк, М.
Л.]. (2002). Развитие популяции Beroe ovata в Азово-Черноморском бассейне [Development
of Beroe ovata populations in the Azov-Black Sea basin]. In Основные проблемы рыбного
хозяйства и охраны рыбохозяйственных водоемов Азово-Черноморского басейна (2000-
2001 гг.) [Main problems of fisheries and protection of fishery water bodies of the Azov-Black Sea
basin] (pp. 180–192). Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation: AzNIIRKh.
Mitrofanov, I. V., & Mamilov, N. S. (2015). Fish diversity and fisheries in the Caspian Sea and Aral–Syr
Darya basin in the Republic of Kazakhstan at the beginning of the 21st Century. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health & Management, 18(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2015.1028870
Mittermeier, R. A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrom, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., Lamoreux,
J., & da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2004). Hotspots revisited. Earth’s biologically richest and most
endangered terrestrial ecoregions. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.
Moerland, W., De Baerdemaeker, A., Boesveld, A., Grutters, M. A. J., & Van de Poel, J. L. (2015).
Rotterdam. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and Invertebrates of European Cities: Selected non-
avian fauna (pp. 453–494). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6
Möllmann, C., Müller-Karulis, B., Diekmann, R., Flinkman, J., & Gårdmark, A. (2007). Ecosystem regime
state in the Baltic proper, Gulf of Riga, Gulf of Finland, and the Bothnian Sea. HELCOM Indicator
Fact Sheets 2007.
Molnár, Z. (2014). Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by
Hungarian herders. Rangeland Ecology and Management 67, 107–118.
https://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00082.1
Molnár, Z., Biró, M., Bartha, S., & Fekete, G. (2012). Past trends, present state and future prospects of
Hungarian forest-steppes. In M. J. A. Werger, & M. A. van Staalduinen, Eurasian steppes.
Ecological problems and livelihoods in a changing world (pp. 209–252). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3886-7_7
Möls, T., Vellak, K., Vellak, A., & Ingerpuu, N. (2013). Global gradients in moss and vascular plant
diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 22(6–7), 1537–1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
013-0492-6
Moning, C., & Müller, J. (2009). Critical forest age thresholds for the diversity of lichens, molluscs and
birds in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominated forests. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), 922–932.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.002
Montero-Serra, I., Edwards, M., & Genner, M. J. (2015). Warming shelf seas drive the subtropicalization
of European pelagic fish communities. Global Change Biology, 21(1), 144–153.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12747
Montes, C., & Martino, P. (1987). Las lagunas salinas españolas [Spanish salt lakes]. In Bases Cientficas
para la protección de los humedales en España (pp. 95–145). Madrid, Spain: Real Academia de
Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid.
Mooij, W. M., Janse, J. H., De Senerpont Domis, L. N., Hülsmann, S., & Ibelings, B. W. (2007). Predicting

508
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the effect of climate change on temperate shallow lakes with the ecosystem model PCLake.
Hydrobiologia, 584(1), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-0600-2
Moon, D. (2013). The plough that broke the steppes: Agriculture and environment on Russia’s
grasslands, 1700-1914. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-plough-that-broke-the-steppes-
9780199556434?cc=cz&lang=en&
Moore, S. E., & Huntington, H. P. (2008). Arctic marine mammals and climate change: Impacts and
reilience. Ecological Applications, 18(2), S157–S165. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0571.1
Mora, C., Aburto-Oropeza, O., Ayala-Bocos, A., Ayotte, P. M., Banks, S., Bauman, A. G., Beger, M.,
Bessudo, S., Booth, D. J., Brokovich, E., Brooks, A., Chabanet, P., Cinner, J. E., Cortés, J., Cruz-
Motta, J. J., Cupul-Magaña, A., DeMartini, E. E., Edgar, G. J., Feary, D. A., Ferse, S. C. A.,
Friedlander, A. M., Gaston, K. J., Gough, C., Graham, N. A. J., Green, A., Guzman, H., Hardt, M.,
Kulbicki, M., Letourneur, Y., Ĺpez-Pérez, A., Loreau, M., Loya, Y., Martinez, C., Mascareñas-Osorio,
I., Morove, T., Nadon, M. O., Nakamura, Y., Paredes, G., Polunin, N. V. C., Pratchett, M. S., Reyes
Bonilla, H., Rivera, F., Sala, E., Sandin, S. A., Soler, G., Stuart-Smith, R., Tessier, E., Tittensor, D. P.,
Tupper, M., Usseglio, P., Vigliola, L., Wantiez, L., Williams, I., Wilson, S. K., & Zapata, F. A. (2011).
Global human footprint on the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in reef
fishes. PLoS Biology 9(4), e1000606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000606
Mora, C., Danovaro R., Loreau M. (2014). Alternative hypotheses to explain why biodiversity-
ecosystem functioning relationships are concave-up in some natural ecosystems but concave-
down in manipulative experiments. Scientific Reports 4, 5427.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05427
Morato, T., Watson, R., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. (2006). Fishing down the deep. Fish and Fisheries, 7(1),
24–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00205.x
Moreira, F., Viedma, O., Arianoutsou, M., Curt, T., Koutsias, N., Rigolot, E., Barbati, A., Corona, P., Vaz,
P., Xanthopoulos, G., Mouillot, F., & Bilgili, E. (2011). Landscape - wildfire interactions in southern
Europe: Implications for landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10),
2389–2402. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.028
Moreira, F. & Russo, D. (2007). Modelling the impact of agricultural abandonment and wildfires on
vertebrate diversity in Mediterranean Europe. Landscape Ecology 22(10), 1461-1476.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9125-3
Morgunov, B. (2011). The diagnostic analysis of the environment of the Arctic zone of the Russian
Federation (Extended summary). Moscow, Russian Federation: Научный мир [Scientific World].
Morin, X., Fahse, L., de Mazancourt, C., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., & Bugmann, H. (2014). Temporal
stability in forest productivity increases with tree diversity due to asynchrony in species
dynamics. Ecology Letters. 17(12), 1526–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12357
Moss, B. (2015). Biodiversity climate change impacts report card technical paper: Freshwaters, climate
change and UK conservation. Freshwater Ecology, Biodiversity Report Card Paper 17, 1–63.
Mouchet M. A., Villeger S., Mason N. W. H., & Mouillot D. (2010). A functional guide to functional
diversity measures. Functional Ecology, 24, 867–876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2435.2010.01695.x
Mouillot, D., Albouy, C., Guilhaumon, F., Ben Rais Lasram, F., Coll, M., Devictor, V., Meynard, C. N.,
Pauly, D., Tomasini, J. A., Troussellier, M., Velez, L., Watson, R., Douzery, E. J. P., & Mouquet, N.

509
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(2011). Protected and threatened components of fish biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea.
Current Biology, 21(12), 1044–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.05.005
Mouillot, D., Bellwood, D. R., Baraloto, C., Chave, J., Galzin, R., Harmelin-Vivien, M., Kulbicki, M.,
Lavergne, S., Lavorel, S., Mouquet, N., Paine, C. E. T., Renaud, J., & Thuiller, W. (2013). Rare
species support vulnerable functions in high-diversity ecosystems. PLoS Biology, 11(5), e1001569.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001569
Moya, Ó., Contreras-Díaz, H., Oromí, P., & Juan, C. (2004). Genetic structure, phylogeography and
demography of two ground‐beetle species endemic to the Tenerife laurel forest (Canary Islands).
Molecular Ecology, 13(10), 3153–3167. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02316.x
Mulec, J., & Kosi, G. (2009). Lampenflora algae and methods of growth control. Journal of Cave and
Karst Studies, 71(2), 109–115.
Müller, J., Klaus, V. H., Kleinebecker, T., Prati, D., Hölzel, N., & Fischer, M. (2012). Impact of land-use
intensity and productivity on bryophyte diversity in agricultural grasslands. PloS One, 7(12),
e51520. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051520
Müller, R., Heinicke, T., Juschus, O., & Zeitz, J. (2016). Genesis and abiotic characteristics of three high-
altitude peatlands in the Tien Shan Mountains (Kyrgyzstan), with focus on silty peatland
substrates. Mires and Peat, 18(24), 1–19. http://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2015.OMB.217
Mullon, C., Steinmetz, F., Merino, G., Fernandes, J. A., Cheung, W. W. L., Butenschön, M., & Barange,
M. (2016). Quantitative pathways for Northeast Atlantic fisheries based on climate, ecological–
economic and governance modelling scenarios. Ecological Modelling, 320, 273–291.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.09.027
Mumladze, L., Chaladze, G., Asanidze, Z., Saghinadze, S., & Khachidze, E. (2008). Refugial forest from
the western Lesser Caucasus. Final Report. Priject ID – 090107.
Muñoz-Fuentes, V., Vilà, C., Green, A. J., Negro, J. J., & Sorenson, M. D. (2007). Hybridization between
white-headed ducks and introduced ruddy ducks in Spain. Molecular Ecology, 16(3), 629–638.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03170.x
Murray, J. W., Top, Z., & Ozsoy, E. (1989). Hydrographic properties and ventilation of the Black Sea.
Deep Sea Resources, 38(Suppl.), S663–S689. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0198-0149(10)80003-2
Mustonen, T., & Helander, E. (Eds.). (2004). Snowscapes, dreamscapes - A snowchange community
book of change. Tampere, Finland: Tampere Polytechnic.
Nakhutsrishvili, G. (2003). High mountain vegetation of the Caucasus region. In L. Nagy, G. Grabherr,
C. Körner, & D. B. A. Thompson (Eds.), Alpine biodiversity in Europe (pp. 93–103). Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Nakhutsrishvili, G., Zazanashvili, N., & Batsatsashvili, K. (2011). Regional profile: Colchic and Hyrcanic
temperate rainforests of the western Eurasian Caucasus. In D. A. DellaSala (Ed.), Temperate and
boreal rainforests of the world: Ecology and conservation (pp. 214–222). Washington, DC, USA:
Island Press.
Nakhutsrishvili, G., Zazanashvili, N., Batsatsashvili, K., & Montalvo Mancheno, C. S. (2015). Colchic and
Hyrcanian forests of the Caucasus: similarities, differences and conservation status. Flora
Mediterranea, 25, 185–192. http://doi.org/10.7320/FlMedit25SI.185
Namsaraev, B. B., Abidueva, E. Y., & Lavrent’eva, E. V. [Намсараев, Б. Б., Абидуева, Е. Ю., &
Лаврентьева, Е. В.]. (2008). Экология микроорганизмов экстремальных водных систем

510
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

[Ecology of microorganisms in extreme aquatic systems]. Ulan-Ude, Russian Federation:

Издательство Бурятского Государственного Университета [Publishing House of Buryat State
University].
NASA. (2004). Caspian Sea. Retrieved from
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/70000/70736/CaspianSea.A2004100.094
5.1km.jpg
NASA. (2014). Revelation of Aral Sea disaster. Retrieved from http://www.capitalwired.com/nasas-
images-revelation-of-aral-sea-disaster/23259/
Nascimbene, J., Lazzaro, L., & Benesperi, R. (2015). Patterns of β-diversity and similarity reveal biotic
homogenization of epiphytic lichen communities associated with the spread of black locust
forests. Fungal Ecology, 14, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funeco.2014.10.006
Nascimbene, J., Nimis, P. L., & Ravera, S. (2013a). Evaluating the conservation status of epiphytic
lichens of Italy: A red list. Plant Biosystems, 147(4), 898–904.
https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2012.748101
Nascimbene, J., Thor, G., & Nimis, P. L. (2013b). Effects of forest management on epiphytic lichens in
temperate deciduous forests of Europe - A review. Forest Ecology and Management, 298, 27-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.03.008
Nash, T. H. (Ed.). (2008a). Lichen Biology, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nash, T. H. (2008b). Lichen sensitivity to air pollution. In T. H. Nash (Ed.), Lichen Biology, 2nd edition (pp.
301–316). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790478.016
Natcheva, R., Ganeva, A., & Spiridonov, G. (2006). Red List of the bryophytes in Bulgaria. Phytologia
Balcanica, 12(1), 55–62.
Navarro, L.M. & Pereira H.M. (2012). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems 15, 900–
912.
Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2015). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. In: L. M. Navarro
& H. M. Pereira (Eds.), Rewilding European landscapes (pp. 3–23). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3_1
Neaves, L. E., Whitlock, R., Piertney, S. B., Burke, T., Butlin, R. K., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (2015).
Implications of climate change for genetic diversity and evolvability in the UK. Biodiversity
climate change report card technical paper 15.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C.,
Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, M. R. (2009).
Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and
tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11.
http://doi.org/10.1890/080023
Nesterova, D. A., & Terenko, L. M., [Нестерова, Д. А., & Теренко, Л. М.]. (2009). Фитопланктон
Каркинитского залива в сентябре 2008 г. [The Karkinit Bay phytoplankton in September 2008].
Экологическая Безопасность Прибрежной И Шельфовой Зон Моря [Ecological Safety of Sea
Coastal and Shelf Zones], 20, 293–300.
Neumann, T. (2010). Climate change effects on the Baltic Sea ecosystem: A model study. Journal of
Marine Ecosystems, 81(3), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2009.12.001

511
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J.,
Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S., Edgar, M. J.,
Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M. L. K., Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D. J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp,
V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Correia, D. L. P., Martin, C. D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y.,
Phillips, H. R. P., Purves, D. W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S. L., Weiher, E., White, H. J.,
Ewers, R. M., Mace, G. M., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use
on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
Nicastro, K. R., Zardi, G. I., Teixeira, S., Neiva, J., Serrao, E. A., & Pearson, G. A. (2013). Shift happens:
trailing edge contraction associated with recent warming trends threatens a distinct genetic
lineage in the marine macroalga Fucus vesiculosus. BMC Biology, 11, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-11-6
Nicolaev S., Alexandrov L., Boicenco L., Coatu V., Diaconeasa D., Dumitrache C., Dumitrescu O.,
Golumbeanu, L. Lazar, V. Malciu, R. Mateescu, V. Maximov, D. Micu, E. Mihailov, M. Nenciu M.,
Nita V., Oros A., Spinu A., Stoica E., Tabarcea C., Timofte F., Tiganus, D., & Zaharia, T. (2013).
Report on the state of marine and coastal environment in 2013. Recherches Marines, 43, 5–138.
Niemelä, J., & Kotze, D. J. (2009). Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: A review.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2), 65–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.016
Nieto, A., & Alexander, K. N. (2010). European red list of saproxylic beetles. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/84561
Nieto, A., Ralph, G. M., Comeros-Raynal, M. T., Kemp, J., García Criado, M., Allen, D. J., Dulvy, N. K.,
Walls, R. H. L., Russell, B., Pollard, D., García, S., Craig, M., Collette, B. B., Pollom, R., Biscoito, M.,
Chao, N. L., Abella, A., Afonso, P., Álvarez, H., Carpenter, K. E., Clò, S., Cook, R., Costa, M. J.,
Delgado, J., Dureuil, M., Ellis, J. R., Farrell, E. D., Fernandes, P., Florin, A.-B. Fordham, S., Fowler,
S., de Sola, L. G., Herrera, J. G., Goodpaster, A., Harvey,M., Heessen, H., Herler, J., Jung, A.,
Karmovskaya, E., Keskin, Ç., Knudsen,S. W., Kobyliansky, S., Kovačić, M., Lawson, J. M., Lorance,
P., Phillips, S. M., Munroe, T., Nedreaas, K., Nielsen, J., Papaconstantinou, C., Polidoro, B., Pollock,
C. M., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Sayer, C., Scott, J., Serena, F., Smith-Vaniz, W. F., Soldo, A., Stump, E., &
Williams, J. T. (2015). European red list of marine fishes. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/082723
Nieto, A., Roberts, S. P. M., Kemp, J., Rasmont, P., Kuhlmann, M., García Criado, M., Biesmeijer, J. C.,
Bogusch, P., Dathe, H. H., De la Rúa, P., De Meulemeester, T., Dehon, M., Dewulf, A., Ortiz-
Sánchez, F. J., Lhomme, P., Pauly, A., Potts, S.G., Praz, C., Quaranta, M., Radchenko, V. G.,
Scheuchl, E., Smit, J., Straka, J., Terzo, M., Tomozii, B., Window, J., & Michez, D. (2014). European
red list of bees. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
http://doi.org/10.2779/77003
Niklfeld, H. (1999). Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs [Red list of endangered plants of
Austria].
Nikolsky, G. V. [Никольский, Г. В.]. (1938). Рыбы Таджикистана [Fishes of Tajikistan]. Moscow, USSR:
Academy of Science of the USSR.
Nikolsky, G. V. [Никольский, Г. В.]. (1971). Частная ихтиология [Special ichthyology]. Moscow,
USSR: Высшая школа [Higher School].
Nissenbaum, A. (1975). The microbiology and biogeochemistry of the Dead Sea. Microbial Ecology,
2(2), 139–161. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02010435

512
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Noce, S., Collalti, A., Valentini, R., & Santini, M. (2016). Hot spot maps of forest presence in the
Mediterranean basin. iForest, 9(5), 766–774. http://doi.org/10.3832/ifor1802-009
Nogués-Bravo, D., Araújo, M. B., Errea, M. P., & Martínez-Rica, J. P. (2007). Exposure of global mountain
systems to climate warming during the 21st Century. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4),
420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.007
Nordén, B., Dahlberg, A., Brandrud, T. E., Fritz, Ö., Ejrnaes, R., & Ovaskainen, O. (2014). Effects of
ecological continuity on species richness and composition in forests and woodlands: A review.
Écoscience, 21(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.2980/21-1-3667
Norkko, A., Laakkonen, T., & Laine, A. (2007). Trends in soft-sediment macrozoobenthic communities
in the open sea areas of the Baltic Sea.
Norse, E. A., Brooke, S., Cheung, W. W. L., Clark, M. R., Ekeland, I., Froese, R., Gjerde, K. M., Haedrich,
R. L., Heppell, S. S., Morato, T., Morgan, L. E., Pauly, D., Sumaila, R., & Watson, R. (2012).
Sustainability of deep-sea fisheries. Marine Policy, 36(2), 307–320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.008
Nowak, A., & Nowak, S. (2015). Distribution patterns of segetal weeds of cereal crops in Tajikistan.
Pakistan Journal of Botany, 47(4), 1415–1422.
Nowak, A., Nowak, S., & Nobis, M. (2011). Distribution patterns, ecological characteristic and
conservation status of endemic plants of Tadzhikistan - A global hotspot of diversity. Journal for
Nature Conservation, 19(5), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.05.003
Nowak, A., Nowak, S., Nobis, M., & Nobis, A. (2014). A report on the conservation status of segetal
weeds in Tajikistan. Weed Research, 54(6), 635–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12103
Nybø, S., & Evju, M. (Eds.). (2017). Fagsystem for fastsetting av god økologisk tilstand. Forslag fra et
ekspertråd [System for the determination of good ecological condition. Suggestions from an
expert advice]. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/fagsystem-for-
fastsetting-av-god-okologisk-tilstand/id2558481/
Odgaard, B. V. (1994). The Holocene vegetation history of northern West Jutland, Denmark. Opera
Botanica, 123, 1–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-1051.1994.tb00625.x
Ogus, T. (Ed.). (2008). The state of marine living resources. In State of the Environment of the Black Sea
(2001-2006/7). Istanbul, Turkey: Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
(BSC).
Ojaveer, H., Jaanus, A., Mackenzie, B. R., Martin, G., Olenin, S., Radziejewska, T., Telesh, I., Zettler, M.
L., & Zaiko, A. (2010). Status of biodiversity in the Baltic sea. PLoS ONE, 5(9), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012467
Ojaveer, H., Olenin, S., Narščius, A., Florin, A.-B., Ezhova, E., Gollasch, S., Jensen, K. R., Lehtiniemi, M.,
Minchin, D., Normant-Saremba, M., & Strāke, S. (2016). Dynamics of biological invasions and
pathways over time: a case study of a temperate coastal sea. Biological Invasions, 19(3), 799-813.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1316-x
Oliva, J., Boberg, J., & Stenlid, J. (2013). First report of Sphaeropsis sapinea on Scots pine (Pinus
sylvestris) and Austrian pine (P. nigra) in Sweden. New Disease Reports, 27, 23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5197/j.2044-0588.2013.027.023
Oliver, T. H., Heard, M. S., Isaac, N. J. B., Roy, D. B., Procter, D., Eigenbrod, F., Freckleton, R., Hector,
A., Orme, C. D. L., Petchey, O. L., Proença, V., Raffaelli, D., Suttle, K. B., Mace, G. M., Martín-López,

513
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

B., Woodcock, B. A., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30(11), 673-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.009
Olivier L., Galland, J-P., Maurin, H., & Roux, J-P. (1995). Livre rouge de la flore menacée de France I
espèces prioritaires [Red list of threatened flora of France – I priority species]. Paris, France:
MNHN.
Olson, K. A. (2013). Saiga crossing options - Guidelines and recommendations to mitigate barrier effects
of border fencing and railroad corridors on saiga antelope in Kazakhstan.
Oltean, M., Negrean, G., Popescu, A, Roman, N., Dihoru, G., Sanda, V., & Mihailescu, S. (1994). Lista
rosie a plantelor superioare din România [Red list of higher plants of Romania]. Bucharest,
Romania: Academia Romana Institutul de Biologie.
Oren, A. (2006). Life at high salt concentrations. In E. Rosenberg, E. F. DeLong, S. Lory, E. Stackebrandt,
& F. Thompson (Eds.), The prokaryotes (pp. 421–440). New York, USA: Springer.
Orgiazzi, A., Bardgett, R. D., Barrios, E., Behan-Pelletier, V., Briones, M. J. I., Chotte, J-L., De Deyn, G.
B., Eggleton, P., Fierer, N., Fraser, T., Hedlund, K., Jeffrey, S., Johnson, N. C., Jones, A., Kandeler,
E., Kaneko, N., Lavelle, P., Lemanceau, P., Miko, L., Montanarella, L., de Souza Moreira, F. M.,
Ramirez, K. S., Scheu, S., Singh, B.K., Six, J., van der Putten, W.H., & Wall, D. H. (Eds.). (2016).
Global soil biodiversity atlas. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/doi:10.2788/799182
Orlandi, S., Probo, M., Sitzia, T., Trentanovi, G., Garbarino, M., Lombardi, G., & Lonati, M. (2016).
Environmental and land use determinants of grassland patch diversity in the western and eastern
Alps under agro-pastoral abandonment. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(2), 275–293.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1046-5
Orlova, T. Y., Konovalova, G. V, Stonik, I. V, Selina, M. S., Tatyana, V., & Shevchenko, O. G. (2002).
Harmful algal blooms on the eastern coast of Russia. In Harmful algal blooms in the PICES region
of the North Pacific. PICES Report 23 (August 2002). PICES. Retrieved from
https://www.pices.int/publications/scientific_reports/Report23/default.aspx
Orlov, A. A., Chechevishnikov, A. L., Alekseenkova, E. S., Borishpolets, K. P., Krylov, A. V., Kudeneeva,
Yu. S., Mizin, V. I., Nikitin, A. I., Fedorchenko, A. V., & Chernyavskii, S. I. [Орлов, А. А.,
Чечевичников, А. Л., Алексеенкова, Е. С., Боришполец, К. П., Крылов, А. В., Куденеева, Ю. С.,
Мизин, В. И., Никитин, А. И., Федорченко, А. В., & Чернявский, С. И.]. (2011). Проблема
пресной воды. Глобальный контекст политики России [Problem of fresh water. Global
context of Russian politics]. Moscow, Russian Federation: MGIMO-University.
Örmeci, C., & Ekercin, S. (2005). Water quality monitoring using satellite image data: a case study
around the Salt Lake in Turkey. In Proc. SPIE 5977, Remote Sensing of the Ocean, Sea Ice, and
Large Water Regions 2005, 59770K (October 20, 2005). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.628558
OSPAR. (2008). Case reports for the OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitats.
Biodiversity series.
OSPAR. (2010). Quality status report 2010. Retrieved from https://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/index.html
OSPAR. (2017). Intermediate assessment 2017. Retrieved July 6, 2017, from
https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermedate-assessment-2017
Österblom, H., Hansson, S., Larsson, U., Hjerne, O., Wulff, F., Elmgren, R., & Folke, C. (2007). Human-
induced trophic cascades and ecological regime shifts in the baltic sea. Ecosystems, 10(6), 877–
889. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9069-0

514
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Otero, M.M., Numa, C., Bo, M., Orejas, C., Garrabou, J., Cerrano, C., KružicÅL, P., Antoniadou, C.,
Aguilar, R., Kipson, S., Linares, C., Terr.n-Sigler, A., Brossard, J., Kersting, D., Casado-Amez.a, P.,
Garc.a, S., Goffredo, S., Oca.a, O., Caroselli, E., B. (2017). Overview of the conservation status of
Mediterranean anthozoans. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Oug, E., Cochrane, S. K. J., Sundet, J. H., Norling, K., & Nilsson, H. C. (2011). Effects of the invasive red
king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) on soft-bottom fauna in Varangerfjorden, northern
Norway. Marine Biodiversity, 41(3), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-010-0068-6
Overland, J. E., & Stabeno, P. J. (2004). Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming and affecting the
ecosystem? Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 85(33), 309.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004EO330001
Pabi, S., van Dijken, G. L., & Arrigo, K. R. (2008). Primary production in the Arctic Ocean, 1998-2006.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 113(8), C08005.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004578
Pacifici, M., Foden, W. B., Visconti, P., Watson, J. E. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Kovacs, K. M., Scheffers, B.
R., Hole, D. G., Martin, T. G., Akçakaya, H. R., Corlett, R. T., Huntley, B., Bickford, D., Carr, J. a.,
Hoffmann, A. a., Midgley, G. F., P., P.-K., Pearson, R. G., Williams, S. E., Willis, S. G., Young, B., &
Rondinini, C. (2015). Assessing species vulnerability to climate change. Nature Climate Change,
5(February), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2448
Paillet, Y., Bergès, L., HjÄltén, J., Ódor, P., Avon, C., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Bijlsma, R. J., De Bruyn,
L., Fuhr, M., Grandin, U., Kanka, R., Lundin, L., Luque, S., Magura, T., Matesanz, S., Mészáros, I.,
SebastiÀ, M. T., Schmidt, W., Standovár, T., Tóthmérész, B., Uotila, A., Valladares, F., Vellak, K., &
Virtanen, R. (2010). Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: Meta-
analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 101–112.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
Paine, T. D., & Lieutier, F. (Eds.). (2016). Insects and diseases of Mediterranean forest systems. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24744-1
Pajunen, A. M., Oksanen, J., & Virtanen, R. (2011). Impact of shrub canopies on understorey vegetation
in western Eurasian tundra. Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(5), 837–846.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01285.x
Pakeman, R. J., & Nolan, A. J. (2009). Setting sustainable grazing levels for heather moorland: a multi-
site analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(2), 363–368. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2008.01603.x
Palmer, A. N. (1991). Origin and morphology of limestone caves. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
103(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1991)103<0001:OAMOLC>2.3.CO;2
Paltsyn, M. Y., Spitsyn, S. V., Kuksin, A.N. & Istomov, S. V. (2012). Snow leopard conservation in Russia.
Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation: WWF Russia.
Pape, T., Bickel, D., & Meier, R. (2009). Diptera diversity: Status, challenges and tools. Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Parfenov, V. I. Kozlovskaya, N. V., & Vynaev, G. V. [Парфенов, В. И., Козловская, Н. В., & Вынаев, Г.
В.]. (1987). Rare and threatened plant species of Byelorussia and Lithuania. Minsk, USSR: Наука
и техника [Science and Technology].
Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva, T., & Silvius, M. (2008). Assessment on
peatlands, biodiversity and climate change: Main report. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Global

515
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Environment Centre. Retrieved from

http://www.imcg.net/media/download_gallery/books/assessment_peatland.pdf
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual of
Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 37(1), 637–669.
https://doi.org/10.2307/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.30000024
Parnikoza, I., & Vasiluk, A. (2011). Ukrainian steppes: current state and perspectives for protection.
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio C. Biologia, 9(1), 23–37.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10067-011-0018-0
Pärtel, M., Bruun, H. H., & Sammul, M. (2005). Biodiversity in temperate European grasslands: origin
and conservation. In Grassland Science in Europe, Volume 10 (pp. 1–14). Retrieved from
http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/532202/file/625284.pdf
Passy, S. I., & Legendre, P. (2006). Are algal communities driven toward maximum biomass?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273, 2667–2674.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3632
Pauchard, A., Kueffer, C., Dietz, H., Daehler, C. C., Alexander, J., Edwards, P. J., Arévalo, J. R., Cavieres,
L. A., Guisan, A., Haider, S., Jakobs, G., McDougall, K., Millar, C. I., Naylor, B. J., Parks, C. G., Rew,
L. J., & Seipel, T. (2009). Ain’t no mountain high enough: Plant invasions reaching new elevations.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(9), 479–486. https://doi.org/10.1890/080072
Pauli, H., Gottfried, G., Dirnböck, T., Dullinger, S., & Grabherr, G. (2003). Assessing the long-term
dynamics of endemic plants at summit habitats. In L. Nagy, G. Grabherr, C. Körner, & D. B. A.
Thompson (Eds.), Alpine biodiversity in Europe (pp. 195–207). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Pauli, H., Gottfried, M., Dullinger, S., Abdaladze, O., Akhalkatsi, M., Alonso, J. L. B., Coldea, G., Dick, J.,
Erschbamer, B., Calzado, R. F., Ghosn, D., Holten, J. I., Kanka, R., Kazakis, G., Kollar, J., Larsson, P.,
Moiseev, P., Moiseev, D., Molau, U., Mesa, J. M., Nagy, L., Pelino, G., Puscas, M., Rossi, G.,
Stanisci, A., Syverhuset, A. O., Theurillat, J. P., Tomaselli, M., Unterluggauer, P., Villar, L., Vittoz,
P., & Grabherr, G. (2012). Recent plant diversity changes on Europe’s mountain summits. Science,
336(6079), 353–355. https://doi.org/DOI 10.1126/science.1219033
Pauls, S. U., Nowak, C., Bálint, M., & Pfenninger, M. (2013) The impact of global climate change on
genetic diversity within populations and species. Molecular Ecology, 22, 925–946.
https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12152
Pausas, J. G., Llovet, J., Anselm, R., & Vallejo, R. (2008). Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean
basin? – A review. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 17(6), 713–723.
http://doi.org/10.1071/WF07151
Pavlov V. A., & Sundet, J. H. (2011). Snow crab. In T. Jakobsen & V. K. Ozhigin (Eds.), The Barents Sea:
ecosystem, resources, management: half a century of Russian-Norwegian cooperation (pp. 168–
172). Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Academic Press. Retrieved from
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/handle/11250/109444
Pavlovskaya, L. P. (1995). Fishery in the lower Amu-Darya under the impact of irrigated agriculture.
Retrieved September 20, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9529E/v9529E04.htm
PBL. (2010). Rethinking Global Biodiversity Strategies: Exploring structural changes in production and
consumption to reduce biodiversity loss. The Hague/Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency.
PBL. (2012). Roads from Rio + 20. Retrieved from https://roadsfromrio.pbl.nl.

516
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

PBL. (2014). How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. CBD
technical series 78. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-79-en.pdf
Pe’er, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T. G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory,
R. D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P. R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R. K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J.,
Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W. J., Turbé, A., Wulf, F., & Scott, A. V. (2014). EU agricultural reform
fails on biodiversity. Science, 344(6188), 1090–1092. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425
Peay, K. G., Kennedy, P. G., & Talbot, J. M. (2016). Dimensions of biodiversity in the Earth mycobiome.
Nature Reviews Microbiology, 14(7), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2016.59
Peeler, E. J., Oidtmann, B. C., Midtlyng, P. J., Miossec, L., & Gozlan, R. E. (2011). Non-native aquatic
animals introductions have driven disease emergence in Europe. Biological Invasions, 13(6),
1291-1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9890-9
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N., & Belward, A. S. (2016). High-resolution mapping of global surface
water and its long-term changes. Nature, (540), 418–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20584
Pellissier, L., Anzini, M., Maiorano, L., Dubuis, A., Pottier, J., Vittoz, P., & Guisan, A. (2013). Spatial
predictions of land-use transitions and associated threats to biodiversity: The case of forest
regrowth in mountain grasslands. Applied Vegetation Science, 16(2), 227–236.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2012.01215.x
Peñuelas, J., Filella, I., & Comas, P. (2002). Changed plant and animal life cycles from 1952-2000 in the
Mediterranean region. Global Change Biology, 8(8), 531–544. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2486.2002.00489.x
Pereira, H. M., Leadley, P. W., Proença, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Fernandez-Manjarrés,
J. F., Araújo, M. B., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Chini, L., Cooper, H. D., Gilman, E.
L., Guénette, S., Hurtt, G. C., Huntington, H. P., Mace, G. M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues,
P., Scholes, R. J., Sumaila, U. R., & Walpole, M. (2010). Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st
century. Science, 330(6010), 1496–501. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196624
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., García-Charton, J. A., & Marcos, C. (2017). North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean
marine protected areas as fisheries management tool. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 245.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00245
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Gilabert, J., Gutiérrez, J.M., Fernández, A.I., Marcos, C. & Sabah, S. (2002). Evidence
of a planktonic food web response to changes in nutrient input dynamics in the Mar Menor
coastal lagoon, Spain. Hydrobiologia, 475/476, 359-369.
https://doi.org/10.3389/10.1023/A:1020343510060
Pérez-Ruzafa, Á., González-Wangüemert, M., Lenfant, P., Marcos, C., & García-Charton, J. A. (2006).
Effects of fishing protection on the genetic structure of fish populations. Biological Conservation,
129(2), 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.040
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., & Marcos, C. (2012). Fisheries in coastal lagoons: An assumed but poorly researched
aspect of the ecology and functioning of coastal lagoons. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,
110, 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.05.025
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., & Pérez-Ruzafa, I. M. (2011). Mediterranean coastal lagoons in an
ecosystem and aquatic resources management context. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 36(5–
6), 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.04.013
Peringer, A., Siehoff, S., Chételat, J., Spiegelberger, T., Buttler, A., & Gillet, F. (2013). Past and future

517
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

landscape dynamics in pasture-woodlands of the Swiss Jura Mountains under climate change.
Ecology and Society, 18(3), 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05600-180311
Perry, A. L., Low, P. J., Ellis, J. R., & Reynolds, J. D. (2005). Climate change and distribution shifts in
marine fishes. Science, 308(5730), 1912–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111322
Peskova, T. J. [Пескова, Т. Ю.]. (2000). Половая структура популяций земноводных при обитании
в чистых и загрязненных пестицидами водоемах [Sex-ratio structure of the amphibians
inhabiting pure and pesticide-polluted reservoirs]. Современная герпетология (Сборник
трудов) [Modern Herpetology (Collected Proceedings)], 1, 26–35.
Petchey O.L. (2000). Species diversity, species extinction, and ecosystem function. American
Naturalist, 155, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1086/303352
Petersen, S., Krätschell, A., Augustin, N., Jamieson, J., Hein, J. R., & Hannington, M. D. (2016). News
from the seabed – Geological characteristics and resource potential of deep-sea mineral
resources. Marine Policy, 70, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.012
Petitpierre, B., MacDougall, K., Seipel, T., Broennimann, O., Guisan, A., & Kueffer, C. (2015). Will climate
change increase the risk of plant invasions into mountains? Ecological Applications, 26(2),
150709023716008. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1871.1
Petr, T., Ismukhanov, K., Kamilov, B., Pulakhton, D., & Umarov, P. D. (2004). Irrigation systems and their
fisheries in the Aral Sea Basin, Central Asia. In T. Welcomme & R. Petr (Eds.), Proceedings of the
second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries volume II.
Bangkok, Thailand: RAP Public. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ad526e/ad526e00.htm
Pettersson, R. B., Ball, J. P., Renhorn, K. E., Esseen, P. A., & Sjöberg, K. (1995). Invertebrate communities
in boreal forest canopies as influenced by forestry and lichens with implications for passerine
birds. Biological Conservation, 74(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(95)00015-V
Pham, C. K., Diogo, H., Menezes, G., Porteiro, F., Braga-Henriques, A., Vandeperre, F., & Morato, T.
(2014a). Deep-water longline fishing has reduced impact on vulnerable marine ecosystems
Scientific Reports, 4, 4837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep04837
Pham, C. K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C. H. S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M., Canals, M., Company, J. B.,
Davies, J., Duineveld, G., Galgani, F., Howell, K. L., Huvenne, V. A. I., Isidro, E., Jones, D. O. B.,
Lastras, G., Morato, T., Gomes-Pereira, J. N., Purser, A., Stewart, H., Tojeira, I., Tubau, X., Van
Rooij, D., & Tyler, P. A. (2014b). Marine litter distribution and density in European seas, from the
shelves to deep basins. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e95839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095839
Phitos, D. (1995). The red data book of rare and threatened plants of Greece. Athens, Greece, WWF.
Phoenix, G. K., Emmett, B. A., Britton, A. J., Caporn, S. J. M., Dise, N. B., Helliwell, R., Jones, L., Leake, J.
R., Leith, I. D., Sheppard, L. J., Sowerby, A., Pilkington, M. G., Rowe, E. C., Ashmore, M. R., &
Power, S. A. (2012). Impacts of atmospheric nitrogen deposition: responses of multiple plant and
soil parameters across contrasting ecosystems in long-term field experiments. Global Change
Biology, 18(4), 1197–1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02590.x
Piano, E., De Wolf, K., Bona, F., Bonte, D., Bowler, D. E., Isaia, M., Lens, L., Merckx, T., Mertens, D., Van
Kerckvoorde, M., De Meester, L., & Hendrickx, F. (2017). Urbanization drives community shifts
towards thermophilic and dispersive species at local and landscape scales. Global Change Biology,
23(7), 2554–2564. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13606
Plotnikov, I. S. [Плотников, И. С.]. (2016). Многолетние изменения фауны свободноживущих

518
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

водных беспозвоночных Аральского моря [Multiyear changes of fauna of aquatic invertebrates

of the Aral Sea]. Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation: ЗИН РАН [ZIN RAN].
Pocock M. J. O. & Jennings, N. (2008). Testing biotic indicator taxa: the sensitivity of insectivorous
mammals and their prey to the intensification of lowland agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology,
45(1): 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01361.x
Poláková, J., Tucker, G., Hart, K., Dwyer, J., & Rayment, M. (2011). Addressing biodiversity and habitat
preservation through measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy. Report Prepared
for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No. 30-CE0388497/00-44. London, UK:
Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Poloczanska, E. S., Brown, C. J., Sydeman, W. J., Kiessling, W., Schoeman, D. S., Moore, P. J., Brander,
K., Bruno, J. F., Buckley, L. B., Burrows, M. T., Duarte, C. M., Halpern, B. S., Holding, J., Kappel, C.
V, O’Connor, M. I., Pandolfi, J. M., Parmesan, C., Schwing, F., Thompson, S. A., & Richardson, A. J.
(2013). Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change, 3(10), 919–925.
https://doi.org/Doi 10.1038/Nclimate1958
Poloczanska, E. S., Burrows, M. T., Brown, C. J., Molinos, J. G., Halpern, B. S., Hoegh-Guldberg, O.,
Kappel, C. V., Moore, P. J., Richardson, A. J., Schoeman, D. S., & Sydeman, W. J. (2016). Responses
of marine organisms to climate change across oceans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 62.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00062
Ponge, J.-F., Salmon, S., Benoist, A., & Geoffroy, J.-J. (2015). Soil macrofaunal communities are
heterogeneous in heathlands with different grazing intensity. Pedosphere, 25(4), 524–533.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(15)30033-3
Popova, E. N., & Semenov, S. M. (2013). Current and expected changes in Colorado beetle climatic
habitat in Russia and neighboring countries. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 38(7), 509–
514. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068373913070108
Portnov, B. A., & Safriel, U. N. (2004). Combating desertification in the Negev: dryland agriculture vs.
dryland urbanization. Journal of Arid Environments, 56(4), 659–680.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00087-9
Prada, S., Sequeira, M. M. D., Figueira, C., & Oliveira Da Silva, M. (2009). Fog precipitation and rainfall
interception in the natural forests of Madeira Island (Portugal). Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, (149), 1179–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.02.010
Prather, C. M., Pelini, S. L., Laws, A., Rivest, E., Woltz, M., Bloch, C. P., Del Toro, I., Ho, C. K., Kominoski,
J., Scott Newbold, T. A., Parsons, S., & Joern, A. (2013). Invertebrates, ecosystem services and
climate change. Biological Reviews, 88(2), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12002
Prilipko, L. I. [Прилипко, Л. И.]. (1970). Растительный покров Азербайджана [Plant cover of
Azerbaijan]. Baku, Azerbaijan: Elm.
Prishchepov, A. A., Müller, D., Dubinin, M., Baumann, M., & Radeloff, V. C. (2013). Determinants of
agricultural land abandonment in post-Soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 873–884.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.011
Procházka F. (2000). Cerný a cervený seznam cévnatých rostlin Ceské republiky [Black and Red lists of
Vascular Plants of the Czech Republic]. Praha, Czech Republic: Príroda.
Program and Action Plan [Программа и план действий]. (2015). Программа и план действий по
адаптации к изменению климата сектора “Лес и биоразнообразие» на 2015-2017 гг.
[Program and Action Plan on adaptation to climate change in sector “Forest and Biodiversity” on

519
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2015-2017]. Bishkek, The Kyrgyz Republic: State Agency on Nature Protection and Forestry under
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Prop, J., Aars, J., Bårdsen, B.-J., Hanssen, S. A., Bech, C., Bourgeon, S., de Fouw, J., Gabrielsen, G. W.,
Lang, J., Noreen, E., Oudman, T., Sittler, B., Stempniewicz, L., Tombre, I., Wolters, E. & Moe, B.
(2015). Climate change and the increasing impact of polar bears on bird populations. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution, 3, 33. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00033
Puig, P., Canals, M., Company, J. B., Martín, J., Amblas, D., Lastras, G., Palanques, A., & Calafat, A. M.
(2012). Ploughing the deep sea floor. Nature, 489, 286-289.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11410
Purvis, O. W. (2015). Lichens on Betula in the Ural Mountains; relationships with bark acidity and
element concentrations as indicators of geology and anthropogenic influences. British Lichen
Society Bulletin, 117, 15–28.
Purvis, O. W., Tittley, I., Chimonides, P. D. J., Bamber, R., Hayes, P. A., James, P. W., Rumsey, F. J., &
Read, H. (2010). Long-term biomonitoring of lichen and bryophyte biodiversity at Burnham
Beeches SAC and global environmental change. Systematics and Biodiversity, 8(2), 193–208.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14772001003782088
Pykälä, J. (2003) Effects of restoration with cattle grazing on plant species composition and richness of
semi-natural grasslands. Biodiversity & Conservation 12, 2211-2226.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024558617080
Pyšek, P., Křivánek, M., & Jarošík, V. (2009). Planting intensity, residence time, and species traits
determine invasion success of alien woody species. Ecology, 90(10), 2734–2744.
https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0857.1
Quaas, M. F., Reusch, T. B. H., Schmidt, J. O., Tahvonen, O., & Voss, R. (2016). It is the economy, stupid!
Projecting the fate of fish populations using ecological-economic modeling. Global Change
Biology, 22(1), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13060
Quézel, P., & Médail, F. (2003). Ecologie et biogéographie des forêts du Bassin Méditerranéen [Ecology
and biogeography of the forests of the Mediterranean basin]. Paris, France: Elsevier.
Rabalais, N. N., Díaz, R. J., Levin, L. A., Turner, R. E., Gilbert, D., & Zhang, J. (2010). Dynamics and
distribution of natural and human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences, 7, 585–619.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-585-2010
Rachkovskaya, E. I., & Bragina, T. M. (2012). Steppes of Kazakhstan: Diversity and present state. In M.
J. A., Werger & M. A. van Staalduinen (Eds.), Eurasian steppes. Ecological problems and livelihoods
in a changing world (pp. 103–148). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3886-7_3
Radu, G., & Anton, E. (2014). Impact of turbot fishery on cetaceans in the Romanian Black Sea area.
Scientia Marina, 78(S1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04029.27A
Rakonczay, Z. (1989). Red data book on mosses, vascular plants and animals (invertebrates and
vertebrates). Budapest, Hungary: Vörös Könyv. Akadémiai Kiado.
Ram, D., Axelsson, A.-L., Green, M., Smith, H. G., & Lindström, Å. (2017). What drives current
population trends in forest birds – forest quantity, quality or climate? A large-scale analysis from
northern Europe. Forest Ecology and Management, 385, 177–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.013

520
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ramirez-Llodra, E., Tyler, P. A., Baker, M. C., Bergstad, O. A., Clark, M. R., Escobar, E., Levin, L. A.,
Menot, L., Rowden, A. A., Smith, C. R., & Van Dover, C. L. (2011). Man and the last great
wilderness: Human impact on the deep sea. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e22588.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022588
Ramsar. (2015a). COP 12 Doc. 11: Regional overview of the implementation of the Convention and its
Strategic Plan in Europe.
Ramsar. (2015b). COP 12 Doc. 12: Regional overview of the implementation of the Convention and its
Strategic Plan in Asia.
Ramsar. (n.d.). Ramsar Sites Information Service. Retrieved from https://rsis.ramsar.org/
Randi, E. (2008). Detecting hybridization between wild species and their domesticated relatives.
Molecular Ecology, 17(1), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03417.x
Randin, C. F., Engler, R., Normand, S., Zappa, M., Zimmermann, N. E., Pearman, P. B., Vittoz, P., Thuiller,
W., & Guisan, A. (2009). Climate change and plant distribution: Local models predict high-
elevation persistence. Global Change Biology, 15(6), 1557–1569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2008.01766.x
Randlane, T., Juriado, I., Suija, A., Lohmus, P., & Leppik, E. (2008). Lichens in the new red list of Estonia.
Folia Cryptogamica Estonica, 44, 113–120.
Rangwala, I., Sinsky, E., & Miller, J. R. (2013). Amplified warming projections for high altitude regions
of the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes from CMIP5 models. Environmental Research Letters,
8(2), 24040. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024040
Rassi, P., Hyvärinen, E., Juslén, A., & Mannerkoski, I. (2010). The 2010 red list of Finnish species.
Helsinki, Finland: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus.
Raybaud, V., Beaugrand, G., Dewarumez, J. M., & Luczak, C. (2014). Climate-induced range shifts of the
American jackknife clam Ensis directus in Europe. Biological Invasions, 17(2), 725–741.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0764-4
Raynolds, M. K., Walker, D. A., & Maier, H. A. (2006). NDVI patterns and phytomass distribution in the
circumpolar Arctic. Remote Sensing of Environment, 102(3–4), 271–281.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.02.016
Reading, C. J., Luiselli, L.M., Akani, G.C., Bonnet, X., Amori, G., Ballouard, J.M., Filippi, E., Naulleau, G.,
Pearson, D., & Rugiero, L. (2010). Are snake populations in widespread decline? Biology Letters,
6, 777–780. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0373
Reif, J., Voříšek, P., Šťastný, K., Bejček, V., & Petr, J. (2008). Agricultural intensification and farmland
birds: New insights from a Central European country. Ibis, 150(3), 596–605.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00829.x
Reimers, E., Miller, F. L., Eftestøl, S., Colman, J. E., & Dahle, B. (2006). Flight by feral reindeer Rangifer
tarandus tarandus in response to a directly approaching human on foot or on skis. Wildlife
Biology, 12(4), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[403:FBFRRT]2.0.CO;2
Reinecke, J., Klemm, G., & Heinken, T. (2014). Vegetation change and homogenization of species
composition in temperate nutrient deficient Scots pine forests after 45 yr. Journal of Vegetation
Science, 25(1), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvs.12069
Renaud, P. E., Sejr, M. K., Bluhm, B. A., Sirenko, B., & Ellingsen, I. H. (2015). The future of Arctic benthos:
Expansion, invasion, and biodiversity. Progress in Oceanography, 139, 244–257.

521
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.07.007
Rhymer, J. M., & Simberloff, D. (1996). Extinction by hybridization and introgression. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 27(1), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83
Rice, J., Arvanitidis, C., Boicenco, L., Kasapidis, P., Mahon, R., Malone, T., Montevecchi, W., Coll
Monton, M., Moretzsohn, F., Ouellet, P., Oxenford, H., Smith, T., Tunnell, J. W., Vanaverbeke, J.,
& Van Gaever, S. (2016). Chapter 36A. North Atlantic Ocean. In The first global integrated marine
assessment - World ocean assessment I. New York, USA: United Nations.
Richardson, D. M., & Pysek, P. (2006). Plant invasions: merging the concepts of species invasiveness
and community invasibility. Progress in Physical Geography, 30(3), 409–431.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0309133306pp490pr
Richman, N. I., (2015). Multiple drivers of decline in the global status of freshwater crayfish (Decapoda:
Astacidea). Böhm, M., Adams, S. B., Alvarez, F., Bergey, E. A., Bunn, J. J. S., Burnham, Q., Cordeiro,
J., Coughran, J., Crandall, K. A., Dawkins, K. L., DiStefano, R. J., Doran, N. E., Edsman, L., Eversole,
A. G., Füreder, L, Furse, J. M., Gherardi, F., Hamr, P., Holdich, D. M., Horwitz, P., Johnston, K.,
Jones, C. M., Jones, J. P. G., Jones, R. L., Jones, T. G., Kawai, T., Lawler, S., López-Mejıa, M., Miller,
R. M., Pedraza-Lara, C., Reynolds, J. D., Richardson, A. M. M., Schultz, M. B., Schuster, G. A., Sibley,
P. J., Souty-Grosset, C., Taylor, C. A, Thoma, R. F., Walls, J., Walsh, T. S., & Collen, B. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370, 20140060.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0060
Richner, N., Holderegger, R., Linder, H. P., & Walter, T. (2015). Reviewing change in the arable flora of
Europe: A meta-analysis. Weed Research, 55(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12123
Rigling, D., Hilfiker, S., Schöbel, C., Meier, F., Engesser, R., Scheidegger, C., … Queloz, V. (2016). Das
Eschentriebsterben Biologie, Krankheitssymptome und Handlungsempfehlungen [Ash die-back
biology, disease symptoms and recommendations for action]. Merkblatt Für Die Praxis [Fact
Sheet for Practice], 57, 1–8. Retrieved from www.wsl.ch/publikationen
Rintelen, T., & Van Damme, D. (2011). Dreissena caspia. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2011-2.RLTS.T188971A8669278.en
Roberge, J. M., Lämås, T., Lundmark, T., Ranius, T., Felton, A., & Nordin, A. (2015). Relative
contributions of set-asides and tree retention to the long-term availability of key forest
biodiversity structures at the landscape scale. Journal of Environmental Management, 154, 284–
292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.040
Robinson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great
Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2664.2002.00695.x
Rodrigues, A. S. L., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chanson, J., Cox, N., Hoffmann, M., & Stuart, S. N.
(2014). Spatially explicit trends in the global conservation status of vertebrates. PLoS ONE 9(11),
e113934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113934
Rogers, A. D., Brierley, A., Croot, P., Cunha, M. R., Danovaro, R., Devey, C., Hoel, A. H., Ruhl., H. A.,
Sarradin, P-M., Trevisanut, S., van den Hove, S., Vieira, H., & Visbeck, M. (2015) Delving deeper:
critical challenges for 21st century deep-sea research. K. E. Larkin, K. Donaldson, & N.
McDonough. (Eds.). Ostend, Belgium: European Marine Board.
Rogers, A. D., Tyler, P. A., Connelly, D. P., Copley, J. T., James, R., Larter, R. D., Linse, K., Mills, R. A.,
Garabato, A. N., Pancost, R. D., Pearce, D. A., Polunin, N. V. C., German, C. R., Shank, T., Boersch-

522
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Supan, P. H., Alker, B. J., Aquilina, A., Bennett, S. A., Clarke, A., Dinley, R. J. J., Graham, A. G. C.,
Green, D. R. H., Hawkes, J. A., Hepburn, L., Hilario, A., Huvenne, V. A. I., Marsh, L., Ramirez-Llodra,
E., Reid, W. D. K., Roterman, C. N., Sweeting, C. J., Thatje, Sven, & Zwirglmaier, K. (2012). The
discovery of new deep-sea hydrothermal vent communities in the Southern Ocean and
implications for biogeography. PLoS Biology, 10(1), e1001234.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001234
Roll, U., Feldman, A., Novosolov, M., Allison, A., Bauer, A.M., Bernard, R., Böhm, M., Castro-Herrera,
F., Chirio, L., Collen, B., Colli, G.R., Dabool, L., Das, I., Doan, T.M., Grismer, L.L., Hoogmoed, M.,
Itescu, Y., Kraus, F., LeBreton, M., Lewin, A., Martins, M., Maza, E., Meirte, D., Nagy, Z.T.,
Nogueira, C.C., Pauwels, O.S.G., Pincheira-Donoso, D., Powney, G., Sindaco, R., Tallowin, O.,
Torres-Carvajal, O., Trape, J.-F., Vidan, E., Uetz, P., Wagner, P., Wang, Y., Orme, C.D.L., Grenyer,
R., & Meiri, S. (2017). The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile
conservation. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1, 1677-1682. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-
0332-2
Rondinini, C., & Visconti, P. (2015). Scenarios of large mammal loss in Europe for the 21st century.
Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1028-1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12532
Rönkkönen, S., Ojaveer, E., Raid, T., & Viitasalo, M. (2004). Long-term changes in Baltic herring (Clupea
harengus membras) growth in the Gulf of Finland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 61(2), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-167
Roques, A., Rabitsch, W., Rasplus, J., Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Nentwig, W., & Kenis, M. (2009). Alien
terrestrial invertebrates of Europe. In DAISIE, Handbook of alien species in Europe (pp. 63–79).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Rosa García, R., Fraser, M. D., Celaya, R., Ferreira, L. M. M., García, U., & Osoro, K. (2013). Grazing land
management and biodiversity in the Atlantic European heathlands: a review. Agroforestry
Systems, 87(1), 19–43. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9519-3
Rosen Michel, T., & Röttger, C. (2014). Central Asian mammals initiative: Saving the last migrations. D.
Mallon, S. Michel, R. Vagg, & P. Zahler (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: UNEP / CMS Secretariat.
Roshydromet [Росгидромет]. (2014). Second assessment report on climate change and its
consequences in Russian Federation. [Второй оценочный доклад Росгидромета об
изменениях климата и их последствиях на территории Российской Федерации]. Retrieved
from http://downloads.igce.ru/publications/OD_2_2014/v2014/htm/1.htm
Rosstat [Росстат]. (2015). Сельское хозяйство, охота и охотничье хозяйство, лесоводство в России.
Стат.сб./Росстат. Mосква. 201 c. [Agriculture, hunting and wildlife management, and forestry in
Russia. Statistical Compendium, Moscow. 201 pp.] Retrieved from
http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/doc_2015/selhoz15.pdf
Roué, M., & Molnár, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Rundlöf, M., & Smith, H. G. (2006). The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on
landscape context. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(6), 1121–1127. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2006.01233.x
Ruiz-Labourdette, D., Nogués-Bravo, D., Ollero, H. S., Schmitz, M. F., & Pineda, F. D. (2012). Forest
composition in Mediterranean mountains is projected to shift along the entire elevational

523
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

gradient under climate change. Journal of Biogeography, 39(1), 162–176.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02592.x
Russell, D. J. F., Wanless, S., Collingham, Y. C., Huntley, B., & Hamer, K. C. (2015). Predicting future
European breeding distributions of British seabird species under climate change and
unlimited/no dispersal scenarios. Diversity, 7(4), 342–359. https://doi.org/10.3390/d7040342
Russian Academy of Sciences. (2008). Фундаментальные и прикладные проблемы ботаники в
начале XXI века: Материалы всероссийской конференции (Петрозаводск, 22–27 сентября
2008 г.). Часть 2: Альгология. Микология. Лихенология. Бриология. [Fundamental and applied
problems of botany at the beginning of the XXI century: Materials of all-Russian conference
(Petrozavodsk, 22-27 September 2008) Part 2: Algology. Mycology. Lichenology. Bryology].
Petrozavodsk, Russian Federation: Karelian research centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Russian Forest Protection Centre [Российского центра защиты леса]. (n.d.). Огнёвка самшитовая - 3
года на Российском Кавказе [The box tree moth (Cydalima perspectalis) - 3 years in the Russian
Caucasus]. Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://rcfh.ru/23_09_2014_de743.html
Russo, D. (2007). The effects of land abandonment on animal species in Europe: conservation and
management implications.
Rydin, H., & Jeglum, J. K. (2013). The biology of peatlands (2nd edition). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Sabovljevit, M., Ganeva, A., Tsakiri, E., & Stefanut, S. (2001). Bryology and bryophyte protection in
south-eastern Europe. Biological Conservation, 101(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-
3207(01)00043-X
Sadygov, T. N. [Садыгов, Т. Н.]. (2012). Концепция возобновления Прикуринских тугайных лесов
[The concept of Pikulinski tugai forests restoration]. Научные Труды АГАУ [Scientific Proceedings
of ASAU], 2, 56–59.
Safarov, I. S. [Сафаров, И. С.]. (1979). Субтропические леса Талыша [Subtropical forests of Tallish].
Baku, Azerbaijan: Elm.
Safarov, H. (2009). Rare and endangered plant species in Hirkan National Park and its environs. In N.
Zazanashvili & D. Mallon (Eds.), Status and protection of globally threatened species in the
Caucasus (pp. 193-198). Tbilisi, Georgia: CEPF, WWF.
Sahlén, G., Bernard, R., A., C. R., Ketelaar, R., & Suhling, F. (2004). Critical species of Odonata in Europe.
International Journal of Odonatology, 7, 385–398.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13887890.2004.9748223
Sala, E., Kizilkaya, Z., Yildirim, D., & Ballesteros, E. (2011). Alien marine fishes deplete algal biomass in
the Eastern Mediterranean. PLoS ONE, 6(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017356
Saltankin, V. P. (2012). Russian water reservoirs. In: L. Bengtsson, R. W. Herschy, & R. W. Fairbridge
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of lakes and reservoirs. Encyclopedia of earth sciences series (pp. 691–697).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4410-6_250
Saltré, F., Duputié, A., Gaucherel, C., & Chuine, I. (2015). How climate, migration ability and habitat
fragmentation affect the projected future distribution of European beech. Global Change Biology,
21(2), 897–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12771
Sandrea, R., & Sandrea, I. (2010). Deepwater crude oil output: How large will the uptick be? Oil and
Gas Journal, 108(41), 48–53. Retrieved from https://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-

524
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

108/issue-41/exploration-development/deepwater-crude-oil-output-how-large.html
Santini, A., Ghelardini, L., De Pace, C., Desprez-Loustau, M. L., Capretti, P., Chandelier, A., Cech, T.,
Chira, D., Diamandis, S., Gaitniekis, T., Hantula, J., Holdenrieder, O., Jankovsky, L., Jung, T., Jurc,
D., Kirisits, T., Kunca, A., Lygis, V., Malecka, M., Marcais, B., Schmitz, S., Schumacher, J., Solheim,
H., Solla, A., Szabò, I., Tsopelas, P., Vannini, A., Vettraino, A. M., Webber, J., Woodward, S., &
Stenlid, J. (2013). Biogeographical patterns and determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in
Europe. New Phytologist, 197(1), 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04364.x
Sauer, J., Domisch, S., Nowak, C., & Haase, P. (2011). Low mountain ranges: summit traps for montane
freshwater species under climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 3133–3146.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0140-y
Savvaitova, K. A., & Petr, T. (1999). Fish and fisheries in Lake Issyk-Kul (Tien Shan), River Chu and Pamir
Lakes. In T. Petr (Ed.), Fish and Fisheries at Higher Altitudes: Asia (pp. 168–187). Rome, Italy: FAO.
Schatz, B. & Dounias, E. (2016). Pollination: Threats and opportunities in European beekeeping. In S.
Thiébault & J.-P. Moatti (Eds.), The Mediterranean region under climate change: a scientific
update (COP 22 UN FCCC, Marrakech (MAR), 2016/11/7-18), pp. 551-558. Marseille, France: IRD
Scheidegger, C., Bilovitz, P. O., Werth, S., Widmer, I., & Mayrhofer, H. (2012). Hitchhiking with forests:
Population genetics of the epiphytic lichen Lobaria pulmonaria in primeval and managed forests
in southeastern Europe. Ecology and Evolution, 2(9), 2223–2240.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.341
Scheidegger, C., & Clerc, P. (2002). Rote Liste der gefährdeten Arten der Schweiz: Baum- und
erdbewohnende Flechten [Red list of endangered species in Switzerland: Tree and
Erdbewohnende lichen]. Bern, Switzerland: Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft
BUWAL.
Scheidegger, C., & Werth, S. (2009). Conservation strategies for lichens: insights from population
biology. Fungal Biology Reviews, 23(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbr.2009.10.003
Scherrer, D., & Körner, C. (2011). Topographically controlled thermal-habitat differentiation buffers
alpine plant diversity against climate warming. Journal of Biogeography, 38(2), 406–416.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02407.x
Schmid B. (2002). The species richness-productivity controversy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
17(3), 113–114. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02422-3
Schmidt, N. M., Ims, R. A., Høye, T. T., Gilg, O., Hansen, L. H., Hansen, J., Lund, M., Fuglei, E.,
Forchhammer, M. C., & Sittler, B. (2012). Response of arctic predator guilds to collapsing lemming
cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4417–4422.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1490
Schneider-Binder, E. (2007). Xerophilous and xero-mesophilous grasslands on slumping hills around
the Saxon villages Apold and Saschiz (Transylvania, Romania). Transylvanian Review of
Systematical and Ecological Research, 4, 55–64. Retrieved from
https://search.proquest.com/openview/00559c262e577f36a9987e28a286449e/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=54813
Schneider, M. K., Lüscher, G., Jeanneret, P., Arndorfer, M., Ammari, Y., Bailey, D., Balázs, K., Báldi, A.,
Choisis, J.-P., Dennis, P., Eiter, S., Fjellstad, W., Fraser, M. D., Frank, T., Friedel, J. K., Garchi, S.,
Geijzendorffer, I. R., Gomiero, T., Gonzalez-Bornay, G., Hector, A., Jerkovich, G., Jongman, R. H.
G., Kakudidi, E., Kainz, M., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Moreno, G., Nkwiine, C., Opio, J., Oschatz, M.-

525
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

L., Paoletti, M. G., Pointereau, P., Pulido, F. J., Sarthou, J., Siebrecht, N., Sommaggio, D., Turnbull,
L. A, Wolfrum, S., & Herzog, F. (2014). Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are
not propagated at the farm level. Nature Communications, 5, 4151.
http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5151
Scholefield, P., Firbank, L., Butler, S., Norris, K., Jones, L. M., & Petit, S. (2011). Modelling the European
farmland bird indicator in response to forecast land-use change in Europe. Ecological Indicators,
11(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.09.008
Schwarz, U. (2012). Hydropower projects in protected areas on the Balkans.
Schwörer, C., Henne, P. D., & Tinner, W. (2014). A model-data comparison of Holocene timberline
changes in the Swiss Alps reveals past and future drivers of mountain forest dynamics. Global
Change Biology, 20(5), 1512–1526. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12456
Science for Environment Policy. (2015). Ecosystem services and biodiversity. In-depth report 11. Bristol,
UK: UWE. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy
Sciberras, M., Jenkins, S. R., Mant, R., Kaiser, M. J., Hawkins, S. J., & Pullin, A. S. (2015). Evaluating the
relative conservation value of fully and partially protected marine areas. Fish and Fisheries, 16(1),
58–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12044
Seaward, M. (2008). Environmental role of lichens. In T. H. Nash (Ed.), Lichen Biology, 2nd edition (pp.
274–298). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Šebesta, J., Šamonil, P., Lacina, J., Oulehle, F., Houška, J., & Buček, A. (2011). Acidification of primeval
forests in the Ukraine Carpathians: Vegetation and soil changes over six decades. Forest Ecology
and Management, 262(7), 1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.06.024
Sedelnikova, N. V. (1988). Lichens. In Red Book of Novosibirsk Oblast: Plants (pp. 123–129).
Novosibirsk, USSR: Nauka.
Seebens, H., Blackburn, T. M., Dyer, E. E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Pagad, S., Pyšek, P.,
Winter, M., Arianoutsou, M., Bacher, S., Blasius, B., Brundu, G., Capinha, C., Celesti-Grapow, L.,
Dawson, W., Dullinger, S., Fuentes, N., Jäger, H., Kartesz, J., Kenis, M., Kreft, H., Kühn, I., Lenzner,
B., Liebhold, A., Mosena, A., Moser, D., Nishino, M., Pearman, D., Pergl, J., Rabitsch, W., Rojas-
Sandoval, J., Roques, A., Rorke, S., Rossinelli, S., Roy, H. E., Scalera, R., Schindler, S., Štajerová, K.,
Tokarska-Guzik, B., van Kleunen, M., Walker, K., Weigelt, P., Yamanaka, T., & Essl, F. (2017). No
saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications, 8, 14435.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435
Šefferová Stanová, V., Šeffer, J., & Janák, M. (2008). Management of Natura 2000 habitats. Alkaline
fens.
Segerstråle, S. G. (1957). Baltic sea. Geological Society of America Memoirs, 67, 751–800.
Şekercioğlu, C. H., Anderson, S., Akçay, E., Bilgin, R., EmreCanf, Ö., Semiz, G., Tavşanoğlu, C., BakiYokeş,
M., Soyumert, A., İpekdal, K., Sağlam, I. K., Yücel, M., & Nüzhet Dalfes, J. (2011). Turkey’s globally
important biodiversity in crisis. Biological Conservation, 144(12), 2752–2769.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.025
Selvi, F., Carrari, E., & Coppi, A. (2016). Impact of pine invasion on the taxonomic and phylogenetic
diversity of a relict Mediterranean forest ecosystem. Forest Ecology and Management, 367, 1–
11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.02.013
Senn-irlet, B., Heilmann-Clausen, J., Genney, D., & Dahlberg, A. (2007). Guidance for Conservation of

526
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Macrofungi in Europe. Retrieved from https://www.wsl.ch/eccf/Guidance_Fungi.pdf

Serusiaux, E. (1989). Liste rouge des Macrilichens dans la communaute Europeenne [Red list of
Macrilichens in the European Community]. Liège, Belgium: Université de Liège. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/2268/138066
Sheldon, R. D., Kamp, J., Koshkin, M., Urazaliev, R., Iskakov, T., Field, R., Salemgareev, A. R., Khrokov,
V. V., Zhuly, V. A. Skylarenko, S. L., & Donald, P. F. (2013). Breeding ecology of the globally
threatened sociable lapwing Vanellus gregarius and the demographic drivers of recent declines.
Journal of Ornithology, 154, 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0921-4
Shelyak-Sosonka, Y. R. (1996). Chervona Kniga Ukrainy - Roslinniy Svit [Red Data Book of Ukraine - Plant
Kingdom]. Kiev, Ukraine: Ukrainskaya Enciklopedia.
Shevchenko, V. V., & Datsky, A. V. (2014). Биоэкономика использования промысловых ресурсов
минтая Северной Пацифики [Bioeconomics of Alaska Pollack fishery resources using in North
Pacific]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Publishing House VNIRO.
Shiganova, T. A. [Шиганова, Т. А.]. (2000). Некоторые итоги изучения биологии вселенца M. leidyi
(A. Agassiz) в Черном море [Some results of studying the biology of the invader M. leidyi (A.
Agassiz) in the Black Sea]. In S. P. Volovik (Ed.), Гребневик Mnemiopsis leidyi (A. Agassiz) в
Азовском и Черном морях и последствия его вселения [Ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi (A.
Agassiz) in the Azov and Black seas and the consequences of its invasion] (pp. 33–75). Rostov-on-
Don, Russian Federation: БКИ [BKI].
Shiganova, T. A., Bulgakova, Y. V., Sorokin, P. Y., & Lukashev, Y. F. [Шиганова, Т. А., Булгакова, Ю. В.,
Сорокин, П. Ю., & Лукашев, Ю. Ф.]. (2000). Результаты исследований нового вселенца Beroe
ovata в Черном море [Investigation of a new settler Beroe ovata in the Black Sea]. Известия
Академии Наук, Серия Биологическая [Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, Biological
Series], 2, 247–256.
Shore, R. F., Fletcher, M. R., & Walker, L. A. (2003). Agricultural pesticides and mammals in Britain. In:
F. Tattersall & W. Manley (Eds.), Conservation and conflict. Mammals and farming in Britain (pp.
37–50). Otley, UK: Westbury Publishing.
Shukurov, E. Dj. [Шукуров, Э. Дж.]. (2007). Сочинения [Compositions]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: БИОМ
[BIOM]. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-central-
1.amazonaws.com/biom/lib/book/shukurov_compositions.pdf
Shukurov, E. Dj. [Шукуров, Э. Дж.]. (2009). Природные основы устойчивого развития
Кыргызстана [Natural basis of sustainable development in Kyrgyzstan]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan:
Regional Expert Centre on education for sustainable development.
Shukurov, E. Dj, Mitropolsky, O. V., Talskykh, V. N., Zhodubaeva, L. Y., & Shevchenko, V. V. [Шукуров,
Э. Дж., Митропольский, О. В., Тальских, В. Н., Жолдубаева, Л. Ы., & Шевченко, В. В.]. (2005).
Атлас биологического разнообразия Западного-Тянь-Шаня [Atlas of biological diversity of
western Tien Shan]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: ОсОО «Бисмарк» [LLC "Bismark”]. Retrieved from
https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/biom/lib/book/atlas_biodiv_west_tian_shan.pdf
Shukurov, E. Dj., Korotenko, V. A., Kirilenko, V. A., Vashneva, N. S., & Domashov, I. A. [Шукуров, Э. Дж.,
Коротенко, В. А., Кириленко, В. А., Вашнева, Н. С., & Домашов, И. А.]. (2015). Экологическая
безопасность в контексте устойчивого развития Кыргызстана [Environmental safety of
Kyrgyzstan in the context of sustainable development]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: БИОМ [BIOM].
Shukurov, E. Dj. [Шукуров, Э. Дж.]. (2016). Зоогеография Кыргызстана [Zoogeography of

527
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Kyrgyzstan]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: БИОМ [BIOM]. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-central-

1.amazonaws.com/biom/work/pub/zoogeo.pdf
Shuman, J. K., & Shugart, H. H. (2009). Evaluating the sensitivity of Eurasian forest biomass to climate
change using a dynamic vegetation model. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 45024.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045024
Shuntov, V. P., & Temnykh, O. S. [Шунтов, В. П., & Темных, О. С.]. (2013). Иллюзии и реалии
экосистемного подхода к изучению и управлению морскими и океаническими
биологическими ресурсами [Illusions and realities of the ecosystem approach to the study and
management of marine and oceanic biological resources]. Известия ТИНРО [Izvestiya TINRO],
173, 3–29.
Shurin, J. B., Winder, M., Adrian, R., Keller, W. B., Matthews, B., Paterson, A. M., Paterson, M. J., Pinel-
Alloul, B., Rusak, J. A., & Yan, N. D. (2010). Environmental stability and lake zooplankton diversity
- contrasting effects of chemical and thermal variability. Ecology Letters, 13(4), 453–463.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01438.x
Shustov, M. V. [Шустов, М. В.]. (2015). Лишайники в Красных книгах Ульяновской и Самарской
областей [Red List of lichens in the Uliyanovsk and the Samara region]. Известия Самарского
научного центра Российской академии наук [News of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian
Academy of Sciences]. 17(6), 322-325.
Sieber, A., Uvarov N. V., Baskin, L. M., Radeloff, V. C., Bateman, B. L., Pankov, A. B., Kuemmerle, T.
(2015). Post-Soviet land-use change effects on large mammals' habitat in European Russia.
Biological Conservation 191, 567–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.041
Siedentop, S., & Fina, S. (2012). Who sprawls most? Exploring the patterns of urban growth across 26
European countries. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(11), 2765–2784.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a4580
Silic, C. (1996). Spisak biljnih vrsta (Pteridohpyta i Spermatophyta) za crvenu knjigu Bosne i Hercegovine
[List of plant species (Pteridohpyta and Spermatophyta) for the red book of Bosnia and
Herzegovina].
Sillero, N., Campos, J., Bonardi, A., Corti, C., Creemers, R., Crochet, P.-A., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Denoël,
M., Ficetola, G.F., Gonçalves, J., Kuzmin, S., Lymerakis, P., de Pous, P., Rodríguez, A., Sindaco, R.,
Speybroeck, J., Toxopeus, B., Vieites, D.R., & Vences, M. (2014). Updated distribution and
biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphibia-Reptilia 35, 1-31.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002935
Sirami, C., Nespoulous, A., Cheylan, J. P., Marty, P., Hvenegaard, G. T., Geniez, P., Schatz, B., & Martin,
J. L. (2010). Long-term anthropogenic and ecological dynamics of a Mediterranean landscape:
Impacts on multiple taxa. Landscape and Urban Planning, 96(4), 214–223.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.03.007
Silva, J., Toland, J., Jones, W., Elridge, J., Thorpe, E., Campbell, M., & O’Hara, E. (2008). LIFE and
endangered plants. Conserving Europe’s threatened flora. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2779/99297
Simpson, M., & Prots, B. (2013). Predicting the distribution of invasive plants in the Ukrainian
Carpathians under climatic change and intensification of anthropogenic disturbances:
implications for biodiversity conservation. Environmental Conservation, 40(2), 167–181.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s037689291200032x

528
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sirenko, B. I., & Gagaev, S. Y. (2007). Unusual abundance of macrobenthos and biological invasions in
the Chukchi Sea. Russian Journal of Marine Biology, 33(6), 355–364.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063074007060016
Sirenko, B. I. [Сиренко, Б. И.]. (2009). The present state of investigations of the Chukchi Sea fauna. In
B. I. Sirenko [Б. И. Сиренко] (Ed.), Экосистемы и биоресурсы Чукотского моря и
сопредельных акваторий. Исследования фауны морей [Ecosystems and biological resources
of the Chukchi Sea and adjacent areas. Explorations of the Fauna of the Seas] (pp. 8-31). Saint-
Petersburg, Russian Federation: Зоологический институт Российской Академии Наук
[Zoological Institute of RAS].
Sirin, A., Minayeva, T., Ilyasov, D., Suvorov, G., Martynenko, V., Fedotov, Yu., Glukhova, T., Valyaeva,
N., Tsuganova, O., Maslov, A., Muldashev, A., Shirokikh, P., & Kuznetsov, E. (2016). Peatlands in
sub humid regions under changing climate and human activities. In Proceedings 15th
International Peat Congress 2016 “Peatlands in Harmony”. Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 14-16
August 2016 (pp. 409–413).
Sirin, A., Minayeva, T., Vozbrannaya, A., & Bartalev, S. (2011). How to avoid peat fires? Science in
Russia, (2), 13–21.
Sirkiä, S., Lindén, A., Helle, P., Nikula, A., Knape, J., & Lindén, H. (2010). Are the declining trends in
forest grouse populations due to changes in the forest age structure? A case study of Capercaillie
in Finland. Biological Conservation, 143(6), 1540–1548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.038
Sitzia, T., Semenzato, P., & Trentanovi, G. (2010). Natural reforestation is changing spatial patterns of
rural mountain and hill landscapes: A global overview. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(8),
1354-1362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.048
Sket, B. (1999). The nature of biodiversity in hypogean waters and how it is endangered. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 8(10), 1319–1338. https://doi.org/doi:10.1023/A:1008916601121
Sket, B. (2012a). Dinaric karst, diversity in. In W. B. White. & D. C. Culver (Eds.), Encyclopedia of caves.
Second edition (pp. 158–165). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.
Sket, B. (2012b). Diversity patterns in Dinaric karst. In W. B. White & D. C. Culver (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of caves. Second edition (pp. 228–238). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.
Sket, B., Paragamian, K., & Trontelj, P. (2004). A census of obligate subterranean fauna of the Balkan
Penninsula. In I. Griffiths, B. Kryštufek, & J. M. Reed (Eds.), Balkan biodiversity: pattern and
process in the European hotspot (pp. 309–323). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Skorka, P., Lenda, M., & Tryjanowski, P. (2010). Invasive alien goldenrods negatively affect grassland
bird communities in Eastern Europe. Biological Conservation, 143(4), 856–861.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.030
Slingenberg, A., Braat, L., Windt, H. Van Der, Rademaekers, K., Eichler, L., & Turner, K. (2009). Study on
understanding the causes of biodiversity loss and the policy assessment framework.
Smale, D. A., Burrows, M. T., Moore, P., O’Connor, N., & Hawkins, S. J. (2013). Threats and knowledge
gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forests: A northeast Atlantic perspective. Ecology
and Evolution, 3(11), 4016–4038. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.774
Smaliychuk, A., Müller, D., Prishchepov, A. V., Levers, C., Kruhlov, I., & Kuemmerle, T. (2016).
Recultivation of abandoned agricultural lands in Ukraine: Patterns and drivers. Global
Environmental Change, 38, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.009

529
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Smelansky, I. E. (2003). Biodiversity of agricultural lands in Russia: current state and trends. Moscow,
Russian Federation: IUCN.
Smelansky, I. E., & Tishkov, A. A. (2012). The steppe biome in Russia: Ecosystem services, conservation
status, and actual challenges. In M. J. A. Werger & M. van Staalduinen (Eds.), Eurasian steppes:
ecological problems and livelihoods in a changing world (pp. 45–101). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3886-7
Smelansky, I., & Simonov, E. (2008). Temperate grassland region: Russian steppes. In B. Peart (Ed.),
Compendium of regional templates on the status of temperate grasslands conservation and
protection (pp. 87–99). Vancouver, Canada: IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.
Smelyansky, I., Elizarov, A., Sobolev, N., & Blagovidov, A. [Смелянский, И., Елизаров, А., Соболев, Н.,
& Благовидов, А.]. (2006). Стратегия сохранения степей России: позиция
неправительственных организаций [Russian Steppe Conservation Strategy: NGOs position.
Moscow, Russian Federation: Издательствово Центра охраны дикой природы [Publishing
House of Biodiversity Conservation Center]. Previous “author” was the strategy
Smelansky, I. E., Buivolov, J. A., Bazhenov, Y. A., Bakirova, R. T., Borovik, L. P., Borodin, A. P., Bykova, E.
P., Vlasov, A. A., Gavrilenko, V. S., Goroshko, O. A., Gribkov, A.V., Kirilyuk, V. E., Korsun, O. V.,
Kreindlin, M. L., Kuksin, G. V., Lysenko, G. N., Polchaninova, N. Yu, Pulyaev, A. I., Ryzhkov, O. V.,
Ryabinina, Z. N., & Tkachuk T. E. [Смелянский, И. Э., Буйволов, Ю. А., Баженов, Ю. А., Бакирова,
Р. Т., Боровик, Л. П., Бородин, А. П., Быкова, Е. П., Власов, А. А., Гавриленко, В. С., Горошко,
О. А., Грибков, А. В., Кирилюк, В. Е., Корсун, О. В., Крейндлин, М. Л., Куксин, Г. В., Лысенко,
Г. Н., Полчанинова, Н. Ю., Пуляев, А. И., Рыжков, О. В., Рябинина, З. Н., & Ткачук, Т. Е.]. (2015)
Степные пожары и управление пожарной ситуацией в степных ООПТ: экологические и
природоохранные аспекты. Аналитический обзор [Steppe fires and fire management in
steppe protected areas: Environmental and conservation aspects. Analytical survey]. Moscow,
Russian Federation: Издательство Центра охраны дикой природы [Biodiversity Conservation
Center Press].
Smith, G. F., Gittings, T., Wilson, M., French, L., Oxbrough, A., O’Donoghue, S., O’Halloran, S., Kelly, D.
L., Mitchell, S. J. G., Kelly, T., Iremonger, S., Mckee, A. M., & Giller, P. (2008). Identifying practical
indicators of biodiversity for stand-level management of plantation forests. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 17(5), 991–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9274-3
Snickars, M., Weigel, B., & Bonsdorff, E. (2015). Impact of eutrophication and climate change on fish
and zoobenthos in coastal waters of the Baltic Sea. Marine Biology, 162(1), 141–151.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2579-3
Sokolov, V. E. [Соколов, В. Е.]. (1986). Редкие и исчезающие животные. Млекопитающие [Rare
and endangered animals. Mammals]. Moscow, USSR: Высшая школа [Higher School].
Sokos, C. K., Birtsas, P. K., Connelly, J. W., & Papaspyropoulos, K. G. (2013). Hunting of migratory birds:
disturbance intolerant or harvest tolerant? Wildlife Biology, 19(2), 113–125.
https://doi.org/10.2981/12-032
Sokratov, S. A., Seliverstov, Y. G., & Shnyparkov, A. L. (2014). Assessment of the economic risk for the
ski resorts of changes in snow cover duration. Ice and Snow, 54(3), 100-106.
Soliveres, S., Manning, P., Prati, D., Gossner, M. M., Alt, F., Arndt, H., Baumgartner, V., Binkenstein, J.,
Birkhofer, K., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., Boch, S., Böhm, S., Börschig, C., Buscot, F., Diekötter, T.,
Heinze, J., Hölzel, N., Jung, K., Klaus, V. H., Klein, A.-M., Kleinebecker, T., Klemmer, S., Krauss, J.,
Lange, M., Morris, E. K., Müller, J., Oelmann, Y., Overmann, J., Pašalić, E., Renner, S. C., Rillig, M.

530
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

C., Schaefer, H. M., Schloter, M., Schmitt, B., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Sikorski, J., Socher, S. A.,
Solly, E. F., Sonnemann, I., Sorkau, E., Steckel, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stempfhuber, B., Tschapka,
M., Türke, M., Venter, P., Weiner, C. N., Weisser, W. W., Werner, M., Westphal, C., Wilcke, W.,
Wolters, V., Wubet, T., Wurst, S., Fischer, M., & Allan, E. (2016a). Locally rare species influence
grassland ecosystem multifunctionality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 371(1694), 20150269. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0269
Soliveres, S., Van der Plas, F., Manning, P., Prati, D., Gossner, M., Renner, S., Alt, F., Arndt, H.,
Baumgartner, V., Binkenstein, J., Birkhofer, K., Blaser, S., Blüthgen, N., Boch, S., Böhm, S.,
Börschig, C., Buscot, F., Diekötter, T., Heinze, J., Hölzel, N., Jung, K., Klaus, V.H., Kleinebecker, T.,
Klemmer, S., Krauss, J., Lange, M., Morris, E.K., Müller, J., Oelmann, Y., Overmann, J., Pašalić, E.,
Rillig, M.C., Schaefer, H.M., Schloter, M., Schmitt, B., Schöning, I., Schrumpf, M., Sikorski, J.,
Socher, S.A., Solly, E.F., Sonnemann, I., Sorkau, E., Steckel, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stempfhuber,
B., Tschapka, M., Türke, M., Venter, P.C., Weiner, C.N., Weisser, W.W., Werner, M., Westphal, C.,
Wilcke, W., Wolters, V., Wubet, T., Wurst, S., Fischer, M., Allan, E. (2016b). Biodiversity at multiple
trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature, 536, 456-459.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19092
Solomon, J., Shulkina, T., & Schatz, G. E. (2014). Red list of endemic plants of the Caucasus: Armenia,
Azerbaidjan, Georgia, Iran, Russia, and Turkey. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Soós, Á., Papp, L., & Oosterbroek, P. (1992). Catalogue of palaearctic diptera vol 1. Budapest, Hungary:
Hungarian Natural History Museum.
Sorokin, Y. I. (2002). Black Sea ecology and oceanography. Leiden, The Netherlands: Backhuys
Publishers.
Sorokovikova, L. M., Popovskaya, G. I., Tomberg, I. V., Sinyukovich, V. N., Kravchenko, O. S., Marinaite,
I. I., Bashenkhaeva, N. V., & Khodzher, T. V. (2013). The Selenga River water quality on the border
with Mongolia at the beginning of the 21st century. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, 38(2),
126–133. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068373913020106
Soto, C. G. (2001). The potential impacts of global climate change on marine protected areas. Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 11(3), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020364409616
Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M., Halpern, B. S., Jorge,
M. A., Lombana, A., Lourie, S. A., Martin, K. D., Mcmanus, E., Molnar, J., Recchia, C. A., &
Robertson, J. (2007). Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf
areas. BioScience, 57(7), 573. http://doi.org/10.1641/B570707
Sparrius, L. B., & Kooijman, A. M. (2011). Invasiveness of Campylopus introflexus in drift sands depends
on nitrogen deposition and soil organic matter. Applied Vegetation Science, 14(2), 221–229.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2010.01120.x
Stanners, D., & Bourdeau, P. (Eds.). (1995). Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment.
Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
Št’astný, K., Červený, J., Řezáč, M., Kurka, A., Veselý, P., Kadlec, T., Konvička, M., Juřičková, L., Harabiš,
F., & Marhoul, P. (2015). Prague. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and invertebrates of European
cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp. 379–451). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6
Št’astný, K., Červený, J., Rom, J., Solský, M., Hanel, L., Andreska, J., Vojar, J., & Kerouš, K. (2015). Prague.
In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and invertebrates of European cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp.

531
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

119–153). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-

4939-1698-6
Stelmakh, L. V., & Mansurova, I. M., [Стельмах, Л. В., & Мансурова, И. М.]. (2012). Эколого-
физиологические основы биоразнообразия фитопланктона Черного моря [Ecological and
physiological basis of phytoplankton biodiversity in the Black Sea]. Экосистемы [Ecosystems], 7,
149–158.
Stendera, S., Adrian, R., Bonada, N., Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Hugueny, B., Januschke, K., Pletterbauer,
F., & Hering, D. (2012). Drivers and stressors of freshwater biodiversity patterns across different
ecosystems and scales: A review. Hydrobiologia, 696(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-
012-1183-0
Stenger-Kovács, C., Lengyel, E., Buczkó, K., Tóth, F., Crossetti, L., Pellinger, A., Doma, Z. Z., & Padisák, J.
(2014). Vanishing world: alkaline, saline lakes in Central Europe and their diatom assemblages.
Inland Waters, (4(4)), 383–396. https://doi.org/10.5268/IW-4.4.722
STOA. (2013). Technology options for feeding 10 billion people - Interactions between climate change
& agriculture and between biodiversity & agriculture. https://doi.org/10.2861/43440
Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G. R., Rakosy, L., &
Ramwell, C. (2009). Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – A
review. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 22–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
Stoate, C., Boatman, N. D., Borralho, R. J., Carvalho, C. R., de Snoo, G. R., & Eden, P. (2001). Ecological
impacts of arable intensification in Europe. Journal of Environmental Management, 63(4), 337–
365. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0473
Stöcklin, J., Bosshard, A., Klaus, G., Rudmann-Maurer, K., & Fischer, M. (2007). Landnutzung und
biologische Vielfalt in den Alpen – Fakten, Perspektiven, Empfehlungen [Land use and biodiversity
in the Alps – facts, perspectives, recommendations]. Zürich, Switzerland: VDF.
Stofer, S., Bergamini, A., Aragón, G., Carvalho, P., Coppins, B. J., Davey, S., Dietrich, M., Farkas, E.,
Kärkkäinen, K., Keller, C., Lökös, L., Lommi, S., Máguas, C., Mitchell, R., Pinho, P., Rico, V. J.,
Truscott, A.-M., Wolseley, P. A., Watt, A., & Scheidegger, C. (2006). Species richness of lichen
functional groups in relation to land use intensity. The Lichenologist, 38(4), 331.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282906006207
Stokland, J. N., Siitonen, J., & Jonsson, B. G. (2012). Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139025843
Stone, R. (2008). A new great lake - or dead sea? Science, 320(5879), 1002–1005.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.320.5879.1002
Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future
challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358.
https://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
Stuart-Smith, S. J., & Jepson, P. D. (2017). Persistent threats need persistent counteraction: Responding
to PCB pollution in marine mammals. Marine Policy, 84, 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.033
Succow, M., & Uppenbrink, M. (Eds.). (2009). Potential analysis for further nature conservation in
Azerbaijan: A spatial and political investment strategy. Greifswald, Germany: Michael Succow
Foundation. Retrieved from

532
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://books.google.ru/books?id=qR3dlbuBkYgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru&source=gbs_ge_
summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sugar, I. (1994). Crvena knjiga biljnih vrstva Republike Hrvatske [Red list of plant species of Croatia].
Zagreb, Croatia: Ministarstvo graditeljstva i zastite okolisa, Zavod za zastitu prirode.
Sutton, M. A., Mason, K. E., Sheppard, L. J., Sverdrup, H., Heuber, R., & Hicks, W. K. (2014). Nitrogen
Deposition, Critical Loads and Biodiversity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Svendsen, L. M., Pyhälä, M., Gustafsson, B., Sonesten, L., & Knuuttila, S. (2015). Inputs of nitrogen and
phosphorus to the Baltic Sea. HELCOM core indicator report.
Svetasheva, T. (2017). Fungal conservation in Russia: an update. In Fungal Conservation in a Changing
Europe.
Svetasheva, T. 2015. (2015). Armillaria ectypa. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-%0A4.RLTS.T75097245A75098379.en%0A%0A
Synnes, M. (2007). Bioprospecting of organisms from the deep sea: scientific and environmental
aspects. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 9(1), 53–59.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-006-0062-7
Szabó, P. (2013). The end of common uses and traditional management in a Central European wood.
In I. D. Rotherham (Ed.), Cultural severance and the environment: The ending of traditional and
customary practice on commons and landscapes managed in common (pp. 205–213). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6159-9
Takala, T., Kouki, J., & Tahvanainen, T. (2014). Bryophytes and their microhabitats in coniferous forest
pastures: should they be considered in the pasture management? Biodiversity and Conservation,
23(12), 3127–3142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0769-4
Takala, T., Tahvanainen, T., & Kouki, J. (2012). Can re-establishment of cattle grazing restore bryophyte
diversity in abandoned mesic semi-natural grasslands? Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(4), 981–
992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0234-1
Takhtadzhyan, A. L. [Тахтаджян, А. Л.]. (1978). Флористические области земли [The floristic regions
of the world]. Leningrad, USSR: Nauka.
Taskavak, E., Atatür, M.K., Ghaffari, H., Meylan, P.A., (2016). Rafetus euphraticus (Daudin 1801) –
Euphrates softshell turtle. In A. G. J. Rhodin, J. B. Iverson, P. P. van Dijk, R A. Saumure, K A.
Buhlmann, P. C. H. Pritchard, & R. A. Mittermeier (Eds.), Conservation biology of freshwater
turtles and tortoises: A compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle
specialist group.
Taubmann, J., Theissinger, K., Feldheim, K. A., Laube, I., Graf, W., Haase, P., Johannesen, J., & Pauls, S.
U. (2011). Modelling range shifts and assessing genetic diversity distribution of the montane
aquatic mayfly Ameletus inopinatus in Europe under climate change scenarios. Conservation
Genetics, 12, 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-010-0157-x
Taylor, M. L., & Roterman, C. N. (2017). Invertebrate population genetics across Earth’s largest habitat:
The deep-sea floor. Molecular Ecology, 26(19),4872-4896. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14237
Temple, H. J., & Cox, N. A. (2009). European red list of amphibians. Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities. https://doi.org/10.2779/73661
Terraube, J., Arroyo, B.E., Madders, M. & Mougeot, F. (2011). Diet specialisation and foraging efficiency
under fluctuating food abundance in sympatric avian predators. Oikos, 120, 234–44.

533
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18554.x
Terraube, J., Arroyo, B. E., Bragin, A., Bragin, E. & Mougeot, F. (2012). Ecological factors influencing the
breeding distribution and success of a nomadic, specialist predator. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 21, 1835–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0282-6
Terlizzi, A., Felline, S., Lionetto, M. G., Caricato, R., Perfetti, V., Cutignano, A., & Mollo, E. (2011).
Detrimental physiological effects of the invasive alga Caulerpa racemosa on the Mediterranean
white seabream Diplodus sargus. Aquatic Biology, 12(2), 109–117.
https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00330
Thackeray, S. J., Sparks, T. H., Frederiksen, M., Burthe, S., Bacon, P. J., Bell, J. R., Botham, M. S.,
Brereton, T. M., Bright, P. W., Carvalho, L., Clutton-Brock, T., Dawson, A., Edwards, M., Elliott, J.
M., Harrington, R., Johns, D., Jones, I. D., Jones, J. T., Leech, D. I., Roy, D. B., Scott, W. A., Smith,
M., Smithers, R. J., Winfield, I. J., & Wanless, S. (2010). Trophic level asynchrony in rates of
phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Global Change Biology,
16(12), 3304–3313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02165.x
The Russian Academy of Sciences. (2014). The second international conference "Lichenology in Russia:
Problems and perspectives", dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the Komarov Botanical
Institute RAS and the 100th anniversary of the Institute of Сryptogamic Plants, Saint Petersburg,
November 5–8, 2014. Programme and proceedings. M. P. Andreev, D. E. Himelbrant, E. S.
Kuznetsova, & I. S. Stepanchikova (Eds.). Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation: Publishing house
of the StPtbSETU “LETI”. Retrieved from
https://www.binran.ru/files/publications/Proceedings/Proceedings_Lichenology_in_Russia_201
4/Lichenology_in_Russia_2014_Proceedings.pdf
Theurillat, J. P., & Guisan, A. (2001). Potential impact of climate change on vegetation in the European
alps: A review. Climatic Change, 50(1–2), 77–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010632015572
Thomas, J. A., Simcox, D. J., & Clarke, R. T. (2008). Successful conservation of a threatened Maculinea
Butterfly. Science, 325(5936), 80-83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1175726
Thomas, Y., Pouvreau, S., Alunno-Bruscia, M., Barillé, L., Gohin, F., Bryère, P., & Gernez, P. (2016).
Global change and climate-driven invasion of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) along
European coasts: A bioenergetics modelling approach. Journal of Biogeography, 43(3), 568–579.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12665
Thompson, I.D., Ferreira, J., Gardner, T., Guariguata, M., Pin Koh, L., Okabe, K., Pan, Y., Schmitt, C.B.,
Tylianakis, J., Barlow, J., Kapos, V., Kurz, W.A., Parrotta, J.A., Spalding, M.D. & van Vliet, N. (2012).
Forest biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem services: relationships and impacts of
deforestation and forest degradation. In A. John, C. W. Parrotta, & S. Mansourian (Eds.),
Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon, forests and people: the key to
achieving REDD+ objectives (pp. 21–50). Vienna, Austria: IUFRO.
Thorpe, A., Whitmarsh, D., Drakeford, B., Reid, C., Karimov, B., Timirkhanov, S., Satybekov, K., & Van
Anrooy, R. (2011). Feasibility of stocking and culture-based fisheries in Central Asia. Ankara,
Turkey: FAO.
Thuiller, W., Guéguen, M., Georges, D., Bonet, R., Chalmandrier, L., Garraud, L., Renaud, J., Roquet, C.,
Van Es, J., Zimmermann, N. E., & Lavergne, S. (2014a). Are different facets of plant diversity well
protected against climate and land cover changes? A test study in the French Alps. Ecography,
37(12), 1254–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00670

534
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Thuiller, W., Pironon, S., Psomas, A., Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Lavergne, S., Pearman, P. B., Renaud,
J., Zupan, L., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2014b). The European functional tree of bird life in the face
of global change. Nature Communications, 5, 3118. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4118
Thuiller, W., Lavergne, S., Roquet, C., Boulangeat, I., Lafourcade, B., & Araujo, M. (2011). Consequences
of climate change on the tree of life in Europe. Nature, 470(7335), 531–534.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09705
Thuiller, W., Lavorel, S., Araujo, M. B., Sykes, M. T., & Prentice, I. C. (2005). Climate change threats to
plant diversity in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 102(23), 8245–8250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409902102
Thurber, A. R., Sweetman, A. K., Narayanaswamy, B. E., Jones, D. O. B., Ingels, J., & Hansman, R. L.
(2014). Ecosystem function and services provided by the deep sea, 11(14), 3941–3963.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-3941-2014
Tilman, D., Isbell, F., & Cowles, J. M. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual Review of
Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 471–493. https://doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-120213-
091917
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., & Isbell, F. (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as
resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 109, 10394–10397. https://doi:10.1073/pnas.1208240109
Timdal, E. (2015). Norsk rødliste for arter 2015 [Norwegian red list of species 2015]. Retrieved January
17, 2017, from http://www.artsdatabanken.no/Rodliste/Artsgruppene/Lav
Tingstad, L., Gjerde, I., Dahlberg, A., & Grytnes, J. A. (2017). The influence of spatial scales on red list
composition: Forest species in Fennoscandia. Global Ecology and Conservation, 11, 247–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.07.005
Tishkov, A. A. (2005). Managing conservation of the biota and ecosystems in the steppe zone. Issues
of Steppe Science, 6, 47–58.
Tishkov, A.A. [Тишков, А. А.]. (2009). ”Четвертый национальный доклад «Сохранение
биоразнообразия в Российской Федерации» [Fourth national report “Biodiversity Conservation
in the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian
Federation.
Tockner, K., Robinson, C. & Uehlinger, U. (2008). Rivers of Europe. London, UK: Elsevier.
Tockner, K., Pusch, M., Gessner, J., & Wolter, C. (2011). Domesticated ecosystems and novel
communities: challenges for the management of large rivers. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology,
11(3–4), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10104-011-0045-0
Tokarev, Y., & Shulman, G. (2007). Biodiversity in the Black Sea: effects of climate and anthropogenic
factors. Hydrobiologia, 580(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0468-6
Török, P., Ambarlı, D., Kamp, J., Wesche, K., & Dengler, J. (2016). Step(pe) up! Raising the profile of the
Palaearctic natural grasslands. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(12), 2187–2195.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1187-6
Tosun, M. S. (2011). Demographic divide and labor migration in the Euro-Mediterranean region.
Tóth-Ronkay, M., Bajor, Z., Bárány, A., Földvári, G., Görföl, T., Halpern, B., Leél-Őssy, S., Mészáros, R.,
LPéntek, A., L. Tóth, B., Tóth, Z., & Vörös, J. (2015). Budapest. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and
invertebrates of European cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp. 27–73). New York, USA: Springer

535
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6

Treshkin, S. Y., Kamalov, S. K., Bachiev, A., Mamutov, N., Gladishevand, A. I., & Aimbetov, I. (1998).
Present status of the Tugai Forests in the lower Amu-Dar’ya basin and problems of their
protection and restoration. In Ecological research and monitoring of the Aral Sea deltas (pp. 43–
55). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Treshkin, S. (2001). The Tugai forests of floodplain of the Amudarya River: Ecology, dynamics and their
conservation. In Sustainable land use in deserts (pp. 95–102). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59560-8_9
Trewick, S. (2017). Plate tectonics in biogeography. International encyclopedia of geography: People,
the earth, environment and technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0638
Trivedi, M. R., Berry, P. M., Morecroft, M. D., & Dawson, T. P. (2008). Spatial scale affects bioclimate
model projections of climate change impacts on mountain plants. Global Change Biology, 14(5),
1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01553.x
Trontelj, P., Douady, C. J., Fišer, C., Gibert, J., Gorički, Š., Lefébure, T., Sket, B., & Zakšek, V. (2009). A
molecular test for cryptic diversity in ground water: How large are the ranges of macro-
stygobionts? Freshwater Biology, 54(4), 727–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2427.2007.01877.x
Trontelj, P., & Zakšek, V. (2016). Genetic monitoring of iProteus/i populations. Natura Sloveniae, 18(1),
53–54.
Tsikliras, A. C., Dinouli, A., Tsiros, V.-Z., & Tsalkou, E. (2015). The Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries
at risk from overexploitation. PloS One, 10(3), e0121188.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121188
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., & Bengtsson, J. (2014). Land-use intensity
and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: A hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 51(3), 746–755. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219
Tuniyev, B. S. (1990). On the independence of the Colchis center of amphibian and reptile speciation.
Asiatic Herpetological Research, 3, 67–84.
Tuniyev, B. S. (1995). On the Mediterranean influence on the formation of herpetofauna of the
Caucasian Isthmus and its main xerophylous refugia. Russian Journal of Herpetology, 2, 95–119.
Tuniyev, B. S. (1997). About exact borders of the Colchis biogeographical province. Russian Journal of
Herpetology, 4, 182–185.
Tuniyev, B. S. (2012). First consequences of climate variation and use of natural resources in the biota
of the West Caucasus In V. V. Snakin (Ed.), Global environmental processes. Proceedings of
International Scientific Conference (Moscow, October 2–4, 2012). Retrieved from
http://knigi.konflib.ru/8mehanika/146003-1-globalnie-ekologicheskie-processi-materiali-
mezhdunarodnoy-nauchnoy-konferencii-moskva-2-4-oktyabrya-2012-g-mosk.php
Tuniyev, B. S. (2016). Rare species of shield-head vipers in the Caucasus. Nature Conservation Research,
1, 11–25.
Tuniyev, B., Ananjeva, N.B., Agasyan, A., Orlov, N.L., & Tuniyev, S., B. (2009). Eremias pleskei. (errata
version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009.RLTS.T164583A5910262.en
Turdakov, F. A. [Тудаков, Ф. А.]. (1963). Fishes of Kirghizia [Рыбы Киргизии]. Frunze, USSR: Publishing

536
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

House of KirgizSSR Academy of Science.

Turdiboeva, M. U. [Турдибоева, М. У.]. (2015). О дергадации земель в Центральной Азии [About
Land Degradation in Central Asia]. Молодой Ученый [Young Scientist], 9, 780–783.
Turdieva, M., Aleksandrovskiy, E., Kayimov, A., Djumabaeva, S., Mukanov, B., Saparmyradov, A., &
Akmadov, K. (2007). Forests in Central Asia: current status and constraints. In R. Lal, M.
Suleimenov, B. A. Stewart, D. O. Hansen, & P. Doraiswamy (Eds.), Climate change and terrestrial
carbon sequestration in Central Asia (pp. 25–32). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Türk, R., & Hafellner, J. (1999). Rote Liste gefährdeter Flechten (Lichenes) Österreichs [Red list of
endangered lichens of Austria]. In H. Niklfeld (Ed.), Rote Listen gefährdeter Pflanzen Österreichs
[Red list of endangered plants of Austria] (pp. 187–228).
Tutayuk, V. Kh. (1975). Древесные реликты Талыша [Tree relicts of Talish]. Baku, Azerbaijan: Elm.
Uetz, P. (2017). The Reptile Database. Retrieved from http://www.reptile-database.org
Ulicsni, V., Svanberg, I., & Molnár, Z. (2016). Folk knowledge of invertebrates in Central Europe - folk
taxonomy, nomenclature, medicinal and other uses, folklore, and nature conservation. Journal
of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 12(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-016-0118-7
Urbanavichus, G. P. [Урбанавичюс, Г. П.]. (2010). A checklist of the lichen flora of Russia [Список
лихенофлоры России]. M. P. Andreev (Ed.). St. Petersburg, Russian Federation: Nauka.
UNDP. (2015). Work for human development. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.undp.org
UNECE, & CAREC. (2011). Development of regional cooperation to ensure water quality in Central Asia.
Diagnostic Report and Cooperation Development Plan.
UNEP. (2007). Deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystems. Retrieved from
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/57961#/summary
UNEP, FAO, & UNFF. (2009). Vital Forest graphics.
UNEP-WGMS. (2008). Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures.
UNESCO. (2009). Global open oceans and deep seabed (GOODS) - biogeographic classification. IOC
technical series, 84. Retrieved from
http://www.citeulike.org/user/LNCScatalogo/article/10352567?updated=1336273165&rejecte
d=
United Nations. (2016). The first global integrated marine assessment - World ocean assessment I. New
York, USA.: United Nations.
Väinölä, R., Witt, J. D. S., Grabowski, M., Bradbury, J. H., Jazdzewski, K., & Sket, B. (2008). Global
diversity of amphipods (Amphipoda; Crustacea) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595(1), 241–255.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-007-9020-6
Valkó, O., Deák, B., Török, P., Kelemen, A., Miglécz, T., Tóth, K., & Tóthmérész, B. (2016). Abandonment
of croplands: problem or chance for grassland restoration? Case studies from Hungary. Ecosystem
Health and Sustainability, 2(2), e0128. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1208
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Vanreusel, A., Mees, J., & Janssen, C. R. (2013). Microplastic pollution in deep-
sea sediments. Environmental Pollution, 182, 495–499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.08.013
Van de Poel, J. L., De Baerdmaeker, A., Bakker, G., Moerland, W., & De Zwarte, N. (2015). Rotterdam.

537
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and invertebrates of European cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp.
155–178). New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4939-1698-6
van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., & Visser, B. (2010). Genetic diversity trends
in twentieth century crop cultivars: A meta analysis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 120(6),
1241–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1252-6
van der Plas, F., Manning, P., Soliveres, S., Allan, E., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C.,
Zavala, M. A., Ampoorter, E., Baeten, L., Barbaro, L., Bauhus, J., Benavides, R., Benneter, A., Bonal,
D., Bouriaud, O., Bruelheide, H., Bussotti, F., Carnol, M., Castagneyrol, B., Charbonnier, Y.,
Coomes, D. A., Coppi, A., Bastias, C. C., Dawud, S. M., De Wandeler, H., Domisch, T., Finér, L.,
Gessler, A., Granier, A., Grossiord, C., Guyot, V., Hättenschwiler, S., Jactel, H., Jaroszewicz, B., Joly,
F., Jucker, T., Koricheva, J., Milligan, H., Mueller, S., Muys, B., Nguyen, D., Pollastrini, M., Ratcliffe,
S., Raulund-Rasmussen, L., Selvi, F., Stenlid, J., Valladares, F., Vesterdal, L., Zielínski, D., Fischer,
M. (2016a). Biotic homogenization can decrease landscape-scale forest multifunctionality.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(13), 3557-
3562. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517903113
van der Plas, F., Manning, P., Soliveres, S., Allan, E., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C.,
Zavala, M. A., Hector, A., Ampoorter, E., Baeten, L., Barbaro, L., Bauhus, J., Benavides, R.,
Benneter, A., Berthold, F., Bonal, D., Bouriaud, O., Bruelheide, H., Bussotti, F., Carnol, M.,
Castagneyrol, B., Charbonnier, Y., Coomes, D. A., Coppi, A., Bastias, C. C., Dawud, S. M., De
Wandeler, H., Domisch, T., Finér, L., Gessler, A., Granier, A., Grossiord, C., Guyot, V.,
Hättenschwiler, S., Jactel, H., Jaroszewicz, B., Joly, F., Jucker, T., Koricheva, J., Milligan, H.,
Mueller, S., Muys, B., Nguyen, D., Pollastrini, M., Raulund-Rasmussen, L., Selvi, F., Stenlid, J.,
Valladares, F., Vesterdal, L., Zielínski, D., Fischer, M. (2016b). Jack-of-all-trades effects drive
biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in European forests. Nature
Communications, 7, 11109. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11109
Van Der Wal, R., Pearce, I. S. K., & Brooker, R. W. (2005). Mosses and the struggle for light in a nitrogen-
polluted world. Oecologia, 142(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1706-0
Van Dover, C. L., Ardron, J. A., Escobar, E., Gianni, M., Gjerde, K. M., Jaeckel, A., Jones, D. O. B., Levin,
L. A., Niner, H. J., Pendleton, L., Smith, C. R., Thiele, T., Turner, P. J., Watling, L., & Weaver, P. P.
E. (2017). Biodiversity loss from deep-sea mining. Nature Geoscience, 10(7), 464–465.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2983
van Herk, C. M. (2001). Bark pH and susceptibility to toxic air pollutants as independent causes of
changes in epiphytic lichen composition in space and time. Lichenologist, 33(5), 419–441.
https://doi.org/10.1006/lich.2001.0337
Van Swaay , C. A. M., Van Strien, A. J., Aghababyan, K., Åström, S., Botham, M., Brereton, T. Carlisle,
B., Chambers, P., Collins, S., Dopagne, C., Escobés, R., Feldmann, R., Fernández-García, J. M.,
Fontaine, B., Goloshchapova, S., Gracianteparaluceta, A., Harpke, A., Heliölä, J., Khanamirian, G.,
Komac, B., Kühn, E., Lang, A., Leopold, P., Maes, D., Mestdagh, X., Monasterio, Y., Munguira, M.
L., Murray, T., Musche, M., Õunap, E., Pettersson, L. B., Piqueray, J., Popoff, S., Prokofev, I., Roth,
T., Roy, D. B., Schmucki, R., Settele, J., Stefanescu, C., Švitra, G., Teixeira, S. M., Tiitsaar, A.,
Verovnik, R., & Warren, M. S. (2017). The European butterfly indicator for grassland species 1990-
2015.
Van Swaay, C., Cuttelod, A., Collins, S., Maes, D., Munguira, M. L., Šašić, M., Settele, J., Verovnik, R.,
Verstrael, T., Warren, M., Wiemers, M., & Wynhoff, I. (2010). European red list of butterflies.

538
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/doi:10.2779/83897

van Swaay, C., van Strien, A., Harpke, A., Fontaine, B., Stefanescu, C., Roy, D., Maes, D., Kühn, E., Õunap,
E., Regan, E., Švitra, G., Prokofev, I., Heliölä, J., Settele, J., Pettersson, L., Botham, M., Musche,
M., Titeux, N., Cornish, N., Leopold, P., & Julliard, R. (2015). The European Butterfly Indicator for
Grassland species: 1990-2013. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
Vanderpoorten, A., Engels, P., & Sotiaux, A. (2004). Trends in diversity and abundance of obligate
epiphytic bryophytes in a highly managed landscape. Ecography, 27(5), 567–576.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03890.x
Vandvik, V., Topper, J. P., Cook, Z., Daws, M. I., Heegaard, E., Maren, I. E., & Velle, L. G. (2014).
Management-driven evolution in a domesticated ecosystem. Biology Letters, 10(2), 20131082–
20131082. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2013.1082
Vandvik, V., Heegaard, E., Måren, I. E., & Aarrestad, P. A. (2005). Managing heterogeneity: the
importance of grazing and environmental variation on post-fire succession in heathlands. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 42(1), 139–149. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.00982.x
Vangjeli, J., Ruci, B., & Mullaj, A. (1995). Libri i kuq. (bimët e kërcënuara dhe të rralla të shqipërisë) [Red
book of threatened and rare species of flora and fauna of Albania]. Tirana, Albania: Institute of
Biological Research, Academy of Science.
Vangjeli, J., Ruci, P., & Hoda, P. (1997). Libri i Kuq (bimë, shoqerimë bimore dhe kafshë të rrëzikuara).
[Red book of threatened and rare species of flora and fauna of Albania]. Tirana, Albania: Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe.
Vanhatalo, J., Vetemaa, M., Herrero, A., Aho, T., & Tiilikainen, R. (2014). By-catch of grey seals
(Halichoerus grypus) in Baltic fisheries - a Bayesian analysis of interview survey. PloS One, 9(11),
e113836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113836
Vanreusel, A., Hilario, A., Ribeiro, P. A., Menot, L., & Arbizu, P. M. (2016). Threatened by mining,
polymetallic nodules are required to preserve abyssal epifauna. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 26808.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26808
Väre, H., Lampinen, R., Humphries, C., & Williams, P. (2003). Taxonomic diversity of vascular plants in
the European alpine areas. In L. Nagy, G. Grabherr, C. Körner, & D. B. A. Thompson (Eds.), Alpine
biodiversity in Europe (pp. 133–148). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Varga, A. & Molnár, Z. (2014). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in managing wood- pastures.
In T. Hartel & T. Plieninger (Eds.), European wood-pastures in transition (pp. 187-202). London,
UK: Routledge.
Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D., & Tserpes, G. (2014). The alarming decline of Mediterranean fish
stocks. Current Biology, 24(14), 1643–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.070
Vasiliev, Ya. Ya., Gorodkov, B. N., Ilinckiy, A. Ya., Lavrenko, E. M., Leskov, A. I., & Maleev, V. Ya.
[Васильев, Я. Я., Городков, Б. Н., Ильинский, А. Я., Лавренко, Е. М., Лесков, А. И., & Малеев,
В. Я.]. (1941). Пояснительный текст к карте растительности СССР в масштабе 1:5 000
000 [The explanatory text to the vegetation map of the USSR in scale 1:5 000 000].
Vasiluk, A. V., Parnikoza, I. Y., & Shevchenko, M. S. [Василюк, А. В., Парникоза, И. Ю., & Шевченко,
М. С.]. (2010). Биоразнообразие степей под охраной Красной и Зеленой книг Украины
[Biodiversity of steppes under protection of red book and green book of Ukraine]. Степной
бюлеттень [Steppe Bulletin], 29, 33–36.

539
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Veen, P., Jefferson, R., Smidt, J., & Straaten, J. (2009). Grasslands in Europe of high nature value. Zeist,
The Netherlands: KNNV Publishing.
Veisov, S.K., Khamraev, G.O., & Akyniyazov, A.D. [Вейсов, С. К., Хамраев, Г. О., & Акыниязов, А. Д.].
(2008). Динамика барханного рельефа Западного Туркменистана [The dynamics of Barkhan
relief of the western Turkmenistan]. Проблемы Освоения Пустынь [Problems of Desert
Development], 4, 16–19.
Velchev V. (Ed.). (1984). Red data book of the People’s Republic of Bulgaria. Volume 1. Plants. Sofia,
Bulgaria: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Velle, L. G., Nilsen, L. S., Norderhaug, A., & Vandvik, V. (2014). Does prescribed burning result in biotic
homogenization of coastal heathlands? Global Change Biology, 20(5), 1429–1440.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12448
Vellend, M., Baeten, L., Myers-Smith, I. H., Elmendorf, S. C., Beauséjour, R., Brown, C. D., De Frenne,
P., Verheyen, K., & Wipf, S. (2013). Global meta-analysis reveals no net change in local-scale
plant biodiversity over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 110(48), 19456-19459. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312779110
Venglovsky, B. I. [Венгловский, Б. И.]. (2006). Биоэкологические особенности восстановления и
развития ореховых лесов Кыргызстана [Bioecological features of the restoration and
growing of walnut forests of Kyrgyzstan]. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: The National Academy of Sciences
of the Kyrgyz Republic.
Venn, S., Schulman, H., Törrönen, S., Salla, A., Pajunen, T., Kerppola, S., Paukkunen, J., Nieminen, M.,
Vilisics, F., & Karjalainen, S. (2015). Helsinki. In J. Kelcey (Ed.), Vertebrates and invertebrates of
European cities: Selected non-avian fauna (pp. 323-377). New York, USA: Springer
Science+Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1698-6_10
Ventosa, A., & Arahal, D. R. (2009). Physico-chemical characteristics of hypersaline environments and
their biodiversity. In C. Gerday (Ed.), Extremophiles (pp. 247–262). Oxford, UK: EOLSS
Publications.
Verboom, J., Alkemade, R., Klijn, J., Metzger, M. J., & Reijnen, R. (2007). Combining biodiversity
modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries. Ecological
Economics, 62(2), 267-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.009
Vergés, A., Tomas, F., Cebrian, E., Ballesteros, E., Kizilkaya, Z., Dendrinos, P., Karamanlidis, A. A.,
Spiegel, D., & Sala, E. (2014). Tropical rabbitfish and the deforestation of a warming temperate
sea. Journal of Ecology, 102(6), 1518–1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12324
Verheye, W. H. (Ed.). (2009). Volume V: Dry lands and desertification. In Encyclopedia of Life Support
Systems (pp. 1–40). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Verheyen, K., Baeten, L., De Frenne, P., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Brunet, J., Cornelis, J., Decocq, G.,
Dierschke, H., Eriksson, O., Hédl, R., Heinken, T., Hermy, M., Hommel, P., Kirby, K., Naaf, T.,
Peterken, G., Petřík, P., Pfadenhauer, J., Van Calster, H., Walther, G. R., Wulf, M., & Verstraeten,
G. (2012). Driving factors behind the eutrophication signal in understorey plant communities of
deciduous temperate forests. Journal of Ecology, 100(2), 352–365.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01928.x
Vershinin, A. [Вершинин А.]. (2003). Жизнь Черного Моря [The life of the Black Sea]. Moscow, Rusian
Federation: MacCentr.
Vershinin, A. [Вершинин А.]. (2016). Живое Черное Море [The living Black Sea]. Moscow, Russian

540
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Federation: Kovcheg.
Vershinin, V. L., Vershinina, S. D., Berzin, D. L., & Zmeeva, D. V. (2015). Long-term observation of
amphibian populations inhabiting urban and forested areas in Yekatarinburg, Russia. Scientific
Data, 2, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.18
Vetrov, A. A., & Romankevich, E. A. (2011). Primary production and fluxes of organic carbon to the
seabed in the Russian Arctic seas as a response to the recent warming. Oceanology, 51(2), 255–
266. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001437011020196
Vězda, A. (1983). Foliicole Flechten aus der Kolchis (West-Transkaukasien, UdSSR) [Foliicole lichen from
the Colchis (West Transcaucasia, USSR)]. Folia Geobotanica & Phytotaxonomica, 18(1), 45–70.
Vickery, J. A., Ewing, S. R., Smith, K. W., Pain, D. J., Bairlein, F., Škorpilová, J., & Gregory, R. D. (2014).
The decline of Afro-Palaearctic migrants and an assessment of potential causes. Ibis, 156(1), 1–
22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12118
Vilà, M., Carrillo-Gavilán, A., Vayreda, J., Bugmann, H., Fridman, J., Grodzki, W., Haase, J., Kunstler, G.,
Schelhaas, M., & Trasobares, A. (2013). Disentangling biodiversity and climatic determinants of
wood production. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e53530. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053530
Vilà, M., & Hulme, P. E. (Eds.). (2017). Impact of Biological Invasions on Ecosystem Services. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
Vilkov, E. V. (2013). Population trends in regular migrants as the basis for a prediction model for
conservation of the birds of Eurasia. Russian Journal of Ecology, 44(2), 142–157.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S106741361301013X
Villéger, S., Grenouillet, G., & Brosse, S. (2014). Functional homogenization exceeds taxonomic
homogenization among European fish assemblages. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(12),
1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12226
Villnäs, A., Norkko, J., Lukkari, K., Hewitt, J., & Norkko, A. (2012). Consequences of increasing hypoxic
disturbance on benthic communities and ecosystem functioning. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e44920.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044920
Vinogradov, K. A. [Виноградов, К. А.]. (1958). Очерки по истории отечественных
гидробиологических исследований на Черном море [Essays on the history of the National
hydrobiological studies in the Black Sea]. Kiev, USSR: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences
of the Ukrainian SSR.
Vinogradov, M. E., Shiganova, T. A., & Khoroshilov, V. S. (1995). The status of the main components of
the zooplankton community in the Black Sea in 1993. Oceanology, 35(3), 418–421.
Vinogradov, V. N. [Виноградов, В. Н.]. (1977). Лес и проблемы пустынь [The forest and problems of
deserts]. Лесное Хозяйство [Forestry], 9, 55–60.
Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Leikola, N., & Luoto, M. (2008). Projected large-scale range reductions of
northern-boreal land bird species due to climate change. Biological Conservation, 141(5), 1343–
1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.007
Virtanen, R., Grytnes, J. A., Lenoir, J., Luoto, M., Oksanen, J., Oksanen, L., & Svenning, J. C. (2013).
Productivity-diversity patterns in arctic tundra vegetation. Ecography, 36(3), 331–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07903.x
Virtanen, R., Johnston, A. E., Crawley, M. J., & Edwards, G. R. (2000). Bryophyte biomass and species
richness on the park grass experiment, Rothamsted, UK. Plant Ecology, 151(2), 129–141.

541
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026533418357
Virtanen, T., Mikkola, K., Patova, E., & Nikula, A. (2002). Satellite image analysis of human caused
changes in the tundra vegetation around the city of Vorkuta, north-European Russia.
Environmental Pollution, 120(3), 647–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00186-0
Visconti, P., Bakkenes, M., Baisero, D., Brooks, T., Butchart, S. H. M., Joppa, L., Alkemade, R., Marco,
M. Di, Santini, L., Hoffmann, M., Maiorano, L., Pressey, R. L., Arponen, A., Boitani, L., Reside, A.
E., Vuuren, D. van, & Rondinini, C. (2016). Projecting global biodiversity indicators under future
development scenarios. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12159
Vitasse, Y., Hoch, G., Randin, C. F., Lenz, A., Kollas, C., & Körner, C. (2012). Tree recruitment of European
tree species at their current upper elevational limits in the Swiss Alps. Journal of Biogeography,
39(8), 1439–1449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02697.x
Voigt, C. C., Popa-Lisseanu, A. G., Niermann, I., & Kramer-Schadt, S. (2012). The catchment area of wind
farms for European bats: A plea for international regulations. Biological Conservation, 153, 80–
86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.027
Vompersky, S. E., Ivanov, A. I., Tsyganova, O. P., Valyaeva, N. A., Glukhova, T. V., Dubinin, A. I., Glukhov,
A. I., & Markelova, L. G. (1996). Bog organic soils and bogs of Russia and the carbon pool of their
peat. Eurasian Soil Science, (28), 91–105.
Vompersky, S. E., Sirin, A. A., Sal’nikov, A. A., Tsyganova, O. P., & Valyaeva, N. A. (2011). Estimation of
forest cover extent over peatlands and paludified shallow-peat lands in Russia. Contemporary
Problems of Ecology, 4(7), 734–741. http://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425511070058
Vompersky, S. E., Sirin, A. A., Tsyganova, O. P., Valyaeva, N. A., & Maykov, D. A. (2005). Mires and
paludified lands of Russia: an attempt to analyse the spatial distribution and diversity. Izvestiya
RAN, Seriya Geografi Cheskaya, 5, 21–33.
Volvenko, I. V. (2014). The new large database of the Russian bottom trawl surveys in the far eastern
seas and the North Pacific Ocean in 1977-2010. International Journal of Environmental
Monitoring and Analysis, 2(6), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijema.20140206.12
von Hertzen L, Hanski I, & Haahtela T. 2011. Natural immunity: Biodiversity loss and inflammatory
diseases are two global megatrends that might be related. EMBO Reports, 12, 1089–1093.
https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.195
Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S.,
Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A, Liermann, C. R., & Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water
security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549
Vrahnakis, M., Janišová, M., Rūsiņa, S., Török, P., Venn, S., & Dengler, J. (2013). The European dry
grassland group (EDGG): stewarding Europe’s most diverse habitat type. In Steppenlebensräume
Europas–Gefährdung, Erhaltungsmaßnahmen und Schutz [Europe's steppe habitats – threats,
conservation measures and protection] (pp. 417–434).
Vyaznikova, K. S. [Вязникова, К.С.]. (2014). Влияние хозяйств марикультуры приморского гребешка
на химико-экологическое состояние прибрежных акваторий [The impact of mariculture
scallop farming on the chemical and ecological status of coastal waters]. In G. N. Kim, I. N. Kim,
N. V. Dementyev, V. V. Barinov, E. N. Baklanov, & S. G. Volodina [Г. Н. Ким, И. Н. Ким, Н. В.
Дементьева, В. В. Баринов, Е. Н. Бакланов, & С. Г. Володина] (Eds.), Актуальные проблемы
освоения биологических ресурсов Мирового океана. Материалы III Международной

542
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

научно-технической конференции (Владивосток, 27-29 мая 2014 года) [Actual problems of

the world ocean biological resource use. Proceedings of the 3rd International Scientific and
Technical Conference (Vladivostok, 27-29 May, 2014)] (pp. 65–67). Vladivostok, Russian
Federation: Far Eastern State Technical Fisheries University.
Wagner, C., & Adrian, R. (2011). Consequences of changes in thermal regime for plankton diversity and
trait composition in a polymictic lake: A matter of temporal scale. Freshwater Biology, 56(10),
1949–1961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02623.x
Wagner, N., Mingo, V., Schulte, U., & Lötters, S. (2015). Risk evaluation of pesticide use to protected
European reptile species. Biological Conservation, 191, 667–673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.002
Walker, D. A., Raynolds, M. K., Daniëls, F. J. A., Einarsson, E., Elvebakk, A., Gould, W., Katenin, A. E.,
Kholod, S. S., Markon, C. J., Melnikov, E. S., Moskalenko, N. G., Talbot, S. S., & Yurtsev, B. A. (2005).
The Circumpolar Arctic vegetation map. Journal of Vegetation Science, 16(3), 267-282.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02365.x
Walker, M. D., Wahren, H. C., Hollister, R. D., Henry, G. H. R., Ahlquist, L. E., Alatalo, J. M., Bret-Harte,
M. S., Calef, M. P., Callaghan, T. V., Carroll, A. B., Epstein, H. E., Jonsdottir, I. S., Klein, J. A.,
Manusson, B., Molau, U., Oberbaur, S. F., Rewa, S. P., Robinson, C. H., Shaver, G. R., Suding, K. N.,
Thompson, C. C., Tolvanen, A., Totland, O., Turner, P. L., Tweedie, C. E., Webber, P. J., & Wookey,
P. A. (2006). Plant community responses to experimental warming across the tundra biome.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(5), 1342–
1346. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503198103
WallisDeVries, M. F., Noordijk, J., Colijn, E. O., Smit, J. T., & Veling, K. (2016). Contrasting responses of
insect communities to grazing intensity in lowland heathlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 234, 72–80. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.012
Wasmund, N., Göbel, J., & Bodungen, B. v. (2008). 100-years-changes in the phytoplankton community
of Kiel Bight (Baltic Sea). Journal of Marine Systems, 73(3–4), 300–322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2006.09.009
Wassmann, P., Duarte, C. M., Agusti, S., & Sejr, M. K. (2011). Footprints of climate change in the Arctic
marine ecosystem. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 1235–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2010.02311.x
Wassmann, P., Kosobokova, K. N., Slagstad, D., Drinkwater, K. F., Hopcroft, R. R., Moore, S. E., Ellingsen,
I., Nelson, R. J., Carmack, E., Popova, E., & Berge, J. (2015). The contiguous domains of Arctic
Ocean advection: Trails of life and death. Progress in Oceanography, 139, 42–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.06.011
Watson, M., Wilson, J. M., Koshkin, M., Sherbakov, B., Karpov, F., & Gavrilov, A. (2006). Nest survival
and productivity of the critically endangered sociable lapwing Vanellus gregarious. Ibis, 148(3),
489–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2006.00555.x
Watson, R. A., & Morato, T. (2013). Fishing down the deep: Accounting for within-species changes in
depth of fishing. Fisheries Research, 140, 63–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.12.004
Webb, N. R. (1986). Heathlands. London, UK: Collins.
Webb, N. R. (1998). History and ecology of European heathlands. Transactions of the Suffolk
Naturalists Society, 34.

543
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Webb, J. R., Drewitt, A. L., & Measures, G. H. (2010). Managing for species: Integrating the needs of
England’s priority species into habitat management. Part 1 Report. Natural England Research
Reports, Number 024. Sheffield, UK: Natural England. Retrieved from
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/61078
Wedding, L. M., Reiter, S. M., Smith, C. R., Gjerde, K. M., Kittinger, J. N., Friedlander, A. M., Gaines, S.
D., Clark, M. R., Thurnherr, A. M., Hardy, S. M., & Crowder, L. B. (2015). Managing mining of the
deep seabed. Science, 349(6244), 144–145. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6647
Weeda E. J., Van Der Meijden, R., & Bakker, P. A. (1990). Floron red data list 1990. Red data list of
extinct, endangered and vunerable plants in Netherlands in the period 1980 -1990. Gorteria:
Tijdschrift voor Onderzoek aan de Wilde Flora. 16, 1-26.
Wegner, P., Kleinstäuber, G., Baum, F., & Schilling, F. (2005). Long-term investigation of the degree of
exposure of German peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) to damaging chemicals from the
environment. Journal of Ornithology, 146, 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-004-0053-6
Wehn, S., Lundemo, S., & Holten, J. I. (2014). Alpine vegetation along multiple environmental gradients
and possible consequences of climate change. Alpine Botany, 124(2), 155–164.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-014-0136-9
Weinert, M., Mathis, M., Kröncke, I., Neumann, H., Pohlmann, T., & Reiss, H. (2016). Modelling climate
change effects on benthos: Distributional shifts in the North Sea from 2001 to 2099. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 175, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.03.024
Wennersten, L., & Forsman, A. 2012. Population-level consequences of polymorphism, plasticity and
randomized phenotype switching: a review of predictions. Biological Reviews, 87, 756–767.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00231.x
Werger, M. J. A., & van Staalduinen, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Eurasian Steppes: ecological problems and
livelihoods in a changing world. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Werner, Y., Disi, M., & Mousa Disi, A. M.. (2006). Acanthodactylus beershebensis. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T61454A12488658.en
Wesche, K., Ambarlı, D., Kamp, J., Török, P., Treiber, J., & Dengler, J. (2016). The Palaearctic steppe
biome: a new synthesis. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(12), 2197–2231.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1214-7
Westerbom, M., Kilpi, M., & Mustonen, O. (2002). Blue mussels, Mytilus edulis at the edge of the range:
population structure, growth and biomass along a salinity gradient in the north-eastern Baltic
Sea. Marine Biology, 140(5), 991–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-001-0765-6
Westling, A. (2015). Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015 [Red list species of Sweden 2015].
Wielgolaski, F E. (1972). Vegetation types and plant biomass in tundra. Arctic and Alpine Research, 4(4),
291-305.
Wiedmann, M., Aschan, M., Certain, G., Dolgov, A., Greenacre, M., Johannesen, E., Planque, B., &
Primicerio, R. (2014). Functional diversity of the Barents Sea fish community. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 495, 205–218. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10558
Wiens, J. J. (2016). Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal
species. PLoS Biology, 14(12), e2001104. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104
Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., Regehr, E., & Thiemann, G. (2015),
Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

544
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T22823A14871490.en
Williams, W. (1981). Inland salt lakes: An introduction. Hydrobiologia, 81–82, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00048701
Wilson, J. B., Peet, R. K., Dengler, J., & Pärtel, M. (2012). Plant species richness: The world records.
Journal of Vegetation Science, 23(4), 796–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-
1103.2012.01400.x
Wingfield, M. J., Brockerhoff, E. G., Wingfield, B. D., & Slippers, B. (2015). Planted forest health: The
need for a global strategy. Science, 349(6250), 832–836.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6674
Wipf, S., Stöckli, V., Herz, K., & Rixen, C. (2013). The oldest monitoring site of the Alps revisited:
accelerated increase in plant species richness on Piz Linard summit since 1835. Plant Ecology and
Diversity, 6(3–4), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/17550874.2013.764943
Wirth, V, Hauck M, S. M. (2013). Die Flechten Deutschlands (Vol. 1 and 2) [The lichens of Germany (Vol.
1 and 2)]. Stuttgart, Germany: Eugen Ulmer.
Wirth, V., Hauck, M., Von Brackel, W., Cezanne, R., De Bruyn, U., Dürhammer, O., … Heinrich, D. (2011).
Rote Liste und Artenverzeichnis der Flechten und flechtenbewohnenden Pilze Deutschlands (Vol.
70) [Red List and species index of lichen and lichen-inhabited mushrooms of Germany (Vol. 70)].
Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt.
Wolf, A., Callaghan, T. V., & Larson, K. (2008). Future changes in vegetation and ecosystem function of
the Barents Region. Climatic Change, 87(1–2), 51–73. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9342-
4
Wolf, A., Lazzarotto, P., & Bugmann, H. (2012). The relative importance of land use and climatic change
in Alpine catchments. Climatic Change, 111(2), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-
0209-3
Wolseley, P. A. (1995). A global perspective on the status of lichens and their conservation.
Mitteilungen Der Eidgenössischen Forschungsanstalt Für Wald, Schnee Und Landschaft, 70, 11–
27.
Woods, R. G., & Coppins, B. J. (2012). A conservation evaluation of British lichens and lichenicolous
fungi. Species status 13. Peterborough, UK: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
World Ocean Review. (2014). Mineral resources. http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-3/mineral-
resources/
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H.
K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K. A., Stachowicz, J. J., & Watson, R. (2006). Impacts
of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787–90.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294
Wraber T., Skoberne, P., & Watton, I.. (1989). Rdeci seznam ogrozenih praprotnic in semenk SR
Slovenije [The Red Data List of Threatened Vascular Plants in Socialist Republic of Slovenia].
Wright, H. L., Lake, I. R., & Dolman, P. M. (2012). Agriculture-a key element for conservation in the
developing world. Conservation Letters, 5(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-
263X.2011.00208.x
WWF. (2006). An ecoregional conservation action plan for the Caucasus. (Second edition).

545
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

WWF. (2015). Intact forest landscapes in Russia: current condition and losses over the last 13 years.
WWF & TNC. (2017). Freshwater ecoregions of the World. Retrieved from www.feow.org
Xu, L., Myneni, R. B., Chapin III, F. S., Callaghan, T. V., Pinzon, J. E., Tucker, C. J., Zhu, Z., Bi, J., Ciais, P.,
Tømmervik, H., Euskirchen, E. S., Forbes, B. C., Piao, S. L., Anderson, B. T., Ganguly, S., Nemani, R.
R., Goetz, S. J., Beck, P. S. a., Bunn, a. G., Cao, C., & Stroeve, J. C. (2013). Temperature and
vegetation seasonality diminishment over northern lands. Nature Climate Change, 3(3), 581–586.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1836
Yablokov, A. V., Belkovich, V. M., & Borisov, V. I., [Яблоков, А. В., Белькович, В. М., & Борисов, В. И.].
(1972). Киты и дельфины [Whales and dolphins]. Moscow, USSR: Наука [Science].
Yablokov, A. V., Koltsov, N. K., Levchenko, V. F., Sechenov, I. M., & Kerzhentsev, A. S. [Яблоков, А. В.
Кольцов, Н. К., Левченко В. Ф., Сеченов И. М., & Керженцев, А. С.]. (2014). Переход к
управляемой эволюции биосферы - выход из глобального экологического кризиса [The
transition to a managed evolution of biosphere - the way out of the global environmental crisis].
Астраханский Вестник Экологического Образования [Astrakhan Herald of Ecological
Education], (3(29)), 28–37.
Yakubov, Kh.E., Yakubov, M.A., & Yakubov, S.Kh. [Якубов, Х. Э., Якубов, М. А., & Якубов, С. Х.]. (2011).
Коллекторно-дренажный сток Центральной Азии и оценка его использования на
орошение [Collector-drainage waters in Central Asia and estimation of their use for irrigation].
Yakushev, E. V. (1999). An approach to modelling anoxic conditions in the Black Sea. In S. T.
Besiktepe, Ü. Ünlüata, & A. S. Bologa (Eds.), Environmental degradation of the Black Sea:
Challenges and remedies: Proceedings of the NATO advanced research workshop (Nato science
partnership subseries: 2 (pp. 93–108).
Yankova, M., Pavlov, D., Ivanova, P., Karpova, E., Boltachev, A., Öztürk, B., Bat, L., Oral, M., & Mgeladze,
M. (2014). Marine fishes in the Black Sea: Recent conservation status. Mediterranean Marine
Science, 15(2), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.12681/mms.700
Yoccoz, N. G., Delestrade, A., & Loison, A. (2010). Impact of climatic change on alpine ecosystems:
inference and prediction. Revue de Géographie Alpine, 98(4), 355-366. Retrieved from:
https://journals.openedition.org/rga/1293
Yokes, A., & Baki, M. (2012). Alien opisthobranchs from Turkish coasts: first record of Plocamopherus
tilesii Bergh, 1877 from the Mediterranean.
Yom-Tov, Y. (2003). Poaching of Israeli wildlife by guest workers. Biological Conservation, 110, 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00169-6
Yusifov, E. F., & Hajiyev, V. J. (2004). Hyrkan Biospher reservation. Baku, Azerbaijan: Elm.
Zacharias, I., Dimitriou, E., Dekker, A., & Dorsman, E. (2007). Overview of temporary ponds in the
Mediterranean region: Threats, management and conservation issues Journal of Environmental
Biology, 28(1), 1–9.
Zagmajster, M., Culver, D. C., & Sket, B. (2008). Species richness patterns of obligate subterranean
beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) in a global biodiversity hotspot - Effect of scale and sampling
intensity. Diversity and Distributions, 14(1), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-
4642.2007.00423.x
Zaharia, T., Maximov, V., Radu, G., Anton, E., Spinu, A., & Nenciu, M. (2014). Reconciling fisheries and
habitat protection in Romanian coastal marine protected areas. Scientia Marina, 78(S1), 95–101.

546
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.04028.25B
Zaitsev, Y., & Mamaev, V. (1997). Marine biological diversity in the Black Sea: a study of change and
decline. New York, USA: GEF BSEP United Nations Publications.
Zalota, A. K., & Spiridonov, V. A. (2015). Understanding and forecasting invasive marine decapods
distribution in the waters of Northern Eurasia. In Abstracts of the 50th European Marine
Biological Symposium 21-25 September (pp. 23-23).
Zamin, T. J., Baillie, J. E. M., Miller, R. M., Rodríguez, J. P., Ardid, A., & Collen, B. (2010). National red
listing beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology, 24(4), 1012–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01492.x
Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., & Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic
Sciences, 77, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0
Zarzycki, K., & Kaźmierczakowa, R. (Eds.). (2001). Polska czerwona księga roślin. Paprotniki i rośliny
kwiatowe [Polish red book of plants. Pteridophytes and flowering plants]. Cracow, Poland: W.
Szafer Institute of Botany.
Zavaleta, E. S., Pasari, J. R., Hulvey, K. B., & Tilman, G. D. (2010). Sustaining multiple ecosystem
functions in grassland communities requires higher biodiversity. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(4), 1443–1446.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906829107
Zavialov, P. O. (2005). Physical oceanography of the dying Aral Sea. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27234-8_1
Zazanashvili, N., & Mallon, D. (2009). Status and protection of globally threatened species in the
Caucasus. Tbilisi, Georgia: CEPF, WWF.
Zechmeister, H. G., & Moser, D. (2001). The influence of agricultural land-use intensity on bryophyte
species richness. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10(10), 1609–1625.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012008828522
Zektser, I. S. (2000). Groundwater and the environment: Applications for the global community. Boca
Raton, USA: CRC Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.ru/books?hl=ru&lr=&id=V1g5SWyevXUC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Zektser+I.S
.,+Everett+L.G.+Groundwater+and+the+Environment:+Applications+for+the+Global+Communit
y&ots=ZIsiUrsneX&sig=SzFGIJ7AdJjO-
NzpTZsPeTaumuM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Zektser%20I.S.%25&f=false
Zemp, M., Haeberli, W., Hoelzle, M., & Paul, F. (2006). Alpine glaciers to disappear within decades?
Geophysical Research Letters, 33(13), L13504. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026319
Zhakova, L. V. [Жакова, Л. В.]. (2013). О влиянии многолетних изменений солености Аральского
моря на динамику сообществ макрофитов [Effect of long-term changes of the salinity on the
water flora composition and distribution of macrophytes in Aral]. Труды Зоологического
Института РАН [Proceedings of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences],
(Annex 3), 113–119. Retrieved from
https://www.zin.ru/journals/trudyzin/doc/vol_317_s2/TZ_317_2_Supplement_Zhakova.pdf
Zimina, O. L., Lyubin, P. A., Jørgensen, L. L., Zakharov, D. V., & Lyubina, O. S. (2015). Decapod
crustaceans of the Barents Sea and adjacent waters: species composition and peculiarities of
distribution. Arthropoda Selecta, 24(3), 417–428.

547
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Zimnitskiy, A. V., Efremov, Yu. V., & Ilyichev, Yu. G. [Зимницкий, А. В., Ефремов, Ю. В., & Ильичев, Ю.
Г.]. (2015). Современное оледенение Передней Азии (в границах Турции) [Present-day
glaciation of Western Asia (on the Turkey territory)]. Лед и снег [Ice and snow], 55(4), 50-60.
Ziv, B., Saaroni, H., Pargament, R., Harpaz, T., & Alpert, P. (2014). Trends in rainfall regime over Israel,
1975-2010, and their relationship to large-scale variability. Regional Environmental Change,
14(5), 1751-1764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0414-x
Zoï. (2009). Climate change in Central Asia by Zoi environment - issuu. Retrieved September 20, 2017,
from https://issuu.com/zoienvironment/docs/climate_change
Zoï. (2011). Biodiversity in Central Asia. A visual synthesis. Retrieved from
http://www.zoinet.org/web/sites/default/files/publications/Biodiversity-CA-EN.pdf
Zoï. (2012). Vital Caspian graphics 2 - Opportunities, aspirations and challenges. Retrieved from
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/caspian2/
Zonn, I. S., Glantz, M. H., Kostianoy, A. G., & Kosarev, A. N. (2009). The Aral Sea encyclopedia. Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85088-5_10
Zotz, G., & Bader, M. Y. (2009). Epiphytic plants in a changing world-global: Change effects on vascular
and non-vascular epiphytes. In U. Lüttge, W. Beyschlag, B. Büdel, & D. Francis (Eds.), Progress in
Botany 70 (pp. 147–170). Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68421-
3
Zvereva, E. L., & Kozlov, M. V. (2011). Impacts of industrial polluters on bryophytes: A meta-analysis of
observational studies. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 218(1–4), 573–586.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0669-5
Zwick, P. (2004). Key to the West Paleartic genera of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the larval stage.
Limnologica - Ecology and Management of Inland Waters, 34, 315–348.

548
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4 Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and

nature’s contributions to people

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Marine Elbakidze (Ukraine/Sweden), Thomas Hahn (Sweden), Niklaus E. Zimmermann (Switzerland)

Lead Authors:
Pavel Cudlín (Czech Republic), Nikolai Friberg (Norway), Piero Genovesi (Italy), Riccardo Guarino (Italy),
Aveliina Helm (Estonia), Bengt-Gunnar Jonsson (Sweden), Szabolcs Lengyel (Hungary), Boris Leroy
(France), Tommaso Luzzati (Italy), Ann Milbau (Belgium), Ángel Pérez-Ruzafa (Spain), Philip Roche
(France), Helen Roy (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Adam Vanbergen (United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Vigdis Vandvik (Norway)

Fellow:
Rahat Sabyrbekov (Kyrgyzstan)

Contributing Authors:
Lucas Dawson (Australia/Sweden), Jesper H. Andersen (Denmark), Alexei Andreev (Republic of
Moldova), Per Angelstam (Sweden), Sakina-Dorothée Ayata (France), Clémentine Azam (France),
Grégory Beaugrand (France), Fjoralba Begeja (Albania), Céline Bellard (France), Elisabeth Conrad
(Malta), Cédric Cotté (France), Nicolas Dubos (France), Victoria Elias (Russian Federation), Amy
Elizabeth Eycott (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Norway), Martin Forsius
(Finland), Lucy Frances (Ireland), Bella Galil (Israel), Mariana García Criado (Spain), Marine Herrmann
(France), R. Justin Irvine (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Steffen Kallbekken
(Norway), Konstantin Kobyakov (Russian Federation), Zheenbek Kulenbekov (Kyrgyzstan), Edward
Lewis (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Anne Lyche Solheim (Norway), Mikael
Malmaeus (Sweden), Concepción Marcos (Spain), Dan Minchin (Ireland), Zsolt Molnár (Hungary), Jan
Mulder (Norway), Olga Murashko (Russian Federation), Ana Nieto (Spain), Geert Jan van Oldenborgh
(The Netherlands), Alexander Prishchepov (Russian Federation/Denmark), Bohdan Prots (Ukraine),
Gilles Reverdin (France), Aibek Samakov (Kyrgyzstan), Hanno Seebens (Germany), Nikolay Shmatkov
(Russian Federation), Ilya Smelansky (Russian Federation), Isabel Sousa Pinto (Portugal), Yuliia Spinova
(Ukraine), Kanat Sultanaliev (Kyrgyzstan), Anne Sverdrup-Thygeson (Norway), Oleksiy Vasyliuk
(Ukraine), Piero Visconti (Italy/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Marten Winter
(Germany), Rafael Wüest (Switzerland), Taras Yamelynets (Ukraine), Alexey Zimenko (Russian
Federation)

Review editors:
Heli Saarikoski (Finland), Theo van der Sluis (The Netherlands)

549
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This chapter should be cited as:

Elbakidze, M., Hahn, T., Zimmermann N. E., Cudlín, P., Friberg, N., Genovesi, P., Guarino, R., Helm, A.,
Jonsson, B., Lengyel, S., Leroy, B., Luzzati, T., Milbau, A., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Roche, P., Roy, H.,
Sabyrbekov, R., Vanbergen, A. and Vandvik, V. Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment
report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M.,
Torre-Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services, Bonn, Germany, pp. xx-xx.

550
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
4 Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people.................................................................................................................................................. 549
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 555
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 561
4.1.1 Aim of the chapter ......................................................................................................... 561
4.1.2 Scope and organization of the chapter ......................................................................... 561
4.1.3 Driver as a concept ........................................................................................................ 562
4.1.4 Natural and anthropogenic drivers ............................................................................... 562
4.2 Drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people................................ 563
4.2.1 Direct drivers ................................................................................................................. 563
4.2.2 Indirect drivers............................................................................................................... 565
4.2.3 Relationship between indirect and direct drivers ......................................................... 567
4.2.4 Spatial and temporal variability..................................................................................... 568
4.2.5 Interregional flows......................................................................................................... 569
4.2.6 Methodological approach ............................................................................................. 570
4.2.6.1 Effects of, and trends in, direct drivers.............................................................................. 570
4.2.6.2 Indirect drivers ................................................................................................................... 573
4.3 General trends in indirect drivers in Europe and Central Asia ............................................... 574
4.3.1 Institutional drivers ....................................................................................................... 574
4.3.2 Economic drivers ........................................................................................................... 575
4.3.3 Demographic drivers ..................................................................................................... 577
4.3.4 Cultural and religious drivers......................................................................................... 578
4.3.5 Scientific and technological drivers ............................................................................... 578
4.4 Drivers of natural resource extraction and its effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people ......................................................................................................................................... 579
4.4.1 Fishing ............................................................................................................................ 579
4.4.1.1 Effects of fishing on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people............................ 579
4.4.1.2 Trends in fishing ................................................................................................................. 580
4.4.1.3 Drivers of fishing ................................................................................................................ 581
4.4.2 Hunting .......................................................................................................................... 582
4.4.2.1 Effects of hunting on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people .......................... 582
4.4.2.2 Trends in hunting ............................................................................................................... 583
4.4.2.3 Drivers of hunting .............................................................................................................. 583
4.4.3 Water use and desalination........................................................................................... 584
4.4.3.1 Effects on water use and desalination on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
........................................................................................................................................... 584
4.4.3.2 Trends in water use and desalination ................................................................................ 584

551
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.4.3.3 Drivers of water use and desalination ............................................................................... 585

4.4.4 Mineral and fossil fuel extraction .................................................................................. 585
4.4.4.1 Effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people ........................................... 585
4.4.4.2 Trends in mineral and fossil fuel extraction ...................................................................... 586
4.4.4.3 Drivers of mineral and fossil fuel extraction ...................................................................... 587
4.4.5 Drivers of natural resource extraction .......................................................................... 588
4.5 Drivers and effects of land-use change .................................................................................. 590
4.5.1 Effects of land-use change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people ....... 590
4.5.1.1 Effects of conventional agricultural intensification ........................................................... 590
4.5.1.2 Effects of agri-environment schemes ................................................................................ 591
4.5.1.3 Effects of increasing intensity of management on forest land .......................................... 592
4.5.1.4 Effects of decrease in land area with traditional land use and loss of traditional ecological
knowledge ........................................................................................................................................... 594
4.5.1.5 Effects of urban development ........................................................................................... 595
4.5.1.6 Effectiveness of landscape and habitat restoration .......................................................... 595
4.5.1.7 Effectiveness of protected areas ....................................................................................... 596
4.5.2 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in agricultural land use .................................... 598
4.5.2.1 Trends in agricultural land use........................................................................................... 598
4.5.2.2 Indirect drivers of trends in agricultural land use.............................................................. 601
4.5.2.2.1 Institutional drivers of trends in agricultural land use .................................................. 602
4.5.2.2.2 Economic drivers of trends in agricultural land use ...................................................... 605
4.5.2.2.3 Cultural drivers of trends in agricultural land use......................................................... 606
4.5.2.2.4 Technological drivers of trends in agricultural land use ............................................... 608
4.5.3 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in forestry ........................................................ 608
4.5.3.1 Trends in forestry............................................................................................................... 608
4.5.3.2 Drivers of trends in forestry............................................................................................... 614
4.5.3.2.1 Legal frameworks .......................................................................................................... 615
4.5.3.2.2 Forest certification ........................................................................................................ 618
4.5.3.2.3 Markets of non-timber products .................................................................................. 619
4.5.3.2.4 Forest ownership .......................................................................................................... 619
4.5.3.2.5 Urban development ...................................................................................................... 620
4.5.3.2.6 Radical changes in political, economic and social contexts as triggers of changes in
forestry ...................................................................................................................................... 621
4.5.4 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in protected area development ...................... 622
4.5.4.1 Trends in protected area development ............................................................................. 622
4.5.4.2 Indirect drivers of trends in protected area development ................................................ 628
4.5.4.2.1 Legal frameworks .......................................................................................................... 629
4.5.4.2.2 Forest certification ........................................................................................................ 631
4.5.4.2.3 Activity of environmental non-governmental organizations ........................................ 632
4.5.4.2.4 Adequacy of management resources for protected areas ........................................... 633

552
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.5 Local resistance ............................................................................................................. 635

4.5.4.2.6 Armed conflicts ............................................................................................................. 636
4.5.4.2.7 Landscape and habitat restoration ............................................................................... 638
4.5.4.2.8 Tourism ......................................................................................................................... 639
4.5.5 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in traditional land use ..................................... 641
4.5.5.1 Trends in traditional land use ............................................................................................ 641
4.5.5.2 Drivers of trends in traditional land use ............................................................................ 644
4.5.5.2.1 Institutional drivers of trends in traditional land use ................................................... 645
4.5.5.2.2 Economic drivers of trends in traditional land use ....................................................... 646
4.5.5.2.3 Social drivers of trends in traditional land use ............................................................. 648
4.5.6 Trends in urban development ....................................................................................... 649
4.6 Drivers and effects of pollution .............................................................................................. 650
4.6.1 Nutrient pollution .......................................................................................................... 651
4.6.1.1 Effects of nutrient pollution on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people .......... 651
4.6.1.2 Trends in nutrient pollution ............................................................................................... 654
4.6.1.3 Drivers of nutrient pollution .............................................................................................. 655
4.6.2 Organic pollution ........................................................................................................... 656
4.6.2.1 Effects of organic pollution on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people ........... 656
4.6.2.2 Trends in organic pollution ................................................................................................ 657
4.6.2.3 Drivers of organic pollution ............................................................................................... 657
4.6.3 Acidification ................................................................................................................... 658
4.6.3.1 Effects of acidification on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people................... 658
4.6.3.2 Trends in acidification ........................................................................................................ 658
4.6.3.3 Drivers of acidification ....................................................................................................... 660
4.6.4 Xenochemical and heavy metal pollution ..................................................................... 660
4.6.4.1 Effects of xenochemicals and heavy metals on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people ........................................................................................................................................... 660
4.6.4.2 Trends in xenochemical and heavy metal pollution .......................................................... 661
4.6.4.3 Drivers of xenochemical and heavy metal pollution ......................................................... 661
4.6.5 Other pollution .............................................................................................................. 661
4.6.5.1 Ground-level ozone ........................................................................................................... 661
4.6.5.2 Light pollution .................................................................................................................... 661
4.6.5.3 Marine and beach plastic debris ........................................................................................ 662
4.6.6 Synthesizing drivers of pollution ................................................................................... 662
4.7 Drivers and effects of climate change .................................................................................... 664
4.7.1 Effects of climate change on biodiversity...................................................................... 664
4.7.1.1 Effects of gradual climate change ...................................................................................... 665
4.7.1.1.1 Effects on phenology, growth and fitness .................................................................... 665
4.7.1.1.2 Effects on biodiversity and community dynamics ........................................................ 666
4.7.1.1.3 Effects on ecological processes and ecosystem functioning ........................................ 667

553
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.1.2 Effects of extreme events on biodiversity ......................................................................... 668

4.7.1.3 Secondary climate effects .................................................................................................. 670
4.7.2 Trends in climate change ............................................................................................... 671
4.7.2.1 Temperature change ......................................................................................................... 671
4.7.2.2 Precipitation change .......................................................................................................... 679
4.7.2.3 Sea-level change ................................................................................................................ 687
4.7.2.4 Trends in glaciers and permafrost ..................................................................................... 688
4.7.2.4.1 Glacier melting .............................................................................................................. 688
4.7.2.4.2 Permafrost thawing ...................................................................................................... 689
4.7.2.5 Trends in extreme events .................................................................................................. 689
4.7.2.5.1 Drought and temperature extremes............................................................................. 689
4.7.2.5.2 Floods ............................................................................................................................ 690
4.7.2.5.3 Fire ................................................................................................................................ 691
4.7.2.5.4 Windthrow .................................................................................................................... 691
4.7.2.5.5 Trends in marine circulation and deoxygenation ......................................................... 692
4.7.2.5.6 Ocean warming ............................................................................................................. 692
4.7.2.5.7 Water masses and horizontal circulation ..................................................................... 692
4.7.2.5.8 Vertical circulation and mixing...................................................................................... 692
4.7.2.5.9 Ocean acidification........................................................................................................ 693
4.7.2.6 Trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration......................................................................... 693
4.7.3 Indirect drivers influencing climate change .................................................................. 695
4.8 Drivers and effects of invasive alien species .......................................................................... 699
4.8.1 Effects of invasive alien species on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people 699
4.8.2 Trends in invasive alien species ..................................................................................... 701
4.8.2.1 Recent trends..................................................................................................................... 701
4.8.2.2 Projected future trends ..................................................................................................... 702
4.8.3 Indirect drivers influencing invasive alien species ........................................................ 704
4.9 Synthesis of direct driver trends and impacts in Europe and Central Asia ............................ 711
4.9.1 Interaction among direct drivers and time-lagged effects on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people ............................................................................................................... 711
4.9.2 Synthesis of direct driver trends and impacts ............................................................... 713
4.9.2.1 Recent trends in direct drivers and their impact ............................................................... 714
4.9.2.2 Projected future trends in direct drivers and their impact ................................................ 715
4.9.3 Synthesis of indirect drivers .......................................................................................... 717
4.10 References ......................................................................................................................... 719

554
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive Summary

The major direct anthropogenic drivers – natural resource extraction, land-use change, pollution,
climate change and invasive alien species – all strongly impact on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia, posing substantial risks for nature and human
well-being (well established) (4.2.1). Direct drivers act independently and in combination, amplifying
and altering their context-specific individual and combined effects on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people (well established) (4.2.3, 4.9.1). For example, the impacts of climate change
are considerably exacerbated by adverse land-use changes. Direct drivers also impact each other
through different feedback systems and alter driver trends (established but incomplete) (4.9.1).
Indirect drivers – institutional, economic, demographic, cultural & religious and scientific &
technological – interactively determine the trends and impacts of direct drivers (well established)
(4.2.3).
The belief that further GDP growth will facilitate sustainable development is a deeply rooted cultural
driver, especially evident in Western and Central Europe, calling for smart, inclusive and sustainable
growth. However, this requires an absolute decoupling between GDP growth and degradation of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people which has not generally been observed
(established but incomplete). Such decoupling is theoretically possible but would require a radical
change in policies and tax reforms at the global and national levels (4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.4). Domestic
material consumption has increased in almost all European Union countries since the year 2000
(except for the economic contraction following the financial crisis in 2008), supported by growth-
oriented policies (4.4.4.2). There is some evidence that human well-being does not increase further
once a certain income threshold has been reached. Indeed, the sustainability challenge is to decouple
quality of life (well-being) from environmental degradation and pay less attention to GDP (unresolved)
(4.3.2, 4.3.4). Such decoupling would require new indicators on well-being, equity, environmental
quality, biodiversity conservation and nature’s ability to contribute to people. Policies for resource
efficiency have been implemented, but the tax system continues to impede recirculation and resource
efficiency and hence transitions towards a “green economy”. For example, the total revenue from
environmental taxes in the EU-28 in 2014 was only 2.5% of GDP, or 6.3% of the total revenues derived
from all taxes and social contributions. These proportions have decreased since 2002, from 2.6 % and
6.8 %, respectively (well established) (4.3.2).
Demography as an indirect driver varies significantly between the subregions, with a dramatic
population decrease projected for Central Europe (established but incomplete). Urban development
will continue to affect natural and semi-natural rural land in large parts of Europe and Central Asia.
The population of Europe and Central Asia, 910 million, is stable, but a dramatic population decrease
in Central Europe (excluding Turkey) is projected until 2050, from 123 to 104 million, due to currently
low fertility rates and high emigration rates (4.3.3). On-going rapid urbanization as people move from
rural areas into cities in Central and Eastern Europe and in Central Asia is fuelled by the deterioration
of livelihoods in rural areas (4.3.3 and 4.5.6). The consequent urban development results in both urban
sprawl and rural land abandonment. In Western Europe, urbanization occurs increasingly as people
move from inland areas to coastal cities, which puts further pressure on estuaries and other coastal
ecosystems (well established). There is a high potential for migration from Turkey and Central Asia to
Eastern and Central Europe in the coming decades. Armed conflicts have profound effects on
migration; for example, Turkey recently received (by March 2016) over 3 million refugees from Syria,
Iraq and Afghanistan. These large migrations may have important effects on other drivers of
biodiversity change (established but incomplete) (4.3.3).

555
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Conventional intensification of agriculture and forestry has resulted in habitat loss, fragmentation,
and degradation and has negative impacts on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (well
established) (4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3). Intensification of agriculture has resulted in conversion of natural and
semi-natural habitats on fertile landscapes, with severe negative impacts on biodiversity (well
established) (4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.3). In marginal lands, the side-effect of agricultural intensification has
been the degradation and abandonment of traditionally managed semi-natural habitats and cultural
landscapes that support high biodiversity and provide the magnitude of nature’s contributions to
people (well established) (4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.5). Despite agri-environmental schemes and other
mitigation measures, conventional intensive agriculture is jeopardizing sustainable land management,
biodiversity, and food production (established but incomplete) (4.5.1, 4.5.2). Measures including
ecological restoration, sustainable approaches to agriculture, e.g. ecological infrastruture that harness
nature’s contributions to people and inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge, have mitigated
some of the adverse effects of intensive agriculture and represent opportunities to simultaneously
secure diverse nature’s contributions to people and conservation of biodiversity (established but
incomplete) (4.5.1, 4.5.2).
Production of forest biomass for energy purposes and intensification of forest management have
negative impacts on biodiversity and soil quality, as well as an array of material and non-material
contributions from nature. The trade-offs between increasing intensity of forestry and delivery of
diverse nature’s contributions to people are recognized as a major challenge for forestry in Europe and
Central Asia. Additionally, there is continuous logging in intact forest landscapes across the region
(established but incomplete) (4.5.3). Environmental NGOs have played a key role in the adoption of
forest certification schemes, which have reduced “wood mining” of remaining intact forests and have
led to the inclusion of biodiversity conservation criteria and indicators in intensive forest management
systems (well established) (4.5.2, 4.5.3).
Abandonment of intensively managed agricultural land has been widespread across Europe and
Central Asia (well established). However, a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this process
on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is limited by knowledge gaps. In the European
Union, cropland area has decreased by almost 1.2 million hectares in recent decades and largely been
replaced by forested and urban areas (4.5.2, 4.5.4). Enlargement of the European Union to Central
Europe and implementation of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy in new member States
have resulted in the reconversion of some of this abandoned farmland to intensive agriculture – a
trend that is likely to continue. Eastern Europe and Central Asia are and will remain hotspots of
agricultural land abandonment (well established) (4.5.2). This has resulted in substantial reduction in
livestock, and decline in crop production in these subregions. With the economic recovery and
increasing domestic and foreign investments in agriculture after the year 2000, re-cultivation of some
abandoned croplands began, particularly in the agriculturally favourable black soil regions in the south
of European Russia, Ukraine and northern Kazakhstan (4.5.2, 4.5.3).
Abandonment of extensively managed traditional land-use systems, and loss of associated
indigenous and local knowledge and practices, has been widespread in Europe and Central Asia (well
established) (4.5.5). Cessation of traditional land use has led to loss of semi-natural habitats which
support biodiversity of high conservation value (well established) (4.5.1). Loss of traditionally
managed semi-natural habitats, especially grasslands, has resulted in decline and loss of associated
biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Demographic trends, including urbanization, continue to
diminish indigenous and local populations, with concomitant negative impacts on traditional land-use
knowledge, culture and identities (established but incomplete) (4.5.5). In Europe and Central Asia,
production-based subsidies driving growth in agricultural, forestry and natural resource extraction
sectors tend to exacerbate conflicting land-use issues, often impinging on available territory for

556
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

traditional users (established but incomplete) (4.5.5). In some areas, traditional practices are
maintained to a certain extent, and traditional ecological knowledge is adapting to new ecological and
socioeconomic conditions. Maintenance of traditional land use and lifestyles in Europe and Central
Asia is strongly related to institutional adequacy and economic viability. Traditional land uses and
knowledge are becoming increasingly recognized for their value in solving problems related to
biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystems (established
but incomplete) (4.5.5). The growth of green tourism and demand for products derived from traditional
practices and the availability of subsidies for traditional land uses are important factors in ensuring the
economic viability of indigenous peoples and local communities (well established) (4.5.5).
Protected areas have enormous importance for biodiversity conservation, and the area under
protection has been constantly expanding during recent decades across the region (well established)
(4.5.4). In Europe and Central Asia, the total coverage of areas declared as protected is 10.2%, with
13.5% of the terrestrial area and 5.2% of the marine area being protected. Natura 2000 in the European
Union represents a systematic effort to develop new protected areas (4.5.4). Measures to improve
environmental status within conservation areas combined with landscape-scale approaches that
improve matrix quality for native biodiversity are needed (established but incomplete) (4.5.1.7). 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. The
inadequacy of institutions in navigating local resistance to protected areas and regulating the negative
impacts of conflicting land uses outside of protected areas poses important problems for biodiversity
conservation. Environmental NGOs have had an important impact in building public awareness of the
role of nature protection, leading to shifts in consumer preferences and political priorities.
Additionally, Europe and Central Asia is unfortunately the arena for a number of recent and current
armed conflicts. Armed conflict has many deleterious effects on protected areas, including multiple
direct and indirect environmental impacts, diversion of economic resources from protected area
budgets, loss of institutions and human resources, and interruption of long-term monitoring. There is
considerable evidence that protected areas alone cannot prevent global biodiversity loss (well
established) (4.5.4).
Within the present institutional framework, fishing, hunting, and mining pose considerable threats
to biodiversity (well established). Depletion of local mineral and fish stocks are disguised by global
trade, which delays effective responses, and harmful subsidies exacerbating unsustainable
extraction levels (established but incomplete). Fossil fuels and rare earth minerals are the largest
contributors to GDP in Central Asia and the volume of coal mined has doubled in the last decade. The
mineral extraction industry in Central Asia has been driven by trade liberalization and increasing world
market prices (well established) (4.4.4.2). Demand for fish in the European Union continues to exceed
the sustainable yield and an increasing proportion of fish is imported. In a closed market economy, the
local shortage of material contributions to people due to excessive use would increase prices, drawing
attention to the shortage and the reasons for it. However, in a global economy these feedbacks (price
signals and awareness) are often masked by substitution. For example, the shortage of cod in Europe
has partly been substituted by cod and other white fish from other regions (4.4.1). The more successful
globalization and substitution becomes, the longer the delays between declining material
contributions to people, e.g. fish stocks, within one region, and policy responses in this region to
correct that decline (established but incomplete) (4.2.5, 4.4.1). Institutional drivers have changed, e.g.
the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy, but economic drivers have not (4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4.1.3).
Inefficiently low prices of fish are further lowered by harmful subsidies and technological drivers, which

557
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

result in high harvest levels despite declining stock. Europe, mainly the European Union and Russia,
continue to pay about 6 billion USD annually in capacity-enhancing (harmful) fishing subsidies (well
established) (4.4.1.3).
Despite effective regulations for some forms of pollution, this direct driver still poses major threats
to biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and human health (well established). The drivers of
pollution are mainly economic, i.e. effects of industrialization and globalization, including
conventional intensive agriculture and increases in transportation (well established). Pollution is also
increased by institutional drivers that foster adverse technological development and the cultural belief
that a prosperous life must entail more material consumption (unresolved). Pollution is a function of
the industrial development model (4.6.6) and in general correlated to GDP (4.3.2) (established but
incomplete). However, some pollution problems such as acidification and eutrophication of terrestrial
ecosystems have been decreasing in Western and Central Europe since 1990, from 30% and 78%,
respectively, of areas exceeding critical pollutant loads of sensitive ecosystems, to 3% and 55%,
respectively. This has mainly been accomplished by regulations (well established) (4.6.1, 4.6.3).
Phosphorous and nitrogen (except ammonia) pollution is decreasing in Europe but, partly due to time
lags, many terrestrial systems and a large proportion of lakes and rivers in Western and Central Europe
continue to be negatively affected (well established) (4.6.1, 4.6.2). Although marine and coastal
eutrophication has decreased, the number of marine dead zones due to oxygen depletion resulting
from nutrient and organic pollutants has increased markedly (established but incomplete) (4.6.1,
4.6.2). Overall, there is evidence that pollution particularly negatively affects freshwater and marine
biodiversity and water quality across Europe and Central Asia (well established). Global sales by the
chemical industry doubled between 2000 and 2009 and continue to increase. Due to synergistic or
“cocktail” effects, substances present in concentrations below recognized health threshold values can
still be toxic, leading, for example, to human hormone disruption (well established) (4.6.4). Two kinds
of pollution are increasing rapidly: plastic debris and microplastics affecting a wide array of marine
organisms; and artificial light at night affecting terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems (established
but incomplete) (4.6.5).

There is strong evidence that the climate of Europe and Central Asia is changing towards warmer
temperatures and regionally changed precipitation (well established) (4.7.2.1, 4.7.2.2), with
generally drier summers in the southern and wetter winters in the northern parts of the region and
increasing risk and amplitude of extreme climatic events such as droughts and storms (established
but incomplete) (4.7.2.2, 4.7.2.5). Evidence that climate change impacts biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people is emerging rapidly, and climate change is likely to become one of the most
important drivers in the future, especially in combination with other drivers (established but
incomplete) (4.9.2.2). The temperature will increase in the next decades and most units of analysis
(biomes and land cover types) will experience an average warming between 1 and 3 °C by 2041-2060
relative to 1986-2005, with larger increases for northernmost biomes such as snow and ice dominated
ones and tundras (well established) (4.7.1.2). Precipitation patterns are projected to change across
Western and Central Europe: drier climates and increased drought risk in their south-west, no change
or increased precipitation in their north-west, while trends for Eastern Europe and Central Asia are
ambiguous (established but incomplete) (4.7.2.2). Effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people vary according to the ecosystem itself, in particular depending on whether productivity is
precipitation-, radiation- or temperature-limited. Climatic warming and precipitation change are
driving shifts in seasonal timing, growth and productivity, species ranges and habitat occupancy with
impacts on biodiversity, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (well established) (4.7.1.1). Knowledge of
the underlying processes and mechanisms suggests that many species will not be able to respond,
migrate or adapt fast enough to keep pace with the projected rates of change in mean climate

558
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conditions, threatening ecosystem functioning and livelihoods (established but incomplete) (4.7.1.1.2).
Across Europe and Central Asia, increased drought results in decreased primary productivity, increased
net carbon flux to the atmosphere, nutrient leaching from terrestrial systems and algal blooms,
biodiversity loss, and decreased water quality in aquatic systems (established but incomplete) (4.7.1.1).
The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established that
economic growth is the main driver of greenhouse gas emissions and hence climate change in Europe
and Central Asia (well established) (4.7.3). From 1970–2010, economic growth has been only partially
offset by improvements in the energy intensity of the economy and the emissions intensity of energy
production, and policies have proved insufficient in influencing infrastructure, technological, or
behavioural choices at a scale that curbs the upward greenhouse gas emissions trends (well
established) (4.7.3). Per capita emissions vary widely, depending on geography, income, lifestyle, and
the available energy resources and technologies, leading to differences in climate footprints within
Europe and Central Asia (established but incomplete) (4.7.3).
Evidence is emerging that indirect climate change effects, such as increased fire and flood risks and
loss of permafrost are affecting biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in Europe and
Central Asia (well established) (4.7.1.3). Increased precipitation, especially in winter, will result in
increased flood risk in the northern parts of Western and Central Europe (established but incomplete)
(4.7.2.1). Floods are a serious hazard to people, and increase erosion, water turbidity and
eutrophication, impacting freshwater provisioning (established but incomplete) (4.7.1.2). Increased
fire risk is projected across large parts of Western and Central Europe (established but incomplete),
while projected increases in fire danger for Eastern Europe and Central Asia are uncertain. Near-
surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes is projected to decrease by between 37% (RCP2.6)
and 81% (RCP8.5) by the end of the 21st century, (established but incomplete). In Arctic and alpine
regions, permafrost melting may lead to large greenhouse gas emissions, and short-term heat waves
negatively impact productivity and may result in reduced food availability for wildlife and livestock
(unresolved). Climate change further leads to ocean acidification, sea level rise and changes in ocean
stratification, generally resulting in biodiversity loss, reduced growth and productivity and hence
impaired fisheries and increased release of CO2 to the atmosphere (established but incomplete)
(4.7.1.3).
Invasive alien species have increased in number and for all taxonomic groups across all subregions
of Europe and Central Asia and this has severe effects on biodiversity and nature’s contribution to
people (well established). For Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the rate of invasion has been less
severe than in Western and Central Europe, but is expected to increase at a rate that strongly
depends on GDP development (established but incomplete) (4.8.1, 4.8.2). Rates of increase in
numbers of invasive alien species are strongly correlated with introduction rates. Introduction rates of
alien species are strongly related to trade networks and have increased dramatically over the last 200
years in all environments (terrestrial, freshwater and marine), with 37% of first records reported from
1970-2014 (well established). Invasive alien species are affected by interactions with other drivers of
change such as land-use change and climate change (established but incomplete). The invasion process
(transportation, introduction, establishment and spread) is influenced by economic factors. Major
pathways of introduction in Europe and Central Asia include horticulture and ornamental trade,
accidental transportation, creation of commercial paths such as canals, and tourism (well established).
International, national and sub-national legal instruments targeting invasive and alien species have
been developed in Western and Central Europe but are currently lacking in Eastern Europe and Central
Asia. In addition, proactive educational outreach programmes as well as trans-boundary legal
instruments targeting major introduction pathways have shown promising potential for improved
prevention and earlier detection of invasive alien species (well established). However, Aichi

559
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Biodiversity Targets 5 and 9 are unlikely to be achieved for Europe and Central Asia because of ongoing
habitat conversion and fragmentation (Target 5) and because invasive alien species are not adequately
controlled and are still increasing in numbers (Target 9) (established but incomplete) (4.5.1, 4.8.2).
Invasive alien species generally tend to have negative effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people. However, their magnitude and direction vary among types of impact, taxa and environments
(well established) (4.8.1).
In addition to immediate effects, the individual and combined effects of natural resource extraction,
land-use change, climate change, diffuse pollution and invasive alien species can have chronic,
prolonged and delayed impacts on biodiversity and the provision of nature’s contributions to
people, due to considerable time-lags in the response of ecological systems (e.g. extinction debt,
colonization time-lags) (well established) (4.9.1). For example, species extinctions due to habitat area
loss and increasing fragmentation can take decades or centuries due to the slow intrinsic dynamics of
populations of many species (well established) (4.5.1, 4.9.1). Climate change can have delayed effects
on change in species distribution patterns and development of species assemblages under new
conditions because of time lags in population response and migrational lags (established but
incomplete) (4.7.1.1.2, 4.9.1). Nutrient pollution continues to influence terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems for decades after external inputs are reduced (well established) (4.6.1). Considerable
delays occur between the initial introduction of alien species and their possible spread as invasive alien
species (well established) (4.8.1). Such time-lags introduce uncertainty and can lead to serious
underestimation of the effects of current direct drivers on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people. Decisive and proactive policies would avoid future loss of species and nature´s contributions
to people (established but incomplete) (4.5.1, 4.6.1, 4.7.1, 4.8.1, 4.9.1).

560
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Aim of the chapter

The aim of this chapter is to assess evidence of the status and trends of the drivers that affect
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. There are three wider categories of nature’s
contributions to people: regulating, material and non-material contributions, that are similar to, but
not identical to classifications of ecosystem services (see Chapter 1). Ecosystems are dynamic
interacting networks of animals, plants, fungi, and microorganisms, above and below ground and
water-surfaces. These biodiverse networks of interacting organisms respond to a set of environmental
factors such as climate, soil, or water conditions. Social-ecological systems also include human
activities (direct drivers) that modify almost all of these ecosystem interactions and environmental
factors, and the underlying societal (indirect) drivers of these activities. It is thus important to
understand the status and trends of the direct and indirect drivers that affect biodiversity, including
ecosystems and, thereby, affect nature’s contributions to people.

4.1.2 Scope and organization of the chapter

This chapter focuses on the effects of drivers on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and
thereby only indirectly on quality of life, which is dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 2. Section 4.1
describes the scope of the chapter, the role of drivers in the IPBES conceptual framework, and
methodological approaches. Section 4.2 explains which system of “drivers of change” is addressed in
this assessment. We compare and specify concepts which have been used in earlier assessments to
justify the choice of direct and indirect drivers, including their sub-categories. The section also
discusses the importance of the temporal and spatial variability of drivers and interregional flows.
Section 4.3 assesses major trends in the five individual indirect drivers in Europe and Central Asia.
Indirect drivers are then assessed for each direct driver in the subsequent sections.
Chapters 2 and 3 of the IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia identified strong
evidence that biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are declining, and that natural resource
extraction, land-use change, pollution, climate change, and invasive alien species are the main direct
drivers of these changes. Sections 4.4 to 4.8 assess five direct drivers, one in each section. We first
assess the overall effects of the direct drivers on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in
Europe and Central Asia (please note that the specific effects of direct drivers on specific taxa and each
unit of analysis (i.e. types of ecosystems, see Chapter 1) are the subject of Chapter 3). After establishing
the general effects of the direct drivers, we provide an assessment of the trends in each direct driver
and sub-categories of the drivers within the different regions and units of analysis over the recent past
(20-40 years) and projected into the future (50-85 years). We use the word “projected” rather than
“predicted” because in the medium long run, predictions of the future are not possible. Then we assess
the indirect drivers that underpin the direct drivers of changes in biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. As described below, the indirect drivers interact considerably and are often
context specific, and therefore they should not be assessed in isolation. We use causal loop diagrams
(CLDs) to illustrate some of the complex interactions and causal relationships affecting each driver.
Section 4.9 synthesizes the main findings for the overall trends in, and impacts of, drivers on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people across subregions and biomes (the unit of analysis)
in the past and projected into the future. For direct drivers, this synthesis is based on an assessment
of all sub-categories of drivers and their compound impacts. For indirect drivers, the synthesis in 4.9.3
is based on the empirical sections.

561
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.1.3 Driver as a concept

The distinction between “indirect” and “direct” drivers was popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA, 2005b) and this classification still dominates the debate on ecosystem change (e.g.
Pereira et al., 2010). The older DPSIR terminology (drivers, pressures, states, impacts, responses),
popular in Western Europe (Stanners & Bourdeau, 1995), divided drivers into “driving forces” and
“pressures”, with the former corresponding to indirect drivers and the latter corresponding to direct
drivers of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Tzanopoulos et al., 2013).

4.1.4 Natural and anthropogenic drivers

Analytically it is sometimes difficult to distinguish whether an element (process, factor, driver) belongs
to the natural or the human system. Biogeophysical processes and factors such as volcanic eruptions,
tsunamis, El Nino, solar radiation, or storms, are natural and they influence all elements of life on earth.
These “natural drivers” and extreme events are not assessed in this chapter. Our analysis is limited to
drivers linked to human activities, and are therefore considered anthropogenic or at least
anthropogenically influenced drivers. In this context, direct drivers are the result of human interactions
with natural processes that directly act upon biodiversity, including ecosystems, by altering natural
processes, while indirect drivers are structures and processes governing the human interactions,
thereby influencing direct drivers. So, while we would consider climate and weather, habitats, and
species’ dispersal and range dynamics to be natural processes, anthropogenic climate change, land-
use change and invasion by alien species reflect the human influence on climate, land use and
biodiversity dynamics, respectively.
However, to unequivocally disentangle natural variability from anthropogenic drivers is often difficult.
Human impacts now affect more than half of the Earth’s ice-free terrestrial surface (Ellis et al., 2010)
and humans now exert a dominant influence on key Earth system processes and on ecosystem change
and biodiversity loss (Newbold et al., 2015, 2016; Steffen et al., 2007). This has led to the coining of a
new geological epoche, the “Anthropocene” (see Crutzen, 2002). While there is debate over when,
exactly, the transition from the Holocene to the Anthropocene occurred, it is often set to when human
impacts took over as a dominating influence on the earth system processes, early in the 20th century
(see Steffen et al., 2007). Human influences were also present prior to this transition, and the nature
and magnitude of the impacts through time and especially in the more distant past 3,000-8,000 years
ago, are still debated (Ruddiman, 2013; Scott et al., 2014). This assessment takes a pragmatic approach
to this challenge, focusing on assessing the impacts of major modern (i.e., post-industrial)
anthropogenic drivers relative to the more-or-less human affected pre-industrial landscapes (see also
Nybø et al., 2017). Box 4.1 exemplifies the analytical challenges in distinguishing between “natural” or
“anthropogenic” factors in the past through the example of forest fires.
Box 4.1: Natural or human control over forest fires in northern Europe?

It is sometimes difficult to clearly separate natural (Earth system) and anthropogenic (human activities) drivers
and land use often interacts with natural processes. A typical example is the occurrence of forest fires in the
northern boreal forests of Europe and Central Asia.
Long term chronologies based on charcoal in sediments, covering 10,000 years after the last glaciation
(Holocene), suggest climate has been the main governing factor for fire regimes (Carcaillet et al., 2007). Although
humans have been present during most of the Holocene (based on carbon-14 dated archaeological features) on
millennial scales, fire history does not show any relationship to human presence in these remote landscapes.

562
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hence, Carcaillet et al. (2007) suggest that natural processes have been decisive for the long-term fire pattern.
It has also been argued, based on dendrochronological (tree-ring based) reconstructions that years with many
large fires may be controlled by the climate (Drobyshevet al., 2015).
However, several dendrochronological reconstructions (with high temporal resolution) show clear links between
fire patterns and human presence in the landscape during most of the last millennium (Granström & Niklasson,
2008; Walleniuset al., 2004). Granström and Niklasson (2008) depict several fairly distinct periods of human
influence on forest fires. In the earliest stage (during the millennia after the deglaciation), prehistoric moose
hunters may have used fire to open the landscape in order provide better grazing conditions.
When the Sami people in the northern parts of Europe and Central Asia began changing from hunting reindeer
to reindeer husbandry in the 17th century (Hahn, 2000), they had an incentive to ensure that ground vegetation
conditions (lichens) were suitable for reindeer. Since only an estimated 1 % of the stands naturally burned every
year (Zackrisson, 1977) and the repeated burning was important to create open all-aged tree stands optimal for
maintaining lichen cover on the ground (Axelsson & Östlund, 2001; Berg et al., 2008; Östlund et al., 1997), fires
were probably an important management practice also for the early forms of reindeer husbandry. When
commercial forestry was established from the mid-1800s, it resulted in increasingly effective fire suppression.
Dense monoculture forests and lack of fires have reduced the extent of lichen covered areas in Sweden by 70 %
since 1955 (Sandström et al., 2016).
On the border between current Finland and Russia there is an apparent mismatch between predicted lightning
ignition frequency and observed fire history, suggesting that as far back as a millennium ago, a very small human
population may have played a role in the fire history of remote boreal forests (Wallenius et al., 2010a). This leads
to the conclusion that potentially the boreal forests that developed after the glaciation have to quite some extent
been formed by human presence in the landscape.
End of Box 4.1

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

4.2.1 Direct drivers

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005b) distinguished five major classes of direct drivers
of biodiversity change, namely habitat change, climate change, invasive alien species, over-
exploitation and pollution (mostly nitrogen and phosphorous). Here, we largely follow this
classification of direct drivers, although we use “natural resource extraction” instead of “over-
exploitation, to avoid using value-laden terms (Table 4.1). However, we still use “over-fishing” since
this is such an established term in contemporary global fisheries (Worm et al., 2006). Water extraction
and fish harvesting are considered here as two sub-categories of natural resource extraction, not as
two separate direct drivers as in Pereira et al. (2010). Here, we briefly describe the five categories of
direct drivers including sub-categories, and explain what is summarized within each of these (see Table
4.1 for an overview of all classes). None of the sub-categories is uniform in its expected impacts on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, and we have, therefore, distinguished a number of
further elements within sub-categories when analysing the available information for recent and
projected future trends.
Table 4.1: Categories of direct drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
The five major categories are composed of two to six subcategories. More details for each sub-
category are given in the text.

Natural Resource Extraction Climate Change

▪ Fishing ▪ Temperature change

563
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

▪ Hunting ▪ Precipitation change

▪ Water use & desalination ▪ Sea-Level change
▪ Mineral & fossil fuel extraction ▪ Glaciers & permafrost
▪ Extreme events
Land use change ▪ Marine circulation and deoxygenation
▪ Changes in agriculture ▪ Atmospheric CO2 concentration
▪ Changes in forestry
▪ Changes in protected areas Invasive alien species
▪ Changes in traditional land use ▪ Terrestrial
▪ Changes in urban development ▪ Freshwater & Brackish
▪ Marine
Pollution
▪ Nutrient pollution
▪ Organic pollution
▪ Acidification
▪ Xenochemical & heavy metal pollution

Natural Resources Extraction: For biotic resources extraction, we distinguish fishing and hunting.
Logging is treated as a sub-category of land-use change and therefore not included here. Gathering of
plants for human use (e.g. berries, mushrooms) is identified by IUCN as a threat to biodiversity
(Maxwell et al., 2016), but not assessed here. For the extraction of abiotic resources, we distinguish
water use & desalination, and mineral & fossil fuel extraction.
Land-use change: Changes in five major land-use categories are assessed, namely: changes in
agriculture, forestry, protected areas, traditional land use and urban development.
Pollution: Past assessments focused on pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus (MEA, 2005a, 2005b).
In this assessment, we distinguish five main categories of pollutants, namely: nutrient pollution,
organic pollution, acidification, xenochemical and heavy metal pollution and “other” pollution
(including ground-level ozone, light and plastic pollution).
Climate Change: This driver class has been studied prominently in recent IPCC reports, with regards to
both its current and projected future trends, and its expected impacts on terrestrial and marine
ecosystems (IPCC, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b). Here, we distinguish seven major sub-categories, namely:
changes in precipitation, temperature, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, glacier and permafrost
extent, sea-level, extreme events, and marine ocean-atmosphere interchange.
Invasive Alien Species: An alien species (also known as an exotic or introduced species) is a species
occurring in an area outside of its historically known natural range as a result of intentional or
accidental dispersal by human activities (CBD, 2011). Invasive alien species (IAS) are alien species
whose introduction or spread threaten biological diversity or that have other negative effects on
ecosystems, economy or society (CBD, 2011; Roy et al., 2014a). In this report, we distinguish three
major categories of invasive alien species, namely: terrestrial, freshwater (including brackish waters),
and marine.

564
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.2.2 Indirect drivers

We identify five categories of indirect drivers, adapted from Hauck et al. (2015) building on the MEA
(2005b) framework. Some scholars call indirect drivers “underlying drivers” (van Vliet et al., 2015),
“underlying causes,” “fundamental social processes” (Geist & Lambin, 2002), “categories of origin” or
“key driving forces” (Brandt et al., 1999). Hence, there are different attempts to conceptualize indirect
drivers (Table 4.2). If indirect drivers are the underlying causes of, for example, land-use change or
pollution, then the tangible results of human activities can be seen as direct drivers, or “proximate
causes”. For example, for deforestation, proximate causes can include agricultural expansion, wood
extraction or the extension of road infrastructure (Geist & Lambin, 2002). Indirect drivers do not
directly impact biodiversity, but may have a direct impact on nature’s contributions to people,
according to the IPBES conceptual framework. For example, some legal restrictions may reduce
nature’s contributions to people to certain groups of people and some non-material contributions of
nature are co-produced by people and nature (Díaz et al., 2015).
The literature on indirect drivers often treats land-use change as the dependent variable and gives less
attention to its consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Van Vliet et al. (2015) include
“location factors” as an underlying (indirect) driver, consisting of accessibility, climate, topography,
and soil quality (“EU” in Table 4.2). Similarly, Brandt et al. (1999) include “natural environment”
(“UNESCO” in Table 4.2) as a key driving force, consisting of geomorphology, soil, climate and
hydrology. Geist and Lambin (2002) also include “pre-disposing environmental factors” such as soil,
topography and fragmentation mediating the underlying drivers (“IGBP-IHDP” in Table 4.2).
Furthermore, they address biophysical and social triggers, which ecologists call “fast variables” or
“disturbances”.
Table 4.2: Different categorizations of indirect drivers.

UNESCO1 IGBP-IHDP2 EU3 MA 2005a IPBES

Socioeconomic Economic Economic Economic Economic
Policy Policy/Institutional Institutional Socio-political Institutional
Culture Cultural Sociocultural Cultural & Cultural &
religious religious
– Demographic Demographic Demographic Demographic
Technology Technological Technological Science & Scientific &
Technology Technological
Natural (Environmental Location factors – –
environment factors)
1
Brandt et al. (1999); 2 Geist and Lambin (2002); 3 van Vliet et al. (2015)
Based on Geist and Lambin (2002), we identify biophysical triggers including fires, droughts, floods and
storms, and social triggers including revolution, social disorder, abrupt displacements, economic
shocks, and abrupt policy shifts. These triggers emerge from indirect drivers and may have dramatic
effects on direct drivers. The breakdown of the Soviet Union (Baumann et al., 2011; Prishchepov et al.,
2013) and the nuclear accident of Chernobyl (Hostert et al., 2011) could not be foreseen, but led to
widespread farmland abandonment and decreasing land-use intensity. From a policy perspective, it is
important to understand both drivers and triggers, to “accept uncertainty, be prepared for change and
surprise, and enhance the adaptive capacity to deal with disturbance” (Folke et al., 2005).
Here, we use categories of indirect drivers similar to previous assessments and studies (Table 4.2).
However, the sub-categories of indirect drivers have been updated as outlined in Table 4.3.

565
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 4.3: Categories of indirect drivers that underpin direct drivers of change in biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people. More detailed information about, and motivation for selecting the
sub-category under each main category is given in the text.

Institutional Economic
▪ Regulations ▪ Material intensity of GDP
▪ Institutional capacity ▪ Globalization
▪ Environmental policy integration ▪ Taxes and subsidies
▪ Political/armed conflicts ▪ Environmental fiscal reform

Demographic Cultural & religious

▪ Population growth & density ▪ Public awareness, knowledge
▪ Urbanization ▪ Values, beliefs, social norms
▪ Migration ▪ Lifestyle, consumption
▪ Social capital
Scientific & Technological ▪ Cultural capital
▪ New technologies
▪ Innovation

Institutional drivers: Legislation and regulations provide the institutional arrangements (formal
institutions, or legal framework) for all natural resource management. We refer to these as
“regulations”, to distinguish institutional drivers from informal institutions, which are mainly social
norms and therefore belong to cultural & religious drivers. Some regulations promote sustainable
natural resource management and governance to a greater or lesser extent. However, regulations
safeguarding biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people may not be enforced or, if they are,
may not be effective. This depends on the institutional capacity, or the governability of the state, for
example to regulate the private/public sectors and to engage civil society (Breukers & Wolsink, 2007;
MEA, 2005b). Important institutional drivers are those sector regulations that impact biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people, for example, energy, mining, conventional agriculture and forestry,
large-scale fisheries, and tourism. Improving or changing these sectoral policies to better account for
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is sometimes called “mainstreaming” or
“environmental policy integration” (Nilsson & Persson, 2003), including consistent multilevel
governance (Malayang III et al., 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2009).
The international discussion has lately emphasized the role of policy integration. For example, Strategic
Goal A of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 addresses “the underlying causes of biodiversity
loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society” (CBD, 2010). Hence, assessing
changes in institutional drivers can be framed regarding the extent to which countries and regions have
succeeded in environmental policy integration (mainstreaming). Institutional drivers are intertwined
with other indirect drivers. For example, since markets are influenced by legislation (Bromley, 1991),
global trade as an economic driver is largely the result of trade agreements, which are not always
consistent with international environmental regulations. Finally, the literature also refers to the role
of international collaboration as well as political or armed conflicts.
Economic drivers: Global GDP is expected to increase from about 50 trillion US$ in 2005 to between
155 trillion (UNEP, 2012) and 300 trillion in 2050 (OECD, 2001). These figures diverge considerably and
provide no information about how sustainable the growth of GDP is expected to be. Hence, we see
material intensity of GDP, not GDP in itself, as a driver. Global trade increases demand for many

566
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

nature’s contributions to people and changes production and consumption patterns, and therefore
ecosystem use, at local, national, and global levels. Economic drivers are strongly linked to institutional
drivers, which govern production through regulations, taxes and subsidies, thereby influencing relative
prices of, for example, fossil fuel versus renewable energy. Internalising external environmental costs
may, however, be difficult due to its effects on global competitiveness. Hence, the environmental fiscal
reforms called for by the United Nations Environment Programme to make the economy more
efficient, must be seen in a global context.
Demographic drivers: This group includes population density and growth, urbanization and migration
as well as ageing population (Hossman et al., 2008; Kroll & Kabisch, 2012). Human population growth
is one of the most fundamental reasons behind all direct drivers.
Cultural and religious drivers: Public awareness and knowledge about environmental change are
fundamental indirect drivers. Filtered by values, beliefs and social norms, public awareness exerts
pressure on decision-making about the environment (Nelson et al., 2006). Culture conditions the
individual’s perceptions of the world, influences what he or she considers important, and suggests
courses of action that are appropriate and inappropriate. Although culture is most often thought of as
a characteristic of national or ethnic groups, our definition emphasizes the emergence of cultures
within professions, organizations and gender, along with the possibility that an individual may be able
to draw on or reconcile more than one culture (Nelson et al., 2006). Cultural values are materially
manifested in lifestyles and consumption patterns. To enable transitions to sustainability, cultural
drivers such as social capital may be mobilized by trust-building (Pretty, 2003).
Scientific and technological drivers: Technology is a major driver of economic growth, accounting for
more than one third of the GDP growth in the US 1929-1980 (MEA, 2005b) and similar effects might
be expected in Europe and Central Asia. Technology also directly influences direct drivers in very
tangible ways, for example in forestry, agriculture and fisheries, resulting in intensification of land uses
(MEA, 2005b). Technology can be seen as just a “tool”, neither good nor bad. Its effects depend on
how it is used and developed. For instance, new information and communication technologies might
have the potential for both agricultural intensification and disintensification (Grimes, 2000). At the
same time, the direction of technological development is a function of price relations, which in turn
are influenced by institutions. For example, the “green” revolution has promoted fossil fuel derived
inputs to replace natural inputs in agriculture (Perelman, 1972). With different institutions,
technological innovations and development can increase resource efficiency and decoupling, being an
integrated part of the transformation to a green economy and an important part of the development
of the circular economy (European Commission, 2017b; UNEP, 2011). However, technological
development resulting in resource efficiency may lower the price of the natural resource, which in turn
may increase the consumption of this resource; this is called Jevons paradox or the rebound effect.
Taxes on natural resources (e.g. an environmental fiscal reform) are needed to prevent the rebound
effect (Polimeni et al., 2012).

4.2.3 Relationship between indirect and direct drivers

The previous section suggests that indirect drivers are intertwined and in combination influence direct
drivers. The interaction among indirect drivers is highly complex, i.e. they are hard to trace back to a
single point of origin, and their impacts are often reciprocal and not unidirectional. Jointly, indirect
drivers impact on direct drivers, which in turn also interact in the way they drive ecosystem change
(Figure 4.1). For example, climate change affects the survival of invasive alien species, and land-use
change can have feedback effects on climate. Knowledge about the effects of direct drivers on

567
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people increases public awareness and feedback to the
underlying indirect drivers.

4.2.4 Spatial and temporal variability

Even though the major direct drivers are known, their specific effects and overall trends over time are
not always easy to identify, quantify and assess. This is primarily due to their high spatial and temporal
variability. Some drivers are local in nature (e.g., land-use change and point-source pollution of heavy
metals or nutrients), while others are regional (e.g., ozone or atmospheric nitrogen pollution from
combustion engines) or global (e.g., atmospheric CO2 or sea-level rise). Some of these drivers affect all
species and ecosystems more-or-less equally (e.g., radioactive pollution), while other drivers affect
species and ecosystems very selectively (e.g., nitrogen deposition), and therefore often exert complex
effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
While the effect of some drivers is immediate (e.g. mining), others exhibit significant time lags in their
effect on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. While climate and land-use change and
invasions by alien species are steadily increasing, their full effect is often visible only much later, since
the biodiversity and ecosystem response is slow. This has given rise to the terms invasion debt (Essl et
al., 2011) or extinction debt (Dullinger et al., 2012; Tilmanet al., 1994), to express the expected time
lags until the full effects of drivers are realized. The many facets of climate change rarely affect species
and ecosystems without delay, and the climate itself also lags behind the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations (IPCC, 2014a).

568
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

While some effects are steadily shifting (e.g., sea-level rise), others are unstable and show high
temporal variability. This is especially the case with climate, which includes changes in mean
conditions, time course and extremes (such as heat-waves, drought, fire, floods or winds). The
biological response can be linked to the changes in means, time courses and in extremes, and the
responses can be gradual or they can be in the form of tipping points between alternative stable states
(Barnosky et al., 2012; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007), which can be irreversible.

4.2.5 Interregional flows

Inter-regional flows include trade in agricultural commodities, fish and wood, which can be measured
as human appropriation of net primary productivity (HANPP) (Krausmann et al., 2013). As a result of
international and even interregional trade, and with the exception of northern parts of Western
Europe, and Eastern Europe, Europe and Central Asia appropriates a larger amount of nature’s
contributions to people than it produces. Put differently, their ecological footprints exceed their bio-
capacity (Global Footprint Network, 2017). Inter-regional trade of nature’s contributions to people has
consequences for local ecosystems in the exporting country, but also direct global effects. For example,
in 2004, the deforestation embodied in final consumption within the EU-27 was 732,000 ha, which was
about 10% of the world’s annual deforestation (European Commission, 2013) (see also Section 2.2.4
in this Volume).
Besides these direct biophysical effects, interregional flows of nature’s contributions to people also
have profound effects on direct and indirect drivers of ecosystem change. First, the pressures on
domestic and regional ecosystems can be reduced when nature’s contributions to people are
imported, i.e. when natural resource extraction, pollution and land-use change are “exported”.
Second, interregional flows may have repercussions for other sectors, sometimes referred to as
telecoupling. For example, biofuel mandates in the European Union contributed to global food
shortages in 2008 and subsequent civil unrest in other world regions (Liu et al., 2015).
Inter-regional trade is justified in terms of economic efficiency. Differences in the market price of
agricultural or forestry commodities, fish, and minerals can be seen as differences in scarcity, which
are levelled out by trade, resulting in increased efficiency. However, if the external costs of production
and trade are not taken into account, interregional trade may not enhance efficiency. Without
interregional trade, a region consuming more than its biocapacity (or extraction of minerals) would
experience increased physical scarcity which, in a market economy, would result in increasing prices.
This price signal would, in turn, drive producers and consumers to search for substitutes. It would also
raise public awareness of the scarcity, which could become a pressure for institutional change. Inter-
regional trade offsets this price signal and thereby inhibits the feedbacks to economic and institutional
drivers. This is the purpose of trade, not a side-effect, and it would not be a problem for nature or
human quality of life if trade were based on sustainable harvest and extraction levels (Daly & Farley,
2014).
However, if harvest levels or the production methods of these goods are not sustainable, partly
because external costs are not included in their price, then inefficient and unsustainable production of
material contributions of nature are exacerbated by interregional trade. Policy failures such as
inappropriate environmental regulations in producing countries, increase incentives to export these
goods. Importing countries subsequently enjoy low prices and offsetting of scarcity. This “organized
irresponsibility” (Beck, 2005) has not emerged by accident. On the contrary, export-oriented economic
growth has been a common growth strategy for many developing countries, supported by the World
Bank and other international organizations. For example, unsustainably produced agricultural

569
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

commodities such as soy, coffee, and palm oil have flooded the world market, resulting in low and
fluctuating prices and thereby increased vulnerability in the producing countries (Adger et al., 2009).
In this way, global drivers of market integration become drivers of both local vulnerability and global
unsustainability. In a sustainable world, global trade would not be a problem. However, in the
contemporary world, unsustainable production methods in the producing countries are reinforced and
scaled-up by short-term profits from trade and the lack of environmental regulations in present global
and bi-lateral trade institutions (Daly & Farley, 2014).
Natural resource extraction of minerals and fish are also important interregional flows. Western and
Central Europe import most of their mineral resources due to the depletion of their own resources,
and high extraction costs partly due to environmental regulations (European Commission, 2014).
Without cheap imported minerals, there would be pressure to increase recycling and substitution.
However, interregional trade softens and delays these economic and institutional feedbacks. Similarly,
the depletion of fish stocks in Europe and Central Asia has partly been met by supply of imported fish,
preventing increases in the cultural drivers of prices and awareness, respectively. Both reduce public
pressure for institutional responses (see Section 4.4.1.3).

4.2.6 Methodological approach

4.2.6.1 Effects of, and trends in, direct drivers
Each of the main five direct drivers (see Section 4.2.1) was assessed focussing on a set of sub-categories
of these main driver categories. The literature was screened for effects of direct drivers on biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people, and for trends of the recent past and of the projected future
within Europe and Central Asia. Most weight was given to literature published after 2005, since earlier
literature was largely covered by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. For some drivers (e.g. some
aspects of natural resource extraction, land-use change, or biological invasions), there is less available
information than for others, or it is only available for recent periods. To assess the trends in climate
change drivers, more publications are available than for the other direct drivers, and also large
databases of spatial data. While we did not perform primary analyses for this assessment, we assessed
climate drivers through observational data and data from the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project Phase 5) climate change simulations used in the IPCC AR5 WGI reports (IPCC, 2012, 2013a,
2013b) and extracted from the KNMI climate change atlas website (IPCC, 2012; van Oldenborgh, 2016).
For historical climate data we used five data sets, namely: 1) GISTEMP (GISTEMP Team, 2015; Hansen
et al., 2010); 2) HadCRUT version 4.2.0.0 (Morice et al., 2012); and 3) NCDC MOST (Jones & Moberg,
2003; Peterson & Vose, 1997); 4) CRU TS 3.24 (Harris et al., 2014); and 5) GPCC V7 (Schneider et al.,
2011). For future climates, we used data used in IPCCs AR5 (IPCC, 2013a, 2013b), using all four
representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios, indicating levels of radiative forcing by
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), namely: RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RPC6.0, and RCP8.5. Higher numbers
indicate a higher greenhouse gas effect and a higher level of change to the atmosphere and climate.
Status and trends of temperature and precipitation were extracted for the whole region and for its
four subregions. Values for time series were averaged over land grid. Average historical trend
estimates and projected future anomalies were calculated for each unit of analysis within each
subregion. Spatial distributions of the units of analysis were derived from multiple datasets (see
Chapters 1 and 3) (Figure 4.2). Average climate values were computed by overlaying units and
subregions with climate data, and calculating mean values for summer (JJA) and winter (DJF). Time
series were generated for 1950-2060 as anomalies relative to 1986-2005. As an indication of model
uncertainty and natural variability, the time series of each individual model and scenario was included

570
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

over the analyzed period (see Figure 4.3 and IPCC (2013b) for more info). Future anomalies were
estimated as 20-year means for the time period 2041-2060. Maps of projected trends were generated
for Europe and Central Asia similarly to the IPCC AR5 WG1 Annex 1 (IPCC, 2013a), using the KNMI
climate change atlas. Two representative concentration pathway scenarios were used to generate
maps: scenario RCP 4.5 and 8.5 (IPCC, 2013b). Spatial averages over complex regions provide general
trends, but may not explain the details for particular locations.

571
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

572
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.2.6.2 Indirect drivers

Various methods were employed to assess indirect drivers. We used a combination of key words in
English and several native languages in the Europe and Central Asia region (such as French, Italian,
Swedish, Albanian, Russian, Ukrainian, Hungarian) to retrieve peer-reviewed articles in Scopus, e-
library and Google Scholar. We also made use of the grey literature published in native languages of
countries from different subregions of Europe and Central Asia. Indigenous and local knowledge and
practices were assessed through analysis of traditional land uses of indigenous peoples and local
communities and their drivers of change.
We applied qualitative systems modelling methods (e.g., Wolstenholme & Coyle, 1983) using causal
loop diagrams to structurally map the dynamic inter-relationships within and between indirect and
direct drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Causal loop diagrams
provide a concise format for describing complex interconnected system structures and behavioural
directionality. They use arrows to indicate direct causal relationships between independent and
dependent variables. These relationships can be either in the same direction, represented by a positive
(+) sign, or in the opposing direction, represented by a negative (–) sign. Thus, if independent variable
A connects to dependent variable B by an arrow with a plus (+) sign, the underlying logic of the causal
loop diagram is that an increase (decrease) in A’s behaviour will lead to an increase (decrease) in B’s
behaviour. If the arrow connecting A to B is accompanied by a negative (–) sign then the diagram
indicates that an increase (decrease) in A will lead to a decrease (increase) in B. In some cases, variable
concepts have been amalgamated or broadly aggregated, or otherwise relationships between
independent and dependent variables have been strongly simplified, in such a manner as to impair the
clear directionality of a relationship. In these cases, arrows are not represented by a sign. For example,

573
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

several arrows in overview causal loop diagrams do not carry directional signs, as these arrows are
aggregates of multiple, variously signed, relationships.
The causal loop diagrams (CLDs) provided in this chapter are intended to convey the major dynamic
relationships identified via the literature review process. Each variable and link is thus based on explicit
evidence from one, or several, references. Although expert opinion was gathered during a series of
workshops to guide an iterative modelling process, no dynamics have been included in the finalized
CLDs without substantiation in published materials. No representation of a fully interconnected model
of all identified dynamics is provided. Such a model would be too complex, and would defeat the
purpose of using CLDs as communicative devices. Rather, we present a set of nested models
throughout the chapter, each providing a level of detail regarding identified trends and major driver
dynamics. As such, the CLDs unpack the indirect and direct driver boxes of the IPBES conceptual
framework into an overview model of indirect and direct driver categories (see Figure 4.1). This
overview model is then further unpacked at a variety of levels of detail to examine the major dynamics
influencing the indirect and direct driver interactions. Indirect and direct driver categories are colour-
coded in each of the CLDs according to the legend. Boxes around variables are used either to signify
stocks or to contain a variety of identified sub-variables within an overarching variable. Variables in
bold text are used to help guide readers in linking the CLDs with the central themes discussed in
respective texts. Grey diamond-shaped boxes around variables are used similarly to aid readers in
locating the major trends in land-use change within the diagrams.

4.3 General trends in indirect drivers in Europe and Central Asia

As described in Section 4.1.2, a more specific assessment of indirect drivers in relation to each direct
driver is conducted in Sections 4.4-4.8. General trends are assessed in this section.

4.3.1 Institutional drivers

Regulations, including legislation and detailed institutional arrangements, shape all direct drivers and
also to some extent all the other indirect drivers. Regulations are the result of purposeful collective
political action and reflect the power balance between conflicting interests. Therefore, political and
economic conflicts (cultural and economic drivers), influence institutional drivers. Knowledge about
the effects of direct drivers on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people increases public
awareness and the prices of material contributions from nature and thereby acts as a feedback to
institutional drivers (Figure 4.1).
In general, the institutional capacity to make and enforce regulations is strong in Western and Central
Europe (see Chapter 6). For example, the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) illustrates
institutional capacity in that regulations have been passed to restore and maintain fish stocks above
biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, although half of the fish stocks
exploited by the fishing fleet of European Union countries are still overexploited (Guillen et al., 2016),
see Section 4.4.1.2.
On the other hand, for the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) the new environmental
prescriptions – including maintaining existing permanent grasslands, crop diversity, and establishing
ecological focus areas – maybe “so diluted that they are unlikely to benefit biodiversity”(Pe’er et al.,
2014) (Section 4.5.2.2). The most significant recent change in environmental institutional drivers in
Europe and Central Asia is arguably the transformation of the energy sector in the European Union.

574
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Here, political leadership, new policies and economic incentives have catalysed technological
advancements resulting in lower prices for solar and wind power. These lower prices have
subsequently become economic drivers for decreased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (Bürer
& Wüstenhagen, 2009).
For example, the German Renewable Energy Act (EEG) from 2000 has become a major driver for
transforming the energy sector, increasing generation of renewable energy from 29 TWh in 1999 to
161 TWh in 2014 (Lauber & Jacobsson, 2016). However, substantial trade-offs may result from a lack
of mainstreaming. In a scenario for energy crops, (Gutzler et al., 2015) project substantial reduction in
biodiversity and landscape scenery, and increased soil erosion and need for water protection. These
three examples from the fishing, agriculture and energy sectors suggest that strong institutional
capacity is not sufficient to safeguard biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

4.3.2 Economic drivers

We have identified the material intensity of GDP, rather than GDP itself, as a main economic driver.
The relationship between GDP and resource use has long been debated. The contributions of many
scholars – for instance Carson (1962), Boulding (1966), Georgescu-Roegen (1993) – highlighted that
serious problems arise from both the quality of the waste (ecotoxicity) and the scale of human
activities. The amount and the rate at which matter passes through society (the material throughput)
and becomes waste is a major indirect driver of biodiversity loss. This is also called the industrial and
socioeconomic metabolism (González de Molina & Toledo, 2014). Despite some evidence that
prosperity or human well-being does not increase further once an average income threshold has been
reached (Kubiszewski et al., 2013 suggest a threshold as low as 7,000 USD/year and person),
Governments in countries with much higher per capita GDP strive hard to increase it further. A growing
body of literature suggests that the challenge is to decouple quality of life (well-being or prosperity)
from environmental degradation and pay less attention to GDP (Jackson, 2009; Raworth, 2017; Røpke,
2016; van den Bergh, 2010, 2011; Victor, 2008).
Fundamentally, economic growth is largely explained by investments in real capital and there is a near-
linear relationship between GDP growth and physical capital accumulation in most countries
(Malmaeus, 2016). There are, in turn, clear correlations between investments in physical capital, and
resource use including metals (Chen & Graedel, 2015; Kondo et al., 2012), gravel and sand (UNEP,
2014), and biomass.
Growth-oriented policies aim to enhance production and consumption and, except for the economic
contraction following the financial crisis in 2008, domestic material consumption (DMC) has not
recently decreased in general in most countries in Western and Central Europe (4.4.4.2) (Eurostat,
2017b). Target 8.4 of Sustainable Development Goal 8 (“decent work and economic growth”) requires
governments to “endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation”.
However, GDP growth will have a negative effect on ecosystems unless countries succeed in absolute
decoupling, sufficiently large to achieve the environmentally-oriented Sustainable Development Goals.
Relative decoupling, where resource use increases, but at a slower pace compared to GDP, is no longer
an option except for low-income countries (Raworth, 2017).
Decoupling of GDP growth from resource use and environmental impacts is a requirement for
sustainable growth (Bithas & Kalimeris, 2013; OECD, 2011; van den Bergh, 2010). This can be achieved
theoretically, but has proved difficult to accomplish empirically. For example, global modelling
suggests that absolute decoupling, in terms of 50% reductions of CO2 emissions and resource use,
would require very strong abatement and resource efficiency policies. Because of economic

575
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

adaptations and technological development this would have negligible effects on economic growth
and employment until 2050 (Schandl et al., 2016). The lack of absolute decoupling has been observed
empirically (UNEP, 2011). It is often explained by the so-called rebound effect, stating that less demand
for natural resources arising from increased productivity results in lower prices and therefore higher
demand for natural resources (Sorrell, 2007).
The most well documented case of economic growth as a driver of environmental impact is between
GDP growth and CO2 emissions (e.g. Raftery et al., 2017). Lægreid (2017) found a very robust
connection between economic growth and larger greenhouse gas emissions, hence no absolute
decoupling. However, in a study of 131 countries, Szigeti et al. (2017) found absolute decoupling
between GDP and ecological footprint for 40 countries and relative decoupling for 77 countries.
Although the evidence is inconclusive, there are signs of relative decoupling occurring in Europe and
Central Asia, and sometimes also absolute decoupling, but this is rarely sufficient to achieve climate
goals.
The European Union has recently adopted several policies to promote resource efficiency (EEA, 2014e)
and sustainable growth (European Commission, 2017b). Economic drivers have been altered, for
example by new legislation and the emission trading system for carbon. However, the challenges of
decoupling and the rebound effect require more profound changes in economic drivers, especially
taxes (Font Vivanco et al., 2016; Polimeni et al., 2012). The tax system is of fundamental importance
as an institutional and economic driver since it modifies all market prices and therefore changes
incentives for producers and consumers. Despite proposals for environmental fiscal reform (EFR) by
UNEP’s “Green Economy” (2011) and the United Nations’ Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020,
little progress is evident in Europe and Central Asia. For example, the total revenue from
environmental taxes in the EU-28 in 2014 was 2.5 % of GDP, or 6.3 % of the total revenues derived
from all taxes and social contributions. These proportions have decreased since 2002, from 2.6 % and
6.8 % respectively (Eurostat, 2017b).
Decoupling is an important issue only if growth in GDP is assumed. This is the case for the European
Union and its growth strategy Europe 2020, in which economic growth and job creation are top priority
goals expressed as smart, sustainable and inclusive GDP growth (European Commission, 2017b).
However, if a more “agnostic” approach to GDP growth is taken, resource efficiency and meeting the
Sustainable Development Goals can be targeted directly without too much attention to whether GDP
increases or decreases a few per cent (Raworth, 2017; van den Bergh, 2011). The literature on
“degrowth” aims at decoupling human well-being and quality of life from GDP growth: the prefix
smart, sustainable and inclusive are kept, but “growth” is replaced by “development” (Martinez-Alier,
2016).
While sustainability transformations would result in growth in sustainable technologies, it would also
shrink non-sustainable technologies (van den Bergh, 2010, 2011). Targets for GDP growth (or de-
growth) obfuscate the idea of transformation. For example, sustainable consumption in high-income
countries is more about reducing the unsustainable aspects of consumption than increasing the more
sustainable aspects of consumption. Focusing on such transformations or transitions represents
different policy goals compared to pleas for green or sustainable growth (Geels et al., 2015; Lorek &
Spangenberg, 2014; Spangenberg, 2014).
Global trade exposes ecosystems as being part of global supply and demand. This impacts interregional
flows (see 4.2.5) and prevents price signals from responding to local scarcity of natural resources (see
4.4.1.3). A third aspect of global trade is the institutional competition it entails. National Governments
are reluctant to internalize external costs from natural resource extraction and pollution because that
may impede the international competitiveness of taxed corporations (Ayres et al., 2013). Globalized

576
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

financial markets, including commodity derivative markets and algorithmic trade, have increasing
impacts on the world’s ecosystems (Galaz et al., 2015).

4.3.3 Demographic drivers

Europe and Central Asia is home to approximately 910 million people or 14.5% of the total world
population (United Nations, 2015), almost half of whom live in Western Europe (Table 4.4). Although
the population in the region is projected to be stable until 2050, there are important differences within
subregions. For example, the population growth rate of Turkey is 1.69% and, without Turkey, the rate
of population decline in Central Europe is much greater (-0.25%) than illustrated in Table 4.4 (-0.14%).
The population decline projected for 2015-2050 in Central and Eastern Europe due to low birth rates,
coupled with emigration and moderate mortality due to low life expectancy, is unprecedented in
recent history (Lutz, 2010). Because human populations are increasing in Central Asia and Turkey and
decreasing in Central and non-Caucasus Eastern Europe, it is likely that a high potential for migration
from Turkey and Central Asia to Central and Eastern Europe will develop until 2050 (Lutz, 2010). Armed
conflicts have profound effects on migration, for example, Turkey recently received (by March 2016)
over 3 million refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (UNHCR, 2017).
Table 4.4: Population trends in Europe and Central Asia. Source: United Nations (2015). ECA: Europe
and Central Asia, WE: Western Europe, CE: Central Europe, EE: Eastern Europe, CA: Central Asia.

ECA WE CE (Turkey) EE CA

Population 2015 (million) 910 423 202 (79) 218 67

Fertility rate (children/woman) - 1.71 1.54 - 1.67 2.83
Net migration (per 1,000 inhab.) - 2.98 -1.35 - -1.55 -1.47
Population growth/year (%) - 0.39 -0.14 (1.69) 0.02 1.65
Population 2050 (million) 913 441 192 (88) 192 88

The age distribution of the population is also changing. With improvements in health care, life
expectancy is increasing in each subregion and their populations are aging, meaning a higher
proportion of older age groups (Lutz et al., 2008). This has several consequences for biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people. First, total consumption may further increase as the consumption of
energy, food, medicine and others by elderly people increases even if population size decreases.
Ecological footprints may therefore increase even in subregions currently showing human population
declines (Hossman et al., 2008). Second, aging in rural areas will lead to a decrease in the number,
capacity and effectiveness of the rural workforce, which will ultimately create the socio-economic
conditions for intensified use of natural resources (mainly by agriculture, forestry, or fishery) by large
corporations rather than by private farmers (Gentile, 2005). Third, age profile also strongly influences
where people choose to live, which affects urban growth patterns and subsequent impacts on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Fontaine et al., 2014).
Fast population growth in Central Asia, with further expected increase in urbanization, will present
risks to the already overpopulated lowland and riparian areas of the subregion and will influence
biodiversity and ecosystem services (Osepashvili, 2006). Human population growth will take a heavy
toll on water use. This is likely to result in a decline in water-related services, which may trigger water
conflicts (e.g. in Fergana valley in Uzbekistan, Tadzjikistan and Kirgizistan) or water-use regulations. In

577
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

other areas, the collapse of irrigation-based agriculture due to water shortages may cause
desertification, such as the complete drying up of the Aral Sea (Gentile, 2005).

4.3.4 Cultural and religious drivers

In democratic societies, public awareness and knowledge of environmental change are the underlying
drivers for both institutional change and consumer demand (Nolan & Schultz, 2015). Hence, the
feedback to indirect drivers often starts with the cultural driver that we call “public awareness”. The
cultural belief that further GDP growth will facilitate sustainable development is deeply rooted in
Europe and Central Asia, calling for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth (European Commission,
2010). In recent years, many studies have shown that, if biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people are to be used sustainably, growing anthropogenic pressures paralleled by environmental
degradation would require a radical change in our political value system, with a reorientation of
fundamental policy goals from GDP growth towards well-being, environmental quality, employment
and equity (Hardt & O’Neill, 2017; Jackson, 2009; Kallis et al., 2012; Martínez-Alier et al., 2010; Røpke,
2016; Victor, 2008).
All regional cultures are increasingly becoming part of a global cultural process. With increasing access
to media, information and exchange among regions, the cultural changes taking place in Europe and
Central Asia form part of the general globalization trend. Although distinct local cultures, with their
beliefs and specific relation to nature may well persist, they will do so in parallel to global cultural
trends (Harari, 2014). Cultural and religious beliefs are often exploited politically, which has been
evident in the region in recent years. However, it is not clear how these changing beliefs and opinions
affect biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
Central to the effect on biodiversity is how cultural identity and religious beliefs influence lifestyles in
terms of consumption patterns. Values promoting a vegetarian diet are, for example, likely to reduce
the land-use area needed to produce food, and thus the impacts on nature Alexander et al. (2016).
Heterogeneous agricultural landscapes provide biodiversity and are therefore supported by agri-
environmental schemes in the European Union. An increasing focus on recreation and eco-tourism in
Western Europe has become a further justification for, and therefore driver of, political and economic
support to heterogeneous landscapes (Hahn et al., 2017; Beilin et al., 2014; Navarro & Pereira, 2012).
Beyond eco-tourism, the increasing popularity of spiritual refreshment and other spiritual experiences
have considerable potential for the recognition of nature’s contribution to people.

4.3.5 Scientific and technological drivers

If population is constant and affluence, measured in GDP per capita, is increasing, the equation I =
P*A*T (Impact = population * affluence * technology) suggests very high expectations of technology
to ensure sustainable growth. However, technological innovation is not a driver, which in itself ensures
lower negative environmental impact. Scientific and technological innovation is a double-edged sword
(Westley et al., 2011), which could have positive or negative effects on biodiversity. As mentioned in
Section 4.2.2, innovation is not a neutral process driven mainly by the curiosity of researchers and
innovators. The general pattern of world market prices of natural resources is a sharp decline during
the past fifty to one hundred years. At the same time the price for labour has increased dramatically,
augmented by the tax system (Eurostat, 2017b). Technological innovation has therefore not targeted
resource efficiency, but instead labour productivity (Lorek & Spangenberg, 2014).

578
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Energy and resource efficiency have become political targets. The literature suggests a very high
potential for, for example, energy supply and storage, green information technology transportation,
foodstuffs, agricultural engineering, design strategies, lightweight construction, as well as the concept
“using instead of owning” (Rohn et al., 2014). Realising this potential requires support from
institutional and economic drivers (Ayres et al., 2013), and ultimately cultural-religious drivers. For
example, if cultural beliefs support “modern” high-input agriculture and if new European Union
member States in the Baltic Sea drainage area adopt the same use of fertilizers as Denmark, Sweden
and Finland, the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea will accelerate (Larsson & Granstedt, 2010). If the
Baltic countries want to achieve the Baltic Sea Action Plan, then climate smart and “Baltic Sea smart”
technologies and farm systems are needed.

4.4 Drivers of natural resource extraction and its effects on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people

This category of driver is often called “overexploitation,” focusing on overfishing (MEA, 2005b). As
mentioned before we have chosen a more neutral term, extraction. This section assesses two biotic
forms of natural resource extraction: fishing and hunting; and two abiotic forms: mineral and fossil
fuel extraction, and water use and desalination. Agriculture, forestry (logging) and traditional land use
(gathering wild plants, berries and mushrooms) are assessed under land-use change.
Natural resource extraction is, according to a synthesis based on the IUCN Red List data, “by far the
biggest driver of biodiversity decline” (Maxwell et al., 2016). However, that conclusion only holds if
unsustainable logging is included. Still, hunting, fishing and mining together pose a considerable threat
to biodiversity (Maxwell et al., 2016).

4.4.1 Fishing
4.4.1.1 Effects of fishing on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
Fishing affects 1,118 of the 8,688 assessed red list species (Maxwell et al., 2016). Both marine and
inland fish stocks in Europe and Central Asia have declined over recent decades. Trawling is a fishing
technology with adverse effects on biodiversity, through habitat destruction. Over recent decades,
trawlers have become dominant among fishing boats, especially vessels greater than 100 gross
registered tons (Anticamara et al., 2011). Despite regulations, half of the fish stocks exploited by the
fishing fleet of the European Union are still overexploited (Guillen et al., 2016). Overfishing affects
genetic diversity and the age structure of the targeted fish population. Furthermore, removal of top
predators through overfishing may disrupt ecological relationships, food webs structure and energy
flow pathways (García-Charton et al., 2008; Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2006; Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2008).
Inland waters have received less attention than global fisheries. One of the symptoms of intense over-
fishing in inland waters is the collapse of particular stocks. Such collapses constitute a biodiversity crisis
rather than a fisheries crisis. However, intensive fishing frequently acts synergistically with other
pressures, and its consequences for inland fisheries and ecosystems are poorly understood and
documented (Allan et al., 2005).
Nevertheless, more stocks are recovering, and the combined effects of climate warming and reduced
fishing mortalities have resulted in record large stocks of e.g. mackerel in the Norwegian Sea, plaice in
the North Sea and cod in the Barents Sea. The recovery of these major stocks now impacts other parts

579
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of the ecosystems through both predation and competition. For instance, a recent collapse in the
capelin stock in the Barents Sea was likely partially due to cod predation and competition with cod
likely impacts the condition of marine mammals (Bogstad et al., 2015).

4.4.1.2 Trends in fishing

The marine area under the jurisdiction of European Union member States is substantial — larger than
the total land area of the European Union— and supports industries such as shipping, fishing, offshore
wind energy, tourism, and oil, gas and mineral extraction (EEA, 2012d). Fishing effort has increased
over recent decades in Western Europe and Central Europe. However, some analyses suggest a
stagnating or even decreasing trend in fishing effort in European marine waters (Gascuel et al., 2016).
Fishing effort is a combination of fleet capacity (number of vessels or engine power) and the amount
of time spent at sea. Reduced fishing effort may however be counteracted by an increase in the
efficiency in detecting and catching fish.
Despite recent attempts by the fishing sector to ensure sustainable practices and recovery of fish
stocks, the industry is still characterized by overfishing and declining volumes of fish catch (EEA,
2012d). During recent decades, aquaculture production has been increasing. However, some
aquaculture species, like salmon and tuna, are carnivores that feed on other fish that are, themselves,
overfished (Naylor et al., 2000; Pauly et al., 2002). Demand for fish in the European Union continues
to exceed the sustainable yield and a significant proportion of the fish consumed in the European
Union is imported from, for example, Norway, China, Morocco, and the USA (Figure 4.4).

580
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.4.1.3 Drivers of fishing

The drivers of fishing are summarized in Figure 4.5. Overcapacity accompanied by non-compliance
(illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing) are the most common immediate causes for overfishing
(Boonstra & Österblom, 2014). Knudsen et al. (2010) identify eight main drivers of overfishing, most
of them economic in nature. Fishing costs (including operational costs and fuel prices) and incomes
(including fish prices and demand) are important drivers. Fishing costs increase when stocks become
over-exploited, but the subsequent increase in fish price motivates investments and continued fishing.
Furthermore, tax exemptions and government subsidies, especially for fuel, are very important drivers
to offset the increased costs and to maintain a high fishing capacity (Figure 4.5). Despite changes in
fishing policies, Western Europe pays about six billion US dollars annually (of which four billion by the
European Union and almost two billion by Russia) in capacity-enhancing (“harmful”) fishing subsidies,
which is the second most after Asia (Sumaila et al., 2016).

The adoption of new technologies leading to overcapacity in vessels and engines is also a major driver
for increased fishing (Knudsen et al., 2010; Österblom et al., 2011). Human population growth,
associated demand for fisheries products, and multiple effects of pollution, coastal degradation and
climate change are other important factors in the analysis of trends in fisheries (Garcia & Rosenberg,
2010). Small changes in temperature affect distribution and abundance of fishes, but can be positive
or negative for local fisheries depending on the species and regions (Pörtner & Peck, 2010; Roessig et
al., 2004).

581
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

For the majority of the stocks, political decision-makers have not followed recent scientific advice, for
example from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Mediterranean
Advisory Council (MEDAC), and have set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) to levels higher than the scientific
recommendation (Voss et al., 2017). Institutional drivers are beginning to change, thanks to
information and recommendations from universities, consultative councils and international
organizations, with a resulting increase in public awareness. This in turn drives both the market, by
avoiding red listed fish, and the political system to regulate fishing and enforce illegal fishing (Figure
4.5). For example, the European Union's 2014 update of The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) illustrates
institutional capacity in that regulations have been passed for restoring and maintaining fish stocks
above levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield. However, half of the fish stocks
exploited by the European Union fishing fleet are still overexploited (Guillen et al., 2016).
Resource users who are limited to local resources have an incentive to sustain these resources because
they do not have a substitute, while users who can access global resources have no such incentives.
Therefore, good stewardship depends on institutions where users are held accountable for sustaining
the local resources (Berkes et al., 2006). Consumers and citizens are not reached by the feedbacks of
natural resource depletion such as price signals and physical scarcity. Three reasons why price fails to
provide an accurate signal of declining fish stocks to globally distributed consumers have been
proposed by Crona et al. (2016). First, the costs of depleting the resource through habitat damage by
trawling and by-catch of endangered megafauna have little effect on yield or revenue, as these costs
are not reflected in the market price. Second, better fishing technologies can maintain or even increase
harvest levels despite declining fish stocks. Third, when declining stocks are substituted by global
tradefrom other regions, market signals to consumers also fail. All of these factors result in “masking”
and “dilution” of the feedbacks to consumers and citizens by preventing increases in prices and hence
in awareness (economic and cultural drivers), thereby reducing public pressure for institutional
responses (Morato et al., 2006).

4.4.2 Hunting
4.4.2.1 Effects of hunting on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
Hunting is practiced across a wide spectrum of cultural, institutional, economic and environmental
contexts within Europe and Central Asia. Whilst hunting clearly impacts the populations of the hunted
species, the effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people vary. Hunting takes several
forms and is done for various reasons, including management, subsistence, and recreation (Fischer et
al., 2013). Under “management hunting” the population densities of certain large-bodied game species
are controlled by hunters with potentially positive impacts on biodiversity and forestry (Brainerd,
2007). On the other hand, these game species are sometimes kept at high densities for recreational
hunting purposes, resulting in overgrazing, over-browsing and trampling of forest ecosystems by large
herbivores, leading to reduced diversity of the understory vegetation and stunted or no regrowth of
forest trees and understory plants. Browsing and grazing by wild ungulate game species (such as
several deer species or wild boar) are a significant cause of plant species loss regardless of the type of
forest management (Pollock et al., 2005; Schulze et al., 2014). Beyond the direct mortality impact on
hunted animals, therefore, altered vegetation dynamics can also change animal communities, and the
current high densities of ungulate populations in Germany, and Romania and other Central and Eastern
European countries, are a major threat to the biodiversity of deciduous forests (Schulze et al., 2014).
Hence, the hunting sector and its management is also a main driver of forest change.

582
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Management hunting also provides material (meat) and non-material contributions to people, for
example by maintaining traditions and promoting social relations (Fischer et al., 2013). This is also the
focus in indigenous or subsistence hunting where cultural identity is emphasized. However, there are
signs that indigenous or subsistence hunting is declining, for example in traditional communities in
Faroe Islands due to the changing cultural values of younger generations (Nieminen et al., 2004).
Sport and trophy hunting are not motivated by ecological objectives (if so, we would call it
management hunting). Sport hunting, including the trapping of individuals, has been mostly aimed at
large game species in Europe and Central Asia. These include predatory mammals such as bears,
wolves and lynx; herbivorous mammals such as red deer, moose, elk, ibex and chamois; omnivorous
mammals such as wild boar; and birds (mainly ducks, geese, waders, doves and several passerines).
This has resulted in the extinction of, for example, Caucasian moose and wisent, Carpathian wisent,
and ibex on the Iberian Peninsula. The hunting, trapping and poaching of migratory birds is a chronic
conservation problem, particularly in the Mediterranean countries, where birds, even small passerines,
have been traditionally hunted and trapped for human consumption or for sport (Vickery et al., 2014).

4.4.2.2 Trends in hunting

In the European Union, the Birds Directive currently allows the hunting of 82 species (25 ducks and
geese, 15 gallinaceous species, 22 waders, shorebirds and gulls, five doves, 12 passerine species and
three rallied species) of which 24 can be hunted in all member States (Annex II of Birds Directive).
Many species that are declining at an alarming rate, may still be hunted in several European countries
(for example skylark, lapwing, curlew, black-tailed godwit, garganey, taiga bean goose, pintail, snipe,
quail and turtle Dove). In addition to hunting, selective trapping is allowed in several European Union
member States (Art. 9 of Birds Directive), where net traps and cage traps lead to the killing of tens of
thousands of skylarks, Ortolan buntings, golden plovers, turtle doves, quail and lapwings in France, and
millions of thrushes in Malta, Spain (Catalonia) and Italy annually (Fenech, 1992; Hirschfeld & Heyd,
2005).
Since the 1950s there has been a general decrease in the size of the annual wild bird hunting bag (total
catch) in Western Europe. Hunting pressure is still high, although uncertain in the south and east of
the region (Weinbaum et al., 2013). In 2005, the total hunting bag in the EU-27 was around 102 million
individuals of 82 bird species (Hirschfeld & Heyd, 2005). Hunting bag data also suggest a recent short-
term increase in hunting pressure for mammals. For instance, the hunting of red deer (Cervus elaphus)
has increased exponentially in eight of 11 Western and Central European countries studied (Milner et
al., 2006).

4.4.2.3 Drivers of hunting

The culture of hunting is based on a value system that is deeply rooted in traditions in Europe and
Central Asia. However, traditions emerging from subsistence hunting are today based on identity and
life-style, expressed as sport and trophy hunting or management hunting, with wild meat as a bonus
(Fischer et al., 2013). Demographic drivers like urbanization do not seem to change these cultural
drivers; there is still a high density of hunters per km2, 50 in Cyprus, followed by 47 in Malta, 5.0 in
Ireland, 3.8 in Denmark, 3.3 in the UK, 2.5 in Italy and Portugal, 2.4 in France, and 2.0 in Greece
(Hirschfeld & Heyd, 2005). Illegal hunting and trapping is still common in the south and east of the
Europe and Central Asia region (Arizaga & Laso, 2015; Michel, 2008).

583
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hunting is well regulated in most countries in Europe and Central Asia, however, law enforcement is
lagging behind in many Central Asian countries and the southern parts of Western and Central Europe
(Michel, 2008). Hunter associations are powerful interest groups in many countries and the
governance trend is to foster stewardship and sustainable management hunting for vulnerable species
rather than imposing hunting bans (Dusseldorp et al., 2004). Tensions between hunters and anti-
hunting groups have escalated, e.g. in Malta, with rural surveillance systems and local raids by anti-
hunting groups, physical fights between anti-hunting activists and hunters or poachers, use of drones
for observations, and police or army interventions (Veríssimo & Campbell, 2015).

4.4.3 Water use and desalination

4.4.3.1 Effects on water use and desalination on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
Water is extracted from streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands for drinking and bathing, irrigation for
agriculture, cooling for energy production (power plants), as coolant or reagent in various industries
and as a leaching agent in mining. Freshwater ecosystems host disproportionately high numbers of
species relative to their surface area, yet their biodiversity is declining faster than either terrestrial or
marine biodiversity (Dudgeon et al., 2006; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; WWF, 2008). In addition,
ecosystem services provided by freshwater systems (streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands) were estimated
to contribute to 20% of the value of all ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997).
Groundwater overexploitation, often due to irrigation, results in lowering the groundwater table,
which increases the risk of desertification. In addition, the chemical composition of groundwater is
often suboptimal for irrigation due to its high salt/mineral or metal content and irrigation with
groundwater often leads to salinization or alkalinization of the soils. This is a problem in Estonia, Latvia,
Poland, Hungary, Romania, Moldova and Spain (EEA, 2007) and in many areas of Eastern Europe and
Central Asia. The intrusion of salt water from the sea in the place of groundwater is an acute problem
in coastal areas of Denmark, and in coastal Mediterranean areas of Spain, Italy and Turkey, mostly due
to the water needs of mass tourism facilities and irrigation (EEA, 2007).
Desalination of seawater is increasing to satisfy demand for water due to the present water shortage,
mainly in semiarid and arid coastal regions (Llamas et al., 2015). It has a long history in the Middle East
and Mediterranean (Einav & Lokiec, 2003; Roberts et al., 2010), but studies on the impacts of
desalinization on biodiversity are recent and still scarce. The greatest environmental and ecological
impacts have occurred around older multi-stage flash plants discharging salt into water bodies with
little flushing. Effects include substantial increases in salinity and temperature and the accumulation
of metals, hydrocarbons and toxic anti-fouling compounds in receiving waters (Al-Taani et al., 2014;
Höpner & Lattemann, 2003; Roberts et al., 2010) and sediments (Alharbi et al., 2012).
Effects on ecosystems range from no significant impacts on benthic communities, to reduced leaf
growth and higher incidence of leaf necrosis, drop in photosynthetic performance and mortality in
seagrasses, and widespread alterations to community structure in seagrass, coral reef and soft-
sediment ecosystems when discharges are released to poorly flushed environments (Del-Pilar-Ruso et
al., 2015; Del-Pilar-Ruso et al., 2008; Pagès et al., 2010; Roberts et al., 2010).

4.4.3.2 Trends in water use and desalination

Water management has become one of the main concerns for humanity, also in areas where water
has until now been considered an unlimited resource. The availability of freshwater resources in a

584
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

country is determined by geology, climate, land use and external (transboundary) water flows. In
Western and Central Europe, the largest freshwater resources are in Norway, Turkey, Germany, France
and Sweden (Eurostat, 2015). Many countries receive the majority of freshwater resources externally,
with Serbia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Bulgaria receiving over 80% of their freshwater
from upstream areas in other countries. The amount of potable freshwater per inhabitant is highest in
Iceland, Norway, Serbia, Croatia and Finland, whereas low levels (<3,000 m3 per inhabitant per year
are found in Denmark, Romania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Malta, and in countries with
large human populations (France, UK, Spain, Germany, Italy and Poland) (Eurostat, 2015). In 2012, total
water extraction from surface waters was highest in Turkey, Spain, Germany and France (over 24 billion
m3 from surface waters, over 5 billion m3 from groundwater) (Eurostat, 2015). Between 2003 and 2013,
the amount of freshwater extracted increased most in Malta (43%, mostly groundwater), Slovenia
(36%, mostly surface water) and decreased the most in Lithuania (80%, mostly surface water) and
Slovakia (39%, mostly surface water) (Eurostat, 2015).
Around 63% of desalinated water worldwide is used for satisfying urban demand for drinking water,
26% for industrial uses, and 6% in power stations for electricity generation (Ziolkowska & Ziolkowski,
2016). The cost of desalinated water is decreasing, thanks to technological and efficiency
improvements of the membrane filters, which reduces energy demand (Semiat, 2000; Ziolkowska &
Ziolkowski, 2016).

4.4.3.3 Drivers of water use and desalination

Water regulations are cornerstones of national environmental regulations. The rapid decrease in water
use in Lithuania and Slovakia mentioned above is mainly a result of institutional drivers (regulations
and a better price system). Other important Institutional drivers are regulations and investments in,
or subsidies for, wastewater and desalination (“recycling” in Figure 4.7). Depletion (unsustainable use)
of ground and surface water is driven by high domestic material consumption (DMC) fuelled by
urbanization and GDP growth.
Similarly, seawater desalination is driven by growth in human population, income and domestic
material consumption in general and growth and urban development, agriculture and tourism in
particular (EEA, 2007; Gladstone et al., 2013).

4.4.4 Mineral and fossil fuel extraction

4.4.4.1 Effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
The minerals industry is divided into four sectors: fossil fuels (e.g. coal and oil), metallic minerals (e.g.
iron, copper and zinc), construction minerals (e.g. natural stone, sediments and other aggregates,
gravel) and industrial minerals (e.g. borates, talc, silica and limestone).
In Western and Central Europe, extraction of abiotic resources is highly dominated by construction
and industrial minerals, and to a more limited extent fossil energy (Bahn-Walkowiak et al., 2012).
Dredging and pumping operations have a direct effect on the local biological communities and cause
changes in the composition of fauna (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2007), and reduction in species diversity,
abundance, and biomass (Bolam et al., 2015; Sutton et al., 2009). This changes food webs, particularly
lower trophic levels including detritivores, with impacts on carbon cycling (Tecchio et al., 2016).
In Central Asia the extraction and processing of minerals, including poor governance practices and
economic pressures (Honkonen, 2013), leads to various environmental impacts including depletion of

585
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

non-renewable resources and consequent disturbance of the landscape, biodiversity and nature’s
associated contributions to people (Azapagic, 2004; Starikova, 2014), particularly in vulnerable arid
and mountainous territories (Lukashov & Akpambetova, 2012).
The environmental effects of the mining and minerals industry include gas emissions, discharge of
liquid effluents (including acidification of waterways) and generation of large volumes of solid waste,
as well as direct destruction or disturbance of natural habitats. Additionally, contamination of water
can continue when mining or mineral extraction activity ceases due to acid mine drainage and other
toxic leachates. Large water bodies and land are being polluted by natural resource extraction in
Central Asia (Jakupov, 2013; Kalmenova, 2014) and methane leaks from gas infrastructure and coal
mines pollute soil and the Caspian Sea (Dahl & Kuralbayeva, 2001; Karenov, 2006; Mukanova, 2015).
Oil production in the Caspian Sea has had a direct impact on ecosystem functioning through pollution
(Netalieva et al., 2005). An increase in the rate of glacier melting has been observed as a consequence
of dumping of mine spoil on receding and thinning glacier snouts in Kyrgyzstan (Evans et al., 2015;
Jamieson et al., 2015; Kronenberg, 2014). Uranium mining sites pose a threat to biodiversity exposed
to high radiation doses (Oughton et al., 2013; Bekbolotova & Toychubekova, 2014; Jolboldiev, 2016;
Karsenov, 2011).

4.4.4.2 Trends in mineral and fossil fuel extraction

Fossil fuels and rare earth minerals are the largest contributors to GDP of Central Asia and in the last
decade the volume of coal mining has doubled in this subregion (Kabirova, 2009; Plakitkina, 2014). The
mineral extraction industry in Central Asia has been driven by trade liberalization and increasing world
market prices. The largest share of foreign direct investment in Central Asia is in the natural resource
extraction industry. Central Asian Governments seek foreign direct investments as a way to boost local
incomes while the high environmental risks and lack of transparent governance have had little effect
on economic development (Dikkaya & Keles, 2006; Doroshenko et al., 2014).
Since the 1950s most metallic mineral resources have been imported into Western and Central Europe
(Calvo et al., 2016; Schaffartzik et al., 2016; Schoer et al., 2012). However, while domestic extraction
of metallic mineral has been reduced, extraction of sediments is increasing mainly in coastal areas.
Domestic material consumption (DMC) is defined as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted
from the domestic territory, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. It has increased since
1970 (Figure 4.6) but decreased from 7.7 to 6.7 billion tonnes in the period 2000-2016 in EU-28.
Greece, Spain and Italy almost halved their domestic material consumption since the financial crisis in
2008 and without these countries the domestic material consumption in the European Union has been
stable since 2000 (Eurostat, 2017a). Recently there has been an increase in prospecting for resources
in previously unexploited and fragile environments such as the Arctic and on the ocean floor, which
consequently increases the pressure on ecosystem resilience in sensitive environments (Martin et al.,
2012).

586
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.4.4.3 Drivers of mineral and fossil fuel extraction

The European Union is aiming to become a resource-efficient, green and competitive low-carbon
economy through absolute decoupling of economic growth and environmental degradation (EEA,
2014e). Recent changes in indirect drivers include climate and energy policies, natural resource
taxation, subsidizes to recycling schemes (Söderholm, 2011) and regulating producers’ responsibility
for the waste (Ekvall et al., 2016). This has resulted in reduced use of fossil fuels for energy production,
improved energy efficiency and increased resource efficiency. However, domestic material
consumption is only beginning to decline from a very high level and the increases in environmental
taxes have only kept pace with other taxes and the GDP, hence the environmental tax reforms called
for by the Green Economy (UNEP, 2011) and Convention on Biological Diversity (Aichi Biodiversity
Targets) have not progressed since 2002 (Section 4.3.2). On the contrary, some aspects of public

587
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

support to mineral extraction can be seen as harmful subsidies. In 2010, the metal mining sector in
Sweden received subsidies of € 40 million compared to only € 0.6 million for the metal recycling sector
(Johansson et al., 2014). Furthermore, mining companies only pay 0.2% of the revenues from mining
as resource tax (Koh et al., 2017).
Conversely, in Central Asia, economic growth is currently closely associated with mineral and fossil fuel
extraction (Ondash, 2011), which is anticipated to continue in the future (Doroshenko et al., 2014).
Central Asia has initiated policies for increased resource efficiency, mainly targeted at energy efficiency
(Government of Kyrgyzstan, 2014; Pomfret, 2011). However, global initiatives (e.g. the Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative) have so far had a limited effect on sustainable use of natural
resources (Furstenberg, 2015).

4.4.5 Drivers of natural resource extraction

Drivers of natural resource extraction are indirect drivers of biodiversity change, as synthesized in
Figure 4.7. Natural resource extraction basically follows increases in GDP and human population
growth (Peet & Hartwick, 2015). Urban sprawl increases this pressure (Schewenius et al., 2014). GDP
growth is still the goal of the European Union, but recently the goal has been reformulated toward
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (European Commission, 2017a).
The ecological footprint is an area-based measure of material consumption driving natural resource
extraction. Western and Central Europe’s ecological footprint is twice the size of its area and
consumption patterns remain very high by global standards (EEA, 2014a). Due to institutional drivers,
increasing productivity and the financial crisis of 2008, Western and Central Europe’s domestic
material consumption has decreased recently (4.4.4).

588
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Population changes influence GDP, which drives the rate of production intensity and thereby
extraction of natural resources (EEA, 2012b). However, formal institutions drive the taxation of natural
resources, which influences the rate of domestic material intensity and the material intensity of GDP
(domestic material consumption divided by GDP), affecting extraction rates. Institutional drivers also
regulate producers’ responsibility and influence the rate of recycling through regulations and
economic incentives. Environmental regulations may restrict availability of natural resources but
technological innovation typically increases availability by facilitating extraction (Litovitz et al., 2013).
Finally, institutions like the German energy transformation also influence technological innovation
pathways, impacting the material intensity of GDP (Figure 4.7).
Natural resource extraction may result in depletion of natural resources as well as unintended
environmental impacts and habitat degradation. These effects may increase public awareness which
in turn influences lifestyle preferences and becomes a driver of institutional change (Nolan & Schultz,
2015). Global trade, on the other hand, may disguise these effects and thereby delay institutional
responses (4.4.1.3).
In summary, cultural drivers (growth oriented development), demographic and economic drivers
(urban sprawl, tourism, consumption etc.) continue exerting a pressure on natural resource extraction
in Europe and Central Asia. Institutional drivers have been used to reduce this pressure. However,

589
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

economic drivers in terms of environmental taxes have so far not been employed to support these
advances in institutional drivers and therefore the technological innovative potential is not realized.

4.5 Drivers and effects of land-use change

4.5.1 Effects of land-use change on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

In Europe and Central Asia land-use change is one of the most important drivers of changes in
biodiversity and the provision of nature’s contributions to people (Aguilar et al., 2006; CBD, 2014; EEA,
2015c; Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2007; Frankham et al., 2014; Garibaldi et al., 2011; Gil-Tena et al., 2015;
Gonthier et al., 2014; Humphrey et al., 2015; IPBES, 2016a, 2016b; Leimu et al., 2010; Rusch et al.,
2016; Tscharntke et al., 2007). Mitigating the adverse effects of land-use change is crucial to halting
the loss of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Alkemade et al., 2009; CBD, 2014; Dirzo
& Raven, 2003; Hoekstra et al., 2005; MEA, 2005a).

4.5.1.1 Effects of conventional agricultural intensification

Intensification of conventional agriculture has a multi-factorial impact on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. The actual impacts often vary with an organisms’ taxonomic or functional
group and hence evolutionary history, within and between geographic regions (Báldi et al., 2013;
Billeter et al., 2008; Flohre et al., 2011; Gabriel et al., 2013; Gonthier et al., 2014; Guerrero et al., 2011;
IPBES, 2016a; Le Féon et al., 2010; Redhead et al., 2015; Sjödin et al., 2008; Tsiafouli et al., 2015;
Woodcock et al., 2005). In Europe and Central Asia, the impact of conventional intensification of
agriculture has been manifest through loss of (semi-) natural habitats, landscape homogenization and
intensive use of agri-chemicals (Gonthier et al., 2014, see Chapter 3). The focus on maximising
agricultural production since World War II has transformed and modified natural habitats and
traditional semi-natural ecosystems physically, biologically and chemically with profound implications
for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Gabriel et al., 2013; Gil-Tena et al., 2015; IPBES,
2016a; Sanderson et al., 2013; Stoate et al., 2009; Tscharntke et al., 2005; UNEP, 2016). For example,
a negative relationship between crop yield and most elements of biodiversity (plants, bumblebees,
solitary bees, butterflies, epigeal arthropods) were found in a study of eight paired landscapes of
organic and conventional management farms (Gabriel et al., 2013). In Europe and Central Asia
agricultural intensification (defined as the number of pesticide applications, tillage operations,
fertilizer levels or crop types) relates to reductions in species richness and diversity of plants, wild bees
and birds, but not ground beetles, at scales from field to region (Billeter et al., 2008; Flohre et al., 2011;
Le Féon et al., 2010). Among grazed and mown grasslands biodiversity of plants, animals and
microorganisms declines with increasing mean land-use intensity, while this decline is at least
ameliorated by variation in land-use intensity between years (Allan et al., 2014).
Landscape homogenization is an outcome of conversion of semi-natural habitats based on traditional
land-use practices into intensively managed arable or grazing land, which has reduced biodiversity and
a number of nature’s contributions to people across Europe and Central Asia (Billeter et al., 2008;
Flohre et al., 2011; Le Féon et al., 2010; Munteanu et al., 2014; Newbold et al., 2016; Pe’er et al., 2014;
Stoate et al., 2009; Tscharntke et al., 2005; Van Zanten et al., 2014; Vanbergen et al., 2006; Vanbergen,
2014; Yoshihara et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2012). Although large-scale, intensively-managed agricultural
monocultures can provide food and habitat resources for organisms adapted to exploit it, this resource
is insufficient to cater for most elements of biodiversity (Diekötter et al., 2014; IPBES, 2016a; Kovács-

590
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hostyánszki et al., 2013, 2017; Riedinger et al., 2015; Rundlöf et al., 2014; Schweiger et al., 2007;
Tscharntke et al., 2005; Vanbergen et al., 2010; Westphal et al., 2009).
Intensive use of agri-chemicals (such as herbicides, insecticides, or inorganic fertilizers) is linked to
transformation of ecological communities and directly contributes to declines of species, some of
which providing important contributions to people (Brittain et al., 2010; Chiron et al., 2014; Deguines
et al., 2014; Dormann et al., 2007; Gabriel et al., 2013; Gonthier et al., 2014; Hawes et al., 2003; IPBES,
2016a; Rundlöf et al., 2015; Storkey et al., 2012; Woodcock et al., 2016). For example, intensive use of
herbicides and inorganic fertilizers act as environmental filters eliminating wild plant species,
especially those adapted to conditions of intermediate fertility, with implications for the higher trophic
levels, such as insect pollinators and seed feeding birds, which depend on such wild plant species for
food resources (Chiron et al., 2014; Hawes et al., 2003; IPBES, 2016a; Storkey et al., 2012). Further,
agricultural insecticides target pest populations, they also pose a direct hazard to non-target insects,
such as pollinators, that are crucial for the maintenance of biodiversity in natural ecosystems and
deliver important services to pollinator-dependent crops (Deguines et al., 2014; IPBES, 2016a).
Genetically modified crops can possess traits for herbicide tolerance or resistance to pests and their
large-scale cultivation may drive changes to species and populations in agricultural landscapes either
directly on gene pools or indirectly on dependent biodiversity. The direct hazard for biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people is relatively low, although where lethal impacts of insect-resistant
crops on biodiversity occur they tend to be on species closely related to the targeted pest (IPBES,
2016a, 2016b; Marvier et al., 2007; Mommaerts et al., 2010; Nicolia et al., 2014; Potts et al., 2016).
Reductions of pesticides that may accompany the use of insect-resistant crops could lower overall
pesticide pressure on non-target organisms, but the emergence of secondary outbreaks of non-target
pests or primary pest resistance can lead to a resumption of pesticide use (Barfoot & Brookes, 2014;
IPBES, 2016a, 2016b; Lu et al., 2010). Most risk to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
from genetically modified crops comes both from their management and direct impacts per se.
Intensive herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant crops will eliminate wild plants, with concomitant effects
on other biodiversity components through the network of interactions, although this and the effects
on nature’s contributions to people remains little-studied (Bohan et al., 2005; IPBES, 2016a, 2016b;
Morandin & Winston, 2005).
If continued, conventional intensive agriculture will jeopardize both sustainable land management and
food production. Erosion of natural capital (such as pollinators, natural enemies of pests, soil
biodiversity and others) poses a substantial risk to the sustained and resilient production of food
(IPBES, 2016a; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2017; Tsiafouli et al., 2015). Studies focusing on the
comparison of conventional intensive management with less-intensive agricultural systems indicate
that there is considerable potential for alternative approaches to management that secure farm
production and conservation of nature’s contributions to people (Bommarco et al., 2013; Kovács-
Hostyánszki et al., 2017; Pywell et al., 2015).

4.5.1.2 Effects of agri-environment schemes

A wealth of studies shows that diversity or activity densities at local (field to farm) scales can be
enhanced through agri-environment schemes (Albrecht et al., 2007; Batáry et al., 2011; Carvell et al.,
2011; Doxa et al., 2010; Fuentes-Montemayor et al., 2011; Gonthier et al., 2014; Haaland et al., 2011;
Hiron et al., 2013; Holzschuh et al., 2007; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2011; Krauss et al., 2011; Pywell
et al., 2012; Scheper et al., 2013). Certain agri-environmental schemes in the European Union clearly
benefit target organisms (e.g. wildflower strips and bees - Carvell et al., 2017; organic farming and

591
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

plants - Batáry et al., 2013; Henckel et al., 2015; Tuck et al., 2014). Evidence for increasing biodiversity
is sometimes equivocal, complex and unpredictable (e.g. organic farming effects on insects and
mammals - Bengtsson et al., 2005; Gabriel et al., 2010, 2013; Krauss et al., 2011; Ponce et al., 2011;
Tuck et al., 2014).
Landscape complexity and the ecological contrast with other habitats at field scales influence the
efficacy of agri-environment schemes, with typically the greatest uplift in local biodiversity in highly
homogenized landscapes that lack remnant semi-natural habitats providing resources for wildlife
(Batáry et al., 2011; Gabriel et al., 2010; Heard et al., 2007; Hiron et al., 2013; Holzschuh et al., 2007;
Kleijn et al., 2011; Rundlöf & Smith, 2006; Scheper et al., 2013, 2015; Tscharntke et al., 2005; Tuck et
al., 2014). Agri-environment schemes have a less expected impact in high-diversity cultural landscapes
where they slow down, prevent or even reverse the abandonment process and thus help maintain high
nature-value grasslands (Babai et al., 2015).
Recent evidence points to population-level increases when diverse habitat resources are provided and
sustained at the landscape scale (Carvell et al., 2017; Carvell et al., 2015; Doxa et al., 2010; Tschumi et
al., 2016; Wood et al., 2015). Emerging evidence suggests that targeted habitat creation or protection
of ecological infrastructure in the landscape can contribute towards achieving a more sustainable
agriculture (Bommarco et al., 2013; IPBES, 2016a, 2016b; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2017; Potts et al.,
2016; Pywell et al., 2015; Tittonell, 2014). There are concerns about the efficacy of agri-environment
schemes for conserving rare, specialized species and there is a level of geographic bias in the available
evidence (Batáry et al., 2015; Scheper et al., 2013; Sutcliffe et al., 2015). Effectiveness of agri-
environment schemes’ interventions could be improved by tailoring to targets for biodiversity or
nature’s contributions to people considering local ecological and landscape context, and different
socio-economic settings (Babai et al., 2015; Batáry et al., 2015; Bright et al., 2015; Dicks et al., 2016;
Ekroos et al., 2014; IPBES, 2016a; Mccracken et al., 2015; Molnár & Berkes, 2017; Pe’er et al., 2014;
Pywell et al., 2012; Scheper et al., 2013; Sutcliffe et al., 2015).

4.5.1.3 Effects of increasing intensity of management on forest land

Long-term human pressures during the last centuries (Kolář et al., 2016) have resulted in the
deforestation and fragmentation of forests in Europe and Central Asia (e.g., Wallenius et al., 2010b)
and will continue to cause species extinctions (Hanski, 2000; Niemelä et al., 2005). More than 35% of
European forests are in mosaic landscapes that are significantly fragmented by agricultural and
artificial lands (EEA, 2016b).
One key indicator of high quality habitats is the amount of dead wood. Overall, natural forests
normally harbour around 100 m3/ha of dead wood (Jonsson & Siitonen, 2012). Currently, in Westen,
Central and Eastern Europe, the volume of dead wood in forests is estimated to be 20.5 m3/ha
(including the Russian Federation) and 10 m3/ha (without the Russian Federation; Forest Europe
(2011). Among individual countries the volumes vary considerably (Figure 4.8).
Forest management intensification reduces natural forest area and degrades habitat quality due to
loss of structural components (e.g. dead wood), simplified spatial stand structure (e.g. uneven age-
structure) and simplification of natural processes (e.g. gap formation, decomposition) (Table 4.5). This
greatly impacts associated biodiversity, particularly specialist species (Brockerhoff et al., 2008;
Brumelis et al., 2011; Esseen et al., 1997; Kuuluvainen, 2002; Paillet et al., 2010). For example, species
richness of multiple taxa (bryophytes, lichens, fungi, saproxylic beetles, carabids) were considerably
lower in managed forests than in unmanaged forests with effects most pronounced for forests that
underwent clearcutting and historic changes in tree species composition (Paillet et al., 2010).

592
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 4.5: Components that are important for biodiversity in natural forests that are negatively
influenced by forestry. Source: Modified after Esseen et al. (1997).

Structural components
Very old trees
Trees with abundant growth of epiphytes
Broken, stag-headed and leaning trees
Trees with holes, cavities and other microhabitats
Dead standing trees (snags)
Fire-scarred trees, snags and stumps
Large downed logs in various stages of
decomposition
Spatial patterns
A developed understory of tree saplings and shrubs
Mixed stands, with both conifers and broad-leaves
Uneven-aged stand structure
Multi-layered tree canopies
Patchy distribution of trees, gaps
Processes

593
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Post-fire succession
Succession with tree-species replacement
Self-thinning
Gap formation
Snag and log formation
Decomposition of coarse woody debris

Intensive forest management also includes conversion of non-forested lands to managed forest
plantations, which often have detrimental effects on in situ biodiversity due to loss of habitat and
associated species turnover (Brockerhoff et al., 2008). However, afforestation of agricultural land can
assist biodiversity conservation by providing ecotones and increasing forest connectivity (Brockerhoff
et al., 2008). Where forest cover is low, plantation on marginal land can provide habitats for rare forest
adapted species (Humphrey et al., 2003). Additional conservation efforts to improve forest structure
can correspondingly improve the situation for biodiversity (Humphrey, 2005). Traditionally managed
and used forest ecosystems such as traditional agro-silvicultural systems with wood-pastures and
coppicing also support and maintain suitable conditions for many forest species (Bollmann &
Braunisch, 2013; Kirby & Watkins, 2015; Plieninger et al., 2015). As different types of forest
management promote different facets of biodiversity or nature’s contributions to people,
heterogeneity of forest management practice at the landscape scale, also including unmanaged forest,
is likely to maximize landscape-level forest biodiversity and forest contributions to people (Elbakidze
et al., 2017; van der Plas et al., 2016).

4.5.1.4 Effects of decrease in land area with traditional land use and loss of traditional ecological
knowledge
Much of the biodiversity in Europe and Central Asia relies on traditionally managed semi-natural
habitats (EEA, 2015b; Kirby & Watkins, 2015; Liira et al., 2008; Plieninger et al., 2015; Stoate et al.,
2009; Tscharntke et al., 2005; UNEP, 2016). The loss and abandonment of traditionally managed
systems due to multiple factors has been an important driver of decline in biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people (Bergmeier et al., 2010; Bubová et al., 2015; Fuller, 1987; Helm et al., 2006;
Henle et al., 2008; MacDonald et al., 2000; Middleton, 2013; Plieninger et al., 2015; Rotherham, 2015;
van Swaay et al., 2006). Abandonment of traditional land management allows reassertion of
successional and other ecological processes (e.g. increase in interspecific competition) leading to loss
of specific habitats that support biodiversity of high conservation value (Bergmeier et al., 2010;
Middleton, 2013; Rotherham, 2015). The evidence for a negative impact of abandonment is
particularly strong for semi-natural grassland systems (Bergmeier et al., 2010; Dengler et al., 2014;
Rotherham, 2015), mountainous areas (MacDonald et al., 2000) and for particular taxa (e.g. butterflies,
farmland birds and plants - van Swaay et al., 2006; Bubová et al., 2015; Liira et al., 2008). Since World
War II, the cover of open cultural woodlands in Western and Central Europe has rapidly declined and
been replaced with agricultural fields and closed forests. This led to a decline in light-dependent
specialist species of open woodland and increases in species typical for mesic and closed forest (Bütler
et al., 2013; Hédl et al., 2010; Miklín & Čížek, 2014; Nieto & Alexander, 2010; Plieninger et al., 2015;
Saniga et al., 2014; van Swaay et al., 2006). There are cases where taxa benefit from abandonment of
semi-natural habitats (Gulvik (2007) for Oribatid mites, Sitzia et al. (2010) but these seem to be the
exception. Abandonment and loss of semi-natural habitats have also significant negative impacts on
cultural and social capital and results in loss of traditional and local knowledge (Csergo et al., 2013;
Molnár & Berkes, 2017; Rotherham, 2015). The precise outcome often depends upon the direction of
the succession (e.g. to steppe vs to forest - Dengler et al., 2014; or above vs below the treeline -

594
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

MacDonald et al., 2000; the spatial context - Sitzia et al., 2010; the time since abandonment - Lasanta
et al., 2015; and the pattern of farming - MacDonald et al., 2000).

4.5.1.5 Effects of urban development

The expansion of urban areas and its pressure on natural and semi-natural land will continue to be one
of the major land-use factors in large parts of Western and Central Europe (EEA, 2016d), and is also
likely to result in considerable land take in Central Asia in coming decades (Angel et al., 2011). With
increasing urbanization, direct destruction of habitats, reduction of habitat areas, increasing
fragmentation and degradation in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats can lead to significant negative
impacts on biodiversity (Güneralp & Seto, 2013; McKinney, 2006, 2008). Urbanization affects different
habitats and species groups disproportionately and often its effects are related to intensity of
urbanization and regional biodiversity patterns (McKinney, 2008). In regions with less effective
governance of land use, there is a greater possibility of development affecting areas with high
biodiversity (Güneralp & Seto, 2013). In Western and Central Europe, urban development and its
associated land take poses a major threat to soil and could have significant effects on agricultural
production and food (Gardi et al., 2015).

4.5.1.6 Effectiveness of landscape and habitat restoration

Restoration success depends on the ability to encompass the important ecological mechanisms that
underpin ecosystem functioning (Török & Helm, 2017). For example, forest restoration success has
been shown to mainly depend on time since restoration initiation, disturbance type (secondary or
selectively logged forests) and landscape context (e.g. forest patch size and isolation; (Crouzeilles et
al., 2016). It is important to restore the genetic diversity contained within an ecosystem to assure
evolutionary potential and to avoid adverse effects caused by management, e.g. founder effects,
where only few individuals contribute to initial genetic diversity (Brudvig, 2011; Mijangos et al., 2015;
Wortley et al., 2013) (see Box 4.2).
There are numerous links between restoration, economic development, and human well-being
(Aronson et al., 2010; Benayas et al., 2009) (see Box 4.2). Successful engagement of local community
and other social attributes are considered highly important in determining the feasibility and cost of
restoration, as well as the success of restoration and sustainability of the restoration outcome
(Shackelford et al., 2013; Wortley et al., 2013).
Rewilding is a particular approach that aims to restore ecosystems toward a state of wilderness (Carey,
2016). The effects of rewilding on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people likely depend on
initial conditions before rewilding and on the success of development of self-sustainable ecosystems.
Sufficient evidence for suitable solutions is not yet available (Cerqueira et al., 2015; Dixon et al., 2016;
Götmark, 2013; Smit et al., 2015; Ziolkowska & Ziolkowski, 2016). There is a potential for conflict as
many proposed rewilding areas (see Ceaușu et al., 2015) lie in regions where indigenous peoples and
local communities live (e.g. Carpathians, Balkan). Considering human rights and the rights of these
communities during the establishment of rewilding areas is of vital importance.
Box 4.2: Restoration of grasslands has brought people back to the countryside.

595
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sheep on recently restored alvar grassland in Saaremaa, Estonia. Following the abandonment of traditional land
use, large part of Estonian semi-natural grasslands overgrew with shrubs. Restoration of those species rich
grasslands and subsequent grazing, supported by agricultural subsidies, has led to positive impacts on both the
local livelihood and on biodiversity. Photo: Ants Animägi, Estonian State Forest Management Centre.
Alvars, dry calcareous thin-soiled semi-natural grasslands once covered ca 50,000 hectares in western part of
Estonia, especially on its scenic islands Saaremaa, Muhu and Hiiumaa (Helm et al., 2007). By 2013, only 2500
hectares were managed by grazing – a traditional management method necessary for the persistence of these
high nature value habitats (Government of Estonia, 2013). In an effort to save high biodiversity and traditional
land-use practices related to Alvar grasslands, 600 land-owners and 41 local farmers and farming companies in
25 regions all over western part of Estonia are participating in the LIFE+ programme project “LIFE to Alvars”
(LIFE13NAT/EE/000082) from 2014 to 2020. Project aims to double the area of managed Alvars in Estonia by
restoring 2500 hectares of grasslands and encouraging local people and farmers to take up grazing in those areas.
Already by 2017, restoration activities, vastly changing landscapes and awareness-raising activities have had
considerable impact both on the public knowledge about the value of grasslands, as well as on economic and
lifestyle choices among local people. Implementation of the infrastructure necessary for grazing (fences, animal
drinking places and shelters, gates), coupled with the support system for managing semi-natural areas have
created incentives for local farmers to increase their livestock and move animals from cultural grasslands to
restored Alvars. By 2017, following the restoration of the first 1500 hectares of traditional grassland landscapes,
270 head of cattle and 400 sheep were added to the herds of local farmers. In addition, four families moved back
to the countryside and changed their profession to livestock farmers. Open Alvar grasslands have great aesthetic,
cultural heritage and recreational value and several nearby tourism facilities noted the positive effect of
grassland restoration on their activities, by boosting visitor numbers and by increasing the opportunities on offer
for scenic nature tours (Prangel, 2017).
End of Box 4.2

4.5.1.7 Effectiveness of protected areas

Designated conservation areas are highly important in safeguarding biodiversity and nature’s benefits
to people, but there is considerable evidence that protected areas alone cannot prevent biodiversity
loss (e.g. Mora & Sale, 2011), particularly for migratory species (e.g. Saiga antelope; Bull et al., 2013)
or habitats or species particularly sensitive to environmental change (Bull et al., 2013; Dudley et al.,
2014; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010). A global systematic review shows that individual protected areas

596
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

were effective at protecting habitats, particularly forests, but less effective at conserving populations
of species (Geldmann et al., 2013). There is great variation across Europe and Central Asia in the
efficacy of formally protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Recent evaluations of the European
Union Natura 2000 network of protected areas found it to be effective in providing coverage to most
species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/fitness_check/docs/nature_fitness_check.pdf).
Natura 2000 sites do not only therefore serve the purpose of protecting Annex 1 (Birds Directive) and
Annex 2 (Habitats Directive) species, but also protect certain more common (non-Annex) species, in
particular breeding birds and butterflies, but less so amphibians and reptiles (van der Sluis et al., 2016).
However, the Natura 2000 network is not completely effective because there are exceptions for
particular taxa (e.g., Zehetmair et al., 2015a, 2015b) or in the way different member States implement
it. For example, certain species (e.g. those dependent on traditional land management) or ecological
zones (e.g. lowland versus upland) were either over- or under-represented, and gaps exist in the
protection of biodiversity in certain habitats (e.g. marine and temporary freshwater habitats) (Gruber
et al., 2012; Maiorano et al., 2007; McKenna et al., 2014; van der Sluis et al., 2012).
Natura 2000 represents one of the most systematic efforts for developing new protected areas, but
the effectiveness of implementation of Natura 2000 for biodiversity conservation has not been
sufficiently evaluated (Gaston et al., 2008). A major challenge for forest protected areas is that current
conditions are not pristine due to past management and suppression of natural disturbance processes
(Hedwall & Mikusiński, 2015; Lõhmus et al., 2004; Meyer et al., 2011). Protected areas also tend to be
too small to accommodate the full range of natural processes and hence unable to maintain sufficient
ecological memory to re-organize after disturbances (Bengtsson et al., 2003). In some forest reserves,
“natural” state is contingent on traditional management (e.g. livestock grazing, coppicing, pollarding
or small-scale felling). The introduction of such methods may be needed to secure forest biodiversity,
but is so far rarely implemented mainly for economic reasons (Bernes et al., 2015; Götmark, 2013;
Sebek et al., 2013). Measures to improve environmental status within conservation areas, combined
with landscape-scale approaches that improve matrix quality for native biodiversity, are therefore
urgently needed if their efficiency is to be improved.
The degree of monitoring and enforcement of protected areas can be critical for their efficacy in
protecting biodiversity (e.g. Wendland et al., 2015). For instance, almost 40% of the protected areas
in the Barents Euro-Arctic region remain vulnerable to disturbance from human activities, including
logging, mining, drilling and construction (Aksenov et al., 2014). The efficacy of protection often varies
among countries. For example, protected forest areas in the eastern Carpathians have proved effective
at halting illegal logging in Poland and Slovakia but have been less so in Ukraine (Kuemmerle et al.,
2007) and protection in one country can lead to displacement of adverse impacts to adjoining
territories (Mayer et al., 2006). In certain circumstances, proximity to humans can sometimes affect
the efficacy of protected areas in conserving biodiversity. For example, in Kyrgyzstan proximity of
villages to protected areas was linked to a lowering of effectiveness for conserving non-ungulate large
mammals (McCarthy et al., 2010). In eastern Russia, Siberian tiger survival was inversely linked to roads
bordering or crossing the strictly protected Sikhote-Alin State Biosphere Zapovednik (Kerley et al.,
2002). In summary, the proportion of protected areas is an important indicator of conservation efforts,
although it needs to be combined with other indicators to fully assess the efficacy of measures aiming
to conserve biodiversity (e.g. management plans, restoration actions, population indices of target
species etc.).
The European Union Biodiversity Strategy Target 1 (“fully implement the Birds and Habitats
Directives”) and Target 2 (“maintain and restore ecosystems and their services”) define actions to

597
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

ensure habitats and ecosystems protection. There is a progress on those targets in the European
Union, but in insufficient rate: 16% of the habitats assessments are favourable, 4% are unfavourable,
but improving, 33% are unfavourable and stable, 30 % are unfavourable and deteriorating, 10% are
unfavourable with unknown trend and 7% are unknown (European Commission, 2015). The network
of Natura 2000 sites has progressed and is largely completed for terrestrial habitats, since 2010 it has
grown for 1,4% and covering in 2015 18,1% of the European Union land. Overall, the mid-term
assessment indicates the progress as the one with an insufficient rate (European Commission, 2015).
Therefore, the European Union Biodiversity Targets 1 and 2 may not to be fully met by 2020 if the rate
of the progress remains at the current level.
Regarding the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, reaching Target 11 (“protected areas increased and
improved”) for terrestrial ecosystems implies an increase in terrestrial protected areas, with an
increased focus on representativeness and management effectiveness (Leverington et al., 2008). A
focus on representativeness is crucial as current protected area networks have gaps, and some fail to
offer adequate protection to many species and ecosystems. These gaps include many sites of high
biodiversity value such as Alliance for Zero Extinction sites and Important Bird Areas (Butchart et al.,
2010; Ricketts et al., 2005). The global data sets statistically prove the progress in the increased
coverage of protected area and sites of significance that ensure ecosystems connectedness in Europe
and Central Asia. The data includes the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC &
IUCN, 2014). Data on sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity, or “key
biodiversity areas” (KBAs) are provided by BirdLife International (2017) for Important Bird &
Biodiversity Areas and by the Alliance for Zero Extinction sites holding the entire population of at least
one highly threatened species (Brooks et al., 2006; Ricketts et al., 2005).

4.5.2 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in agricultural land use

4.5.2.1 Trends in agricultural land use
Agricultural land-use changes are constrained and driven by biophysical conditions and sets of inter-
related indirect drivers (e.g. policies, political changes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, demands for
food and ecological products etc.). Across the region there are two principal trends: (1) intensification
of conventional agriculture; and (2) decreasing land-use intensity and abandonment of conventional
agricultural land.
Trend 1: Intensification of conventional agriculture.
This model of agricultural production is characterized by large-scale monocultures specializing on few
crops that are supported by high levels of agrichemical inputs or irrigation, management of high
livestock densities, and mechanization to increase production (Foley et al., 2005; Goldewijk, 2001;
Henle et al., 2008; Robinson & Sutherland, 2002; Tilman et al., 2001; Tscharntke et al., 2005; van Vliet
et al., 2015; EEA, 2015a). Agricultural intensification has been a dominant driver of land-use changes
in Europe and Central Asia since the 1950s (Jepsen et al., 2015; EEA, 2015a). The area of agricultural
holdings and their role in the agricultural sector are constantly growing (BEFL, 2016; Petrick et al.,
2013; Visser et al., 2012; Visser et al., 2014). They are especially large in the most favourable regions
for agriculture. For example, in Russia 43 companies cultivate in total 10.4 million hectares (BEFL,
2016). Although the temporal and spatial patterns and intensity of agricultural land use vary
considerably within the region, intensive agriculture is expected to remain among the prevailing land-
use practices in the region into the future (Jepsen et al., 2015).

598
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In Western Europe, conventional intensive agriculture has been the prevailing model of agricultural
production since the 1950s (EEA, 2015a). This has led to considerable landscape homogenization
(Curado et al., 2011; Stoate et al., 2009). Landscape homogenization also occurred in many parts of
Central Europe during the socialist period (1945 – 1990) (Fraser & Stringer, 2009; Munteanu et al.,
2014). In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, conventional agricultural
intensification happened mainly after the break-up of the USSR in 1991; and these three countries
became major exporters of agricultural products products (Liefert et al., 2009). Currently, Russia is
among the major world grain exporting nations due to an increase of land-use intensity and partial re-
cultivation of abandoned lands after 2000 (Medetsky, 2016).
In Central Asia irrigated agricultural areas have increased at the expense of natural pastures since the
1960-1970s, for instance in the vicinity of the Syr Darja and Amur Darja rivers. This is mainly due to
cotton production (Kaplan et al., 2014), which has doubled since the 1960s and now accounts for
nearly half of all irrigated arable land. Irrigation is currently used for 33% (13 million ha) of cultivated
areas in Central Asia. However, poor maintenance of drainage systems has resulted in millions of
hectares of irrigated areas suffering from salinization and waterlogging. In Uzbekistan 51% (2.1 million
ha) and Turkmenistan 68% (1.3 million ha) of irrigated areas are salinized and further widespread
degradation of agricultural land is expected in these countries (Frenken, 2013; Horion et al., 2016).
Trend 2: Decrease of land-use intensity and abandonment of conventional agricultural land
Agricultural land abandonment is widespread in Europe and Central Asia (Benayas et al., 2007; Díaz et
al., 2011; Prishchepov et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016). The available evidence indicates that it is
reasonable to expect that farmland abandonment will continue over the next few decades, particularly
in the case of extensively grazed lands (Keenleyside & Tucker, 2010). However, some projections of
land-use change are limited by a lack of appropriate data on historical legacies, local conditions and
drivers (Biró et al., 2013; Feranec et al., 2010; Hatna & Bakker, 2011; Temme & Verburg, 2011). Overall,
the largest abandonment extent is in the East European forest steppe and Pontic steppe zones, in
Sarmatic mixed forests and in the boreal zone (Schierhorn et al., 2013).
Agricultural land abandonment leads to complete termination of agricultural activity and reforestation
through silviculture or natural succession to shrubs and forest (Alcantara et al., 2012; Baldock et al.,
1996; Baumann et al., 2011; van der Zanden et al., 2017). For example, in Western and Central Europe
an increase of forest and semi-natural habitats after abandonment of agricultural land occurred widely
in Italy, Hungary, Poland and Germany and to a lesser extent in France and Greece, while in Spain the
transition was in the opposite direction (Petersen, 2006). Agricultural land abandonment has tended
to be concentrated in areas that are marginal for agriculture, for example, on unproductive soils and
areas limited by other biophysical conditions (temperature, high precipitations etc.) (Ioffe, 2005;
Meyfroidt et al., 2016; Prishchepov et al., 2013, 2016). Abandoned farmland was converted to urban
residential areas or infrastructure in some places or, more often, became forested or afforested
(Grădinaru et al., 2015; Plutzar et al., 2015; Schierhorn et al., 2013).
In the European Union cropland area has decreased by almost 1.2 million hectares in recent decades
(Dixon et al., 2009; Grădinaru et al., 2015; Munton, 2009). In Central European countries, including
Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, during the 1990s and 2000s the
prevailing land-use trend was abandonment of arable land and grassland, reductions of livestock
densities and agrochemical use and reforestation (Biró et al., 2013; Sutcliffe et al., 2013). For example,
in Poland 17.6%, in Estonia 10.1% and in Latvia 21.1% of agricultural land was abandoned by 2002
(Keenleyside & Tucker, 2010). However, expansion of the European Union and implementation of its
Common Agricultural Policy in new member States has resulted in the reclaiming of abandoned

599
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

farmland for intensive agriculture – a trend that is likely to continue (Keenleyside & Tucker, 2010;
Kuemmerle et al., 2009; Sutcliffe et al., 2013).
Eastern Europe and Central Asia have been hotspots of cropland abandonment since the 1990s
(Keenleyside & Tucker, 2010; Kuemmerle et al., 2009; Sutcliffe et al., 2013). The collapse of the
socialistic collective farming system resulted in the abandonment of more than 58 million hectares of
former croplands in Russia and Kazakhstan (Kurganova et al., 2015) (Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10). This
was mirrored by substantial reductions in livestock (e.g. >30% reductions from 1990 levels in cattle
densities in 2005 and 2015) (Chibilyov, 2016; Lescheva & Ivolga, 2015; Rosstat, 2017). In Kazakhstan
and in stock farming steppe regions of Russia the collapse of livestock populations and state farms
were combined with the private acquisition of former state assets, including livestock (Kerven et al.,
2016; Robinson et al., 2016; Suleimenov & Oram, 2000). Livestock declines of up to 80% in sheep and
cattle took place in Kazakhstan (Kamp et al., 2011), creating a vast area of un-grazed grasslands (Kerven
et al., 2016). Grazing patterns changed significantly, and intensive grazing became restricted to areas
around villages, which have been rapidly degrading due to overgrazing (Kamp et al., 2011, 2012;
Kandalova & Lysanova, 2010; Kitov & Tsapkov, 2015; Kühling et al., 2016; Morozova, 2012; Suleimenov
& Oram, 2000).

600
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.2.2 Indirect drivers of trends in agricultural land use

Changes in agriculture are driven by multiple interconnected institutional, economic, cultural and
technological drivers (Figure 4.11).

601
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.2.2.1 Institutional drivers of trends in agricultural land use

Until the 1980s, the European Union Common Agricultural Policy became the major incentive for the
conventional intensification of agriculture (Van Zanten et al., 2014) through a subsidy scheme based
primarily on price pegging. Since 1992, it has increasingly been adapted to better serve the aims of
sustainability by means of a fundamental reform process designed to move away from a policy of price
and production support to a policy of direct income aid and rural development measures, including
agri-environmental schemes. The 2003 Common Agricultural Policy reform (Council Regulation (EC)
No. 1782/2003) brought forward environmental concerns in agriculture. It reinforced a number of
measures that encourage land use and practices compatible with the protection of environmental
resources. Agri-environmental schemes became compulsory for every member State.
From the 1990s, in Central Europe radical changes in political, social and economic systems brought
about the restitution of private property and the land market with consequential economic drivers.

602
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

State support diminished, former export markets within the socialist sphere of influence disappeared,
prices were liberalized, and farmers suddenly faced strong external competition even though they
often lacked the necessary inputs (e.g., fertilizer) and technology (e.g., access to machinery) to sustain
high yields (Lerman et al., 2004; Rozelle & Swinnen, 2004; Skokanová et al., 2016). These politico-
economic drivers instigated further agricultural intensification in fertile regions, and abandonment of
less fertile or less accessible land (Fonji & Taff, 2014; Jepsen et al., 2015; Skokanová et al., 2016; van
Vliet et al., 2015). During the transition from planned to market economy the agricultural cooperatives
were dismantled and much of their land was privatized to new owners or re-privatized to the former
owners, which led to establishment of numerous smallholder farms. Many smallholders had no
interest or knowledge, or adequate financial resources and equipment to profitably cultivate the
agricultural land and thus quit farming or resorted to subsistence farming on small parcels of land
scattered across the landscape (Biró et al., 2013). The rapid privatization (Skokanová et al., 2016),
ownership insecurity (e.g. in Romania, see Kuemmerle et al., 2009), and a lack of interest or knowledge
in agriculture of the new landowners resulted in large-scale land abandonment and decreased
management intensity in large areas of Central Europe (Liira et al., 2008; Palang & Printsmann, 2010;
van der Sluis et al., 2015; van Vliet et al., 2015). After 2004, when many Central European countries
joined the European Union, the land tenure system stabilized through the introduction of the European
Union Common Agricultural Policy, which has helped to restore farming activities in many areas,
especially mountain regions, and has stabilized agricultural development in some countries of Central
Europe (Bezák & Mitchley, 2014; Ruskule et al., 2013; van der Sluis et al., 2015). Agricultural subsidies
introduced with the accession to the European Union increased the economic viability of agricultural
land, leading to agricultural expansion and intensification. Agricultural subsidies, however, also caused
problems as they enhanced regional inequality by excluding small-scale farmers in remote areas (Bezák
& Mitchley, 2014) or by causing damage to areas of conservation interest (e.g. ploughing high-diversity
grasslands and meadows) (Figure 4.12).

603
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the political changes since the 1990s were accompanied by radical
large-scale land reforms, involving the elimination of the state monopoly and division of land
ownership (state, collective, and private) (Lerman et al., 2004; Liefert & Liefert, 2012; Liira et al., 2008;
Rozelle & Swinnen, 2004; Smelansky, 2003; Swinnen et al., 2017) (Figure 4.12). Since then, the areas
of large private agricultural companies owned by agro-holdings and their role in the agricultural sector
has constantly expanded (BEFL, 2016; Nefedova, 2016; Petrick et al., 2013; Visser et al., 2012, 2014),
especially in the most favourable regions for agriculture, (e.g., south-western Russia, south-eastern
Ukraine, and Kazakhstan). However, subsistence farming has played the main role in the food security
of citizens in villages, towns and cities. For example, in Russia, the economic crisis in 2008 led to a 2-
fold increase in the number of rural residents engaged in subsistence farming, and in the cities the
number increased by 2.8 times. Subsistence farms produced 98% of potatoes, vegetables and fruit

604
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

crops, 82% of milk, 68% of meat and 54% of eggs (Martyn & Yevsiukov, 2009; Swinnen et al., 2017).
Appropriate legislation is important for biodiversity conservation on agricultural lands. However,
currently for the majority of Eastern European countries there is a lack of links between environmental
legislation and legislation related to land, territorial development and agriculture (Smelansky, 2003).
For example, Russian legislation does not identify grasslands as a separate category of agricultural land.
Several legal regulations address pastures (grazing lands) and hay-making lands (Bakirova, 2011;
Smelansky, 2003; Smelansky & Tishkov, 2012); the federal law provides some legal framework for
constraining grassland transformation into other land uses but it has been insufficient to protect
grasslands outside protected areas.
Land ownership is another institutional driver that has changed across Europe and Central Asia from
having many small landowners in the agricultural sector to increasingly larger areas of land being
managed by fewer farmers – either after being purchased by farmers or based on an increase in rented
land. For the latter, concern is raised that managers’ connection with, and sense of responsibility to
the land is decreasing, especially in the case of short term rental agreements. This may result in poor
management, including less environmental considerations (Forbord et al., 2014; Lobley & Potter, 2004;
Stokstad, 2010). This problem is especially vital in some countries of Central Europe (e.g. in the Czech
Republic) where the original small owners sold or leased their land to new owners from elsewhere
after restitution in the 1990s (Skokanová et al., 2016).

4.5.2.2.2 Economic drivers of trends in agricultural land use

Economic factors often underpin decisions about cultivation or termination of agricultural production
(Figure 4.12). Agricultural expansion and intensification on fertile, productive land often coincides with
land abandonment on marginal land (Beilin et al., 2014; Skokanová et al., 2016). These two trends are
largely driven by global trade of the agricultural market since the 1950s (van Vliet et al., 2015). As a
result of global trade, the size of farms and their specialization have increased (Lobley & Butler, 2010).
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, economic factors include prices for agricultural products (outputs),
and the parity of the prices between inputs and outputs. This was most likely one of the primary
reasons for widespread termination of farming and livestock production in these subregions (Rozelle
& Swinnen, 2004; Schierhorn et al., 2016) (Figure 4.13). In some countries of Eastern Europe and
Central Asia, an inability to fill budget gaps led governments to reduce subsidies for agricultural
production and consumption by 95% (Prishchepov et al., 2013). The agricultural sector, and particularly
livestock sector, immediately faced a mismatch between increased prices for inputs and output
production (Sedik, 1993). Additionally, the removal of subsidies led to domestically produced beef and
milk becoming non-competitive compared to subsidized imported goods (Schierhorn et al., 2016). Lack
of cash flow to cover production costs led to a reduction in livestock numbers and concomitant
reduction in fodder crop production (Prishchepov et al., 2017; Rozelle & Swinnen, 2004; Schierhorn et
al., 2013; Sedik, 1993) which resulted in widespread agricultural land abandonment (Ioffe et al., 2004;
Liefert & Liefert, 2012; Prishchepov et al., 2012; Schierhorn et al., 2013). The wheat production sector
was also affected, but to a lesser extent than other grain and fodder crops. Maize, sunflower and beets
continued to be cultivated at almost the same levels as in 1990. Availability of the domestic market
and accessibility to international markets, distances to the markets and transportation costs may have
determined the decision to abandon or re-cultivate agricultural land (Prishchepov et al., 2013). For
instance, discovery of new markets for Russia’s wheat most likely stimulated partial re-cultivation in
the Russian south, in proximity to water ways and sea ports (FAO, 2009). Similarly, growing demand in
the Chinese market triggered re-cultivation of abandoned lands for soya production in the Amur region
of Russia (Rosstat, 2016). The economic advantages or disadvantages of the agricultural sector

605
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

compared to other sectors, may drive the decision to quit farming or to pursue alternative income
sources. For instance, the value added by agriculture to total GDP declined by 32% from 1990 to 2000
(Prishchepov et al., 2017). Additionally, low taxation, which was based on normative average yields
during the Soviet era, did not stimulate either the cultivation of lands, or a concentration on yield
increases. Land transaction costs and legal burdens themselves preclude fast transactions and limit
incentives for the re-cultivation of abandoned land (Meshkov, 2014; Uzun, 2011).

4.5.2.2.3 Cultural drivers of trends in agricultural land use

Socio-cultural attributes of individual farmers have had a bearing on the extent of land-use
intensification or change, thereby slowing down the effects of specialization and global trade (Lobley
& Butler, 2010). “Property management” or property-related issues play a vital role in the farmer’s

606
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

practice; and values related to family and individual strategies may often explain why landowners
undertake land-use changes that are not profitable (Kristensen, 2016) (Figure 4.14).
In Western Europe, farm and farmer characteristics have been particularly important drivers of
specialization (Breen et al., 2005; Gorton et al., 2008; van Vliet et al., 2015). Choices of crops and
farming systems are largely controlled by economic and legal factors (markets and state
subsides/regulation); however, local traditions may still moderate the rate of change (Beilin et al.,
2014; Curado et al., 2011; Elmhagen et al., 2015; Forbord et al., 2014) (Figure 4.14). Ethical and cultural
trends have gradually brought changes in diet and food consumption as well as leisure activities. There
is a growing number of consumers who are particularly interested in how and where food was
produced and, sometimes, in participating in the production process (Guarino et al., 2015).
Additionally, there is also a growing interest in leisure farming and hobbyhorses. Quality products,
related to high natural value farmlands and often linked to community-led local development policies,
and in 2010 reached a substantial weight, worth about 18% (excluding wine) of the gross saleable
production in the European Union agricultural sector
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/index_en.htm). At the same time, in Western and
Central Europe, organic products comprise about 1% of total food sales, but trends are increasing (FiBL,
2015).
In Central Europe since the 1990s many livestock farms have collapsed due to termination of subsidies
for external inputs (e.g. fertilizers) for fodder production during the socialist period. This resulted in
the large-scale movement of people with agricultural experience into cities or abroad (Bell & Muhidin,
2009), leading to widespread abandonment of farmland (Munteanu et al., 2014; van Vliet et al., 2015).
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia during the Soviet era, agricultural enterprises fulfilled many
obligations related to providing jobs and services to local population (e.g., schools, shops, centres of
culture, libraries etc.) (Figure 4.14). Since the 1990s these obligations have been transferred to local
governments, which have not had resources to fulfil them (Ioffe et al., 2012). This led to a sharp
increase in the burden on the biological resources of rural areas (e.g. through poaching and illegal
logging); destructive extraction of soil and mineral resources (e.g. through sale of fertile topsoil and
illegal mass extraction of building materials and coal); as well as growing poverty in rural areas (Allina-
Pisano, 2007; Ovcharova & Pishnyak, 2003; Petrick et al., 2013; Visser & Schoenmaker, 2011). Since
the 1990s a large proportion of agricultural land has been freely transferred to multiple private owners
who had a share in the property of former collective farms. This has led to the appearance of a
significant number of non-agricultural enterprises (Lerman & Shagaida, 2007; Petrick et al., 2013;
Shagaida, 2005) operated by managers often with a lack of adequate professional knowledge in
agriculture (Maslak, 2015; Sabluk et al., 2015). For example, in Ukraine land reform has led to
the privatization of 12,000 collective or state farms; and the majority of the agricultural land (27
million ha, 66% of all agricultural land of the country) was distributed among 6.9 million
citizens (http://land.gov.ua; Khodakivs’ka, 2015). This has created a precondition for
widespread land abandonment.
In general, quantitative studies confirm that agricultural land abandonment is strongly linked to a
decrease in rural population density, ageing population, and lower birth rates (Ioffe et al., 2004;
Meyfroidt et al., 2016; Prishchepov et al., 2017). Demography legacies also played a crucial role in
explaining the patterns of land abandonment, such as reduced population due to World War II in
western Russia (e.g., Smolensk province), and outmigration in the 1960s and 1970s from the non-
Chernozem region (Ioffe, 2005; Prishchepov et al., 2013). It has been proposed that agricultural
production looses its economic feasibility when rural population density falls below five people/km2

607
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Ioffe et al., 2004). The regions with higher birth rates and higher population density were found to be
more favourable for re-cultivation (Meyfroidt et al., 2016; Shagaida, 2005).

4.5.2.2.4 Technological drivers of trends in agricultural land use

Technological drivers such as biotechnology and mechanization (e.g. tractors) are important drivers of
change in the agricultural sector (Jepsen et al., 2015). Better production technology, for instance
application of high power tractors and other machinery, may encourage farmers to cultivate more
land, thus stimulating re-cultivation of abandoned plots. However, improvement of technological
production can also be strongly influenced by whether economic factors favour investment in
technological advances (Jepsen et al., 2015).

4.5.3 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in forestry

4.5.3.1 Trends in forestry
Forest management systems vary across Europe and Central Asia. In the boreal zone forest
management with clear-cuts followed by intensive silviculture dominates in Fennoscandia (Granhus et

608
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

al., 2015), and wood mining without silviculture in boreal Russia (Naumov et al., 2016) (Figure 4.15
and Figure 4.16). Forestry in the temperate zone utilizes a wider spectrum of management systems.
This includes different harvest and regeneration systems ranging from clear-cut management with tree
plantations to continuous cover forestry with single-tree harvest and natural regeneration
(Kuuluvainen et al., 2012; Pommerening & Murphy, 2004). Almost all forest management systems
result in simplified forests with loss of structural complexity and biodiversity at multiple spatial scales.
In the Mediterranean, agroforestry systems are widespread, which incorporate combinations of trees,
grasslands and rotation cereal cropping. In Western, Central and Eastern Europe, traditional
agroforestry systems have been key elements in the European cultural landscapes throughout history
(Eichhorn et al., 2006; Erixon, 1960) (Figure 4.17). As an example, the Spanish dehesas and Portuguese
montados form extensive agro-silvo-pastural savannahs, which cover about 5 million ha in south-
western Spain and Portugal (Joffre et al., 1988; Plieninger et al., 2003).

609
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

610
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The main trends in forestry across Europe and Central Asia are as follows: (1) increasing intensity of
management on forested land; (2) continued logging of intact forests; (3) rehabilitation of forest land
after overgrazing, overexploitation, and desertification; and (4) efforts to implement sustainable forest
management. These trends are assessed in more detail below.
Trend 1: Increasing intensity of management on forested land
Increasing intensity of management of forested land includes: (i) increasing extraction of bioenergy
resources; (ii) increasing area of plantations; and (iii) intensification of forest management. Production
of forest biomass for energy purposes includes increasing use of more intensive management methods
and extraction of a larger fraction of biomass during harvest operations, including tree-tops, branches
and roots (Bouget et al., 2012). It is theoretically possible to increase the availability of forest biomass
significantly beyond the current level of resource utilization (Verkerk et al., 2011). Intensification of
biomass removals from forests has raised concerns about its environmental impacts on forest
productivity, biodiversity, soil quality, and climate change mitigation potential, as well as social values
(Aherne et al., 2012; Bouget et al., 2012; Forsius et al., 2016; Triviño et al., 2015). The trade-offs
between increasing biomass output and delivery of diverse contributions of nature to people are
recognized as a major challenge for forestry in Europe and Central Asia (Verkerk et al., 2011). These
concerns have resulted in the development of sustainability criteria for bioenergy production
(European Commission, 2009). However, several studies have pointed to the need to include
landscape-scale segregated approaches to define appropriate indicators for long-term sustainability,
including energy wood production (Fu et al., 2013; Nelson et al., 2009; Vihervaara et al., 2015). This
applies in particular to resolving potential impact on biodiversity, soil carbon, nutrient store and
leaching (Forsius et al., 2016), but also to forests as an asset for recreation and nature-based tourism.
Plantation forestry in Europe constituted 9% of the forested area in 2015 with an increase during the
last 20 years of 3.8 million hectares (Forest Europe, 2015). The fraction of plantation forests varies
among countries in Western Europe and Central Europe (Figure 4.18).

611
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The growing stock of forests in continental Europe has increased at an annual average of 1.4% or, in
absolute terms, by 403 million cubic meters per year over the last 25 years (Forest Europe, 2015).
Growing stock has increased despite a significant increase in annual felling. During the period 1990 –
2010, annual felling increased by more than 20% (from 216 to 263 million cubic meters) in Europe.
Thus, only over half of the growth is harvested. Additionally, there are combined effects of increased
CO2 concentration and nitrogen deposition. Sweden and Finland are viewed as role models for the
development of maximum sustained yield wood production in Europe (e.g. Elbakidze et al., 2013a;
Lindahl & Westholm, 2010). However, there are arguments that sustained yield forestry as a single-
use management (Behan, 1990) focused on wood, changes forest composition and structure, and
alters the natural dynamics in forest landscapes (Bawa & Seidler, 1998; Holling & Meffe, 1996; Luckert
& Williamson, 2005). As a consequence, forest ecosystems lose native species, habitats, and ecological
processes, which affect ecological integrity and resilience (Farrell et al., 2000). The Russian Federation
currently aims to increase the sustained yield of wood by intensifying wood production in accessible
areas previously harvested by wood mining (Naumov et al., 2017). This requires changes in forest
management that include silvicultural methods, for example, scarification, planting or seeding, pre-
commercial thinning and even fertilization (Elbakidze et al., 2013a).
Trend 2: Continuous logging of intact forest landscapes
Industrial forestry has expanded throughout Europe over the centuries, basically from south-west to
north-east (Lotz, 2015; Lundmark et al., 2013). According to Potapov et al. (2017), industrial timber
extraction, resulting in forest landscape alteration and fragmentation, was the primary global cause of

612
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

intact forest landscape area reduction. Three countries comprise 52% of the total reduction of
intact forest landscapes area: Russia (179,000 km2 of IFL area lost), Brazil (157,000 km2), and
Canada (142,000 km2). In Europe and Central Asia clear-cutting was the main intact forest landscape
loss cause in the temperate and southern boreal zones (54%). Proportional to the year 2000 IFL area,
the highest percentages of intact forest landscape area reduction were found in Romania (Central
Europe), which lost all of its intact forest landscapes. Russia has approximately 20% of the world's
forests, and human influence on forests has been growing over recent decades, mainly as a
consequence of logging activities including both clear-felling and selective logging (Achard et al.,
2006; Naumov et al., 2017). Easily accessible Russian forest resources are being exhausted (e.g.,
Naumov et al., 2016). Despite a huge forested area there is a serious shortage of accessible wood
resources demanded by the forest industry. Large sawmills, pulp and paper enterprises, especially
those focused on output with low added value, are heavily reliant on low transportation costs for
the delivery of raw materials from the forest. Thus, increasingly, forest logging companies harvest in
protective forests and other valuable forests (Naumov et al., 2017) that support biodiversity
conservation and rural development.
Trend 3: Rehabilitation of forest land after overgrazing, overexploitation, and desertification
This trend is prominent in Central Asia, where forest cover is about 5% of the subregion. Distribution
of forested areas is uneven with the largest forested areas in Turkmenistan and the smallest in
Tajikistan. Due to overall arid environments, the wood production in this subregion is low, and its
economic/monetary contribution is insignificant (Kleine et al., 2009). However, forests deliver
diverse contributions to people, including water regulation, soil protection, climate mitigation, fire
wood, and recreational value at multiple scales. Nevertheless, significant degradation of forests has
taken place since World War II, while not necessarily decreasing forested area. Main causes
include converting forested area into agricultural land, overgrazing and overexploitation, including
illegal logging, and fires (Baizakov, 2014; Toktoraliev & Attokurov, 2009). Major concerns are related
to the disappearing Aral Sea, leaving a large area of degraded land. Attempts to afforest this
area are being made to increase the area of land defined as forests in Kazakhstan. The forest
management in this subregion is mainly focusing on rehabilitation of degraded forested land.
This includes reforestation and afforestation as well as planting trees and shrubs to combat
desertification (Meshkov, 2014).
Trend 4: Multifunctional forestry
For the past four centuries sustained yield forestry has been focused mainly on wood for construction,
fibre, or fuel. However, the normative interpretation of sustainability in forestry became broader
when sustainable forest management policies appeared at the end of the twentieth century
(MCPFE, 1998, 2001; Wang & Wilson, 2007). Sustainable forest management aims at maintaining,
now and in the future, sustainable ecological, economic, social, and cultural functions of managed
forests through multi-stakeholder participatory approaches (Hahn & Knoke, 2010; MCPFE, 1998,
2001; Wiersum, 1995). This requires that forest managers consider the use of a broad range of
nature’s contributions to people through adaptive management and governance to be able to
handle potentially conflicting demands at multiple spatial scales (Bawa & Seidler, 1998; Behan, 1990;
Bouthillier, 2001; Farrell et al., 2000; Hahn & Knoke, 2010; Sandström et al., 2011; Wiersum, 1995).
Lindahl et al. (2017) noted that this pathway is influenced by ideas of ecological modernization and
the optimistic view that existing resources can be increased, thus prioritizing the economic
dimension of sustainability. At present, society’s interest in sustainable forest management is
growing. This is mainly linked to bioenergy production and energy security as well as climate
change adaptation and mitigation (Spittlehouse & Stewart, 2003). There are arguments that timber
supply-oriented sustained yield concept is no longer appropriate (Wiersum, 1995), and forest
managers need to “develop from being crop managers to ecosystem managers” (Farrell et al.,
2000). 613
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Countries in Europe and Central Asia have diverse natural, historical, societal, and economical legacies
and thus have different starting points in their trajectories of development toward sustainable forest
management (Angelstam et al., 2011; Lehtinen et al., 2004). For example, recent analyses of the future
development of boreal forests in Western Europe (Claesson et al., 2015) indicate that this process will
divide forest landscapes into intensively managed stands with harvest return intervals of 60-80 years
and only scattered remnants of old growth forests set aside for biodiversity conservation purposes
(Figure 4.19). To counteract this segregated trend there is an increasing focus on integrative
approaches in forest management (Kraus & Krumm, 2013). These initiatives include green tree
retention, identification of small valuable forest habitats, and promotion of mixed forest stands (e.g.
Brang et al., 2014; Johansson et al., 2013). Similarly, integrative approaches may benefit the protection
of wooded grasslands - habitats that have declined dramatically during the 20th century (Axelsson et
al., 2007) – with their ecological and social values (Hartel & Plieninger, 2014).

4.5.3.2 Drivers of trends in forestry

The overview model (Figure 4.20) shows the dynamic inter-relationships within and between indirect
and direct drivers of change in forestry identified via the literature review process. This overview model
is then further unpacked at a variety of levels of detail to examine the major dynamics of indirect
drivers of changes in forestry.

614
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.3.2.1 Legal frameworks

Regulatory frameworks for forest management have a long history in Europe and Central Asia. In
Western Europe, they date back to at least the 17th century. Starting already in the beginning of the
19th century, forest management for wood production was regularly taught at forestry schools aiming
for efficient silviculture. After two centuries of maximum sustained forestry yield, in recent decades
the international policy pendulum (e.g. CBD, 2010; European Commission, 2013; MCPFE, 1998, 2001)
has swung towards multiple use and benefits. Initially, this was focused on biodiversity conservation
and later also on rural development (Kennedy et al., 2001).
The Montréal Process developed sustainable forest management principles for the temperate and
boreal forests; and the Ministerial Conference on Protection of Forest in Europe (Pan-European
process or Forests of Europe) for countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe (Forest Europe,

615
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2011). The Pan-European criteria and indicators provide guidelines for sustainable forest management
at the national and sub-national levels, and to operationalize and complement the existing (MCPFE,
1998, 2013). There is a common strategy for 46 countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe on
how to sustainably manage their forests (Forest Europe, 2015). The sustainable forest management
concept is an overarching guiding principle at the policy level. However, there is considerable variation
in how this concept is implemented among countries (Lehtinen et al., 2004), different forest owner
categories, and over time in a given country. In 2011, Forests Europe presented “European forests
2020 Goals and Targets” (Forest Europe, 2011) that requires the sustainable management of all
European forests, including multiple forest functions and enhanced use of forest goods and services
(Figure 4.21).
Regarding agroforestry systems, the agricultural subsidy regime within the European Union is
considered unfavourable towards silvo-arable practices (e.g. Fragoso et al., 2011; Plieninger et al.,
2004); and there is a need to reinforce and promote alternative agricultural and non-agricultural
economic activities in rural areas. New functions include leisure and recreation (García Pérez, 2002;
Pinto-Correia, 2000; Surová & Pinto-Correia, 2009). Indeed, Gaspar et al. (2009) showed that mixed
livestock dehesa farms made optimal use of resources, and had little dependence on external
subsidies. Given uncertainties about the European Union subsidies, this type of farm might be a goal
for dehesa farmers. Thus, the maintenance of the traditional agroforestry systems in Spain and
Portugal is a good example of how a diversity of forest and woodland management regimes sustains
multiple goods, services and landscape values (Linares, 2007). However, Pinto-Correia (2000) and
Plieninger et al. (2004) pointed out that this requires a holistic landscape approach including
conservation-incentive schemes, environmental education, and technical assistance.

616
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In Central Asia at the beginning of the 1990s, national agricultural policies such as converting forests
into arable land and pasture continued to reduce forested areas. For instance, in Uzbekistan the area
of tugay forests – a form of riparian forest or woodland associated with fluvial and floodplain areas in
arid climates – decreased to less than one-tenth of the original area. Walnut forests in Kyrgyzstan
decreased by 50% while mountain slope desertification increased by 31% (Toktoraliev & Attokurov,
2009). Since the 1990s, forest management organizations at different levels have gone through many
reforms (Baizakov, 2014) and political and economic uncertainties, and severely weakened forest
governance had caused growth of illegal logging and forest fires. The stabilization of economies in the
region has shifted the attention to the forest crisis in the region. For example, Kazakhstan has
prohibited cutting of saxaul forests, and Kyrgyzstan has announced a moratorium on cutting of walnut
forest. The import of wood from Russia was renewed, and the pressure on forests has declined.
Institutional development strengthened forest protection in the region. Also, introduction of GIS
technologies enabled forestry to collect and monitor the forest data more effectively (Government of
Kyrgyzstan, 2007; Karibayeva et al., 2008).

617
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.3.2.2 Forest certification

Forest certification is a market-driven instrument that is becoming increasingly important in forest
management in Europe and Central Asia. The Forest Stewardship Council certification operates in 33
countries in Europe and Central Asia, covering almost 96 Million hectares (FSC, 2016); and the PEFC
(the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) operates in 23 countries in the region,
covering almost 84 Million hectares (PEFC, 2016). While many Governments in Europe and Central Asia
have favoured command and control mechanisms to address policy targets, a growing number of
private and civil society actors have pioneered non-state voluntary instruments as a means to achieve
responsible forest management that aims at maintaining, protecting and sustaining ecological,
economic and social-cultural values of forests. This complex landscape of state and non-state
governance has shifted the power dynamics of environmental governance, raising questions about
whose interests and priorities are being served, in which contexts, and with what consequences for
social equity and biodiversity conservation (Cashore et al., 2003, 2005).
Forest certification growth has provoked considerable public debate (Angelstam et al., 2013; Elbakidze
et al., 2011; Lindahl & Westholm, 2010; Sandström et al., 2011), highlighting how the design and
implementation of certification inevitably involves struggles for power amongst diverse interests with
differing standards and impacts across countries (see Figure 4.22).

618
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.3.2.3 Markets of non-timber products

Emergence of new export markets for non-timber products, primarily medical plants and walnuts, has
increased reliance of local populations on forests. The evidence shows that the health of forest
ecosystems that produce these products greatly improves the quality of life of local households (Fisher
et al., 2004).

4.5.3.2.4 Forest ownership

The forest harvest rate, land conversion and management system is decided by the choices of forest
managers – individual managers and land owners – but a wide range of drivers influence their decisions
in an interrelated and complex way. These drivers are depicted in Figure 4.23 summarizing the causal
links influencing forest ecosystems. The choice of management system is influenced primarily by
cultural legacies (managers’ world views of forestry), laws and policies (institutional drivers), the
demand for specific forest products (e.g. increasing use of biofuels) as well as by costs, e.g. related to
development of infrastructure. For example, the opportunity for introducing intensified forest

619
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

management in Eastern Europe based on pre-commercial and commercial thinning is hampered by

short forest leasing periods (Naumov et al., 2017). A permanent transport infrastructure, which is
available not only for harvesting, but for silviculture is also necessary. To pay for these costs,
commercial thinning usually delivers inadequate financial net values (Brukas & Weber, 2009).
Additionally, transport cost to remote, not yet harvested, areas need to be considered when investing
in roads for harvest only, or also for silvicultural treatments. However, the costs of investing in
transport infrastructure are high, and there are uncertainties regarding ownership and long-term
maintenance (Naumov et al., 2016).

4.5.3.2.5 Urban development

Urban development has had profound effects on forest. For instance from 1930 to 2000 in Central
Asia, overharvesting decreased the area of spruce forests in Kyrgyzstan by 50% (Musuraliev et al.,
2000; Toktoraliev & Attokurov, 2009). Growing industrialization and population and rise of collective
farming increased human-caused fires in forests. In 1954-1960 only 31% of fires were caused by man,
while in 1981-1990 this number increased to 66% (Baizakov, 2014). Future change in forested area in
Central Asia is likely to be strongly linked to the direct and indirect effects of ongoing climate change
in combination with effects from changing demography, economy, technology, lifestyle, and policies
(Moss et al., 2010) (Figure 4.23).

620
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.3.2.6 Radical changes in political, economic and social contexts as triggers of changes in forestry
Since 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, radical changes in political, social and economic
contexts put pressure on forest areas in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, causing a decline in financial
resources for forest management, and a decline in control measures. Forest management institutions
lacked financial and political support (Baizakov, 2014). At the same time, local households experienced
shortages in the supply of oil, firewood and coal, which led to increased illegal logging in rural areas.
The regional market for coal and oil collapsed, which increased the use of forest wood for heating
purposes. Rise of unemployment and poverty contributed further to forest destruction. For the past
20 years, forest area with tree species such as saxaul, pistache, almond and walnut have been reduced
considerably (Demidova, 2013) (Figure 4.24).

621
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in protected area development

4.5.4.1 Trends in protected area development
In Europe and Central Asia, the total coverage of protected areas is 10.2%, with 13.5% of its terrestrial
area and 5.2% of its marine area (within the Exclusive Economic Zone) being protected (Figure 4.25)
(UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2014). Key biodiversity areas cover 5.5% of Europe and Central Asia for
Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas and 0.01% for the Alliance for Zero Extinction sites. As of 2017, the

622
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

proportion of Key biodiversity areas fully covered by protected areas in Europe and Central Asia is
33.3% of Alliance for Zero Extinction sites and 28.1% of Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas.

In Western and Central Europe, the total coverage of protected areas is 14.9%, with 26.7% of the
terrestrial area and 6.8% of the marine area being protected (Figure 4.25). These subregions have the
highest proportion of terrestrial and marine areas, and also the highest proportion of protected area
coverage in Europe and Central Asia. Key biodiversity areas cover 6.4% of Western and Central Europe
for Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, and only 0.01% for Alliance for Zero Extinction sites. As of
2017, the proportion of Key biodiversity areas fully covered by protected areas in Western and Central
Europe is 14.3% of Alliance for Zero Extinction sites and 35.5% of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas
(Figure 4.26). In Eastern Europe, the total coverage of protected areas is 7.5%, with 9.5% of the
terrestrial area and 2.9% of the marine area (within the Exclusive Economic Zone) being protected
(Figure 4.25). Key biodiversity areas cover 4.8% of Eastern Europe for Important Biodiversity Areas,
and 0.01% for Alliance for Zero Extinction sites. As of 2017, the percentage of Key biodiversity areas
fully covered by protected areas in Eastern Europe is 100% of Alliance for Zero Extinction sites and
5.42% of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (Figure 4.27). In Central Asia, the total coverage of
protected areas is 4.1%, with 4.2% of the terrestrial area and 2.4% of the marine area (within the
Exclusive Economic Zone) being protected (Figure 4.26). Key biodiversity areas cover 5.4% of Central
Asia for Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, and there are no Alliance for Zero Extinction sites in the
subregion. As of 2017, the proportion of key biodiversity areas fully covered by protected areas in
Central Asia is 4.65% (Figure 4.27).

623
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

624
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The main trend in protected area development in Europe and Central Asia is increasing area under
protection. Increase within the European Union has been significant, amounting to about 25% of land
cover (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2016). Superficially, this suggests that the European Union has already
met Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 of 17% protected terrestrial area. However, the bio-geographical and
ecological representativeness as well as connectivity (e.g., Angelstam et al., 2011) of protected area
needs further research. Consequently, tools for monitoring and analytic prioritization are clearly
needed (Branquart et al., 2008; Rosati et al., 2008; Schultze et al., 2014).
Analysis of the development of protected areas in the boreal zone in Western and Eastern Europe over
the last 100 years (Elbakidze et al., 2013b) shows that the areal extent of protected areas has increased
from approximately 1500 ha in 1909 to 23 million ha in 2010 (Figure 4.28). The area proportion, size
and management profiles of protected areas were very different over time among boreal countries.
Throughout this 100-year study period, the least productive northern boreal forest was preferentially
protected (Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29). The uneven representation of protected areas among boreal
zone in Western and Eastern Europe was maintained over almost the entire previous century and
presents a big challenge for boreal forest conservation (e.g. Hanski, 2011; Uotila et al., 2002; Virkala &
Rajasarkka, 2007). Another challenge for ecological sustainability is that the vast majority of boreal
protected areas are small. According to many studies concerning the requirements of species with
different life histories (Belovsky, 1987; Biedermann, 2003; Edenius & Sjoberg, 1997; Jansson &
Angelstam, 1999; Jansson & Andrén, 2003; Linnell et al., 2005; McNab, 1963; Meffe & Carroll, 1994;
Menges, 1991; Roberge & Angelstam, 2004), it is evident that many protected areas are too small for
focal and umbrella species such as specialized birds and area-demanding mammals.

625
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The number of marine protected areas around the world has increased in recent decades, including in
the European Union, aiming at the enhancement of local fisheries (Jones et al., 1993; Lubchenco et al.,
2003) following the failure of traditional management measures (Batista & Cabral, 2016; Devillers et
al., 2015; Fenberg et al., 2012; Jones et al., 1993; Lubchenco et al., 2003; Waters, 1991). Marine
protected areas are generally strongly advocated as an ideal tool for resource management –
specifically of coastal fisheries, as well as for preserving biodiversity (Agardy & Tundi Agardy, 1994;
Costello & Ballantine, 2015; Dugan & Davis, 1993; Gaines et al., 2010; Lubchenco & Grorud-Colvert,
2015; NOAA, 1990; Roberts & Pollunin, 1991). In 2016, Mediterranean Marine Protected Area Network
and Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas reports 1231 marine protected areas in the
Mediterranean covering 18 million hectares, or 7.1% (MAPAMED, 2017)
(http://www.medpan.org/en/mapamed) (Figure 4.30). The expectation is that marine protected areas
will continue to increase in number and area across the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic (Figure
4.31).
However, marine protected areas design differs between Atlantic and Mediterranean areas (Pérez-
Ruzafa et al., 2017). Northern marine protected areas (the so-called fish boxes or fisheries closures;
Pastoors et al., 2000) generally cover hundreds of thousands of hectares, and are intended to protect
one or more target or by-catch species (e.g., plaice, sole, cod, herring, sprat, haddock). Mediterranean
marine protected areas (Fenberg et al., 2012; Planes et al., 2006), meanwhile, usually over hundreds
of hectares or less (Gabrié et al., 2012; Portman et al., 2012), are in general located in areas that are

626
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

biologically unique. Both types include differences in management strategies that can affect their
efficiency as fisheries and biodiversity conservation tools (Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2017).

627
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2 Indirect drivers of trends in protected area development

There are several key drivers of protected areas in Europe and Central Asia (Figure 4.32) that are
unpacked below in Figures 4.33 – 4.39.

628
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.1 Legal frameworks

An increasing number of global, regional and national legal frameworks have been a key driver of
protected area development in Europe and Central Asia. Agreements such as the Convention of
Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010) and associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets, have led to the adoption of
a number of strategic plans and quantitative targets for protected areas. Underpinning these
agreements is a growing public environmental awareness, which has influenced policy on nature
protection. Another key factor has been the growing body of scientific knowledge on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people. Improved understanding regarding the negative effects of habitat
fragmentation on ecological functionality, for example, has led to the consideration of functional
networks of protected areas, at multiple scales, as a means of addressing biodiversity loss (e.g.,
European Commission, 2013; Hodge et al., 2015) (see also Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 – “protected
areas increased and improved”).
In response to international agreements, most countries in Europe and Central Asia have developed
national biodiversity strategies, in most cases including quantitative targets for protected areas (cf.
https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/). In Western Europe, international plans and targets are mirrored in the
EU Biodiversity Strategy (EU Parliament, 2012) and directly linked to the European Union Species and

629
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Habitats Directive. These are subsequently enacted through national legislation. There is strong
evidence that supranational conservation policy can bring measurable conservation benefits, although
future assessments will require the setting of quantitative objectives and an increase in the availability
of data from monitoring schemes (Donald et al., 2007).
As a result of various bilateral agreements, a number of Eastern European countries (e.g. Ukraine,
Belarus) are also in the process of harmonising national biodiversity protection legislation in line with
European Union directives (e.g. regarding Natura 2000, and the Pan European Ecological Network).
However, European Union policies are primarily based on Western European experiences. Numerous
studies have shown cases where nature conservation legislation has underperformed when
transplanted into new regional or local contexts (e.g. Aksenov et al., 2014; Kuemmerle et al., 2007;
Wendland et al., 2015) and a risk remains that European Union-developed approaches will prove either
inefficient or inappropriate for supporting biodiversity associated with cultural landscapes in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia. Additionally, in some cases the adoption of national strategies has led to
unforeseen transboundary consequences. For example, forest protection in China and Finland have
both resulted in increased harvest of old-growth forests in neighbouring regions of Central Asia and
north-western Russia (Mayer et al., 2006) respectively. Also, some countries have weakened national
and sub-national protection regulations largely in favour of regional economic development (see Box
4.3 and Figure 4.33).
Regarding the Marine Protected Areas, for example, the European Union Marine Strategy Framework
Directive requires that member States should reach Good Environmental Status of their waters by
2020. The strategy sees establishment of a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas as one of the
approaches to fulfil this aim. It specifically refers to Maritime Spatial Planning based on ecosystem
based approach as a key tool to reinforced the objectives of the European Union Marine Strategy
(Douvere & Ehler, 2009; Ehler, 2008).
Experience shows that these are not empty words. A study published in Marine Policy earlier this year
assessed plans in Western and Central Europe, Australia and the USA. They found that planning led to
a host of benefits for the environment: it increased marine protection, ensured that industrial uses
avoided sensitive habitat, cut carbon emissions, and reduced the risk of oil spills.
Box 4.3: Example of dynamics in legal frameworks from Eastern Europe.

In the Russian Federation, despite adopting several fundamental legal documents, and subsequent rapid growth
in protected areas during the 1990s, numerous laws or amendments have recently been passed to weaken the
protection status of existing protected areas, primarily in favour of increased economic activity (Brynych, 2016;
NIA-Priroda, 2016. For example, in preparation for the Sochi Olympics an amendment was made in the law "On
Specially Protected Natural Areas" allowing the construction of sports infrastructure in national parks. This
amendment set legal preconditions for use of lands within national parks by new ski resorts. The governmental
programme "The main directions of the state policy on the development of the system of state nature reserves
and national parks in the Russian Federation for the period until 2015", adopted by the Ministry of Natural
Resources of Russia in 2003, was not able to stop the subsequent degradation of protected areas. Recent changes
in water and forest legislation led to a weaker legal regime in the areas of water protection zones and protective
forests (Naumov et al., 2017). In 2013, a law was passed that eliminated the principle of perpetuity of existence
of protected areas and initiated transformation of strict nature reserves into national parks. In 2016, another law
was adopted allowing the allocation of biosphere polygons within the boundaries of biosphere reserves, which
legalized economic development (Brynych, 2016; NIA-Priroda, 2016). Other amendments were made to the
federal law "On Territories of Traditional Nature Use of the Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the
Far East of the Russian Federation" (2001), according to which such territories are not considered any more as
Specially Protected Natural Areas; currently it creates new challenges in the procedure of their creation. Since
2001, not a single territory of traditional land management of indigenous people of Federal importance has been

630
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

created (NIA-Priroda, 2016). At national and regional levels, there are no legal frameworks that take into account
the specific nature of conservation of steppe landscapes (Chibilev, 2015).
End of Box 4.3

4.5.4.2.2 Forest certification

Industries have largely adopted certification requirements in response to increased consumer demand
for environmentally responsible products, as a result of heightened public environmental awareness
globally and across Europe and Central Asia. Voluntarily set-asides, driven in large part by the
requirements of various production certification schemes, are also important for protected areas in
Europe and Central Asia. For example, market-driven forestry certification schemes require that a
certain fraction of the certified forest holding is set-aside for biodiversity conservation (often around
5% of the land holding, e.g. www.fsc.org). Certification systems highlight protection of forest areas as
a means to maintain forest biodiversity (FSC, 2016; PEFC, 2010) and hence their national standards

631
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

regularly include targets for voluntary set-asides. Both increased forestry certification as well as the
adoption of national and global targets for protected areas have resulted in an increased area of
formally protected forests and voluntary set-asides for biodiversity conservation purposes.

4.5.4.2.3 Activity of environmental non-governmental organizations

Environmental NGOs are among the key actors in shaping general public environmental awareness
across Europe and Central Asia (Cashore et al., 2003; Meidinger, 2003; Tysiachniouk, 2012;
Tysiachniouk & McDermott, 2016). Public awareness has proved influential in creating a greater
political prioritization of nature protection, as well as steering consumer preferences towards
environmentally certified products. NGOs have also actively and directly lobbied industries and
decision-makers to develop stricter (self-)regulatory frameworks for nature protection (e.g. marine
protected areas) and to otherwise engage with various certification systems. In Eastern Europe,
environmental NGOs – largely supported by foreign donors – contributed considerably to protected
area development and management during the long post-Soviet transition towards a market economy.
The Centre for Wildlife Conservation (1994), developed strategic and management plans for protected
areas (e.g. Nature protected areas, 1998), designed regional protected areas and ecological networks,
coordinated ecological restoration projects, as well as carrying out many other activities. However, the
last decade has seen an increase in legal and administrative pressure on the activities of environmental
NGOs in some Eastern Europe countries. For example, in Russia the official list of foreign NGOs
permitted to operate in the country has been reduced by 7 times, and since 2008 consists of only 12
organizations; NGOs receiving any form of foreign funding are frequently classified as "foreign agents”
(Shevchenko, 2016). Russian environmental NGOs have seen funding liquidated, or have otherwise
been forced to gradually cease their activities (Yablokov & Zimenko, 2009). Under such circumstances,
the activity of many NGOs cooperating with protected areas in Russia has decreased considerably
(Bishop et al., 2000; Brynych, 2016; Buivolov & Grigorian, 2006; Steppe fires and management of fire
situation in steppe PAs, 2015; Stepanytskyy & Kreyndlin, 2004; Shtilmark, 2003) (Figure 4.34).

632
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.4 Adequacy of management resources for protected areas

The availability of state-based funding for protected areas varies across Europe and Central Asia. In
some countries state funding is insufficient for adequate management (Stepanytskyy, 1999, 2000).
Funding from external bodies, for example, European Union environmental funds and international
NGO funding, has in some instances bolstered protected area management budgets. In some countries
there are, however, a number of institutional impediments to accessing such funding. Recent changes
to laws in Russia (see Box 4.3), for example, have had a negative influence on protected areas funding
(Shevchenko, 2016). Many protected areas also seek to augment management budgets by generating
income opportunities based on protected area resources, for example through forestry or tourism.
Managing these kinds of use often requires additional resources, and has an adverse impact on the
natural values provided by the protected areas. In addition, acquisition costs for protected areas are
generally much higher than annual management costs and have a strong impact on the financial
resources available for protection (James et al., 1999). As such, high land prices can present barriers
for biodiversity protection in areas where land must be purchased prior to the establishment of
protected areas, with intensive land uses generally associated with higher prices (Naidoo et al., 2006).
Protected area management also requires sufficient training of managers or the procurement of a
variety of specialists, both of which represent additional costs. Inadequate training of young specialists
has been identified as a barrier to good management in some Eastern European countries (e.g. Mashin

633
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

et al., 2001), where the previous, Soviet-trained generation of managers is beginning to retire. Up-to-
date scientific knowledge is partly dependent on taking local contexts into account in high-quality
research. In addition to formal knowledge and training, the inclusion of local knowledge is seen as an
important component in ensuring adequate management (Vdovin, 2016; Shulgin, 2007) (Figure 4.35).
Whilst staff are often driven by a strong desire to preserve unique natural values, low salaries (Ivanov
& Chizhova, 2003) together with often poor working conditions and a general lack of focus on long-
term capacity building, this has led to the demotivation of staff (Mashkin, 2007; Sidenko, 2010). Many
protected areas are also reliant on the contribution of civil sector volunteers (e.g. members of NGOs
or local communities). However, the degree to which these human resources are permitted to
contribute to protected area management is partly dependent on the inclusion of suitable
participatory mechanisms in the overall governance and management approach.

Specialized equipment (e.g. GIS, computerized species-monitoring systems) is often required to

establish the baseline data for, or monitor the impacts of, protected area strategies and plans. Other
more generic forms of technology, such as suitable vehicles, and infrastructure, such as protected area
management offices, are also required inputs. In broad terms, many Eastern European and Central
Asian protected areas suffer from poor quality or out-dated equipment, infrastructure and vehicles, or
lack these entirely.

634
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.5 Local resistance

A major factor affecting the establishment or successful management of protected areas in Europe
and Central Asia relates to the manner in which they navigate local use conflicts arising as a result of
protection status and management (Babai et al., 2016). Protected area governance and management
regimes are often characterized as top-down with low levels or quality of public participation; inflexible
responsible authorities and insufficient consideration of the local context; engendering negative public
perceptions; and resistance amongst members of local communities (Blicharska et al., 2016; Carrus et
al., 2005; Elbakidze et al., 2013c; Grodzinska-Jurczak & Cent, 2011; Mathevet et al., 2016). These
factors pose significant challenges to the functionality of protected area networks (Blicharska et al.,
2016; Elenius et al., 2017; Stenseke, 2009).
Local resistance to protected areas can be related to in-group/out-group identity processes, e.g. local
communities vs central governmental authorities (Bonaiuto et al., 2002; Stoll-Kleemann, 2001), or
from the perceived loss of user rights as a result of protected areas’ restrictions (James et al., 1999).
For the latter reason, land owners tend to oppose establishment of protected areas to a greater extent
than other stakeholders (Brescancin et al., 2017; Kamal & Grodzinska-Jurczak, 2014), particularly in
countries where social values are strongly linked to long histories of private ownership. At the same
time, local identity in some cases is also linked to reduced local resistance due to strong socio-cultural
links to nature (Carrus et al., 2005; Uzzell et al., 2002).
The mutual dependence of extensive land use and conservation management has become apparent
in the last 20-30 years. Small-scale extensive land use often survives in protected areas only, in the
form of conservation management, and is largely side-lined in regulatory frameworks. Regulations
introduced to protect such areas often apparently do not consider local world views, or the effects of
local practices. This results in the restriction of local people’s activities (Babai et al., 2016; Molnár et
al., 2016) and conflict between locals and the protected area’s authority (Kelemen et al., 2013). The
adoption of a more integrated, participatory approach to the governance and management of
protected areas is suggested as a potential remedy to local use conflicts, particularly in protected areas
established in cultural, small-scale, or indigenous landscapes. There is a need for “hybrid people” who
have knowledge of traditional practices and world views, as well as of mainstream nature conservation
ideas (Molnár et al., 2016). Additionally, the introduction of agro-environmental schemes in protected
areas can mitigate the loss of traditional management practices and so prevent biodiversity loss
accompanying land abandonment (Babai et al., 2015). One approach might be for landscape- and
culturally-specific agricultural regulatory frameworks and subsidy systems that include local and
traditional knowledge to produce tailored local solutions that respect the strong link between natural
and cultural capital (Molnár & Berkes, 2017) (Figure 4.36).
Marine protected areas appear to have been more successful than terrestrial ones in combining
conservation plans and management practices with visible economic benefits in terms of long-term
fishery management and diving-based tourism. Marine protected area design takes greater account of
geographical and cultural contexts in which users are situated (Fenberg et al., 2012; Gabrié et al., 2012;
Pastoors et al., 2000; Planes et al., 2006; Portman et al., 2012). However, while aiding local acceptance
of marine protected areas, a strong consideration of the needs of multiple users within the local
context has potentially led to the protection of areas of lower inherent conservation value (Coll et al.,
2012).

635
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.6 Armed conflicts

Armed conflicts have multiple negative impacts on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
Europe and Central Asia is unfortunately the arena for a number of recent and current armed conflicts
(Vasyliuk et al., 2017). Whilst few studies have been conducted in the region on the specific effects of
armed conflict on protected areas, the environmental effects are presumed to be identical to those in
non-protected areas and include the various forms of direct environmental damage associated with
the use of heavy weapons and military equipment, as well as a number of effects resulting from sudden
changes in land-use regimes (see Box 4.4). It is apparent that legal protection status is not well-
respected during times of armed conflict. Studies of conflicts outside of Europe and Central Asia
suggest that protected areas, which are often remote or difficult to access, serve as refuges for fighting
forces, and as such are key targets for opposing forces (D’Huart, 1996). In addition, armed conflicts
exacerbate poaching pressure and other illegal use, immediately eliminate tourism activities, and drain

636
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

financial and human resources from ecosystem management (Baumann et al., 2015; D’Huart, 1996;
de Merode et al., 2007; Dudley et al., 2002) (Figure 4.37).
Box 4.4: Consequences of armed conflicts for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people -
example from Ukraine.

Since 2014, armed conflict in the eastern region of Ukraine (Luhansk and Donetsk), in addition to a large number
of human casualties and the destruction of infrastructure, has led to extensive habitat loss in existing protected
areas, largely due to:
(1) Heavy military machinery driving or otherwise operating in protected areas.
(2) Explosions of munitions, resulting in the destruction of vegetation and accumulation of debris and chemicals
in soils - primarily sulphur and heavy metals, e.g. experts counted about 15,500 craters from explosions in the
regional landscape park "Donetsk ridge".
(3) Construction of military infrastructure, e.g. training grounds and trenches, within protected areas.
(4) Illegal logging for military purposes and fires. Pine forests of the steppe zone of Ukraine are extremely fire-
prone. About 3000 fires occurred in the military zone within protected areas during 2014. Roughly half of all
protected areas in the war zone are fire-damaged.
(5) Illegal logging by local people for domestic needs, associated with the destruction of regional heating systems
and gas supply; as well as for the construction of defensive infrastructure. This has resulted in intensified wind
erosion and dust storms.
(6) Use of protected areas for waste storage/ dumping.
In addition, much of the institutional framework underpinning protected area governance and management in
the annexed areas has been lost, and many employees have resigned. The war has also indirectly led to major
reductions in national budgets for protected areas, both within and outside of the conflict zone (Melen’-
Zabramna et al., 2015).
End of Box 4.4

637
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.4.2.7 Landscape and habitat restoration

Landscape and habitat restoration offers opportunities for nature conservation and protected area
development. For certain habitat types, restoration activities are prescribed to secure sufficient areas
for protection and for meeting Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. High rates of land conversion, including
loss of cultural landscape habitats dependent on traditional land use (Hartel & Plieninger, 2014) and
the expansion of modern forestry into remnants of natural forests in the northern part of Western
Europe (Naumov et al., 2017), implies the continued loss of high-quality areas suitable for protection.
Lack of suitable areas combined with demands for efficient use of limited resources for protection
leads to the consideration of sites/areas of lower natural values in terms of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. This includes, for example, expanding existing reserves with adjacent areas of
lower conservation value, but providing long-term benefits by succession or active conservation
(Mazziotta et al., 2016; Polasky et al., 2008) (Figure 4.38).

638
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The restoration of degraded land is a part of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (specifically
Aichi Biodiversity Target 15 – “ecosystems restored and resilience enhanced”) and is included in the
European Union’s biodiversity strategy; both calling for restoration of at least 15% of degraded
ecosystems. Degraded lands may offer multiple opportunities for restoration projects, including lower
land prices, fewer current users and greater support for active management interventions, lower
perceived risks, and greater institutional flexibility (Dawson et al., 2017).

4.5.4.2.8 Tourism
Tourism opportunities can provide a political incentive for protected area establishment, due to the
possibility of offsetting protection costs with sought-after rural socio-economic development

639
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Sevastiyanov et al., 2014; Svoronou & Holden, 2005; Zachrisson et al., 2006). An example is the
creation of new diving tourism opportunities associated with marine protected areas. However, the
introduction of new user restrictions for local residents, while at the same time opening up the area
for new users (tourists), may reinforce insider-outsider dynamics or otherwise engender local
resistance and conflicts (Colchester, 1997; Cortes-Vazquez, 2014). For example, a number of studies
note that urban populations tend to adopt a more dualistic perspective regarding human-nature
relations, supporting calls for more protected areas with less human intervention in their management
(Coleman & Aykroyd, 2009; Cortes-Vazquez, 2014; Linnell et al., 2015). Additionally, the transition from
a staple economy to jobs based on amenity values, outdoor recreation and tourism can also be
challenging for many local rural communities (Westlund & Kobayashi, 2013). Recent legislative
amendments in Russia (see above) have opened protected areas up for tourism, ostensibly as a means
to improve their economic situation (Boreyko et al., 2015; Chibilev, 2014; Shtilmark, 2014). The
engagement of strict nature reserves, for example, in commercial activities (primarily tourism) has led
to numerous attempts to violate the nature protection regimes in both federal and regional protected
areas, and UNESCO World Heritage sites, including illegal construction of tourism-related
infrastructure (Stepanytskyy & Kreyndlin, 2004) (Figure 4.39).

640
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.5 Trends and indirect drivers of changes in traditional land use

4.5.5.1 Trends in traditional land use
Traditional land use encompasses multiple non-intensive, locally adapted land-use practices based on
local and indigenous knowledge that have played a significant role in the development of diverse,
productive and sustainable food and material production systems (Molnár & Berkes, 2017; Parrotta &
Sunderland, 2015; Parrotta et al., 2016; Plieninger et al., 2006). In Europe and Central Asia, traditional
land-use practices, including forest management, agricultural activities, and agroforestry, have
influenced nature over millennia, leading to the development of diverse ecosystems and cultural
landscapes favouring a range of semi-natural and natural habitats and associated plant and animal
species (Aitpaeva et al., 2007; Fedorova, 1986; Kile, 1997; Laletin, 1999; Saastamoinen, 1999;
Saastamoinen et al., 2000; Taksami & Kosarev, 1986; Turnhout et al., 2012; Dmitriev, 1991) (Figure
4.40).

641
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Since the 1950s, agricultural practices across the region and traditional land use have undergone
substantial changes (EEA, 2015a; Van Zanten et al., 2014). There are two main trends in traditional
land-use systems in Europe and Central Asia: (1) substantial decrease in land area with traditional land
use and loss of traditional ecological knowledge; and (2) maintenance of traditional practices and
adaptation of traditional ecological knowledge to new ecological and socio-economic conditions.

Trend 1: Substantial decrease in land area with traditional land use and loss of traditional ecological
knowledge
The land area, where traditional practices are still applied has substantially decreased in many regions
of Europe and Central Asia (Rotherham, 2007) as a result of socio-economical changes and land-use
intensification However, many practices have survived on marginal lands, in protected areas, or as a
result of socio-cultural preferences (Juler, 2014; Lieskovský et al., 2014; Molnár et al., 2016). For
example, transhumant herding, once dominant practice in most mountainous areas in Western and
Central Europe, has undergone a sharp decline but has still survived some regions due to cultural
traditions (e.g. in Romania - Juler, 2014) or as a part of organic farming activities (Evans, 1940; Juler,
2014; Thompson et al., 2006). Other, more sedentary forms of herded grazing have for example
survived in the vast steppe areas of Hungary (Kis et al., 2016; Molnár, 2014). Traditional agro-
silvicultural systems, including wood-pastures and coppicing, have almost completely disappeared in
Western and Central Europe, as well as management of forest commons according to ancient
regulations (Kirby & Watkins, 2015; Rigueiro-Rodríguez et al., 2009). Traditionally managed wood-
pastures have partly been preserved in Romania (Hartel et al., 2015), but are also in decline. For
example, traditional multi-species fruit orchards with ancient varieties and a species-rich semi-natural
grazed herb layer are also in decline, but have begun to revive over the past two decades in Romania
(Antofie et al., 2016). Semi-natural grassland ecosystems in Western, Central and Eastern Europe have
been largely converted to agricultural fields, afforested or abandoned, depending on the region,
though agri-environmental schemes of the European Union may help some to survive. For example,
mountain meadows in the Carpathians (examples of the most species rich grasslands on Earth) are
mostly abandoned (Babai et al., 2015; Dengler et al., 2014; Ivaşcu et al., 2016) (Box 4.5). In Estonia,
traditionally managed semi-natural grassland habitats (wooded meadows, coastal grasslands,
floodplain meadows, dry and mesic grasslands) covered about 1.5 million hectares (35% of the
country) in 1950s (Kukk & Kull, 1997). Since then, some areas have been turned into cultivated land
but most overgrew with forest following the abandonment. By 2010, only 60’000 hectares of semi-
natural habitats (4% of their coverage in 1950s) remained, of which only 30’000 ha was under
appropriate management. However, the area under management has been increasing in past decades
with the help of targeted subsidies (Management Plan for Estonian Semi-natural habitats 2014-2020).
Trend 2: Maintenance of traditional practices and adaptation of traditional ecological knowledge to
new ecological and socioeconomic conditions
The essence of traditional practices and traditional ecological knowledge has been preserved or
adapted with new ecological and socioeconomic conditions in many marginal areas (e.g. mountains,
dry areas, taiga-tundra) across Europe and Central Asia. For example, in Eastern Europe, land-use
systems based on beliefs, customs, norms, bans, and rules of natural resource use are maintained by
numerous indigenous and local communities (Kile, 1997; Taksami & Kosarev, 1986; Turaev et al., 2005).
In a survey of more than 500 respondents from Central Siberia Vladyshevskiy et al. (2000) have shown
that in the last years of the twentieth century the use of wild mushrooms and Siberian pine nuts
increased from two- to threefold; the use of wild onion three- to fivefold; and berries one and a half
to two times. In forest depending communities, non-timber forest products are often the main source

642
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of food and income for village populations, representing as much as 30–40% of family income (Laletin
et al., 2002).
Box 4.5: Nature is becoming wild – local perceptions of loss of traditional land use and its drivers in
European cultural landscapes.

Traditional small-scale farmers developed fine-scale multifunctional cultural landscapes all over Europe
(Agnoletti, 2006). With global changes, cultural landscapes are often abandoned or transformed into urban or
more intensively managed agricultural areas. If abandoned, natural processes may accelerate, native shrubs and
trees and invasive alien species may spread. Local farmers often perceive these changes as a landscape-in-order
where “each corner had a role” is changing into a landscape-in-disorder. Independently whether succession is
going through more and more natural or degraded stages, locals perceive the process as “getting wild” meaning
the intensity of ecosystem service use decreases (Babai & Molnár, 2014; Molnár, 2014). Wild place is a specific
folk habitat: under this expression local people understand an area with no or little human utilization. Wild places
are e.g. narrow steep valleys where no livestock can graze and timber is difficult to get out, or marshes dominated
by tall tussock sedges, which are difficult to cross, impossible to cut for hay and where livestock can drown (Babai
& Molnár, 2014; Kis et al., 2016; Molnár, 2014). Abandoned pastures with accumulating litter and encroaching
shrubs also are areas that turn into wild. National parks manage their lands in many different ways to help
protected species and natural regeneration. If cultural landscapes in national parks are managed in a way where
agricultural use is abandoned, local people often argue: the park manages the landscape improperly by letting it
turn wild (Bérard et al., 2005). These differences in understandings of “proper” landscape management may
cause conflicts between authorities and locals (Babai et al., 2016; Kelemen et al., 2013).
End of Box 4.5

Pastoralists in mountainous regions of Central Asia practice so-called vertical and horizontal migrations
(transhumant) of livestock (Alimaev et al., 2008; Kanchaev et al., 2003). Livestock mobility, which is a
main feature of traditional pastoralist patterns, is key for the sustainability of pasture management
(Galvin et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2016). Traditional knowledge in Central Asia has been widely used
to control desertification and soil erosion in mountain areas. In Tajikistan, where the use of stepped

643
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

terraces has a 1,000-year history, planted forests are widely used for stabilization of hill slopes (Civil
Initiatives Support Fund, 2006). Methods for slope terracing and cultivation of fruit and nut gardens,
especially in the traditional system of land and water management known as boghara, has been known
to inhabitants of mountains since ancient times. Throughout the region, traditional techniques
including shelterbelts have been used to control windblown sands in the vicinity of settlements.
In the forest regions of the Caucasus, where pastures and haymaking resources are limited, local
people use a traditional “pasture turnover” system for regulated forest grazing. The creation of cultural
pastures in open areas within forests increases animal productivity while preventing damage to
sprouts and seedlings of valuable species (i.e., oak, ash, maple, beech) due to grazing in young,
naturally regenerating forest stands. Once regenerating trees attain heights sufficient to prevent their
damage by livestock, these forests are used on a temporary basis for grazing, while previously used
pastures are managed to encourage restoration of forest cover and growth of valued tree species
through natural regeneration (Eganov, 1967).
Sacred sites are common throughout Europe and Central Asia where indigenous and local communities
still thrive (Bocharnikov et al., 2012). Such sites may range in size from small groves or even individual
trees to extensive forested landscapes. Some areas are considered sacred because they provide major
habitats for species with ritual or medicinal values. The protection of such sites is important for the
health and spiritual well-being of local communities (Samakov & Berkes, 2016). Protection of forest
resources based on religious beliefs is characteristic for Central Asia, where the sacralization of nature
is expressed in cultural traditions and practices connected with particular species and sites (Aitpaeva
et al., 2007).

4.5.5.2 Drivers of trends in traditional land use

Multiple drivers have underpinned traditional land-use change across Europe and Central Asia. These
drivers are mainly context specific and differ across the region (Figure 4.41).

644
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.5.2.1 Institutional drivers of trends in traditional land use

In Central Europe, the European Union’s agricultural subsidies have a positive effect on grassland
management; many areas abandoned in the 1990s (after collapse/dis-integration of the Soviet Union)
are now grazed, mown and cleared of shrubs. In marginalized villages of Central Europe agri-
environmental payments are a vital source of income for farmer families. However, culturally and
ecologically less adapted regulations for traditional management have diverse side effects – hay
meadows are turned into sheep pastures (Csergo et al., 2013), or old trees are cut on wood-pastures
(Hartel & Plieninger, 2014). Revival of folk traditions among the youth in cities (e.g. folk singing, folk
dancing) may provide a background for the maintenance of traditional practices in rural areas. Back-
to-the-country movements are, however, hindered by ecologically and culturally inappropriate
regulations (Babai et al., 2015). Recognition of and respect for viable and useful traditional
management practices is vital, otherwise farmers may be reluctant to maintain or reintroduce them in
their everyday management (Sereke et al., 2016) (Figure 4.42).
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia traditional land use has been especially affected by radical changes
in the political system. In recent years, the indigenous peoples of Russia have been trying to restore

645
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

their traditional livelihoods through legal efforts. The Russian Constitution contains the concept of
“indigenous minorities”, whose rights are guaranteed by the Russian Federation in accordance with
the generally acknowledged principles and norms of international rights and international agreements.
The Russian legislation ensures a new status for indigenous peoples by providing enabling conditions
for traditional nature resource use within the so-called Territories of Traditional Nature Resource Use
for indigenous peoples. These territories are designated to ensure environmental protection and to
support indigenous livelihoods, religion, and culture. The legal norms for these territories are related
to the various natural resource uses, such as reindeer breeding, hunting, fishing, and non-timber forest
product collection, within different territories (Sulyandziga & Bocharnikov, 2006). However, there are
no norms ensuring the preservation and use of traditional knowledge, especially in the management
of traditional natural resources. During the preparation of the Strategy and Executive Plan for the
Conservation of Biodiversity within the Russian Federation the new goal was formulated to ensure the
maintenance of traditional lifestyles and the sustainable use of biodiversity by indigenous peoples,
including consideration of traditional knowledge in the planning and implementation of activities
related to use of biological resources (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian
Federation, 2014). In Central Asia, a shift from state command-and-control economy to market-based
economy led to the concentration of a large number of livestock in few hands, which left the majority
of households in possession of small numbers of animals (Robinson et al., 2016; Vanselow et al., 2012).
To make the use of migratory routes economically viable, the households with a small number of
animals revived the traditional models of pooling animals from many households and shepherding
them on a rotational basis or hiring a shepherd among themselves (Robinson et al., 2016). As livestock
numbers have started to recover following the hardship of early independence years, pasture
management issues are becoming more urgent. Having recognized the value of traditional migratory
grazing patterns and importance of livestock mobility in sustainable use of pastures, for example,
countries in Central Asia have designated pastures as common property, and management of common
pastures is exercised by a locally elected pasture users committee.

4.5.5.2.2 Economic drivers of trends in traditional land use

In Western Europe, the traditional practice of collecting non-timber forest products for wild food and
medicine has been declining due to emigration to urban areas to pursue economic opportunities, to
mass production of food and to modern synthetically produced medicines (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Quave
et al., 2012; Schulp et al., 2014). In some places, however, there are markets for wild plants and
mushrooms (Richards & Saastamoinen, 2010; Sitta & Floriani, 2008). For these products, a market
demand and viable industry exists, although affected by variation in harvests from year-to-year and
sensitive to labour costs. Some of these markets are also dominated by imports (e.g. the Italian market
of Boletus; Sitta & Floriani, 2008). Estimates of the value of non-timber forest products indicate that
these may be in the same order of magnitude as traditional timber products. For instance, if forest
management would take bilberry production into account in Finnish forests the economic gain during
the rotation period could, theoretically, more than double (Miina et al., 2016). It has also been shown
that urban citizens demand a market for non-timber forest products and there can be a considerable
demand for such products among urban consumers. This especially concerns food where quality and
environmental friendliness is seen as important attributes (Kilchling et al., 2009) (Figure 4.43).

646
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In the Russian Federation among the economic drivers that negatively affect the traditional land use
of indigenous people is reduction of areas of traditional indigenous settlements due to industrial
development. The Committee on the Affairs of the Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation in
the materials for the Parliamentary hearings on Legal provision of technological expertise (2007) stated
“From the 1930s the structure of nature resource use and the concept of development of the North
gave priority to industrial development instead of the traditional land use, which resulted in severe
pollution and degradation of the natural environment that led to the disruption and retirement of the
most valuable agriculture land. First of all, significant damage was done to reindeer pastures. One
factor that destabilizes the ecological situation in the area of traditional land use is stressful influence
of industrial facilities on deer pastures and hunting grounds, covering up to 40% of the area of
“traditional land use”. Due to industrial development and pollution by industrial emissions of the
traditional land-use area, the rural population lost not only pastures and hunting grounds, but also
traditional fishing areas and areas for gathering wild plants” (Ayzan et al., 2011).

647
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.5.2.3 Social drivers of trends in traditional land use

Often, people leave rural areas for higher education and higher salaries in cities. Even people living in
villages pursue an urban lifestyle. In Western Europe, the last few decades’ health industry
development and alarm about unhealthy additives in mass-produced food have resulted in a renewed
interest in wild food and medicine (Mabey, 2001; Reynolds Whyte et al., 2002). Wild food is considered
pure, naturally healthy and rich in vitamins and antioxidants (Łuczaj et al., 2013). Moreover, wild plants
and mushrooms play an important role as spices and accompaniments in traditional cuisines in the
region (Łuczaj et al., 2013; Sõukand et al., 2013; Stryamets et al., 2015; Svanberg, 2012). There is also
a growing interest in folk medicine in different parts of the region (DuBois & Lang, 2013; Ghirardini et
al., 2007; González-Tejero et al., 2008; Łuczaj et al., 2013; Vitalini et al., 2009), even where collecting
plants for medicinal purposes is no longer a widespread practice (Łuczaj et al., 2012; Molina et al.,
2009; Quave et al., 2012; Rigat et al., 2007).

648
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.5.6 Trends in urban development

Urban populations are foreseen to increase considerably across Europe and Central Asia (United
Nations, 2014), which may cause further urban sprawl, depending on urban planning policies. In
Europe, urban sprawl has increased considerably over the past decades. Between 2006 and 2012,
semi-natural and natural areas were converted into artificial surfaces at a rate of 107,000 ha/year in
39 European countries (EEA, 2016d). Urban land expansion has mostly taken previous arable areas
and, to a lesser extent, semi-natural habitats and forests (EEA, 2016d). In Central Asia, the rate of urban
sprawl was reduced following independence of its constituent States. This was because of economic
reasons, but also because migration from rural areas to urban areas increased the density of urban
populations rather than the expansion of urban areas (Osepashvili, 2006). Unusually, Kazakhstan
experienced a decline in urban populations coupled with increases in the rural population between
1990 and 2014 (United Nations, 2014). A further example of urban sprawl is growing migration to
coastal areas, especially in the Mediterranean in Western and Central Europe (Box 4.6).
Box 4.6: Urban sprawl on the Mediterranean coast.

Human pressures on the Mediterranean coast are further exacerbated by urbanization, resulting in the decline
of rural areas (Giacanelli et al., 2015; Kelly et al., 2015). The general result is a spatial dichotomy between strong,
heavily populated coastal areas and thinly populated inland areas, with lower urban density and a less dynamic
economy (Parcerisas et al., 2012). The Mediterranean coasts also host a large seasonal tourist population and,
even if the fortunes of Mediterranean destinations have fluctuated in recent years, the whole region remains
among the most popular destinations of the global tourist market (UNWTO, 2015). Tourism is the main source
of foreignincome in the Mediterranean region, representing as much as 25% of GDP in some countries (WTTC,
2015). Projected tourist arrivals in the Mediterranean basin for 2030 are estimated as 350 million (WWF, 2004).
The environmental impacts of tourism are far-ranging and include land-use changes, pollution and waste
production. Both resident and seasonal human populations are dependent on the availability of resources,
infrastructures and services. These economic and demographic shifts also brought radical changes in agricultural,
industrial and commercial sectors, all with their own share of environmental implications, ranging from soil
degradation (Guerra et al., 2015), land abandonment (Reino et al., 2010), habitat loss (Monteiro et al., 2011),
waste production and disposal (Tatsi & Zouboulis, 2002), land-use changes (Celio et al., 2014; Serra et al., 2008)
and pollution of water resources, both freshwater and marine (Zalidis et al., 2002). With the help of new
technologies enabling the harvest of higher yields, many initially traditional livelihood activities, like subsistence
fishing, turned into new, capital-driven economic sectors. Mediterranean fisheries are also the subject of political
controversies due to territorial disputes and degradation of marine habitats (Hofrichter, 2003).
The impacts of people moving to the coast are both direct and indirect, with direct impacts including emissions
of effluents and pollutants, and indirect impacts including locational factors, where urbanization and industrial
areas often serve as hubs for further urban sprawl (Salvati, 2013). Maritime transport also presents a key
environmental pressure, with several major commercial routes crossing the Mediterranean Sea. On average,
there are about 60 maritime accidents in the Mediterranean annually, of which about 15 involve fuel or chemical
spills (EEA, 1999).
Water is also becoming a scarce and valuable commodity in the Mediterranean region, either because of
decreasing quantities or inadequate quality. Today it is evident that damming cannot be considered a long-term
and large-scale solution to water shortage, while desalination with reverse osmosis technology requires vast
amounts of energy (Teixeira et al., 2014). The water conflict in the Middle East and North Africa already provided
ample examples of the volatile nature of negotiations over water resources, particularly across national
boundaries (Poff et al., 2003).
Climate change will also play a major role in the future evolution of the Mediterranean Basin. Potential impacts
related to climate change include drought, floods, sea level rise, changes in the marine currents, and increased
storm frequency. All of these changes will affect most coastal regions, with likely repercussions on national
economies, particularly where those are directly dependent on natural resources and tourism. The critical factor

649
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

for implementing future strategies in the Mediterranean region is cooperation, as environmental threats are not
constrained by national boundaries.
End of Box 4.6

4.6 Drivers and effects of pollution

By extracting resources and returning them to the environment as waste, humans alter the
biogeochemical cycles that have evolved for millennia. Pollution arises when humans introduce new
substances that are toxic to species, or when the rate at which humans generate and deposit waste is
faster than nature's own rate of re-absorbing and effectively neutralizing these resources.
Pollution is often categorized according to its effect in a certain medium i.e., air, water or soil/land. In
this chapter, we categorize pollution according to pollutant or problem/effect (Table 4.6) and focus on
five categories: nutrient pollution, organic pollution, acidification, xenochemical and heavy metal
pollution and “other pollution” (i.e. ground-level (tropospheric) ozone, light and plastic pollution).
Gene pollution, noise pollution, thermal pollution and radioactive pollution were also identified as
relevant, but generally to a lesser extent, and are therefore not included in this assessment.
Greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change and the introduction of invasive alien species can
also be considered as pollution (Spangenberg, 2007; Weale, 1992) and have therefore been included
in Table 4.6, which provides an overview of pollutants, problems/effects, and their drivers.
Table 4.6: Categorization of pollutants, problems/effects and main drivers. Source: Own
compilation.

Pollutants Problem/Effect Main drivers

Bio-accessible nitrogen and Eutrophication Agriculture, industrial air
phosphorus in terrestrial, (hypertrophication) pollution, wastewater
freshwater and marine
ecosystems
Organic pollutants Oxygen-depleted systems, Wastewater, land-use change
eutrophication, soil
erosion, brownification
Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen Acidification Electricity production,
oxides from high temperature agriculture, incineration and
energy release, ammonia industrial processes,
transportation
PBT, POPs, pesticides, PCBs, Xenochemical and heavy As above plus mining,
dioxins, furans, PAHs, heavy metal pollution chemical production
metals
Nitrogen oxides, volatile Ground-level ozone Electricity production,
organic compounds including industry, transportation
methane, carbon monoxide
Light pollution Disruption of species Material intensity of GDP, low
reproduction and survival variable cost of LED

650
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Plastic debris Life of marine organisms Polymer production

Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, Climate change Energy use and agriculture
methane, etc. (Section 4.7)
Invasive alien species (Section Biological invasion, Globalization
4.8) biodiversity loss

Pollution is influenced by natural resource extraction. In turn, it also influences some forms of resource
extraction. For example, local fishing communities on the Faroe Islands, Denmark, who are pressed by
international opinions to stop killing pilot whales, are more worried that the whales are too polluted
to consume and that the whales will become extinct due to pollution (Nieminen et al., 2004).

4.6.1 Nutrient pollution

Nutrient pollution arises when the concentrations of nutrients that are naturally found in low
concentrations, such as phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N), increase to excessive levels. This also causes
eutrophication in freshwater and marine ecosystems. In Europe and Central Asia phosphorus is often
the main problem (nutrient which constrains eutrophication) in freshwater while nitrogen is most
often the limiting nutrient in terrestrial and marine environments.

4.6.1.1 Effects of nutrient pollution on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

Increased nitrogen concentrations enhance productivity through fertilization and they decrease
biodiversity through eutrophication and acidification (Figure 4.44). The deposition of reactive nitrogen
(nitrogen oxides (NOX) and ammonia (NH3)) reduces biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems by favouring
plant species well adapted to nitrogenous or acidic conditions at the cost of less tolerant species
(Bobbink et al., 2010). Susceptibility to stress, such as frost damage or disease, may also be enhanced
(Dise et al., 2011). An annual deposition of 5–10 kg nitrogen per hectare has been estimated as a
general threshold for such adverse effects (Bobbink et al., 2010). The species richness of understory
vegetation of Western and Central European forests also decreased with increasing nitrogen
deposition rates and oligotrophic species were replaced by eutrophic ones (Dirnböck et al., 2014).

651
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Eutrophication of marine ecosystems is perhaps more worrying than freshwater eutrophication since,
although recent studies have shown a decrease in marine and coastal eutrophication, the number of
marine dead zones due to hypoxia (oxygen depletion due to organic pollutants) fuelled by
eutrophication has increased markedly (EEA, 2014a, 2014b) (Figure 4.45).

652
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Emissions of nitrogen have contrasting implications on nature’s contributions to people. There are
clear and well-established negative impacts of nitrogen, derived from anthropogenic reactive nitrogen
(NOX and NH3) on eutrophication, soil acidification, drinking water quality (Villanueva et al., 2014) and
human health (WHO, 2013). Besides, nitrous oxide (N2O, a potent greenhouse gas, produced in soils
with excess nitrogen, is increasingly emitted into the atmosphere, where it contributes to climate
warming and, in the stratosphere, to the decomposition of ozone (Ravishankara et al., 2009).
Increased nitrogen deposition, however, can positively influence other contributions of nature to
people like crop, timber and livestock production (Wang et al., 2015). Carbon sequestration is higher
in nitrogen-limited systems if nitrogen deposition increases (Erisman et al., 2014). In an evaluation of
these opposing effects on nature’s contributions to people, a reduction in nitrogen deposition was
estimated to have net benefits to society by reducing the need for greenhouse gas regulation measures
and by increasing non-material contributions, such as recreation. These benefits exceeded the total
cost of material contributions (Jones et al., 2014).
Phosphorous has long been regarded as the main driver of eutrophication in freshwater ecosystems.
Excessive levels of phosphorous and soil erosion (organic P) cause an overgrowth of plants and algae
that in turn increases the level of activity of decomposers and decreases the dissolved oxygen levels
(hypoxia). This affects biodiversity negatively, mainly invertebrates and higher plants (Lepori & Keck,
2012; Lyons et al., 2014; Noges et al., 2016). The internal loading of phosphorous from sediments in
lakes can keep them in a state of eutrophication even when external inputs are reduced, a process that
is further promoted by increased temperatures (Moss et al., 2011). Such legacy effects, i.e.
phosphorous accumulation in sediments, have recently been observed in the River Thames (UK) where
algal blooms still occur in most years, controlled by light and water temperature (Bowes et al., 2016).
A meta-analysis found that phosphorous limitation of primary production is as strong as nitrogen
limitation and is not confined to freshwater ecosystems and tropical forests as previously believed
(Elser et al., 2007). A study of more than 500 unfertilized grasslands in five countries in Western Europe
found a significant negative effect of soil phosphorous on plant species richness, mainly in acidic
grasslands (Ceulemans et al., 2014). Species richness decreased until a threshold value (104-130 mg
P/kg soil depending on grassland type), indicating that species loss is fastest at low phosphorous
concentrations (Figure 4.46).

653
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.1.2 Trends in nutrient pollution

Between 1980 and 2011, NOX and NH3 emissions in the European Union declined by 49% and 18%,
respectively (EEA, 2014b). 94 % of NH3 emissions come from agriculture (EEA, 2016a). However, while
NOX continues to decrease, NH3 emissions in Western Europe have stabilized with even slight increases
in recent years (EEA, 2016a) (see also Figure 4.49 under Acidification). For Western and Central Europe
(EEA-39), NOX emissions are projected to further decrease in future years while NH3 emissions will stay
approximately constant until 2020 (EEA, 2016a). Some uncertainty prevails, for example Turkey
reported a doubling of NH3 emissions between 2012 and 2013; the level was kept for 2014 (EEA,
2016a).
The average nitrogen deposition rate in the region is about 5 kg/ha/yr, in contrast to a background
rate of 0.5 kg/ha/yr or less (BIP, 2016).
The anthropogenic input of phosphorous increased from <0.3 Tg/yr before the industrial revolution to
16 Tg/yr currently (Peñuelas et al., 2012). Over 50% of the soils studied in Belgium, Netherlands and
Sweden had higher phosphorous levels than recommended (Ceulemans et al., 2014). In contrast, the
levels of total-phosphorous decreased markedly in rivers and lakes, mainly due to advances in
wastewater treatment (Figure 4.47).

654
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

There is little information on changes expected until 2050. However, phosphorous-limited terrestrial
ecosystems have lately increased in extent and will continue to do so due to climate change (Peñuelas
et al., 2012).

4.6.1.3 Drivers of nutrient pollution

In Western and Central Europe, nutrient pollution is driven by agricultural land-use change
(intensification by increasing manure, fertilization and soil erosion), wastewater (sewage and septic
systems), storm water, fossil fuel combustion in transportation and energy production (increasing
NOX), and households (gardens, detergents) (EEA, 2015c).
Regulations and technological innovation have been effective in reducing NOX and, except in recent
years, NH3. These decreases are mainly due to policies that enforced measures in transportation
(catalytic converters and fuel switching), plant improvement (e.g., flue-gas abatement techniques) in
the energy and production industries, and the Nitrate Directive in agriculture reducing the use of
fertilizer. The emissions of N2O decreased by 38% mainly due to the measures of the European Union
Nitrate Directive, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and the Land-fill Waste Directive (EEA, 2014c).
Vegetarianism is a cultural driver with a high potential: a 50% reduction in the consumption of animal
products would lead to at least a 10%-reduction in nitrogen pollution in the EU-27 (Van Grinsven et al.,
2015).
Climate change is expected to have adverse effects by increasing erosion and nutrient run-off in
agricultural areas, frequency of wastewater overflow, water temperature, and the duration of the
growing season (Dokulil & Teubner, 2010).

655
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.2 Organic pollution

Organic pollution refers to large emissions to water of organic compounds that can be oxidized by
naturally occurring micro-organisms. Organic pollution is most often point-source, i.e., released
directly into the water, although diffuse loss from catchments can also yield large amounts of organic
compounds. The most important sink of organic pollutants is decomposition by bacteria and fungi by
enzymatic catalysis. These decomposers grow rapidly and use a great deal of oxygen during their
growth. When they die, they are broken down by other decomposers, which causes further depletion
of the oxygen levels (hypoxia and eventually anoxia).

4.6.2.1 Effects of organic pollution on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

In freshwater, increased levels of easily degradable organic compounds reduce primary production
and degrade habitats for aquatic life (Couture et al., 2015). Easily degradable organic compounds have
a well-documented, strong negative impact on riverine biodiversity by depleting oxygen to critically
low levels for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (Connolly et al., 2004; Hering et al., 2006; Sand-
Jensen & Pedersen, 2005). Organic compounds also increase light attenuation in the water column
(“browning” if the source is humic compounds) and the epiphytic growth of biofilm (Burns & Ryder,
2001; Richardson et al., 1983).
Organic compounds strongly bind various toxins, thereby somewhat reducing their bioavailability
(Ravichandran, 2004). They also serve as transport vectors for heavy metals and organic pollutants
(Kopáček et al., 2003), which are toxic for aquatic life (Ravichandran, 2004; Teien et al., 2006).
The ecological status of Western and Central European rivers and lakes is strongly linked to pollution
by nitrogen, phosphorous and organic compounds (EEA, 2015c). Rivers with high concentrations of
nitrogen, phosphorous and organic compounds are more likely to be in a poorer ecological state. Lakes
with high nutrient loads will have high chlorophyll concentration and low water clarity due to abundant
phytoplankton growth. As a result, a large proportion of lakes and rivers in Western and Central Europe
do not reach a satisfying ecological status (Figure 4.48).

656
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.2.2 Trends in organic pollution

Emissions of easily degradable organic compounds is decreasing in Western and Central Europe thanks
to improved sewage treatment and better storage of animal manure in agriculture, for example, as a
result of effective regulations during the past 30 years (European Commission, 2012). However, several
monitoring programmes have detected significant increases in the concentration of dissolved organic
carbon since 1990 in Western Europe (Monteith et al., 2007). Water colour, an easily observable
consequence of organic matter in the water, has changed markedly in lakes and rivers across the boreal
zone in the past decades and this trend is likely to continue (De Wit et al., 2016). Currently, surface
waters in northern waters are browning as a result of reduced acid deposition (Garmo et al., 2014;
Monteith et al., 2007) and increased precipitation (De Wit et al., 2016).
Although the causal relationships are not straightforward, a combination of climate change induced
increases in run-off and temperature, and indirect changes in terrestrial vegetation (Meyer-Jacob et
al., 2015) are projected to increase organic matter loads in future (Hejzlar et al., 2003). These increases
will be strongest in the boreal zone of the region and in the Arctic, where thawing of permafrost is a
further source of organic matter (Abbott et al., 2014).

4.6.2.3 Drivers of organic pollution

Demographic and economic drivers have increased organic pollution from sewage, agriculture
(livestock manure), aquaculture (fishponds and farms), and certain types of industries (such as dairy,
or sugar refinery). Except for land-use change, the source of organic pollution is mainly point sources
and therefore regulations and technological innovations have managed to reduce emissions (EEA,
2012c). Sewage overflows in connection with high precipitation events, however, remains a problem
(Rauch & Harremoës, 1996).

657
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.3 Acidification
Acidifying substances such as sulphur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) undergo
chemical transformation into acids as they are dispersed in the atmosphere. Their subsequent
downwind deposition leads to acidification of the soil and surface water.

4.6.3.1 Effects of acidification on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

Historically, SO2 was the dominant pollutant causing acidification, but today NOX are increasingly
important. Effects of terrestrial acidification from nitrogen were briefly assessed in Section 4.6.1.1.
Anthropogenic acidification has profound, well-documented ecological impacts, including the loss of
many acid-sensitive species from all trophic levels (e.g. Hildrew & Ormerod, 1995; Likens & Bormann,
1974; Schindler, 1988). In catchments with an insufficient supply of base cations to buffer acidity,
runoff to freshwater ecosystems becomes strongly acidic and at a pH of 5.5, alkalinity falls to zero and
inorganic aluminium concentration rises to become toxic to many forms of life, including almost all fish
(Sutcliffe & Hildrew, 1989).
Despite reduced emissions there is still a legacy effect on biodiversity. Evidence for biological recovery
from anthropogenic acidification has therefore been much less obvious than changes in, for example,
water chemistry (Battarbee et al., 2014). Soil and surface water acidification remains an issue in the
most sensitive areas of Nordic countries, the United Kingdom and Central Europe (EEA, 2017). Kernan
et al. (2010) found that invertebrate assemblages showed signs of partial recovery at around half of
sites in the UK acid water monitoring network that had recovered in terms of water chemistry and
even less showed any evidence of recovery of salmonid populations (Malcolm et al., 2014; Murphy et
al., 2014).

4.6.3.2 Trends in acidification

In Western and Central Europe (EEA-33) emissions of SO2 decreased by 74% between 1990 and 2011
(EEA, 2016a). Figure 4.49 illustrates this trend, which is projected to continue (Figure 4.50). Within the
European Union, NOX emissions decreased by 49% between 1980 and 2011 (EEA, 2014b), or by 40%
between 2000 and 2010 (EEA, 2016a). Data is limited from other regions and contingent on economic
activity; as an example, NOX emissions in Montenegro dropped after 1990 but increased to the same
level in 2009 (EEA, 2015b).

658
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

659
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.3.3 Drivers of acidification

Anthopogenic NOX and SO2 are mainly caused by fossil fuel combustion. The basic drivers are economic,
which Montenegro and Serbia may illustrate: During the period of sanctions on the former Yugoslavia
(1990-1995), there was a significant drop in SO2 and NOX emissions, due to the overall reduction in
economic activities. After 1995, emissions increased steadily with GDP (EEA, 2015b). However,
institutional drivers are key to push for technological change which, in the case of acidification, has
been relatively simple. Regulations like the Sulphur Protocols (Section 4.6.1.1) have been effective in
reducing acidification.

4.6.4 Xenochemical and heavy metal pollution

Xenochemical pollution is the introduction or release of chemical substances into ecosystems where
they are not naturally found.

4.6.4.1 Effects of xenochemicals and heavy metals on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people
The polluting impact of many chemicals and heavy metals (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyl [PCB] and
lead) are well-known, and their use and emission strictly regulated in most parts of Europe and Central
Asia. There are, however, emerging threats to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, which
relate not only to recently introduced compounds but also to inappropriate use of listed toxic
compounds, unknown effects of toxic mixtures, unknown effects of chemicals that have not undergone
toxicological testing (e.g. hygiene products) and potentially aggravating effects of climate change
(Malaj et al., 2014).
Xenochemicals primarily influence ecosystems and biodiversity in close proximity to urban areas,
industry and agriculture although a number of studies have shown long range pollution of
xenochemicals in air, water and biota. Toxicity of most of the emerging pollutants is unknown, as is
knowledge on their persistence in the environment and ability to bioaccumulate. A large amount of
literature has documented toxic effects of xenochemicals on both terrestrial and aquatic biota
(Beketov et al., 2013; Pereira et al., 2009; Sabater et al., 2007). Impacts of toxic compounds on
freshwater macroinvertebrates have been shown for heavy metals and pesticides (Heckmann &
Friberg, 2005; Liess & Von Der Ohe, 2005; Rasmussen et al., 2008; Schäfer et al., 2007).
Studies have shown increases of Priority Hazardous Substances like mercury in the aquatic food web,
especially fish (Åkerblom et al., 2014), to levels that exceed advised limits for humans and can have
negative impacts on wildlife (Scheulhammer et al., 2007). Various synthetic compounds acting as
hormone distruptors (e.g. BPA and other bisphenols, phtalates, etc.) have direct negative effects on
nature’s contributions to people (EEA, 2012c).
Multiple chemicals interact in the environment, producing combined ecotoxic effects that exceed the
sum of individual impacts (Kortenkamp et al., 2009). As a result, a substance present in concentrations
below the threshold level may still contribute to combined and possibly synergistic effects. In
particular, robust evidence exists of combination effects for hormone disrupting chemicals (EEA,
2012c).

660
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.6.4.2 Trends in xenochemical and heavy metal pollution

In Western and Central Europe more than 100,000 commercially available chemical substances are
registered in the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances (EINECS). Global
sales from the chemical industry sector doubled between 2000 and 2009, with increases in all world
regions (OECD, 2012), which is a development that is predicted to continue. The total sales of
pesticides across the European Union increased from 2011 to 2014 by 4 % to just under 400,000 tonnes
of active substances, despite the adoption of The Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides in
2009. However, the aim of this Directive was not only to reduce the use of pesticides but to "promote
the use of less harmful pesticides and provide incentives to industry to develop pesticides with less
hazardous properties" (EEA, 2016c).

4.6.4.3 Drivers of xenochemical and heavy metal pollution

Xenochemical pollution is integrated in all sectors of industrialized countries, driven by market forces
in general and globalization in particular. Public awareness has modified institutional drivers, e.g. the
European Union “Reach” legislation. However, the globalized characteristics of xenochemicals
combined with uncertainty concerning the effects of new substances inhibit effective regulations
(OECD, 2011).

4.6.5 Other pollution

4.6.5.1 Ground-level ozone
Ground-level ozone may have significant effects on biodiversity (Wedlich et al., 2012). These effects
include changes in species composition of semi-natural vegetation communities (e.g. Ashmore, 2005),
reductions in forest net primary productivity (Matyssek et al., 2003), also in combination with nitrogen
(Bobbink et al., 2010). Ozone pollution has been linked to the prevalence of damage in mountain
forests: the acute effects of O3 involve visible injuries to leaves and shoots and changes in physiological
processes and metabolism.
The emission of O3 or ozone precursor gases has recently decreased considerably in Western and
Central Europe (EEA, 2015c). However, the ground-level concentrations of O3 have remained stable or
even increased due to long-range transport from outside Western and Central Europe (EEA, 2015c). As
a result, most types of vegetation and almost all crops (88% of Western and Central Europe’s
agricultural area, mainly its southern and eastern parts) are exposed to levels above the critical load,
especially near roads with heavy traffic. Drivers of nitrogen concentration and ozone formation
interact, which calls for integrated policy responses (e.g. see Table 6.1 in Chapter 6).

4.6.5.2 Light pollution

Light pollution is generated by the use of artificial light at night and affects terrestrial, aquatic and
marine ecosystems (Davies et al., 2014; Longcore & Rich, 2004). It is related to material affluence and
concerns 23% of global land surface and 88% in Western and Central Europe (Davies et al., 2014).
Temperate and Mediterranean ecosystems have experienced the greatest increase in exposure to
artificial lighting (Bennie et al., 2015b) and a significant increase in average nighttime lighting has been
reported in 32 % of Western and Central European terrestrial protected areas since 1995 (Gaston et
al., 2015). This rate is expected to increase in the coming decades because of the replacement of

661
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

existing lighting infrastructure by broad-spectrum white lighting technologies (such as LEDs), which is
expected to double the perceived night sky brightness.
Light pollution also dramatically influences movements and distributions of nocturnal species, which
represent 30% of mammals and 60 % of invertebrates worldwide (Hölker et al., 2010). Nocturnal
insects present a “flight-to-light behaviour” (Altermatt et al., 2009), which generates insect biomass
accumulation in illuminated patches and depletion in surrounding dark areas. Unnatural polarized light
sources, e.g. from building materials, can also trigger maladaptive behaviours in polarization-sensitive
taxa and alter ecological interactions (Horváth et al., 2009).
Light pollution induces major shifts in biological communities by disrupting the interspecific balance of
trophic and competition interactions (Bennie et al., 2015a; Davies et al., 2013; Knop et al., 2017; Rydell
et al., 1996). This can have profound impacts on ecosystem functions such as pest control, pollination,
and seed dispersal. For example, moths carry less pollen in light-polluted areas than in dark areas
(Macgregor et al., 2017), which in turn may impact the fitness of insect-pollinated plant species
(Macgregor et al., 2015). Additionally, light pollution induced large-scale phenology changes in UK
deciduous tree budburst (Ffrench-Constant et al., 2016). The large spatial scale impacts of light
pollution likely interact and accentuates the adverse impacts of both land use and climate changes on
biodiversity.

4.6.5.3 Marine and beach plastic debris

Polymers are part of our everyday life. Annual production rates continue to grow and have risen from
1.7 million tonnes in 1960 to 322 million tonnes in 2015, with a current mean annual increase of 4%
(Plastics Europe, 2016). Plastic debris and microplastics can affect a wide array of marine organisms,
from plankton (Collignon et al., 2012) to filter feeding marine organisms (Fossi et al., 2014; von Moos
et al., 2012) and large pelagic fish (Romeo et al., 2015). Size, shape and abundance of plastic debris
influence uptake; microfibres are considered most harmful (Wright et al., 2013). Plastics inhibit
digestion and can transfer attached chemical pollutants into the animal tissues (Browne et al., 2013).
As a result of increasing awareness, developing new polymeric materials today often includes
assessment of its durability and its degradation time when exhausted (Hottle et al., 2013).

4.6.6 Synthesizing drivers of pollution

The passage of matter through our economy and society, from resource extraction to waste, is the
premise for pollution. All factors affecting the size and the quality of the material throughput of our
societies (Boulding, 1966) are drivers of pollution. In the 1990s, particularly in Europe, the need for a
shift from end-of-the-pipe policies to prevention became evident. Several studies highlighted this
(Adriaanse et al., 1997; Matthews et al., 2000; Von Weizsäcker et al., 1997) so that material flow data
eventually entered the official statistics of the European Union.
For the above reasons, pollution is driven by the same drivers that are highlighted for natural resource
extraction, land-use change, and invasion of alien species, and climate change (which can be seen as a
form of pollution). This is also evident from Table 4.6 (introduction to Section 4.6) that summarizes
the main pollution problems and their drivers. As synthesized by Figure 4.51 below these drivers are
mainly economic, i.e. effects of industrialization and globalization and its subsequent increase in
transportation. Pollution also increases by population growth, institutional drivers that foster adverse
technological development, and the cultural belief that a prosperous life must entail more material
consumption (Jackson, 2009). Technological innovation usually increases production and

662
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

transportation but may also change the material intensity of GDP and production technology to reduce
waste and pollution. Recent institutional drivers have succeeded in developing technologies for
reducing some pollutants in Europe, especially point sources like air pollutants from industrial effluents
(including SO2, NOX, lead) and municipal waste water. However, the drivers of xenochemicals and
nutrient leakage (NH3) from agriculture have not successively been reversed.
Figure 4.51 depicts the main causal loops for pollution, emphasising industrial and agricultural
production and transportation. There are two feedback loops in Figure 4.51. First, the public
awareness of pollution influences regulations via political pressure. Second, awareness influences
cultural beliefs and consumption patterns, which may alter the material intensity of GDP.

663
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7 Drivers and effects of climate change

4.7.1 Effects of climate change on biodiversity

Climate change is a complex driver of ecosystem change, consisting of changes in precipitation and
temperature patterns which lead to changes in drought, flood, and fire risk, ocean-atmosphere
interchange, marine circulation and stratification, and the concentrations and distribution of O2 and
CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean (IPCC, 2014a). These impacts affect species and influence and
modulate important ecosystem functions and processes that underpin human livelihoods and nature’s
contributions to people, such as water regulation, food production, and carbon sequestration (CBD,
2016; Gallardo et al., 2015; IPBES, 2016a; IPCC, 2014a; MEA, 2005a).
There is strong evidence that climate change affects the biodiversity of Europe and Central Asia
through shifts in the timing of species’ life-history events, growth, reproduction and population
dynamics, and in their ranges and habitat occupancy. The evidence for impacts on the ecological
processes underlying range shifts, such as species interactions, is rapidly accumulating. Knowledge
gaps remain with respect to changes in physiological processes and evolutionary adaptations to new
climatic conditions (Bellard et al., 2012; Merilä & Hendry, 2014).
Climate change impacts are not as strong as we would expect given recent changes in climate. In
particular, many species-level responses lag behind the rate of change in climate drivers. These lags
are caused in part by dispersal and establishment constraints and by biotic interactions that stabilize
extant populations and communities, and in part by the fact that the rates and nature of climate are
regionally variable and may only slowly be exceeding the historical range of variability (see Figure 4.52;
see also Section 4.7.1.2). In Europe and Central Asia, northern areas are projected to experience fast
spatial displacement of climate. Therefore, dispersal-related responses may be particularly important,
mountainous regions will be subject to local divergences between temperature and precipitation
drivers, and novel climates are more likely to appear in the Mediterranean area (Ordonez et al., 2016).
Climates outside the current range of variability are a particular threat as populations are unlikely to
contain adapted individuals or genes. For a given rate of underlying climate change, novel conditions
may be experienced sooner in highly variable systems, though such systems will also occasionally
experience historically “normal” years further in the future (Figure 4.52).
Complex responses and interplay between direct and indirect effects of multiple climate change
drivers challenge our ability to project future trends in nature’s contribution to people. Additional
interactions with other anthropogenic drivers, such as reinforcement of ocean acidification and land-
use change (Cloern & Jassby, 2012; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2012; Riebesell & Gattuso, 2014) further
exacerbate the complexity. As gradual changes in mean climatic conditions can have dramatically
different consequences for biodiversity, including ecosystems, compared with changes in the
variability of short-term weather, the two are treated separately. Then, important secondary effects
of climate change on ecosystems are briefly assessed.

664
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.1.1 Effects of gradual climate change

4.7.1.1.1 Effects on phenology, growth and fitness
It is well documented that recent climate change has affected phenology, but there is considerable
variation across regions, biomes, and taxa (Cleland et al., 2012; Cook et al., 2012; Ma & Zhou, 2012;
Parmesan, 2006, 2007; Wolkovich et al., 2012). In Western Europe, standardized assessments have
confirmed phenological advancement in terrestrial, freshwater and marine plants and animals (Menzel
et al., 2006; Thackeray et al., 2010). Phenological changes are often linked to changes in the onset and
duration of the growing season, potentially affecting species and ecosystems. These effects can be
both direct, on the survival and population dynamics of individual species (e.g., “developmental traps”:
prolonged seasons that allow multiple generations of insects but leave the autumnal cohort vulnerable
- Van Dyck et al., 2015), and indirect from e.g., phenological mismatches between plants and
pollinators (Hegland & Totland, 2008); between predators and prey (Petitgas et al., 2010; Raab et al.,

665
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2013; Visser et al., 2006); and between multiple trophic levels (Edwards & Richardson, 2004; Luczak et
al., 2012; Möllmann & Diekmann, 2012).
In animals, there are indications of climate change impacts on growth and body size, for example in
otters (Yom-Tov et al., 2010; Yom-Tov et al., 2006b) and birds (Yom-Tov et al., 2006a; Yom-Tov, 2001).
The strength and direction of the linkage to climate change is not very clear, as effects are mostly
indirect through changes in net primary production and thus food availability (Yom-Tov & Geffen,
2011). Body size decreases consistently across freshwater taxa under warming (Daufresne et al., 2009).
In marine systems, high temperatures are particularly stressful for vulnerable life stages of coastal
zooplankton, especially larvae (Przeslawski et al., 2015). For plants, warming will increase growth and
size until reaching a point where other factors limit growth. For example, the largest warming
experiment in the region found that climate warming increased alpine plant growth, but only in the
first few years, possibly due to onset of nutrient or water limitation later on (Arft et al., 1999).
Climatic factors can also act as forces of selection, driving adaptive differentiation between and within
populations at fine spatial scales despite potentially high levels of gene flow (Anderson et al., 2012).
Plant populations may adapt in situ via selection on standing genetic variation in response to climate
change (Jump et al., 2009). Genetic differentiation in response to temperature or moisture gradients
has been observed in plants at both fine spatial scales (e.g. Kelly et al., 2003) and across landscapes
(e.g. Jump et al., 2006). Such patterns of genetic structuring are highly indicative of adaptive
differentiation in response to environmental selection, which has been confirmed by direct
experimental tests of genetic responses to climate change in plant species within intact ecosystems
(e.g. Jump et al., 2008; Ravenscroft et al., 2015). However, despite this potential for genetic responses,
a number of recent reviews of both terrestrial and marine systems find little direct evidence for
adaptive genetic responses to current climate change (Boutin & Lane, 2014; Donnelly et al., 2012;
Reusch, 2014; Teplitsky & Millien, 2014). In cases where genetic changes are documented, it is still
unclear whether these reflect adaptive responses, whether they are directly caused by climate change,
and whether they are sufficient to keep up with future climatic changes (Franks et al., 2014). Even in
species with the highest adaptive potential, widespread species with large populations and high
fecundity, adaptational lags are likely under future climatic changes (Aitken et al., 2008).

4.7.1.1.2 Effects on biodiversity and community dynamics

Shifts in species ranges in response to climate change are relatively well documented for Europe and
Central Asia. Latitudinal and altitudinal shifts in species distributions have been found for many taxa,
e.g. 80% of studied taxa in a global meta-analysis by Root et al. (2003); for marine systems see Perry
et al. (2005) and Beaugrand et al. (2014). Northwards migrations of warm-adapted species and
associated loss of cold-adapted species have been documented for the Barents Sea and North East
Atlantic (Beaugrand et al., 2002, 2009; Brander et al., 2003; Fossheim et al., 2015), resulting in
increased species richness of zooplankton (Beaugrand et al., 2010) and fish (Hiddink & ter Hofstede,
2008). Northward range shifts (12.5-19 km per decade) are also prevalent among terrestrial species,
including arthropods, birds and mammals (Hickling et al., 2006). Similar range shifts are found along
altitudinal gradients, but are not ubiquitous across a broad range of taxonomic groups (Benito et al.,
2011; Grytnes et al., 2014; Nogués-Bravo et al., 2008), while downslope or no shifts also occur (Lenoir
et al., 2010). While evidence for range shifts is mounting, the unequivocal attribution to climatic
warming is not always clear, as the magnitude of shifts cannot always be predicted from observed
climatic changes (Grytnes et al., 2014).

666
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Climate change does not affect species ranges and biodiversity equally in all regions or for all taxa (e.g.
Garrabou et al., 2009; Pairaud et al., 2014; Tunin-Ley et al., 2009). Negative impacts are likely strongest
where species’ latitudinal and altitudinal shifts are physically limited, for example in the case of
mountaintops, northernmost or southernmost areas. The ranges of birds inhabiting northern
Fennoscandia are strongly controlled by temperature, and will likely no longer overlap with terrestrial
land areas in the future (Virkkala et al., 2008). Strongly negative impacts can also be expected in
taxonomic groups with high species turnover along climate gradients and with small range sizes, as for
birds in Central Asia (La Sorte et al., 2014), and in biodiversity hotspots, as for the highly diverse reptile
fauna of the Central Asian Mountains (Ficetola et al., 2013). Despite individual responses, an overall
homogenization of biodiversity has been projected from model experiments for birds in Western and
Central Europe (Thuiller et al., 2014), indicating that taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional turnover
decrease between regions. Relatively low and slow responses in range dynamics may not imply that
climate change does not matter. Rather, it may reflect lagged responses, also known as climatic
extinction debts (Devictor et al., 2012; Dullinger et al., 2012), and homogenization of regional species
pools (Thuiller et al., 2014).
Species shift their ranges at individual rates and directions (see above), which will result in novel
assemblages (Alexander et al., 2015), and may change the intensity of species interactions, such as
increased interspecific competition (Olsen et al., 2016), dampened herbivore cycles (Cornulier et al.,
2013), and changes in predator-prey dynamics (Schmidt et al., 2012; Terraube et al., 2011; Winder &
Schindler, 2004). Such indirect impacts may be particularly important at the warmer-climate
distributional edge of species ranges, where the intensity of interactions may be higher, and could lead
to loss of specialized interactions (pollination, predator-prey, dispersal, consumer, trophic, etc.) to be
replaced by generalists (Lurgi et al., 2012).
Some of this context-dependency in species’ ability to withstand climatic change can be predicted by
species traits. For example, a global analysis indicates that thick leaves, high below-ground biomass,
and tall growth are key traits for montane grassland species’ ability to withstand climatic warming
(Willis et al., 2017). This is empirically confirmed for the Norwegian mountain flora (Guittar et al., 2016)
and plants in the Caucasus Mountains (Soudzilovskaia et al., 2013), where the losers under climate
change are plants lacking these traits.
A warmer climate will not only have negative impacts on species richness. As can be observed for many
taxa, the biodiversity of algae in the south-Tajik depression (Barinova et al., 2015), and zoobenthos in
the Onega Bay of the White Sea (Denisenko, 2010) both increase towards warmer regions. Functional
shifts have also been observed. In Georgia, a shift towards a higher species richness of ants is expected,
at the expense of a decreased species richness of spiders (Chaladze, 2012; Chaladze et al., 2014).
However, the predictive ability of climate change responses based on such spatial gradients will be
modified by nonlinearities (Nagorskaya & Keyser, 2005).

4.7.1.1.3 Effects on ecological processes and ecosystem functioning

It is well documented that climate change impacts vegetation and ecosystem functioning in Europe
and Central Asia, but strength and direction depend on region, unit of analysis, and on the nature of
the climatic changes. The relative importance of climate change and other concurrent drivers on
ecosystem functioning are hard to disentangle.
Under increased temperatures, soil respiration, microbial activity (Sowerby et al., 2005) and
decomposition of lignified materials (Zell et al., 2009) increase, but only if there is adequate moisture
(Poll et al., 2013). In the Mediterranean, temperatures are already close to the optimum for

667
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

photosynthesis, so warming mainly increases plant water loss, whereas in temperate areas a warming
of 1°C can increase biomass production by as much as 15% (Peñuelas et al., 2004). In the UK,
experimentally-increased temperatures led to a decrease in soil nitrogen leaching, probably due to
increased nitrogen uptake because of increased plant growth (Ineson et al., 1998a, 1998b). Warming
also has a negative effect on soil biota abundance at all trophic levels, especially in cold dry regions,
affecting their ecosystem functions (Blankinship et al., 2011; Briones et al., 2007).
Changing precipitation jointly impacts plants and biogeochemical cycles, a phenomenon well studied
in Western and Central Europe with >70 experimental sites manipulating precipitation. Global meta-
analyses reveal that plant biomass, productivity, respiration, ecosystem photosynthesis, and net
carbon uptake are generally stimulated by increased precipitation and supressed by decreased
precipitation (Vicca & Bahn, 2014; Wu et al., 2011). Ecosystems are generally more sensitive to
increased, than to reduced precipitation. Precipitation also affects decomposition, with coarse woody
debris decay rate peaking at around 1,250 mm annual precipitation in temperate Western Europe (Zell
et al., 2009). Microbial soil communities in the northern parts of Western Europe may be more
sensitive to changes in rainfall patterns than more moisture-limited soils in the southern parts of
Western European (Sowerby et al., 2005). Winter precipitation change also affect ecosystems, and
snow depth manipulation experiments find that decreasing snow depth may reduce soil CO2 efflux,
increase N2O efflux, and increase mobile nitrogen concentration (Blankinship & Hart, 2012).
Gradual warming favours harmful cyanobacterial blooms in freshwater systems, particularly in
combination with eutrophication (O’Neil et al., 2012). Warming will increase the spread of invasive fish
in freshwater ecosystems, as cold seasons currently limit the spread of many freshwater invasive
species (Rahel & Olden, 2008). Anadromous fish important for recreational fishing (salmonids) will shift
their ranges northwards and suffer negative effects of warming in dry areas due to reduced river flows
(Jonsson & Jonsson, 2009). Reduced precipitation will directly reduce water supply but considerable
uncertainties remain regarding the impact of changing temperature and precipitation regimes on
water quality. A review focussed on the UK found that there is insufficient evidence to link observed
decreases in water quality to climate change (Watts et al., 2015).
In oceans, recent temperature-driven changes in species ranges have strongly affected the
trophodynamics of North East Atlantic ecosystems (Goberville et al., 2014; Luczak et al., 2011) as well
as benthic-pelagic coupling (Albouy et al., 2013; Kirby et al., 2007). Increased vertical stability
(strengthening of water stratification) leads to decreasing nutrient replenishment, which leads to
changes in phytoplankton bloom phenology (Herrmann et al., 2014), biomass and community
structure (Bosc et al., 2004; Goffart et al., 2002; Tunin-Ley et al., 2009). Reduced nutrient availability
and phytoplankton biomass strengthens the microbial pathway in the plankton ecosystem (Bosc et al.,
2004; Goffart et al., 2002; Tunin-Ley et al., 2009). A reduction in primary production and reduced
upwelling intensity will also have negative impacts on fisheries (Chassot et al., 2010). In Mediterranean
systems, warming leads to a shift in plankton communities towards smaller species, and a decrease in
diatoms (Durrieu de Madron et al., 2011). Temperature increase will, however, increase the metabolic
activity of the surviving species, and modelling suggests that this could compensate for the species
loss, resulting in similar net primary production by 2100 (Lazzari et al., 2014).

4.7.1.2 Effects of extreme events on biodiversity

Climate change leads to more extreme and less predictable weather events (heat waves, droughts,
floods, heavy precipitation, windstorms) that impact biodiversity across ecosystems. Ecosystem
response to climate extremes depend upon the ecosystem itself, in particular on whether productivity

668
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

is precipitation-, radiation- or temperature-limited (Seddon et al., 2016). The spatial distribution of

Central European forest trees is partly explained by climatic extremes, in addition to average climate,
suggesting such extreme events have long-term distribution-wide impacts (Zimmermann et al., 2009).
Observations of extreme weather events are important sources of information on ecosystem
responses. For example, the unusually hot and dry summer of 2003 in Western and Central Europe
resulted in decreased primary productivity and increased net carbon flux to the atmosphere (Ciais et
al., 2005; Reichstein et al., 2007). Trees growing at high elevations in the Alps benefitted due to release
from snow cover while there was decreased growth of lower-elevation trees due to increased
evapotranspiration (Jolly et al., 2005). The decrease was greatest in grasslands and croplands
(Reichstein et al., 2007), while among forests beech and Mediterranean broadleaved forests were the
most susceptible (Granier et al., 2007). Species richness also decreased in several heathlands across
Western and Central Europe except for cool, damp heathlands in the UK (Peñuelas et al., 2007).
Similarly, other droughts have been shown to reduce carbon flux from roots to the soil compartment
in north-western Europe (Gorissen et al., 2004), to reduce the number of flowering shoots (Peñuelas
et al., 2004), and to cause forest dieback in the Arkangelsk region (Aakala & Kuuluvainen, 2011) and
southern Siberia (Kharuk et al., 2013), altering forest vulnerability to damaging agents and pathogens
(Jactel et al., 2012; Morley & Lewis, 2014). Across Central Asia, drought had affected grasslands,
shrublands and areas of sparse vegetation, and the desertification risk in the Kakheti Region, the most
drought-sensitive part of Georgia, is driven by increased drought frequency (Basialashvili et al., 2015).
Experimental evidence is now emerging to complement the observational evidence on extreme
events. However, published studies largely focus on Western and Central European grasslands, for
which there is a broad range of experimental evidence that growth and biomass accumulation recover
rapidly from drought (Geels et al., 2015).
The impact of an extreme event on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is highly
contingent on the timing of the event. In Arctic and alpine regions, short-term heat waves in winter
have the greatest negative impact on productivity in the following summer (Bokhorst et al., 2011;
Bokhorst et al., 2009). Ice forming on vegetation, when winter precipitation falls as rain instead of
snow, decreases the availability of vegetation to herbivores and in turn has negative consequences for
top predators (Hansen et al., 2013, 2014).
Freshwater systems are highly sensitive to temperature extremes, leading to habitat and species loss
under drought events (Matthews & Marsh-Matthews, 2003; Woodward et al., 2016). Heatwaves lead
to the proliferation of toxic algal blooms, reducing both biodiversity and the provisioning of drinking
water (Gallina et al., 2011; Jöhnk et al., 2008; Paerl & Paul, 2012). Floods, on the other hand, directly
impact fresh water provisioning by increasing water turbidity and eutrophication (Khan et al., 2015).
The protection from flooding and erosion provided by coastal and intertidal vegetation is reduced by
increased storm activity (Cardoso et al., 2008; Gedan et al., 2011; Kinsella & Crowe, 2015). Drought
has affected nutrient leaching into lakes, with knock-on effects on aquatic communities, with rotifers
and cladocerans dominating during dry periods and copepods dominating during wet periods (Krylov
et al., 2013). In coastal systems, benthic macroinvertebrates suffered high mortality in the middle of
the 2003 heat wave, exacerbated by nutrient stress (Garrabou et al., 2009).
Variability has always been part of natural systems. Climate extremes denote events that depart clearly
from the past range of variability of a given unit of analysis or region. Systems with low natural
variability are usually at risk of rapidly exceeding their natural range, while systems of high variability
may depart from this range frequently, but return to historical conditions for longer into the future
than systems with low variability (Figure 4.52). High latitude units of analysis are much less prone to
completely depart from the historical range of variability than more equatorial units, due to the higher

669
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

variability in the former and lower variability in the latter systems (Beaumont et al., 2011). On the
other hand, the absolute departure from the historical range of variability is higher in systems with
high variability, and strong extremes (strong departures) may build more rapidly in such highly variable
systems, with devastating effects from single events.

4.7.1.3 Secondary climate effects

While air temperature and precipitation changes may be seen as primary climate changes, other
warming effects are also important for biodiversity and ecosystem function. Here we consider
permafrost melting, atmospheric CO2, ocean acidification and stratification, and sea level rise.
Decreased precipitation and increased temperature also lead to an increased risk of fire (see Section
4.7.2).
As permafrost is the second largest terrestrial carbon pool (after soil), there is the potential for release
of large amounts of carbon and methane when it thaws, thereby intensifying global warming and its
earlier-mentioned effects on biodiversity; including ecosystems (Zhang et al., 2017). Thawing
permafrost has been shown to result in shrinking lakes due to drainage (Smith et al., 2005), rapidly
eroding river banks, the disappearance of wildlife including fish and migratory birds, altered migration
routes, and shifted distributions of birds, reindeer, and caribou, and has been suggested to increase
the danger of forest fires. Further, it may change plant species composition and productivity, as a result
of warmer temperatures and associated changes in soil hydrology (Schuur et al., 2007; Turetsky et al.,
2007).
An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, a major cause of climate change, directly impacts plant
functioning. The increase in total plant biomass under elevated CO2 is contingent on adequate other
resources such as water and nutrients (Zheng & Peng, 2001). A recent global analysis combining
remotely sensed leaf area index time-series with biogeochemical modelling revealed a significant
increase in leaf biomass of land vegetation (termed “greening”) in many regions of the world, and thus
a significantly altered biogeochemistry (Zhu et al., 2016). This was primarily driven by CO2 fertilization
effects, which accounted for 70% of the greening – the remainder by climate change, nitrogen
deposition and land-cover change. The greening also varied regionally. It was statistically significant in
many parts of Western and Central Europe, and prominent in Eastern Europe, but not observed in
Central Asia. Elevated CO2 can increase root activity, the abundance of microflora and microfauna, and
particularly detritivores (Blankinship et al., 2011). These effects result in changes in ecosystem
biogeochemistry and altered vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks.
Ocean acidification results from increased atmospheric CO2 and affects organism physiology (e.g.
calcification, dissolution), biology (e.g. reproduction, skeletogenesis) with potential consequences for
ecosystem structure and functioning (e.g. resistance to disease, unbalance of predator-prey
interaction) and global carbon cycle (Hofmann et al., 2010; Kroeker et al., 2010). In the Atlantic and
Arctic oceans, all calcifying plankton organisms exhibited simultaneously abrupt shifts in abundance
during the mid- to the late-1990s (Beaugrand et al., 2015). However, these large-scale ecological shifts
appeared more correlated to changes in northern hemisphere temperature than to ocean
acidification.
Changes in the UV-B radiation in oceans, caused by changes in the mixed-layer depth, impair
photosynthesis, growth and reproduction (Llabrés et al., 2013; Helbling et al., 2003). Increased
stratification is expected in the Mediterranean Sea during the 21st century (Somot et al., 2006), and
this may modify the exposure of organisms and organic compounds to solar radiation and favour
photochemical oxidation reactions. The extratropical North Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas may

670
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

be an important carbon sink (Sarmiento et al., 2004). The carbon sink may become less efficient in a
warmer world because of changes in phytoplanktonic types (floristic turnover) but also because
upward mixing of nutrients will diminish due to increased stratification of the oceans (Bopp et al.,
2005; Thomas et al., 2004). Deepening of the nutrient gradient would favour coccolithophorids against
the diatoms, which are the major sink agents of carbon (Cermeño et al., 2008). Indeed,
coccolithophorids have increased in the North Sea during recent decades (Beaugrand et al., 2013).
A sea-level rise of 1 m, a realistic maximum projected by 2100, will affect primarily the heavily
populated regions in Western Europe (mostly The Netherlands, but also Germany, Denmark and UK).
Such drastic shifts will have a strong effect on coastal ecosystems, on sessile and migrating animals
(birds - Iwamura et al., 2013), and on the structuring of the coastal biomes. A population of 21.7 million
is calculated to be at risk in the inundation area (Rowley et al., 2007).

4.7.2 Trends in climate change

4.7.2.1 Temperature change
There is strong agreement that temperature has increased in Europe and Central Asia over the last
sixty years (Figure 4.53), especially after 1980, both for summer and winter average temperatures. The
increase for 1950-2016 is significant for almost all of Europe and Central Asia, and was generally higher
in winter (specifically in the Arctic Ocean and in Eastern Europe) than in summer, but was higher in
summer in the south of Western Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 4.54).
The increase in temperatures was significant for all units across Europe and Central Asia, with positive
trends of 0.15-0.30°C per decade for summer, and 0.10-0.45°C per decade for winter (see Figure 4.55).
Increases in temperature were larger in winter than in summer for most units of analysis, except for
southern biomes (Mediterranean, subtropical forests, temperate grasslands and deserts in Western
Europe and Central Europe. All increases were significant except for winter temperatures of southern
units in Western Europe, Central Europe and Eastern Europe.

671
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

672
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

673
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

674
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Temperature is projected to increase across Europe and Central Asia in all RCP scenarios (Figure 4.56),
with 5 to 95% ranges of projected anomalies for 2041-2060 (relative to 1986-2005) for summer ranging
from 0.38 to 3.17°C for RCP 2.6 and from 1.28 to 3.72°C for RCP 8.5 (Figure 4.56), and for winter ranging
from 0.18 to 3.92°C for RCP 2.6 and from 2.01 to 5.35°C for RCP 8.5 (Figure 4.56). Increases in
temperatures are projected to continue throughout the 2016-2060 period for RCPs 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5,
while a plateau is projected for RCP 2.6 after 2040. Summer temperature increases are projected to
be higher for southern parts of Western Europe and Central Europe (see Figure 4.56, Figure 4.57) than
for other subregions. Winter temperature increases are projected to be largest for Central Asia and
Eastern Europe, especially at higher latitudes (Figure 4.56, Figure 4.57).
Temperatures are projected to increase for all units of analysis throughout subregions of Europe and
Central Asia (Figure 4.58), with increases in summer being projected similarly among all units according
to the CMIP5 ensemble ranging from 1 to 3°C depending on representative concentration pathway
scenario, and with increases in winter being projected to differ among biomes. Specifically, snow and
ice, and tundra and mountain grasslands have larger projected winter temperature increases (2.5 to
5°C) than the other units if analysis (1 to 3.5°C) in both Western and Eastern Europe.

675
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

676
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

677
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

678
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.2.2 Precipitation change

Precipitation has increased only insignificantly over the last sixty years across most of Europe and
Central Asia (see Figure 4.59) (Hartmann et al., 2013), with considerable subregional variation (Figure
4.59). Significant increases and decreases were only detected for some parts within subregions (Figure
4.60). Winter precipitation has decreased for southern Western Europe and Central Europe. In Eastern
Europe, summer precipitation has in- and decreased in some areas throughout the subregion, whereas
winter precipitation has decreased in eastern, but increased in the western parts of Eastern Europe. In
Central Asia summer precipitation has generally decreased but winter precipitation has increased.
Precipitation trends were generally insignificant for the different units across Europe and Central Asia
(Figure 4.61), and only a few significant changes were detected for tundra and mountain grasslands
(winter increase in Western Europe), and saline lakes, temperate grasslands and agroecosystems
(winter increase in Central Asia) (Figure 4.61).

679
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

680
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

681
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

682
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Precipitation is projected to increase in future across Europe and Central Asia according to all RCP
scenarios (see Figure 4.62), yet with important uncertainties. Increases are projected to be larger for
winter than for summer. Summer precipitation anomalies for 2041-2060 relative to 1986-2005 for RCP
2.6 range from −0.06 to 0.24mm/day and for RCP 8.5 range from −0.07 to 0.21mm/day (5 to 95%) (see
Figure 4.62). Projected winter precipitation anomalies for 2041-2060 relative to 1986-2005 for RCP 2.6
range from 0 to 0.21mm/day and for RCP 8.5 range from 0.05 to 0.23mm/day (5 to 95%) (see Figure
4.62).
At a subregional scale, most projected precipitation changes fall within one standard deviation of the
natural variability over much of Europe and Central Asia (see Figure 4.63). For summer, significant
increases in precipitation are projected for northern areas of Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and
decreases in southern parts of Western Europe (see Figure 4.63), in accordance with Kirtman et al.
(2013). For winter, increases in precipitation are projected over Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and in
northern parts of Western Europe (see Figure 4.63).
Changes in summer precipitation are projected for most units of analysis throughout Europe and
Central Asia except for deserts (Figure 4.64). Changes in winter precipitation are projected for almost
all units in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, whereas projected changes for Central
Europe are less clear with values projected within natural variability range depending on scenarios
(Figure 4.64). Specifically, in Western Europe, changes (increases and decreases, depending on units)
are projected for both summer and winter precipitation. In Central Europe, decreases are projected
for all units for summer precipitation, whereas projected changes are variable among units for winter.
In Eastern Europe, increases are projected for most units for both summer and winter precipitation,
except for summer precipitation in Mediterranean and subtropical forest units, which is projected to
decrease. In Central Asia, increases are projected for all biomes for winter precipitation only.
In summary, precipitation will very likely change throughout Europe and Central Asia, will likely
increase for most units of analysis in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and for northern units in Western
Europe, and likely decrease for southern units in Western Europe and Central Europe.

683
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

684
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

685
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

686
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.2.3 Sea-level change

The sea-level has risen ca. 150 mm in the past century. Recent trends in sea-level rise are uniform
across the globe. Eastern Europe and Central Asia are exceptional because of the Caspian Sea, where
sea-level change is decoupled from global sea-level rise and trends are uncertain. The Caspian Sea level
decreased throughout the first half of the previous century, and subsequently increased to almost re-
reach its historical level (Arpe & Leroy, 2007; Leroy et al, 2006 and references therein).
In the future sea-level is projected to continuously increase globally (Figure 4.65) due to various
reasons, including temperature induced swelling and melting land ice, to reach a total increase by 2100
of 0.3-1 m (IPCC, 2013b). Sea level changes in the Caspian Sea will most likely depend on the projected
precipitation regimes of its watershed (Arpe & Leroy, 2007), which are least certain but potentially
increase, while fluctuations may be extreme (Roshan et al., 2012).

While coastal habitats and estuaries experience strong effects from rise in sea-level, benthic habitats
are less concerned (only near-shore) and pelagic habitats are least affected. Within the region, a sea-
level rise of at least 1m would affect primarily the heavily populated regions in Western Europe (mostly
The Netherlands, but also Germany, Denmark and UK), where a rise of 1-5 m (Figure 4.66) would affect
up to 22 million inhabitants. A realistic sea level rise of just 1m would affect almost the same amount
of land, biomes and people as a 5m rise. Such drastic shifts will have a strong effect on coastal
ecosystems, on sessile and migrating animals (birds), and on the structuring of the coastal biomes.

687
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.2.4 Trends in glaciers and permafrost

4.7.2.4.1 Glacier melting
There is high general confidence that current glacier extents are out of balance due to increased recent
temperatures, indicating that glaciers will continue to shrink in the future even without further
temperature increase (Hagen et al., 1993; IPCC, 2013b). The average rate of ice loss from glaciers
around the world (including both Alpine and Arctic glaciers), excluding glaciers on the periphery of the
ice sheets, was very likely 226 [91 to 361] Gt yr−1 over the period 1971 to 2009, 275 [140 to 410] Gt
yr−1 over the period 1993 to 2009 and 301 [166 to 436] Gt yr−1 between 2005 and 2009 (IPCC, 2013b).
Most glaciers around the globe have been shrinking since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1300-1850),
with increasing rates of ice loss since the early 1980s.
There is, however, regional variation and also wide variation within regions related to precipitation
patterns, altitudinal range, area distribution and dynamic responses. For instance, in the Jotunheimen
region, the highest mountain massif in Norway, the general trend (based on Landsat TM/ETM+ data
from 2003) is glacier recession, while some glaciers in that region increased their size or remained
nearly unchanged over these decades (Andreassen et al., 2008). Another example is the Svartisen
region in Norway, where the overall glacier area changed from 1968 to 1999 was close to zero, but
where there was a stronger relative area loss towards the wetter coast (Paul & Andreassen, 2009).
Generally, the investigated glaciers in the Jotunheimen region shrank since the 1930s, with an overall
area reduction of about 23% for 38 glaciers. Since the 1960s the area reduction for 164 glaciers in that

688
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

region was 12% (c. 3.2% per decade) and since 1980 3% per decade. The 3.2% per decade reduction in
glacier area since 1965 and 3% since 1980 in Jotunheim is comparable to other parts of the region with
mountain and valley glaciers. In the Swiss Alps, the area change was −2.2% per decade for the period
1850-1973 and -6.4% per decade for the period 1973-1999 (Paul et al., 2004). In the Jostedalsbreen
region, Norway, there was an area loss of 2.3% per decade in the period 1966-2006 (Paul et al., 2011).
Inventory results from the Austrian Alps show a net reduction of glacier area of 17% between 1969
and 1998 (Lambrecht & Kuhn, 2007), or −6% per decade. In southern Spitsbergen, most glaciers -
whether tidewater or land-terminating, large or small, debris-covered or comparatively clean ice types
– have undergone retreat, both over the period 1936-1990 (832.5 km2) and 1990-2008 (243.1 km2). In
the latter period, the glacier area change was on average around −3% per decade (König et al., 2014).
Also in other parts of Svalbard, glacier area has been decreasing substantially during the past 50 years
(Hagen et al., 1993). In the Russian High Arctic, the archipelagos have lost ice at a rate of −9.1 ± 2.0 Gt
per year, which corresponds to a sea level contribution of 0.025 mm per year. Approximately 80% of
the ice loss came from Novaya Zemlya with the remaining 20% coming from Franz Josef Land and
Severnaya Zemlya (Moholdt et al., 2012). In the Tien Shan (in the border region of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and north-western China) the area reduction was 32% between 1955 and 1999 (Bolch,
2007), or − 9% per decade.

4.7.2.4.2 Permafrost thawing

There is agreement that near-surface permafrost extent at high northern latitudes will be reduced as
global mean surface temperature increases. By the end of the 21st century, the area of permafrost
near the surface (upper 3.5 m) is projected to decrease by between 37% (RCP2.6) and 81% (RCP8.5)
for the model average (IPCC, 2013b). Permafrost temperatures have increased, and the depth of
seasonally frozen ground has become reduced, in most regions since the early 1980s, although the
rate of increase has varied regionally. Also, the temperature increase for colder permafrost was
generally greater than for warmer permafrost. Significant permafrost degradation has occurred in the
Russian European north, where observed warming was up to 2 °C in the period 1971 - 2010 (Malkova,
2008; Oberman, 2008, 2012; Romanovsky et al., 2010). In the latter region, a considerable reduction
in permafrost thickness (up to 15 m) and areal extent (poleward shift up to 80 km for discontinuous
and up to 50 m for continuous permafrost extent) has been observed over the period 1975 to 2005
(IPCC, 2013b).
In northern Yakutia (Russia), permafrost temperatures have warmed by 0.5-1.5 °C between the early
1950s and 2009 (Romanovsky et al., 2010), and in the Trans-Baykal region (Russia) by 0.5-0.8 °C
between the late 1980s and 2009 (Romanovsky et al., 2010). In Tian Shan, permafrost temperature
has increased by 0.3-0.9 °C during 1974-2009 (Marchenko et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2010). In the Alps,
permafrost temperatures have increased by 0.0 – 0.4 °C in the period 1990-2010 (Christiansen et al.,
2012; Haeberli et al., 2010; Noetzli & Mühll, 2010), and in the Nordic countries by 0.0-1.0 °C during
1999-2009 (Christiansen et al., 2010; Isaksen et al., 2011). The thickness of the seasonally frozen
ground in some non-permafrost parts of the Eurasian continent likely decreased, in places by more
than 30 cm from 1930 to 2000.

4.7.2.5 Trends in extreme events

4.7.2.5.1 Drought and temperature extremes
In recent decades, drought and heat waves have increased in Western and Central Europe, while
showing a north-south gradient in both subregions (drier in the south, no change or moister in the

689
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

north, Alexander et al., 2006; Kiktev et al., 2003; Sheffield & Wood, 2008a). These recent trends for
Western, Central, and Eastern Europe are considered likely, while trends in Central Asia are as likely as
not (IPCC, 2012). Drought is often associated with extreme heat waves, which can stretch over large
regions, and which may result in punctuated drought events (Figure 4.67).

Projected trends in drought are considered very likely in Western and Central Europe since projections
are in high agreement (drier in the south, no change or moister in the north, Alexander et al., 2006;
Kiktev et al., 2003; Sheffield & Wood, 2008b), while for Eastern Europe and Central Asia the projected
trends are about as likely as not. Generally, the largest increase in the duration and intensity of drought
periods is projected for Mediterranean climate zones (Beniston et al., 2007; May, 2008), while for
northern parts of Western Europe only moderate or no increase in drought is expected (IPCC, 2012),
so this trend is as likely as not. Future trends for Eastern Europe vary between projections, but also
spatially, with potentially less drought in northern parts of Eastern Europe (Dai, 2011; Sillmann &
Roeckner, 2008). Seasonality in drought events is also expected to change throughout Europe and
Central Asia (Orlowsky & Seneviratne, 2012).

4.7.2.5.2 Floods
Recent trends in floods are very difficult to assess because of a lack of long time-series of gauge-
stations and because floods are rare. Therefore, flood assessments of the recent past are least certain
and without a directional trend throughout Europe and Central Asia (IPCC, 2012).
Projections of floods are to a large degree based on projections of heavy precipitation events which,
in turn, are based on physical reasoning, but changes in snow accumulation and the timing of snow-
melt potentially also contribute to flood-risk projections. However, the magnitude of this contribution
is uncertain (IPCC, 2012). Heavy precipitation is expected to increase in Western and Central Europe,
with highest certainty and magnitude in the north while Mediterranean Europe may not experience

690
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the associated increase in flood risk (Beniston et al., 2007; Frei et al., 2006; Kendon et al., 2008). While
the trend is consistent between summer and winter, the magnitude may vary between seasons, but
also spatially (Frei et al., 2006; Kendon et al., 2008). Coastal regions of Western Europe may be exposed
to north-shifted extra-tropical cyclones (IPCC, 2012) and thus be under increased flooding risk.
Increased frequency of heavy precipitation events is highly certain in Eastern Europe (IPCC, 2012) 35,
while for Central Asia projections are partly contradictory resulting overall in no projected increase of
heavy precipitation, but with least certainty (IPCC, 2012).

4.7.2.5.3 Fire
An observed global increase in fire frequency and burnt area is most likely driven by climate (Marlon
et al., 2008). Fires have generally increased in recent decades in the Mediterranean area (EEA, 2012a;
Pausas, 2004). Forest fires have also generally increased in Europe and Central Asia (Schelhaas et al.,
2003), with highest increases in the southern parts of Western, Central and Eastern Europe (EEA,
2012a), while the boreal forest in the north of the Europe and Central Asia region does not show
increased fire frequency (EEA, 2012a; Lehtonen et al., 2014). Trends in frequency of fires in Central
Asia are less certain, but fires have also generally increased (Goldammer et al., 2004). Risk and spread
of fire is often a direct consequence of multiple other direct drivers, notably of drought, heat, and tree
mortality due to insect disturbance (Bigler et al., 2005; Clark et al., 2016; Gouveia et al., 2016).
Fire danger is projected to increase, especially for the Mediterranean areas of Western and Central
Europe (Karali et al., 2014; Khabarov et al., 2014), and potentially for large parts of the Alpine Arc (EEA,
2012a) and boreal forests of Western Europe (EEA, 2012a; Lehtonen et al., 2014). Fire danger
projections for Eastern Europe and Central Asia are less certain, but increase in fire risk is potentially
low in the north and moderate in the south of Eastern Europe (Mokhov et al., 2006; Tchebakova et al.,
2009), and generally increased in Central Asia (Goldammer et al., 2004).

4.7.2.5.4 Windthrow
Trends in windthrow are difficult to assess because they are rare, thus confidence in emerging trends
is low. Studies consistently report an increase in storms or storminess from 1960 to 1990, yet no long-
term trend reaching further back in time is available (Allan et al., 2009; Bärring & von Storch, 2004;
Matulla et al., 2008; Schelhaas et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2009). The number of available studies and
the certainty of trend assessments are highest for Western Europe and lower for Central Europe,
Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.
Future projections of extreme winds are highly uncertain (IPCC, 2012). A north-south gradient with
more extreme winds in the north and less extreme winds in the south is projected for Western and
Central Europe (Beniston et al., 2007; Mcinnes et al., 2011), but the expected poleward shift of extra-
tropical storm tracks (IPCC, 2012) indicates increased extreme winds for Western Europe in general,
and therefore an increase is very likely for coastal habitats. Eastern Europe is projected to be under
increased wind throw risk across most of its range, while Central Asia will likely experience less extreme
winds (Beniston et al., 2007; Mcinnes et al., 2011).

35 See table 3-3 therein

691
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.2.5.5 Trends in marine circulation and deoxygenation

Among all marine waters in Europe and Central Asia, the Mediterranean Sea could be particularly
vulnerable to climate variations (Turley, 1999) and was identified as a hot spot for climate change
(Giorgi, 2006). It is indeed characterized by very short ventilation and water residence times (70 years)
compared to other oceanic zones (Durrieu de Madron et al., 2011). This specificity makes it a marine
area where climate variations may strongly and rapidly impact hydrodynamics and marine ecosystems.

4.7.2.5.6 Ocean warming

From the 1980s to the late 2000s, the surface temperature of the North Atlantic has warmed faster
than the overall northern hemisphere, as is depicted in the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation index
(www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/timeseries/AMO/). This is also seen in an enhanced warming of the
upper ocean integrated to 700m, with particularly large changes in the eastern Atlantic inter-gyre
region, as well as on the outskirts of the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre (but not in the Nordic Seas).
Hydrological observations showed that the temperature and salinity of the western Mediterranean
deep-water masses have increased by 0.0034C/year and 0.0011psu/year between 1959 and 1997
(Bethoux et al., 1998). Numerical studies confirmed that the increase of net atmospheric heat flux to
the sea surface associated to climate change could induce a warming and a salinization of
Mediterranean water masses, in particular at the surface, as well as an intensification of the water
column stratification and a weakening of the thermohaline circulation and winter deep convection
(Adloff et al., 2015; Bozec, 2006; Herrmann et al., 2008; Somot et al., 2006; Thorpe & Bigg, 2000).

4.7.2.5.7 Water masses and horizontal circulation

Climate change has also been identified as cause of weakening and shrinking the North Atlantic sub-
polar gyre and a shift of the sub-polar front (Hatun, 2005). This westward shift of the sub-polar front
implies that the waters in the eastern North Atlantic part of the inter-gyre gyre seem to originate in
recent decades from further south (and get warmer and saltier) than in the 1950-60s. This represents
a shift to more subtropical origin and implies an increased northward flow along Western Europe
(Lozier & Stewart, 2008).
In addition, there is clear evidence from upper temperature and salinity measures of a near decadal
variability in the North Atlantic sub-polar gyre, propagating in a few years all the way through the
Nordic Seas towards the Barents Sea (Yashayaev & Seidov, 2015). Atmospheric forcing or input of cold
and fresh water from the Arctic could contribute to these signals that have been observed since regular
observations began at least 60 years ago. The origin of this ocean variability is debated, and could be
in part natural but also anthropogenically enhanced (for example more North Atlantic oscillation-
related atmospheric variability, or variable fresh water exports from the Arctic Ocean). It is also
possible that some of these changes in the warming and vertical structure will reverse, as the Atlantic
multidecadal oscillations (AMO) shifts to another phase, as has been witnessed twice in the past 120
years.

4.7.2.5.8 Vertical circulation and mixing

There is debate as to whether the meridional circulation component of the ocean circulation (Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation) has or has not become stronger during the last century. There is
accumulating evidence that a slow-down of this circulation is outruled by its large interannual to
decadal variability, for example induced by wind variability (Rahmstorf et al., 2015). This seems logical,

692
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

based on the expectation that Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation intensity is influenced by
changes in surface water density. Thus, an observed reduction in surface density could result in a
decrease in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. A decrease in surface density seems to have
happened in those areas since 1996 until the early 2010s, as the change due to surface warming was
not fully compensated by the change due to salinity increase. This is, however, difficult to accurately
estimate from observations over the relevant time scales.
It is likely that some of these observations and regional patterns of variability might be dependent on
natural multi-decennial variability such as the North Atlantic oscillation, but there are fewer
observations to support this. However, these long time-scale trends can be interrupted as the result
of intense vertical mixing in individual years, such as in 2005 in the Bay of Biscay (Somavilla et al.,
2016). Clearly, there is also a very large year-to-year variability as the result of surface forcing in the
eastern Atlantic north of 35-40°N.

4.7.2.5.9 Ocean acidification

The uptake of increased anthropogenic CO2 is causing profound changes in seawater chemistry
resulting from increased hydrogen ion concentration (decrease in pH) referred to as ocean acidification
(IPCC, 2013b). Repeated hydrographic sections provide an understanding of these changes in the
basin-wide seawater CO2 chemistry over multi-decadal timescales. The formation of “North Atlantic
deep water” makes the Atlantic unique with regards to the depths to which anthropogenic CO2 can
penetrate over these time scales, reaching the bottom at about 3,000 m in the far north of the North
Atlantic (Wanninkhof et al., 2010). Here, the ocean acidification signal adds to that of temperature. As
a consequence, the lysocline, i.e. the depth in the ocean below which the rate of dissolution of calcite
increases dramatically, could be shallower in polar regions while the decreased rate of pH is expected
to be similar to the other latitudes.
A recent estimate suggests that all water masses in the Mediterranean Sea are also already acidified (-
0.14 to -0.05 pH units; Touratier & Goyet, 2011). Considering the highest values of this range, the
Mediterranean Sea appears to be one of the most acidified marine basins in the world. Yet, as far as
we know, no estimates of future acidification rates in the Mediterranean Sea have been carried out.

4.7.2.6 Trends in atmospheric CO2 concentration

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is rising with the well-known seasonal pattern, and this trend is
accelerating steadily (IPCC, 2013b). While from 1965-1974 the atmospheric CO2 concentration
increased by 1.06 ppm/yr, this increase has reached 2.11 ppm/yr for the decade 2005-2014, and in
2013 the level of 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 concentration was reached (IPCC, 2013b) for the first
time sinceabout 23 million years ago (Pearson & Palmer, 2000). This steady increase in atmospheric
CO2 affects the ocean surface partial CO2 pressure, and the increase of this partial pressure reduces the
ocean pH, leading to steady acidification (Figure 4.68), and the trend is expected to continue over the
21st century (Figure 4.68).

693
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The steady increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations originates from spatially variable emission
patterns, and these emissions are projected to depend on socio-economic determinants reflecting
human decisions (indirect drivers) regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Figure 4.69 illustrates the CH4
(methane) emission patterns for 2100 according to the four representative concentration pathway
(RCP) scenarios that represent different levels of radiative forcing.

694
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.7.3 Indirect drivers influencing climate change

Drivers of climate change are the same regardless of whether we are ultimatelyminterested in effects
on biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, or other effects. Drivers of emissions from land-use
change have been discussed in Section 4.5. Drivers of greenhouse gas emissions have been assessed
in the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Blanco et al., 2014)
and will not be repeated here. However, in contrast to the global level, both primary energy and CO2
emissions in Europe and Central Asia have been reduced since 1990 (Figure 4.70).

695
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

To analyse the reasons for this decreasing mission, we use the “Kaya identity” (Kaya, 1990) for
territorial CO2 emissions:
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
CO2 emissions = 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 × × 2
× 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺

The two last parts of the Kaya identity, energy intensity of GDP and CO2 content of energy production,
have declined since 1990 in all developed and large developing countries mainly due to technology,
changes in economic structure, the mix of energy sources, and changes in the participation of inputs
such as capital and labour used (Blanco et al., 2014).
Figure 4.71 shows the relative contribution of each term of the Kaya identity to the annual change in
CO2 emissions in Europe and Central Asia. By comparing the size of the different bars one notices that
the growth of GDP per capita (second term of the Kaya identity) is the main driver of CO2 emission
increase, which is well-established (Blanco et al., 2014) and that its effect has for most years only been
partially offset by improvements in the energy intensity of GDP (third term) and the CO2 emissions
intensity of energy production (fourth term).

696
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The time series in Figure 4.71 shows two structural breaks, the first after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union and the second following the great recession. These years with negative GDP growth (1991-
1993 and 2009) were also the years with highest reduction in CO2 emissions.
As reported in Table 4.7, between 1995 and 2008 energy and emissions increased at a lower rate than
before 1990, while average GDP continued increasing at more or less the same rate (relative
decoupling). In the last four years of available data (2011-2014), there is evidence of small increases in
GDP growth, but decreasing paths in both energy and CO2 emissions (absolute decoupling).
Table 4.7: Rates of change of population, GDP, CO2 emissions, and energy in Europe and Central Asia.
Source: Own elaboration based on OECD (2016). PPP denotes purchasing power parity.

Rates of growth of 1971-1990 1995-2008 2011-14

Population 0.7% 0.2% 0.4%
GDP, PPP (constant 2010 international US $) 3.0% 2.9% 1.4%
CO2 emissions 1.6% 0.1% -2.0%
Total primary energy supply 2.2% 0.7% -1.2%

Two caveats are to be considered. First, the data refer to the aggregation of all countries in Europe and
Central Asia. Within this region different patterns are observable and, as noted by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increase of emissions for an additional person varies
widely, depending on geographical location, income, lifestyle, and the available energy resources and
technologies (Blanco et al., 2014). Second, there is no clear evidence whether (and to what extent) the
relative decoupling of CO2 emissions from GDP growth, indicated by much slower growth of CO2 partial
to GDP as observed from 1995, and the absolute decoupling, indicated by a CO2 decrease at growing
GDP from 2011 are the outcome of interregional flows, e.g. de-industrialization in the region caused

697
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

by economic growth of countries in other regions. According to some researchers, the relevant
decoupling is between prosperity and CO2 emissions, not GDP growth and CO2 emissions (Jackson,
2009; Raworth, 2017; van den Bergh, 2010).
The drivers of climate change are not limited to the energy and transportation sectors or the Kaya
identity. In Section 4.5.1 we assessed intensive agriculture as a carbon source and sequestration by
forests as carbon sink. A more comprehensive illustration of major drivers of climate change and their
interactions, and impacts on biodiversity, is presented in Figure 4.72.

698
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.8 Drivers and effects of invasive alien species

4.8.1 Effects of invasive alien species on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to

people
Invasive alien species are among the important direct drivers of loss of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people across Europe and Central Asia, especially in combination with other direct
drivers (Section 4.9.1) (Anastasopoulou et al., 2007; Clavero et al., 2009; Katsanevakis et al., 2014;
MEA, 2005b; Nelson et al., 2005; Sala, 2000). Invasive alien species generally tend to have negative
effects on biodiversity (Figure 4.73). However, their magnitude and direction vary both within and
between types of impact, across taxa and environments (Bradshaw et al., 2016; IPBES, 2016a; Potts et
al., 2016; Vilà & Ibáñez, 2011). Negative effects can include displacement and extinction of native
species, gene pollution, homogenization of communities, modification of biological interactions,
communities, habitats and ecosystem functions, with consequences for human health; and agricultural
and economic production (IPBES, 2016a; Katsanevakis et al., 2014; Vilà et al., 2010). Some alien
species, and even some invasive alien species, have positive impacts, which include provision of
habitat; increasing local species richness and associated ecosystem services, with subsequent
economic gains; ecosystem engineering; and aesthetic and cultural value (Goodenough, 2010; IPBES,
2016a; Schlaepfer et al., 2011). Data limitations across the region, particularly in Central Asia
(Dinasilov, 2013; Khlyap & Warshavsky, 2010; Mamilov et al, 2010; Reshetnikov, 2010) and for
pathogens (Roy et al., 2017), impede assessment of trends associated with invasive alien species.
Priority should be given to improving the evidence-base for impacts of invasive alien species and
thereby capacity to inform future assessments (Gurevitch & Padilla, 2004; Jeschke et al., 2014).
Invasive alien species have considerable economic impacts on forestry (Roy et al., 2014b) and
agriculture (Paini et al., 2016). Invasive alien insects alone have been estimated to cost US$2-3.6 billion
per year in Western and Central Europe, mostly due to impacts on forestry and agriculture, while
invasive alien species can have significant impacts on human health, for example via disease
transmission and allergens (Bradshaw et al., 2016; Schindler et al., 2015). However, such impacts are
considered to be grossly underestimated because of the limited number of studies available within
and across Europe and Central Asia (Bradshaw et al., 2016; Schindler et al., 2015).
Most invasive alien species present in marine habitats in Europe and Central Asia have been reported
to affect more than one species (Figure 4.73) (Katsanevakis et al., 2014). Invasive alien species within
freshwater environments can cause alterations to the physical, chemical and ecological state eliciting
cascading effects that modify biodiversity (Martel et al., 2014), and ecosystem structure and function
(Kernan, 2015). Freshwater ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to invasions and the impacts of
invasive alien species and so the magnitude of the impact and the consequential ecological
transformations are often more severe than in terrestrial ecosystems (R. Francis, 2012; Ricciardi,
2015).

699
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

700
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.8.2 Trends in invasive alien species

4.8.2.1 Recent trends
Rates of invasions in Europe and Central Asia have increased markedly since the beginning of the 20th
century and the scale and impacts are still increasing, despite increased legal and social responses in
recent years (Rabitsch et al., 2016). The number of alien species has increased by 76% between 1970
and 2007 (Butchart et al., 2010). This trend is similar across all environments, taxonomic groups
(except mammals), and all subregions of Europe (Figure 4.74) (Butchart et al., 2010; DAISIE, 2009;
Seebens et al., 2017). Even in remote Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Europe the number of introduced
alien species is substantial (Lembrechts et al., 2014; Ware et al., 2012). In Europe and Central Asia, the
highest numbers of reported introductions for most species groups have occurred in Western Europe,
but this is expected to increase in Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Data for Central Asia is less
comprehensive than for the other subregions; but it is likely that the Central Asia trends are similar to
other subregions based on comparable economic developments that are a major driver for invasions
(Chytrý et al., 2012; Seebens et al., 2015; Vicente et al., 2010).
The number of eradication attempts, and of successful eradications, have been increasing rapidly since
the 1990s, but have been mostly confined to Western Europe (DIISE (2015); DAISIE: Database of Island
Invasive Species Eradications http://diise.islandconservation.org/, 2017). Eradication of invasive alien
species tends to be more successful in offshore island habitats and anthropogenic habitats than in
(semi-) natural habitats (DIISE, 2015; Pluess et al., 2012).

701
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.8.2.2 Projected future trends

The overall rate of introduction of alien species shows on average no sign of slowing (Chytrý et al.,
2012; Seebens et al., 2015) and will most likely remain high or even accelerate due to increasing trade
and changing climate (Bellard et al., 2012; Seebens et al., 2017). This high rate is very likely to continue
in the short-term, but long-term trends are less clear because they depend on the success of
management and policy interventions. Management of invasive alien species is receiving increasing

702
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

attention but little remains understood about which factors affect the likelihood of successful
management (Pluess et al., 2012).
Overall, the invasion threat during the 21st century is expected to be medium to very high in most of
the parts of Europe and Central Asia (Early et al., 2016) (Figure 4.75 A). The exceptions are northern
areas of the region, where the threat of invasive alien species is still considered low, although rapidly
increasing due to increasing tourism, more human disturbances, and climate warming (Lembrechts et
al., 2014, 2016; Pauchard et al., 2016; Ware et al., 2012) (Figure 4.75 B). The future outcomes of
invasions will depend on adoption of effective management and policy measures (Section 4.8.3). For
example, plant invasion levels in Western and Central European regions are expected to remain high
under “business-as-usual” scenario over the next 60 years (Chytrý et al., 2012). In Eastern and Central
European subregions, unprecedented increases in invasive alien species are expected during the 21st
century, mostly due to increased transport and indirect effects of socio-economic drivers on other
direct drivers (Early et al., 2016). Increasing human population density and increasing national wealth
(GDP) are associated with increased risk of alien species introduction and establishment (Chytrý et al.,
2008). Lower capacity to apply preventive or mitigation measures, for example in certain Eastern and
Central European countries, means that the threats posed by invasive alien species will be greater
(Early et al., 2016).
The risk of further invasive alien species establishment is exacerbated because of projected growth in
direct (e.g. land-use and climate changes, pollution) and indirect (e.g. trade) drivers facilitating
invasions (Bellard et al., 2013; Chytrý et al., 2008, 2012; Early et al., 2016; IPCC, 2014a; Seebens et al.,
2015; Vicente et al., 2010) (see Figure 4.75 C). Some species could increase in abundance in many
areas under changing climate conditions, such as grey squirrels that are replacing native red squirrels
(Bertolino et al, 2014). Other examples include the caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa that is
threatening Scots pine in locations that were previously too cold (Bernardinelli et al., 2006); the
overlap between native crayfish and invasive crayfish plague-transmitting species is also projected to
increase in Europe (Capinha et al., 2013). Especially in northern regions, climate warming is expected
to affect the number and impact of alien species (Pauchard et al., 2016).
The European Union has recently adopted European Union Regulation 1143/2014 (Section 4.8.3) on
invasive alien species. The efficacy of such legislation depends on the commitment of member
countries to allocate sufficient resources and ensure adequate enforcement. Furthermore, the
ultimate success of regulatory approaches depends on raising public awareness of the threat of
invasive alien species leading to changes in lifestyle and consumption preferences (Genovesi et al.,
2015). In many countries in the region, awareness, expert knowledge, legislation and allocation for
managing threats from invasive alien species is increasing (Early et al., 2016; Turbelin, 2017) but the
efficacy of these measures is yet to be assessed. Overall, the analysed literature suggests that neither
Target 5 of the European Union Biodiversity Action Plan nor Aichi Biodiversity Target 9 (“protected
areas increased and improved”) of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, will be met for Europe
and Central Asia.

703
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.8.3 Indirect drivers influencing invasive alien species

The invasion process (i.e. transportation, introduction, establishment and spread) is strongly
influenced by economic factors including trade and tourism (see Figure 4.76) (Essl et al., 2011; Pyšek
et al., 2010; Seebens et al., 2017; Turbelin et al., 2017). Economic activities, either intentional or non-
intentional, are the foremost influence on introduction pathways of alien species (see Figure 4.77).
Most economic drivers have increased in Europe and Central Asia, and they can be associated with an
increase in numbers of invasive alien species (Katsanevakis et al., 2013; Turbelin et al., 2017; Zieritz et

704
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

al., 2017). Economic development, especially in emerging economies, will drive future invasions as
tourism, trade (including the pet and aquaria trade) and infrastructure projects accelerate the
introduction of invasive alien species via the escape, contaminant, stowaway and corridor pathways
(Hulme, 2015) (see Figure 4.80 and Figure 4.81).

The main pathway for intentional (and to some extent un-intentional) introductions of invasive alien
species in all taxonomic groups in Europe and Central Asia is trade of horticultural and ornamental
plants (Turbelin et al., 2017; Zieritz et al., 2017). Invasion pathways related to tourism are also likely
to increase in importance over the next few decades. Tourists introduce alien species, including
potential invasive alien species with a high survivorship, on their clothing, footwear and equipment,
for example via transportation of soil containing living organisms (bacteria, fungi, seeds, nematodes,
arthropods - McNeill et al., 2011). A greater frequency of contact between tourists and potential
invasive alien species is likely because current high levels of international tourist movements are
expected to grow up to 2030 and there is increased tourist preference for recreation (e.g. golf, fishing),
agrotourism, remote places (e.g., mountains, Arctic), national parks (Hulme, 2015; Pauchard et al.,
2016).
The establishment and spread of invasive alien species is ultimately influenced by the suitability of
environmental conditions (see Figure 4.77) in recipient biomes, or the ability of the invading species
to adapt to these conditions or otherwise to self-create suitable conditions. Environmental suitability
is a dynamic quality of biomes, subject to influence by climate change, and a key economic factor in

705
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

determining species viability for import and cultivation (e.g. horticultural and silvicultural trade) and
thus represents an important component of establishment processes (Chapman et al., 2017; Early et
al., 2016). In addition to environmental suitability, the spread of established invasive alien species is
also a factor of the susceptibility of native habitats and populations to further invasion. This
susceptibility is influenced by a number of direct drivers of change including climate change, adverse
land-use change, genetic pollution, and changes in natural disturbance regimes, which are, in turn,
typically directly or indirectly driven by economic development and socio-economic trends (Early et
al., 2016).

Diverse impacts of invasive alien species and high eradication costs of already established invasive
alien species have necessitated the adoption of legal instruments (see Figure 4.78). Countries with
greater numbers of recorded invasive alien species have adopted more targeted international treaties
(Figure 4.79 A) and national and subnational regulations and legislation (see Figure 4.79 B) specifically
dealing with invasive alien species (Turbelin et al., 2017). Western European countries have greater
numbers of recorded invasive alien species due to trade and colonial histories (Turbelin et al., 2017)
and better scientific knowledge of species invasion status and native biodiversity (Lambdon et al.,
2008). Consequently, Western European countries have adopted numerous legal instruments
targeting alien species; Central European and Eastern European countries have fewer legal
instruments, and countries in Central Asia have the fewest legal instruments (Figure 4.79). Within the
European Union, the regulation on invasive alien species implemented in 2014 includes three types of
interventions: prevention, early detection and rapid eradication, and management (European Union,
2014). Globally, the number of international agreements relevant to control of invasive alien species

706
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

as well as the number of countries that are party to these agreements has consistently increased since
the 1950s (McGeoch et al., 2010).

Information on legal instruments concerning invasive alien species is largely missing from Central Asia,
either because of a lack of data or a genuine lack of policy. In the latter case, the development of
legislation and regulations in this subregion could (1) prevent the introduction of invasive alien species
or (2) help reduce the spread and impact of existing ones. Species introductions as well as spread and
impact of existing invasive alien species are likely to be exacerbated (Turbelin et al., 2017) based on
trends of other indirect drivers, especially socio-economic drivers such as development of the oil
industry and its related infrastructure in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan (Dimeyeva, 2013).
From available information, mainly based on eports by the Convention on Biological Diversity,
countries in Central Asia currently have little capacity to respond to threats by invasive alien species
and impending or future introductions, establishment or spread (Early et al., 2016).
The majority of legal instruments are reactive, targeting introduction and spread of invasive alien
species upon arrival within national borders. Very little attention has been given to preventing the
arrival of invasive alien species, except for species that have known public health impacts (Turbelin et
al., 2017). Comprehensive border controls to prevent introduction of potential invasive alien species
are adopted by very few countries in Europe and Central Asia (Early et al., 2016). Current regulations
lack a transboundary perspective and insufficiently cover major introduction pathways (Hulme, 2015).
For example, most efforts in regulation of transport-related non-intentional introductions of invasive
alien species have addressed the role of shipping, while tourism, another major route of stowaway
alien species, remains largely neglected (Hulme, 2015).

707
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A general recommendation from studies on invasive alien species regulation and management is to
develop educational outreach programmes to raise awareness of the general public and industry
(Hulme, 2015; Katsanevakis et al., 2013; Turbelin et al., 2017; Zieritz et al., 2017). Increased public
awareness could lead to changes in preferences for alien species as pets or other ornamental purposes,
increased vigilance by tourists and the tourist industry, and improved early detection of alien species.

708
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

709
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

710
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.9 Synthesis of direct driver trends and impacts in Europe and Central Asia

4.9.1 Interaction among direct drivers and time-lagged effects on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people
Drivers, both direct and indirect, rarely act in isolation. In essence, a change in biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people is almost always an outcome of several interacting drivers. While it may be
possible to determine which drivers are involved, it is not always easy to assess or even quantify the
respective contribution of the individual drivers in affecting biodiversity, including ecosystems. In
addition, positive feedbacks can influence driver dynamics and amplify their combined effects. For
example, land-use change and destruction of habitats can influence climate change (locally) due to the
changes in land surface albedo and evapotranspiration (Kalnay & Cai, 2003).
Drivers do not act in isolation with interactions between them affecting driver trends and thus also the
effects on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. In Box 4.7, we exemplify the interaction
of indirect and direct drivers using three examples of invasive alien species. They illustrate how
different drivers – partly indirect and partly direct – jointly affect the driver “invasive alien species”.
Many other examples of driver interactions exist in the ecological literature. For example, the interplay
of climate change, pollution and invasive alien species exacerbates the negative impact of land-use
change and management intensity (Collier et al., 2016; Haddad et al., 2015; IPBES, 2016a; Kalnay &
Cai, 2003; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2012; Segan et al., 2016; Vilà & Ibáñez, 2011). Small and isolated
populations of organisms are less well buffered against climate change (McInerny et al., 2007), are

711
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

more susceptible to invasion (Didham et al., 2007; Haddad et al., 2015) and can be more exposed to
pollution (Weathers et al., 2001). Declining area of habitats and their increasing isolation also reduces
the possibilities for the compensatory migration of species in response to changing climate (Bocedi et
al., 2014; Meier et al., 2012; Vanbergen & The Insect Pollinators Initiative, 2013). Furthermore, a
modelling study has shown that impact assessments focused on one sector (agriculture, foresty, water
use, etc.) alone without considering interactions between these sectors will likely lead to over- or
under-estimation of the projected impacts, as direct and indirect drivers affect each other mutually
(Harrison et al., 2016).
Individual and combined effects of different direct drivers can have chronic, prolonged and delayed
consequences on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, due to considerable time lags that
many species and ecological systems have in response to changes in their environment (Dullinger et
al., 2012; Ewers & Didham, 2006; Halley et al., 2016; Hanski & Ovaskainen, 2002; Helm et al., 2006;
Kuussaari et al., 2009; Tilman et al., 1994; Urban, 2015). Even if habitat conditions no longer meet the
minimum requirements for species persistence (e.g. too small habitat area, too isolated habitats,
climatic conditions becoming unsuitable), actual extinctions can take time, creating an extinction debt
in many contemporary habitats or ecosystems (Hanski & Ovaskainen, 2002; Kuussaari et al., 2009).
Time-lags also characterize species colonizations of new habitats, termed “colonization credit” or
“immigration deficit”. Delayed immigration characterizes both non-native species invasions as well as
natural, climate-driven or land use-driven migrations and colonizations of native species (Jackson &
Sax, 2010). By masking the full extent of impacts of direct and indirect drivers on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people, time-delays in species dynamics pose considerable challenges for
research and conservation. Extinction debt can last decades or even centuries and, if left unnoticed,
can lead to serious overestimation of current biodiversity status and underestimation of the impact of
combined and direct effects of direct drivers on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
(Kuussaari et al., 2009). For example, taking extinction debt into account increased projected
extinctions threefold from 5% to 15% under currently projected climate change scenarios (Urban,
2015). On the other hand, when recognized in good time, extinction debt and colonization credit can
provide opportunity to avoid some of the projected extinctions or undesired colonizations via active
and knowledgeable conservation and restoration activities (Halley et al., 2016; Török & Helm, 2017).
Box 4.7: Interaction of direct and indirect drivers in their effects on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people.

Economic and demographic drivers are both highly correlated with invasion of alien species
The number of invasive alien species is strictly correlated with economy and with human population. In
particular, the level of wealth, defined as cumulative economic prosperity, has been shown to have a strong
influence on the cumulative level of invasions (Pyšek et al., 2010); this correlation has a temporal effect, and the
number of invasive alien species reflects historic rather than contemporary economy (Essl et al., 2011).
Climate change, habitat fragmentation and fish invasion
Connectivity is extremely important for freshwater fish migration, and natural and man-made barriers can
consequently seriously facilitate or hamper fish dispersal. This has, for instance, been illustrated for pike (Esox
lucius) in Sweden, where they are currently absent from isolated lakes and lakes upstream from channel slopes
steeper than c. 7% (Hein et al., 2011; Spens et al., 2007). At the same time, pike are top predators, able to
extirpate cold-adapted salmonid species under warmer conditions in small lakes, whereas those species co-exist
under colder conditions and in larger lakes (Hein et al., 2013). Due to human-mediated introductions and climate
warming pike are now spreading upstream and to more northern latitudes, while at the same time climate
warming improves pike performance, often resulting in local extinctions of cold-adapted specialist fish species
(Hein et al., 2013). The strong effect of climate change on these predator fish (both influencing their spread and
their competitiveness) provides managers with a difficult challenge regarding the restoration of natural

712
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

connectivity to improve the free movement of species. Whereas on the one hand connectivity is important to
native species that need to track climate change, barriers such as waterfalls, dams and weirs can limit the
upstream spread of problematic or very competitive species, thereby creating refuges and protection for
threatened species. This example illustrates how climate change may alter the effect of connectivity restoration
on fish biodiversity. It also illustrates trade-offs in biodiversity conservation.
Economic and demographic drivers, climate and land-use change, and invasive alien species
Distribution patterns of invasive alien species have been shown to be strongly linked to climate, land use, human
demography and socio-economic activities (Bellard et al., 2013, 2016; Gallardo & Aldridge, 2013; Gallardo et al.,
2015; Pyšek et al., 2010). Specifically, in Europe and Central Asia, invasive alien species patterns are mostly driven
by socio-economic activities (see Section 4.8.3). Climate acts as a broad-scale limiting factor to invasive alien
species distributions, whereas land use (also driven by socio-economic activities) affects invasive alien species
patterns at the global, regional and local scales (Bellard et al., 2013). Consequently, changes in these drivers alter
patterns in invasive alien species distribution and impact (Diez et al., 2012; Dukes & Mooney, 1999; Hellmann et
al., 2008; Meyerson & Mooney, 2007; Walther et al., 2009). Climate change (temperature and precipitation
changes, CO2 concentrations, extreme events) has been hypothesized to enhance biological invasions (Bellard et
al., 2013; Diez et al., 2012; Dukes & Mooney, 1999; Hellmann et al., 2008). Land-use change is expected to alter
invasive alien species patterns depending on habitat types and uses, with the most intensely used and disturbed
habitats being the most prone to invasions (Chytrý et al., 2012). Increasing socio-economic activities are expected
to increase invasions by increasing propagule pressure, introduction pathways and habitat disturbances (Bellard
et al., 2016; Essl et al., 2011; Gallardo & Aldridge, 2013; Gallardo et al., 2015; Pyšek et al., 2010). Projected future
patterns in plant invasions in relation to land-use change show strongest increases for the northern parts of
Western Europe (all scenarios), and strongest decreases in the southern parts of Western Europe in scenarios of
abandonment of agricultural land (Chytrý et al., 2012). Future projections in distribution patterns of 100 of the
world’s worst invasive alien species in relation to both climate and land-use change project important increases
in northern parts of Western Europe, slight increases in Central Asia and western parts of Eastern Europe, but
decreases around the Mediterranean basin (Bellard et al., 2013).
End of Box 4.7

4.9.2 Synthesis of direct driver trends and impacts

In this section, we summarize assessed trends and impacts of direct drivers. Figure 4.82 and Figure
4.83 illustrate the direction of driver trends and their inferred impact in the different subregions and
units of analysis. An increasing trend (upward-pointing arrow) means that the direct driver shows an
increasing trend, while downward pointing arrows indicate a decreasing trend. Impacts on biodiversity
associated with the direct driver trends are indicated by colours, with red and green indicating negative
and positive impacts. An increasing driver trend can have a positive impact on overall biodiversity in
an area or unit of analysis. However, we assessed to what degree the trend affects the biodiversity
typical for the unit of analysis in that area not simply biodiversity as a whole. For example, climate
change can be expected to increase the overall biodiversity in an area, yet it will negatively affect the
biodiversity of a given spatial unit, e.g. of temperate forests, if these are converted into other units of
analysis, e.g. Mediterranean forests, over time. Hence, overall biodiversity might be higher in
Mediterranean forests, but species associated with temperate forests would be lost.
In some cases, trends do not have a clear direction in a subregion and unit of analysis, but rather show
both decreasing and increasing trends or impacts. We therefore also allowed trends and impacts to be
of “variable” nature. The confidence in the statements on driver trends and impacts is indicated by the
thickness of symbols or by the saturation of the colours. The notion of “irrelevant” was assigned to
combinations of drivers, subregions and units of analysis that do not exist. For example, there are no
“deep marine waters” or “Mediterranean forests” in Central Asia.

713
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.9.2.1 Recent trends in direct drivers and their impact

The recent trends in direct drivers and their associated impact on biodiversity and nature’s benefits to
people are summarized across Europe and Central Asia and major units of analysis within the study
region (see Figure 4.82). Land-use change, pollution and partly natural resources extraction showed
the strongest increase, and had the clearest negative impacts in many units of analysis or subregions.
Invasive alien species have steadily increased as a driver of biodiversity alteration and loss, and already
showed strong negative impacts in some (wetland types, cultivated areas and inland freshwaters),
while in other systems the impact is less severe or still mostly lacking (e.g. cold grasslands). Climate
change has also steadily increased as a driver, yet its impact on biodiversity is still marginal and
confined to relatively few units of analysis (mostly urban and water systems).
Confidence is generally high in all statements, yet often somewhat decreasing towards Eastern Europe
and Central Asia, usually due to a lack of accessible literature and insufficient number of studies
analysing trends and impacts. The availability of repeated reports on climate change trends and
impacts (e.g. IPCC, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b) results in an overall very high level of confidence in all
statements on trends and impacts throughout the study region. Lowest confidence levels were found
for trends and impacts for the driver natural resources extraction. This driver is usually more limited
in its spatial extent, and thus more difficult to quantify across larger regions, both for trends and
impacts.

714
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.9.2.2 Projected future trends in direct drivers and their impact

The projected future trends in direct drivers and their associated impact on biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people are summarized across Europe and Central Asia and major units of analysis
within the study region (Figure 4.83). Land-use change, pollution and partly natural resource extraction
showed strongest projected decreases, and had overall some reduction in its impacts on biodiversity
in several units of analysis or subregions. On the contrary, climate change and invasive alien species
will become the most important threats to biodiversity compared to the other three drivers. The
reduction of driver effects on biodiversity is stronger in Western and Central Europe than in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia for land-use change, pollution and natural resources extraction. On the other
hand, invasive alien species are still projected to be a bigger threat to units of analysis in Western and

715
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Europe than in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, reflecting the importance of traffic and
economic growth for the trends in invasive alien species.

Confidence is generally lower for projected future (compared to recent) trends and impacts in all
statements, and often even lower towards Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The exception to this rule
is the confidence in trends of climate change, for which a wealth of information is available (e.g. IPCC,
2013b, 2014a, 2014b). For some systems only marginal information is available in the Europe and
Central Asia region. Again, lowest confidence levels are available for trends and impacts in the driver
natural resources extraction.

716
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.9.3 Synthesis of indirect drivers

Sections 4.4-4.8 presented Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) to illustrate the dynamic inter-relationships
within and between indirect and direct drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people. Our findings show that the general combination of indirect drivers that underpin trends in
direct drivers is often similar across Europe and Central Asia. At the same time, causal relationships
between individual indirect drivers and their effects on direct drivers are context specific.
Indirect drivers are often triggered by processes in different sectors of society and by the activities of
diverse groups of actors and stakeholders. Their cumulative effects provoke dynamics of indirect
drivers and as a consequence a specific impact on a direct driver. For example, intensification of
conventional agriculture in Europe and Central Asia is influenced by cultural, institutional, economic,
technological and demographic drivers. Whilst the consolidation of farms has led to some
improvements in economic viability, it is also linked to the erosion of local traditions and of a sense of
long-term stewardship and responsibility for the land, which are important for sustaining management
practices for biodiversity.
The CLDs were also used to illustrate complex adaptive systems in terms of how the effects on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people feed back to the indirect drivers. Knowledge and
awareness, filtered by beliefs and values, are often the primary cultural-religious drivers in this
feedback. Environmental NGOs have had an important role in increasing awareness of forest
biodiversity, while scientific organizations have been important for issues such as fishing and climate
change. Public awareness has not always been necessary, e.g. in the case of invasive alien species, new
regulations have been passed in response to scientific knowledge with less political pressure. There
are also differences between subregions. For example, for agriculture, the Common Agricultural Policy
in the European Union includes institutional and agri-environmental support (payments), which has a
positive (green) effect on biodiversity (Figure 4.84). However, these payments only reduce the effects
of global trade and competition, so the economic drivers work in both ways (grey colour in Figure
4.84). Cultural change increases demand for organic food in Western Europe. Technological drivers in
the resource extraction sectors generally increase degradation, while “end-of-pipe” technologies have
successfully reduced pollution (Figure 4.84).

717
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Institutional drivers have often been used to soften the effects that economic profit-seeking drivers
have on technological change and a range of direct drivers. Regulations have reduced some pollution,
e.g. acidification and toxicity from heavy metals. Other direct drivers, e.g. pesticides and ammonia
pollution from agriculture, have been regulated although not sufficiently to reverse negative trends.
Economic drivers have not changed very much as a result of knowledge and awareness of ecosystem
degradation and have generally a negative effect on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
(Figure 4.84). Environmental and ecological fiscal reforms have not generally been implemented:
environmental taxes have not increased since 2002. On top of this, harmful subsidies to fishing and
mining provide market actors with strong incentives to continue externalising environmental costs.
Hence, economic drivers still support intensive agriculture and forestry as well as unsustainable natural
resource extraction, especially fishing and mining. When economic drivers have been employed to halt
biodiversity loss, e.g. through agri-environmental schemes and carbon taxes or trading schemes, this
has generally been insufficient to halt habitat fragmentation and degradation or climate change. As
long as a good quality of life is associated with GDP growth, the perceived trade-off between a good
quality of life and sustainable ecosystem management and governance will continue to be a major
obstacle, if sustainable development is to be achieved.

718
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

4.10 References

Aakala, T., & Kuuluvainen, T. (2011). Summer droughts depress radial growth of Picea abies in pristine
taiga of the Arkhangelsk province, northwestern Russia. Dendrochronologia, 29(2), 67–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2010.07.001
Abbott, B. W., Larouche, J. R., Jones, J. B., Bowden, W. B., & Balser, A. W. (2014). Elevated dissolved
organic carbon biodegradability from thawing and collapsing permafrost. Journal of Geophysical
Research G: Biogeosciences, 119(10), 2049–2063. http://doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002678
Achard, F., Mollicone, D., Stibig, H.-J., Aksenov, D., Laestadius, L., Li, Z., Popatov, P., & Yaroshenko, A.
(2006). Areas of rapid forest-cover change in boreal Eurasia. Forest Ecology and Management,
237(1–3), 322–334. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.080
Adger, W. N., Eakin, H., & Winkels, A. (2009). Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to
environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3), 150–157.
http://doi.org/10.1890/070148
Adloff, F., Somot, S., Sevault, F., Jordà, G., Aznar, R., Déqué, M., Herrmann, M., Marcos, M., Dubois, C.,
Padorno, E., Alvarez-Fanjul, E., & Gomis, D. (2015). Mediterranean Sea response to climate
change in an ensemble of twenty first century scenarios. Climate Dynamics, 45(9–10), 2775–
2802. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2507-3
Adriaanse, A., Bringezu, S., Hammond, A., Moriguchi, Y., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., & Schütz, H. (1997).
Resource flows: the material basis of industrial economies. Washington, DC. USA: World
Resources Institute.
Agardy, M. T., & Tundi Agardy, M. (1994). Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine
protected areas. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9(7), 267–70. http://doi.org/10.1016/0169-
5347(94)90297-6
Agnoletti, M. (2006). The conservation of cultural landscapes. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
http://doi.org/10.1079/9781845930745.0000
Aguilar, R., Ashworth, L., Galetto, L., & Aizen, M. A. (2006). Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat
fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 9(8), 968–980.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00927.x
Aherne, J., Posch, M., Forsius, M., Lehtonen, A., & Härkönen, K. (2012). Impacts of forest biomass
removal on soil nutrient status under climate change: a catchment-based modelling study for
Finland. Biogeochemistry, 107(1–3), 471–488. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-010-9569-4
Aitken, S. N., Yeaman, S., Holliday, J. A., Wang, T., & Curtis-McLane, S. (2008). Adaptation, migration
or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evolutionary Applications, 1(1), 95–
111. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2007.00013.x
Aitpaeva, G., Egemberdieva, A., & Toktogulova, M. (2007). Mazar worship in Kyrgyzstan: rituals and
practitioners in Talas. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: Aigine Research Center.
Åkerblom, S., Bignert, A., Meili, M., Sonesten, L., Sundbom, M. (2014). Half a century of changing
mercury levels in Swedish freshwater fish. Ambio, 43(Suppl.), 91-103.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0564-1
Aksenov, D., Kuhmonen, A., Mikkola, J., & Sobolev, N. (Eds.). (2014). Reports of the Finnish Forest
Environment Institute 29. The characteristics and representativeness of the protected area

719
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

network in the Barents region. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10138/156287

Al-Taani, A. A., Batayneh, A., Nazzal, Y., Ghrefat, H., Elawadi, E., & Zaman, H. (2014). Status of trace
metals in surface seawater of the Gulf of Aqaba, Saudi Arabia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86(1–2),
582–590. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.060
Albouy, C., Guilhaumon, F., Leprieur, F., Lasram, F. B. R., Somot, S., Aznar, R., Velez, L., Le Loc'h, V., &
Mouillot, D. (2013). Projected climate change and the changing biogeography of coastal
Mediterranean fishes. Journal of Biogeography, 40(3), 534–547.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12013
Albrecht, M., Duelli, P., Muller, C., Kleijn, D., & Schmid, B. (2007). The Swiss agri-environment scheme
enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed
farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 813–822. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2007.01306.x
Alcantara, C., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A. V., & Radeloff, V. C. (2012). Mapping abandoned
agriculture with multi-temporal MODIS satellite data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 124, 334–
347. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.05.019
Alexander, J. M., Diez, J. M., & Levine, J. M. (2015). Novel competitors shape species’ responses to
climate change. Nature, 525(7570), 515–518. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14952
Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Human appropriation
of land for food: The role of diet. Global Environmental Change, 41, 88–98.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.09.005
Alexander, L. V., Zhang, X., Peterson, T. C., Caesar, J., Gleason, B., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Haylock, M.,
Collins, D., Trewin, B., Rahimzadeh, F., Tagipour, A., Rupa Kumar, K., Revadekar, J., Griffiths, G.,
Vincent, L., Stephenson, D. B., Burn, J., Aguilar, E., Brunet, M., Taylor, M., New, M., Zhai, P.,
Rusticucci, M., & Vazquez-Aguirre, J. L. (2006). Global observed changes in daily climate extremes
of temperature and precipitation. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, D05109.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006290
Alharbi, O. A., Phillips, M. R., Williams, A. T., Gheith, A. M., Bantan, R. A., & Rasul, N. M. (2012).
Desalination impacts on the coastal environment: Ash Shuqayq, Saudi Arabia. Science of The Total
Environment, 421–422, 163–172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.050
Alimaev, I., Kerven, C., Torekhanov, A., Behnke, R., Smailov, K., Yurchenko, V., Sisatov, Z., & Shanbaev,
K. (2008). The impact of livestock grazing on soils and vegetation around settlements in Southeast
Kazakhstan. In R. Behnke (Ed.), The Socio-economic causes and consequences of desertification in
Central Asia. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Alkemade, R., Van Oorschot, M., Miles, L., Nellemann, C., Bakkenes, M., & Ten Brink, B. (2009).
GLOBIO3: A framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss.
Ecosystems, 12(3), 374–390. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9229-5
Allan, E., Bossdorf, O., Dormann, C. F., Prati, D., Gossner, M. M., Tscharntke, T., Bluthgen, N., Bellach,
M., Birkhofer, K., Boch, S., Bohm, S., Borschig, C., Chatzinotas, A., Christ, S., Daniel, R., Diekotter,
T., Fischer, C., Friedl, T., Glaser, K., Hallmann, C., Hodac, L., Holzel, N., Jung, K., Klein, A. M., Klaus,
V. H., Kleinebecker, T., Krauss, J., Lange, M., Morris, E. K., Muller, J., Nacke, H., Pa ali , E., Rillig, M.
C., Rothenwohrer, C., Schall, P., Scherber, C., Schulze, W., Socher, S. A., Steckel, J., Steffan-
Dewenter, I., Turke, M., Weiner, C. N., Werner, M., Westphal, C., Wolters, V., Wubet, T., Gockel,
S., Gorke, M., Hemp, A., Renner, S. C., Schoning, I., Pfeiffer, S., Konig-Ries, B., Buscot, F.,

720
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Linsenmair, K. E., Schulze, E.-D., Weisser, W. W., & Fischer, M. (2014). Interannual variation in
land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 111(1), 308–313.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312213111
Allan, J. D., Abell, R., Hogan, Z., Revenga, C., Taylor, B. W., Welcomme, R. L., & Winemiller, K. (2005).
Overfishing of inland waters. BioScience, 55(12), 1041-1051. http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2005)055[1041:OOIW]2.0.CO;2
Allan, R., Tett, S., & Alexander, L. (2009). Fluctuations in autumn-winter severe storms over the British
Isles: 1920 to present. International Journal of Climatology, 29(3), 357–371.
http://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1765
Allina-Pisano, J. (2007). The post-Soviet Potemkin village: Politics and property rights in the Black Earth.
New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Altermatt, F., Baumeyer, A., & Ebert, D. (2009). Experimental evidence for male biased flight-to-light
behavior in two moth species. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 130(3), 259–265.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00817.x
Anastasopoulou, S., Chobotova, V., Dawson, T., Kluvankova-Oravska, T., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2007).
Identifying and assessing socio-economic and environmental drivers that affect ecosystems and
their services. Retrieved from
http://www.rubicode.net/rubicode/RUBICODE_Review_on_Drivers.pdf
Anderson, J. T., Panetta, A. M., & Mitchell-Olds, T. (2012). Evolutionary and ecological responses to
anthropogenic climate change: Update on anthropogenic climate change. Plant Physiology,
160(4), 1728–1740. http://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.206219
Andreassen, L. M., Paul, F., Kääb, A., & Hausberg, J. E. (2008). Landsat-derived glacier inventory for
Jotunheimen, Norway, and deduced glacier changes since the 1930s. The Cryosphere, 2, 131–
145. http://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2-131-2008
Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., Blei, A., & Potere, D. (2011). The dimensions of global urban expansion:
Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning, 75(2), 53–107.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.04.001
Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B.-G., & Roberge, J.-M. (2011).
Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: policy implementation process and
outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica, 45(5), 1111–1133. http://doi.org/10.14214/sf.90
Angelstam, P., Elbakidze, M., Axelsson, R., Čupa, P., Halada, L., Molnar, Z., Pătru-Stupariu, I.,
Perzanowski, K., Rozulowicz, L., Standovar, T., Svoboda, M., & Törnblom, J. (2013). Maintaining
cultural and natural biodiversity in the Carpathian Mountain ecoregion: Need for an Integrated
Landscape Approach. In J. Kozak, K. Ostapowicz, A. Bytnerowicz, & B. Wyżga (Eds.), The
Carpathians: Integrating nature and society towards sustainability (pp. 393–424). Berlin,
Germany: Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12725-0_28
Angelstam, P., & Kuuluvainen, T. (2004). Boreal forest disturbance regimes, successional dynamics and
landscape structures – a European perspective. Ecological Bulletins, 51, 117–136.
http://doi.org/10.2307/20113303
Anticamara, J. A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., & Pauly, D. (2011). Global fishing effort (1950-2010): Trends,
gaps, and implications. Fisheries Research, 107(1–3), 131–136.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2010.10.016

721
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Antofie, M. M., Barbu, I., Sand, C. S., & Blaj, R. (2016). Traditional orchards in Romania: case study
Fântânele, Sibiu County. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 63(6), 1035–1048.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-015-0299-2
Arft, A. M., Walker, M. D., Gurevitch, J., Alatalo, J. M., Bret-Harte, M. S., Dale, M., Diemer, M., Gugerli,
F., Henry, G. H. R., Jones, M. H., Hollister, R. D., Jónsdóttir, I. S., Laine, K., Lévesque, E., Marion, G.
M., Molau, U., Mølgaard, P., Nordenhäll, U., Raszhivin, V., Robinson, C. H., Starr, G., Stenström,
A., Stenström, M., Totland, Ø., Turner, P. L., Walker, L. J., Webber, P. J., Welker, J. M., & Wookey,
P. A. (1999). Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: Meta-analysis of the
international tundra experiment. Ecological Monographs, 69(4), 491–511.
http://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(1999)069[0491:ROTPTE]2.0.CO;2
Arizaga, J., & Laso, M. (2015). A quantification of illegal hunting of birds in Gipuzkoa (north of Spain).
European Journal of Wildlife Research, 61(5), 795–799. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-
0940-6
Aronson, J., Blignaut, J. N., Milton, S. J., Le Maitre, D., Esler, K. J., Limouzin, A., Fontaine, C., de Wit, M.
P., Mugido, W., Prinsloo, P., van der Elst, L., & Lederer, N. (2010). Are socioeconomic benefits of
restoration adequately quantified? a meta-analysis of recent papers (2000-2008) in restoration
ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology, 18(2), 143–154.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x
Arpe, K., & Leroy, S. a G. (2007). The Caspian Sea level forced by the atmospheric circulation, as
observed and modelled. Quaternary International, 173–174(Suppl.), 144–152.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2007.03.008
Ashmore, M. R. (2005). Assessing the future global impacts of ozone on vegetation. Plant, Cell and
Environment, 28(8), 949-964. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01341.x
Axelsson, A.-L., & Östlund, L. (2001). Retrospective gap analysis in a Swedish boreal forest landscape
using historical data. Forest Ecology and Management, 147(2–3), 109–122.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00470-9
Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., & Svensson, J. (2007). Natural forest and cultural woodland with
continuous tree cover in Sweden: How much remains and how is it managed? Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research, 22, 545–558. http://doi.org/10.1080/02827580701806661
Ayres, R. U., Campbell, C. J., Casten, T. R., Horne, P. J., Kümmel, R., Laitner, J. A., Schulte, U. G., van den
Bergh, J. C. J. M., & von Weiszäcker, E. U. (2013). Sustainability transition and economic growth
enigma: Money or energy? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 9, 8–12.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2013.09.002
Ayzan, A. A., & Bobylev, C. N. [Аузан, А. А., & Бобылев, С. Н.]. (Eds.). (2011). Доклад о развитии
человеческого потенциала в Российской Федерации [Report on development of human
potential in the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Russian Federation: PROON. Retrieved from
http://www.undp.ru/documents/nhdr2011rus.pdf
Azapagic, A. (2004). Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining
and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 639–662.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1
Babai, D., Molnár, K., & Biró, M. (2016). Changing year-round habitat use of extensively grazing cattle,
sheep and pigs in East-Central Europe between 1940 and 2014: Consequences for conservation
and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 234, 142–153.

722
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.018
Babai, D., & Molnár, Z. (2014). Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in
the Carpathians. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 182, 123–130.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.018
Babai, D., Tóth, A., Szentirmai, I., Biró, M., Máté, A., Demeter, L., Szépligeti, M., Varga, A., Molnár, Á.,
Kun, R., & Molnár, Z. (2015). Do conservation and agri-environmental regulations effectively
support traditional small-scale farming in East-Central European cultural landscapes? Biodiversity
and Conservation, 24(13), 3305–3327. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0971-z
Bahn-Walkowiak, B., Bleischwitz, R., Distelkamp, M., & Meyer, M. (2012). Taxing construction minerals:
a contribution to a resource-efficient Europe. Mineral Economics, 25(1), 29–43.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-012-0018-9
Bakirova, R. (2011). Filling in gaps and removing contradictions in national and provincial legislation
governing the conservation of steppe ecosystems. Steppe Bulletin, 32, 69–71.
Báldi, A., Batáry, P., & Kleijn, D. (2013). Effects of grazing and biogeographic regions on grassland
biodiversity in Hungary - analysing assemblages of 1200 species. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 166, 28–34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.004
Baldock, D., Beaufoy, G., Selby, A., Guiheneuf, P. I., & Manterola, J. J. (1996). Farming at the margins:
abandonment or redeployment of agricultural land in Europe. London, UK: Institute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP).
Barfoot, P., & Brookes, G. (2014). Key global environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop
use 1996–2012. GM Crops & Food, 5(2), 149–160. http://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28449
Barinova, S., Boboev, M., & Hisoriev, H. (2015). Freshwater algal diversity of the South-Tajik Depression
in a high-mountainous extreme environment, Tajikistan. Turkish Journal of Botany, 39, 535-546.
http://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1406-45
Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., Brown, J. H., Fortelius, M., Getz, W. M., Harte,
J., Hastings, A., Marquet, P. A., Martinez, N. D., Mooers, A., Roopnarine, P., Vermeij, G., Williams,
J. W., Gillespie, R., Kitzes, J., Marshall, C., Matzke, N., Mindell, D. P., Revilla, E., & Smith, A. B.
(2012). Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486(7401), 52–58.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11018
Bärring, L., & von Storch, H. (2004). Scandinavian storminess since about 1800. Geophysical Research
Letters, 31(20), L20202. http://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020441
Basialashvili, T., Matchavariani, L., & Lagidze, L. (2015). Desertification risk in Kakheti Region, East
Georgia. Journal of Environmental Biology, 36(1), 33–36.
Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Kleijn, D., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of
agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 278(1713), 1894–902. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1923
Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., & Sutherland, W. J. (2015). The role of agri-environment schemes in
conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1006–1016.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536
Batáry, P., Sutcliffe, L., Dormann, C. F., & Tscharntke, T. (2013). Organic farming favours insect-
pollinated over non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows and wheat fields. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54818.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054818

723
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Batista, M. I., & Cabral, H. N. (2016). An overview of marine protected areas in SW Europe: Factors
contributing to their management effectiveness. Ocean & Coastal Management, 132, 15–23.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.07.005
Battarbee, R. W., Shilland, E. M., Kernan, M., Monteith, D. T., & Curtis, C. J. (2014). Recovery of acidified
surface waters from acidification in the United Kingdom after twenty years of chemical and
biological monitoring (1988-2008). Ecological Indicators, 37, 267-273.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.011
Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Elbakidze, M., Ozdogan, M., Radeloff, V. C., Keuler, N. S., Prishchepov,
A. V., Kruhlov, I., & Hostert, P. (2011). Patterns and drivers of post-socialist farmland
abandonment in western Ukraine. Land Use Policy, 28(3), 552–562.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.11.003
Baumann, M., Radeloff, V. C., Avedian, V., & Kuemmerle, T. (2015). Land-use change in the Caucasus
during and after the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Regional Environmental Change, 15(8), 1703–
1716. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0728-3
Bawa, K., & Seidler, R. (1998). Natural forest management and conservation of biodiversity in tropical
forests. Conservation Biology, 12(1), 46–55. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96480.x
Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., & Legendre, L. (2010). Marine biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and
carbon cycles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
107(22), 10120–10124. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913855107
Beaugrand, G., Edwards, M., Raybaud, V., Goberville, E., & Kirby, R. R. (2015). Future vulnerability of
marine biodiversity compared with contemporary and past changes. Nature Climate Change,
5(7), 695–701. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2650
Beaugrand, G., Goberville, E., Luczak, C., & Kirby, R. R. (2014). Marine biological shifts and climate.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1783), 20133350.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3350
Beaugrand, G., Luczak, C., & Edwards, M. (2009). Rapid biogeographical plankton shifts in the North
Atlantic Ocean. Global Change Biology, 15(7), 1790–1803. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2009.01848.x
Beaugrand, G., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Edwards, M., & Goberville, E. (2013). Long-term responses of
North Atlantic calcifying plankton to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3(3), 263–267.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1753
Beaugrand, G., & Reid PC, Ibañez F, Lindley JA, E. M. (2002). Reorganization of North Atlantic marine
copepod biodiversity and climate. Science, 296, 1692–1694.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071329
Beaumont, L. J., Pitman, A., Perkins, S., Zimmermann, N. E., Yoccoz, N. G., & Thuiller, W. (2011). Impacts
of climate change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(6), 2306–2311.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007217108
Beck, U. (2005). The cosmopolitan state: Redefining power in the global age. International Journal of
Politics, Culture and Society, 18(3–4), 143–159. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-006-9001-1
BEFL. (2016). Russia’s largest agricultural landholders 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.befl.ru/upload/iblock/631/63151eb9df07b1abd893973567da769a.pdf

724
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Behan, R. W. (1990). Multiresource forest management: A paradigmatic challenge to professional

forestry. Journal of Forestry, 88, 12–18.
Beilin, R., Lindborg, R., Stenseke, M., Pereira, H. M., Llausàs, A., Slätmo, E., Cerqueira, Y., Navarro, L.,
Rodrigues, P., Reichelt, N., Munro, N., & Queiroz, C. (2014). Analysing how drivers of agricultural
land abandonment affect biodiversity and cultural landscapes using case studies from
Scandinavia, Iberia and Oceania. Land Use Policy, 36, 60–72.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.07.003
Beketov, M. A., Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B., & Liess, M. (2013). Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity
of stream invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 110(27), 11039–11043. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305618110
Bell, M., & Muhidin, S. (2009). Cross-national comparison of internal migration. Human Development,
165(3), 435–464. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-985X.t01-1-00247
Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2012). Impacts of climate
change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology Letters, 15(4), 365–377.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x
Bellard, C., Genovesi, P., & Jeschke, J. M. (2016). Global patterns in threats to vertebrates by biological
invasions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1823), 20152454.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2454
Bellard, C., Thuiller, W., Leroy, B., Genovesi, P., Bakkenes, M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). Will climate
change promote future invasions? Global Change Biology, 19(12), 3740-3748.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12344
Belovsky, G. (1987). Extinction models and mammalian persistence. In M. Soulé (Ed.), Viable
populations for conservation (pp. 35–57). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Benayas, J. M. R., Martins, A., Nicolau, J. M., & Schulz, J. J. (2007). Abandonment of agricultural land:
an overview of drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 2, 57.
Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A., & Bullock, J. M. (2009). Enhancement of biodiversity and
ecosystem services by ecological restoration: A meta-analysis. Science, 325(5944), 1121–1124.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172460
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, A. C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity
and abundance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 261–269.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x
Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg, F., & Nyström,
M. (2003). Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio, 32(6), 389–396.
http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389
Beniston, M., Stephenson, D. B., Christensen, O. B., Ferro, C. A. T., Frei, C., Goyette, S., Halsnaes, K.,
Holt, T., Jylhä, K., Koffi, B., Palutikof, J., Schöll, R., Semmler, T., & Woth, K. (2007). Future extreme
events in European climate: an exploration of regional climate model projections. Climatic
Change, 81(S1), 71–95. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9226-z
Benito, B., Lorite, J., & Peñas, J. (2011). Simulating potential effects of climatic warming on altitudinal
patterns of key species in Mediterranean-alpine ecosystems. Climatic Change, 108(3), 471–483.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0015-3

725
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., Cruse, D., Inger, R., & Gaston, K. J. (2015a). Cascading effects of artificial light
at night: resource-mediated control of herbivores in a grassland ecosystem. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1667), 20140131.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0131
Bennie, J., Duffy, J., Davies, T., Correa-Cano, M., & Gaston, K. (2015b). Global trends in exposure to
light pollution in natural terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sensing, 7(3), 2715–2730.
http://doi.org/10.3390/rs70302715
Bérard, L., Cegarra, M., Djama, M., Louafi, S., Marchenay, P., Roussel, B., & Verdeaux, F. (2005).
Biodiversité et savoirs naturalistes locaux en France [Biodiversity and local natural knowledge in
France]. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/olq/documents/documents/Biodiversityfrench.pdf
Berg, A., Östlund, L., Moen, J., & Olofsson, J. (2008). A century of logging and forestry in a reindeer
herding area in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(5), 1009–1020.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.06.003
Bergmeier, E., Petermann, J., & Schröder, E. (2010). Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in
Europe: Diversity, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 2995–3014.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9872-3
Berkes, F., Hughes, T. P., Steneck, R. S., Wilson, J. A., Bellwood, D. R., Crona, B., Folke, C., Gunderson,
L. H., Leslie, H. M., Norberg, J., Nyström, M., Olsson, P., Österblom, H., Scheffer, M., & Worm, B.
(2006). Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources. Science, 311(5767), 1557–1558.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1122804
Bernes, C., Jonsson, B. G., Junninen, K., Lõhmus, A., Macdonald, E., Müller, J., & Sandström, J. (2015).
What is the impact of active management on biodiversity in boreal and temperate forests set
aside for conservation or restoration? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 4(1), 25.
http://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-015-0050-7
Bertolino, S., di Montezemolo, N. C., Preatoni, D. G., Wauters, L. A., & Martinoli, A. (2014). A grey future
for Europe: Sciurus carolinensis is replacing native red squirrels in Italy. Biological Invasions, 16(1),
53–62. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0502-3
Bethoux, J., Gentili, B., & Tailliez, D. (1998). Warming and freshwater budget change in the
Mediterranean since the 1940s, their possible relation to the greenhouse effect. Geophysical
Research Letters. http://doi.org/10.1029/98GL00724
Bezák, P., & Mitchley, J. (2014). Drivers of change in mountain farming in Slovakia: from socialist
collectivisation to the Common Agricultural Policy. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1343–
1356. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0580-x
Biedermann, R. (2003). Body size and area-incidence relationships: is there a general pattern? Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 12(5), 381–387. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00048.x
Bigler, C., Kulakowski, D., & Veblen, T. T. (2005). Multiple disturbance interactions and drought
influence fire severity in Rocky Mountain subalpine forests. Ecology, 86(11), 3018–3029.
http://doi.org/10.1890/05-0011
Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., Aviron, S., Baudry, J., Bukacek, R.,
Burel, F., Cerny, M., De Blust, G., De Cock, R., Diekötter, T., Dietz, H., Dirksen, J., Dormann, C.,
Durka, W., Frenzel, M., Hamersky, R., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Koolstra, B., Lausch, A.,
Le Coeur, D., Maelfait, J. P., Opdam, P., Roubalova, M., Schermann, A., Schermann, N., Schmidt,

726
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

T., Schweiger, O., Smulders, M. J. M., Speelmans, M., Simova, P., Verboom, J., Van Wingerden,
W. K. R. E., Zobel, M., & Edwards, P. J. (2008). Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes:
A pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1), 141–150.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01393.x
BIP. (2016). Trends in nitrogen deposition. Retrieved from
https://www.bipindicators.net/indicators/trends-in-nitrogen-deposition
Birdlife International (2017). Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas
(IBAs). Retrieved from https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/programmes/sites-habitats-ibas-
and-kbas
Biró, M., Czúcz, B., Horváth, F., Révész, A., Csatári, B., & Molnár, Z. (2013). Drivers of grassland loss in
Hungary during the post-socialist transformation (1987–1999). Landscape Ecology, 28(5), 789–
803. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9818-0
Bithas, K., & Kalimeris, P. (2013). Re-estimating the decoupling effect: Is there an actual transition
towards a less energy-intensive economy? Energy, 51, 78–84.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.11.033
Blanco, G., Gerlagh, R., Suh, S., Barrett, J., Coninck, H. C. de, Morejon, C. F. D., Mathur, R. Nakicenovic,
N., Ahenkorah, A. O., Pan, J., Pathak, H., Rice, J., Richels, R., Smith, S. J., Stern, D. I., Toth, F. L., &
Zhou, P. (2014). Drivers, Trends and Mitigation. In O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E.
Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J.
Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx (Eds.), Climate change 2014:
Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA: Cambridge University Press.
Blankinship, J. C., & Hart, S. C. (2012). Consequences of manipulated snow cover on soil gaseous
emission and N retention in the growing season: a meta-analysis. Ecosphere, 3(1), art1.
http://doi.org/10.1890/ES11-00225.1
Blankinship, J. J. C., Niklaus, P. A., & Hungate, B. A. B. (2011). A meta-analysis of responses of soil biota
to global change. Oecologia, 165(3), 553–565. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-1909-0
Blicharska, M., Orlikowska, E. H., Roberge, J.-M., & Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2016). Contribution of
social science to large scale biodiversity conservation: A review of research about the Natura
2000 network. Biological Conservation, 199, 110–122.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.007
Bobbink, R., Hicks, K., Galloway, J., Spranger, T., Alkemade, R., Ashmore, M., Bustamante, M., Cinderby,
S., Davidson, E., Dentener, F., Emmett, B., Erisman, J. W., Fenn, M., Gilliam, F., Nordin, A., Pardo,
L., & De Vries, W. (2010). Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant
diversity: A synthesis. Ecological Applications, 20(1), 30–59. http://doi.org/10.1890/08-1140.1
Bocedi, G., Zurell, D., Reineking, B., & Travis, J. M. J. (2014). Mechanistic modelling of animal dispersal
offers new insights into range expansion dynamics across fragmented landscapes. Ecography,
37(12), 1240–1253. http://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01041
Bocharnikov, V., Laletin, A., Angelstam, P., Domashov, I., Elbakidze, M., Kaspruk, O., Sayadyan, H.,
Solovyi, I., Shukurov, E., & Urushadze, T. (2012). Russia, Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.
In J. Parrotta & R. Trosper (Eds.), Traditional forest-related knowledge (pp. 251–279). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2144-9_7

727
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bogstad, B., Gjøsæter, H., Haug, T., & Lindstrøm, U. (2015). A review of the battle for food in the
Barents Sea: cod vs. marine mammals. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 29.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00029
Bohan, D. A., Boffey, C. W. H., Brooks, D. R., Clark, S. J., Dewar, A. M., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J.,
Hawes, C., Heard, M. S., May, M. J., Osborne, J. L., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Roy, D. B., Scott, R. J.,
Squire, G. R., Woiwod, I. P., & Champion, G. T. (2005). Effects on weed and invertebrate
abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
winter-sown oilseed rape. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 272(1562), 463–74.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3049
Bokhorst, S., Bjerke, J. W., Street, L. E., Callaghan, T. V., & Phoenix, G. K. (2011). Impacts of multiple
extreme winter warming events on sub-Arctic heathland: phenology, reproduction, growth, and
CO2 flux responses. Global Change Biology, 17(9), 2817–2830. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2011.02424.x
Bokhorst, S. F., Bjerke, J. W., Tømmervik, H., Callaghan, T. V., & Phoenix, G. K. (2009). Winter warming
events damage sub-Arctic vegetation: consistent evidence from an experimental manipulation
and a natural event. Journal of Ecology, 97(6), 1408–1415. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2745.2009.01554.x
Bolam, S. G., McIlwaine, P. S. O., & Garcia, C. (2015). Application of biological traits to further our
understanding of the impacts of dredged material disposal on benthic assemblages. Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 105(1), 180-192. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.02.031
Bolch, T. (2007). Climate change and glacier retreat in northern Tien Shan (Kazakhstan/Kyrgyzstan)
using remote sensing data. Global and Planetary Change, 56(1–2), 1–12.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.07.009
Bollmann, K., & Braunisch, V. (2013). To integrate or to segregate: balancing commodity production
and biodiversity conservation in European forests. In D. Kraus & F. Krumm (Eds.), Integrative
approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of forest biodiversity (pp. 18–31). Joenssuu,
Finland: European Forest Institute.
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. G. (2013). Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services
for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(4), 230–238.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012
Bonaiuto, M., Carrus, G., Martorella, H., & Bonnes, M. (2002). Local identity processes and
environmental attitudes in land use changes: The case of natural protected areas. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 23(5), 631–653. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00121-6
Boonstra, W. J., & Österblom, H. (2014). A chain of fools: or, why it is so hard to stop overfishing.
Maritime Studies, 13(1), 15. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40152-014-0015-4
Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Cadule, P., Alvain, S., & Gehlen, M. (2005). Response of diatoms distribution to
global warming and potential implications: A global model study. Geophysical Research Letters,
32(19), L19606. http://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023653
Bosc, E., Bricaud, A., & Antoine, D. (2004). Seasonal and interannual variability in algal biomass and
primary production in the Mediterranean Sea, as derived from 4 years of SeaWiFS observations.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18(1), GB1005. http://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002034
Bouget, C., Lassauce, A., & Jonsell, M. (2012). Effects of fuelwood harvesting on biodiversity — a review
focused on the situation in Europe. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42(8), 1421–1432.

728
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-078
Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental
quality in a growing economy (pp. 3-14). Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bouthillier, L. (2001). Quebec: Consolidation and the movement towards sustainability. In M. Howlett
(Ed.), Canadian forest policy: Adapting to change (pp. 237-278). Toronto, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Boutin, S., & Lane, J. E. (2014). Climate change and mammals: evolutionary versus plastic responses.
Evolutionary Applications, 7(1), 29–41. http://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12121
Bowes, M. J., Loewenthal, M., Read, D. S., Hutchins, M. G., Prudhomme, C., Armstrong, L. K., Harman,
S. A., Wickham, H. D., Gozzard, E., & Carvalho, L. (2016). Identifying multiple stressor controls on
phytoplankton dynamics in the River Thames (UK) using high-frequency water quality data.
Science of The Total Environment, 569–570, 1489–1499.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.239
Bozec, A. (2006). La circulation thermohaline de la Mer Méditerranée sous les climats présents et futurs
[Thermohaline circulation of the Mediterranean Sea under current and future climates] (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.theses.fr/2006PA066009
Bradshaw, C. J. A., Leroy, B., Bellard, C., Albert, C., Roiz, D., Barbet-Massin, M., Salles, J. M., Simard, F.,
& Courchamp, F. (2016). Massive yet grossly underestimated global costs of invasive insects.
Nature Communications, 7, 12986. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12986
Brainerd, S. (2007). European charter on hunting and biodiversity. Retrieved from
http://fp7hunt.net/Portals/HUNT/Hunting_Charter.pdf
Brander, K., Blom, G., Borges, M. F., Erzini, K., & Henderson, G. (2003). Are we seeing a coherent
response to changing temperature? ICES Marine Science Symposia, 219, 261–270.
Brandt, J., Primdahl, J., & Reenberg, A. (1999). Rural land-use and landscape dynamics-analysis of
’driving forces’ in space and time. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.ch/scholar?hl=de&q=Rural+land-use+and+landscape+dynamics-
analysis+of+%27driving+forces%27+in+space+and+time&btnG=&lr=#0
Brang, P., Spathelf, P., Larsen, J. B., Bauhus, J., Bončína, A., Chauvin, C., Drössler, L., García-Güemes, C.,
Heiri, C., Kerr, G., Lexer, M. J., Mason, B., Mohren, F., Mühlethaler, U., Nocentini, S., Svoboda, M.,
Bonc ina, A., Chauvin, C., Drossler, L., Garcia-Guemes, C., Heiri, C., Kerr, G., Lexer, M. J., Mason,
B., Mohren, F., Muhlethaler, U., Nocentini, S., & Svoboda, M. (2014). Suitability of close-to-nature
silviculture for adapting temperate European forests to climate change. Forestry, 87(4), 492–503.
http://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu018
Branquart, E., Verheyen, K., & Latham, J. (2008). Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe:
The theory and the real world. Biological Conservation, 141(11), 2795–2806.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.015
Breen, J. P., Hennessy, T. C., & Thorne, F. S. (2005). The effect of decoupling on the decision to produce:
An Irish case study. Food Policy, 30(2), 129–144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.03.001
Brescancin, F., Dobšinská, Z., De Meo, I., Šálka, J., & Paletto, A. (2017). Analysis of stakeholders’
involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Forest Policy and
Economics. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.013
Breukers, S., & Wolsink, M. (2007). Wind energy policies in the Netherlands: Institutional capacity-

729
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

building for ecological modernisation. Environmental Politics, 16(1), 92–112.

http://doi.org/10.1080/09644010601073838
Bright, J. A., Morris, A. J., Field, R. H., Cooke, A. I., Grice, P. V., Walker, L. K., Fern, J., & Peach, W. J.
(2015). Higher-tier agri-environment scheme enhances breeding densities of some priority
farmland birds in England. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 203, 69–79.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.021
Briones, M. J. I. M., Ineson, P., & Heinemeyer, A. (2007). Predicting potential impacts of climate change
on the geographical distribution of enchytraeids: a meta-analysis approach. Global Change
Biology, 13(11), 2252–2269. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01434.x
Brittain, C., Bommarco, R., Vighi, M., Settele, J., & Potts, S. G. (2010). Organic farming in isolated
landscapes does not benefit flower-visiting insects and pollination. Biological Conservation,
143(8), 1860–1867. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.029
Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P., & Sayer, J. (2008). Plantation forests and
biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(5), 925–951.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x
Bromley, D. W. (1991). Environment and economy: property rights and public policy. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell Ltd.
Brooks, T. M, Akçakaya, H. R., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hoffmann, M., Juffe-
Bignoli, D., Kingston, N., MacSharry, B., Parr, M., Perianin, L., Regan, E. C., Rodrigues, A. S. L.,
Rondinini, C., Shennan-Farpon, Y., & Young, B. E. (2016). Analysing biodiversity and conservation
knowledge products to support regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
http://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.7
Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Gerlach, J., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux, J. F.,
Mittermeier, C. G., Pilgrim, J. D., & Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Global biodiversity conservation
priorities. Science, 313(5783), 58–61. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127609
Browne, M. A., Niven, S. J., Galloway, T. S., Rowland, S. J., & Thompson, R. C. (2013). Microplastic moves
pollutants and additives to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity. Current
Biology, 23(23), 2388–2392. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012
Brudvig, L. A. (2011). The restoration of biodiversity: Where has research been and where does it need
to go? American Journal of Botany, 98(3), 549–558. http://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000285
Brukas, V., & Weber, N. (2009). Forest management after the economic transition—at the crossroads
between German and Scandinavian traditions. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(8), 586–592.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.009
Brumelis, G., Jonsson, B. G., Kouki, J., Kuuluvainen, T., & Shorohova, E. (2011). Forest naturalness in
Northern Europe: Perspectives on processes, structures and species diversity. Silva Fennica,
45(5), 807–821. http://doi.org/10.14214/sf.446
Bubová, T., Vrabec, V., Kulma, M., & Nowicki, P. (2015). Land management impacts on European
butterflies of conservation concern: a review. Journal of Insect Conservation, 19(5), 805–821.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-015-9819-9
Bugalho, M. N., Caldeira, M. C., Pereira, J. S., Aronson, J., & Pausas, J. G. (2011). Mediterranean cork
oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 9(5), 278–286. http://doi.org/10.1890/100084

730
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Buivolov, Yu. A., & Grigorian, A. R. [Буйволов, Ю. А., & Григорян, А. Р.] (2006). Development of
management plans for specially protected natural areas: methodical
recommendation [Разработка планов управления (менеджмент-планов) для особо
охраняемых природных территорий: методические рекомендации]. Moscow, Russian
Federation: Biodiversity Conservation Centre. Retrieved from
https://www.biodiversity.ru/programs/management/doc/Razrabotka_planov_upravleniya_dlya
_OOPT.pdf
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Conservation when nothing stands
still: Moving targets and biodiversity offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4),
203–210. http://doi.org/10.1890/120020
Bürer, M. J., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2009). Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist’s best
friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international cleantech investors. Energy Policy,
37(12), 4997–5006. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.071
Burns, A., & Ryder, D. S. (2001). Potential for biofilms as biological indicators in Australian riverine
systems. Ecological Management and Restoration, 2(1), 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-
8903.2001.00069.x
Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., Baillie,
J. E. M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K. E., Carr, G. M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.
M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N. C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J. N., Genovesi, P.,
Gregory, R. D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M. A.,
McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M. H., Oldfield, T. E. E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer,
J. R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S. N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T. D.,
Vié, J.-C., & Watson, R. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science,
328(5982), 1164–1168. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512
Bütler, R., Lachat, T., Larrieu, L., & Paillet, Y. (2013). Habitat trees: key elements for forest biodiversity.
In D. Kraus & F. Krumm (Eds.), Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of
forest biodiversity (pp. 84-91). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute. Retrieved from
http://prodinra.inra.fr/record/226153
Calvo, G., Mudd, G., Valero, A., & Valero, A. (2016). Decreasing ore grades in global metallic mining: A
theoretical issue or a global reality? Resources, 5(4), 36.
http://doi.org/10.3390/resources5040036
Capinha, C., Larson, E. R., Tricarico, E., Olden, J. D., & Gherardi, F. (2013). Effects of climate change,
invasive species, and disease on the distribution of native European crayfishes. Conservation
Biology, 27(4), 731–740. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12043
Carcaillet, C., Bergman, I., Delorme, S., Hornberg, G., & Zackrisson, O. (2007). Long-term fire frequency
not linked to prehistoric occupations in northern Swedish boreal forest. Ecology, 88(2), 465–477.
http://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2007)88[465:LFFNLT]2.0.CO;2
Cardoso, P. G., Raffaelli, D., Lillebø, A. I., Verdelhos, T., & Pardal, M. A. (2008). The impact of extreme
flooding events and anthropogenic stressors on the macrobenthic communities’ dynamics.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 76(3), 553–565. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.07.026
Carey, J. (2016). Rewilding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 113(15), 3908–3909. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603152113
Carrus, G., Bonaiuto, M., & Bonnes, M. (2005). Environmental concern, regional identity, and support

731
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

for protected areas in Italy. Environment and Behavior, 37, 237–257.

http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916504269644
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Carvell, C., Bourke, A. F. G., Dreier, S., Freeman, S. N., Hulmes, S., Jordan, W. C., Redhead, J. W.,
Summer, S., Wang, J., & Heard, M. S. (2017). Bumblebee family lineage survival is enhanced in
high-quality landscapes. Nature, 543(7646), 547–549. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature21709
Carvell, C., Bourke, A. F. G., Osborne, J. L., & Heard, M. S. (2015). Effects of an agri-environment scheme
on bumblebee reproduction at local and landscape scales. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(6), 519–
530. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2015.05.006
Carvell, C., Osborne, J. L., Bourke, A. F. G., Freeman, S. N., Pywell, R. F., & Heard, M. S. (2011). Bumble
bee species’ responses to a targeted conservation measure depend on landscape context and
habitat quality. Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1760–1771.
Cashore, B., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2003). Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their
policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case
studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(3), 225–247. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-
9341(02)00060-6
Cashore, B., van Kooten, G. C., Vertinsky, I., Auld, G., & Affolderbach, J. (2005). Private or self-
regulation? A comparative study of forest certification choices in Canada, the United States and
Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(1), 53–69. http://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-
9341(03)00011-x
CBD. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
CBD. (2011). CBD biodiversity glossary. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from
https://www.cbd.int/cepa/toolkit/2008/doc/CBD-Toolkit-Glossaries.pdf
CBD. (2014). Global biodiversity outlook 4. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
CBD. (2016). Decision XIII/15: Implications of the IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food
production for the work of the Convention.
Ceaușu, S., Hofmann, M., Navarro, L. M., Carver, S., Verburg, P. H., & Pereira, H. M. (2015). Mapping
opportunities and challenges for rewilding in Europe. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1017–1027.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12533
Celio, E., Koellner, T., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2014). Modeling land use decisions with Bayesian networks:
Spatially explicit analysis of driving forces on land use change. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 52, 222–233. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.014
Centre for Wildlife Conservation [Центр Охраны Дикой Природы]. (1994). Заповедники России
[Strict nature reserves of Russia]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Russian Agricultural Service.
Cermeño, P., Dutkiewicz, S., Harris, R. P., Follows, M., Schofield, O., & Falkowski, P. G. (2008). The role
of nutricline depth in regulating the ocean carbon cycle. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 105(51), 20344–20349.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811302106
Cerqueira, Y., Navarro, L. M., Maes, J., Marta-Pedroso, C., Honrado, J. P., & Pereira, H. M. (2015).
Ecosystem services: The opportunities of rewilding in Europe. In H. M. Pereira & L. M. Navarro
(Eds.), Rewilding European landscapes. (pp. 47–64). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

732
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ceulemans, T., Stevens, C. J., Duchateau, L., Jacquemyn, H., Gowing, D. J. G., Merckx, R., Wallace, H.,
van Rooijen, N., Goethem, T., Bobbink, R., Dorland, E., Gaudnik, C., Alard, D., Corcket, E., Muller,
S., Dise, N. B., Dupré, C., Diekmann, M., & Honnay, O. (2014). Soil phosphorus constrains
biodiversity across European grasslands. Global Change Biology, 20(12), 3814–3822.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12650
Chaladze, G. (2012). Climate-based model of spatial pattern of the species richness of ants in Georgia.
Journal of Insect Conservation, 16(5), 791–800. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-012-9464-5
Chaladze, G., Otto, S., & Tramp, S. (2014). A spider diversity model for the Caucasus Ecoregion. Journal
of Insect Conservation, 18(3), 407–416. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9649-1
Chapman, D., Purse, B. V., Roy, H. E., & Bullock, J. M. (2017). Global trade networks determine the
distribution of invasive non-native species. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26(8), 907–917.
http://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12599
Chassot, E., Bonhommeau, S., Dulvy, N. K., Mélin, F., Watson, R., Gascuel, D., & Le Pape, O. (2010).
Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches. Ecology Letters, 13(4), 495–505.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01443.x
Chen, W.-Q., & Graedel, T. E. (2015). In-use product stocks link manufactured capital to natural capital.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(20), 6265–
70. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406866112
Chibilev, A. A. [Чибилёв, А. А.]. (2014). Заповедник «Оренбургский»: история создания и
природное разнообразие [Orenbyrgsky Strict Nature Reserve: history of creation and natural
diversity]. Ekaterinburg, Russian Federation: Institute of steppe UrO RAS
Chibilev, A. A. [Чибилёв, А. А.]. (2015). Заповедное дело в степной зоне Евразии [Nature protection
in steppe zone of Euroasia]. Известия Оренбургского Государственного Аграрного
Университета [Annuals of Orenburg State Agricultural Univesity], 6(56), 175–177.
Chibilyov (Jr.), A. A. (2016). Cartographic analysis of unused land emergence in the steppe zone of the
Russian Federation. Geographicheskiy Vestnik, 2(37), 40–49.
Chiron, F., Chargé, R., Julliard, R., Jiguet, F., & Muratet, A. (2014). Pesticide doses, landscape structure
and their relative effects on farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 185, 153–
160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.12.013
Christiansen, H. H., Etzelmüller, B., Isaksen, K., Juliussen, H., Farbrot, H., Humlum, O., Johansson, M.,
Ingeman-Nielsen, T., Kristensen, L., Hjort, J., Holmlund, P., Sannel, A. B. K., Sigsgaard, C., Åkerman,
H. J., Foged, N., Blikra, L. H., Pernosky, M. A., & Ødegård, R. S. (2010). The thermal state of
permafrost in the Nordic area during the international polar year 2007-2009. Permafrost and
Periglacial Processes, 21(2), 156–181. http://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.687
Christiansen, H. H., Guglielmin, M., Noetzli, J., Romanovsky, V., Shiklomanov, N., Smith, S., & Zhao, L.
(2012). Permafrost thermal state. In J. Blunden & D. S. Arndt (Eds), State of the climate in 2011
(pp. S19-S21). Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume
93(7).
Chytrý, M., Jarošík, V., Pyšek, P., Hájek, O., Knollová, I., Tichý, L., & Danihelka, J. (2008). Separating
habitat invasibility by alien plants from the actual level of invasion. Ecology, 89(6), 1541–1553.
http://doi.org/10.1890/07-0682.1
Chytrý, M., Wild, J., Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Dendoncker, N., Reginster, I., Pino, J., Maskell, L. C., Vilà, M.,

733
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pergl, J., Kühn, I., Spangenberg, J. H., & Settele, J. (2012). Projecting trends in plant invasions in
Europe under different scenarios of future land-use change. Global Ecology and Biogeography,
21(1), 75–87. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00573.x
Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Viovy, N., Granier, A., Ogée, J., Allard, V., Aubinet, M., Buchmann, N.,
Bernhofer, C., Carrara, A., Chevallier, F., De Noblet, N., Friend, A. D., Friedlingstein, P., Grünwald,
T., Heinesch, B., Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Krinner, G., Loustau, D., Manca, G., Matteucci, G.,
Miglietta, F., Ourcival, J. M., Papale, D., Pilegaard, K., Rambal, S., Seufert, G., Soussana, J. F., Sanz,
M. J., Schulze, E. D., Vesala, T., & Valentini, R. (2005). Europe-wide reduction in primary
productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature, 437(7058), 529–533.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature03972
CISSTAT. (2017). Database of the Interstate Statistical Committee of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS). Retrieved October 1, 2017, from http://www.cisstat.org/eng/index.htm
Civil Initiatives Support Fund [Фонд поддержки гражданских инициатив]. (2006).
Информационный сборник: Традиционные знания в области землепользования и
водопользования [Information book: Traditional knowledge in the field of land use and water
use].
Claesson, S., Duvemo, L., Lundström, A., & Wikberg, P.-E. (2015). Skogliga konsekvensanalyser 2015-
SKA15 [Forest impact assessment 2015].
Clark, J. S., Iverson, L., Woodall, C. W., Allen, C. D., Bell, D. M., Bragg, D. C., D’Amato, A. W., Davis, F.
W., Hersh, M. H., Ibanez, I., Jackson, S. T., Matthews, S., Pederson, N., Peters, M., Schwartz, M.
W., Waring, K. M., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2016). The impacts of increasing drought on forest
dynamics, structure, and biodiversity in the United States. Global Change Biology, 22(7), 2329–
2352. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13160
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Krey, V., Richels, R., Rose, S., & Tavoni, M. (2009). International climate policy
architectures: Overview of the EMF 22 International Scenarios. Energy Economics, 31, S64–S81.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.10.013
Clavero, M., Brotons, L., Pons, P., & Sol, D. (2009). Prominent role of invasive species in avian
biodiversity loss. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2043–2049.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.034
Cleland, E. E., Allen, J. M., Crimmins, T. M., Dunne, J. A., Pau, S., Travers, S. E., Zavaleta, E. S., &
Wolkovich, E. M. (2012). Phenological tracking enables positive species responses to climate
change. Ecology, 93(8), 1765–1771. http://doi.org/10.1890/11-1912.1
Cloern, J. E., & Jassby, A. D. (2012). Drivers of change in estuarine-coastal ecosystems: Discoveries from
four decades of study in San Francisco Bay. Reviews of Geophysics, 50(4), RG4001.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2012RG000397
Colchester, M. (1997). Social change and conservation. In K. Ghimere & M. Pimbert (Eds.), Salvaging
nature: Indigenous peoples, protected areas and biodiversity conservation (pp. 97–130). London
UK: Earthscan.
Coleman, A., & Aykroyd, T. (2009). Proceedings of the conference on wilderness and large habitat
areas.
Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Albouy, C., Ben Rais Lasram, F., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Karpouzi, V. S.,
Guilhaumon, F., Mouillot, D., Paleczny, M., Palomares, M. L., Steenbeek, J., Trujillo, P., Watson,
R., & Pauly, D. (2012). The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine

734
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(4),
465–480. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00697.x
Collier, K. J., Probert, P. K., & Jeffries, M. (2016). Conservation of aquatic invertebrates: concerns,
challenges and conundrums. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(5),
817–837. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2710
Collignon, A., Hecq, J.-H., Glagani, F., Voisin, P., Collard, F., & Goffart, A. (2012). Neustonic microplastic
and zooplankton in the north western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(4), 861–
864. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.011
Connolly, N. M., Crossland, M. R., & Pearson, R. G. (2004). Effect of low dissolved oxygen on survival,
emergence, and drift of tropical stream macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society, 23(2), 251–270. http://doi.org/10.1899/0887-
3593(2004)023<0251:EOLDOO>2.0.CO;2
Cook, B. I., Wolkovich, E. M., & Parmesan, C. (2012). Divergent responses to spring and winter warming
drive community level flowering trends. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 109(23), 9000–9005. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118364109
Cornulier, T., Yoccoz, N. G., Bretagnolle, V., Brommer, J. E., Butet, A., Ecke, F., Elston, D. A., Framstad,
E., Henttonen, H., Hornfeldt, B., Huitu, O., Imholt, C., Ims, R. A., Jacob, J., Jedrzejewska, B., Millon,
A., Petty, S. J., Pietiainen, H., Tkadlec, E., Zub, K., & Lambin, X. (2013). Europe-wide dampening of
population cycles in keystone herbivores. Science, 340(6128), 63–66.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228992
Cortes-Vazquez, J. A. (2014). Protected areas, conservation stakeholders and the “naturalisation” of
southern Europe. Forum for Development Studies, 41(2), 183–205.
http://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2014.901238
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill,
R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s
ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.
http://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0
Costello, M. J., & Ballantine, B. (2015). Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take marine
reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(9), 507–509.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.011
Couture, R. M., Charlet, L., Markelova, E., Madé, B., & Parsons, C. T. (2015). On-off mobilization of
contaminants in soils during redox oscillations. Environmental Science and Technology, 49(5),
3015–3023. http://doi.org/10.1021/es5061879
Crona, B. I., Daw, T. M., Swartz, W., Norström, A. V, Nyström, M., Thyresson, M., Folke, C., Hentati-
Sundberg, J., Österblom, H., Deutsch, L., & Troell, M. (2016). Masked, diluted and drowned out:
how global seafood trade weakens signals from marine ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries, 17(4),
1175–1182. http://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12109
Crouzeilles, R., Curran, M., Ferreira, M. S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Grelle, C. E. V., & Rey Benayas, J. M.
(2016). A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nature
Communications, 7, 11666. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11666
Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(6867), 23–23. http://doi.org/10.1038/415023a
Csergo, A. M., Demeter, L., & Turkington, R. (2013). Declining diversity in abandoned grasslands of the
Carpathian Mountains: Do dominant species matter? PLoS ONE, 8(8), 1–9.

735
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073533
Curado, N., Hartel, T., & Arntzen, J. W. (2011). Amphibian pond loss as a function of landscape change
– A case study over three decades in an agricultural area of northern France. Biological
Conservation, 144(5), 1610–1618. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.011
D’Huart, J. P. (1996). Armed conflicts and protected areas in Central Africa. In C. Lewis (Ed.), Managing
conflicts in protected areas (pp. 68–70). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Dahl, C., & Kuralbayeva, K. (2001). Energy and the environment in Kazakhstan. Energy Policy, 29(6),
429–440. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00137-3
Dai, A. (2011). Drought under global warming: a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 2(1), 45–65. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.81
DAISIE. (2009). Handbook of alien species in Europe. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Daly, H. E., & Farley, J. (2004). Ecological economics: principles and applications. Washington, DC, USA:
Island Press.
Daufresne, M., Lengfellner, K., & Sommer, U. (2009). Global warming benefits the small in aquatic
ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
106(31), 12788–12793. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902080106
Davies, T. W., Bennie, J., Inger, R., de Ibarra, N. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2013). Artificial light pollution: are
shifting spectral signatures changing the balance of species interactions? Global Change Biology,
19(5), 1417–23. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12166
Davies, T. W., Duffy, J. P., Bennie, J., & Gaston, K. J. (2014). The nature, extent, and ecological
implications of marine light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(6), 347–355.
http://doi.org/10.1890/130281
Dawson, L., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., & Gordon, J. (2017). Governance and management dynamics
of landscape restoration at multiple scales: Learning from successful environmental managers in
Sweden. Journal of Environmental Management, 197, 24–40.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.019
de Merode, E., Smith, K. H., Homewood, K., Pettifor, R., Rowcliffe, M., & Cowlishaw, G. (2007). The
impact of armed conflict on protected-area efficacy in Central Africa. Biology Letters, 3(3), 299–
301. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0010
De Wit, H. A., Valinia, S., Weyhenmeyer, G. A., Futter, M. N., Kortelainen, P., Austnes, K., Hessen, D. O.,
Raike, A., Laudon, H., & Vuorenmaa, J. (2016). Current browning of surface waters will be further
promoted by wetter climate. Environmental Science and Technology Letters, 3(12), 430–435.
http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00396
Deguines, N., Jono, C., Baude, M., Henry, M., Julliard, R., & Fontaine, C. (2014). Large-scale trade-off
between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 12(4), 212–217. http://doi.org/10.1890/130054
Del-Pilar-Ruso, Y., De-la-Ossa-Carretero, J. A., Giménez-Casalduero, F., & Sánchez-Lizaso, J. L. (2008).
Effects of a brine discharge over soft bottom Polychaeta assemblage. Environmental Pollution,
156(2), 240–250. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.12.041
Del-Pilar-Ruso, Y., Martinez-Garcia, E., Giménez-Casalduero, F., Loya-Fernández, A., Ferrero-Vicente, L.
M., Marco-Méndez, C., de-la-Ossa-Carretero, J. A., & Sánchez-Lizaso, J. L. (2015). Benthic
community recovery from brine impact after the implementation of mitigation measures. Water

736
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Research, 70, 325–336. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.11.036

Demidova, N. (2013). Regional synthesis on the forest genetic resources of Central Asia. Ankara, Turkey,
FAO.
Dengler, J., Janišová, M., Török, P., & Wellstein, C. (2014). Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: a
synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 182, 1–14.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.12.015
Denisenko, N. V. (2010). The description and prediction of benthic biodiversity in high Arctic and
freshwater-dominated marine areas: the southern Onega Bay (the White Sea). Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 61(4–6), 224–33. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.02.017
Devictor, V., van Swaay, C., Brereton, T., Brotons, L., Chamberlain, D., Heliölä, J., Herrando, S., Julliard,
R., Kuussaari, M., Lindström, Å., Reif, J., Roy, D. B., Schweiger, O., Settele, J., Stefanescu, C., Van
Strien, A., Van Turnhout, C., Vermouzek, Z., WallisDeVries, M., Wynhoff, I., & Jiguet, F. (2012).
Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nature Climate
Change, 2(2), 121–124. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1347
Devillers, R., Pressey, R. L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J. N., Edgar, G. J., Ward, T., & Watson, R. (2015).
Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for
protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 25(4), 480–504.
http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2445
Díaz, G. I., Nahuelhual, L., Echeverría, C., & Marín, S. (2011). Drivers of land abandonment in southern
Chile and implications for landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99(3–4), 207–217.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.11.005
Diaz, M., Tietje, W. D., & Barret, R. H. (2013). Effects of management in biological diversity and
endangered species. In P. Campo, L. Huntsinger, J. L. Oviedo, & P. F. Starrs (Eds.), Mediterranean
oak woodland working landscapes: Dehesas of Spain and ranchlands of California (pp. 213–243).
New York, USA: Springer.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigaderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico,
S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E.,
Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G. M., Martin-López,
B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Reyers, B., Pascual, U., Selvin Pérez, E., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito,
O., Scholes, R. J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z. A., Akosim,
C., Al-Hafedh, Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, T. S., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, A. L.,
Caillaux, J., Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda,
A. M. M., Fu, B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W.
A., Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J. P., Mikissa, J. B., Moller,
H., Mooney, H. A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A. A., Pataki, G., Roué,
M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Teo-Chang,
Y., & Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Dicks, L. V., Viana, B., Bommarco, R., Brosi, B., Arizmendi, C., Cunningham, S. A., Galetto, L., Hill, R.,
Lopes, A. V., Pires, C., Taki, H, & Potts, S. G. (2016). Ten policies for pollinators. Science, 354(6315),
975–976. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai9226
Didham, R. K., Tylianakis, J. M., Gemmell, N. J., Rand, T. A., & Ewers, R. M. (2007). Interactive effects of
habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends in Ecology and

737
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Evolution, 22(9), 489–496. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.001

Diekötter, T., Peter, F., Jauker, B., Wolters, V., & Jauker, F. (2014). Mass-flowering crops increase
richness of cavity-nesting bees and wasps in modern agro-ecosystems. GCB Bioenergy, 6(3), 219–
226. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12080
Diez, J. M., D’Antonio, C. M., Dukes, J. S., Grosholz, E. D., Olden, J. D., Sorte, C. J. B., Blumenthal, D. M.,
Bradley, B. A., Early, R., Ibanez, I., Jones, S. J., Lawler, J. J., & Miller, L. P. (2012). Will extreme
climatic events facilitate biological invasions? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(5),
249–257. http://doi.org/10.1890/110137
DIISE. (2015). The database of island invasive species eradications, developed by Island Conservation,
Coastal Conservation Action Laboratory UCSC, IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group.
Retrieved from http://diise.islandconservation.org
Dikkaya, M., & Keles, I. (2006). A case study of foreign direct investment in Kyrgyzstan. Central Asian
Survey, 25(1–2), 149–156. http://doi.org/10.1080/02634930600903213
Dimeyeva, L. A. (2013). Phytogeography of the northeastern coast of the Caspian Sea: Native flora and
recent colonizations. Journal of Arid Land, 5(4), 439–451. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-013-
0175-x
Dinasilov A. [Динасилов, А.]. (2013). Вторжение и распространение карантинных вредных
организмов в Республике Казахстан [Invasion and distribution of quarantine harmful organisms
in the republic of Kazakhstan]. Сельскохозяйственные науки и агропромышленный комплекс
в условиях столетий, 2, 71–75.
Dirnböck, T., Grandin, U., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Beudert, B., Canullo, R., Forsius, M., Grabner,
M.-T., Holmberg, M., Kleemola, S., Lundin, L., Mirtl, M., Neumann, M., Pompei, E., Salemaa, M.,
Starlinger, F., Staszewski, T., & Uziębło, A. K. (2014). Forest floor vegetation response to nitrogen
deposition in Europe. Global Change Biology, 20(2), 429–440. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12440
Dirzo, R., & Raven, P. H. (2003). Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 28(1), 137–167. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532
Dise, N. B., Ashmore, M., Belyazid, S., Bleeker, A., Bobbink, R., de Vries, W., Erisman, J. W., Spranger,
T., Stevens, C. J., & van den Berg, L. (2011). Nitrogen as a threat to European biodiversity. In M.
Sutton, C. Howard, J. Erisman, G. Billen, A. Bleeker, P. Grennfelt, van Grinsven, H., & Grizzetti, B.
(Eds.), The European nitrogen assessment (pp. 463–494). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976988.023
Dixon, J. M., Donati, K. J., Pike, L. L., & Hattersley, L. (2009). Functional foods and urban agriculture:
two responses to climate change-related food insecurity. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin,
20(2), 14. http://doi.org/10.1071/NB08044
Dixon, S. J., Sear, D. A., Odoni, N. A., Sykes, T., & Lane, S. N. (2016). The effects of river restoration on
catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41(7),
997–1008. http://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3919
Dmitriev, V. [Дмитриев, В.]. (1991). Знание народное: свод этнографических понятий и терминов.
[Folk knowledge: a set of ethnographic concepts and terms] Народные Знания. Фольклор.
Нородное Искусство [Folk knowledge. Folklore. Folk art], 4, 45.47.
Dokulil, M. T., & Teubner, K. (2010). Eutrophication and climate change: present situation and future
scenarios. In A. Ansari, S. S. Gill, G. Lanza, & W. Rast (Eds.), Eutrophication: causes, consequences

738
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and control (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-

481-9625-8_1
Donald, P. F., Sanderson, F. J., Burfield, I. J., Bierman, S. M., Gregory, R. D., & Waliczky, Z. (2007).
International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science, 317(5839), 810–
813. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146002
Donnelly, A., Caffarra, A., Kelleher, C., O’Neill, B., Diskin, E., Pletsers, A., Proctor, H., Stirnemann, R.,
O’Halloran, J., Peñuelas, J., Hodkinson, T., & Sparks, T. (2012). Surviving in a warmer world:
environmental and genetic responses. Climate Research, 53(3), 245–262.
http://doi.org/10.3354/cr01102
Dormann, C. F., Schweiger, O., Augenstein, I., Bailey, D., Billeter, R., De Blust, G., Defilippi, R., Frenzel,
M., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Klotz, S., Liira, J., Maelfait, J. P., Schmidt, T., Speelmans, M., Van
Wingerden, W. K. R. E., & Zobel, M. (2007). Effects of landscape structure and land-use intensity
on similarity of plant and animal communities. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16(6), 774–787.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00344.x
Doroshenko, S. V., Shelomentsev, A. G., Sirotkina, N. V., & Khusainov, B. D. (2014). Paradoxes of the
«natural resource curse» regional development in the post-Soviet space. Экономика Региона
[Economy of the Region], 4(40), 81–93.
Douvere, F., & Ehler, C. N. (2009). New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from
European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1),
77–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.004
Doxa, A., Bas, Y., Paracchini, M. L., Pointereau, P., Terres, J. M., & Jiguet, F. (2010). Low-intensity
agriculture increases farmland bird abundances in France. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(6),
1348–1356. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01869.x
Drobyshev, I., Bergeron, Y., Linderholm, H. W., Granström, A., & Niklasson, M. (2015). A 700-year
record of large fire years in northern Scandinavia shows large variability and increased frequency
during the 1800s. Journal of Quaternary Science, 30(3), 211–221.
http://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.2765
DuBois, T. A., & Lang, J. F. (2013). Johan Turi’s animal, mineral, vegetable cures and healing practices:
an in-depth analysis of Sami (Saami) folk healing one hundred years ago. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 9(1), 57. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-57
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z.-I., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.
J., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L. J., & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater
biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81(2),
163. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950
Dudley, J. P., Ginsberg, J. R., Plumptre, A. J., Hart, J. A., & Campos, L. C. (2002). Effects of war and civil
strife on wildlife and wildlife habitats. Conservation Biology, 16(2), 319-329.
http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00306.x
Dudley, N., Groves, C., Redford, K. H., & Stolton, S. (2014). Where now for protected areas? Setting the
stage for the 2014 World Parks Congress. Oryx, 48(4), 496–503.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000519
Dugan, J. E., & Davis, G. E. (1993). Applications of marine refugia to coastal fisheries management.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50(9), 2029–2042.
http://doi.org/10.1139/f93-227

739
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Dukes, J. S., & Mooney, H. A. (1999). Does global change increase the success of biological invaders?
Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(4), 135–139. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01554-7
Dullinger, S., Gattringer, A., Thuiller, W., Moser, D., Zimmermann, N. E., Guisan, A., Willner, W., Plutzar,
C., Leitner, M., Mang, T., Caccianiga, M., Dirnbock, T., Ertl, S., Fischer, A., Lenoir, J., Svenning, J.
C., Psomas, A., Schmatz, D. R., Silc, U., Vittoz, P., & Hulber, K. (2012). Extinction debt of high-
mountain plants under twenty-first-century climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 619–
622. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1514
Durrieu de Madron, X., Guieu, C., Sempéré, R., Conan, P., Cossa, D., D’Ortenzio, F., Estournel, C.,
Gazeau, F., Rabouille, C., Stemmann, L., Bonnet, S., Diaz, F., Koubbi, P., Radakovitch, O., Babin,
M., Baklouti, M., Bancon-Montigny, C., Belviso, S., Bensoussan, N., Bonsang, B., Bouloubassi, I.,
Brunet, C., Cadiou, J.-F., Carlotti, F., Chami, M., Charmasson, S., Charrière, B., Dachs, J., Doxaran,
D., Dutay, J.-C., Elbaz-Poulichet, F., Eléaume, M., Eyrolles, F., Fernandez, C., Fowler, S., Francour,
P., Gaertner, J. C., Galzin, R., Gasparini, S., Ghiglione, J.-F., Gonzalez, J.-L., Goyet, C., Guidi, L.,
Guizien, K., Heimbürger, L.-E., Jacquet, S. H. M., Jeffrey, W. H., Joux, F., Le Hir, P., Leblanc, K.,
Lefèvre, D., Lejeusne, C., Lemé, R., Loÿe-Pilot, M.-D., Mallet, M., Méjanelle, L., Mélin, F., Mellon,
C., Mérigot, B., Merle, P.-L., Migon, C., Miller, W. L., Mortier, L., Mostajir, B., Mousseau, L.,
Moutin, T., Para, J., Pérez, T., Petrenko, A., Poggiale, J.-C., Prieur, L., Pujo-Pay, M., Pulido-Villena,
Raimbault, P., Rees, A. P., Ridame, C., Rontani, J.-F., Ruiz Pino, D., Sicre, M. A., Taillandier, V.,
Tamburini, C., Tanaka, T., Taupier-Letage, I., Tedetti, M., Testor, P., Thébault, H., Thouvenin, B.,
Touratier, F., Tronczynski, J., Ulses, C., Van Wambeke, F., Vantrepotte, V., Vaz, S., & Verney, R.
(2011). Marine ecosystems’ responses to climatic and anthropogenic forcings in the
Mediterranean. Progress in Oceanography, 91(2), 97–166.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2011.02.003
Dusseldorp, G., O’Briain, M., & van Opstal, S. (Eds.). (2004). Report of the EU Conference "25 Years of
the Birds Directive: Challenges for 25 Countries". Retrieved from http://edepot.wur.nl/118449
Early, R., Bradley, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Lawler, J. J., Olden, J. D., Blumenthal, D. M., Gonzalez, P., Grosholz,
E. D., Ibañez, I., Miller, L. P., Sorte, C. J. B., & Tatem, A. J. (2016). Global threats from invasive alien
species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nature Communications, 7,
12485. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12485
Edenius, L., & Sjoberg, K. (1997). Distribution of birds in natural landscape mosaics of old-growth
forests in northern Sweden: relations to habitat area and landscape context. Ecography, 20(5),
425–431. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00410.x
Edwards, M., & Richardson, A. J. (2004). Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and
trophic mismatch. Nature, 430(7002), 881–884. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature02808
EEA. (1999). State and pressure of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment (Vol. 5).
Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVSERIES05
EEA. (2007). Impacts due to over-abstraction. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/water/water-resources/impacts-due-to-over-abstraction
EEA. (2012a). Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012 - An indicator-based report.
EEA Report. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-impacts-and-
vulnerability-2012
EEA. (2012b). Environmental indicator report 2012 - Ecosystem resilience and resource efficiency in a
green economy in Europe. Part 2. Thematic indicator-based assessments.

740
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

EEA. (2012c). The impacts of endocrine disrupters on wildlife, people and their environments – The
Weybridge+15 (1996–2011) report. EEA Technical report (Vol. 2/2012).
http://doi.org/doi:10.2800/41462 ISSN 1725-2237 ISBN 978-92-9213-307-8
EEA. (2012d). Total fish catches, aquaculture production, consumption, imports and exports for EEA-
32 countries and the western Balkans. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/total-fish-catches-aquaculture-
production/total-fish-catches-aquaculture-production
EEA. (2012e). WISE WFD Database. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/wise_wfd
EEA. (2014a). Assessment of global megatrends — an update — European Environment Agency.
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/sustainability-transitions/global-
megatrends/global-megatends
EEA. (2014b). Effects of air pollution on European ecosystems: Past and future exposure of European
freshwater and terrestrial habitats to acidifying and eutrophying air pollutants. EEA Technical
report. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39304.389433.AD
EEA. (2014c). NEC Directive status report 2013, Reporting by the Member States under Directive
2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national
emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants, EEA Technical report No 10/2014.
EEA. (2014d). Ocean oxygen content. Indicator Assessment. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/ocean-oxygen-content/assessment
EEA. (2014e). Resource-efficient green economy and EU policies. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/resourceefficient-green-economy-and-eu
EEA. (2015a). Agriculture. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/downloads/56515c38f2d74767b945addd1df361bf/1479205831/a
griculture.pdf
EEA. (2015b). The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
EEA. (2015c). The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Synthesis report. Copenhagen,
Denmark: European Environment Agency.
EEA. (2016a). Air quality in Europe — 2016 report. EEA Report. http://doi.org/10.2800/413142
EEA. (2016b). European forest ecosystems - state and trends. http://doi.org/doi:10.2800/964893
EEA. (2016c). Pesticide sales. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2016/environment-and-health/pesticides-sales
EEA. (2016d). Urban sprawl in Europe. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_10
EEA. (2017). Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-impacts-and-vulnerability-2016
EEA. (2015). Serbia country briefing - The European environment — state and outlook 2015. Retrieved
from https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries/serbia
Eganov, K. V. (1967). Fodder value of grasses and meaning of pasturage of cattle in mountain forest of
Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: Vasil Gulisashvili Forest Institute.

741
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ehler, C. (2008). Conclusions: Benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges of marine spatial
planning. Marine Policy, 32(5), 840–843. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.014
Eichhorn, M. P., Paris, P., Herzog, F., Incoll, L. D., Liagre, F., Mantzanas, K., Mayus, M., Moreno, G.,
Papanastasis, V. P., Pilbeam, D. J., Pisanelli, A., & Dupraz, C. (2006). Silvoarable systems in Europe
– past, present and future prospects. Agroforestry Systems, 67(1), 29–50.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-1111-7
Einav, R., & Lokiec, F. (2003). Environmental aspects of a desalination plant in Ashkelon. Desalination,
156(1–3), 79–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(03)00328-X
Ekroos, J., Olsson, O., Rundlöf, M., Wätzold, F., & Smith, H. G. (2014). Optimizing agri-environment
schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biological Conservation, 172, 65–71.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.013
Ekvall, T., Hirschnitz-Garbers, M., Eboli, F., & Śniegocki, A. (2016). A systemic and systematic approach
to the development of a policy mix for material resource efficiency. Sustainability, 8(4), 373.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su8040373
Elbakidze, M., Andersson, K., Angelstam, P., Armstrong, G. W., Axelsson, R., Doyon, F., Hermansson,
M., Jacobsson, J., & Pautov, Y. (2013a). Sustained Yield Forestry in Sweden and Russia: How Does
it Correspond to Sustainable Forest Management Policy? Ambio, 42(2), 160–173.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0370-6
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Nordberg, M., & Pautov, Y. (2011). How does forest
certification contribute to boreal biodiversity conservation? Standards and outcomes in Sweden
and NW Russia. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(11), 1983–1995.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.040
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Sobolev, N., Degerman, E., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Hojer, O., &
Wennberg, S. (2013b). Protected area as an indicator of ecological sustainability? A century of
development in Europe’s boreal forest. Ambio, 42(2), 201–214. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
012-0375-1
Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Yamelynets, T., Dawson, L., Gebrehiwot, M., Stryamets, N., Johansson, K.
E., Garrido, P., Naumov, V., & Manton, M. (2017). A bottom-up approach to map land covers as
potential green infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural settings: A case study from
Sweden. Landscape and Urban Planning, 168, 72–83.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.031
Elbakidze, M., Hahn, T., Mauerhofer, V., Angelstam, P., & Axelsson, R. (2013c). Legal framework for
biosphere reserves as learning sites for sustainable development: A comparative analysis of
Ukraine and Sweden. Ambio, 42(2), 174–187. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0373-3
Elenius, L., Allard, C., & Sandström, C. (2017). Indigenous rights in modern landscapes: Nordic
conservation regimes in global context. London, UK: Routledge.
http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315607559
Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Anthropogenic
transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5), 589-606.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00540.x
Elmhagen, B., Kindberg, J., Hellström, P., & Angerbjörn, A. (2015). A boreal invasion in response to
climate change? Range shifts and community effects in the borderland between forest and
tundra. Ambio, 44(S1), 39–50. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0606-8

742
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Elser, J. J., Bracken, M. E. S., Cleland, E. E., Gruner, D. S., Harpole, W. S., Hillebrand, H., Ngai, J. T.,
Seabloom, E. W., Shurin, J. B., & Smith, J. E. (2007). Global analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus
limitation of primary producers in freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology Letters,
10(12), 1135–1142. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01113.x
Erisman, W. J., Leach, A., Adams, M., Agboola, I. J., Ahmetaj, L., Alard, D., Austin, A., Awodun, M. A.,
Bareham, S., Bird, T., Bleeker, A., Bull, K., Cornell, S. E., Davidson, E., de Vries, W., Dias, T., Emmett,
B., Goodale, C., Greaver, T., Haeuber, R., Harmens, H., Hicks, W. K., Hogbom, L., Jarvis, P.,
Johansson, M., Masters, Z., McClean, C., Paton, B., Perez, T., Plesnik, J., Rao, N., Schmidt, S.,
Sharma, Y. B., Tokuchi, N., & Whitfield, P. C. (2014). Nitrogen deposition effects on ecosystem
services and interactions with other pollutants and climate change. In M. A. Sutton, K. E. Mason,
L. J. Sheppard, H. Sverdrup, R. Haeuber, & W. K. Hicks (Eds.), Nitrogen deposition, critical loads
and biodiversity (pp. 493-506). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7939-6
Erixon, S. (1960). Swedish villages without systematic settlement. A comparative historic study.
Stockholm, Sweden: Nordiska museet.
Esseen, P.-A., Ehnström, B., Ericson, L., & Sjöberg, K. (1997). Boreal forests. Ecological Bulletins, 46, 16–
47.
Essl, F., Dullinger, S., Rabitsch, W., Hulme, P. E., Hülber, K., Jarošík, V., Kleinbauer, I., Krausmann, F.,
Kühn, I., Nentwig, W., Vilà, M., Genovesi, P., Gherardi, F., Desprez-Loustau, M.-L., Roques, A., &
Pyšek, P. (2011). Socioeconomic legacy yields an invasion debt. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(1), 203–207.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011728108
ESTstat. (2017). Statistics Estonia online database. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
https://www.stat.ee/database
European Commission. (2009). Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and
subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Official Journal of the European
Union, L 140(52), 16–62. http://doi.org/10.3000/17252555.L_2009.140.eng
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:22040
European Commission. (2012). A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources. Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673
European Commission. (2013). The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive
analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation. http://doi.org/10.2779/822269
European Commission. (2014). Evaluation and exchange of good practice for the sustainable supply of
raw materials within the EU. Final Report.
European Commission. (2015). Mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/mid_term_review_sum
mary.pdf
European Commission. (2017a). Report from the Comission to the European Parliament, the Council,
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the
implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/implementation_report.pdf

743
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

European Commission. (2017b). Strategy for smart sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved January
1, 2017, from http://www.efesme.org/europe-2020-a-strategy-for-smart-sustainable-and-
inclusive-growth
European Parliament. (2012). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020
European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU
biodiversity strategy to 2020 (2011/2307(INI)).
European Union. (2014). Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm
Eurostat. (2015). Eurostat Statistics Explained - Water statistics. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Water_statistics
Eurostat. (2016). Air pollution statistics. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Air_pollution_statistics
Eurostat. (2017a). Components of domestic material consumption. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/external/components-of-domestic-material-
consumption
Eurostat. (2017b). Environmental tax statistics 2016. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_tax_statistics
Evans, D. J. A., Ewertowski, M., Jamieson, S. S. R., & Orton, C. (2015). Surficial geology and
geomorphology of the Kumtor gold mine, Kyrgyzstan: human impacts on mountain glacier
landsystems. Journal of Maps, 12(5), 757 -769. http://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2015.1071720
Evans, E. E. (1940). Transhumance in Europe. Geography, 25(4), 172–180.
Ewers, R. M., & Didham, R. K. (2006). Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to
habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews, 81, 117–142.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006949
FAO. (2009). Russian Federation: Analysis of the agribusiness sector in southern Russia. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/aj281e/aj281e00.htm
Farrell, E. P., Führer, E., Ryan, D., Andersson, F., Hüttl, R., & Piussi, P. (2000). European forest
ecosystems: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecology and Management,
132(1), 5–20. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00375-3
Fedorova, E. G. [Федорова, Е. Г.] (1986). Элементы традиционного в современныхо
хозяйствованных занятиях северных Манси: культурные традиции народов Сибири
(Traditional elements in current practices of northern Mansi people: cultural traditions of Siberian
peoples). Leningrad, USSR: Nauka.
Fenberg, P. B., Caselle, J. E., Claudet, J., Clemence, M., Gaines, S. D., García-Charton, A. J., Gonçalves,
E. J., Grorud-Colvert, K., Guidetti, P., Jenkins, S. R., Jones, P. J. S., Lester, S. E., McAllen, R., Moland,
E., Planes, S., & Sørensen, T. K. (2012). The science of European marine reserves: Status, efficacy,
and future needs. Marine Policy, 36(5), 1012–1021.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.021
Fenech, N. (1992). Fatal flight. The Maltese obsession with killing birds. London, UK: Quiller Press.
Feranec, J., Jaffrain, G., Soukup, T., & Hazeu, G. (2010). Determining changes and flows in European
landscapes 1990–2000 using CORINE land cover data. Applied Geography, 30(1), 19–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2009.07.003

744
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ffrench-Constant, R. H., Somers-Yeates, R., Bennie, J., Economou, T., Hodgson, D., Spalding, A., &
McGregor, P. K. (2016). Light pollution is associated with earlier tree budburst across the United
Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1833), 20160813.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.0813
FiBL. (2015). Organic world. Retrieved from http://www.organic-
world.net/yearbook/yearbook2015.html
Ficetola, G. F., Bonardi, A., Sindaco, R., & Padoa-Schioppa, E. (2013). Estimating patterns of reptile
biodiversity in remote regions. Journal of Biogeography, 40(6), 1202–1211.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12060
Fischer, A., Sandström, C., Delibes-Mateos, M., Arroyo, B., Tadie, D., Randall, D., Hailu, F., Lowassa, A.,
Msuha, M., Kereži, V., Reljić, S., Linnell, J., & Majić, A. (2013). On the multifunctionality of hunting
– an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 56(4), 531–552. http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.689615
Fischer, J., & Lindenmayer, D. B. (2007). Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a
synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16(3), 265–280. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2007.00287.x
Fisher, R. J., Schmidt, K., Steenhof, B., & Akenshaev, N. (2004). Poverty and forestry: A case study of
Kyrgyzstan with reference to other countries in West and Central Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j2603e/j2603e00.htm
Flohre, A., Fischer, C., Aavik, T., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Bommarco, R., Ceryngier, P., Clement, L.
W., Dennis, C., Eggers, S., Emmerson, M., Geiger, F., Guerrero, I., Hawro, V., Inchausti, P., Liira, J.,
Morales, M. B., Oñate, J. J., Pärt, T., Weisser, W. W., Winqvist, C., Thies, C., & Tscharntke, T.
(2011). Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes
comparing plants, carabids, and birds. Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1772–1781.
http://doi.org/10.1890/10-0645.1
Foley, J. A., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T.,
Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda,
C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land
use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Fonji, S., & Taff, G. N. (2014). Using satellite data to monitor land-use land-cover change in north-
eastern Latvia. SpringerPlus, 3(1), 61. http://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-61
Fontaine, C. M., Rounsevell, M. D. A, & Barbette, A. C. (2014). Locating household profiles in a
polycentric region to refine the inputs to an agent-based model of residential mobility.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41(1), 163–184.
http://doi.org/10.1068/b37072
Font Vivanco, D., Kemp, R., & van der Voet, E. (2016). How to deal with the rebound effect? A policy-
oriented approach. Energy Policy, 94, 114–125. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.054
Forbord, M., Bjørkhaug, H., & Burton, R. J. F. (2014). Drivers of change in Norwegian agricultural land
control and the emergence of rental farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 9–19.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.10.009

745
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Forest Europe. (2011). State of Europe’s forests 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.unece.org/forests/fr/outputs/soef2011.html
Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s forests 2015. Retrieved from http://foresteurope.org/state-
europes-forests-2015-report/
Forsius, M., Akujärvi, A., Mattsson, T., Holmberg, M., Punttila, P., Posch, M., Liski, J., Repo, A., Virkkala,
R., & Vihervaara, P. (2016). Modelling impacts of forest bioenergy use on ecosystem
sustainability: Lammi LTER region, southern Finland. Ecological Indicators, 65, 66–75.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.032
Fossheim, M., Primicerio, R., Johannesen, E., Ingvaldsen, R. B., Aschan, M. M., & Dolgov, A. V. (2015).
Recent warming leads to a rapid borealization of fish communities in the Arctic. Nature Climate
Change, 5(7), 673–677. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2647
Fossi, M. C., Coppola, D., Baini, M., Giannetti, M., Guerranti, C., Marsili, L., Panti, C., de Sabata, E., &
Clò, S. (2014). Large filter feeding marine organisms as indicators of microplastic in the pelagic
environment: The case studies of the Mediterranean basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) and fin
whale (Balaenoptera physalus). Marine Environmental Research, 100, 17–24.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2014.02.002
Fragoso, R., Marques, C., Lucas, M. R., Martins, M. B., & Jorge, R. (2011). The economic effects of
common agricultural policy on Mediterranean montado/dehesa ecosystem. Journal of Policy
Modeling, 33(2), 311–327. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.12.007
Francis, R. (Ed.). (2012). A handbook of global freshwater invasive species. Abingdon, UK: Earthscan.
Frankham, R., Bradshaw, C. J. A., & Brook, B. W. (2014). Genetics in conservation management: Revised
recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses.
Biological Conservation, 170, 56–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.036
Franks, S. J., Weber, J. J., & Aitken, S. N. (2014). Evolutionary and plastic responses to climate change
in terrestrial plant populations. Evolutionary Applications, 7(1), 123–139.
http://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12112
Frei, C., Schöll, R., Fukutome, S., Schmidli, J., & Vidale, P. L. (2006). Future change of precipitation
extremes in Europe: Intercomparison of scenarios from regional climate models. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 111(6), D06105. http://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005965
Frenken, K. (2013). Irrigation in Central Asia in figures. Rome, Italy: FAO. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3289e/i3289e.pdf
FSC. (2016). Structure, content and development of interim national standards. Retrieved from
https://ic.fsc.org/en
Fu, B., Wang, S., Su, C., & Forsius, M. (2013). Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 4–10.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.002
Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Goulson, D., & Park, K. J. (2011). The effectiveness of agri-environment
schemes for the conservation of farmland moths: Assessing the importance of a landscape-scale
management approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 532–542.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01927.x
Fuller, R. M. (1987). The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands in England
and Wales: A review of grassland surveys 1930–1984. Biological Conservation, 40, 281–300.

746
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(87)90121-2
Furstenberg, S. (2015). Consolidating global governance in nondemocratic countries: Critical
reflections on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in Kyrgyzstan. The Extractive
Industries and Society, 2(3), 462-471. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2015.06.007
Gabrié, C., Lagabrielle, E., Bissery, C., Crochelet, E., Meola, B., Webster, C., Claudet, J., Chassanite, A.,
Marinesque, S., Robert, P., Goutx, M., & Quod, C. (2012). Statut des Aires Marines Protégées en
mer Méditerranée [Status of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean Sea].
Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Hodgson, J. A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W. E., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scale matters:
the impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Letters, 13(7),
858–69. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01481.x
Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Kunin, W. E., & Benton, T. G. (2013). Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing
organic and conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(2), 355–364.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12035
Gaines, S. D., Lester, S. E., Grorud-Colvert, K., Costello, C., & Pollnac, R. (2010). Evolving science of
marine reserves: New developments and emerging research frontiers. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(43), 18251–18255.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002098107
Galaz, V., Gars, J., Moberg, F., Nykvist, B., & Repinski, C. (2015). Why ecologists should care about
financial markets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(10), 571–580.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.015
Gallardo, B., & Aldridge, D. C. (2013). The “dirty dozen”: Socio-economic factors amplify the invasion
potential of 12 high-risk aquatic invasive species in Great Britain and Ireland. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 50(3), 757–766. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12079
Gallardo, B., Zieritz, A., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015). The importance of the human footprint in shaping the
global distribution of terrestrial, freshwater and marine invaders. PloS One, 10(5), e0125801.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125801
Gallina, N., Anneville, O., & Beniston, M. (2011). Impacts of extreme air temperatures on cyanobacteria
in five deep peri-Alpine lakes. Journal of Limnology, 70(2), 186.
http://doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2011.186
Galvin, K. A., Reid, R. S., Behnke, R. H., & Hobbs, N. T. (2008). Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid
landscapes. Consequences for human and natural systems. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
García-Charton, J. A., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., Claudet, J., Badalamenti, F., Benedetti-Cecchi, L.,
Falcón, J. M., Milazzo, M., Schembri, P. J., Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F., Brito, A., Chemello, R.,
Dimech, M., Domenici, P., Guala, I., Le Diréach, L., Maggi, E., & Planes, S. (2008). Effectiveness of
European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: Do they accomplish the expected effects on
populations, communities and ecosystems? Journal for Nature Conservation, 16(4), 193–221.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.09.007
Garcia, S. M., & Rosenberg, A. A. (2010). Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics,
trends, drivers and future perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2869–2880. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0171
García Pérez, J. (2002). Ascertaining landscape perceptions and preferences with pair-wise
photographs: Planning rural tourism in Extremadura, Spain. Landscape Research, 27(3), 297–308.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01426390220149539

747
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Gardi, C., Panagos, P., Van Liedekerke, M., Bosco, C., & De Brogniez, D. (2015). Land take and food
security: assessment of land take on the agricultural production in Europe. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 58(5), 898–912.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2014.899490
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J. M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A.,
Carvalheiro, L. G., Chacoff, N. P., Dudenhöffer, J. H., Greenleaf, S. S., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R.,
Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M. M., Morandin, L. A., Potts, S. G., Ricketts, T. H.,
Szentgyörgyi, H., Viana, B. F., Westphal, C., Winfree, R., & Klein, A. M. (2011). Stability of
pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology
Letters, 14(10), 1062–72. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x
Garmo, Ø. A., Skjelkvåle, B. L., De Wit, H. A., Colombo, L., Curtis, C., Fölster, J., Hoffmann, A., Hruška,
J., Høgåsen, T., Jeffries, D. S., Keller, W. B., Krám, P., Majer, V., Monteith, D. T., Paterson, A. M.,
Rogora, M., Rzychon, D., Steingruber, S., Stoddard, J. L., Vuorenmaa, J., & Worsztynowicz, A.
(2014). Trends in surface water chemistry in acidified areas in Europe and North America from
1990 to 2008. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 225(3), 1880. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-
1880-6
Garrabou, J., Coma, R., Bensoussan, N., Bally, M., Chevaldonné, P., Cigliano, M., Diaz, D., Harmelin, J.
G., Gambi, M. C., Kersting, D. K., Ledoux, J. B., Lejeusne, C., Linares, C., Marschal, C., Pérez, T.,
Ribes, M., Romano, J. C., Serrano, E., Teixido, N., Torrents, O., Zabala, M., Zuberer, F., & Cerrano,
C. (2009). Mass mortality in northwestern Mediterranean rocky benthic communities: effects of
the 2003 heat wave. Global Change Biology, 15(5), 1090–1103. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2008.01823.x
Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Plieninger, T., Pulido, F., & Moreno, G. (2017). Stakeholder
perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use
Policy, 60, 324–333. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.022
Gascuel, D., Coll, M., Fox, C., Guénette, S., Guitton, J., Kenny, A., Knittweis, L., Nielsen, J. R., Piet, G.,
Raid, T., Travers-Trolet, M., & Shephard, S. (2016). Fishing impact and environmental status in
European seas: a diagnosis from stock assessments and ecosystem indicators. Fish and Fisheries,
17(1), 31–55. http://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12090
Gaspar, P., Mesías, F. J., Escribano, M., & Pulido, F. (2009). Sustainability in Spanish extensive farms
(dehesas): An economic and management indicator-based evaluation. Rangeland Ecology &
Management, 62(2), 153–162. http://doi.org/10.2111/07-135.1
Gaston, K. J., Duffy, J. P., & Bennie, J. (2015). Quantifying the erosion of natural darkness in the global
protected area system. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1132–41. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12462
Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Nagy, A., Cantú-Salazar, L., & Johnson, M. (2008). Protected areas in Europe:
Principle and practice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1134, 97–119.
http://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1439.006
Gedan, K. B., Kirwan, M. L., Wolanski, E., Barbier, E. B., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). The present and future
role of coastal wetland vegetation in protecting shorelines: answering recent challenges to the
paradigm. Climatic Change, 106(1), 7–29. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0003-7
Geels, F. W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., & Southerton, D. (2015). A critical appraisal of sustainable
consumption and production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration
positions. Global Environmental Change, 34, 1–12.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.013

748
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2002). Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical
deforestation. BioScience, 52(2), 143-150. http://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2
Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2013). Effectiveness of
terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological
Conservation, 161, 230–238. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018
Genovesi, P., Carboneras, C., Vilà, M., & Walton, P. (2015). EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive
species: a step towards a global response to biological invasions? Biological Invasions, 17(5),
1307–1311. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0817-8
Gentile, M. (2005). Population geography perspectives on the Central Asian Republics. Retrieved from
http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:hhs:ifswps:2005_016
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1993). The entropy law and the economic problem. In H. E. Daly & T. Kenneth
N (Eds.), Valuing the earth: Economics, ecology, ethics (pp. 75–88). Cambridge, USA: MIT.
Ghirardini, M., Carli, M., del Vecchio, N., Rovati, A., Cova, O., Valigi, F., Agnetti, G., Macconi, M., Adamo,
D., Traina, M., Laudini, F., Marcheselli, I., Caruso, N., Gedda, T., Donati, F., Marzadro, A., Russi, P.,
Spaggiari, C., Bianco, M., Binda, R., Barattieri, E., Tognacci, A., Girardo, M., Vaschetti, L., Caprino,
P., Sesti, E., Andreozzi, G., Coletto, E., Belzer, G., & Pieroni, A. (2007). The importance of a taste.
A comparative study on wild food plant consumption in twenty-one local communities in Italy.
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(1), 22. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-22
Giacanelli, V., Guarino, R., Menegoni, P., & Pignatti, S. (2015). Sistemi ambientali e Rete Natura 2000
della Regione Basilicata: scoprire e proteggere gli ambienti naturali e i paesaggi culturali della
Lucania [Environmental systems and Network Natura 2000 of the Basilicata region: Discover and
protect the natural environments and cultural landscapes of Lucania]. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/21743272/Sistemi_ambientali_e_Rete_Natura_2000_della_Regione
_Basilicata_scoprire_e_proteggere_gli_ambienti_naturali_e_i_paesaggi_culturali_della_Lucania
._Vol._3_Montagne_e_Complessi_Vulcanici
Gil-Tena, A., De Cáceres, M., Ernoult, A., Butet, A., Brotons, L., & Burel, F. (2015). Agricultural landscape
composition as a driver of farmland bird diversity in Brittany (NW France). Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 205, 79–89. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.013
Giorgi, F. (2006). Climate change hot-spots. Geophysical Research Letters, 33(8), L08707.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025734
GISTEMP Team. (2015). GISS surface temperature analysis (GISTEMP). Retrieved from
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Gladstone, W., Curley, B., & Shokri, M. R. (2013). Environmental impacts of tourism in the Gulf and the
Red Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(2), 375–388.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.017
Global Footprint Network. (2017). Ecological wealth of nations. Retrieved from
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/content/documents/ecological_footprint_nations/ecological
_per_capita.html
Goberville, E., Beaugrand, G., & Edwards, M. (2014). Synchronous response of marine plankton
ecosystems to climate in the Northeast Atlantic and the North Sea. Journal of Marine Systems,
129, 189–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.05.008
Goffart, A., Hecq, J.-H., & Legendre, L. (2002). Changes in the development of the winter-spring

749
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

phytoplankton bloom in the Bay of Calvi (NW Mediterranean) over the last two decades: a
response to changing climate? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 236, 45–60.
http://doi.org/10.3354/meps236045
Goldammer, J. G., Davidenko, E. P., Kondrashov, L. G., & Ezhov, N. I. (2004). Recent trends of forest
fires in Central Asia and opportunities for regional cooperation in forest fire management. In
Regional forest congress «forest policy: Problems and solutions» 25-27 November 2004, Bishkek,
Kyrgyzstan (pp. 1–21).
Goldewijk, K. K. (2001). Estimating global land use change over the past 300 years: The HYDE Database.
Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 15(2), 417–433. http://doi.org/10.1029/1999GB001232
Gonthier, D. J., Ennis, K. K., Farinas, S., Hsieh, H.-Y., Iverson, A. L., Batary, P., Rudolphi, J., Tscharntke,
T., Cardinale, B. J., & Perfecto, I. (2014). Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-
scale approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1791), 20141358.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1358
González-Tejero, M. R., Casares-Porcel, M., Sánchez-Rojas, C. P., Ramiro-Gutiérrez, J. M., Molero-
Mesa, J., Pieroni, A., Giusti, M. E., Censorii, E., de Pasquale, C., Della, A., Paraskeva-Hadijchambi,
D., Hadjichambis, A., Houmani, Z., El-Demerdash, M., El-Zayat, M., Hmamouchi, M., & ElJohrig, S.
(2008). Medicinal plants in the Mediterranean area: Synthesis of the results of the project Rubia.
Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 116(2), 341–357. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.11.045
González de Molina, M., & Toledo, V. M. (2014). The social metabolism. Volume 3. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06358-4
Goodenough, A. (2010). Are the ecological impacts of alien species misrepresented? A review of the
“native good, alien bad” philosophy. Community Ecology, 11(1), 13–21.
http://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.11.2010.1.3
Gorissen, A., Tietema, A., Joosten, N. N., Estiarte, M., Peñuelas, J., Sowerby, A., Emmett, B. A., & Beier,
C. (2004). Climate change affects carbon allocation to the soil in shrublands. Ecosystems, 7(6),
650-661. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0218-4
Gorton, M., Douarin, E., Davidova, S., & Latruffe, L. (2008). Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming
futures in the context of the 2003 CAP reform: A comparison of farmers in selected established
and new Member States. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 322–336.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.10.001
Götmark, F. (2013). Habitat management alternatives for conservation forests in the temperate zone:
Review, synthesis, and implications. Forest Ecology and Management, 306, 292–307.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.014
Gouveia, C. M., Bistinas, I., Liberato, M. L. R., Bastos, A., Koutsias, N., & Trigo, R. (2016). The outstanding
synergy between drought, heatwaves and fuel on the 2007 southern Greece exceptional fire
season. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 218, 135–145.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.11.023
Government of Estonia. (2013). Poollooduslike koosluste tegevuskava aastateks 2014–2020 [Action
plan of semi-natural habitats 2014-2020]. Retrieved from
https://www.envir.ee/sites/default/files/plk_tegevuskava2016.pdf
Government of Kyrgyzstan [Правительство Кыргызстана]. (2007). Национальный план действий
развития леснойотрасли Кыргызской Республики на 2006-2010 годы [National Action Plan
for the Development of the Forestry Sector of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2006-2010].

750
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Government of Kyrgyzstan. (2014). Scaling-up renewable energy program for low income countries
(SREP). Retrieved from https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/fund/scaling-renewable-
energy-program
Government of the Russian Federation. (2014). 5th national neport: Conservation of biodiversity in the
Russian Federation.
Grădinaru, S. R., Iojă, C. I., Onose, D. A., Gavrilidis, A. A., Pătru-Stupariu, I., Kienast, F., & Hersperger,
A. M. (2015). Land abandonment as a precursor of built-up development at the sprawling
periphery of former socialist cities. Ecological Indicators, 57, 305–313.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.05.009
Granhus, A., Eriksen, R., & Moum, S.-O. (2015). Resultatkontroll skogbruk/miljö rapport 2014
[Performance check forestry/environmental report 2014]. Retrieved from
https://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2364999/NIBIO RAPPORT
1(32).pdf?sequence=1
Granier, A., Reichstein, M., Bréda, N., Janssens, I. A., Falge, E., Ciais, P., Grünwald, T., Aubinet, M.,
Berbigier, P., Bernhofer, C., Buchmann, N., Facini, O., Grassi, G., Heinesch, B., Ilvesniemi, H.,
Keronen, P., Knohl, A., Köstner, B., Lagergren, F., Lindroth, A., Longdoz, B., Loustau, D., Mateus,
J., Montagnani, L., Nys, C., Moors, E., Papale, D., Peiffer, M., Pilegaard, K., Pita, G., Pumpanen, J.,
Rambal, S., Rebmann, C., Rodrigues, A., Seufert, G., Tenhunen, J., Vesala, T., & Wang, Q. (2007).
Evidence for soil water control on carbon and water dynamics in European forests during the
extremely dry year: 2003. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 143(1–2), 123–145.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.12.004
Granström, A., & Niklasson, M. (2008). Potentials and limitations for human control over historic fire
regimes in the boreal forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
363(1501), 2353–2358. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2205
Grimes, S. (2000). Rural areas in the information society: diminishing distance or increasing learning
capacity? Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 13–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00027-3
Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., & Cent, J. (2011). Expansion of nature conservation areas: Problems with
Natura 2000 implementation in Poland? Environmental Management, 47(1), 11–27.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9583-2
Gruber, B., Evans, D., Henle, K., Bauch, B., Schmeller, D., Dziock, F., Henry, P. Y., Lengyel, S., Margules,
C., & Dormann, C. (2012). “Mind the gap!” – How well does Natura 2000 cover species of
European interest? Nature Conservation, 3, 45–62.
http://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.3.3732
Grytnes, J.-A., Kapfer, J., Jurasinski, G., Birks, H. H., Henriksen, H., Klanderud, K., Odland, A., Ohlson,
M., Wipf, S., & Birks, H. J. B. (2014). Identifying the driving factors behind observed elevational
range shifts on European mountains. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(8), 876–884.
http://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12170
Guarino, R., Cutaia, F., Giacopelli, A. L., Menegoni, P., Pelagallo, F., Trotta, C., & Trombino, G. (2015).
Disintegration of Italian rural landscapes to international environmental agreements.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(2), 161-172.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9310-9
Guerra, C. A., Metzger, M. J., Maes, J., & Pinto-Correia, T. (2015). Policy impacts on regulating
ecosystem services: looking at the implications of 60 years of landscape change on soil erosion

751
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

prevention in a Mediterranean silvo-pastoral system. Landscape Ecology, 31(2), 271–290.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0241-1
Guerrero, I., Morales, M. B., Oñate, J. J., Aavik, T., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Clement, L. W., Dennis,
C., Eggers, S., Emmerson, M., Fischer, C., Flohre, A., Geiger, F., Hawro, V., Inchausti, P., Kalamees,
A., Kinks, R., Liira, J., Meléndez, L., Pärt, T., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., Olszewski, A., & Weisser, W.
W. (2011). Taxonomic and functional diversity of farmland bird communities across Europe:
Effects of biogeography and agricultural intensification. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(14),
3663–3681. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0156-3
Guillen, J., Calvo Santos, A., Carpenter, G., Carvalho, N., Casey, J., Lleonart, J., Maynou, F., Merino, G.,
& Paulrud, A. (2016). Sustainability now or later? Estimating the benefits of pathways to
maximum sustainable yield for EU Northeast Atlantic fisheries. Marine Policy, 72, 40–47.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.015
Guittar, J., Goldberg, D., Klanderud, K., Telford, R. J., & Vandvik, V. (2016). Can trait patterns along
gradients predict plant community responses to climate change? Ecology, 97(10), 2791–2801.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1500
Gulvik, M. E. (2007). Mites (Acari) As indicators of soil biodiversity and land use monitoring: a review.
Polish Journal of Ecology, 55(3), 415–440.
Güneralp, B., & Seto, K. C. (2013). Futures of global urban expansion: uncertainties and implications
for biodiversity conservation. Environmental Research Letters, 8(1), 14025.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014025
Gurevitch, J., & Padilla, D. K. (2004). Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, 19(9), 470–474. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.005
Gutzler, C., Helming, K., Balla, D., Dannowski, R., Deumlich, D., Glemnitz, M., Knierim, A., Mirschel, W.,
Nendel, C., Paul, C., Sieber, S., Stachow, U., Starick, A., Wieland, R., Wurbs, A., & Zander, P. (2015).
Agricultural land use changes – a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for
Brandenburg, Germany. Ecological Indicators, 48, 505–517.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.09.004
Haaland, C., Naisbit, R. E., & Bersier, L.-Fél. (2011). Sown wildflower strips for insect conservation: a
review. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4(1), 60–80. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-
4598.2010.00098.x
Haddad, N. M., Brudvig, L. A., Clobert, J., Davies, K. F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R. D., Lovejoy, T. E., Sexton,
J. O., Austin, M. P., Collins, C. D., Cook, W. M., Damschen, E. I., Ewers, R. M., Foster, B. L., Jenkins,
C. N., King, A. J., Laurance, W. F., Levey, D. J., Margules, C. R., Melbourne, B. A., Nicholls, A. O.,
Orrock, J. L., Song, D.-X., & Townshend, J. R. (2015). Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact
on Earth’s ecosystems. Science Advances, 1(2), e1500052.
http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
Haeberli, W., Noetzli, J., Arenson, L., Delaloye, R., Gärtner-Roer, I., Gruber, S., Isaksen, K., Kneisel, C.,
Krautblatter, M., & Phillips, M. (2010). Mountain permafrost: development and challenges of a
young research field. Journal of Glaciology, 56(200), 1043–1058.
http://doi.org/10.3189/002214311796406121
Hagen, J. O., Liestøl, O., Roland, E., & Jørgensen, T. (1993). Glacier atlas of Svalbard and Jan Mayen.
Oslo, Norway: Norsk Polarinstitutt.
Hahn, T. (2000). Property rights, ethics, and conflict resolution: Foundations of the Sami economy in

752
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sweden (Doctoral dissertation). http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14661.65764

Hahn, T., Heinrup, M., & Lindborg, R. (2017). Landscape heterogeneity correlates with recreational
values: a case study from Swedish agricultural landscapes and implications for policy. Landscape
Research, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2017.1335862
Hahn, W. A., & Knoke, T. (2010). Sustainable development and sustainable forestry: analogies,
differences, and the role of flexibility. European Journal of Forest Research, 129(5), 787–801.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-010-0385-0
Halley, J. M., Monokrousos, N., Mazaris, A. D., Newmark, W. D., & Vokou, D. (2016). Dynamics of
extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nature Communications, 7, 1–6.
http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12283
Hansen, B. B., Grotan, V., Aanes, R., Saether, B.-E., Stien, A., Fuglei, E., Ims, R. A., Yoccoz, N. G., &
Pedersen, A. O. (2013). Climate events synchronize the dynamics of a resident vertebrate
community in the High Arctic. Science, 339(6117), 313–315.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226766
Hansen, B. B., Isaksen, K., Benestad, R. E., Kohler, J., Pedersen, Å. Ø., Loe, L. E., Coulson, S. J., Larsen, J.
O., & Varpe, Ø. (2014). Warmer and wetter winters: characteristics and implications of an
extreme weather event in the High Arctic. Environmental Research Letters, 9(11), 114021.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114021
Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., & Lo, K. (2010). Global surface temperature change. Reviews of
Geophysics, 48(4), RG4004. http://doi.org/10.1029/2010RG000345
Hanski, I. (2000). Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: modelling the consequences of
different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 37(4), 271–280.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.00999.x
Hanski, I. (2011). Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio,
40(3), 248–255. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3
Hanski, I., & Ovaskainen, O. (2002). Extinction dept at extinction threshold. Conservation Biology,
16(3), 666–673. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00342.x
Harari, Y. N. (2014). Sapiens: a brief history of humankind. New York, USA: Harper.
Hardt, L., & O’Neill, D. W. (2017). Ecological macroeconomic models: Assessing current developments.
Ecological Economics, 134, 198–211. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.027
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J., & Lister, D. H. (2014). Updated high-resolution grids of monthly
climatic observations - the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. International Journal of Climatology, 34(3), 623–
642. http://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711
Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Climate change impact
modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 885–890.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3039
Hartel, T., & Plieninger, T. (Eds.). (2014). European wood-pastures in transition: a social-ecological
approach. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hartel, T., Plieninger, T., & Varga, A. (2015). Wood-pastures in Europe. In K. Kirby & C. Watkins (Eds.),
Europe’s changing woods and forests. From wildwood to managed landscapes (pp. 61–76).
Wallingford, UK: CABI.

753
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hartmann, D. J., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Rusticucci, M., Alexander, L. V, Brönnimann, S., Charabi, Y. A.-R.,
Dentener, F. J., Dlugokencky, E. J., Easterling, D. R., Kaplan, A., Soden, B. J., Thorne, P. W., Wild,
M., & Zhai, P. (2013). Observations: Atmosphere and surface. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G. Plattner,
M. M. B. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate
change 2013 - The physical science basis (pp. 159–254). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.008
Hatna, E., & Bakker, M. M. (2011). Abandonment and expansion of arable land in Europe. Ecosystems,
14(5), 720–731. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9441-y
Hatun, H. (2005). Influence of the Atlantic subpolar gyre on the thermohaline circulation. Science,
309(5742), 1841–1844. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114777
Hauck, J., Winkler, K. J., & Priess, J. A. (2015). Reviewing drivers of ecosystem change as input for
environmental and ecosystem services modelling. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology, 5,
9–30. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2015.01.003
Hawes, C., Haughton, A. J., Osborne, J. L., Roy, D. B., Clark, S. J., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Bohan, D. A.,
Brooks, D. R., Champion, G. T., Dewar, A. M., Heard, M. S., Woiwod, I. P., Daniels, R. E., Young, M.
W., Parish, A. M., Scott, R. J., Firbank, L. G., & Squire, G. R. (2003). Responses of plants and
invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the farm scale evaluations of
genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 358(1439), 1899–1913. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1406
Heard, M. S., Carvell, C., Carreck, N. L., Rothery, P., L., O. J., & Bourke, A. F. G. (2007). Landscape context
not patch size determines bumblebee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment
schemes. Biology Letters, 3, 638–641. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0425
Heckmann, L.-H., & Friberg, N. (2005). Macroinvertebrate community response to pulse exposure with
the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin using in-stream mesocosms. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry / SETAC, 24(3), 582–590. http://doi.org/10.1897/04-117r.1
Hédl, R., Kopecký, M., & Komárek, J. (2010). Half a century of succession in a temperate oakwood:
From species-rich community to mesic forest. Diversity and Distributions, 16(2), 267–276.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00637.x
Hedwall, P., & Mikusiński, G. (2015). Structural changes in protected forests in Sweden: implications
for conservation functionality. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 45, 1215–1224.
Hegland, S. J., & Totland, Ø. (2008). Is the magnitude of pollen limitation in a plant community affected
by pollinator visitation and plant species specialisation levels? Oikos, 117(6), 883–891.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16561.x
Hein, C. L., Ohlund, G., & Englund, G. (2013). Fish introductions reveal the temperature dependence of
species interactions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1775),
20132641–20132641. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2641
Hein, C. L., Öhlund, G., & Englund, G. (2011). Dispersal through stream networks: modelling climate-
driven range expansions of fishes. Diversity and Distributions, 17(4), 641–651.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00776.x
Hejzlar, J., Dubrovský, M., Buchtele, J., & Růžička, M. (2003). The apparent and potential effects of
climate change on the inferred concentration of dissolved organic matter in a temperate stream
(the Malše River, South Bohemia). Science of the Total Environment, 310(1–3), 143–152.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(02)00634-4

754
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Helbling, H. W., Zagarese, H. E., & Neale, P. J. (2003). Modulation of UV exposure and effects. In E. W.
Helbling & H. E. Zagarese (Eds.), UV effects in aquatic organisms and ecosystems (pp. 107–134).
Cambridge, UK: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
Hellmann, J. J., Byers, J., Bierwagen, B., & Dukes, J. (2008). Five potential consequences of climate
change for invasive species. Conservation Biology, 22(3), 534–543.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x
Helm, A., Hanski, I., & Pärtel, M. (2006). Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and
fragmentation. Ecology Letters, 9(1), 72–77. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00841.x
Helm, A., Urbas, P., & Pärtel, M. (2007). Plant diversity and species characteristics of alvar grasslands
in Estonia and Sweden. Acta Phytogeographica Suecica, 88, 33–42.
Henckel, L., Borger, L., Meiss, H., Gaba, S., & Bretagnolle, V. (2015). Organic fields sustain weed
metacommunity dynamics in farmland landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 282, 20150002. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0002
Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz, R. F. A., Niemelä,
J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., & Young, J. (2008). Identifying and managing the conflicts
between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe - A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 124(1–2), 60–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005
Hering, D., Feld, C. K., Moog, O., & Ofenböck, T. (2006). Cook book for the development of a
multimetric index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: Experiences from the European
AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia, 566(1), 311–324.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0087-2
Herrmann, M., Estournel, C., Adloff, F., & Diaz, F. (2014). Impact of climate change on the northwestern
Mediterranean Sea pelagic planktonic ecosystem and associated carbon cycle. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Oceans, 119(9), 5815–5836. http://doi.org/10.1002/2014JC010016
Herrmann, M., Estournel, C., Déqué, M., Marsaleix, P., Sevault, F., & Somot, S. (2008). Dense water
formation in the Gulf of Lions shelf: Impact of atmospheric interannual variability and climate
change. Continental Shelf Research, 28(15), 2092–2112.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2008.03.003
Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R., & Thomas, C. D. (2006). The distributions of a wide range of
taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change Biology, 12(3), 450–455.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01116.x
Hiddink, J. G., & ter Hofstede, R. (2008). Climate induced increases in species richness of marine fishes.
Global Change Biology, 14(3), 453–460. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01518.x
Hildrew, A. G., & Ormerod, S. J. (1995). Acidification: Causes, consequences and solutions. In D. M.
Harper & A. J. D. Ferguson (Eds.), The ecological basis for river management (pp. 147–160).
Chichester, UK: Wiley. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan_Hildrew/publication/254559189_Acidification_cau
ses_consequences_solutions/links/53ecd9b30cf26b9b7dbfedd3.pdf
Hiron, M., Berg, Å., Eggers, S., Josefsson, J., & Pärt, T. (2013). Bird diversity relates to agri-environment
schemes at local and landscape level in intensive farmland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 176, 9–16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.013
Hirschfeld, A., & Heyd, A. (2005). Mortality of migratory birds caused by hunting in Europe: bag
statistics and proposals for the conservation of birds and animal welfare. Berichte Zum

755
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Vogelschutz, 42, 47–74.

Hodge, I., Hauck, J., & Bonn, A. (2015). The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies
in the European Union. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 996–1005.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12531
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P. J., Hooten, A. J., Steneck, R. S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.
D., Sale, P. F., Edwards, A. J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C. M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga,
N., Bradbury, R. H., Dubi, A., & Hatziolos, M. E. (2007). Coral reefs under rapid climate change
and ocean acidification. Science, 318(5857), 1737–1742.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152509
Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: Global
disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23–29.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x
Hofmann, G. E., Barry, J. P., Edmunds, P. J., Gates, R. D., Hutchins, D. A., Klinger, T., & Sewell, M. A.
(2010). The effect of ocean acidification on calcifying organisms in marine ecosystems: An
organism-to-ecosystem perspective. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41(1),
127–147. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120227
Hofrichter, R. (2003). Das Mittelmeer. Fauna, Flora, Ökologie. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hölker, F., Wolter, C., Perkin, E. K., & Tockner, K. (2010). Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 25(12), 681–2. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.09.007
Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource
management. Conservation Biology, 10(2), 328–337. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.1996.10020328.x
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kleijn, D., & Tscharntke, T. (2007). Diversity of flower-visiting bees
in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 44, 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01259.x
Honkonen, T. (2013). Challenges of mining policy and regulation in Central Asia: the case of the Kyrgyz
Republic. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 31(1), 5–32.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2013.11435315
Höpner, T., & Lattemann, S. (2003). Chemical impacts from seawater desalination plants — a case
study of the northern Red Sea. Desalination, 152, 133–140. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-
9164(02)01056-1
Horion, S., Prishchepov, A. V., Verbesselt, J., de Beurs, K., Tagesson, T., & Fensholt, R. (2016). Revealing
turning points in ecosystem functioning over the northern Eurasian agricultural frontier. Global
Change Biology, 22(8), 2801–2817. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13267
Horváth, G., Kriska, G., Malik, P., & Robertson, B. (2009). Polarized light pollution: a new kind of
ecological photopollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(6), 317–325.
http://doi.org/10.1890/080129
Hossman, I., Karsch, M., Klingholz R, Kohncke Y, Krohnert S, Pietschmann C, & Sutterlin S. (2008).
Europe’s demographic future: growing imbalances. Hannover, Germany: Berlin-Institute for
Population and Development. Retrieved from https://www.berlin-
institut.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europa/Kurz_Europa_e_Map.pdf
Hostert, P., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A., Sieber, A., Lambin, E. F., & Radeloff, V. C. (2011). Rapid

756
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

land use change after socio-economic disturbances: the collapse of the Soviet Union versus
Chernobyl. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 45201. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/6/4/045201
Hottle, T. A., Bilec, M. M., & Landis, A. E. (2013). Sustainability assessments of bio-based polymers.
Polymer Degradation and Stability, 98(9), 1898–1907.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2013.06.016
Hulme, P. E. (2015). Invasion pathways at a crossroad: Policy and research challenges for managing
alien species introductions. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(6), 1418–1424.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12470
Humphrey, J., Ferris, R., & Quine, C. (2003). Biodiversity in Britain’s planted forests: Results from the
Forestry Commission’s biodiversity assessment project. Edinburgh, UK: Forestry Commission.
Humphrey, J. W. (2005). Benefits to biodiversity from developing old-growth conditions in British
upland spruce plantations: A review and recommendations. Forestry, 78(1), 33–53.
http://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpi004
Humphrey, J. W., Watts, K., Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Macgregor, N. A., Peace, A. J., & Park, K. J. (2015).
What can studies of woodland fragmentation and creation tell us about ecological networks? A
literature review and synthesis. Landscape Ecology, 30(1), 21–50.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0107-y
Ineson, P., Benham, D. G., Poskitt, J., Harrison, A. F., Taylor, K., & Woods, C. (1998a). Effects of climate
change on nitrogen dynamics in upland soils. 2. A soil warming study. Global Change Biology,
4(2), 153–161. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00119.x
Ineson, P., Taylor, K., Harrison, A. F., Poskitt, J., Benham, D. G., Tipping, E., & Woof, C. (1998b). Effects
of climate change on nitrogen dynamics in upland soils. 1. A transplant approach. Global Change
Biology, 4(2), 143–152. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1998.00118.x
Ioffe, G. (2005). The downsizing of Russian agriculture. Europe-Asia Studies, 57(2), 179–208.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09668130500051627
Ioffe, G., Nefedova, T., & De Beurs, K. (2012). Land abandonment in Russia. Eurasian Geography and
Economics, 53(4), 527–549. http://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.53.4.527
Ioffe, G., Nefedova, T., & Zaslavsky, I. (2004). From spatial continuity to fragmentation: The case of
Russian farming. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(4), 913–943.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00441.x
IPBES. (2016a). 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,
& B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPBES. (2016b). 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,

757
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

G. Nates-Parra, J. S. Pettis, R. Rader, & B. F. Viana (Eds.). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
IPCC. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change
adaptation. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (C. B. Field, V.
Barros, T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, G. Plattner,
S. K. Allen, M. Tignor, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.). Cambridge, UK, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2013a). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Annex I: Atlas of
global and regional climate projections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2013b). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T. F. Stocker, D. Qin,
G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2014a). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral
aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T.
E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy,
S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea, & L. L. White (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC. (2014b). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects.
Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate. V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Billir, M.
Chatterjee, M., K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S.
MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea & L. L. White (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Isaksen, K., Ødegård, R. S., Etzelmüller, B., Hilbich, C., Hauck, C., Farbrot, H., Eiken, T., Hygen, H. O., &
Hipp, T. F. (2011). Degrading mountain permafrost in southern Norway: Spatial and temporal
variability of mean ground temperatures, 1999-2009. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 22(4),
361–377. http://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.728
Ivanov, A. N., & Chizhova, V. P. [Иванов, А. Н., & Чижова, В. П. (2003). Охраняемые природные
территории: Учебное пособие [Nature potected areas: handbook]. Moscow, Russian
Federation: Moscow University press.
Ivaşcu, C., Öllerer, K., & Rákosy, L. (2016). The traditional perceptions of hay and hay-meadow
management in a historical village from Maramureş County, Romania. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawl
er&jrnl=12246271&AN=120559373&h=3LdtKsx7maxpn8m%2BcK%2Bn8gXdZBeFp3dqbzbHSLfy
UNC4pzhu5fX3%2FOIwHAokFPeLNp%2FDsZ9lWQ9VYVy3v4XJZA%3D%3D&crl=c&resultNs=Admi
nWebAuth&resultL
Iwamura, T., Possingham, H. P., Chades, I., Minton, C., Murray, N. J., Rogers, D. I., Treml, E. A., & Fuller,
R. A. (2013). Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level
rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1761),
20130325. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.0325
Jackson, S. T., & Sax, D. F. (2010). Balancing biodiversity in a changing environment: extinction debt,
immigration credit and species turnover. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(3), 153–160.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.001

758
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth? – The transition to a sustainable economy. Retrieved
from https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/2163/sdc-2009-
pwg.pdf?sequence=1
Jactel, H., Petit, J., Desprez-Loustau, M.-L., Delzon, S., Piou, D., Battisti, A., & Koricheva, J. (2012).
Drought effects on damage by forest insects and pathogens: a meta-analysis. Global Change
Biology, 18(1), 267–276. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02512.x
Jakupov N. Sh. [Жакупов, Н. Ш.]. (2013). Причины и последствия экологических нарушений в
области недропользования и проблемы их решения. [The causes and consequences of
environmental violations in the field of subsoil use and the problem of their solution]. Annals of
Innovative Euroasian University, 4(52).
Jamieson, S. S. R., Ewertowski, M. W., & Evans, D. J. A. (2015). Rapid advance of two mountain glaciers
in response to mine-related debris loading. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface,
120(7), 1418–1435. http://doi.org/10.1002/2015JF003504
Jansson, G., & Andrén, H. (2003). Habitat composition and bird diversity in managed Boreal Forests.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 18(3), 225–236.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2003.9728293
Jansson, G., & Angelstam, P. (1999). Thresholds of landscape composition for the presence of the long-
tailed tit in a boreal landscape. Landscape Ecology, 14(3), 283–290.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008085902053
Jepsen, M. R., Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Erb, K., Verburg, P. H., Haberl, H., Vesterager, J. P., Andrič,
M., Antrop, M., Austrheim, G., Björn, I., Bondeau, A., Bürgi, M., Bryson, J., Caspar, G., Cassar, L.
F., Conrad, E., Chromý, P., Daugirdas, V., Van Eetvelde, V., Elena-Rosselló, R., Gimmi, U.,
Izakovicova, Z., Jančák, V., Jansson, U., Kladnik, D, Kozak, J., Konkoly-Gyuró, E., Krausmann, F.,
Mander, U., McDonagh, J., Pärn, J., Niedertscheider, M., Nikodemus, O., Ostapowicz, K., Pérez-
Soba, M., Pinto-Correia, T., Ribokas, G., Rounsevell, M., Schistou, D., Schmit, C., Terkenli, T. S.,
Tretvik, A. M., Trzepacz, P., Vadineanu, A., Walz, A., Zhllim, E., Reenberg, A., & Reenberg, A.
(2015). Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use
Policy, 49, 53–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003
Jeschke, J. M., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Dick, J. T. A., Essl, F., Evans, T., Gaertner, M., Hulme, P. E.,
Kühn, I., Mrugała, A., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., Rabitsch, W., Ricciardi, A., Richardson, D. M., Sendek, A.,
Vilà, M., Winter, M., & Kumschick, S. (2014). Defining the impact of non-native species.
Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1188–1194. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12299
Joffre, R., Vacher, J., de los Llanos, C., & Long, G. (1988). The dehesa: an agrosilvopastoral system of
the Mediterranean region with special reference to the Sierra Morena area of Spain. Agroforestry
Systems, 6, 71–96. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02220110
Johansson, N., Krook, J., & Eklund, M. (2014). Institutional conditions for Swedish metal production: A
comparison of subsidies to metal mining and metal recycling. Resources Policy, 41, 72–82.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.04.001
Johansson, T., Hjältén, J., de Jong, J., & von Stedingk, H. (2013). Environmental considerations from
legislation and certification in managed forest stands: A review of their importance for
biodiversity. Forest Ecology and Management, 303, 98–112.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.012
Jöhnk, K. D., Huisman, J., Sharples, J., Sommeijer, B., Visser, P. M., & Stroom, J. M. (2008). Summer

759
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

heatwaves promote blooms of harmful cyanobacteria. Global Change Biology, 14(3), 495–512.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01510.x
Jolboldiev, B. T [Жолболдиев], Б. Т. (2016). Радиоэкологическая оценка загрязнения территории
бывшего уранового производства Каджи-Сай [Radioecological evaluation of pollution of the
territory of the former uranium mining Kaji-Sai]. Bishkek, Kyrgystan: National Academy of
Sciences.
Jolly, W. M., Dobbertin, M., Zimmermann, N. E., & Reichstein, M. (2005). Divergent vegetation growth
responses to the 2003 heat wave in the Swiss Alps. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(18), L18409.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023252
Jones, G. P., Cole, R., & Battershill, C. N. (1993). Marine reserves: Do they work? In The ecology of
temperate reefs: Proceedings of the second international temperate reef symposium (pp. 29–45).
Auckland, New Zealand: NIWA Publications.
Jones, L., Provins, A., Holland, M., Mills, G., Hayes, F., Emmett, B., Hall, J., Sheppard, L., Smith, R.,
Sutton, M., Hicks, K., Ashmore, M., Haines-Young, R., & Harper-Simmonds, L. (2014). A review
and application of the evidence for nitrogen impacts on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services,
7, 76–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2013.09.001
Jones, P., & Moberg, A. (2003). Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An
extensive revision and an update to 2001. Journal of Climate, 16(2), 206–223.
http://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2
Jonsson, B. G., & Siitonen, J. (2012). Natural forest dynamics. In J. N. Stokland, J. Siitonen, & B. G.
Jonsson (Eds.), Biodiversity in dead wood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jonsson, B., & Jonsson, N. (2009). A review of the likely effects of climate change on anadromous
Atlantic salmon Salmo salar and brown trout Salmo trutta, with particular reference to water
temperature and flow. Journal of Fish Biology, 75(10), 2381–2447.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02380.x
Juler, C. (2014). După coada oilor: long-distance transhumance and its survival in Romania.
Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 4(1), 4. http://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-4-4
Jump, A. S., Hunt, J. M., Martínez-Izquierdo, J. A., & Peñuelas, J. (2006). Natural selection and climate
change: temperature-linked spatial and temporal trends in gene frequency in Fagus sylvatica.
Molecular Ecology, 15(11), 3469–3480. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03027.x
Jump, A. S., Marchant, R., & Peñuelas, J. (2009). Environmental change and the option value of genetic
diversity. Trends in Plant Science, 14(1), 51–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.10.002
Jump, A. S., Peñuelas, J., Rico, L., Ramallo, E., Estiarte, M., Martínez-Izquierdo, J. A., & Lloret, F. (2008).
Simulated climate change provokes rapid genetic change in the Mediterranean shrub Fumana
thymifolia. Global Change Biology, 14(3), 637–643. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2007.01521
Kabirova, E. S. [Кабирова, Э. С.]. (2009). Угледобывающие отрасли Кыргызстана: состояние и
перспективы [Coal mining in Kyrgyzstan: state and trends]. Вестник КРСУ [Vestnik KRSU], 45(4).
Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological Economics,
84, 172–180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.01
Kalmenova, M. T. [Кальменова, М. Т.]. (2014). Решение эколого-экономических проблем
нефтегазового сектора Казахстана в рамках развития "зеленой экономики! [Solution of

760
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

environmental and economic problems of Kazakhstan’s oil and gas sector in the framework of
the development of the green economy]. Вестник КазЭУ [Vestnik KazEU]. Retrieved from
https://articlekz.com/article/13791
Kalnay, E., & Cai, M. (2003). Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate. Nature, 423(6939),
528–531. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature01649.1
Kamal, S., & Grodzinska-Jurczak, M. (2014). Should conservation of biodiversity involve private land?
A Q methodological study in Poland to assess stakeholders’ attitude. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 23(11), 2689–2704. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0744-0
Kamp, J., Siderova, T. V., Salemgareev, A. R., Urazaliev, R. S., Donald, P. F., & Hölzel, N. (2012). Niche
separation of larks (Alaudidae) and agricultural change on the drylands of the former Soviet
Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 155, 41–49.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.023
Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Donald, P. F., & Hölzel, N. (2011). Post-Soviet agricultural change predicts future
declines after recent recovery in Eurasian steppe bird populations. Biological Conservation,
144(11), 2607–2614. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.010
Kanchaev, K., Kerven, C., & Wright, I. A. (2003). The limits of the land: pasture and water conditions. In
C. Kerven (Ed.), Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan: From state farms to
private flocks. London, UK: Routledge Curzon.
Kandalova, G. T., & Lysanova, G. I. [Кандалова, Г. Т., & Лысанова, Г. И.]. (2010). Рекультивация
степных пастбищ в Хакасии [Reclamation of the steppe rangelands in Khakassia]. Geography
and Natural Resources, 4, 79–85.
Kaplan, S., Blumberg, D. G., Mamedov, E., & Orlovsky, L. (2014). Land-use change and land degradation
in Turkmenistan in the post-Soviet era. Journal of Arid Environments, 103, 96–106.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.12.004
Karali, A., Hatzaki, M., Giannakopoulos, C., Roussos, A., Xanthopoulos, G., & Tenentes, V. (2014).
Sensitivity and evaluation of current fire risk and future projections due to climate change: the
case study of Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 14(1), 143–153.
http://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-143-201
Karenov, R. S. [Каренов, Р. С.]. (2006). Перспективы снижения негативного воздействия угольной
промышленности на экологию Карагандинской области [Prospects for reducing the negative
impact of the coal industry on the ecology of the Karaganda region]. Вестник КарГУ [Vestnik
KarGU]. Retrieved from https://articlekz.com/article/6055
Karibayeva, K., Chao, L., Zhe, K., Peng, P., Jun, X., Rodionov, A., Toilybayeva, S., & Ustemirov, K. (2008).
Леса и лесное хозяйство Республики Казахстан [Forests and forestry of the Republic of
Kazakhstan]. www.kap.kz/upload/files/37117_707572_09.pdf
Karsenov, R. S. [Карсенов, Р. С.]. (2011). Пути улучшения экологической обстановки в области
добычи и переработки руд черных и цветных металлов, урановых руд [Ways to improve the
environmental situation in the mining and processing of ores of ferrous and nonferrous metals,
uranium ores]. Вестник КарГУ [Vestnik KarGU]. Retrieved from
https://articlekz.com/article/12067
Katsanevakis, S., Wallentinus, I., Zenetos, A., Leppäkoski, E., & Çinar, M. E. (2014). Impacts of invasive
alien marine species on ecosystem services and biodiversity: a pan-European review. Aquatic
Invasions, 9(4), 391–423. http://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2014.9.4.01

761
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Katsanevakis, S., Zenetos, A., Belchior, C., & Cardoso, A. C. (2013). Invading European seas: Assessing
pathways of introduction of marine aliens. Ocean and Coastal Management, 76, 64–74.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.02.024
Kaya, Y. (1990). Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed
scenarios. Paris, France.
Keenleyside, C., & Tucker, G. M. (2010). Farmland abandonment in the EU: an assessment of trends
and prospects. Report prepared for WWF. London, UK: Institute for European Environmental
Policy (IEEP). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Clunie_Keenleyside/publication/258375179_Farmland_
Abandonment_in_the_EU_An_Assessment_of_Trends_and_Prospects_Report_Prepared_for_
WWF/links/5411b0c50cf264cee28b50cc.pdf
Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovács, E., Choisis, J.-P., Choisis, N., Paoletti, M. G., Podmaniczky,
L., Ryschawy, J., Sarthou, J.-P., Herzog, F., Dennis, P., & Balázs, K. (2013). Farmers’ perceptions of
biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. Land Use Policy, 35,
318–328. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005
Kelly, C., Ferrara, A., Wilson, G. A., Ripullone, F., Nolè, A., Harmer, N., & Salvati, L. (2015). Community
resilience and land degradation in forest and shrubland socio-ecological systems: Evidence from
Gorgoglione, Basilicata, Italy. Land Use Policy, 46, 11–20.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.026
Kelly, C. K., Chase, M. W., de Bruijn, A., Fay, M. F., & Woodward, F. I. (2003). Temperature-based
population segregation in birch. Ecology Letters, 6(2), 87–89. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-
0248.2003.00402.x
Kendon, E. J., Rowell, D. P., Jones, R. G., & Buonomo, E. (2008). Robustness of future changes in local
precipitation extremes. Journal of Climate, 21(17), 4280–4297.
http://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2082.1
Kennedy, J. J., Thomas, J. W., & Glueck, P. (2001). Evolving forestry and rural development beliefs at
midpoint and close of the 20th century. Forest Policy and Economics, 3(1–2), 81–95.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00034-X
Kerley, L. L., Goodrich, J. M., Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. B., & Hornocker, M. G. (2002).
Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur tigers. Conservation Biology, 16(1), 97–108.
http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.99290.x
Kernan, M. (2015). Climate change and the impact of invasive species on aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health & Management, 18(3), 321–333.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14634988.2015.1027636
Kernan, M., Battarbee, R. W., Curtis, C., Monteith, D. T., & Shillands, E. M. (2010). Recovery of lakes
and streams in the UK from acid rain. The United Kingdom Acid Waters Monitoring Network 20
year interpretative report. ECRC Research Report (Vol. 141). Retrieved from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1324685/
Kerven, C., Robinson, S., Behnke, R., Kushenov, K., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2016). A pastoral frontier:
From chaos to capitalism and the re-colonisation of the Kazakh rangelands. Journal of Arid
Environments, 127, 106–119. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.11.003
Khabarov, N., Krasovskii, A., Obersteiner, M., Swart, R., Dosio, A., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Durrant, T.,
Camia, A., & Migliavacca, M. (2014). Forest fires and adaptation options in Europe. Regional

762
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Environmental Change, 16(1), 21-30. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0621-0

Khan, S. J., Deere, D., Leusch, F. D. L., Humpage, A., Jenkins, M., & Cunliffe, D. (2015). Extreme weather
events: Should drinking water quality management systems adapt to changing risk profiles?
Water Research, 85, 124–136. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.08.018
Kharuk, V. I., Im, S. T., Oskorbin, P. A., Petrov, I. A., & Ranson, K. J. (2013). Siberian pine decline and
mortality in southern Siberian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management, 310, 312–320.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.042
Khlyap, L. A., & Warshavsky, A. A. (2010). Synanthropic and agrophilic rodents as invasive alien
mammals. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, 1(4), 301–312.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111710040089
Khodakivs’ka, O. V. (2015). The development of land tenure in agriculture. Retrieved from
http://imfgroup.com.ua/uk/2015/06/26
Kiktev, D., Sexton, D. M. H., Alexander, L., & Folland, C. K. (2003). Comparison of modeled and observed
trends in indices of daily climate extremes. Journal of Climate, 16(22), 3560–3571.
http://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3560:COMAOT>2.0.CO;2
Kilchling, P., Hansmann, R., & Seeland, K. (2009). Demand for non-timber forest products: Surveys of
urban consumers and sellers in Switzerland. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(4), 294–300.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.05.003
Kile, N. B. [Киле, Н. Б.]. (1997). Нанайцы в мире природы [Nanai people in the natural world]. In
Этнос и природная среда (pp. 34–44). Vladivostok, Russian Federation: Dal’nauka.
Kinsella, C. M., & Crowe, T. P. (2015). Variation in rocky shore assemblages and abundances of key taxa
along gradients of stormwater input. Marine Environmental Research, 105, 20–29.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.01.003
Kirby, K., & Watkins, C. (2015). Europe’s changing woods and forests: From wildwood to managed
landscapes. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Retrieved from
http://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781780643373
Kirby, R., Beaugrand, G., Lindley, J., Richardson, A., Edwards, M., & Reid, P. (2007). Climate effects and
benthic-pelagic coupling in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330, 31–38.
http://doi.org/10.3354/meps330031
Kirtman, B., Power, S. B., Adedoyin, J. A., Boer, G. J., Bojariu, R., Camilloni, I., Doblas-Reyes, F.
J., Fiore, A. M., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G. A., Prather, M., Sarr, A., Schär, C., Sutton, R., van
Oldenborgh, G. J., Vecchi, G., & Wang, H. J. (2013). Near-term climate change: Projections and
predictability. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G. Plattner, M. M. B. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A.
Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Climate change 2013 - The physical science basis (pp.
953-1028). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.008
Kis, J., Barta, S., Elekes, L., Engi, L., Fegyer, T., Kecskeméti, J., Lajkó, L., & Szabó, J. (2016). Traditional
herders’ knowledge and worldview and their role in managing biodiversity and ecosystem
services of extensive pastures. In M. Roué & Z. Molnar (Eds.), Knowing our lands and resources:
Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia
(pp. 56–70). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Kitov, M. V., & Tsapkov, A. N. (2015). Assessment of the area of fallow land in the Belgorod region and
other regions of European Russia for the period 1990-2013 years. Belgorod State University

763
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Scientific Bulletin, Natural Sciences, 15(32), 163–171.

Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., & Tscharntke, T. (2011). Does conservation on farmland
contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(9), 474–481.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.009
Kleine, M., Colak, A., Kirca, S., Sagheb-Talebi, K., Orozumbekov, A., & Lee, D. (2009). Rehabilitating
degraded forest landscapes in West and Central Asia. IUFRO World Series, 20(4), 5–26.
Knop, E., Zoller, L., Ryser, R., Gerpe, C., Hörler, M., & Fontaine, C. (2017). Artificial light at night as a
new threat to pollination. Nature 548, 206–209. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature23288
Knudsen, S., Zengin, M., & Koçak, M. H. (2010). Identifying drivers for fishing pressure. A
multidisciplinary study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun, Black Sea coast of Turkey. Ocean
& Coastal Management, 53(5–6), 252–269. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.04.008
Koh, N. S., Hahn, T., & Ituarte-Lima, C. (2017). Safeguards for enhancing ecological compensation in
Sweden. Land Use Policy, 64, 186–199. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.035
Kolář, J., Kuneš, P., Szabó, P., Hajnalová, M., Svobodová, H. S., Macek, M., & Tkáč, P. (2016). Population
and forest dynamics during the Central European Eneolithic (4500–2000 BC). Archaeological and
Anthropological Sciences. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-016-0446-5
Kondo, Y., Nakajima, K., Matsubae, K., & Nakamura, S. (2012). The anatomy of capital stock: input-
output material flow analysis (MFA) of the material composition of physical stocks and its
evolution over time. Revue de Métallurgie, 109(5), 293–298.
http://doi.org/10.1051/metal/2012022
König, M., Nuth, C., Kohler, J., Moholdt, G., & Pettersen, R. (2014). A digital glacier database for
svalbard. In J. Kargel, G. Leonard, M. Bishop, A. Kääb, & B. Raup (Eds.), Global Land Ice
Measurements from Space (pp. 229–239). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79818-7_10
Kopáček, J., Hejzlar, J., Kaňa, J., Porcal, P., & Klementová, Š. (2003). Photochemical, chemical, and
biological transformations of dissolved organic carbon and its effect on alkalinity production in
acidified lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, 48(1), 106–117.
http://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2003.48.1.0106
Kortenkamp, A., Backhaus, T., Faust, M. (2009). State of the art report on mixture toxicity. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/effects/pdf/report_mixture_toxicity.pdf
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen, A. J., Settele, J., Kremen, C., & Dicks, L. V. (2017).
Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators
and pollination. Ecology Letters, 20(5), 673–689. http://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12762
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Haenke, S., Batáry, P., Jauker, B., Báldi, A., Tscharntke, T., & Holzschuh, A.
(2013). Contrasting effects of mass-flowering crops on bee pollination of hedge plants at different
spatial and temporal scales. Ecological Applications, 23(8), 1938–1946.
http://doi.org/10.1890/12-2012.1
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Korösi, Á., Orci, K. M., Batáry, P., & Báldi, A. (2011). Set-aside promotes insect
and plant diversity in a Central European country. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
141(3–4), 296–301. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.004
Kraus, D., & Krumm, F. (Eds.). (2013). Integrative approaches as an opportunity for the conservation of
forest biodiversity. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.

764
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Bondeau, A., Gaube, V., Lauk, C., Plutzar, C., &
Searchinger, T. D. (2013). Global human appropriation of net primary production doubled in the
20th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
110(25), 10324–9. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211349110
Krauss, J., Gallenberger, I., & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2011). Decreased functional diversity and biological
pest control in conventional compared to organic crop fields. PLoS ONE, 6(5), 1–9.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019502
Kristensen, S. B. P. (2016). Agriculture and landscape interaction—landowners’ decision-making and
drivers of land use change in rural Europe. Land Use Policy, 57, 759–763.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.025
Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L., Crim, R. N., & Singh, G. G. (2010). Meta-analysis reveals negative yet
variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms. Ecology Letters, 13(11), 1419–1434.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x
Kroll, F., & Kabisch, N. (2012). The relation of diverging urban growth processes and demographic
change along an urban-rural gradient. Population, Space and Place, 18(3), 260–276.
http://doi.org/10.1002/psp.653
Kronenberg, J. (2014). Viable alternatives for large-scale unsustainable projects in developing
countries: The case of the Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan. Sustainable Development, 22(4), 253–
264. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1529
Krylov, A. V., Kulakov, D. V., Chalova, I. V., & Tselmovich, O. L. (2013). The effect of vital activity
products of hydrophilic birds and the degree of overgrowth on zooplankton in experimental
microcosms. Inland Water Biology, 6(2), 114–123. http://doi.org/10.1134/S1995082913020065
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Franco, C., Lawn, P., Talberth, J., Jackson, T., & Aylmer, C. (2013). Beyond
GDP: Measuring and achieving global genuine progress. Ecological Economics, 93, 57–68.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.019
Kuemmerle, T., Hostert, P., Radeloff, V. C., Perzanowski, K., & Kruhlov, I. (2007). Post-socialist forest
disturbance in the Carpathian border region of Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Ecological
Applications, 17(5), 1279–1295. http://doi.org/10.1890/06-1661.1
Kuemmerle, T., Müller, D., Griffiths, P., & Rusu, M. (2009). Land use change in Southern Romania after
the collapse of socialism. Regional Environmental Change, 9(1), 1–12.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008-0050-z
Kühling, I., Broll, G., & Trautz, D. (2016). Spatio-temporal analysis of agricultural land-use intensity
across the western Siberian grain belt. Science of The Total Environment, 544, 271–280.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.129
Kukk, T., & Kull, K. (1997). Puisniidud [Wooded meadows]. Estonia Maritima, 2(1), 1–249.
Kurganova, I., Lopes de Gerenyu, V., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2015). Large-scale carbon sequestration in post-
agrogenic ecosystems in Russia and Kazakhstan. Catena, 133, 461–466.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.06.002
Kuuluvainen, T. (2002). Natural variability of forests as a reference for restoring and managing
biological diversity in boreal Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica, 36, 97–125.
Kuuluvainen, T., Tahvonen, O., & Aakala, T. (2012). Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in
boreal Fennoscandia: A review. Ambio, 41(7), 720–737. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-

765
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

0289-y
Kuussaari, M., Bommarco, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Helm, A., Krauss, J., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel,
M., Pino, J., Rodà, F., Stefanescu, C., Teder, T., Zobel, M., & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2009). Extinction
debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(10), 564-571.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.011
La Sorte, F. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Jetz, W., & Böhning-Gaese, K. (2014). Range-wide latitudinal and
elevational temperature gradients for the world’s terrestrial birds: implications under global
climate change. PloS One, 9(5), e98361. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098361
Lægreid, O. M. (2017). Drivers of climate change? Political and economic explanations of greenhouse
Gas Emissions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2077/52099
Laletin, A. P. (1999). CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States). In H. J. H. Verolme & J. Moussa (Eds.),
Addressing the underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation - case studies, analysis
and policy recommendations. (pp. 63–70). Washington, DC, USA: Biodiversity Action Network.
Laletin, A. P., Vladyshevskiy, D. V., & Vladyshevskiy, A. D. (2002). Protected areas of the Central Siberian
Arctic: history, status, and prospects. In A. E. Watson, L. Alessa, & J. Sproull (Eds.), Wilderness in
the circumpolar north: searching for compatibility in ecological, traditional, and ecotourism
values (pp. 15–19). Ogden, USA: USDA.
Lambdon, P. W., Pyšek, P., Basnou, C., Hejda, M., Arianoutsou, M., Essl, F., Jarošík, V., Pergl, J., Winter,
M., Anastasiu, P., Andriopoulos, P., Bazos, I., Brundu, G., Celesti-Grapow, L., Chassot, P.,
Delipetrou, P., Josefsson, M., Kark, S., Klotz, S., Kokkoris, Y., Kühn, I., Marchante, H., Perglová, I.,
Pino, J., Vila, M., Zikos, A., Roy, D. B., & Hulme, P. E. (2008). Alien flora of Europe: Species diversity,
temporal trends, geographical patterns and research needs. Preslia, 80(2), 101–149.
Lambrecht, A., & Kuhn, M. (2007). Glacier changes in the Austrian Alps during the last three decades,
derived from the new Austrian glacier inventory. Annals of Glaciology, 46, 177–184.
http://doi.org/10.3189/172756407782871341
Larsson, M., & Granstedt, A. (2010). Sustainable governance of the agriculture and the Baltic Sea —
Agricultural reforms, food production and curbed eutrophication. Ecological Economics, 69(10),
1943–1951. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.003
Lasanta, T., Nadal-Romero, E., & Arnáez, J. (2015). Managing abandoned farmland to control the
impact of re-vegetation on the environment. The state of the art in Europe. Environmental
Science and Policy, 52, 99–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.012
LATVstat. (2017). Latvia statistics online database. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/dati/statistics-database-30501.html
Lauber, V., & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and
restricting socio-political space for renewables – The German Renewable Energy Act.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 147–163.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.005
Lazzari, P., Mattia, G., Solidoro, C., Salon, S., Crise, A., Zavatarelli, M., Oddo, P., & Vichi, M. (2014). The
impacts of climate change and environmental management policies on the trophic regimes in the
Mediterranean Sea: Scenario analyses. Journal of Marine Systems, 135, 137–149.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.005
Le Féon, V., Schermann-Legionnet, A., Delettre, Y., Aviron, S., Billeter, R., Bugter, R., Hendrickx, F. &
Burel, F. (2010). Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee communities:

766
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A large scale study in four European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 137(1–
2), 143–150. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015
Lehtinen, A. A., Donner-Amnell, J., & Sæther, B. (2004). Politics of forests: Northern forest-industrial
regimes in the age of globalization. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate publishing company.
Lehtonen, I., Ruosteenoja, K., Venäläinen, A., & Gregow, H. (2014). The projected 21st century forest-
fire risk in Finland under different greenhouse gas scenarios. Boreal Environment Research, 19,
127–139.
Leimu, R., Vergeer, P., Angeloni, F., & Ouborg, N. J. (2010). Habitat fragmentation, climate change, and
inbreeding in plants. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 84–98.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05450.x
Lembrechts, J. J., Milbau, A., & Nijs, I. (2014). Alien roadside species more easily invade alpine than
lowland plant communities in a subarctic mountain ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 9(2), 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089664
Lembrechts, J. J., Pauchard, A., Lenoir, J., Nuñez, M. A., Geron, C., Ven, A., Bravo-Monasterio, P., Teneb,
E., Nijs, I., & Milbau, A. (2016). Disturbance is the key to plant invasions in cold environments.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(49),
14061–14066. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608980113
Lenoir, J., Gégout, J.-C., Guisan, A., Vittoz, P., Wohlgemuth, T., Zimmermann, N. E., Dullinger, S., Pauli,
H., Willner, W., & Svenning, J.-C. (2010). Going against the flow: potential mechanisms for
unexpected downslope range shifts in a warming climate. Ecography, 33(2), 295-303.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06279.x
Lepori, F., & Keck, F. (2012). Effects of atmospheric nitrogen deposition on remote freshwater
ecosystems. Ambio, 41(3), 235–246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0250-0
Lerman, Z., Csaki, C., & Gershon, F. (2004). Agriculture in transition: Land policies and evolving farm
structures in post-Soviet countries. Lanham, USA: Lexington books.
Lerman, Z., & Shagaida, N. (2007). Land policies and agricultural land markets in Russia. Land Use Policy,
24(1), 14–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.02.001
Leroy, S., Marret, F., Giralt, S., & Bulatov, S. (2006). Natural and anthropogenic rapid changes in the
Kara-Bogaz Gol over the last two centuries reconstructed from palynological analyses and a
comparison to instrumental records. Quaternary International, 150(1), 52–70.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2006.01.007
Lescheva, M., & Ivolga, A. (2015). Current state and perspectives of sheep breeding development in
Russian modern economic conditions. Ekonomika Poljoprivrede, 62(2), 467–480.
Leverington, F., Hockings, M., Pavese, H., Costa, K., & Courrau, J. (2008). Management effectiveness
evaluation in protected areas – a global study. Supplementary report N1: Overview of approached
and methodologies.
Liefert, M., Liefert, O., & Serova, E. (2009). Russia’s transition to major player in world agricultural
markets. Choices, 24(2), 47–51.
Liefert, W. M., & Liefert, O. (2012). Russian agriculture during transition: Performance, global impact,
and outlook. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 34(1), 37–75.
http://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppr046
Lieskovský, J., Kenderessy, P., Špulerová, J., Lieskovský, T., Koleda, P., Kienast, F., & Gimmi, U. (2014).

767
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Factors affecting the persistence of traditional agricultural landscapes in Slovakia during the
collectivization of agriculture. Landscape Ecology, 29(5), 867–877.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0023-1
Liess, M., & Von Der Ohe, P. C. (2005). Analyzing effects of pesticides on invertebrate communities in
streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24(4), 954–965. http://doi.org/10.1897/03-
652.1
Liira, J., Aavik, T., Parrest, O., & Zobel, M. (2008). Agricultural sector, rural environment and biodiversity
in the Central and Eastern European EU member States. AGD Landscape & Environment, 2(1),
46–64.
Likens, G. E., & Bormann, F. H. (1974). Linkages between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
BioScience, 24(8), 447–456. http://doi.org/10.2307/1296852
Linares, A. M. (2007). Forest planning and traditional knowledge in collective woodlands of Spain: The
dehesa system. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1–2), 71–79.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.059
Lindahl, K. B., Sténs, A., Sandström, C., Johansson, J., Lidskog, R., Ranius, T., & Roberge, J. M. (2017).
The Swedish forestry model: More of everything? Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 186–199.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.012
Lindahl, K. B., & Westholm, E. (2010). Food, paper, wood, or energy? Global trends and future Swedish
forest use. Forests, 2(1), 51–65. http://doi.org/10.3390/f2010051
Linnell, J. D. C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N., & Boitani, L. (2015). Framing the
relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conservation
Biology, 29(4), 978–985. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12534
Linnell, J. D. C., Nilsen, E. B., Lande, U. S., Herfindal, I., Odden, J., Skogen, K., Andersen, R., &
Breitenmoser, U. (2005). Zoning as a means of mitigating conflicts with large carnivores:
principles and reality. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A. Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife,
conflict or co-existence (pp. 162–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774
LITHstat. (2017). Lithuanian statistics online database. Retrieved October 1, 2017, from
http://www.stst.gov.lt/en
Litovitz, A., Curtright, A., Abramzon, S., Burger, N., & Samaras, C. (2013). Estimation of regional air-
quality damages from Marcellus Shale natural gas extraction in Pennsylvania. Environmental
Research Letters, 8(1), 14017. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014017
Liu, J., Hull, V., Luo, J., Yang, W., Liu, W., Viña, A., Vogt, C., Xu, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., An, L., Chen, X., Li,
S., Ouyang, Z., Xu, W., & Zhang, H. (2015). Multiple telecouplings and their complex
interrelationships. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 44. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07868-200344
Llabrés, M., Agustí, S., Fernández, M., Canepa, A., Maurin, F., Vidal, F., & Duarte, C. M. (2013). Impact
of elevated UVB radiation on marine biota: a meta-analysis. Global Ecology and Biogeography,
22(1), 131–144. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2012.00784.x
Llamas, M. R., Custodio, E., de la Hera, A., & Fornés, J. M. (2015). Groundwater in Spain: increasing
role, evolution, present and future. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(6), 2567–2578.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-4004-0
Lobley, M., & Butler, A. (2010). The impact of CAP reform on farmers’ plans for the future: Some

768
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

evidence from South West England. Food Policy, 35(4), 341–348.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.04.001
Lobley, M., & Potter, C. (2004). Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence from a survey
of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(4), 499–510.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.07.001
Lõhmus, A., Kohv, K., Palo, A., Viilma, K., & Lohmus, A. (2004). Loss of old-growth, and the minimum
need for strictly protected forests in Estonia. Ecological Bulletins, 51, 401–411.
Longcore, T., & Rich, C. (2004). Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
2(4), 191–198. http://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0191:ELP]2.0.CO;2
Lorek, S., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Sustainable consumption within a sustainable economy –
beyond green growth and green economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 33–44.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.045
Lotz, C. (2015). Expanding the space for future resource management: Explorations of the timber
frontier in northern Europe and the rescaling of sustainability during the nineteenth century.
Environment and History, 21(2), 257–279. http://doi.org/10.3197/096734015X14267043141462
Lozier, M. S., & Stewart, N. M. (2008). On the temporally varying northward penetration of
Mediterranean overflow water and eastward penetration of Labrador Sea water. Journal of
Physical Oceanography, 38(9), 2097–2103. http://doi.org/10.1175/2008JPO3908.1
Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y., Xia, B., Li, P., Feng, H., Wyckhuys, K. A. G., & Guo, Y. (2010). Mirid bug outbreaks
in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science, 328(5982),
1151–1154. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187881
Lubchenco, J., & Grorud-Colvert, K. (2015). Making waves: The science and politics of ocean protection.
Science, 350(6259), 382–383. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5443
Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., Gaines, S. D., & Andelman, S. (2003). Plugging a hole in the ocean: The
emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 13 (Suppl.), S3-S7.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3099993
Luckert, M. (Marty), & Williamson, T. (2005). Should sustained yield be part of sustainable forest
management? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35(2), 356–364. http://doi.org/10.1139/x04-
172
Łuczaj, Ł., Köhler, P., Pirożnikow, E., Graniszewska, M., Pieroni, A., & Gervasi, T. (2013). Wild edible
plants of Belarus: from Rostafiński’s questionnaire of 1883 to the present. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine, 9(1), 21. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-21
Łuczaj, Ł., Pieroni, A., Tardío, J., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Sõukand, R., Svanberg, I., & Kalle, R. (2012).
Wild food plant use in 21st century Europe: the disappearance of old traditions and the search
for new cuisines involving wild edibles. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 81(4), 359–370.
http://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.031
Luczak, C., Beaugrand, G., Jaffre, M., & Lenoir, S. (2011). Climate change impact on Balearic shearwater
through a trophic cascade. Biology Letters, 7(5), 702–705. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0225
Luczak, C., Beaugrand, G., Lindley, J. A., Dewarumez, J.-M., Dubois, P. J., & Kirby, R. R. (2012). North
Sea ecosystem change from swimming crabs to seagulls. Biology Letters, 8(5), 821–824.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.047
Lukashov, A. A., & Akpambetova, K.M. [Лукашов, А. А., & Акпамбетова, К. М.]. (2012). Техногенный

769
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

рельеф районов сосредоточенной добычи минерального сырья в аридных ландшафтах На

примере Центрального Казахстана [Technogenic relief of areas of concentrated extraction of
mineral raw materials in arid landscapes using an example of central Kazakhstan]. Retrieved from
https://articlekz.com/article/12059
Lundmark, H., Josefsson, T., & Östlund, L. (2013). The history of clear-cutting in northern Sweden –
Driving forces and myths in boreal silviculture. Forest Ecology and Management, 307, 112–122.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.07.003
Lurgi, M., Lopez, B. C., & Montoya, J. M. (2012). Novel communities from climate change. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1605), 2913–2922.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0238
Lutz, W. (2010). Emerging population issues in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Research gaps on
demographic trends, human capital and climate change. Retrieved from
https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/bmsablon.pdf
Lutz, W., Sanderson, W., & Scherbov, S. (2008). The coming acceleration of global population ageing.
Nature, 451(7179), 716–719. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06516
Lyons, D. A., Arvanitidis, C., Blight, A. J., Chatzinikolaou, E., Guy-Haim, T., Kotta, J., Orav-Kotta, H.,
Queiros, A. M., Roliv, G., Somerfield, P. J., & Crowe, T. P. (2014). Macroalgal blooms alter
community structure and primary productivity in marine ecosystems. Global Change Biology,
20(9), 2712–24. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12644
Ma, T., & Zhou, C. (2012). Climate-associated changes in spring plant phenology in China. International
Journal of Biometeorology, 56(2), 269–275. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-0428-3
Mabey, R. (2001). Food for free. London, UK: Collins.
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Lazpita, J. G., & Gibon, A.
(2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences
and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 47–69.
http://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335
Macgregor, C. J., Evans, D. M., Fox, R., & Pocock, M. J. O. O. (2017). The dark side of street lighting:
impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport. Global Change
Biology, 23(2), 697–707. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13371
Macgregor, C. J., Pocock, M. J. O. O., Fox, R., & Evans, D. M. (2015). Pollination by nocturnal
Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecological Entomology, 40(3), 187–198.
http://doi.org/10.1111/een.12174
Maiorano, L., Falcucci, A., Garton, E. O., & Boitani, L. (2007). Contribution of the Natura 2000 network
to biodiversity conservation in Italy. Conservation Biology, 21(6), 1433–1444.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00831.x
Malaj, E., von der Ohe, P. C., Grote, M., Kühne, R., Mondy, C. P., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Brack, W., &
Schäfer, R. B. (2014). Organic chemicals jeopardize the health of freshwater ecosystems on the
continental scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 111(26), 9549–9554. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1321082111
Malayang III, B. S., Hahn, T., & Kumar, P. (2006). Responses to ecosystem change and to their impacts
on human well-being. In Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Multiscale assessments, volume 4.
(pp. 203–228). Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

770
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Malcolm, I. A., Gibbins, C. N., Fryer, R. J., Keay, J., Tetzlaff, D., & Soulsby, C. (2014). The influence of
forestry on acidification and recovery: Insights from long-term hydrochemical and invertebrate
data. Ecological Indicators, 37, 317–329. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.011
Malkova, G. V. (2008). The last twenty-five years of changes in permafrost temperature of the
European Russian Arctic. In D. L. Kane & K. M. Hinkel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Permafrost (pp. 1119–1124). Institute of Northern Engineering, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks.
Malmaeus, J. (2016). Economic values and resource use. Sustainability, 8(5), 490.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su8050490
Mamilov, N. S., Balabieva, G. K., & Koishybaeva, G. S. (2010). Distribution of alien fish species in small
waterbodies of the Balkhash basin. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, 1(3), 181–186.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111710030070
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Martin, T. G., & Rhodes, J. R. (2012). Interactions between climate and habitat
loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 18(4),
1239–1252. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x
MAPAMED. (2017). The database on sites of interest for the conservation of marine environment in the
Mediterranean Sea. Retrieved from http://medpan.org/marine-protected-areas/mediterranean-
mpas/
Marañón, T. (1988). Agro-sylvo-pastoral systems in the Iberian Peninsula: Dehesas and montados.
Rangelands, 10, 255–258.
Marchenko, S. S., Gorbunov, A. P., & Romanovsky, V. E. (2007). Permafrost warming in the Tien Shan
Mountains, Central Asia. Global and Planetary Change, 56(3–4), 311–327.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.07.023
Marlon, J. R., Bartlein, P. J., Carcaillet, C., Gavin, D. G., Harrison, S. P., Higuera, P. E., Joos, F., Power, M.
J., & Prentice, I. C. (2008). Climate and human influences on global biomass burning over the past
two millennia. Nature Geoscience, 1(10), 697–702. http://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo313
Martel, A., Blooi, M., Adriaensen, C., Van Rooij, P., Beukema, W., Fisher, M. C., Farrer, R. A., Schmidt,
B. R., Tobler, U., Goka, K., Lips, K. R., Muletz, C., Zamudio, K. R., Bosch, J., Lotters, S., Wombwell,
E., Garner, T. W. J., Cunningham, A. A., Spitzen-van der Sluijs, A., Salvidio, S., Ducatelle, R.,
Nishikawa, K., Nguyen, T. T., Kolby, J. E., Van Bocxlaer, I., Bossuyt, F., & Pasmans, F. (2014). Recent
introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers western Palearctic salamanders. Science, 346(6209),
630–631. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258268
Martin, J., Henrichs, T., Francis, C., Hoogeveen, Y., Kazmierczyk, P., Pignatelli, R., & Speck, S. (2012).
Environmental indicator report 2012: Ecosystem resilience and resource efficiency in a green
economy in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-
indicator-report-2012
Martinez-Alier, J. (2016). Socially sustainable economic degrowth. In J. Farley & D. Malghan (Eds.),
Beyond uneconomic growth: Economics, equity and the ecological predicament (pp. 280-301).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the
context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69(9),
1741–1747. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.017
Martyn, A. H., & Yevsiukov, T. O. (2009). State of land tenure as a deterrent of development of

771
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

productive forces in Ukraine. Materials of the International Scientific Conference, Council of

Productive Forces NASU of Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine.
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007). A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and
maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science, 316(5830), 1475–1477.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1139208
Mashin, A. S., Kozlov, U. P., & Nikol'skyy, A. A. [Мишин, А. С., Козлов, Ю. П., & Никольский, А. А].
(2001). О подготовке специалистов особо охраняемых природных территорий [About
preparation of specialists for nature protected areas]. Вестн. РУДН. Сер. Экология И
Безопасность Жизнедеятельности [Bulletin of the PFUR. Ser. Ecology and Safety of Vital
Activity], 5, 60–65.
Mashkin, V. I. [Машкин, В. И.]. (2007). О кадрах в охотничьем хозяйстве [About staff of hunting
enterprises]. Современные Проблемы Природопользования, Охотоведения И
Звероводства [Current problems of land use, hunting and fur-breeding], 1, 276–277.
Maslak, O. (2015). The problems and perspectives of farming in Ukraine. Agrobusiness Today. Retrieved
from http://www.agro-business.com.ua/
Mathevet, R., Thompson, J. D., Folke, C., & Chapin, F. S. (2016). Protected areas and their surrounding
territory: socioecological systems in the context of ecological solidarity. Ecological Applications,
26(1), 5–16. http://doi.org/10.1890/14-0421
Matthews, E., Amann, C., Bringezu, S., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Hüttler, W., Kleijn, R., Moriguchi, Y., Ottke,
C., Rodenburg, E., Rogich, D., Schandl, H., Schütz, H., van der Voet, E., & Weisz, H. (2000). The
weight of nations: Material outflows from industrial economies. Retrieved from
http://pdf.wri.org/weight_of_nations.pdf
Matthews, W. J., & Marsh-Matthews, E. (2003). Effects of drought on fish across axes of space, time
and ecological complexity. Freshwater Biology, 48(7), 1232–1253. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2427.2003.01087.x
Matulla, C., Schöner, W., Alexandersson, H., von Storch, H., & Wang, X. L. (2008). European storminess:
late nineteenth century to present. Climate Dynamics, 31, 125–130.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0333-y
Matyssek, R., Sandermann, H., Esser, K., Lüttge, U., Beyschlag, W., & Hellwig, F. (2003). Impact of ozone
on trees: an ecophysiological perspective. In K. Esser, U. Lüttge, W. Beyschlag, & F. Hellwig (Eds.),
Progress in Botany (pp. 349–404). Berlin, Germany: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
55819-1_15
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Biodiversity: The ravages of guns,
nets and bulldozers. Nature, 536(7615), 143–145. http://doi.org/10.1038/536143a
May, W. (2008). Potential future changes in the characteristics of daily precipitation in Europe
simulated by the HIRHAM regional climate model. Climate Dynamics, 30(6), 581–603.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0309-y
Mayer, A. L., Kauppi, P. E., Tikka, P. M., & Angelstam, P. K. (2006). Conservation implications of
exporting domestic wood harvest to neighboring countries. Environmental Science and Policy,
9(3), 228–236. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.12.002
Mazziotta, A., Pouzols, F. M., Mönkkönen, M., Kotiaho, J. S., Strandman, H., & Moilanen, A. (2016).
Optimal conservation resource allocation under variable economic and ecological time

772
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

discounting rates in boreal forest. Journal of Environmental Management, 180, 366–374.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.057
McCarthy, J. L., McCarthy, K. P., Fuller, T. K., & McCarthy, T. M. (2010). Assessing variation in wildlife
biodiversity in the Tien Shan Mountains of Kyrgyzstan using ancillary camera-trap photos.
Mountain Research and Development, 30(3), 295–301. http://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-
D-09-00080.1
Mccracken, M. E., Woodcock, B. A., Lobley, M., Pywell, R. F., Saratsi, E., Swetnam, R. D., Mortimer, S.
R., Harris, S. J., Winter, M., Hinsley, S., & Bullock, J. M. (2015). Social and ecological drivers of
success in agri-environment schemes: The roles of farmers and environmental context. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 52(3), 696–705. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12412
McGeoch, M. A., Butchart, S. H. M., Spear, D., Marais, E., Kleynhans, E. J., Symes, A., Chanson, J., &
Hoffmann, M. (2010). Global indicators of biological invasion: Species numbers, biodiversity
impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions, 16(1), 95–108.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00633.x
McInerny, G., Travis, J. M. J., & Dytham, C. (2007). Range shifting on a fragmented landscape. Ecological
Informatics, 2(1), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2006.12.001
Mcinnes, K. L., Erwin, T. A., & Bathols, J. M. (2011). Global climate model projected changes in 10 m
wind speed and direction due to anthropogenic climate change. Atmospheric Science Letters,
12(4), 325–333. http://doi.org/10.1002/asl.341
McKenna, D., Naumann, S., McFarland, K., Graf, A., & Evans, D. (2014). Literature review. The ecological
effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Network. Retrieved from
https://bd.eionet.europa.eu/Reports/ETCBDTechnicalWorkingpapers/The_ecological_effective
ness_of_the_Natura_2000_Network
McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological
Conservation, 127(3), 247–260. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.005
McKinney, M. L. (2008). Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals.
Urban Ecosystems, 11(2), 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4
McNab, B. K. (1963). Bioenergetics and the determination of home range size. American Naturalist, 97,
133–140.
McNeill, M., Phillips, C., Young, S., Shah, F., Aalders, L., Bell, N., Gerard, E., & Littlejohn, R. (2011).
Transportation of nonindigenous species via soil on international aircraft passengers’ footwear.
Biological Invasions, 13(12), 2799–2815. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-9964-3
MCPFE. (1998). Resolution L1. People, Forests and forestry – Enhancement of socio-economic aspects
of sustainable forest management. Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe. Retrieved from http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_lisbon_resolutionL1.pdf
MCPFE. (2001). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management of the MCPFE: Review of
development and current status. Retrieved from
http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/mar/MCPFE%20and%20experiences%20on%20C%26I,%20.pdf
MCPFE. (2013). Pan-European criteris and indicators for sustainable forest management. Retrieved
from http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/AC135E/ac135e09.htm
MEA. (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island
Press.

773
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

MEA. (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Medetsky, A. (2016). Russia becomes a grain superpower as wheat exports explode. Retrieved February
12, 2017, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-06/russia-upends-world-
wheat-market-with-record-harvest-exports
MEDPAN. (2017). The 2016 status of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean: Main Findings.
Retrieved from
http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/medpan_forum_mpa_2016___brochure_a4
_en_web_1_.pdf
Meffe, G., & Carroll, C. (1994). Principles of conservation biology. Sunderland, USA: Sinauer.
Meidinger, E. (2003). Forest certification as a global civil society regulatory institution. In E. Meidinger,
C. Elliott, & G. Oesten (Eds.), Social and political dimensions of forest certification (pp. 265-289).
Remagen-Oberwinter, Germany: Forstbuch.
Meier, E. S., Lischke, H., Schmatz, D. R., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2012). Climate, competition and
connectivity affect future migration and ranges of European trees. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 21(2), 164–178. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00669.x
Melen’-Zabramna, O., Shutiak, S., Voytsikhovska, A., Vasyliuk, O., Norenko, K., & Nahorna, O. (2015).
Military conflict in Eastern Ukraine — Civilization challenges to humanity. O. Kravchenko (Ed.).
Lviv, Ukraine: EPL.
Menges, E. S. (1991). The application of minimum viable population theory to plants. In D. A. I. Falk, &
K. E. Holsinger (Eds.), Genetics and conservation of rare plants (pp. 45–61). New York, USA: Oxford
University Press.
Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N., Koch, E., Aasa, A., Ahas, R., Alm-Kubler, K., Bissolli, P., Braslavská,
O., Briede, A., Chmielewski, F. M., Crepinsek, Z., Curnel, Y., Dahl, Åslög, Defila, C., Donnelly, A.,
Filella, Y., Jatczak, K., Måge, F., Mestre, A., Nordli, Ø, Peñuelas, J., Pirinen, P., Remišová, V.,
Scheifinger, H., Striz, M., Susnik, A., Van Vliet, A. J. H., Wielgolaski, F. E., Zach, S., & Zust, A. (2006).
European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Global Change
Biology, 12(10), 1969–1976. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x
Merilä, J., & Hendry, A. P. (2014). Climate change, adaptation, and phenotypic plasticity: The problem
and the evidence. Evolutionary Applications, 7(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12137
Meshkov, S. A. [Мешков, С. А.]. (2014). Современные проблемы экономической безопасности
рынка земли и пути их решения [Current problems of economic security of land market and
solution paths]. Актуальные вопросы экономических наук [Relevant Issues in Economics], 37,
152–155.
Meyer-Jacob, C., Tolu, J., Bigler, C., Yang, H., & Bindler, R. (2015). Early land use and centennial scale
changes in lake-water organic carbon prior to contemporary monitoring. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(21), 6579–6584.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501505112
Meyer, P., Schmidt, M., Spellmann, H., Bedarff, U., Bauhus, J., Reif, A., & Späth, V. (2011). Aufbau eines
Systems nutzungsfreier Wälder in Deutschland [Building a system of unused forests in Germany].
Natur Und Landschaft, 86, 243–249.
Meyerson, L. A., & Mooney, H. A. (2007). Invasive alien species in an era of globalization. Ecological
Society of America, 5(4), 199–208. http://doi.org/10.1890/1540-
9295(2007)5[199:IASIAE]2.0.CO;2

774
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Meyfroidt, P., Schierhorn, F., Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., & Kuemmerle, T. (2016). Drivers,
constraints and trade-offs associated with recultivating abandoned cropland in Russia, Ukraine
and Kazakhstan. Global Environmental Change, 37, 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.003
Michel, S. (2008). Conservation and use of wild ungulates in Central Asia – potentials and challenges.
In R. D. Baldus, G. R. Damm, & K. Wollscheid (Eds.), Best practices in sustainable hunting (pp. 32–
40). Vienna, Austria: International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation.
Middleton, B. A. (2013). Rediscovering traditional vegetation management in preserves: Trading
experiences between cultures and continents. Biological Conservation, 158, 271–279.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.003
Miina, J., Pukkala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2016). Optimal multi-product management of stands producing
timber and wild berries. European Journal of Forest Research, 135(4), 781–794.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-016-0972-9
Mijangos, J. L., Pacioni, C., Spencer, P. B. S., & Craig, M. D. (2015). Contribution of genetics to ecological
restoration. Molecular Ecology, 24(1), 22–37. http://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12995
Miklín, J., & Čížek, L. (2014). Erasing a European biodiversity hot-spot: Open woodlands, veteran trees
and mature forests succumb to forestry intensification, succession, and logging in a UNESCO
biosphere reserve. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22(1), 35–41.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.08.002
Milner, J. M., Bonenfant, C., Mysterud, A., Gaillard, J.-M., Csányi, S., & Stenseth, N. C. (2006). Temporal
and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 43(4), 721–734. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01183.x
Moholdt, G., Wouters, B., & Gardner, A. S. (2012). Recent mass changes of glaciers in the Russian High
Arctic. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(10), L10502. http://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051466
Mokhov, I. I., Chernokulsky, A. V., & Shkolnik, I. M. (2006). Regional model assessments of fire risks
under global climate changes. Doklady Earth Sciences, 411(2), 1485–1488.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X06090340
Molina, M., Reyes-GarcÍa, V., & Pardo-de-Santayana, M. (2009). Local knowledge and management of
the royal fern (Osmunda regalis L.) in northern Spain: Implications for biodiversity conservation.
American Fern Journal, 99(1), 45–55. http://doi.org/10.1640/0002-8444-99.1.45
Möllmann, C., & Diekmann, R. (2012). Marine ecosystem regime shifts induced by climate and
overfishing. Advances in Ecological Research, 47, 303–347. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
398315-2.00004-1
Molnár, Z. (2014). Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by
Hungarian herders. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 107–118.
http://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00082.1
Molnár, Z., & Berkes, F. (2017). Role of traditional ecological knowledge in linking cultural and natural
capital in cultural landscapes. In M. L. Paracchini & P. Zingari (Eds.), Re-connecting natural and
cultural capital – Contributions from science and policy (pp. 183-194). Brussels, Belgium: Office of
Publications of the European Union. Retrieved from
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6a0efd09-0d4d-11e8-966a-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Molnár, Z., Kis, J., Vadász, C., Papp, L., Sándor, I., Béres, S., Sinka, G., & Varga, A. (2016). Common and

775
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conflicting objectives and practices of herders and conservation managers: the need for a
conservation herder. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(4), e01215.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1215
Mommaerts, V., Reynders, S., Boulet, J., Besard, L., Sterk, G., & Smagghe, G. (2010). Risk assessment
for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging
behavior. Ecotoxicology, 19(1), 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-009-0406-2
Monteiro, A. T., Fava, F., Hiltbrunner, E., Della Marianna, G., & Bocchi, S. (2011). Assessment of land
cover changes and spatial drivers behind loss of permanent meadows in the lowlands of Italian
Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100(3), 287–294.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.015
Monteith, D. T., Stoddard, J. L., Evans, C. D., De Wit, H. A., Forsius, M., Høgåsen, T., Wilander, A.,
Skjelkvåle, B. L., Jeffries, D. S., Vuorenmaa, J., Keller, B., Kopécek, J., & Vesely, J. (2007). Dissolved
organic carbon trends resulting from changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature,
450(7169), 537–540. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06316
Mora, C., & Sale, P. F. (2011). Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected
areas: A review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 434, 251–266. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps09214
Morandin, L. A., & Winston, M. L. (2005). Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional,
organic, and genetically modified canola. Ecological Applications, 15(3), 871–881.
http://doi.org/10.1890/03-5271
Morato, T., Watson, R., Pitcher, T. J., & Pauly, D. (2006). Fishing down the deep. Fish and Fisheries, 7(1),
24–34. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2006.00205.x
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., & Jones, P. D. (2012). Quantifying uncertainties in global and
regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data
set. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117, D08101.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187
Morley, N. J., & Lewis, J. W. (2014). Extreme climatic events and host–pathogen interactions: The
impact of the 1976 drought in the UK. Ecological Complexity, 17, 1–19.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2013.12.001
Morozova, L. M. (2012). Space-temporal analysis of steppe vegetation dynamic on Southern Ural.
Proceedings Samara Scientific Center RAS, 14(1/5), 1328–1331.
Moss, B., Kosten, S., Meerhoff, M., Battarbee, R. W., Jeppesen, E., Mazzeo, N., Havens, K., Lacerot, G.,
Liu, Z., De Meester, L., Paerl, H., & Scheffer, M. (2011). Allied attack: climate change and
eutrophication. Inland Waters, 1, 101–105. http://doi.org/10.5268/IW-1.2.359
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R.,
Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith,
S. J., Stouffer, R. J., Thomson, A. M., Weyant, J. P., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2010). The next generation
of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature, 463(7282), 747–756.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823
Mukanova, A. S. [Муканова, А. С.]. (2015). Пути расширения масштабов использования
углепромышленных отходов и решения экологических проблем угольных станций [Ways to
expand the scale of the use of coal waste and address the environmental problems of coal plants].
Вестник КарГУ [Herald of KarGU], 1–11.

776
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Munteanu, C., Kuemmerle, T., Boltiziar, M., Butsic, V., Gimmi, U., Halada, L., Kaim, D., Király, G.,
Konkoly-Gyuró, É., Kozak, J., Lieskovský, J., Mojses, M., Müller, D., Ostafin, K., Ostapowicz, K.,
Shandra, O., Štych, P., Walker, S., & Radeloff, V. C. (2014). Forest and agricultural land change in
the Carpathian region - A meta-analysis of long-term patterns and drivers of change. Land Use
Policy, 38, 685–697. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.012
Munton, R. (2009). Rural land ownership in the United Kingdom: Changing patterns and future
possibilities for land use. Land Use Policy, 26, S54–S61.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.012
Murphy, J. F., Winterbottom, J. H., Orton, S., Simpson, G. L., Shilland, E. M., & Hildrew, A. G. (2014).
Evidence of recovery from acidification in the macroinvertebrate assemblages of UK fresh waters:
A 20-year time series. Ecological Indicators, 37, 330–340.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.07.009
Musuraliev, T. S., Zamoshnikov, V. D., & Koblitskaya, T. M. [Мусуралиев, Т. С., Замошников, В. Д., &
Коблицкая, Т. М.]. (2000). Еловые леса Кыргызстана. Симпозиум [Simposium], 31–36.
Nagorskaya, L., & Keyser, D. (2005). Habitat diversity and ostracod distribution patterns in Belarus.
Hydrobiologia, 538(1–3), 167–178. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-004-4959-z
Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P., Polasky, S., Rickets, T., & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic
costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 681–687.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003
Nature protected areas: Materials for the creation of the Concept of the System of Nature Protected
Areas in Russia [Охраняемые природные территории: Материалы к созданию Концепции
системы охраняемых природных территорий России]. (1998). Москва, Российская
Федерация: РПО ВВФ. [Moscow, Russian Federation: RPO WWF]
Naumov, V., Angelstam, P., & Elbakidze, M. (2016). Barriers and bridges for intensified wood
production in Russia: Insights from the environmental history of a regional logging frontier. Forest
Policy and Economics, 66, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.001
Naumov, V., Angelstam, P., & Elbakidze, M. (2017). Satisfying rival forestry objectives in the Komi
Republic: effects of Russian zoning policy change on wood production and riparian forest
conservation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 47(10), 1339–1349.
http://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0516
Navarro, L. M., & Pereira, H. M. (2012). Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. Ecosystems, 15(6),
900–912. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7
Naylor, R. L., Goldburg, R. J., Primavera, J. H., Kautsky, N., Beveridge, M. C. M., Clay, J., Folke, C.,
Lubchenko, J., Mooney, H., & Troell, M. (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies.
Nature, 405(6790), 1017–1024. http://doi.org/10.1038/35016500
Nefedova, T. G. (2016). Russian agricultural resources and the geography of their use in import-
substitution conditions. Regional Research of Russia, 6(4), 292–303.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970516040122
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, Dr., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C.,
Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, Mr. (2009). Modeling
multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at
landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11.
http://doi.org/10.1890/080023

777
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nelson, G. C., Bennett, E., Berhe, A. A., Cassman, K., DeFries, R. S., Dietz, T., Dobermann, A., Dobson,
A., Janetos, A., Levy, M. A., Marco, D., Nakicenovic, N., O’Neill, B., Norgaard, R., Petschel-Held,
G., Ojima, D., Pingali, P., Watson, R., & Zurek, M. (2006). Anthropogenic drivers of ecosystem
change: an overview. Ecology and Society, 11(2). Retrieved from
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180988
Nelson, G. C., Bennett, E., Berhe, A. A., Cassman, K. G., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Dobson, A., Dobermann,
A., Janetos, A., Levy, M., Nakic ́enovic ́, N., O’Neill, B., Norgaard, R., Petschel-Held, G., Ojima, D.,
Pingali, P., Watson, R., & Zurek, M. (2005). Drivers of Change in Ecosystem Condition and Services.
In Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2 (pp. 173-222). Washington DC, USA:
Island Press.
Netalieva, I., Wesseler, J., & Heijman, W. (2005). Health costs caused by oil extraction air emissions
and the benefits from abatement: the case of Kazakhstan. Energy Policy, 33(9), 1169–1177.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.11.014
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill, S. L. L., Hoskins, A. J.,
Lysenko, I., Phillips, H. R. P., Burton, V. J., Chng, C. W. T., Emerson, S., Gao, D., Pask-Hale, G.,
Hutton, J., Jung, M., Sanchez-Ortiz, K., Simmons, B. I., Whitmee, S., Zhang, H., Scharlemann, J. P.
W., & Purvis, A. (2016). Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary
boundary? A global assessment. Science, 353(6296), 288–291.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf2201
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J.,
Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S., Edgar, M. J.,
Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M. L. K., Alhusseini, T., Ingram, D. J., Itescu, Y., Kattge, J., Kemp,
V., Kirkpatrick, L., Kleyer, M., Correia, D. L. P., Martin, C. D., Meiri, S., Novosolov, M., Pan, Y.,
Phillips, H. R. P., Purves, D. W., Robinson, A., Simpson, J., Tuck, S. L., Weiher, E., White, H. J.,
Ewers, R. M., Mace, G. M., Scharlemann, J. P. W., & Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of land use
on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature, 520(7545), 45–50. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324
NIA-Priroda [НИА-Природа]. (2016). Анализ выполнения задач государственной политики в
области экологического развития и соответствующих поручений Президента
Российской Федерации [Analyses of accomplishment of the governmental policy in the field of
ecological development and related tasks from the President of the Russian Federation]. Moscow,
Russian Federation: Prorida.
Nicolia, A., Manzo, A., Veronesi, F., & Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of the last 10 years of genetically
engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34(1), 77–88.
http://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595
Niemelä, J., Young, J., Alard, D., Askasibar, M., Henle, K., Johnson, R., Kurttila, M., Larsson, T. B.,
Matouch, S., Nowicki, P., Paiva, R., Portoghesi, L., Smulders, R., Stevenson, A., Tartes, U., & Watt,
A. (2005). Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity
conservation and other human interests in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(6), 877–890.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.04.005
Nieminen, M., Roto, J., & Syrjämäki, E. (2004). Local voices from the Faroe Islands. In E. Helander & T.
Mustonen (Eds.), Snowscapes, dreamscapes. Snowchange book on community voices of change.
Tampere, Finland: Tampere Polytechnic Publications.
Nieto, A., & Alexander, K. N. A. (2010). European red list of saproxylic beetles. Luxembourg: Publication
Office of the European Union. http://doi.org/10.2779/84561

778
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nilsson, M., & Persson, A. (2003). Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal
of Environmental Policy & Planning, 5(4), 333–359.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1523908032000171648
NOAA. (1990). The potential of marine fishery reserves for reef fish management in the U.S. southern
Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-261. Miami, USA: Southeast Fisheries
Center.
Noetzli, J., & Mühll, D. V. (2010). Permafrost in Switzerland 2006/2007 and 2007/2008.
http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-38423
Noges, P., Argillier, C., Borja, A., Garmendia, J. M., Hanganu, J., Kodes, V., Pletterbauer, F., Sagouis, A.,
& Birk, S. (2016). Quantified biotic and abiotic responses to multiple stress in freshwater, marine
and ground waters. Science of the Total Environment, 540, 43–52.
http://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.06.045.
Nogués-Bravo, D., Araújo, M. B., Romdal, T., & Rahbek, C. (2008). Scale effects and human impact on
the elevational species richness gradients. Nature, 453(7192), 216–219.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature06812
Nolan, J. M., & Schultz, P. W. (2015). Prosocial behavior and environmental action. In D. A. Schroeder
& W. G. Graziano (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Nybø, S., Arneberg, P., Framstad, E., Ims, R., Lyngstad, A., Schartau, A.-K., Sickel, H., Sverdrup-
Thygeson, A., & Vandvik, V. (2017). Helhetlig fagsystem for vurdering av god økologisk tilstand
[Holistic science-based system for assessment of good ecological condition]. In S. Nybø & M. Evju
(Eds.), Fagsystem for fastsetting av god økologisk tilstand. Forslag fra et ekspertråd. [Science-
based system for assessing good ecological condition. Guidance from an expert panel] (pp. 10-
46). Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokument/rapportar-og-planar/id438817/
O’Neil, J. M., Davis, T. W., Burford, M. A., & Gobler, C. J. (2012). The rise of harmful cyanobacteria
blooms: The potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae, 14, 313–334.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2011.10.027
Oberman, N. G. (2008). Contemporary permafrost degradation of northern European Russia. In D. L.
Kane & K. M. Hinkel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Permafrost (pp.
1305–1310). Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Oberman, N. G. (2012). Long-term temperature regime of the Northeast European permafrost region
during contemporary climate warming. In V. P. Melnikov, D. S. Drozdov, & V. E. Romanovsky
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Permafrost (pp. 287–291). Salekhard,
Russian Federation: The Northern Publisher.
OECD. (2001). OECD Environmental Outlook for the Chemicals Industry. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264188563-en
OECD. (2011). Towards green growth. Paris: Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en
OECD. (2012). OECD economic outlook, volume 2012 Issue 1. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1787/eco_outlook-v2012-1-en
OECD. (2016). Air and GHG emissions. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/air/air-and-ghg-
emissions.htm

779
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Olsen, S. L., Töpper, J. P., Skarpaas, O., Vandvik, V., & Klanderud, K. (2016). From facilitation to
competition: temperature-driven shift in dominant plant interactions affects population
dynamics in seminatural grasslands. Global Change Biology, 22(5), 1915–1926.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13241
Ondash, O. A. [Оңдаш, А. О.]. (2011). Роль роста добычи нефти в решении экономических проблем
Республики Kазахстан [The role of oil production growth in solving economic problems of the
Republic of Kazakhstan]. Вестник КазНАУ [Herald of KazNAU], 4 (86): 6-9.
Ordonez, A., Williams, J. W., & Svenning, J.-C. (2016). Mapping climatic mechanisms likely to favour
the emergence of novel communities. Nature Climate Change, 6(12), 1104–1109.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3127
Orlowsky, B., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2012). Global changes in extreme events: Regional and seasonal
dimension. Climatic Change, 110(3–4), 669–696. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0122-9
Osepashvili, I. (2006). Land use dynamics and institutional changes in Central Asia. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/15794-02f3949d80fa99de7c7c38928aee6c9e6.pdf
Österblom, H., Sissenwine, M., Symes, D., Kadin, M., Daw, T., & Folke, C. (2011). Incentives, social-
ecological feedbacks and European fisheries. Marine Policy, 35(5), 568–574.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.018
Östlund, L., Zackrisson, O., & Axelsson, A.-L. (1997). The history and transformation of a Scandinavian
boreal forest landscape since the 19th century. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27(8), 1198–
1206. http://doi.org/10.1139/x97-070
Oughton, D. H., Strømman, G., & Salbu, B. (2013). Ecological risk assessment of Central Asian mining
sites: application of the ERICA assessment tool. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 123, 90–
98. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2012.11.010
Ovcharova, L., & Pishnyak, A. (2003). Rural poverty in Russia. Local self-government and civic
engagement in rural Russia, 27.
Paerl, H. W., & Paul, V. J. (2012). Climate change: Links to global expansion of harmful cyanobacteria.
Water Research, 46(5), 1349–1363. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.08.002
Pagès, J. F., Pérez, M., & Romero, J. (2010). Sensitivity of the seagrass Cymodocea nodosa to
hypersaline conditions: A microcosm approach. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology, 386(1–2), 34–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2010.02.017
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning
processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Paillet, Y., Bergès, L., Hjältén, J., Odor, P., Avon, C., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Bijlsma, R.-J., De Bruyn,
L., Fuhr, M., Grandin, U., Kanka, R., Lundin, L., Luque, S., Magura, T., Matesanz, S., Mészáros, I.,
Sebastià, M.-T., Schmidt, W., Standovár, T., Tóthmérész, B., Uotila, A., Valladares, F., Vellak, K., &
Virtanen, R. (2010). Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-
analysis of species richness in Europe. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 101–12.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01399.x
Paini, D. R., Sheppard, A. W., Cook, D. C., De Barro, P. J., Worner, S. P., & Thomas, M. B. (2016). Global
threat to agriculture from invasive species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 113(27), 7575–7579. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602205113

780
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pairaud, I. L., Bensoussan, N., Garreau, P., Faure, V., & Garrabou, J. (2014). Impacts of climate change
on coastal benthic ecosystems: assessing the current risk of mortality outbreaks associated with
thermal stress in NW Mediterranean coastal areas. Ocean Dynamics, 64(1), 103–115.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-013-0661-x
Palang, H., & Printsmann, A. (2010). From totalitarian to democratic landscapes: The transition in
Estonia. In Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in
developed countries (pp. 169–184). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Parcerisas, L., Marull, J., Pino, J., Tello, E., Coll, F., & Basnou, C. (2012). Land use changes, landscape
ecology and their socioeconomic driving forces in the Spanish Mediterranean coast (El Maresme
County, 1850–2005). Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 120–132.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.002
Pardo, F., & Gil, L. (2005). The impact of traditional land use on woodlands: a case study in the Spanish
central system. Journal of Historical Geography, 31(3), 390–408.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2004.11.002
Parmesan, C. (2006). Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37(1), 637–669.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100
Parmesan, C. (2007). Influences of species, latitudes and methodologies on estimates of phenological
response to global warming. Global Change Biology, 13(9), 1860–1872.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01404.x
Parrotta, J. A., & Sunderland, T. (2015). The historical, environmental and socio- economic context of
forests and tree-based systems for food security and nutrition. In B. Vira, C. Wildburger, & S.
Mansourian (Eds.), Forests and food: Addressing hunger and nutrition across sustainable
landscapes (pp. 73–136). Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
Parrotta, J., Yeo-Chang, Y., & Camacho, L. D. (2016). Traditional knowledge for sustainable forest
management and provision of ecosystem services. International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystems Services and Management, 12(1–2), 1-4.
http://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2016.1169580
Pastoors, M., Rijnsdorp, A. D., & van Beek, F. A. (2000). Effects of a partially closed area in the North
Sea (“plaice box”) on stock development of plaice. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 57(4), 1014–
1022. http://doi.org/10.1006/jmsc.2000.0586
Pauchard, A., Milbau, A., Albihn, A., Alexander, J., Burgess, T., Daehler, C., Englund, G., Essl, F.,
Evengård, B., Greenwood, G. B., Haider, S., Lenoir, J., McDougall, K., Muths, E., Nuñez, M. A.,
Olofsson, J., Pellissier, L., Rabitsch, W., Rew, L. J., Robertson, M., Sanders, N., & Kueffer, C. (2016).
Non-native and native organisms moving into high elevation and high latitude ecosystems in an
era of climate change: new challenges for ecology and conservation. Biological Invasions, 18(2),
345–353. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1025-x
Paul, F., & Andreassen, L. M. (2009). A new glacier inventory for the Svartisen region, Norway, from
Landsat ETM+ data: challenges and change assessment. Journal of Glaciology, 55(192), 607–618.
http://doi.org/10.3189/002214309789471003
Paul, F., Andreassen, L. M., & Winsvold, S. H. (2011). A new glacier inventory for the Jostedalsbreen
region, Norway, from Landsat TM scenes of 2006 and changes since 1966. Annals of Glaciology,
52(59), 153–162. http://doi.org/10.3189/172756411799096169

781
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Paul, F., Kääb, A., Maisch, M., Kellenberger, T., & Haeberli, W. (2004). Rapid disintegration of Alpine
glaciers observed with satellite data. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L21402.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020816
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., Walters, C. J., Watson, R., & Zeller,
D. (2002). Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418(6898), 689–95.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature01017
Pausas, J. G. (2004). Changes in fire and climate in the eastern Iberian Peninsula (Mediterranean Basin).
Climatic Change, 63(3), 337–350. http://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018508.94901.9c
Pe’er, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Baldi, A., Benton, T. G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory,
R. D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P. R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R. K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J.,
Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W. J., Turbe, A., Wulf, F., & Scott, A. V. (2014). EU agricultural reform
fails on biodiversity. Science, 344(6188), 1090–1092. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425
Pearson, P. N., & Palmer, M. R. (2000). Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60
million years. Nature, 406(6797), 695–699. http://doi.org/10.1038/35021000
Peet, R., & Hartwick, E. (2015). Theories of development: Contentions, arguments, alternatives. New
York, USA: Guilford Publications.
PEFC. (2010). Sustainable forest management – Requirements. Retrieved from
https://pefcnederland.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/PEFC_ST_1003_2010_SFM__Requirements_2010_11_26.pdf
PEFC. (2016). PEFC annual review 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.pefc.org/images/documents/annual_review/PEFC_2015_annual_review.pdf
Peñuelas, J., Gordon, C., Llorens, L., Nielsen, T., Tietema, A., Beier, C., Bruna, P., Emmett, B., Estiarte,
M., & Gorissen, A. (2004). Nonintrusive field experiments show different plant responses to
warming and drought among sites, seasons, and species in a north-south European gradient.
Ecosystems, 7(6). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-004-0179-7
Peñuelas, J., Prieto, P., Beier, C., Cesaraccio, C., de Angelis, P., de Dato, G., Emmett, B. A., Estiarte, M.,
Garadnai, J., Gorissen, A., Láng, E. K., Kröel-dulay, G., Llorens, L., Pellizzaro, G., Riis-nielsen, T.,
Schmidt, I. K., Sirca, C., Sowerby, A., Spano, D., & Tietema, A. (2007). Response of plant species
richness and primary productivity in shrublands along a north–south gradient in Europe to seven
years of experimental warming and drought: reductions in primary productivity in the heat and
drought year of 2003. Global Change Biology, 13(12), 2563–2581. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2007.01464.x
Peñuelas, J., Sardans, J., Rivas-ubach, A., & Janssens, I. A. (2012). The human-induced imbalance
between C, N and P in Earth’s life system. Global Change Biology, 18(1), 3–6.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02568.x
Pereira, H. M., Leadley, P. W., Proenca, V., Alkemade, R., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Fernandez-Manjarres,
J. F., Araújo, M. B., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Chini, L., Cooper, H. D., Gilman, E.
L., Guénette, S., Hurtt, G. C., Huntington, H. P., Mace, G. M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues,
P., Scholes, R. J., Sumaila, U. R., & Walpole, M. (2010). Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the
21st Century. Science, 330(6010), 1496–1501. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196624
Pereira, J. L., Antunes, S. C., Castro, B. B., Marques, C. R., Gonçalves, A. M. M., Gonçalves, F., & Pereira,
R. (2009). Toxicity evaluation of three pesticides on non-target aquatic and soil organisms:
commercial formulation versus active ingredient. Ecotoxicology, 18(4), 455–463.

782
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-009-0300-y
Perelman, M. J. (1972). Farming with petroleum. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development, 14(8), 8–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1972.9930634
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., García-Charton, J. A., Barcala, E., & Marcos, C. (2006). Changes in benthic fish
assemblages as a consequence of coastal works in a coastal lagoon: The Mar Menor (Spain,
western Mediterranean). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 53(1), 107–120.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.09.014
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., García-Charton, J. A., & Marcos, C. (2017). North East Atlantic vs. Mediterranean
marine protected areas as fisheries management tool. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 245.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00245
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., Pérez-Ruzafa, I. M., Barcala, E., Hegazi, M. I., & Quispe, J. (2007). Detecting
changes resulting from human pressure in a naturally quick-changing and heterogeneous
environment: Spatial and temporal scales of variability in coastal lagoons. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 75(1–2), 175–188. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2007.04.030
Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Martín, E., Marcos, C., Zamarro, J. M., Stobart, B., Harmelin-Vivien, M., Polti, S.,
Planes, S., Garcia-Charton, J. A., & González-Wangüemert, M. (2008). Modelling spatial and
temporal scales for spill-over and biomass exportation from MPAs and their potential for fisheries
enhancement. Journal for Nature Conservation, 16(4), 234–255.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2008.09.003
Perry, A. L. (2005). Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science, 308(5730), 1912–
1915. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111322
Petersen, J. (2006). Integration of environment into EU agriculture policy — the IRENA indicator-based
assessment report. EEA Report No 2/2006. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_2
Peterson, T. C., & Vose, R. S. (1997). An overview of the global historical climatology network
temperature database. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2837–2849.
http://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<2837:AOOTGH>2.0.CO;2
Petitgas, P., Secor, D. H., McQuinn, I., Huse, G., & Lo, N. (2010). Stock collapses and their recovery:
mechanisms that establish and maintain life-cycle closure in space and time. ICES Journal of
Marine Science, 67(9), 1841–1848. http://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsq082
Petrick, M., Wandel, J., & Karsten, K. (2013). Rediscovering the virgin lands: Agricultural investment
and rural livelihoods in a Eurasian frontier area. World Development, 43, 164–179.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.015
Pinto-Correia, T. (2000). Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural
support for landscape conservation? Landscape and Urban Planning, 50(1–3), 95–106.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00082-7
Plakitkina, L. S. [Плакиткина, Л. С.]. (2014). Анализ развития добычи, экспорта, импорта
коксующегося и энергетического, каменного и бурого углей в странах СНГ в период с 2000
по 2013 гг. и т [Analysis of mining, export of coal in CIS countries from 2000 to 2013 and future
projections in each country]. Горная Промышленность [Mining Industry], 3(115), 8–12.
Planes, S., García-Charton, J. A., & Pérez Ruzafa, Á. (2006). Ecological effects of Atlanto-Mediterranean
marine protected areas in the European Union. EMPAFISH Project, Booklet, 1, 158. Retrieved from
http://www.um.es/empafish/files/WP1 Booklet.pdf

783
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Plastics Europe. (2016). Plastics - the Facts 2016. An analysis of European plastics production, demand
and waste data.
Plieninger, T., Hartel, T., Martín-lópez, B., Beaufoy, G., Bergmeier, E., Kirby, K., Montero, M. J., Moreno,
G., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Uytvanck, J. Van. (2015). Wood-pastures of Europe: Geographic coverage,
social – ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biological
Conservation, 190, 70–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.014
Plieninger, T., Höchtl, F., & Spek, T. (2006). Traditional land-use and nature conservation in European
rural landscapes. Environmental Science & Policy, 9(4), 317–321.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.03.001
Plieninger, T., Mainou, J. M. Y., & Konold, W. (2004). Land manager attitudes toward management,
regeneration, and conservation of Spanish holm oak savannas (dehesas). Landscape and Urban
Planning, 66(3), 185–198. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00100-2
Plieninger, T., Pulido, F. J., & Konold, W. (2003). Effects of land-use history on size structure of holm
oak stands in Spanish dehesas: implications for conservation and restoration. Environmental
Conservation, 30(1), 61-70. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000055
Pluess, T., Jarošík, V., Pyšek, P., Cannon, R., Pergl, J., Breukers, A., & Bacher, S. (2012). Which factors
affect the success or failure of eradication campaigns against alien species? PLoS ONE, 7(10),
e48157. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048157
Plutzar, C., Kroisleitner, C., Haberl, H., Fetzel, T., Bulgheroni, C., Beringer, T., Hostert, P., Kastner, T.,
Kuemmerle, T., Lauk, C., Levers, C., Lindner, M., Moser, D., Müller, D., Niedertscheider, M.,
Paracchini, M. L., Schaphoff, S., Verburg, P. H., Verkerk, P. J., & Erb, K.-H. (2015). Changes in the
spatial patterns of human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in Europe 1990–
2006. Regional Environmental Change, 16(5), 1225-1238. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-
0820-3
Poff, N. L., Allan, J. D., Palmer, M. A., Hart, D. D., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Rogers, K. H., Meyers,
J. L., & Stanford, J. A. (2003). River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental
decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(6), 298–306.
http://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0298:RFAWWE]2.0.CO;2
Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuti, B., Fackler, P., Lonsdorf, E., Montgomery, C., White, D., Arthur,
J., Garber-Yonts, B., Haight, R., Kagan, J., Starfield, A., & Tobalske, C. (2008). Where to put things?
Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation,
141(6), 1505–1524. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.022
Polimeni, J., Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., & Alcott, B. (2012). The Jevons paradox and the myth of
resource efficiency improvements. Abingdon, UK: Earthscan.
Poll, C., Marhan, S., Back, F., Niklaus, P. A., & Kandeler, E. (2013). Field-scale manipulation of soil
temperature and precipitation change soil CO2 flux in a temperate agricultural ecosystem.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 165, 88–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.012
Pollock, M. L., Milner, J. M., Waterhouse, A., Holland, J. P., & Legg, C. J. (2005). Impacts of livestock in
regenerating upland birch woodlands in Scotland. Biological Conservation, 123(4), 443–452.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.006
Pomfret, R. (2011). Exploiting energy and mineral resources in Central Asia, Azerbaijan and Mongolia.
Comparative Economic Studies, 53(1), 5–33. http://doi.org/10.1057/ces.2010.24
Pommerening, A., & Murphy, S. T. (2004). A review of the history, definitions and methods of

784
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

continuous cover forestry with special attention to afforestation and restocking. Forestry, 77(1),
27–44. http://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/77.1.27
Ponce, C., Bravo, C., de León, D. G., Magaña, M., & Alonso, J. C. (2011). Effects of organic farming on
plant and arthropod communities: A case study in Mediterranean dryland cereal. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 141(1–2), 193–201. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.030
Portman, M. E., Nathan, D., & Levin, N. (2012). From the Levant to Gibraltar: A regional perspective for
marine conservation in the Mediterranean Sea. Ambio, 41(7), 670–681.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0298-x
Pörtner, H. O., & Peck, M. A. (2010). Climate change effects on fishes and fisheries: towards a cause-
and-effect understanding. Journal of Fish Biology, 77(8), 1745–1779.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2010.02783.x
Potapov, P., Hansen, M. C., Laestadius, L., Turubanova, S., Yaroshenko, A., Thies, C., Smith, W.,
Zhuravleva, I., Komarova, A., Minnemeyer, S., & Esipova, E. (2017). The last frontiers of
wilderness: Tracking loss of intact forest landscapes from 2000 to 2013. Science Advances, 3(1),
e1600821. http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600821
Potts, S. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H. T., Aizen, M. A., Biesmeijer, J. C., Breeze, T. D., Dicks, L. V.,
Garibaldi, L. A., Hill, R., Settele, J., & Vanbergen, A. J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their
values to human well-being. Nature, 540(7632), 220–229. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature20588
Prangel, E. (2017). The provisioning of ecosystem services on open and successional alvar grasslands.
(Ökosüsteemi hüved avatud ja kinnikasvavatel loopealsetel) (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
http://botany.ut.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/magistritoo_elisabeth_prangel.pdf
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912–
1914. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847
Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Alcantara, C., & Radeloff, V. C. (2016).
Underlying drivers and spatial determinants of post-Soviet agricultural land abandonment in
temperate Eastern Europe. In Land-cover and land-use changes in Eastern Europe after the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (pp. 91–117). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42638-9_5
Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., Dubinin, M., Baumann, M., & Radeloff, V. C. (2013). Determinants of
agricultural land abandonment in post-Soviet European Russia. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 873–884.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.011
Prishchepov, A. V., Radeloff, V. C., Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., & Müller, D. (2012). Effects of
institutional changes on land use: Agricultural land abandonment during the transition from
state-command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Environmental
Research Letters, 7(2), 24021. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024021
Prishchepov, A. V., Müller, D., Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Alcantara, C., & Radeloff, V. C. (2017).
Underlying drivers and spatial determinants of post-Soviet agricultural land abandonment in
temperate Eastern Europe.” In G. Gutman, & V. Radeloff (Eds.), Land-cover and land-use changes
in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (pp. 1–27). Switzerland: Springer
International Publishing, 2017. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42638-9_5
Przeslawski, R., Byrne, M., & Mellin, C. (2015). A review and meta-analysis of the effects of multiple
abiotic stressors on marine embryos and larvae. Global Change Biology, 21(6), 2122–2140.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12833

785
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Hulme, P. P. E., Kühn, I., Wild, J., Arianoutsou, M., Bacher, S., Chiron, F. F., Didžiulis,
V., Essl, F., Genovesi, P., Gherardi, F., Hejda, M., Kark, S., Lambdon, P. W., Desprez-Loustau, M.-
L. L., Nentwig, W., Pergl, J., Poboljšaj, K., Rabitsch, W., Roques, A., Roy, D. B., Shirley, S., Solarz,
W., Montserrat, V., Winter, M., Pysek, P., Jarosík, V., Hulme, P. P. E., Kühn, I., Wild, J.,
Arianoutsou, M., Bacher, S., Chiron, F. F., Didziulis, V., Essl, F., Genovesi, P., Gherardi, F., Hejda,
M., Kark, S., Lambdon, P. W., Desprez-Loustau, M.-L. L., Nentwig, W., Pergl, J., Poboljsaj, K.,
Rabitsch, W., Roques, A., Roy, D. B., Shirley, S., Solarz, W., Vilà, M., & Winter, M. (2010).
Disentangling the role of environmental and human pressures on biological invasions across
Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
107(27), 12157–12162. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1002314107
Pywell, R. F., Heard, M. S., Bradbury, R. B., Hinsley, S., Nowakowski, M., Walker, K. J., & Bullock, J. M.
(2012). Wildlife-friendly farming benefits rare birds, bees and plants. Biology Letters, 8(5), 772–
775. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2012.0367
Pywell, R. F., Heard, M. S., Woodcock, B. A., Hinsley, S., Ridding, L., Nowakowski, M., & Bullock, J. M.
(2015). Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1816), 20151740.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1740
Quave, C. L., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., & Pieroni, A. (2012). Medical ethnobotany in Europe: From field
ethnography to a more culturally sensitive evidence-based CAM? Evidence-Based
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2012, 1–17. http://doi.org/10.1155/2012/156846
Raab, K., Llope, M., Nagelkerke, L., Rijnsdorp, A., Teal, L., Licandro, P., Ruardij, P., & Dickey-Collas, M.
(2013). Influence of temperature and food availability on juvenile European anchovy Engraulis
encrasicolus at its northern boundary. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 488, 233–245.
http://doi.org/10.3354/meps10408
Rabitsch, W., Genovesi, P., Scalera, R., Biała, K., Josefsson, M., & Essl, F. (2016). Developing and testing
alien species indicators for Europe. Journal for Nature Conservation, 29, 89–96.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.12.001
Rackham, O. (2003). Ancient woodland: its history, vegetation and uses in England. Colvend, UK:
Castlepoint Press.
Raftery, A. E., Zimmer, A., Frierson, D. M. W., Startz, R., & Liu, P. (2017). Less than 2 °C warming by
2100 unlikely. Nature Climate Change, 7, 637-641. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3352
Rahel, F. J., & Olden, J. D. (2008). Assessing the effects of climate change on aquatic invasive species.
Conservation Biology, 22(3), 521–533. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00950.x
Rahmstorf, S., Box, J. E., Feulner, G., Mann, M. E., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S., & Schaffernicht, E. J.
(2015). Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation.
Nature Climate Change, 5(5), 475–480. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2554
Rasmussen, J. J., Friberg, N., & Larsen, S. E. (2008). Impact of lambda-cyhalothrin on a
macroinvertebrate assemblage in outdoor experimental channels: Implications for ecosystem
functioning. Aquatic Toxicology, 90(3), 228–234. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2008.09.003
Rauch, W., & Harremoës, P. (1996). Minimizing acute river pollution from urban drainage systems by
means of integrated real time control. Retrieved from
http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/minimizing-acute-river-pollution-from-urban-drainage-
systems-by-means-of-integrated-real-time-control(2484221c-7966-401a-b61b-

786
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

31c3caf24672).html
Ravenscroft, C. H., Whitlock, R., & Fridley, J. D. (2015). Rapid genetic divergence in response to 15 years
of simulated climate change. Global Change Biology, 21(11), 4165–4176.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12966
Ravichandran, M. (2004, April). Interactions between mercury and dissolved organic matter - A review.
Chemosphere, 55(3), 319-331. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.11.011
Ravishankara, A. R., Daniel, J. S., & Portmann, R. W. (2009). Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone-
depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science, 326(5949), 123–125.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176985
Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. White
River Junction, USA: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Redhead, J. W., Dreier, S., Bourke, A. F. G., Heard, M. S., Jordan, W. C., Sumner, S., Wang, J., & Carvell,
C. (2015). Effects of habitat composition and landscape structure on worker foraging distances of
five bumblebee species. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(3), 1689–1699.
https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0546
Reichstein, M., Ciais, P., Papale, D., Valentini, R., Running, S., Viovy, N., Cramer, W., Granier, A., Ogée,
J., Allard, V., Aubinet, M., Bernhofer, C., Buchmann, N., Carrara, A., Grünwald, T., Heimann, M.,
Heinesch, B., Knohl, A., Kutsch, W., Loustau, D., Manca, G., Matteucci, G., Miglietta, F., Ourcival,
J. M., Pilegaard, K., Pumpanen, J., Rambal, S., Schaphoff, S., Seufert, G., Soussana, J. F., Sanz, M.
J., Vesala, T., & Zhao, M. (2007). Reduction of ecosystem productivity and respiration during the
European summer 2003 climate anomaly: a joint flux tower, remote sensing and modelling
analysis. Global Change Biology, 13(3), 634–651. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2006.01224.x
Reino, L., Porto, M., Morgado, R., Moreira, F., Fabião, A., Santana, J., Delgado, A., Gordinho, L., Cal, J.,
& Beja, P. (2010). Effects of changed grazing regimes and habitat fragmentation on
Mediterranean grassland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 138(1–2), 27–34.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.03.013
Reshetnikov, A. N. (2010). The current range of Amur sleeper Perccottus glenii Dybowski, 1877
(Odontobutidae, Pisces) in Eurasia. Russian Journal of Biological Invasions, 1(2), 119–126.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S2075111710020116
Reusch, T. B. H. (2014). Climate change in the oceans: evolutionary versus phenotypically plastic
responses of marine animals and plants. Evolutionary Applications, 7(1), 104–122.
http://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12109
Reynolds Whyte, S., van der Geest, S., & Hardon, A. (2002). Social lives of medicines. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Ricciardi, A. (2015). Ecology of invasive alien invertebrates. In J. H. Thorpe & D. C. Rogers (Eds.), Thorp
and Covich’s freshwater invertebrates. Fourth edition (pp. 83–91). London, UK: Academic Press.
http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385026-3.00005-X
Richards, R. T., & Saastamoinen, O. (2010). NTFP policy, access to markets and labour issues in Finland:
Impacts of regionalization and globalization on the wild berry industry. In S. A. Laird, R. J. McLain,
& R. P. Wynberg (Eds.), Wild product governance. Finding Policies that Work for Non-Timber
Forest Products. London, UK: Earthscan. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775199
Richardson, K., Beardall, J., & Raven, J. A. (1983). Adaptation of unicellular algae to irradiance: An

787
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

analysis of strategies. New Phytologist, 93(2), 157–191. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-

8137.1983.tb03422.x
Ricketts, T. H., Dinerstein, E., Boucher, T., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Hoffmann, M., Lamoreux,
J. F., Morrison, J., Parr, M., Pilgrim, J. D., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Sechrest, W., Wallace, G. E., Berlin,
K., Bielby, J., Burgess, N. D., Church, D. R., Cox, N., Knox, D., Loucks, C., Luck, G. W., Master, L. L.,
Moore, R., Naidoo, R., Ridgely, R., Schatz, G. E., Shire, G., Strand, H., Wettengel, W., &
Wikramanayake, E. (2005). Pinpointing and preventing imminent extinctions. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(51), 18497–18501.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509060102
Riebesell, U., & Gattuso, J.-P. (2014). Lessons learned from ocean acidification research. Nature
Climate Change, 5(1), 12–14. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2456
Riedinger, V., Mitesser, O., Hovestadt, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Holzschuh, A., & Rosenheim, J. A.
(2015). Annual dynamics of wild bee densities: Attractiveness and productivity effects of oilseed
rape. Ecology, 96(5), 1351–1360. http://doi.org/10.1890/14-1124.1.sm
Rigat, M., Bonet, M. À., Garcia, S., Garnatje, T., & Vallès, J. (2007). Studies on pharmaceutical
ethnobotany in the high river Ter valley (Pyrenees, Catalonia, Iberian Peninsula). Journal of
Ethnopharmacology, 113(2), 267–277. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.06.004
Rigueiro-Rodríguez A., Fernández-Núñez E., González-Hernández P., McAdam J.H., & Mosquera-
Losada, M. R. (2009). Agroforestry systems in Europe: Productive, ecological and social
perspectives. In A. Rigueiro-Rodróguez, J. McAdam, & M. R. Mosquera-Losada M.R. (Eds.),
Agroforestry in Europe. Advances in agroforestry, volume 6. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer.
Roberge, J.-M., & Angelstam, P. K. (2004). Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation
tool. Conservation Biology, 18(1), 76–85. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x
Roberts, C. M., & Pollunin, N. V. C. (1991). Are marine reserves effective in management of reef
fisheries? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 1, 65–91. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00042662
Roberts, D. A., Johnston, E. L., & Knott, N. A. (2010). Impacts of desalination plant discharges on the
marine environment: A critical review of published studies. Water Research, 44(18), 5117–5128.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.04.036
Robinson, R. A., & Sutherland, W. J. (2002). Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in
Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39(1), 157–176. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2664.2002.00695.x
Robinson, S., Kerven, C., Behnke, R., Kushenov, K., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2016). The changing role of
bio-physical and socio-economic drivers in determining livestock distributions: A historical
perspective from Kazakhstan. Agricultural Systems, 143, 169–182.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.12.018
Roessig, J. M., Woodley, C. M., Cech, J. J., & Hansen, L. J. (2004). Effects of global climate change on
marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14(2), 251–275.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-004-6749-0
Rohn, H., Pastewski, N., Lettenmeier, M., Wiesen, K., & Bienge, K. (2014). Resource efficiency potential
of selected technologies, products and strategies. Science of The Total Environment, 473, 32–35.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.024
Romanovsky, V. E., Drozdov, D. S., Oberman, N. G., Malkova, G. V., Kholodov, A. L., Marchenko, S. S.,

788
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Moskalenko, N. G., Sergeev, D. O., Ukraintseva, N. G., Abramov, A. A., Gilichinsky, D. A., & Vasiliev,
A. A. (2010). Thermal state of permafrost in Russia. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 21(2),
136–155. http://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.683
Romeo, T., Pietro, B., Pedà, C., Consoli, P., Andaloro, F., & Fossi, M. C. (2015). First evidence of presence
of plastic debris in stomach of large pelagic fish in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 95(1), 358–361. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.048
Root, T. L., Price, J. T., Hall, K. R., & Schneider, S. H. (2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild
animals and plants. Nature, 421(6918), 57–60. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature01309.1.
Røpke, I. (2016). Complementary system perspectives in ecological macroeconomics — The example
of transition investments during the crisis. Ecological Economics, 121, 237–245.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.018
Rosati, L., Marignani, M., & Blasi, C. (2008). A gap analysis comparing Natura 2000 vs National
Protected Area network with potential natural vegetation. Community Ecology, 9(2), 147–154.
http://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.9.2008.2.3
Roshan, G., Moghbel, M., & Grab, S. (2012). Modeling Caspian Sea water level oscillations under
different scenarios of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Iranian Journal of
Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 9(1), 24. http://doi.org/10.1186/1735-2746-9-24
Rosstat. (2016). Central statistical database. Rosstat. Federal service of state statistics of Russian
Federation. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/en/main/
Rosstat. (2017). Russian Federation: Unified Interdepartmental Statistical Information System.
Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.fedstat.ru
Rotherham, I. D. (2007). The implications of perceptions and cultural knowledge loss for the
management of wooded landscapes: A UK case-study. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1–
2), 100–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.030
Rotherham, I. D. (2015). Bio-cultural heritage and biodiversity: emerging paradigms in conservation
and planning. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(13), 3405–3429. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
015-1006-5
Rowley, R. J., Kostelnick, J. C., Braaten, D., Li, X., & Meisel, J. (2007). Risk of rising sea level to population
and land area. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 88(9), 105–107.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2007EO090001
Roy, H. E., Hesketh, H., Purse, B. V., Eilenberg, J., Santini, A., Scalera, R., Stentiford, G. D., Adriaens, T.,
Bacela-Spychalska, K., Bass, D., Beckmann, K. M., Bessell, P., Bojko, J., Booy, O., Cardoso, A. C.,
Essl, F., Groom, Q., Harrower, C., Kleespies, R., Martinou, A. F., van Oers, M. M., Peeler, E. J.,
Pergl, J., Rabitsch, W., Roques, A., Schaffner, F., Schindler, S., Schmidt, B. R., Schönrogge, K.,
Smith, J., Solarz, W., Stewart, A., Stroo, A., Tricarico, E., Turvey, K. M. A., Vannini, A., Vilà, M.,
Woodward, S., Wynns, A. A., & Dunn, A. M. (2017). Alien pathogens on the horizon: Opportunities
for predicting their threat to wildlife. Conservation Letters, 10(4), 477–484.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12297
Roy, H. E., Peyton, J., Aldridge, D. C., Bantock, T., Blackburn, T. M., Britton, R., Clark, P., Cook, E.,
Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Dines, T., Dobson, M., Edwards, F., Harrower, C., Harvey, M. C., Minchin, D.,
Noble, D. G., Parrott, D., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, S., Salisbury, A., Schönrogge, K.,
Sewell, J., Shaw, R. H., Stebbing, P., Stewart, A. J. A., & Walker, K. J. (2014a). Horizon scanning for
invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain. Global Change

789
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Biology, 20(12), 3859–3871. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12603

Roy, H., Schindler, S., Mazza, L., & Kemp, J. (2014b). Invasive alien species—framework for the
identification of invasive alien species of EU concern (ENV.B.2/ETU/2013/0026). European
Commission DG Environment, 298.
Rozelle, S., & Swinnen, J. F. M. (2004). Success and failure of reform: Insights from the transition of
agriculture. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(2), 404–456.
http://doi.org/10.1257/0022051041409048
Ruddiman, W. F. (2013). The Anthropocene. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 41(1), 45–
68. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-123944
Rundlöf, M., Andersson, G. K. S., Bommarco, R., Fries, I., Hederström, V., Herbertsson, L., Jonsson, O.,
Klatt, B. K., Pederson, T. R., Yourstone, J., & Smith, H. G. (2015). Seed coating with a neonicotinoid
insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature, 521(7550), 77–80.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature14420
Rundlöf, M., Persson, A. S., Smith, H. G., & Bommarco, R. (2014). Late-season mass-flowering red clover
increases bumble bee queen and male densities. Biological Conservation, 172, 138–145.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.027
Rundlöf, M., & Smith, H. G. (2006). The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on
landscape context. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(6), 1121–1127. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2006.01233.x
Rusch, A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gardiner, M. M., Hawro, V., Holland, J., Landis, D., Thies, C., Tscharntke,
T., Weisser, W. W., Winqvist, C., Woltz, M., & Bommarco, R. (2016). Agricultural landscape
simplification reduces natural pest control: A quantitative synthesis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 221, 198–204. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.039
Ruskule, A., Nikodemus, O., Kasparinskis, R., Bell, S., & Urtane, I. (2013). The perception of abandoned
farmland by local people and experts: Landscape value and perspectives on future land use.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 115, 49–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.012
Rydell, J., Entwistle, A., & Racey, P. A. (1996). Timing of foraging flights of three species of bats in
relation to insect activity and predation risk. Oikos, 76(2), 243. http://doi.org/10.2307/3546196
Saastamoinen, O. (1999). Forest policies, access rights and non-wood forest products in northern
Europe. Unasylva, 50(198), 20–26.
Saastamoinen, O., Kangas, K., & Aho, H. (2000). The picking of wild berries in Finland in 1997 and 1998.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 15(6), 645–650.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02827580050216897
Sabater, S., Guasch, H., Ricart, M., Romaní, A., Vidal, G., Klünder, C., & Schmitt-Jansen, M. (2007).
Monitoring the effect of chemicals on biological communities. The biofilm as an interface.
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 387(4), 1425–1434. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-006-
1051-8
Sabluk, P. T., Hajduts’kyj, P. I., & Danylenko, A. S. (2015). The transformation of the agricultural sector
to market conditions: presentation of work. Retrieved from http://www.kdpu-
nt.gov.ua/sites/default/files/prezentaciya_r17i.pdf
Sala, O. E. Chapin, F. S., Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke,
L. F., Jackson, R. B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D. M., Mooney, H. A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.

790
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

L. R., Sykes, M. T., Walker, B. H., Walker, M., & Wall, D. H. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios
for the year 2100. Science, 287(5459), 1770–1774.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5459.1770
Salvati, L. (2013). Land degradation, rural poverty and the socioeconomic context in the Mediterranean
region: A brief commentary. Current Politics & Economics of Europe, 24, 1-21.
Samakov, A., & Berkes, F. (2016). Issyk Kul Lake, the planet’s third eye: Sacred sites in Issyk Kul
biosphere reserve. In B. Verschuuren & N. Furuta (Eds.), Asian sacred natural sites, philosophy
and practice in protected areas and conservation. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Sand-Jensen, K., & Pedersen, N. L. (2005). Differences in temperature, organic carbon and oxygen
consumption among lowland streams. Freshwater Biology, 50(12), 1927–1937.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01436.x
Sanderson, F. J., Kucharz, M., Jobda, M., & Donald, P. F. (2013). Impacts of agricultural intensification
and abandonment on farmland birds in Poland following EU accession. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 168, 16–24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.01.015
Sandström, C., Lindkvist, A., Öhman, K., & Nordström, E.-M. (2011). Governing competing demands for
forest resources in Sweden. Forests, 2(4), 218–242. http://doi.org/10.3390/f2010218
Sandström, P., Cory, N., Svensson, J., Hedenås, H., Jougda, L., & Borchert, N. (2016). On the decline of
ground lichen forests in the Swedish boreal landscape: Implications for reindeer husbandry and
sustainable forest management. Ambio, 45(4), 415–429. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-
0759-0
Saniga, M., Balanda, M., Kucbel, S., & Pittner, J. (2014). Four decades of forest succession in the oak-
dominated forest reserves in Slovakia. iForest, 7(5), 324–332. http://doi.org/10.3832/ifor0996-
007
Sarmiento, J. L., Slater, R., Barber, R., Bopp, L., Doney, S. C., Hirst, A. C., Kleypas, J., Matear, R.,
Mikolajewicz, U., Monfray, P., Soldatov, V., Spall, S. A., & Stouffer, R. (2004). Response of ocean
ecosystems to climate warming. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18(3), GB3003.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002134
Schäfer, R. B., Caquet, T., Siimes, K., Mueller, R., Lagadic, L., & Liess, M. (2007). Effects of pesticides on
community structure and ecosystem functions in agricultural streams of three biogeographical
regions in Europe. Science of the Total Environment, 382(2–3), 272–285.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.040
Schaffartzik, A., Mayer, A., Eisenmenger, N., & Krausmann, F. (2016). Global patterns of metal
extractivism, 1950–2010: Providing the bones for the industrial society’s skeleton. Ecological
Economics, 122, 101–110. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.12.007
Schandl, H., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Wiedmann, T., Geschke, A., Cai, Y., West, J., Newth, D., Baynes, T.,
Lenzen, M., & Owen, A. (2016). Decoupling global environmental pressure and economic growth:
scenarios for energy use, materials use and carbon emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 132,
45–56. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.100
Schelhaas, M. J., Nabuurs, G. J., & Schuck, A. (2003). Natural disturbances in the European forests in
the 19th and 20th centuries. Global Change Biology, 9(11), 1620–1633.
http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00684.x
Scheper, J., Bommarco, R., Holzschuh, A., Potts, S. G., Riedinger, V., Roberts, S. P. M., Rundlöf, M.,
Smith, H. G., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Wickens, J. B., Wickens, V. J., & Kleijn, D. (2015). Local and

791
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

landscape-level floral resources explain effects of wildflower strips on wild bees across four
European countries. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(5), 1165–1175. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12479
Scheper, J., Holzschuh, A., Kuussaari, M., Potts, S. G., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G., & Kleijn, D. (2013).
Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in
mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 16(7), 912–920.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12128
Scheulhammer, A.M., Meyer, M.W., Sandheinrich, M.B., Murray, M.W. (2007). Effects of
environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish. Ambio 36, 12-
18. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[12:EOEMOT]2.0.CO;2
Schewenius, M., McPhearson, T., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Opportunities for increasing resilience and
sustainability of urban social–ecological systems: Insights from the URBES and the cities and
biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio, 43(4), 434–444. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0505-
z
Schierhorn, F., Meyfroidt, P., Kastner, T., Kuemmerle, T., Prishchepov, A. V., & Müller, D. (2016). The
dynamics of beef trade between Brazil and Russia and their environmental implications. Global
Food Security, 11, 84–92. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2016.08.001
Schierhorn, F., Müller, D., Beringer, T., Prishchepov, A. V., Kuemmerle, T., & Balmann, A. (2013). Post-
Soviet cropland abandonment and carbon sequestration in European Russia, Ukraine, and
Belarus. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 27(4), 1175–1185.
http://doi.org/10.1002/2013GB004654
Schindler, D. W. (1988). Effects of acid rain on freshwater ecosystems. Science, 239(4836), 149–157.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.239.4836.149
Schindler, S., Staska, B., Adam, M., Rabitsch, W., & Essl, F. (2015). Alien species and public health
impacts in Europe: a literature review. NeoBiota, 27, 1–23.
http://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.27.5007
Schlaepfer, M. A., Sax, D. F., & Olden, J. D. (2011). The potential conservation value of non-native
species. Conservation Biology, 25(3), 428–437. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2010.01646.x
Schmidt, N. M., Ims, R. A., Hoye, T. T., Gilg, O., Hansen, L. H., Hansen, J., Lund, M., Fuglei, E.,
Forchhammer, M. C., & Sittler, B. (2012). Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing
lemming cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4417–4422.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.1490
Schneider, U., Becker, A., Finger, P., Meyer-Christoffer, A., Rudolf, B., & Ziese, M. (2011). GPCC full data
reanalysis version 6.0 at 0.5: monthly land-surface precipitation from rain-gauges built on GTS-
based and historic data. Retrieved from
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.gpcc.html
Schoer, K., Giegrich, J., Kovanda, J., Lauwigi, C., Liebich, A., Buyny, S., & Matthias, J. (2012). Conversion
of European product flows into raw material equivalents. Heidelberg, Germany: Institut für
Energie- und Umweltforschung.
Schulp, C. J. E., Thuiller, W., & Verburg, P. H. (2014). Wild food in Europe: A synthesis of knowledge
and data of terrestrial wild food as an ecosystem service. Ecological Economics, 105, 292–305.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.018

792
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Schultze, J., Gärtner, S., Bauhus, J., Meyer, P., & Reif, A. (2014). Criteria to evaluate the conservation
value of strictly protected forest reserves in Central Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation,
23(14), 3519–3542. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0787-2
Schulze, E. D., Bouriaud, O. B., Wäldchen, J., Eisenhauer, N., Walentowski, H., Seele, C., Heinze, E.,
Pruschitzki, U. P., Dănilă, G., Marin, G., Hessenmöller, D., Bouriaud, L., & Teodosiu, M. (2014).
Ungulate browsing causes species loss in deciduous forests independent of community dynamics
and silvicultural management in central and southeastern Europe. Annals of Forest Research,
57(2), 1. http://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2014.273
Schuur, E. A. G., Crummer, K. G., Vogel, J. G., & Mack, M. C. (2007). Plant species composition and
productivity following permafrost thaw and thermokarst in Alaskan tundra. Ecosystems, 10(2),
280–292. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-007-9024-0
Schweiger, O., Musche, M., Bailey, D., Billeter, R., Diekötter, T., Hendrickx, F., Herzog, F., Liira, J.,
Maelfait, J. P., Speelmans, M., & Dziock, F. (2007). Functional richness of local hoverfly
communities (Diptera, Syrphidae) in response to land use across temperate Europe. Oikos,
116(3), 461–472. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.15372.x
Scott, A. C., Bowman, D. M. J. S., Bond, W. J., Pyne, S. J., & Alexander, M. E. (2014). Fire on Earth: an
introduction. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sebek, P., Altman, J., Platek, M., & Cizek, L. (2013). Is active management the key to the conservation
of saproxylic biodiversity? Pollarding promotes the formation of tree hollows. PLoS ONE, 8(3),
e60456. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060456
Seddon, A. W. R., Macias-Fauria, M., Long, P. R., Benz, D., & Willis, K. J. (2016). Sensitivity of global
terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability. Nature, 531(7593), 229–232.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature16986
Sedik, D. J. (1993). A note on Soviet per capita meat consumption. Comparative Economic Studies,
35(3), 39–48. http://doi.org/10.1057/ces.1993.22
Seebens, H., Blackburn, T. M., Dyer, E., Genovesi, P., Hulme, P. E., Jeschke, J. M., Pagad, S., Pyšek, P.,
Winter, M., Arianoutsou, M., Bacher, S., Blasius, B., Brundu, G., Capinha, C., Celesti-Grapow, L.,
Dawson, W., Dullinger, S., Fuentes, N., Jäger, H., Kartesz, J., Kenis, M., Kreft, H., Kühn, I., Lenzner,
B., Liebhold, A., Mosena, A., Moser, D., Nishino, M., Pearman, D., Pergl, J., Rabitsch, W., Rojas-
Sandoval, J., Roques, A., Rorke, S., Rossinelli, S., Roy, H. E., Scalera, R., Schindler, S., Štajerová, K.,
Tokarska-Guzik, B., Kleunen, M. van, Walker, K., Weigelt, P., Yamanaka, T., & Essl, F. (2017). No
saturation in the accumulation of alien species worldwide. Nature Communications, 8, 14435.
http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14435
Seebens, H., Essl, F., Dawson, W., Fuentes, N., Moser, D., Pergl, J., Pyšek, P., van Kleunen, M., Weber,
E., Winter, M., & Blasius, B. (2015). Global trade will accelerate plant invasions in emerging
economies under climate change. Global Change Biology, 21(11), 4128–4140.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13021
Segan, D. B., Murray, K. A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). A global assessment of current and future
biodiversity vulnerability to habitat loss-climate change interactions. Global Ecology and
Conservation, 5, 12–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.11.002
Semiat, R. (2000). Present and future. Water International, 25(1), 54–65.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02508060008686797
Sereke, F., Dobricki, M., Wilkes, J., Kaeser, A., Graves, A. R., Szerencsits, E., & Herzog, F. (2016). Swiss

793
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

farmers don’t adopt agroforestry because they fear for their reputation. Agroforestry Systems,
90(3), 385–394. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9861-3
Serra, P., Pons, X., & Saurí, D. (2008). Land-cover and land-use change in a Mediterranean landscape:
A spatial analysis of driving forces integrating biophysical and human factors. Applied Geography,
28(3), 189–209. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.02.001
Sevastiyanov, D. V, Colpaert, A., Korostelyov, E., Mulyava, O., & Shitova, L. (2014). Management of
tourism and recreation possibilities for the sustainable development of the north-western border
region in Russia. Nordia Geographical Publications, 43(1), 27–38.
Shackelford, N., Hobbs, R. J., Burgar, J. M., Erickson, T. E., Fontaine, J. B., Laliberté, E., Ramalho, C. E.,
Perring, M. P., & Standish, R. J. (2013). Primed for change: Developing ecological restoration for
the 21st century. Restoration Ecology, 21(3), 297–304. http://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12012
Shagaida, N. (2005). Agricultural land market in Russia: Living with constraints. Comparative Economic
Studies, 47(1), 127–140. http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ces.8100080
Sheffield, J., & Wood, E. F. (2008a). Global trends and variability in soil moisture and drought
characteristics, 1950-2000, from observation-driven simulations of the terrestrial hydrologic
cycle. Journal of Climate, 21(3), 432–458. http://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1822.1
Sheffield, J., & Wood, E. F. (2008b). Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global
warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations. Climate Dynamics, 31(1), 79–
105. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0340-z
Shevchenko, D. [Шевченко, Д.]. (2016). Тест на устойчивость [Test on stability]. Экология И Право
[Ecology and Law], 3(63), 4–5.
Shtilmark, F. [Штильмарк, Ф.]. (2003). О проблемах природных заповедников и заповедного дела
на данном этапе [About problems of strict nature reserves and nature protection at this stage].
In Роль особо охраняемых природных территорий в экономике, экологии и политике
Сибирского региона [Role of nature protected areas in economy, ecology and politics of Siberian
region] (pp. 13–18). Ханты Мансийск, Российская Федерация: Центра охраны дикой природы
[Hanty Mansiysk, Russian Federation: Center for wildlife conservation].
Shtilmark, F. [Штильмарк, Ф. Р.]. (2014). Заповедное дело России: теория, практика, история.
[Nature conservation in Russia: theory, practice, history]. Moscow, Russian Federation: KMK.
Shulgin, P. M. [Шульгин, П. М.]. (2007). Концепция культурного ландшафта и практика охраны
этнографического наследия (на примере территорий российского Севера) [The concept of
the cultural landscape and the practice of protecting the ethnographic heritage (on the example
of the territories of the Russian North)]. Мир России [World of Russia], 3, 147–166.
Sidenko, M. [Сиденко, М.]. (2010). О зарплатах в заповедной системе России [About salaries in the
nature protected areas' system in Russia]. In На заповедных болотах. Записки орнитолога
[On the protected marshes. Notes of the ornithologist]. Retrieved from
http://marisidenko.livejournal.com/?skip=70
Sillmann, J., & Roeckner, E. (2008). Indices for extreme events in projections of anthropogenic climate
change. Climatic Change, 86(1–2), 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9308-6
Sitta, N., & Floriani, M. (2008). Nationalization and globalization trends in the wild mushroom
commerce of Italy with emphasis on porcini (Boletus edulis and allied species). Economic Botany,
62(3), 307–322. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-008-9037-4

794
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sitzia, T., Semenzato, P., & Trentanovi, G. (2010). Natural reforestation is changing spatial patterns of
rural mountain and hill landscapes: A global overview. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(8),
1354–1362. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.01.048
Sjödin, N. E., Bengtsson, J., & Ekbom, B. (2008). The influence of grazing intensity and landscape
composition on the diversity and abundance of flower-visiting insects. Journal of Applied Ecology,
45(3), 763–772. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01443.x
Skokanová, H., Falťan, V., & Havlíček, M. (2016). Driving forces of main landscape change processes
from past 200 years in Central Europe - differences between old democratic and post-socialist
countries. Ekológia (Bratislava), 35(1), 50–65. http://doi.org/10.1515/eko-2016-0004
Smelansky, I. E. (2003). Biodiversity of agricultural lands in Russia: current state and trends. Pan-
European High-Level Conference on Agriculture and Biodiversity (Paris, June 2002).
Smelansky, I., & Tishkov, A. (2012). The steppe biome in Russia: ecosystem services, conservation
status and actual challenges. In M. J. A. Werger & M. A. Staalduinen (Eds.), Eurasian steppes.
Ecological problems and livelihoods in a changing world (pp. 45–101). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Smit, C., Ruifrok, J. L., van Klink, R., & Olff, H. (2015). Rewilding with large herbivores: The importance
of grazing refuges for sapling establishment and wood-pasture formation. Biological
Conservation, 182, 134–142. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.047
Smith, L. C., Sheng, Y., MacDonald, G. M., & Hinzman, L. D. (2005). Disappearing Arctic lakes. Science,
308(5727), 1429–1429. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108142
Söderholm, P. (2011). Taxing virgin natural resources: Lessons from aggregates taxation in Europe.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(11), 911–922.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.011
Somavilla, R., González-Pola, C., Schauer, U., & Budéus, G. (2016). Mid-2000s North Atlantic shift: Heat
budget and circulation changes. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(5), 2059–2068.
http://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067254
Somot, S., Sevault, F., & Déqué, M. (2006). Transient climate change scenario simulation of the
Mediterranean Sea for the twenty-first century using a high-resolution ocean circulation model.
Climate Dynamics, 27(7–8), 851–879. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-006-0167-z
Sorrell, S. (2007). The rebound effect: an assessment of the evidence for economy-wide energy savings
from improved energy efficiency. London, UK: UK Energy Research Centre.
Soudzilovskaia, N. A., Elumeeva, T. G., Onipchenko, V. G., Shidakov, I. I., Salpagarova, F. S., Khubiev, A.
B., Tekeev, D. K., & Cornelissen, J. H. C. (2013). Functional traits predict relationship between
plant abundance dynamic and long-term climate warming. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(45), 18180–18184.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310700110
Sõukand, R., Quave, C. L., Pieroni, A., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., Tardío, J., Kalle, R., Łuczaj, Ł., Svanberg,
I., Kolosova, V., Aceituno-Mata, L., Menendez-Baceta, G., Kołodziejska-Degórska, I., Pirożnikow,
E., Petkevičius, R., Hajdari, A., & Mustafa, B. (2013). Plants used for making recreational tea in
Europe: a review based on specific research sites. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine,
9(1), 58. http://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-9-58
Sowerby, A., Emmett, B., Beier, C., Tietema, A., Peñuelas, J., Estiarte, M., Van Meeteren, M. J. M.,
Hughes, S., & Freeman, C. (2005). Microbial community changes in heathland soil communities

795
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

along a geographical gradient: interaction with climate change manipulations. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 37(10), 1805–1813. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.02.023
Spangenberg, J. H. (2007). Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecological Economics,
61(1), 146–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.021
Spangenberg, J. H. (2014). Institutional change for strong sustainable consumption: sustainable
consumption and the degrowth economy. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 10(1), 62–
77.
Spens, J., Englund, G., & Lundqvist, H. (2007). Network connectivity and dispersal barriers: Using
geographical information system (GIS) tools to predict landscape scale distribution of a key
predator (Esox lucius) among lakes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(6), 1127–1137.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01382.x
Spittlehouse, D. L., & Stewart, R. B. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in forest management. BC
Journal of Ecosystems and Management, 4(1), 1–11
Stanners, D., & Bourdeau, P. (Eds.). (1995). Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment.
Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.
Starikova, A. E. [Старикова, А. Е.]. (2014). Оценка воздействия добычи полиметаллической руды
открытым способом на почвенный покров месторождения «Родниковое» [Assessment of
the impact of open-pit mining of polymetallic ore on the soil cover of the Rodnikovoye deposit].
Вестник КарГУ [Vestnik KarGU], 1–12. Retrieved from https://articlekz.com/article/11970
Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming
the great forces of nature? Ambio, 36(8), 614–621. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-
7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2
Stenseke, M. (2009). Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: Lessons from Sweden.
Land Use Policy, 26(2), 214–223. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.005
Stepanytsky, V. B. [Степаницкий, В. Б.]. (1999). Проблемы организации охраны и контроля за
соблюдением режима особо охраняемых природных территорий в Российской Федерации
[Problems of the organization of protection and control over the regime of specially protected
natural areas in the Russian Federation]. In Охраняемые природные территории:
Материалы к созданию Концепции системы охраняемых природных территорий России
[Protected natural territories: Materials for the creation of the Concept of the System of Protected
Natural Territories of Russia] (pp. 195–198). Moscow, Russian Federation: RPO WWF.
Stepanytskyy, V. B. [Степаницкий, В. Б.]. (2000). Финансирование государственных природных
заповедников Госкомэкологии России в 1999 г.: основные итоги [Financing of the state nature
reserves of the State Ecological Committee of Russia in 1999: main results]. Заповедники И
Национальные Парки [Strict nature reserves and national parks], 31, 9–12.
Stepanytskyy, V. B., & Kreyndlin, M. L. [Степаницкий, В. Б., & Крейндлин, М. Л.]. (2004).
Государственные природные заповедники и национальные парки России: угрозы, неудачи,
упущенные возможности [State natural reserves and national parks in Russia: threats, failures,
missed opportunities]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Greenpeace Russia. Retrieved from
http://dissers.ru/1/15346-1-stepanickiy-kreyndlin-gosudarstvennie-prirodnie-gosudarstvennie-
prirodnie-zapovedniki-zapovedniki-naci.php
Steppe fires and management of fire situation in steppe PAs: environmental and environmental
aspects. Analytical review [Степные пожары и управление пожарной ситуацией в степных

796
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

ООПТ: экологические и природоохранные аспекты. Аналитический обзор]. (2015). Москва,

Российская Федерация: Центр охраны дикой природы [Moscow, Russian Federation: Center
for wildlife conservation].
Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G. R., Rakosky, L., &
Ramwell, C. (2009). Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - a
review. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 22–46.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
Stokstad, G. (2010). Exit from farming and land abandonment in northern Norway. 116th seminar,
October 27-30, 2010, Parma, Italy, European Association of Agricultural Economist. Retrieved
from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaa116/95343.html
Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001). Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition
to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 369–385.
http://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0228
Storkey, J., Meyer, S., Still, K. S., & Leuschner, C. (2012). The impact of agricultural intensification and
land-use change on the European arable flora. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 279(1732), 1421–1429. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.1686
Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future
challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358.
http://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
Stryamets, N., Elbakidze, M., Ceuterick, M., Angelstam, P., & Axelsson, R. (2015). From economic
survival to recreation: contemporary uses of wild food and medicine in rural Sweden, Ukraine
and NW Russia. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11(1), 53.
http://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0036-0
Suleimenov, M., & Oram, P. (2000). Trends in feed, livestock production, and rangelands during the
transition period in three Central Asian countries. Food Policy, 25(6), 681–700.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(00)00037-3
Sulyandziga, R., & Bocharnikov, V. (2006). Russia: despoiled lands, dislocated livelihoods. In M.
Colchester (Ed.), Extracting promises: indigenous peoples, extractive industries and the World
Bank (pp. 223–251). Baguio City, The Philippines: Forest Peoples Programme.
Sumaila, U. R., Lam, V., Le Manach, F., Swartz, W., & Pauly, D. (2016). Global fisheries subsidies: An
updated estimate. Marine Policy, 69, 189–193. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.026
Surová, D., & Pinto-Correia, T. (2009). Use and assessment of the “new” rural functions by land users
and landowners of the Montado in southern Portugal. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(2), 189–194.
http://doi.org/doi:10.5367/000000009788632340
Sutcliffe, D. W., & Hildrew, A. G. (1989). Invertebrate communities in acid streams. In R. Morris, E. W.
Taylor, D. J. A. Brown, & J. A Brown (Eds.), Acid toxicity and aquatic animals (pp. 13-29).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sutcliffe, L. M. E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi, A., Dicks, L. V., Herzon, I., Kleijn, D., Tryjanowski, P.,
Apostolova, I., Arlettaz, R., Aunins, A., Aviron, S., Baležentiene, L., Fischer, C., Halada, L., Hartel,
T., Helm, A., Hristov, I., Jelaska, S. D., Kaligarič, M., Kamp, J., Klimek, S., Koorberg, P., Kostiuková,
J., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Kuemmerle, T., Leuschner, C., Lindborg, R., Loos, J., Maccherini, S.,
Marja, R., Máthé, O., Paulini, I., Proença, V., Rey-Benayas, J., Sans, F. X., Seifert, C., Stalenga, J.,
Timaeus, J., Török, P., van Swaay, C., Viik, E., & Tscharntke, T. (2015). Harnessing the biodiversity

797
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and Distributions, 21(6), 722–730.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288
Sutcliffe, L., Paulini, I., Jones, G., Marggraf, R., & Page, N. (2013). Pastoral commons use in Romania
and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. International Journal of the Commons, 7(1), 58–
72. http://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.367
Sutton, G., Boyd, S., Augris, C., Bonne, W., Carlin, D., Cato, I., Cowling, M., Dalfsen, J. Van, Desprez, M.,
Dijkshoorn, C., Hillewaert, H., Hostens, K., Krause, J., Lauwaert, B., Moulaert, I., Erik, P., Rissanen,
J., Rogers, S., Russell, M., Schüttenhelm, R., Side, J., Smit, M., Stolk, A., & Zeiler, M. (2009). Effects
of extraction of marine sediments on the marine environment 1998 – 2004. Copenhagen,
Denmark: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).
Svanberg, I. (2012). The use of wild plants as food in pre-industrial Sweden. Acta Societatis
Botanicorum Poloniae, 81(4), 317-327. http://doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2012.039
Svoronou, E., & Holden, A. (2005). Ecotourism as a tool for nature conservation: The role of WWF
Greece in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli forest reserve in Greece. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13(5),
456–467. http://doi.org/10.1080/09669580508668573
Swinnen, J., Burkitbayeva, S., Schierhorn, F., Prishchepov, A. V., & Müller, D. (2017). Production
potential in the “bread baskets” of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Global Food Security, 14, 38–
53. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.03.005
Szigeti, C., Toth, G., & Szabo, D. R. (2017). Decoupling – shifts in ecological footprint intensity of nations
in the last decade. Ecological Indicators, 72, 111–117.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.034
Taksami, C. M., & Kosarev, V. D. (1986). Ekologia i etnicheskie traditsii narodov Dal’nego Vostoka
[Ecology and ethnic traditions peoples of the Far East]. Priroda, 12, 28–32.
Tatsi, A. A., & Zouboulis, A. I. (2002). A field investigation of the quantity and quality of leachate from
a municipal solid waste landfill in a Mediterranean climate (Thessaloniki, Greece). Advances in
Environmental Research, 6(3), 207–219. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(01)00052-1
Tchebakova, N. M., Parfenova, E., & Soja, A. J. (2009). The effects of climate, permafrost and fire on
vegetation change in Siberia in a changing climate. Environmental Research Letters, 4(4), 45013.
http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045013
Tecchio, S., Chaalali, A., Raoux, A., Tous Rius, A., Lequesne, J., Girardin, V., Lassalle, G., Cachera, M.,
Riou, P., Lobry, J., Dauvin, J. C., & Niquil, N. (2016). Evaluating ecosystem-level anthropogenic
impacts in a stressed transitional environment: The case of the Seine estuary. Ecological
Indicators, 61, 833–845. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.036
Teien, H.-C., Standring, W. J. F., & Salbu, B. (2006). Mobilization of river transported colloidal
aluminium upon mixing with seawater and subsequent deposition in fish gills. Science of The Total
Environment, 364(1–3), 149–164. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2006.01.005
Teixeira, Z., Teixeira, H., & Marques, J. C. (2014). Systematic processes of land use/land cover change
to identify relevant driving forces: implications on water quality. The Science of the Total
Environment, 470–471, 1320–35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.098
Temme, A. J. A. M., & Verburg, P. H. (2011). Mapping and modelling of changes in agricultural intensity
in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 140(1–2), 46–56.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.11.010

798
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Teplitsky, C., & Millien, V. (2014). Climate warming and Bergmann’s rule through time: is there any
evidence? Evolutionary Applications, 7(1), 156–68. http://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12129
Terraube, J., Arroyo, B., Madders, M., & Mougeot, F. (2011). Diet specialisation and foraging efficiency
under fluctuating vole abundance: a comparison between generalist and specialist avian
predators. Oikos, 120(2), 234–244. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18554.x
Thackeray, S. J., Sparks, T. H., Frederiksen, M., Burthe, S., Bacon, P. J., Bell, J. R., Botham, M. S.,
Brereton, T. M., Bright, P. W., Carvalho, L., Clutton-Brock, T., Dawson, A., Edwards, M., Elliott, J.
M., Harrington, R., Johns, D., Jones, I. D., Jones, J. T., Leech, D. I., Roy, D. B., Scott, W. A., Smith,
M., Smithers, R. J., Winfield, I. J., & Wanless, S. (2010). Trophic level asynchrony in rates of
phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Global Change Biology,
16(12), 3304–3313. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02165.x
Thomas, H., Bozec, Y., Elkalay, K., & de Baar, H. J. W. (2004). Enhanced open ocean storage of CO2 from
shelf sea pumping. Science, 304(5673), 1005–1008. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095491
Thompson, D. B. A., Price, M. F., & Galbraith, C. A. (2006). Mountains of Northern Europe: conservation,
management, people and nature. Edinburgh, UK: TSO Scotland. Retrieved from
https://www.nhbs.com/mountains-of-northern-europe-book
Thorpe, R. B., & Bigg, G. R. (2000). Modelling the sensitivity of Mediterranean outflow to
anthropogenically forced climate change. Climate Dynamics, 16(5), 355–368.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s003820050333
Thuiller, W., Pironon, S., Psomas, A., Barbet-Massin, M., Jiguet, F., Lavergne, S., Pearman, P. B., Renaud,
J., Zupan, L., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2014). The European functional tree of bird life in the face of
global change. Nature Communications, 5, 3118. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4118
Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D’Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.
H., Simberloff, D., & Swackhammer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global
environmental change. Science, 292(5515), 281–284. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057544
Tilman, D., May, R. M., Lehman, C. L., & Nowak, M. A. (1994). Habitat destruction and the extinction
debt. Nature, 371(6492), 65–66. http://doi.org/10.1038/371065a0
Tittonell, P. (2014). Ecological intensification of agriculture-sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 8, 53–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006
Toffolo, E. P., Bernardinelli, I., Stergulc, F., & Battisti, A. (2006). Climate change and expansion of the
pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, in northern Italy. Northern Italy. IUFRO
Working Party 7.03. 10 Proceedings of the Workshop., (August 2003), 331–340. Retrieved from
http://bfw.ac.at/400/iufro_workshop/proceedings/331-340_D1_Edoardo P. Toffolo et
al_poster.pdf
Toktoraliev, B. A., & Attokurov, A. [Токторалиев, Б. А., & Аттокуров, А.]. (2009). Экологическое
состояние лесов Kыргызстана. Manas Journal of Social Studies, 10.
Török, P., & Helm, A. (2017). Ecological theory provides strong support for habitat restoration.
Biological Conservation, 206, 85–91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.024
Touratier, F., & Goyet, C. (2011). Impact of the Eastern Mediterranean Transient on the distribution of
anthropogenic CO2 and first estimate of acidification for the Mediterranean Sea. Deep Sea
Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 58(1), 1–15.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2010.10.002

799
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Triviño, M., Juutinen, A., Mazziotta, A., Miettinen, K., Podkopaev, D., Reunanen, P., & Mönkkönen, M.
(2015). Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering
carbon. Ecosystem Services, 14, 179–189. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.02.003
Tscharntke, T., Bommarco, R., Clough, Y., Crist, T. O., Kleijn, D., Rand, T. A., Tylianakis, J. M., van
Nouhuys, S., & Vidal, S. (2007). Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a
landscape scale. Biological Control, 43(3), 294–309.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.006
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives
on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters,
8(8), 857–874. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x
Tschumi, M., Albrecht, M., Collatz, J., Dubsky, V., Entling, M. H., Najar-Rodriguez, A. J., & Jacot, K.
(2016). Tailored flower strips promote natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato
crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(4), 1169–1176. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12653
Tsiafouli, M. A., Thébault, E., Sgardelis, S. P., de Ruiter, P. C., van der Putten, W. H., Birkhofer, K.,
Hemerik, L., de Vries, F. T., Bardgett, R. D., Brady, M. V., Bjornlund, L., Jørgensen, H. B.,
Christensen, S., Hertefeldt, T. D., Hotes, S., Gera Hol, W. H., Frouz, J., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S. R.,
Setälä, H., Tzanopoulos, J., Uteseny, K., Pižl, V., Stary, J., Wolters, V., & Hedlund, K. (2015).
Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global Change Biology, 21(2), 973–
985. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., & Bengtsson, J. (2014). Land-use intensity
and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. The Journal of
Applied Ecology, 51(3), 746–755. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219
Tunin-Ley, A., Ibañez, F., Labat, J., Zingone, A., & Lemée, R. (2009). Phytoplankton biodiversity and NW
Mediterranean Sea warming: changes in the dinoflagellate genus Ceratium in the 20th century.
Marine Ecology Progress Series, 375, 85–99. http://doi.org/10.3354/meps07730
Turaev, V. A., Sulyandziga, R. V., Sulyandziga, P. V., & Bocharnikov, V. N. [Tураев, В. А., Суляндзига, Р.
В., Суляндзига, П. В., & Бочарников, В.Н.]. (2005). Энциклопедия коренных малочисленных
народов Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока Российской Федерации [Encyclopedia of
indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Russia,
CSIPN (Centre of Support to Indigenous People of North.
Turbelin, A. J., Malamud, B. D., & Francis, R. A. (2017). Mapping the global state of invasive alien
species: patterns of invasion and policy responses. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26(1), 78–
92. http://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12517
Turetsky, M. R., Wieder, R. K., Vitt, D. H., Evans, R. J., & Scott, K. D. (2007). The disappearance of relict
permafrost in boreal North America: Effects on peatland carbon storage and fluxes. Global
Change Biology, 13(9), 1922–1934. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01381.x
Turley, C. M. (1999). The changing Mediterranean Sea — a sensitive ecosystem? Progress in
Oceanography, 44(1–3), 387–400. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6611(99)00033-6
Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J., & Wynne, B. (2012). Conservation policy: Listen to
the voices of experience. Nature, 488(7412), 454–455. http://doi.org/10.1038/488454a
Tysiachniouk, M. (2012). Transnational governance through private authority: The case of the Forest
Stewardship Council certification in Russia. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen
Academic Publishers.

800
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Tysiachniouk, M., & McDermott, C. L. (2016). Certification with Russian characteristics: Implications for
social and environmental equity. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 43–53.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.002
Tzanopoulos, J., Mouttet, R., Letourneau, A., Vogiatzakis, I. N., Potts, S. G., Henle, K., Mathevet, R., &
Marty, P. (2013). Scale sensitivity of drivers of environmental change across Europe. Global
Environmental Change, 23(1), 167–178. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.09.002
UNEP. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth; A
report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel.
UNEP. (2012). GEO-5 - Environment for the future we want. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/geo/
UNEP. (2014). Sand, rarer than one thinks. Environmental Development, 11, 208–218.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2014.04.001
UNEP. (2016). GEO-6 - Assessment for the pan-European region. Retrieved from
http://web.unep.org/geo/
UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. (2014). The world database on protected areas (WDPA). Retrieved from
www.protectedplanet.net
UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. (2016). The world database on protected areas (WDPA) statistics. Retrieved from
www.protectedplanet.net
UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. (2017). The world database on protected areas (WDPA). Retrieved from
www.protectedplanet.net
UNHCR. (2017). Syria emergency. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html
United Nations. (2014). World urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. Retrieved from
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf
United Nations. (2015). World population prospects: 2015 Revision. Retrieved from
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf
UNWTO. (2015). Annual report 2015. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from www.unwto.org/annualreports
Uotila, A., Kouki, J., Kontkanen, H., & Pulkkinen, P. (2002). Assessing the naturalness of boreal forests
in eastern Fennoscandia. Forest Ecology and Management, 161, 257–277.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00496-0
Urban, M. C. (2015). Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348(6234), 571–573.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984
Uzun, V. [Юзун, В.]. (2011). Необходимость и механизмы вовлечения в оборот заброшенных в
период реформ сельскохозяйственных угодий в России [Necessity and mechanisms to
recultivate abandoned land during the transition period in Russia]. Retrieved from
https://www.hse.ru/data/2011/10/20/1268961571/report.doc
Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion, and environmental
sustainability. Environment and Behavior, 34, 26–53.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034001003
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2010). Relax about GDP growth: implications for climate and crisis policies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 540–543. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.08.011
van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2011). Environment versus growth — A criticism of “degrowth” and a plea

801
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

for “a-growth.” Ecological Economics, 70(5), 881–890.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.035
van der Plas, F., Manning, P., Allan, E., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Verheyen, K., Wirth, C., Zavala, M. A.,
Hector, A., Ampoorter, E., Baeten, L., Barbaro, L., Bauhus, J., Benavides, R., Benneter, A., Berthold,
F., Bonal, D., Bouriaud, O., Bruelheide, H., Bussotti, F., Carnol, M., Castagneyrol, B., Charbonnier,
Y., Coomes, D. A., Coppi, A., Bastias, C. C., Dawud, S. M., De Wandeler, H., Domisch, T., Finér, L.,
Gessler, A., Granier, A., Grossiord, C., Guyot, V., Hättenschwiler, S., Jactel, H., Jaroszewicz, B., Joly,
F., Jucker, T., Koricheva, J., Milligan, H., Mueller, S., Muys, B., Nguyen, D., Pollastrini, M., Raulund-
Rasmussen, L., Selvi, F., Stenlid, J., Valladares, F., Vesterdal, L., Zielínski, D., & Fischer, M. (2016).
Jack-of-all-trades effects drive biodiversity–ecosystem multifunctionality relationships in
European forests. Nature Communications, 7, 11109. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11109
van der Sluis, T., Foppen, R., Gillings, S., Groen, T. A., Henkens, R. J. H. G., Hennekens, S. M., Huskens,
K., Noble, D., Ottburg, F., Santini, L., Sierdsema, H., van Kleunen, A., Schaminee, J., van Swaay, C.,
Toxopeus, B., Wallis de Vries, M., & Jones-Walters, L. M. (2016). How much Biodiversity is in
Natura 2000? The “umbrella effect” of the European Natura 2000 protected area network.
Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra. Retrieved from
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/506975
van der Sluis, T., Jongman, R., Bouwma, I., & Wascher, D. (2012). Ein Europäischer Biotopverbund -
Herausforderungen an den Europäischen Kooperations- und Gestaltungswillen [A European
biotope network - Challenges to European cooperation and creative will]. Natur und Landschaft,
87(9), 415.
van der Sluis, T., Pedroli, B., Kristensen, S. B. P., Lavinia Cosor, G., & Pavlis, E. (2015). Changing land use
intensity in Europe – Recent processes in selected case studies. Land Use Policy, 57, 777-785.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.005
van der Zanden, E. H., Verburg, P. H., Schulp, C. J. E., & Verkerk, P. J. (2017). Trade-offs of European
agricultural abandonment. Land Use Policy, 62, 290–301.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.003
Van Dyck, H., Bonte, D., Puls, R., Gotthard, K., & Maes, D. (2015). The lost generation hypothesis: could
climate change drive ectotherms into a developmental trap? Oikos, 124(1), 54–61.
http://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02066
Van Grinsven, H. J. M., Erisman, J. W., De Vries, W., & Westhoek, H. (2015). Potential of extensification
of European agriculture for a more sustainable food system, focusing on nitrogen. Environmental
Research Letters, 10(2), 25002. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025002
van Oldenborgh, G. J. (2016). KNMI Climate Change Atlas. Retrieved from
https://climexp.knmi.nl/plot_atlas_form.py
van Swaay, C., Warren, M., & Loïs, G. (2006). Biotope use and trends of European butterflies. Journal
of Insect Conservation, 10(2), 189–209. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-6293-4
van Vliet, J., de Groot, H. L. F., Rietveld, P., & Verburg, P. H. (2015). Manifestations and underlying
drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 24–36.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T.,
Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., Smith, S. J., & Rose, S. K.
(2011). The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Climatic Change, 109(1–2), 5–

802
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

31. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Van Zanten, B. T., Verburg, P. H., Espinosa, M., Gomez-Y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J.,
Kapfer, M., Lefebvre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Schaller, L., Targetti, S., Zasada, I., &
Viaggi, D. (2014). European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem
services: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 309–325.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4
Vanbergen, A. J. (2014). Landscape alteration and habitat modification: impacts on plant–pollinator
systems. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 5, 44–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2014.09.004
Vanbergen, A. J., Hails, R. S., Watt, A. D., & Jones, T. H. (2006). Consequences for host-parasitoid
interactions of grazing-dependent habitat heterogeneity. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75(3), 789–
801. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01099.x
Vanbergen, A. J., & The Insect Pollinators Initiative. (2013). Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures
on pollinators. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(5), 251–259.
http://doi.org/10.1890/120126
Vanbergen, A. J., Woodcock, B. A., Koivula, M., Niemelä, J., Kotze, D. J., Bolger, T., Golden, V., Dubs, F.,
Boulanger, G., Serrano, J., Lencina, J. L., Serrano, A., Aguiar, C., Grandchamp, A. C., Stofer, S., Szél,
G., Ivits, E., Adler, P., Markus, J., & Watt, A. D. (2010). Trophic level modulates carabid beetle
responses to habitat and landscape structure: A pan-European study. Ecological Entomology,
35(2), 226–235. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2010.01175.x
Vanselow, K. A., Kraudzun, T., & Samimi, C. (2012). Grazing practices and pasture tenure in the Eastern
Pamirs. Mountain Research and Development, 32(3), 324–336. http://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-
JOURNAL-D-12-00001.1
Vasyliuk, O., Shyriaieva, D., Kolomytsev, G., & Spinova, J. (2017). Steppe protected areas on the
territory of Ukraine in the context of the armed conflict in the Donbas region and Russian
annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Bulletin of the Eurasian Dry Grassland Group, 33(33), 15–
23. http://doi.org/10.21570/EDGG.Bull.33.15‐23
Veríssimo, D., & Campbell, B. (2015). Understanding stakeholder conflict between conservation and
hunting in Malta. Biological Conservation, 191, 812–818.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.018
Verkerk, P. J., Anttila, P., Eggers, J., Lindner, M., & Asikainen, A. (2011). The realisable potential supply
of woody biomass from forests in the European Union. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(11),
2007–2015. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.02.027
Vicca, S., & Bahn, M. Estiarte, M., Van Loon, E. E., Vargas, R., Alberti, G., Ambus, P., Arain, M. A., Beier,
C., Bentley, L. P., Borken, W., Buchmann, N., Collins, S. L., De Dato, G., Dukes, J. S., Escolar, C.,
Fay, P., Guidolotti, G., Hanson, P. J., Kahmen, A., Kröel-Dulay, G., Ladreiter-Knauss, T., Larsen, K.
S., Lellei-Kovacs, E., Lebrija-Trejos, E., Maestre, F. T., Marhan, S., Marshall, M., Meir, P., Miao, Y.,
Muhr, J., Niklaus, P. A., Ogaya, R., Peñuelas, J., Poll, C., Rustad, L. E., Savage, K., Schindlbacher, A.,
Schmidt, I. K., Smith, A. R., Sotta, E. D., Suseela, V., Tietema, A., Van Gestel, N., Van Straaten, O.,
Wan, S., Weber, U., & Janssens, I. A. (2014). Can current moisture responses predict soil CO2 efflux
under altered precipitation regimes? A synthesis of manipulation experiments. Biogeosciences,
11(11), 2991-3013. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/fnrpubs/12/
Vicente, J., Alves, P., Randin, C., Guisan, A., & Honrado, J. (2010). What drives invasibility? A multi-
model inference test and spatial modelling of alien plant species richness patterns in northern

803
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Portugal. Ecography, 33(6), 1081–1092. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.6380.x

Vickery, J. A., Ewing, S. R., Smith, K. W., Pain, D. J., Bairlein, F., Škorpilová, J., & Gregory, R. D. (2014).
The decline of Afro-Palaearctic migrants and an assessment of potential causes. Ibis, 156(1), 1–
22. http://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12118
Victor, P. A. (2008). Managing without growth: slower by design, not disaster. Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
Vihervaara, P., Mononen, L., Auvinen, A.-P., Virkkala, R., Lü, Y., Pippuri, I., Packalen, P., Valbuena, R., &
Valkama, J. (2015). How to integrate remotely sensed data and biodiversity for ecosystem
assessments at landscape scale. Landscape Ecology, 30(3), 501–516.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0137-5
Vilà, M., Basnou, C., Pyšek, P., Josefsson, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Nentwig, W., Olenin, S., Roques,
A., Roy, D., Hulme, P. E., & DAISIE partners. (2010). How well do we understand the impacts of
alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 8(3), 135–144. http://doi.org/10.1890/080083
Vilà, M., & Ibáñez, I. (2011). Plant invasions in the landscape. Landscape Ecology, 26(4), 461–472.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-011-9585-3
Villanueva, C. M., Kogevinas, M., Cordier, S., Templeton, M. R., Vermeulen, R., Nuckols, J. R.,
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., & Levallois, P. (2014). Assessing exposure and health consequences of
chemicals in drinking water: current state of knowledge and research needs. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 122(3), 213–21. http://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1206229
Virkala, R., & Rajasarkka, A. (2007). Uneven regional distribution of protected areas in Finland:
Consequences for boreal forest bird populations. Biological Conservation, 134(3), 361–371.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.006
Virkkala, R., Heikkinen, R. K., Leikola, N., & Luoto, M. (2008). Projected large-scale range reductions of
northern-boreal land bird species due to climate change. Biological Conservation, 141(5), 1343–
1353. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.007
Visser, M. E., Holleman, L. J. M., & Gienapp, P. (2006). Shifts in caterpillar biomass phenology due to
climate change and its impact on the breeding biology of an insectivorous bird. Oecologia, 147(1),
164–172. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0299-6
Visser, O., Mamonova, N., & Spoor, M. (2012). Oligarchs, megafarms and land reserves: understanding
land grabbing in Russia. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 899–931.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.675574
Visser, O., & Schoenmaker, L. (2011). Institutional transformation in the agricultural sector of the
former Soviet Bloc. Eastern European Countryside, 17(1). http://doi.org/10.2478/v10130-011-
0002-3
Visser, O., Spoor, M., & Mamonova, N. (2014). Is Russia the emerging global “breadbasket”? Re-
cultivation, agroholdings and grain production. Europe-Asia Studies, 66(10), 1589–1610.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2014.967569
Vitalini, S., Tomè, F., & Fico, G. (2009). Traditional uses of medicinal plants in Valvestino (Italy). Journal
of Ethnopharmacology, 121, 106–116. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2008.10.005
Vladyshevskiy, D. V., Laletin, A. P., & Vladyshevskiy, A. D. (2000). Role of wildlife and other non-wood
forest products in food security in central Siberia. Unasylva, 51(202), 46–52. Retrieved from

804
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
0033782726&partnerID=40&md5=ac876363658ec5641cdc9ae6deff9e75
von Moos, N., Burkhardt-Holm, P., & Köhler, A. (2012). Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and
tissue of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an experimental exposure. Environmental Science
& Technology, 46(20), 11327–11335. http://doi.org/10.1021/es302332w
Von Weizsäcker, E., Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, H. L. (1997). Factor four doubling wealth halving resource
use. The new report to the Club of Rome. London, UK: Earthscan.
Voss, R., Quaas, M. F., Stoeven, M. T., Schmidt, J. O., Tomczak, M. T., & Möllmann, C. (2017). Ecological-
economic fisheries management advice - Quantification of potential benefits for the case of the
eastern Baltic COD fishery. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 209.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00209
Wallenius, T., Kauhanen, H., Herva, H., & Pennanen, J. (2010a). Long fire cycle in northern boreal Pinus
forests in Finnish Lapland. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 40(10), 2027–2035.
http://doi.org/10.1139/x10-144
Wallenius, T., Kuuluvainen, T., & Vanha-Majamaa, I. (2004). Fire history in relation to site type and
vegetation in Vienansalo wilderness in eastern Fennoscandia, Russia. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research, 34(7), 1400–1409. http://doi.org/10.1139/x04-023
Wallenius, T., Niskanen, L., Virtanen, T., Hottola, J., Brumelis, G., Angervuori, A., Julkunen, J., Pihlstrom,
M. (2010b). Loss of habitats, naturalness and species diversity in Eurasian forest landscapes.
Ecological Indicators, 10(6), 1093–1101. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.006
Walther, G.-R., Roques, A., Hulme, P. E., Sykes, M. T., Pyšek, P., Kühn, I., Zobel, M., Bacher, S., Botta-
Dukát, Z., Bugmann, H., Czúcz, B., Dauber, J., Hickler, T., Jarošík, V., Kenis, M., Klotz, S., Minchin,
D., Moora, M., Nentwig, W., Ott, J., Panov, V. E., Reineking, B., Robinet, C., Semenchenko, V.,
Solarz, W., Thuiller, W., Vilà, M., Vohland, K., & Settele. (2009). Alien species in a warmer world:
risks and opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(12), 686–693.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.06.008
Wang, C., Gao, Q., Wang, X., & Yu, M. (2016). Spatially differentiated trends in urbanization,
agricultural land abandonment and reclamation, and woodland recovery in Northern China.
Scientific Reports, 6, 37658. http://doi.org/10.1038/srep37658
Wang, J., Wang, C., Chen, N., Xiong, Z., Wolfe, D., & Zou, J. (2015). Response of rice production to
elevated [CO2] and its interaction with rising temperature or nitrogen supply: a meta-analysis.
Climatic Change, 130(4), 529–543. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1374-6
Wang, S., & Wilson, B. (2007). Pluralism in the economics of sustainable forest management. Forest
Policy and Economics, 9(7), 743–750. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.013
Wang, X. L., Zwiers, F. W., Swail, V. R., & Feng, Y. (2009). Trends and variability of storminess in the
Northeast Atlantic region, 1874-2007. Climate Dynamics, 33(7–8), 1179–1195.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-008-0504-5
Wanninkhof, R., Doney, S. C., Bullister, J. L., Levine, N. M., Warner, M., & Gruber, N. (2010). Detecting
anthropogenic CO2 changes in the interior Atlantic Ocean between 1989 and 2005. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 115(C11), C11028. http://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006251
Ware, C., Bergstrom, D. M., Müller, E., & Alsos, I. G. (2012). Humans introduce viable seeds to the Arctic
on footwear. Biological Invasions, 14(3), 567–577. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0098-4

805
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Waters, J. R. (1991). Restricted access vs. open access methods of management: Toward more effective
regulation of fishing effort. Marine Fisheries Review, 53(3), 1–10.
Watts, G., Battarbee, R. W., Bloomfield, J. P., Crossman, J., Daccache, A., Durance, I., Elliott, J. A.,
Garner, G., Hannaford, J., Hannah, D. M., Hess, T., Jackson, C. R., Kay, A. L., Kernan, M., Knox, J.,
Mackay, J., Monteith, D. T., Ormerod, S. J., Rance, J., Stuart, M. E., Wade, A. J., Wade, S. D.,
Weatherhead, K., Whitehead, P. G., & Wilby, R. L. (2015). Climate change and water in the UK –
past changes and future prospects. Progress in Physical Geography, 39(1), 6–28.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0309133314542957
Weale, A. (1992). The new politics of pollution. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Weathers, K. C., Cadenasso, M. L., & Pickett, S. T. A. (2001). Forest edges as nutrient and pollutant
concentrators: potential synergisms between fragmentation, forest canopies and the
atmosphere. Conservation Biology, 15(6), 1506–1514. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2001.01090.x
Wedlich, K. V, Rintoul, N., Peacock, S., Cape, J. N., Coyle, M., Toet, S., Barnes, J., & Ashmore, M. (2012).
Effects of ozone on species composition in an upland grassland. Oecologia, 168(4), 1137–1146.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-011-2154-2
Weinbaum, K. Z., Brashares, J. S., Golden, C. D., & Getz, W. M. (2013). Searching for sustainability: are
assessments of wildlife harvests behind the times? Ecology Letters, 16(1), 99–111.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12008
Wendland, K. J., Baumann, M., Lewis, D. J., Sieber, A., & Radeloff, V. C. (2015). Protected area
effectiveness in European Russia: A postmatching panel data analysis. Land Economics, 91(1),
149–168. http://doi.org/10.3368/le.91.1.149
Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., Thompson, J., Nilsson,
M., Lambin, E., Sendzimir, J., Banerjee, B., Galaz, V., & van der Leeuw, S. (2011). Tipping toward
sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9
Westlund, H., & Kobayashi, K. (2013). Social capital and rural development in the knowledge society.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Tscharntke, T. (2009). Mass flowering oilseed rape improves early
colony growth but not sexual reproduction of bumblebees. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1),
187–193. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01580.x
WHO. (2013). Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution-REVIHAAP Project. Copenhagen,
Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.
Wiersum, K. F. (1995). 200 years of sustainability in forestry: Lessons from history. Environmental
Management, 19(3), 321–329. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02471975
Willis, K. J., Carretero, J., Enquist, B. J., Kuhn, N., Tovar, C., & Vandvik, V. (2017). Climate change – which
plants will be the winners? In K. J. Willis (Ed.), State of the world’s plants 2017 (pp. 42-49). Kew,
UK: Kew Royal Botanic Gardens.
Winder, M., & Schindler, D. E. (2004). Climate change uncouples trophic interactions in an aquatic
ecosystem. Ecology, 85(8), 2100–2106. http://doi.org/10.1890/04-0151
Wolkovich, E. M., Cook, B. I., Allen, J. M., Crimmins, T. M., Betancourt, J. L., Travers, S. E., Pau, S.,
Regetz, J., Davies, T. J., Kraft, N. J. B., Ault, T. R., Bolmgren, K., Mazer, S. J., McCabe, G. J., McGill,

806
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

B. J., Parmesan, C., Salamin, N., Schwartz, M. D., & Cleland, E. E. (2012). Warming experiments
underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change. Nature.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11014
Wolstenholme, E. F., & Coyle, R. G. (1983). The development of system dynamics as a methodology for
system description and qualitative analysis. The Journal of the Operational Research Society,
34(7), 569. http://doi.org/10.2307/2581770
Wood, T. J., Holland, J. M., Hughes, W. O. H., & Goulson, D. (2015). Targeted agri-environment schemes
significantly improve the population size of common farmland bumblebee species. Molecular
Ecology, 24(8), 1668–1680. http://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13144
Woodcock, B. A., Isaac, N. J. B., Bullock, J. M., Roy, D. B., Garthwaite, D. G., Crowe, A., & Pywell, R. F.
(2016). Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England.
Nature Communications, 7, 12459. http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12459
Woodcock, B. A., Pywell, R. F., Roy, D. B., Rose, R. J., & Bell, D. (2005). Grazing management of
calcareous grasslands and its implications for the conservation of beetle communities. Biological
Conservation, 125, 193–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.03.017
Woodward, G., Bonada, N., Brown, L. E., Death, R. G., Durance, I., Gray, C., Hladyz, S., Ledger, M. E.,
Milner, A. M., Ormerod, S. J., Thompson, R. M., & Pawar, S. (2016). The effects of climatic
fluctuations and extreme events on running water ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1694), 20150274.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0274
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H.
K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K. A., Stachowicz, J. J., & Watson, R. (2006). Impacts
of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314(5800), 787–790.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132294
Wortley, L., Hero, J. M., & Howes, M. (2013). Evaluating ecological restoration success: A review of the
literature. Restoration Ecology, 21(5), 537–543. http://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12028
Wright, S. L., Thompson, R. C., & Galloway, T. S. (2013). The physical impacts of microplastics on marine
organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution, 178, 483–492.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031
WTTC. (2015). Travel & tourism economic impact 2015. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic impact research/countries
2015/malta2015.pdf
Wu, Z., Dijkstra, P., Koch, G. W., Peñuelas, J., & Hungate, B. A. (2011). Responses of terrestrial
ecosystems to temperature and precipitation change: a meta-analysis of experimental
manipulation. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 927–942. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2486.2010.02302.x
WWF. (2004). The new Riviera? No, the old Mediterranean. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from
http://mediterranean.panda.org/?14550/The-new-Riviera-No-the-old-Mediterranean
WWF. (2008). Living Planet Report 2008. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
Yablokov, A. V., & Zimenko, A. V. [Яблоков, А. В., & Зименко, А. В.]. (2009). Зеленое движение
России и экологические вызовы [Russia's green movement and environmental challenges ]
Москва, Российская Федерация: Лесная страна. [Moscow, Russian Federation: Lesnaya strana]

807
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Yashayaev, I., & Seidov, D. (2015). The role of the Atlantic water in multidecadal ocean variability in
the Nordic and Barents Seas. Progress in Oceanography, 132, 68–127.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.11.009
Yom-Tov, S., Yom-Tov, Y., Wright, J., Feu, R. D., & Lindström, J. (2006a). Recent changes in body weight
and wing length among some British passerine birds. Oikos, 112(July 2005), 91–101.
Yom-Tov, Y. (2001). Global warming and body mass decline in Israeli passerine birds. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 268(1470), 947–952.
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1592
Yom-Tov, Y., & Geffen, E. (2011). Recent spatial and temporal changes in body size of terrestrial
vertebrates: Probable causes and pitfalls. Biological Reviews, 86(2), 531–541.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00168.x
Yom-Tov, Y., Heggberget, T. M., Wiig, Ø., & Yom-Tov, S. (2006b). Body size changes among otters, Lutra
lutra, in Norway: The possible effects of food availability and global warming. Oecologia, 150(1),
155–160. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-006-0499-8
Yom-Tov, Y., Roos, A., Mortensen, P., Wiig, O., Yom-Tov, S., & Heggberget, T. M. (2010). Recent changes
in body size of the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra in Sweden. Ambio, 39(7), 496–503.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0074-8
Yoshihara, Y., Chimeddorj, B., Buuveibaatar, B., Lhagvasuren, B., & Takatsuki, S. (2008). Effects of
livestock grazing on pollination on a steppe in eastern Mongolia. Biological Conservation, 141(9),
2376–2386. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.004
Zachrisson, A., Sandell, K., Fredman, P., & Eckerberg, K. (2006). Tourism and protected areas: motives,
actors and processes. International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 2(4), 350–358.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17451590609618156
Zackrisson, O. (1977). Influence of forest fires on the north Swedish boreal forest. Oikos, 29(1), 22.
http://doi.org/10.2307/3543289
Zalidis, G., Stamatiadis, S., Takavakoglou, V., Eskridge, K., & Misopolinos, N. (2002). Impacts of
agricultural practices on soil and water quality in the Mediterranean region and proposed
assessment methodology. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(2), 137–146.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00249-3
Zehetmair, T., Müller, J., Runkel, V., Stahlschmidt, P., Winter, S., Zharov, A., & Gruppe, A. (2015a). Poor
effectiveness of Natura 2000 beech forests in protecting forest-dwelling bats. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 23, 53–60. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.07.003
Zehetmair, T., Müller, J., Zharov, A., & Gruppe, A. (2015b). Effects of Natura 2000 and habitat variables
used for habitat assessment on beetle assemblages in European beech forests. Insect
Conservation and Diversity, 8(3), 193–204. http://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12101
Zell, J., Kändler, G., & Hanewinkel, M. (2009). Predicting constant decay rates of coarse woody debris—
A meta-analysis approach with a mixed model. Ecological Modelling, 220(7), 904–912.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.01.020
Zhang, Z., Zimmermann, N. E., Stenke, A., Li, X., Hodson, E. L., Zhu, G., Huang, C. L., & Poulter, B. (2017).
Emerging role of wetland methane emissions in driving 21st century climate change. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(36), 9647–9652.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618765114

808
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Zhao, L., Wu, Q., Marchenko, S. S., & Sharkhuu, N. (2010). Thermal state of permafrost and active layer
in Central Asia during the international polar year. Permafrost and Periglacial Processes, 21(2),
198–207. http://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.688
Zheng, F., & Peng, S. (2001). Meta-analysis of the response of plant ecophysiological variables to
doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Acta Botanica Sinica, 43(11), 1101–1109. Retrieved
from http://europepmc.org/abstract/cba/354923
Zhu, H., Wang, D., Wang, L., Bai, Y., Fang, J., & Liu, J. (2012). The effects of large herbivore grazing on
meadow steppe plant and insect diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(5), 1075–1083.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02195.x
Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., Friedlingstein, P.,
Arneth, A., Cao, C., Cheng, L., Kato, E., Koven, C., Li, Y., Lian, X., Liu, Y., Liu, R., Mao, J., Pan, Y.,
Peng, S., Peuelas, J., Poulter, B., Pugh, T. A. M., Stocker, B. D., Viovy, N., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Xiao,
Z., Yang, H., Zaehle, S., & Poulter, B. (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate
Change, 6(8), 791-796. http://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE3004
Zieritz, A., Gallardo, B., Baker, S. J., Britton, J. R., van Valkenburg, J. L. C. H., Verreycken, H., & Aldridge,
D. C. (2017). Changes in pathways and vectors of biological invasions in Northwest Europe.
Biological Invasions, 19, 269–282. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1278-z
Zimmermann, N. E., Yoccoz, N. G., Edwards, T. C., Meier, E. S., Thuiller, W., Guisan, A., Schmatz, D. R.,
& Pearman, P. B. (2009). Climatic extremes improve predictions of spatial patterns of tree
species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106
(Suppl.), 19723–19728. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901643106
Ziolkowska, J. R., & Ziolkowski, B. (2016). Effectiveness of water management in Europe in the 21st
century. Water Resources Management, 30(7), 2261–2274. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-
1287-9

809
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5 Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and

society

Coordinating Lead Authors:

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

Lead Authors:
Gunnar Austrheim (Norway), Lluís Brotons (Spain), Matthew Cantele (Austria), Joachim Claudet
(France), Christine Fürst (Germany), Antoine Guisan (Switzerland), Sandra Lavorel (France), Gunilla
Almered Olsson (Sweden), Vânia Proença (Portugal), Christian Rixen (Switzerland), Fernando Santos-
Martín (Spain), Martin Schlaepfer (Switzerland), Cosimo Solidoro (Italy), Zharas Takenov (Kazakhstan),
Jozef Turok (Slovakia)

Fellow:
Zuzana V. Harmáčková (Czech Republic)

Contributing Authors:
Armağan Aloe Karabulut (Turkey), Fanny Boeraeve (Belgium), Marta Coll Monton (France), Robert
Dunford (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Niki Frantzeskaki (Greece), Yuliana
Griewald (Russian Federation/Germany), Karl Grigulis (France), Sander Jacobs (Belgium), Jan Janse (The
Netherlands), Viktar Kireyeu (Belarus), Kasper Kok (The Netherlands), Anastasia Lobanova (Russian
Federation/Germany), Alejandra Morán-Ordóñez (Spain), Simona Pedde (Italy), Anton Shkaruba
(Belarus), Anthony Sonrel (Switzerland), Fernando Viñegla (Spain), Marten Winter (Germany), Yves
Zinngrebe (Germany)

Review Editors:
Ian Holman (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Tobias Plieninger (Germany)

This chapter should be cited as:

Harrison, P. A., Hauck, J., Austrheim, G., Brotons, L., Cantele, M., Claudet, J., Fürst, C., Guisan, A.,
Harmáčková, Z. V., Lavorel, S., Olsson, G. A., Proença, V., Rixen, C., Santos-Martín, F., Schlaepfer, M.,
Solidoro, C., Takenov, Z. and Turok, J. Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and
society. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services
for Europe and Central Asia. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.).
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem services,
Bonn, Germany, pp. xx-xx.

810
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
5 Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and society .................................. 810
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 813
5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 818
5.1.1 Chapter aims and structure ........................................................................................... 818
5.1.2 Framing futures in the context of global sustainability targets and policy goals .......... 821
5.2 Plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia ....................................................................... 823
5.2.1 Review of exploratory scenarios for Europe and Central Asia ...................................... 824
5.2.2 Types of plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia ................................................ 828
5.2.3 Description of plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia ....................................... 831
5.2.3.1 Business-as-usual ............................................................................................................... 834
5.2.3.2 Economic optimism ........................................................................................................... 835
5.2.3.3 Regional competition......................................................................................................... 836
5.2.3.4 Regional sustainability ....................................................................................................... 837
5.2.3.5 Global sustainable development ....................................................................................... 839
5.2.3.6 Inequality ........................................................................................................................... 840
5.2.4 Linking plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia to policy goals and targets ....... 841
5.3 Future impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good quality of life ...... 842
5.3.1 Understanding interactions between nature and society through integrated assessment
studies ....................................................................................................................................... 842
5.3.2 Review of integrated assessment studies for Europe and Central Asia ........................ 845
5.3.3 Future trends in indicators of nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good quality
of life ....................................................................................................................................... 847
5.3.3.1 Business-as-usual ............................................................................................................... 849
5.3.3.2 Economic optimism ........................................................................................................... 851
5.3.3.3 Regional competition......................................................................................................... 852
5.3.3.4 Regional sustainability ....................................................................................................... 854
5.3.3.5 Global sustainable development ....................................................................................... 855
5.3.3.6 Inequality ........................................................................................................................... 857
5.3.3.7 Comparing impacts across subregions .............................................................................. 857
5.3.3.8 Comparing impacts related to the different governance approaches in the scenario
archetypes ........................................................................................................................................... 860
5.3.4 Linking future impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life, to
policy goals and targets ............................................................................................................... 865
5.4 Visions of sustainable development ...................................................................................... 867
5.4.1 Review of Europe and Central Asia visioning and pathway exercises........................... 867
5.4.2 Key characteristics of visions of sustainable development for Europe and Central Asia....
....................................................................................................................................... 868

811
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.4.3 Key global sustainability goals and targets reflected in visions for Europe and Central Asia
....................................................................................................................................... 872
5.4.3.1 Key global sustainability goals and targets in sectoral visions........................................... 873
5.4.3.2 Key global sustainability goals and targets in regional visions .......................................... 875
5.4.3.3 Mainstreaming interregional flows in regional visions ...................................................... 876
5.5 Pathways for sustainable development ................................................................................. 877
5.5.1 Review of global, and Europe and Central Asian pathways .......................................... 877
5.5.2 Narratives of pathways for nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good quality
of life ....................................................................................................................................... 880
5.5.2.1 Green economy and low carbon transformation pathways .............................................. 881
5.5.2.2 Transition movements pathways ...................................................................................... 882
5.5.2.3 Ecotopian solutions pathways ........................................................................................... 883
5.5.3 Policy instruments associated with pathways to sustainability .................................... 885
5.5.4 Analysis of synergies and trade-offs within pathways .................................................. 887
5.5.4.1 Synergies and trade-offs between different contributions of nature to people and between
nature and its contributions to people ................................................................................................. 888
5.5.4.2 Relating pathways to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.......................................................... 889
5.5.4.3 Relating pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals ............................................... 889
5.5.5 Linking pathways to exploratory scenarios ................................................................... 895
5.5.6 Addressing trade-offs by mainstreaming and cross-scale integration .......................... 896
5.6 Conclusions............................................................................................................................. 898
5.6.1 Overall synthesis ............................................................................................................ 898
5.6.2 Knowledge gaps and uncertainties................................................................................ 902
5.7 References .............................................................................................................................. 906

812
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive Summary

Priorities for future sustainable development within Europe and Central Asia are formulated in
visions by governments and societal actors. Integrated scenario and modelling studies enable the
assessment of impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good quality of life
resulting from these priorities, and help to co-design and co-deliver appropriate pathways to
sustainable futures (established but incomplete) (5.1.2, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.5.2). Priorities for future
sustainable development are captured in regional visions, which describe a future desired by society
or parts of society in Europe and Central Asia. Matching these priorities to the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets revealed that regional priorities include sustainable
economic growth in tandem with sustainable industrialization (Goal 8, Goal 9), sustainable agriculture,
forestry, aquaculture and management of natural resources (Goal 15, Target 7), all promoted by
sustainable consumption and production patterns (Goal 12, Target 4). Climate action and sustainable
energy (Goal 13, Goal 7) are also priorities. Reduced inequalities (Goal 10), gender equality (Goal 5)
and peace, justice and strong institutions (Goal 16), as well as representation of a diverse range of
values, are less emphasized (established but incomplete) (5.1.2, 5.4.2, 5.4.3).
Integrated assessments of future interactions between the priorities for sustainable development and
nature and its contributions to people, which support proactive decision-making that anticipates
change, mitigates undesirable trade-offs and fosters societal transformation in pursuit of a good
quality of life, are rare due to the complexity of human and environment interdependencies (well
established) (5.1.1, 5.3.1, 5.5.3, 5.5.4). Nevertheless, ignoring these complexities is likely to cause
undesired trade-offs and to prevent the realization of synergies (5.3.1). Cross-sectoral and cross-scale
integration of adaptation, mitigation and transformative actions and policies by multiple actors is key
to the co-design and co-delivery of appropriate pathways to realize visions of future sustainable
development (established but incomplete) (5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.5, 5.5.6).
The choices made by decision-makers and societal actors are expected to lead to large differences
in future impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life within Europe
and Central Asia (established but incomplete) (5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.3.4). More positive impacts are
projected under futures that assume proactive decision-making on environmental issues and
promote a more holistic approach to managing human and environmental systems which supports
multifunctionality and multiple contributions from nature to people (established but incomplete)
(5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.3.4). Projecting historical trends into the future under a business-as-usual scenario
results in stable trends in nature (e.g. reflected in biodiversity vulnerability indices), negative trends in
nature’s regulating contributions (e.g. regulation of climate or hazards and extreme events) and mixed
trends in nature’s material contributions (e.g. food production) (established but incomplete) (5.3.3,
5.6.1).
Different assumptions about future trends in drivers lead to widely varying projected impacts on
nature, nature’s contributions to people and a good quality of life. Under economic optimism
scenarios, where global developments are steered by economic growth and environmental problems
are only dealt with when solutions are of economic interest, an increase in the provision of most of
nature’s material contributions to people (e.g. food and timber) is projected associated with a general
decline in nature and its regulating contributions to people (e.g. air and water quality regulation)
(established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Under regional competition scenarios there is a growing gap
between rich and poor, increasing problems with crime, violence and terrorism, and strong trade
barriers. Consequently, its impacts are highly mixed with generally large declines in nature (e.g. habitat
maintenance and creation) and the most negative impacts of all scenarios on nature’s non-material
contributions to people (e.g. learning and inspiration) and good quality of life indicators (e.g. health

813
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and well-being) (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Inequality scenarios, which assume
increasing economic, political and social inequalities, where power becomes concentrated in a
relatively small political and business elite who invest in green technology, result in negative impacts
on nature’s regulating contributions to people (established but incomplete), but mixed or unclear
impacts on other indicators (inconclusive) (5.3.3, 5.6.1).
Under global sustainable development scenarios, which are characterized by an increasingly proactive
attitude of global policymakers towards environmental issues and a high level of regulation, positive
impacts are projected for nature and its regulating contributions to people. Predominantly positive
trends are also projected for nature’s material contributions to people and good quality of life
indicators, with some regional variation (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Under regional
sustainability scenarios, which show increased concern for environmental and social sustainability and
a shift toward local and regional decision-making, similar impacts are projected as for global
sustainable development. Regional sustainability, however, leads to slightly fewer benefits for nature’s
regulating and material contributions to people (with decreases in food provision) than global
sustainable development and more positive impacts on nature’s non-material contributions to people
and good quality of life, particularly traditional knowledge and supporting identities reflecting the local
focus of the regional sustainability scenario (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1).
Trade-offs between nature and different contributions from nature to people are projected under
all plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.3.4). How
these trade-offs are resolved depends on political and societal value judgements within each
plausible future. In general, those futures where environmental issues are mainstreamed across
sectors are more successful in mitigating undesirable cross-sector trade-offs, resulting in positive
impacts across a broad range of indicators concerning nature, nature’s contributions to people and
good quality of life indicators (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Trade-offs between nature’s
material and regulating contributions to people are commonly projected in the economic optimism
and regional competition scenarios, which tend to promote a limited number of nature’s material
contributions to people. For example, increases in food provision (generally associated with the
expansion of agricultural land or the intensification of livestock production and fish captures) are often
associated with decreases in the provision of nature’s regulating contributions to people (e.g.
prevention of soil erosion, regulation of water quality and quantity) and nature values. Similar trade-
offs were projected between increases in timber provision and decreases in nature’s regulating (e.g.
carbon sequestration) and non-material (e.g. aesthetic value) contributions to people. Such trade-offs
lead to strong positive effects in nature’s contributions to people with market values and negative
effects in nature’s contributions to people without market values (established but incomplete) (5.3.3,
5.6.1).
Trade-offs were also apparent under the sustainability scenario archetypes, particularly in relation to
the use of land and water (e.g. effects of agricultural extensification – the opposite of agricultural
intensification - or increases in bioenergy croplands on other land uses and biodiversity) (established
but incomplete) (5.6.1). However, such scenarios proactively deal with such trade-offs through, for
example, political choices aiming to maximize synergizes through mainstreaming and
multifunctionality (global sustainable development) or through societal choices to live less resource-
intensive lifestyles and, hence, reduce demand for nature’s material contributions to people (regional
sustainability).
Impacts of plausible futures differ across the regions of Europe and Central Asia. Hence, regional and
national decision-makers face different trade-offs between nature and its various contributions to
people. Cooperation between countries opens up possibilities to mitigate undesirable cross-scale

814
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

impacts and to capitalize on opportunities (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). In Central Asia,
significant water shortages are projected in the long-term. This affects farmers’ choices between
intensive crop production and more sustainable production with resulting impacts on nature’s
regulating contributions to people, such as water quality (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). Similar
impacts on water stress are projected under future scenarios for Central Europe, including decreases
in multiple contributions from nature to people from wetlands (established but incomplete) (5.3.3).
Transboundary and integrated water management strategies that protect minimum water levels for
the environment are projected to mitigate these negative impacts. In Eastern Europe, particularly
Russia, trade-offs between wood extraction and carbon sequestration are projected. Sustainable
forest management and reforestation of areas set aside from agricultural activities are suggested as
having the potential to mitigate such trade-offs. Similarly, in mountain systems in Central and Western
Europe and in marine systems in all subregions adaptive management strategies are projected to
address the vulnerability of the majority of nature’s contributions to people (established but
incomplete) (5.3.3).
In the European Union (EU), significant differences between northern and southern countries are
projected. Most scenarios indicate increases in agricultural production for food, feed and bioenergy
for northern European Union countries, while decreases in agricultural and timber production, as well
as increases in water stress, are projected for southern European Union countries. The latter is
projected to have considerable negative impacts on nature’s non-material contributions to people,
such as national heritage and tourism-related services dependent on local food production. Scenarios
which included international coordination of adaptive measures across geographical areas were
projected to have better capacity to cope with, or mitigate, undesirable cross-scale impacts
(established but incomplete) (5.3.3).
Future impacts of drivers of change on nature and its contributions to people in Europe and Central
Asia are likely to be underestimated because scenario studies are dominated by a few individual
drivers (e.g. climate change) and often omit other important drivers (e.g. pollution) that may
adversely affect their impacts (well established) (5.2.2, 5.3.2). Scenario studies predominantly focus
on single direct drivers and fail to capture interactions between drivers (well established) (5.2.2,
5.3.2). Climate change is the most represented single direct driver in scenarios of biodiversity and
ecosystem change. By contrast other direct drivers, such as pollution and invasive alien species, which
are known to have an adverse impact on nature and its contributions to people, are poorly represented
in scenario studies (well established) (5.2.2). Single-driver scenarios fail to capture various dynamics
such as feedbacks and synergies between and amongst indirect and direct drivers operating at
different scales. Policy approaches that consider single drivers or single sectors are unlikely to
successfully address environmental problems as they do not consider trade-offs between different
drivers, impacts and responses. Integrated, multi-driver scenario studies offer a more realistic
assessment of impacts to inform robust decision-making about future sustainable development
pathways that avoid unintended consequences (established but incomplete) (5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.3.1,
5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.4.4, 5.4.5, 5.5.5).
Priorities for future sustainable development expressed by governments and other societal actors
for Europe and Central Asia are more widely achieved under plausible futures that consider a diverse
range of values (established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, 5.6.1). Recognizing the different time
frame of the scenarios of plausible futures (often 2050 or later) to those stated in the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2030 or 2020), continuing current trends under a
business-as-usual scenario is estimated to lead to failure in achieving most of the Sustainable
Development Goals (13 out of 17), but mixed effects on achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (8
achieved). Economic optimism is estimated to have a mixed level of success in achieving the goals (8

815
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

achieved), but would fail to achieve the majority of the targets (16 out of 20), while regional
competition fails to reach the majority of all goals and targets (15 and 19, respectively). The focus of
these scenarios on instrumental values and individualistic perspectives, with little acknowledgement
of relational or intrinsic values, means they are unlikely to offer effective sustainable solutions to
environmental and social challenges (established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.6.1).
In contrast, the sustainability scenarios (regional sustainability and global sustainable development)
are estimated to achieve the majority of the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. Such scenarios attempt to support nature and its multiple nature’s contributions to people
and aspects of a good quality of life. Thus, they represent a greater diversity of values, but often at the
acceptance of lower, or more extensive, production of nature’s material contributions to people
(established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.6.1).
Multiple alternative pathways exist to achieve the priorities for future sustainable development set
by governments and societal actors within Europe and Central Asia and in particular for mitigating
trade-offs between nature and nature’s contributions to people (established but incomplete) (5.5.2).
The most promising pathways include long-term societal transformation through continuous
education, knowledge sharing and participatory decision-making. Such pathways emphasize
nature’s regulating contributions to people and the importance of relational values in facilitating a
holistic and systematic consideration of nature and nature´s contribution to people across sectors
and scales (established but incomplete) (5.5.3, 5.5.4). Four types of pathways have been developed
to address trade-offs between food, water, energy, climate and biodiversity at different scales (5.5.2).
Green economy pathways focus on sustainable intensification and diversification of production
activities coupled with the protection and restoration of nature. Low carbon transformation pathways
focus on biofuel production, reforestation and forest management. Both types of pathways include
actions related to technological innovation, land sparing or land sharing. Green economy and low
carbon transformation pathways do not fully mitigate trade-offs between nature’s material
contributions to people, nature conservation, and nature’s regulating and non-material contributions
to people (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4).
Ecotopian solutions pathways focus on radical social innovation to achieve local food and energy self-
sufficiency and the production of multiple contributions from nature to people. They include actions
on multifunctionality within individual land uses with connecting green infrastructure, urban design
and food production (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4). Transition movements pathways
emphasize a change towards relational values, promoting resource-sparing lifestyles, continuous
education, new urban spatial structures and innovative forms of agriculture where different
knowledge systems are combined with technological innovation. Transformation is achieved through
local empowerment, participatory decision-making processes, community actions and voluntary
agreements. As opposed to other pathways, transition movements pathways address all of the
Sustainable Development Goals identified as being important in the Europe and Central Asia visions
(5.1.2, 5.5.4), except Goal 7 (sustainable energy). The narrative offers the broadest set of actions
targeting elements of nature, multiple contributions from nature to people (material, regulating and
non-material) and multiple dimensions of a good quality of life (established but incomplete) (5.5.2,
5.5.4, 5.6.1).
Different sets of actions and combinations of policy instruments are suggested by the different
pathways. Joint instruments suggested across pathways give priority to participation, education and
awareness raising, and often cross-scale integration and mainstreaming of environmental objectives
across sectors (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.6). The green economy and low
carbon transformation pathways build towards sustainability without challenging the economic

816
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

growth paradigm. They are implemented through combinations of top-down legal and regulatory
instruments mixed with economic and financial instruments designed at regional (European Union) or
national levels (Eastern Europe and Central Asia). Such pathways are often formulated at a sectoral
level, and integration across sectoral pathways is critical. However, because green economy and low
carbon transformation pathways do not fully mitigate trade-offs, they may not be sufficient alone to
achieve sustainability (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.6.1).
The trade-offs are better addressed by diverse local bottom-up transition movements or ecotopian
solutions pathways (5.5.2). Such pathways reconsider fundamental values and lifestyles through sets
of actions focusing on less resource-intensive lifestyles, education, knowledge sharing, good social
relations and equity (e.g. food and dietary patterns, transport, energy and consumption patterns).
Transition movements pathways also develop bottom-up transformative capabilities by combining
rights-based instruments and customary norms (including indigenous and local knowledge) and social
and information instruments (established but incomplete) (5.5.3, 5.5.4). The sets of actions proposed
in the pathways are not mutually exclusive and can be combined. For example, actions from green
economy and low carbon transformation pathways may pave the way towards more transformative
transition movements pathways. Moreover, future transitions to sustainability may be fostered
through cross-scale integration and mainstreaming of environmental issues into sectoral policies and
decisions, along with nurturing diverse social, institutional and technological experiments (established
but incomplete) (5.5.5).
Participatory scenario, vision and pathway development is a powerful approach for knowledge co-
production and has great potential for the explicit inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge
(established but incomplete) (5.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.6, 5.6.2). Many scenario, vision and pathways
exercises include local stakeholders and their valuable knowledge and practices. However, the use of
different knowledge systems, such as indigenous and local knowledge, was rarely explicitly mentioned
in studies (5.6.2). Explicit examples that included indigenous and local knowledge (see Boxes 5.2, 5.6
and 5.10), show a clear added value from combining different forms of knowledge with technological
innovations, and cultural diversity, norms and customary rights when pursuing goals of sustainable
development (5.2.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.6).
Knowledge gaps and resulting uncertainties in exploring future interactions between nature and
society are substantial because integrated assessments of future impacts on nature, nature’s
contributions to people and a good quality of life that take account of the complex
interdependencies in human and environmental systems are rare (well established) (5.6.2). Very few
studies were available for Central Asia and to a lesser extent for Eastern Europe (well established)
(5.6.2). Less information was also available for marine systems than for terrestrial and freshwater
systems (well established) (5.6.2). Few integrated scenario and modelling studies include indicators of
nature’s non-material contributions to people and good quality of life (5.3.2, 5.5.1, 5.6.2) and therefore
existing assessments of synergies and trade-offs are limited in the interactions and feedbacks they
represent (well established) (5.3.2). No studies were found that assessed future flows of nature’s
contributions to people across countries, which would have been important to assess the impacts of
the scenarios and pathways for Europe and Central Asia on other parts of the world (well established)
(5.6.2). There is also a significant gap in the current literature in recognizing the diversity of values,
with the focus being mainly on instrumental values (well established) (5.6.2). Finally, scenario and
modelling studies include many uncertainties in their projections of the future resulting from input
data, scenario assumptions, model structure and propagation of uncertainties across the integrated
components of the systems, which should be borne in mind when interpreting their results (well
established).

817
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Chapter aims and structure

Nature and human society interact in complex ways as illustrated in the IPBES conceptual framework
(IPBES, 2016a). For example, biodiversity underpins many of nature’s contribution to people (NCP) but,
at the same time, human development has caused significant losses in biodiversity through
overexploitation and other drivers of change. Indirect drivers of biodiversity loss include human
population change, economic development and policy or institutional change. These influence direct
drivers, such as land use patterns or climate change, which in turn affect nature and its ability to deliver
its contributions to people which support a good quality of life (Díaz et al., 2015; Hauck et al., 2015;
Rounsevell & Harrison, 2016). The complex interactions result in significant uncertainties that make it
difficult for societies to resolve an appropriate course of collective action to adapt to or to mitigate
change and to pursue sustainable livelihoods (Rounsevell et al., 2010). Despite these uncertainties and
complex interactions, it is important to understand at least key interrelationships to develop effective
management and policy strategies (Luck et al., 2009).
However, social, economic and political conditions in the future may be very different from today.
Scenarios and models provide a means for exploring uncertainties about how different drivers of
change might develop in the future and for considering how those changes might alter society's
vulnerability and ability to take action. Scenarios describe possible futures for drivers of change or
policy interventions. These are then translated into projected consequences for nature, nature’s
contributions to people, and good quality of life by models (IPBES, 2016b). This improves
understanding of the range of plausible futures in a region, alerts decision-makers to undesirable
future impacts, and enables exploration of the effectiveness of policy options and management
strategies. Thus, scenarios and models can contribute to the decision support that is needed for
proactively developing policy that anticipates change and thereby minimizes adverse impacts and
capitalizes on opportunities through insightful adaptation, mitigation and transformation strategies
(adapted from IPBES/2/17: Report of the second session of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental
Science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Annex VI: Initial scoping for the fast-
track the IPBES Methodological Assessment on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services; IPBES, 2016b).
Scenarios are often categorized into two main types: exploratory and normative (but also see, for
example, IPBES, 2016b; Rounsevell & Metzger, 2010). Exploratory scenarios describe a range of
plausible futures based on assumptions about how trajectories of indirect and direct drivers may
change (Figure 5.1 A). They are particularly useful for the agenda-setting phase of the policy cycle in
understanding “what might happen in the future”. Normative or target-seeking scenarios are used to
appraise alternative policy choices or management interventions (Figure 5.1 B). They are useful for the
policy design phase of the policy cycle in evaluating “what actions decision-makers can take to move
away from undesirable futures towards more sustainable futures”. This latter type of scenario is often
related to a goal or vision of a desirable future, which represents the target for adaptation, mitigation
and transformation actions. The normative scenarios then describe different pathways (which consist
of policy choices or management interventions) that might achieve the vision of the desired future.
We focus on visions of sustainable development and the pathways for moving society towards such a
sustainable future.

818
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Chapter 5 is divided into two parts reflecting these two different types of scenarios (Figure 5.2). The
first part describes the range of plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia based on a review of
exploratory scenarios (Section 5.2). The consequences of these futures for nature, its contributions to
people, and good quality of life, as simulated by models, are described in Section 5.3. This first part
provides an assessment of what might happen in the future taking account of uncertainties in
projections of different drivers of change. It provides the foundation for understanding the key
challenges that may be faced by society in moving towards a more sustainable future. The second part
of the chapter describes what a sustainable future might look like by reviewing different visions of
sustainable development and how these relate to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-
2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the long‐term European Union Biodiversity Strategy for
2050 (Section 5.4). Possible pathways for achieving such visions are then appraised in Section 5.5 based
on a review of pathways and normative scenarios. This analysis provides an assessment of the
alternative policy choices or management interventions that can be used by decision-makers to move
towards meeting sustainability goals. In so doing, it supports a good quality of life for the people of
Europe and Central Asia by mitigating biodiversity loss and promoting a balanced supply of nature’s
contributions to people.
As Chapter 5 takes an integrated approach to assessing the relationship between nature and society,
it reflects all the boxes and flows of the IPBES conceptual framework (IPBES, 2015a): nature, its
contributions to people, and a good quality of life, and how they are influenced by natural and
anthropogenic direct drivers as well as institutions and governance and other indirect drivers.
Furthermore, it builds on the analysis presented in the previous chapters of this report, particularly
the assessment of the impacts of scenarios on nature’s contributions to people in Chapter 2 and nature
in Chapter 3, and the assessment of indirect and direct drivers in Chapter 4 (Figure 5.2). In addition,
Chapter 6 builds on the findings in this chapter by considering the options for governance, institutional
arrangements, and private and public decision-making for implementing the future policy responses
analyzed in the scenario and modelling studies (Figure 5.2).

819
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Box 5.1: Key definitions in Chapter 5.

“Scenarios” are consistent and plausible pictures of possible futures (in line with Chapter 1 and IPBES, 2016b).
"Exploratory scenarios” examine a range of plausible futures based on assumptions about a range of trajectories
of indirect and direct drivers. "Normative scenarios”, sometimes referred to as policy or target-seeking scenarios,
explore the consequences of specific policy choices or management interventions.
“Models” are qualitative or quantitative representations of key components of a system and of relationships
between these components. Throughout this chapter the term "models" usually, but not exclusively, refers to
quantitative descriptions of relationships between drivers (indirect and direct) and nature (biodiversity and
ecosystems), nature's contributions to people (ecosystem services) and a good quality of life (human well-being).
“Integrated assessment models” combine modelling of multiple environmental, social and economic system
components and their interactions.
“Visions” are descriptions of a desirable future (an endpoint in time), which society or parts of society want to
achieve. They usually consist of statements depicting orienting goals, and the assumptions, beliefs and paradigms
that underlie the desired future. Visions can take the form of policy targets, but can also be formulated by a
range of actors, e.g. from the private sector to address business targets or civil society to address social targets.
“Pathways” consist of descriptions of different strategies for moving from the current situation towards a desired
future vision or set of specified targets. They are descriptions of purposive courses of actions that build on each
other, from short-term to long-term actions into broader transformation. They are closely related to normative
or policy or target-seeking scenarios.
End of Box 5.1

820
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.1.2 Framing futures in the context of global sustainability targets and policy goals
Futures analysis can contribute to decision support in relation to major policy goals and targets.
European and Central Asian Governments were among the 193 Member States of the General
Assembly of the United Nations that adopted the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” in 2015;
and the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity that adopted the “Strategic Plan for
Biodiversity 2011-2020” in 2010. Both documents are framed by visions and structured around key
strategic goals (see Section 1.4), which represent priority areas for action and provide guidance for
policy decisions and for the establishment of strategic plans at national and regional levels.
While the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets are shared globally, not all of
them are formulated, nor expected to be equally relevant, for all countries or sectors. Activities to
reach goals and targets can be tailored to the specific needs and visions of countries and sectors (CBD,
2010). Nonetheless, strictly focusing on those targets which are directly relevant for a specific sector
or region bears the risk of causing unexpected trade-offs, or missed synergies, between targets (UNEP,
2015). This could potentially lead to conflicts between visions sharing the common goal of sustainable
development. Analysis of how the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets are
represented in regional (European and Central Asian) and global visions provides a framework for
assessing the current coherence in policy goals across regional to global scales and sectors.
The cross-scale coherence between goals defined within visions of sustainable development globally
and within the region of Europe and Central Asia are shown in Figure 5.3 (see Section 5.4 for further
information on the review underlying this figure). There are similarities, but also key differences, in the
extent to which key sustainability goals and targets, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and
Aichi Biodiversity Targets, are mainstreamed in global vs regional visions. Both global and regional
visions prioritize Goal 12 of the Sustainable Development Goals (responsible consumption and
production), Goal 13 (climate action) and Goal 15 (life on land). Biophysical values are also well
represented in the visions at both levels, indicating a strong emphasis on environmental issues in the
sustainability visions. However, visions for Europe and Central Asia place greater emphasis than global
visions on Goal 8 (decent work and economic growth), Goal 9 (industry), Goal 7 (clean energy) and goal
11 (sustainable cities). In contrast, visions for Europe and Central Asia put less priority on Goal 10
(reduced inequalities), Goal 3 (health), Goal 5 (gender equality) and Goal 16 (peace, justice and strong
institutions).

821
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The coverage of targets similar to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets by the visions is limited at both the
global and European and Central Asia levels (Figure 5.4), with only a few of the 20 targets being
covered. An overall narrowing of biodiversity concerns towards indirect (Target 4) and direct (Target
7) pressures is shown in visions for Europe and Central Asia. In particular, market pressures from
consumption patterns and direct pressures from agriculture, aquaculture and forestry activity suggest
a strong regional priority on actions to mitigate the cause of environmental impacts (Strategic Goals A
and B, see Section 1.4).
This analysis provides an overview of the policy priorities for Europe and Central Asia in comparison to
global policy priorities. In the rest of this chapter, we use the insights gained from scenario, modelling
and pathway studies to appraise (i) the likelihood of achieving goals similar to the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets under different plausible futures for Europe and
Central Asia; and (ii) the policy options and management interventions which may potentially hinder
or support the achievement of such goals. We do this by synthesizing knowledge on the future
dynamics of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and nature’s contributions to people that affect their
contribution to the economy, livelihoods and quality of life in Europe and Central Asia (question 2 in
IPBES/4/INF/9: Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and across all scales; see
Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1). Our analyses of exploratory scenario and modelling studies show the effects
of production, consumption and economic development on biodiversity, nature, and its contributions
to people and to a good quality of life (Europe and Central Asia-specific question 7; see Chapter 1,
Section 1.1.1), while our analyses of pathways studies highlight the role of investments, regulations
and management regimes in protecting nature and nature’s contributions to people (Europe and

822
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Central Asia-specific question 6; see Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1). In all our analyses, it should be
recognized that futures studies concern longer time horizons than the deadlines for targets set within
the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goals, often to 2050, and hence they
provide guidance on longer-term policy planning.

5.2 Plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia

Chapter 4 assessed past, current and future changes in indirect (demographic, economic, scientific and
technological, cultural and institutional) and direct (climate change, land use/cover change, natural
resource extraction, pollution and invasive alien species) drivers. Here we build on this assessment of
individual drivers by reviewing exploratory scenarios which attempt to combine consistent changes in
multiple indirect and direct drivers, including the effect(s) of indirect drivers on direct drivers, such as
socio-economic impacts on land use (see Oesterwind et al., 2016). Such scenarios portray a range of
plausible futures for a region. Understanding the different ways in which the future might develop is
helpful for identifying problems, evaluating and changing current thinking and improving decision-
making. In this respect, exploratory scenarios set the context for assessing the robustness of future
decisions on nature protection and sustainable development. They also facilitate the integration of

823
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

knowledge across drivers, sectors, actors and disciplines stimulating solutions-oriented “out-of-the-
box” thinking.
Section 5.2 describes different plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia, by reviewing exploratory
scenarios for the region. These scenarios are subsequently grouped into broad categories of similar
scenarios known as scenario archetypes. Projected future changes in the different indirect and direct
drivers represented within the exploratory scenarios for Europe and Central Asia are described for
each scenario archetype. This provides a rich picture of the types of futures that may occur for the
region and the uncertainties associated with them. Such regional scenario archetypes are helpful for
assessing the implications of future drivers of change on nature, its contributions to people, and a good
quality of life using models (see Section 5.3 where these impacts are discussed). The relationship
between the assessment of exploratory scenarios in Section 5.2 and the assessment of modelling
studies in Section 5.3 is illustrated in Figure 5.5.

5.2.1 Review of exploratory scenarios for Europe and Central Asia

A formal review of exploratory scenarios was carried out based on peer-reviewed scenario literature
for Europe and Central Asia using the Scopus database. This was supported by an informal review of
grey literature using the knowledge of the author team. Both reviews focused on environment-related
scenarios from 2005 until the present. Articles were screened for the ten aggregated groups of drivers
defined in Chapter 4, and their interactions (Figure 5.5). Studies including only a single driver and
studies with subnational spatial coverage were excluded from the review. These constraints were put
in place to focus on multiple driver combinations (as single drivers are dealt with in Chapter 4) and on
spatial scales relevant to the subregional and regional levels (but see Box 5.2 for examples of local
scenario studies).

824
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A total of 436 scenarios in 143 studies from both the formal and informal reviews met the review
criteria and were assessed. This section briefly describes the review database in terms of its coverage
of regions, sectors, drivers and values.
Regional coverage: The majority of studies originated from Western (64%) and Central Europe (30%),
with many fewer studies from Eastern Europe (5%) and Central Asia (1%). Most scenario studies
covered a specific geographic region, and examples of multi-scale or cross-scale scenarios were rare
(Kok & Pedde, 2016).
Sectoral coverage: More of the scenario studies focused on single (59%) than on multiple (41%) sectors
(Figure 5.6 A). Most of the single sector studies considered the water sector (21%; e.g. Flörke et al.
2012; Kok et al., 2011; Nunneri et al., 2007), followed by the agricultural sector and food production
(18%; e.g. Rozman et al., 2013; Uthes et al., 2009; Wirsenius et al., 2010). Sectors such as forestry,
energy, health and fisheries were only covered by a limited number of scenarios (2-8%). Nature
conservation as a single sector was only addressed in three studies, which developed scenarios based
on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC SRES)
(Nakicenovic et al., 2000) and applied these to land use change and species distribution models
(Kolomyts, 2006; Louca et al., 2015; Pont et al., 2015). However, biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people were covered in several of the multi-sector scenario studies (e.g. Grazhdani,
2014; Haines-Young et al., 2011; Okruszko et al., 2011; Pereira et al., 2009).
Driver coverage: The vast majority of studies (approximately 80%) covered up to six drivers out of the
ten categories of direct and indirect drivers defined in Chapter 4. The scenarios that considered six or
more driver categories frequently belonged to large-scale assessments (e.g. CBD/MNP, 2007; Haines-
Young et al., 2011; MEA, 2005; Reder et al., 2013; van Wijnen et al., 2015) (Figure 5.6 B) or a small set
of European Union scenario studies developed within large-scale research projects (e.g. ALARM
(Chytrý et al., 2012; Spangenberg et al., 2012; Vogiatzakis et al., 2015); CLIMSAVE (Audsley et al., 2015;
Harrison et al., 2015; Kok et al., 2013); EURuralis (Eickhout et al., 2007; Verboom et al., 2007; Verburg
et al., 2010); IMPRESSIONS (Kok & Pedde, 2016); OpenNESS (Hauck et al., 2017); SCALER (Edjabou &
Smed, 2013; Milestad et al., 2014); SCENES (Flörke et al., 2012; Okruszko et al., 2011; Reder et al.,
2013).
In most cases, the reviewed studies examined combinations of demographic, economic and
technological drivers (approximately 60% of the studies; Figure 5.6 C), or combined these drivers with
climate change (more than 40% of studies), land use change (approximately 26% of the studies) or
natural resource extraction (approximately 18%). This illustrates that the studies commonly built on
the IPCC SRES scenarios, combining these categories of drivers, as the basis for further analysis (e.g.
De Vries & Posch, 2011; Murray-Rust et al., 2013; Reidsma et al., 2006; Rounsevell et al., 2006). The
newer IPCC shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al., 2015), which focus on a similar set
of drivers, were applied to a more limited extent due to their recent finalization (e.g. Blanco et al.,
2017; Popp et al., 2017; Riahi et al., 2017).
Among cultural drivers, the impact of diet (including the degree of meat consumption or food origin)
was commonly examined, e.g. on greenhouse gas emissions (Fazeni & Steinmüller, 2011; Stehfest et
al., 2009), water use (Vanham et al., 2013), nutrient emissions (Thaler et al., 2015) and land use change
(Milestad et al., 2014; Wirsenius et al., 2010). The interaction of institutional change with other drivers,
was generally understudied, with some exceptions (Haines-Young et al., 2011; Kok et al., 2011; Kok &
Pedde, 2016; MEA, 2005; Milestad et al., 2014; Reder et al., 2013; Strokal et al., 2014).
From the perspective of direct drivers, scenario studies were strongly dominated by climate change,
followed by land use and land cover change (Mitchley et al., 2006). Scenarios including both climate

825
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and land use change were frequently linked to the role of agriculture as a driver of landscape change
(Eitzinger et al., 2013; Eliseev & Mokhov, 2011; Louca et al., 2015; Nol et al., 2012; Pukšec et al., 2014;
Thaler et al., 2015) (Figure 5.6 C). However, the proportion of land use change scenario studies that
explicitly examined impacts on biodiversity was small relative to empirical studies showing that land
use change is one of the most important past drivers of changes in biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5, and WWF Living Planet
Report 2016 - WWF, 2016). Different levels of protection (Chytrý et al., 2012; Haines-Young et al.,
2011) and degrees of fragmentation (Haines-Young et al., 2011; Milestad et al., 2014) were frequently
considered in the reviewed scenarios. Yet, they were mostly related to pressures exerted on land use
by policy, social, economic or climatic drivers, rather than as a driving force on nature and its
contributions to people. These results are consistent with the finding by Titeux et al. (2016) that within
biodiversity-related scenarios, compared to climate change, the impact of land use change is often
neglected. Other direct drivers, such as pollution, natural resource extraction and invasive alien
species, with adverse impacts on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, were poorly
represented in scenarios. While some pollution aspects such as the impact of nutrient emissions
(phosphorous and nitrogen in fertilizers) on marine and freshwater ecosystems were frequently
studied (Håkanson & Bryhn, 2014; Holguin-Gonzalez, 2014; Nol et al., 2012; Nunneri et al., 2007;
Seitzinger et al., 2010), others were greatly understudied (e.g. the impact of nanoplastics; Ryan et al.,
2009).
Finally, there were very few scenario studies which modelled feedbacks from direct drivers, such as
climate change or land use change, to socio-economic trends (an integral component of the IPBES
conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015), highlighting a key gap in the scientific literature covering
nature’s contributions to people.
Values coverage: The concept of value (see Chapter 1, Section 1.5.2 for the definition of “value” within
IPBES) was only considered in 30% of scenario studies in Europe and Central Asia, with 19% including
values explicitly and 11% implicitly. For example, Verburg et al. (2008) included the concept of value
explicitly when analyzing how changes in demand for agricultural products are likely to have a large
impact on landscape quality and the value of natural areas. In contrast, Mitchley et al. (2006)
considered the values concept implicitly through an assessment of how trends in agricultural systems
result in negative impacts on biodiversity. Studies included different dimensions of value: 66% used
the concept of value as nature’s contributions to people (i.e. anthropocentric instrumental values);
26% as nature (non-anthropocentric or intrinsic values); and 8% as good quality of life (anthropocentric
relational values). Most studies focused primarily on values associated with material contributions to
people (44%), followed by regulating and supporting contributions (39%), then non-material
contributions (17%). The purpose or target of valuation within the scenario studies covered agriculture
(22%), spatial planning (20%), biodiversity and conservation (19%), and climate change (18%).
These findings show that only a minority of scenario studies take account of the value of nature, its
contributions to people, and good quality of life (Murray-Rust et al., 2013). They also indicate that
most studies addressed the different dimensions of value only independently (e.g. MEA, 2005) or
linked nature with a limited set of mainly instrumental values, excluding other dimensions such as
intrinsic or relational values. This highlights a significant gap in the current scenario literature in
recognizing the diversity of values (e.g. IPBES, 2016b). Closing this gap could be of particular
importance as the transformative practices that may be needed for achieving sustainable futures can
benefit from embracing such value diversity (Pascual et al., 2017) (see Section 5.5).

826
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

827
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Box 5.2: Local participatory scenario planning.

A plethora of local-scale scenario studies have been conducted in Europe and Central Asia, predominantly in
Western and Central Europe. While this section focuses on assessing scenario studies of subregional and regional
relevance, this box briefly illustrates the richness of local-scale scenario approaches and their applications. The
development of local scenarios typically involves key stakeholders and their local knowledge in the process of
participatory scenario planning, in which participants and researchers collaborate to characterize a selected
social-ecological system and plan for its future. Local-scale scenarios can also be used to model the effect of both
large-scale and local-scale driving forces on nature and its contributions to people. Furthermore, they have the
potential to facilitate the creation of bottom-up pathways for sustainable development (see Box 5.10 in Section
5.5).
Central Europe: Bottom-up participatory approaches have been utilized in several Central European case studies
to identify how driving forces at multiple scales influence local social-ecological systems. For example, a case
study from southern Transylvania, Romania, presents a novel holistic approach for identifying future
opportunities and risks (Hanspach et al., 2014) (see also Box 5.10). In another case study, conducted in the
Třeboň Basin UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, the Czech Republic, local narratives were combined with existing
European Union scenarios to assess potential future trade-offs among nature’s contributions to people
(Harmáčková & Vačkář, 2015). In both cases, the results suggest that the main opportunities for the future of the
study regions lie in maintaining and carefully capitalizing on their high natural capital and cultural heritage, e.g.
through promoting biodiversity conservation and ecological and cultural tourism. Sustainability-related
conclusions are central also to a case study from the Municipality of Koper, Slovenia, illustrating a substantial
impact of industrial and commercial development on the loss of high quality agricultural land and the perceived
quality-of-life (Murray-Rust et al., 2013).
Western Europe: Multiple case studies undertaking place-based, participatory scenario planning in Western
Europe, are included in a comprehensive review by Oteros-Rozas et al. (2015). These include the Peak District
National Park, England (Reed et al., 2013), Doñana National Park, Spain (Palomo et al., 2011), the Conquense
Drove Road, Spain (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013), and the French Alps (Lamarque et al., 2013). The authors find that
participatory scenario planning, when tailored to the local social-ecological context, results in improved
environmental management and fosters scientific research. Other local scenarios were used to model how
farmers’ decisions are shaped by various factors (e.g. subsidies, social relationships, the need to prioritize food
or biofuels) and how this influences land use patterns and species’ populations, such as in the cases of the Lunan
catchment, Scotland, and the Montado, Portugal (Acosta-Michlik et al., 2014; Guillem et al., 2015).
Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Participatory approaches are particularly suited to regions where resource
constraints or knowledge gaps from expert-based sources are prevalent. Several case studies document the use
of interviews and local participatory methods. For example, Kamp et al. (2015) employed a qualitative
methodology comprising farmer interviews to examine the impact of diverse agricultural land management
approaches on bird populations in Kazakhstan. This study revealed that, under the assumption of increasing
agricultural production, intensification of existing cropland rather than conversion of abandoned land would
have the least impact on avian biodiversity. Participatory approaches are also essential where governance and
other regulatory apparatus have a weak influence and agreement among local stakeholders is key in achieving a
desirable outcome. Schwilch et al. (2009) document how these approaches have been employed within the fight
to mitigate desertification in Turkey and the Russian Federation through promotion of sustainable land
management practices in local stakeholder workshops.
End of Box 5.2

5.2.2 Types of plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia

To synthesize findings from the plethora of existing scenario studies, scenarios may be grouped into
several “scenario families” or “scenario archetypes” according to their underlying assumptions,
storylines and characteristics (Box 5.3). Scenario archetypes describe different general patterns of

828
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

future developments and can be useful in summarizing and harmonizing the overwhelming amount of
information in individual sets of scenarios. The scenario archetype approach has been recognized by
IPBES (IPBES 2016a) to help to synthesize findings from scenarios throughout the four IPBES regional
assessments. In addition, the use of scenario archetypes will facilitate a coherent comparison of
scenarios across the regional assessments and their further synthesis in the IPBES Global Assessment
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Consequently, IPBES (2016b) proposed a set of six global
scenario archetypes based on scenario families described by van Vuuren et al. (2012).
To synthesize the exploratory scenarios reviewed for Europe and Central Asia, six scenario archetypes
were selected:
1. Business-as-usual
2. Economic optimism
3. Regional competition
4. Regional sustainability
5. Global sustainable development
6. Inequality
These include five archetypes from IPBES (2016b); numbered 1 to 5 above. “Reformed markets” from
IPBES (2016b) was omitted since, at the sub-global level, it is mostly synonymous with a change to
more sustainable policies, and therefore falls within the global sustainable development archetype. An
additional inequality scenario archetype (not included in IPBES, 2016b) was added reflecting the
growing importance of this archetype in the scenario literature (see Box 5.3).
The scenario archetypes are described in detail in the following section. The six archetypes are not
represented equally in the literature for Europe and Central Asia. The business-as-usual type of
scenario is often used as a reference scenario (30% of scenarios). However, few of these studies
develop a storyline of how indirect and direct drivers are projected to change over time (only three
studies), rather they simply assume no change in current trends. Economic optimism is well-
represented (24%) possibly due to its overlap with business-as-usual and the popularity of downscaled
regional versions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change SRES A1B and A1FI scenarios
(Nakicenovic et al., 2000). Regional competition (17%), global sustainable development (14%) and
regional sustainability (12%) are reasonably well represented in European and Central Asian scenario
studies. By contrast, inequality, as a relatively new scenario developed as part of the recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-related SSPs (O’Neill et al., 2015), is only covered in 2%
of scenario studies, but this is expected to increase rapidly.
Box 5.3: Scenario archetypes: comparing global archetypes with archetypes for Europe and Central
Asia.

The approach of categorizing similar scenarios into “scenario archetypes” based on their underlying assumptions,
characteristics and narratives, is particularly useful to summarize and harmonize large numbers of existing
scenarios covering a particular area and period. This approach has been previously applied by scenario reviews
at multiple scales. For instance, at the global scale, a review by van Vuuren et al. (2012) proposed six “scenario
families” (Table 5.1). In another study, Rothman (2008) provided a detailed and conceptually grounded overview
of a number of archetypes found in environmental scenarios covering a broad range of sectors, scales and types.
Both of these are in general agreement with other similar studies (e.g. Busch, 2006; Westhoek et al., 2006; Zurek,
2006). In addition, there are scenario archetype studies that predominantly review subglobal studies, for
example, a review of more than 160 local scenario studies by Hunt et al. (2012). Although none of these review
papers specifically targeted nature or its contributions to people, they did consider the most influential scenario
studies on these topics, including the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) and multiple land use
change scenarios (see Busch, 2006).

829
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

All of the studies presented above largely agree on similar, comprehensive sets of four to seven scenario
archetypes (Table 5.1). Furthermore, they all single out one particular set of scenarios in their analysis, namely
the “global scenario group” scenarios (van Vuuren et al., 2012), as being helpful to centre the scenarios around.

Table 5.1: Six global scenario families as proposed by van Vuuren et al. (2012), compared with a
number of scenario archetype studies and characterizations.

van Vuuren Global Hunt et al. Kok et al. Rothman Philosophy1 Motto1
et al. (2012) scenario (2012) (2013) (2008)
group
Economic Market forces Market forces Global markets Market forces Market Don’t worry,
optimism optimism be happy
Reformed Policy reform Policy reform Global Policy reform Policy Equity and
markets sustainability stewardship growth
Global New New - New Sustainability Human
sustainable sustainability sustainability sustainability as global social solidarity
development paradigm paradigm paradigm evolution
Regional Eco- Eco- Regional Eco- Pastoral Small is
sustainability communalism communalism sustainability communalism romance beautiful
Regional Fortress world Fortress world Continental Fortress world Social chaos Order
competition barriers through
strong
leaders
- Breakdown Breakdown - Breakdown Existential The end is
gloom coming
Business-as- Muddling - - Muddling No grand -
usual through through philosophers
1
Taken from Rothman (2008).
Comparing the exploratory scenarios for Europe and Central Asia with global scenario archetypes reveals that
the global sustainable development and regional competition archetypes tend to be present in almost all of the
scenario sets (Table 5.2). This pair of contrasting scenarios (“global-good” and “regional-bad”) seem to translate
well to a variety of different scenario settings. The economic optimism archetype is also present in most scenario
sets. It is absent only from the CLIMSAVE scenarios, which were constructed at the height of the 2008 global
economic crisis.
A small proportion of scenarios for Europe and Central Asia do not match the global archetypes. Most notably
SSP4 (and the similar CLIMSAVE riders on the storm; Harrison et al., 2015) do not have an equivalent in the
scenario families from van Vuuren et al. (2012). These scenarios depict a future with a fundamental increase in
inequality between and within countries with a strong green elite, which is difficult to match to earlier scenario
review efforts. This type of scenario might increase in importance with the growing use of the IPCC-related
shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) (O’Neill et al., 2015) in environmental assessments.

Table 5.2: The van Vuuren et al. (2012) scenario archetypes and their equivalents in Europe and
Central Asia scenario sets.

Global scenario archetypes

Global Not
Economic Regional Regional Business- matching
sustainable
optimism sustainability competition as-usual
development
ALARM Growth Sustainable Business
applied European as might
- -
strategy development be usual
(GRAS) goal (SEDG) (BAMBU)
CLIMSAVE We are the Icarus; Riders on the
- - -
world should I storm

830
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

stay or
should I go
EURuralis Global Global Regional Continental
-
economy cooperation communities markets
Hanspach Prosperity
Balance Our land, Missed
et al. through - -
brings beauty their wealth opportunity
(2014) growth
MA- Global Techno Adapting Order from
-
Portugal orchestration garden mosaic strength
SCENES Economy Sustainability Fortress
Policy rules -
First eventually Europe
SRES-
A1B, A1FI B1 B2 A2 -
Europe
SSPs-
Europe
and SSP5 SSP1 - SSP3 SSP2 SSP4
Central
Asia
UK NEA Local
World Nature @ stewardship; National Go with
markets work Green and security the flow
pleasant land

End of Box 5.3

5.2.3 Description of plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia

This section describes projected future changes in the different indirect and direct drivers represented
within the exploratory scenarios for Europe and Central Asia for each scenario archetype. These are
summarized in Table 5.3. Representation of different dimensions of value within the scenario
archetypes are summarized in Figure 5.7 and described under each of the descriptions of the scenario
archetypes.

831
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

832
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

833
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.2.3.1 Business-as-usual
Overview: Business-as-usual assumes that the future will be characterized by a continuation of past
and current social, economic and technological trends. Sometimes referred to as a reference scenario,
this archetype can also be considered as a less extreme variant of the economic optimism archetype.
Although there is, on average, moderate population and economic growth under this archetype,
development and income growth are uneven across countries. At the same time, inequality and
societal stratification persist. International markets and institutions are mostly stable, but function
imperfectly. Technological development is moderate, but without fundamental innovations, and the
use of fossil fuels does not substantially decrease (O’Neill et al., 2015).
Indirect drivers: Most scenarios under the business-as-usual archetype represent reference scenarios
that assume current trends in population, GDP, consumption and management of natural resources
(Popp et al., 2010; Stehfest et al., 2009; Wirsenius et al., 2010). Only three scenarios are associated
with storylines that explain future developments: “BAMBU” from the ALARM project (e.g. Stocker et
al., 2012), “go with the flow” from the UK NEA (Haines-Young et al., 2011) and SSP2, also known as
“middle of the road” (e.g. O’Neill et al., 2015; Obersteiner et al., 2016). These scenarios generally
assume moderate population and economic growth, and a continued expansion of global free-market

834
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

enterprises (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; O’Neill et al., 2015; Stocker et al., 2012), with some
national differences, e.g. a relatively high increase in the UK population (Haines-Young et al., 2011)
(Table 5.3). While environmental improvement is seen as important, society and industry are reluctant
to adopt many global or national environmental policies that would lead to substantial change (Haines-
Young & Potschin, 2010).
Direct drivers: The business-as-usual archetype assumes moderate to high intensity of climate change
(Dullinger et al., 2015; Fronzek et al., 2012; Hickler et al., 2012). For Western Europe and parts of
Central Europe, increases in woodland and reductions in grassland are assumed (Mitchley et al., 2006;
Partidário et al., 2009; Sheate et al., 2008). Land homogenization trends differ across Western and
Central Europe (e.g. substantial countryside homogenization in the UK - Haines-Young & Potschin,
2010) and limited concentration of agricultural land in Croatia (Pukšec et al., 2014). Moderate to high
levels of pest outbreaks and alien species invasions are expected (European Union - Chytrý et al., 2012;
UK - Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010; Austria - Seidl et al., 2008).
Values: This scenario archetype is strongly focused on instrumental values (44%), although many
business-as-usual studies did not explicitly or implicitly mention values (classified as a “no value
perspective” in Figure 5.7). It typically lacks any acknowledgement of relational or intrinsic values
implying a lack of long-term focus on conserving nature. For example, Spangenberg et al. (2012)
identified that an extension of current trends in European Union policies may slow down the loss of
biodiversity in many cases and in most biomes, but it will not be capable of halting or reversing the
loss.

5.2.3.2 Economic optimism

Overview: Global developments steered by economic growth result in a strong dominance of
international markets with a small degree of regulation. Population growth varies from low (assuming
a strong drop in fertility levels) to stable and high depending on the specific scenario. Technological
development is rapid and there is a partial convergence of income levels across the world.
Environmental problems are only dealt with when solutions are of economic interest. A more extreme
variant of this archetype is the SSP5 type of fossil fuel dominated markets with little environmental
concern, but with highly equal and healthy societies. In terms of biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people, this archetype can range from devastating (environmental destruction) to positive
(economically viable nature-based solutions). Yet, in all cases, a reactive attitude to environmental
management prevails.
Indirect drivers: Several scenarios corresponding to the economic optimism archetype describe a future
with low population growth in Europe and Central Asia according to SRES A1 (European Union - Stocker
et al., 2014; Central Europe - Fischer et al., 2011; Germany - Dietrich et al., 2012; Hattermann et al.,
2015; Koch et al., 2011; Steidl et al., 2015), which is concentrated in cities and leads to substantial
urban sprawl (Fazeni & Steinmüller, 2011; Kok et al., 2011; Louca et al., 2015; Reder et al., 2013).
However, several national scenarios outline a contrasting trend, assuming high population growth, for
example in Sweden (Milestad et al., 2014), the UK (world markets; Haines-Young et al., 2011) and
Portugal (global orchestration; Pereira et al., 2009) (Table 5.3).
This archetype is characterized by intensive economic development with the highest GDP growth of all
archetypes (SSP5/SRES A1; MEA, 2005; Reder et al., 2013) across the majority of countries in Europe
and Central Asia (Garrote et al., 2016; Koch et al., 2011) (Table 5.3). The level of international
cooperation is high (global orchestration - MEA, 2005; Reder et al., 2013), however, this may involve
only the privileged few (economy first - Okruszko et al., 2011; Reder et al.,2013). The scenarios assume

835
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

a reactive attitude towards environmental management (economy first - Kok et al., 2011; Reder et al.,
2013). Lifestyles are resource-intensive, with high meat and material consumption (world markets,
global orchestration, EU SSP5) (Haines-Young et al., 2011; Kok & Pedde, 2016; MEA, 2005; Strokal et
al., 2014). The globalization of lifestyles also influences diets. For example, the world markets scenario
for the UK assumes increasing consumption of processed meals and fast food (Haines-Young et al.,
2011). In Central Asia, the respective scenario assumes globalization of lifestyles with consumption
patterns mirroring those in other parts of the world (SSP5; Kok & Pedde, 2016). Technological
development is rapid (SSP5/SRES A1 - Koch et al., 2011; Reder et al., 2013; Stocker et al., 2014), with
an emphasis on efficiency, including increasing agricultural productivity (global orchestration -
Seitzinger et al., 2010; Strokal et al., 2014; CA SSP5 - Kok & Pedde, 2016). For example, the respective
scenario for the UK assumes investments in multiple types of technologies, including IT, transport,
military, pharmaceutical and genetic modification technologies (world markets - Haines-Young et al.,
2011).
Direct drivers: In terms of climate change, Europe and Central Asia is affected by the most severe
warming (SRES A1B/A1FI) compared to other archetypes (Okruszko et al., 2011; Reder et al., 2013)
(Table 5.3). Surface and groundwater availability is expected to decrease in many countries due to
changing precipitation patterns and higher evapotranspiration (Germany - Barthel et al., 2012; Dietrich
et al., 2012; Hattermann et al., 2015; Mediterranean - Garrote et al., 2016), with subsequent
implications for agricultural irrigation (Germany - Steidl et al., 2015; Mediterranean - Garrote et al.,
2016). At the same time, the scenarios assume a substantial increase in natural resource and water
consumption (around 30% in the European Union - Flörke et al., 2012; Kok et al., 2011; Okruszko et al.,
2011) and intensive utilization of biofuels (Milestad et al., 2014; van Wijnen et al., 2015). Accordingly,
trends in fertilizer use and nutrient input are increasing (global orchestration, economy first) (MEA,
2005; Reder et al., 2013; Strokal et al., 2014), with subsequent implications for environmental
degradation and pollution (Kok et al., 2011; Reder et al., 2013).
Values: As with business-as-usual, this scenario archetype consists of predominantly instrumental
values (66%) and individualistic perspectives (Figure 5.7). Management of nature and its contributions
to people is based on an economic “internalization of externalities” (Reed et al., 2013) and single-value
approaches, which are unlikely to offer effective sustainable solutions to the progressive
environmental degradation (Jacobs et al., 2016).

5.2.3.3 Regional competition

Overview: Regional competition assumes a world regionalized according to economic developments.
The market mechanism fails, leading to a growing gap between rich and poor. This, in turn, results in
increasing problems with crime, violence and terrorism, which results in significant trade and other
barriers. The effects on the environment and biodiversity are mixed. Overall, there is a tendency
towards increased security, which can be either positive (by protecting biodiversity) or negative (by
intensifying agricultural production).
Indirect drivers: The regional competition archetype assumes fragmentation and disintegration within
Europe and Central Asia, leading to weak cooperation between countries, and regionalism (fortress
Europe, EU/CA-SSP3) (Kok et al., 2011, 2013; Kok & Pedde, 2016). Population growth projections are
variable at the national level, ranging from low (order from strength scenario in Portugal - Pereira et
al., 2009) to high (Switzerland - Neteler et al., 2013; Lithuania - Ozolincius et al., 2014), and with
contradictory trends projected for the whole of the European Union (SRES A2) (Eliseev & Mokhov,
2011; Gao & Giorgi, 2008; Kok et al., 2011; MEA, 2005; Milestad et al., 2014; Neteler et al., 2013;

836
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Seitzinger et al., 2010). By contrast, economic development is assumed to be slow in almost all
scenarios (SRES A2; Eliseev & Mokhov, 2011; van den Hurk et al., 2005; van Slobbe et al., 2016) (Table
5.3).
The archetype is characterized by high inequality, declining social cohesion and decreases in human
capital (EU/CA-SSP3) (Kok et al., 2011; Kok & Pedde, 2016). The emphasis on self-sufficiency is high
(Thaler et al., 2015), and the predominant approach to environmental issues is reactive (fortress
Europe, order from strength scenarios) (Kok et al., 2011; MEA, 2005). Barriers in collaboration lead to
slow technological development (SRES A2/SSP3; Latkovska et al., 2012; Reidsma et al., 2006; van Meijl
et al., 2006), even described as strongly decreasing or failing (fortress Europe, EU SSP3) (Kok et al.,
2011; Kok & Pedde, 2016) (Table 5.3). In Central Asia, this archetype suggests potentially serious
consequences for societal functioning (CA-SSP3) (Kok & Pedde, 2016).
Direct drivers: Climate change is expected to be relatively severe (SRES A2; Bourdôt et al., 2012; Eliseev
& Mokhov, 2011; Kelly et al., 2014; Latkovska et al., 2012; Neteler et al., 2013). The pattern of land use
change largely differs among countries, with mixed trends in the extent of agricultural land (Eliseev &
Mokhov, 2011; Pereira et al., 2009), land use intensification (Haines-Young et al., 2011; Seitzinger et
al., 2010) and land homogenization (Haines-Young et al., 2011; Milestad et al., 2014). Conflicts
regarding natural resources are expected to increase (order from strength; MEA, 2005), with
substantial use of local energy resources (national security - Haines-Young et al., 2011). Similarly,
projections of the likelihood of biotic invasions vary from high (Kelly et al., 2014; Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005; Ozolincius et al., 2014) to low (Haines-Young et al., 2011) (Table 5.3).
Values: This scenario archetype is strongly focused on relational (33%) and instrumental values (24%),
but also includes a no value (28%) perspective (Figure 5.7). Although scenarios under this archetype
include relational values (good quality of life indicators), they assume that regions will focus more on
self-reliance, national sovereignty and regional identity. This leads to diversity in values, but also to
tensions among regions or cultures (van Vuuren et al., 2012). In such futures, it may be difficult to
protect biodiversity because of a combination of strong control of institutions (generally top-down)
and lack of synergy between different levels of governance. Approaches to biodiversity protection are
local (if any) and further constrained by a lack of concern for global environmental problems (Kok et
al., 2013).

5.2.3.4 Regional sustainability

Overview: Regional sustainability assumes a regionalized world based on an increased concern for
environmental and social sustainability. International institutions decline in importance, with a shift
toward local and regional decision-making. Decision-making is increasingly influenced by
environmentally aware citizens, with a trend toward local self-reliance and stronger communities that
focus on welfare, equality, and environmental protection through local solutions. A proactive attitude
to environmental management prevails, which is beneficial for biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people. The strong regional character and poor international collaboration, however, causes
problems with technology transfers, generates a relatively high demand for agricultural land, and
obstructs coordination to solve global issues such as climate change, which all put pressure on the
environment. Two sub-types can be discerned:
a) Focus on local governance: Fundamental change is initiated by a broadly supported and
bottom-up enforced paradigm shift, often accompanied by a dematerialization process and a
“back to nature” attitude.

837
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

b) Focus on collaborative solutions to local issues: Fundamental change is initially fostered by

higher-level institutions, recognizing the value of local action in a slowly regionalizing world.
Indirect drivers: The regional sustainability scenario archetype is characterized by empowerment of
local decision-making and bottom-up governance both at the national (e.g. local stewardship - Haines-
Young et al., 2011) and the European Union level (sustainability eventually - Kok et al., 2011). Most
scenarios corresponding to this archetype assume medium population growth (SRES B2) in both the
European Union (Reidsma et al., 2006; van Meijl et al., 2006) and individual European Union countries
(Germany - Dietrich et al., 2012; Latvia - Latkovska et al., 2012). In contrast, in some scenarios
population growth is assumed to be low (Germany and the UK - Haines-Young et al., 2011; Koch et al.,
2011), or even to decrease (European Union: rural revival - Hauck et al., 2017) (Table 5.3).
The estimates of potential future economic development at the scale of Western Europe and parts of
Central Europe under regional sustainability range between slow and medium (SRES B2 - Kok et al.,
2011; Strokal et al., 2014). Several scenarios assume uneven levels of economic development among
countries (e.g. adapting mosaic - MEA, 2005; Seitzinger et al., 2010). Furthermore, contrasting
projections are reported for several countries (e.g. Germany - Dietrich et al., 2012; Koch et al., 2011;
Cyprus - Gao & Giorgi, 2008; Louca et al., 2015). The archetype is characterized by consumption
patterns oriented towards local food and products, as well as food self-sufficiency (local stewardship -
Haines-Young et al., 2011; Austria - Fazeni & Steinmüller, 2011; Sweden - Milestad et al., 2014) and
organic farming (Austria - Thaler et al., 2015). Meat consumption is medium both in global and national
scenarios, with an emphasis on different regional and local products, fresh food, meat and fish (local
stewardship - Haines-Young et al., 2011; adapting mosaic - MEA, 2005). As with economic
development, technological development is assumed to be medium and uneven across the European
Union (SRES B2 - Latkovska et al., 2012; Reidsma et al., 2006; van Meijl et al., 2006), ranging from
energy-related technologies (Germany - Koch et al., 2011) through clean and resource-efficient
technologies (Austria - Thaler et al., 2015; Cyprus - Louca et al., 2015; Black Sea region - Strokal et al.,
2014) to a highly diversified technological portfolio developed at a moderate pace (Germany - Dietrich
et al., 2012; Latvia - Latkovska et al., 2012) (Table 5.3).
In general, a strong focus on sustainability is assumed, namely in terms of the development of
sustainable technologies and increasing energy efficiency (local stewardship - Haines-Young et al.,
2011), higher efficiency in fertilizer use (adapting mosaic - Strokal et al.; 2014) and water saving
technologies (sustainability eventually - Kok et al., 2011), as well as higher standards for environmental
protection and strong conservation policies (Bolliger et al., 2007; Koch et al., 2011).
Direct drivers: Climate change assumptions range from medium (Mediterranean - Gao & Giorgi, 2008;
Ireland - Kelly et al., 2014; Latvia - Latkovska et al., 2012) to high (Germany - Dietrich et al., 2012; Koch
et al., 2011), particularly in terms of temperature increases across the European Union (sustainability
eventually - Okruszko et al., 2011). The regionalized character of this archetype results in diverse,
heterogeneous patterns of land use and land cover change both within individual countries
(particularly northern Europe Union - Haines-Young et al., 2011; Milestad et al., 2014) and across
Western and Central Europe (increase in non-intensive open land in Switzerland - Bolliger et al., 2007;
increase in artificial surfaces in Cyprus - Louca et al., 2015). Similarly, projected trends in natural
resource exploitation are mixed. For example, although some scenarios assume decreases in total
water withdrawals at the European Union level (Okruszko et al., 2011), scenarios for Germany (Dietrich
et al., 2012) project increasing water consumption and decreasing water availability. In terms of
pollution, the emphasis on sustainability leads to stable or decreasing fertilizer use (Nol et al., 2012;
Strokal et al., 2014), low increases in O3 emissions across the European Union (Jiménez-Guerrero et
al., 2013) and a substantial decline in nutrient emissions to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean

838
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(Ludwig et al., 2010). The regionalized character of the archetype leads to low dispersion of invasive
alien species and reductions in invasions due to stricter border control (local stewardship, adapting
mosaic - Haines-Young et al., 2011; MEA, 2005) (Table 5.3).
Values: The regional sustainability archetype is centred on a broad and even coverage of intrinsic
(31%), instrumental (31%) and relational (22%) values (Figure 5.7). The inclusiveness and balance
among different types of values is favourable for sustainability efforts because it leads to regional
solutions for environmental and social problems, often through combining drastic lifestyle changes
with decentralization of governance (van Vuuren et al., 2012). These diverse values could have positive
effects on biodiversity conservation through a focus on management styles such as low-impact farming
and energy-efficient lifestyles based on local low-tech development (Kok et al., 2013).

5.2.3.5 Global sustainable development

Overview: Global sustainable development assumes a globalized world with an increasingly proactive
attitude of policymakers and the public at large towards environmental issues and a high level of
regulation. Important aspects on the road to sustainability are technological change, strong multilevel
governance, behavioural change through education, and a relatively healthy economy. All variations
of this archetype are beneficial for biodiversity, either through behavioural change, top-down “green”
policies or through green technology development. In all cases, this is reinforced by a proactive
attitude to dealing with environmental problems. Sub-types include:
a) Focus on technological development and technology transfer: Solutions are mainly found in
(green) technological change in all sectors, including for example engineered ecosystems to
deliver nature’s contributions to people.
b) Focus on strong governments: Strong, mostly top-down, governance structures are effective
in enforcing a more sustainable world, e.g. through taxes, pricing mechanisms, and strict
regulations.
c) Focus on paradigm shift: An increased collaboration of private and public partners across
scales leads to strong behavioural change towards environmental protection and sustainable
development.
Indirect drivers: The global sustainable development archetype is characterized by a high degree of
international cooperation (MEA, 2005) and top-down governance (Kok et al., 2011). The scenarios
corresponding to this archetype assume low to medium population growth across the European Union
(SRES B1 - Ozolincius et al., 2014; Reidsma et al., 2006; van Meijl et al., 2006; van Slobbe et al., 2016),
but moderate population growth in Central Asia (SSP1 - Kok & Pedde, 2016). The assumptions
regarding future economic development in the European Union under this archetype are highly
variable, ranging from rapid (SSP1 in Central Asia - Kok & Pedde, 2016; nature @ work in the UK -
Haines-Young et al., 2011; Hungary - Gálos et al., 2011) through to medium (EU SSP1 - Kok & Pedde,
2016; Central Europe - Uthes et al., 2009; Sweden - Milestad et al., 2014) and slow (policy rules scenario
for Europe - Kok et al., 2011; Cyprus - Louca et al., 2015) (Table 5.3).
In both Europe and Central Asia, the scenarios envision strong increases in human and social capital,
and high levels of social respect and cohesion (Kok et al., 2013; Kok & Pedde, 2016). In Central Asia,
global sustainable development is the only archetype under which the cooperation between countries
in the region increases and transboundary water governance is implemented (CA-SSP1; Kok & Pedde,
2016).

839
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In terms of cultural trends, the scenarios assume low to medium material consumption for the
European Union (Kok & Pedde, 2016; MEA, 2005) with a proactive approach to environmental
management (Kok et al., 2011; MEA, 2005). While the UK nature @ work scenario (Haines-Young et
al., 2011) assumes higher consumption of local products, a generally similar scenario for Sweden
assumes lower consumption trends (Milestad et al., 2014). Technological development is rapid,
focusing on green and resource-efficient technologies (SRES B1/SSP1, techno garden - Kok et al., 2011;
Kok & Pedde, 2016; MEA, 2005), biotechnology and sustainable technologies (Haines-Young et al.,
2011; Kok et al., 2011) (Table 5.3).
Direct drivers: Climate change is assumed to predominantly follow the SRES B1 pathway with the
lowest increase in surface temperature compared to other scenario archetypes (Fischer et al., 2011;
Ozolincius et al., 2014; Scholten et al., 2014). In terms of water regime, the discharge from major rivers
is assumed to decrease, for example in the case of the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea (Garrote
et al., 2016; Ludwig et al., 2010). Multiple studies assume medium dispersion of invasive species both
at the European Union level (Chytrý et al., 2012) and in individual countries (Central Europe - Fischer
et al., 2011; the Baltic countries - Ozolincius et al., 2014). In contrast, the UK nature @ work scenario
assumes low dispersion of invasive species due to extensive national programmes (Haines-Young et
al., 2011) (Table 5.3).
Values: As with regional sustainability, global sustainable development is centred on instrumental
(32%), intrinsic (24%) and relational (29%) values (Figure 5.7). Again, due to the inclusiveness and
balance among different types of values, this archetype favours sustainability efforts. This scenario
explores visionary solutions to the sustainability challenge at the global scale, including new socio-
economic arrangements and fundamental changes in values (Kubiszewski et al., 2017).

5.2.3.6 Inequality
Overview: Inequality assumes increasing economic, political and social inequalities and fragmentation
both across and within countries. This future is characterized by power becoming more concentrated
in a relatively small political and business elite across the globe. Economic growth is moderate in
industrialized and middle-income countries, while low income countries lag behind. Technology
develops unevenly. Environmental policies focus on local issues and are limited to higher-income areas
(O’Neill et al., 2015). The European Union increases its commitment to find innovative solutions to the
depletion of natural resources and climate change, which initiates a shift towards a high-tech green
Europe. However, there are increasing disparities in economic opportunity, leading to substantial
proportions of populations having a low level of development. The European Union becomes an
important player in a world full of tensions. In Central Asia, the concentration of wealth and power in
a narrow class of elites grows, while the standard of life of the majority gradually deteriorates. Political
regimes in the region are increasingly authoritarian and repressive, with growing incidence of social
unrest, conflicts and ethnic clashes on the one hand, and outmigration and resignation on the other.
Environmental issues are addressed only to a limited extent, particularly in relation to water and
energy supplies, so as not to threaten the position of the elites (Kok & Pedde, 2016).
Only four scenarios in the review for Europe and Central Asia fall into the inequality scenario archetype.
These are the Europe and Central Asian SSP4 scenarios (Kok & Pedde, 2016) from the IMPRESSIONS
project, the Romanian missed opportunity scenario (Hanspach et al., 2014), and the European riders
on the storm scenario (Kok et al., 2013) from the CLIMSAVE project; the latter being applied in a
number of studies (e.g. Brown et al., 2015; Dunford et al., 2015a; Harrison et al., 2015; Mokrech et al.,
2014; Wimmer et al., 2015).

840
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Indirect drivers: Scenarios under this archetype show contrasting trends in population for Europe and
Central Asia with population increasing in Central Asia until the middle of the century when it stabilizes,
but decreasing in Western and Central Europe (EU/CA-SSP4) (Kok & Pedde, 2016). Similar differences
are seen for economic growth, which remains stable in Central Asia compared to high economic
development in Europe. Although the efforts of the elite mostly aim at increasing (economic) power,
there is increasing interest in addressing certain environmental issues, including basic rules of conduct
regarding water management, infrastructural projects (water, road, rail), and energy production,
which further drives technological development (EU/CA-SSP4) (Kok et al., 2013; Kok & Pedde, 2016)
(Table 5.3).
In Central Asia the national governments gradually increase their own power by concentrating wealth
and power in the upper class (CA-SSP4) (Kok & Pedde, 2016). Anti-elite movements gradually become
more widespread resulting in social unrest, but the elite ensure the masses receive a minimum of
services to decrease the chance of revolts.
Direct drivers: This archetype is associated with an intermediate level of climate change in Europe and
Central Asia (RCP4.5, which has temperature increases of between 2 and 3oC). Land use in Europe sees
a steadily declining agricultural area and an increase in forests and biofuels. Alternatively, in Central
Asia there is a gradual move towards large collective farms controlled by elites. Little information is
provided on pollution and invasive alien species, but these issues are expected to be strongly regulated
when advantageous to the elites (Kok & Pedde, 2016) (Table 5.3).
Values: As in business-as-usual, this scenario archetype is strongly focused on instrumental values
(45%), but also with a no value (33%) perspective (Figure 5.7). In such a future, it may be difficult to
conserve biodiversity because of a lack of acknowledgement of the diverse values of nature resulting
in conservation efforts focusing on nature’s contributions to people (i.e. anthropocentric instrumental
values). Additionally, the increasing trend of social inequalities might create social conflict amongst
different stakeholders around environmental issues (van Egmond & de Vries, 2011).

5.2.4 Linking plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia to policy goals and targets
Several of the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets refer to trends in indirect
or direct drivers. These include those related to climate change, pollution, invasive alien species,
sustainable management of ecosystems, and sustainable consumption and production. Here, we
relate the six plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia, as described in Section 5.2.3, to the
Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets and discuss how they are likely to affect
their realization, as preconditions for sustaining nature and its contributions to people. Our
interpretation is based on the changes in indirect and direct drivers across scenarios within each
archetype (as summarized in Table 5.3).
Climate change: Combating climate change (Goal 13 of the Sustainable Development Goals) is not
completely achieved in any scenario archetype as they all assume some level of global warming.
However, the degree of climate change varies considerably among archetypes, with the global
sustainable development archetype moving the least away from Goal 13.
Pollution and invasive alien species: Decreasing pollution to non-detrimental levels (Target 8 of the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets) and controlling invasive alien species (Target 9, Goal 15) are least likely to
be achieved in Europe and Central Asia under the business-as-usual, economic optimism and regional
competition scenario archetypes. Pollution-related targets could potentially be easier to achieve under

841
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the global sustainable development archetype, while decreasing biological invasions could be reached
under the regional sustainability archetype.
Habitat/ecosystem management: Sustainable management of habitats and sustainable use of
ecosystems (Target 5, Goal 15) in Europe and Central Asia are negatively affected by most archetypes,
although to different extents and with diverse resulting land use patterns across the region. For
example, the economic optimism and regional competition archetypes hamper the realization of these
targets due to land use intensification and degradation of natural habitats. Deforestation does not
represent a major threat in most archetypes (except for regional competition).
Sustainable consumption and production: Sustainable consumption and production (Target 4, Goal 12)
are assumed to be negatively affected by the business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional
competition and inequality archetypes. In contrast, the regional sustainability and global sustainable
development archetypes are assumed to have a positive impact, namely in terms of sustainable
consumption (global sustainable development) and decreasing natural resource exploitation (regional
sustainability).

5.3 Future impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good

quality of life

Chapters 2 and 3 assessed impacts of future exploratory scenarios on nature and its contributions to
people. Here we build upon and extend these assessments by reviewing integrated assessment
methods and models of future impacts that attempt to represent the complex interdependencies
within human and environmental systems (see Box 5.4). Such integrated methods and models aim to
offer a more realistic assessment and set of future projections of the impact of future changes in
indirect and direct drivers on biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, and a good quality of life
than studies that focus on individual system components or single drivers. Integrated methods and
models help to build the capacity of decision-makers to understand the full extent of future risks and
vulnerabilities, rather than considering single sectors or contributions of nature to people in isolation.

5.3.1 Understanding interactions between nature and society through integrated

assessment studies
This section describes future impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality of life
under the different plausible futures described for Europe and Central Asia in Section 5.2. It does this
by reviewing integrated modelling studies, which have been applied to exploratory scenarios for the
region. The impacts are grouped according to the Europe and Central Asia scenario archetypes as far
as possible. This helps to capture the range of projected impacts on nature, its contributions to people,
and a good quality of life while explicitly acknowledging the uncertainties associated with them.
Box 5.4: Integrated assessment models and uncertainty.

A number of different, but related, types of “integration”, which are not mutually exclusive, have been used in
the context of integrated assessments within a given study system. This includes integration of different: (i) issues
or components (e.g. agriculture, markets and water); (ii) disciplinary views of a management problem (e.g.
economic and ecological perspectives); (iii) processes (e.g. biological, chemical, physical, economic or social); (iv)
temporal and spatial scales (e.g. from local to global); or (v) stakeholders through cooperation and knowledge
transfer between modellers and stakeholders at all stages of a modelling process (Jakeman & Letcher, 2003; Kelly
et al., 2013).

842
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Integrated assessment models typically link models (numerical or expert-based) representing different sectors,
e.g. agriculture, forestry, biodiversity and water, with scenarios of drivers of change, such as climate change and
socio-economic change (the latter including a range of indirect drivers). Kelly et al. (2013) identified five types of
integrated assessment models and provide examples of each of them:
• System dynamics models are particularly good for modelling feedbacks, delays and non-linear effects,
and are more commonly found in climate change-related impact assessments.
• Bayesian network models fit probabilistic relationships between system variables, and are therefore
often found in modelling assessments where uncertainty needs to be properly quantified, such as for
supporting decision-making and management.
• Coupled component models combine models from different disciplines or sectors to derive an
integrated outcome. They can incorporate or handle complex representation of system components
and their interlinkages (see Box 5.5 for an example).
• Agent-based models define interactions between autonomous entities in a system, often humans
(individuals or groups), but also other species or biophysical entities (e.g. water). Some entities (usually
humans) are agents that share the same resources, can communicate or compete and react to changes
in their environment through individual and social learning.
• Knowledge-based approaches encode knowledge elicited from experts using a logic system to infer
conclusions. They can be used to encapsulate a wide range of complex feedbacks which are difficult to
incorporate explicitly in quantitative methods, but care should be taken in using such approaches where
knowledge about the system is uncertain or incomplete. Such approaches are often associated with a
larger representation of impact indicators including nature, its contributions to people, and a good
quality of life (or a combination of all three), which is possible due to the simplified way in which system
relationships are represented.

Integrated assessment models are the only approaches available to quantitatively assess future changes in socio-
ecological systems that account for the non-linear, interconnected nature of their multiple components (IPBES,
2016b). However, compared with simpler, single component models (single driver versus multi-driver, or single
sector versus multi-sector), integrated assessment models have increased structural model complexity adding
additional uncertainty to the model outputs and their interpretation (Figure 5.8).
Uncertainty in model structure arises from the fact that different studies may assume different conceptual
representations of reality or choose to focus on different variables and processes, which are portrayed in
different ways within models. In addition, uncertainty can arise from the choice of scenarios, assumptions about
initial or boundary conditions within model runs, the datasets used as inputs to models, and through error
propagation within an integrated modelling framework (Alexander et al., 2017; Cheung et al., 2016; Dunford et
al., 2014; Payne et al., 2015). Such uncertainty can be accessed via: (i) systematic sensitivity analysis of key
parameters to highlight their relative importance in influencing the results (e.g. Kebede et al., 2015); (ii)
quantification of error propagation through the linked components of the model chain (e.g. Alexander et al.,
2017; Dunford et al., 2014; Prestele et al., 2016); and (iii) inter-model comparison of different types of integrated
models (e.g. Alexander et al., 2017; Prestele et al., 2016). Exploration, quantification and communication of this
uncertainty in an informative and standardized way is a major challenge for current and future IPBES assessments
(IPBES, 2016b).

843
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 5.4

Impacts of future changes in indirect and direct drivers on nature, its contributions to people, and a
good quality of life can be studied by looking at socio-ecological systems. Interactions within socio-
ecological systems are important since changes in one sector can affect another sector either directly
(e.g. changes in agriculture affect biodiversity and regional hydrology), or indirectly through policy (e.g.
measures designed for coastal flood defence also impact on coastal habitat) (Holman et al., 2008a,
2008b). Ignoring critical interactions and feedbacks can lead to either over- or under-estimation of
impacts and the need for responses that limit societal vulnerability (Harrison et al., 2015). For example,
Harrison et al. (2016) showed that there were cases where the direction of change in some sectoral
indicators and indicators of nature’s contributions to people projected by single sector models was the
opposite to that projected by an integrated model (Figure 5.9). Furthermore, significant differences in
the magnitude of change (>50%) were apparent even when the single-sector and integrated models

844
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

agreed on the direction of change. The authors concluded that single sector studies may misrepresent
the spatial pattern, direction and magnitude of most impacts and this may lead to poor decisions about
adaptation.

Thus, integrated studies can provide essential support to guide planning and decision-making by
highlighting critical interdependencies and potential synergies and trade-offs between nature’s
contributions to people under different plausible futures. They also allow exploration of responses that
are robust to multiple, uncertain futures, and which avoid unintended consequences (e.g.
maladaptation). This is likely to become increasingly important if future changes in indirect and direct
drivers lead to amplified interdependencies between different sectors.

5.3.2 Review of integrated assessment studies for Europe and Central Asia
A formal review of the literature on integrated modelling of impacts on nature, its contributions to
people, and a good quality of life for Europe and Central Asia was carried out using the Scopus
database. This was complemented with extensive searches using the IPBES expert network and
additional efforts by the author team to reduce gaps (i.e. for Central Asia and marine ecosystems). The
review applied a broad definition of integrated assessments as described in Box 5.4. Articles were
screened to include only those that included projections of future impacts of multiple drivers on
multiple components of nature and its contributions to people.
As the majority of impact assessment studies still rely on single component models (Harrison et al.,
2015), only 37 articles were found from both the formal and informal reviews that met the review
criteria. However, these 37 articles led to a total of 3,151 entries in the review database representing

845
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

different combinations of integrated approaches, scenarios, regions and modelled system indicators
for nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality of life.
Spatial coverage: The information gathered ranged from subnational studies conducted at relatively
local scales to global assessments providing information for Europe and Central Asia. However, for
studies conducted at the subregional or local levels, the review showed a very strong bias towards
studies conducted in Western Europe (57%) versus studies conducted in other subregions (Eastern
Europe 6%, Central Europe 6%, Central Asia 6%). This highlights that integrated assessments are rare
in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, with most impact studies usually only considering one driver, most
typically climate change. Of the integrated studies that were found for these subregions, trends for
nature’s non-material contributions to people indicators were absent.
Model type coverage: The review revealed that the majority of integrated studies in Europe and Central
Asia use a coupled-component approach (76%). Other integrated approaches found in the review
include system dynamic approaches (7%) and knowledge-based approaches (13%).
Driver coverage: A range of indirect and direct drivers were represented in the review of integrated
modelling studies. The most common combination of direct drivers was climate combined with
another driver (62%), mainly land use (or land management), with a smaller number of studies
combining climate with resource use (12%), pollution (7%) or the effect of invasive alien species (<1%).
This supports the finding in Section 5.2.1 of the dominance of climate change studies in the literature.
Indirect drivers (often represented as socio-economic scenarios) were included in 51% of the studies.
However, combinations of indirect and direct drivers were only considered in around 15% of database
entries associated with large European Union projects, such as CLIMSAVE (Brown et al., 2015; Dunford
et al., 2015a; Harrison et al., 2015), SCENES (Okruszko et al., 2011), ALARM (Lorencová et al., 2016)
and ATEAM (Schröter et al., 2005).
Cross-sectoral coverage: Most studies involved multiple sectors and investigated cross-sectoral
interactions, including goal conflicts between maximizing production of nature’s material
contributions to people and meeting environmental quality objectives (e.g. Forsius et al., 2013). The
agricultural sector featured most frequently in the reviewed studies in various combinations with
nature conservation, water management, forestry, tourism and energy. Combinations between
fisheries, aquaculture, water management and conservation were also observed.
Cross-scale coverage: Representation of cross-scale interactions was much less frequent than cross-
sector interactions. Where included, this was often implemented by combining global, downscaled
climate projections with drivers directly estimated at a lower spatial scale, such as land use and
pollution (Paul et al., 2012). Nested approaches for evaluating interactions across multiple scales were
identified for some studies focusing on land use drivers (Maes et al., 2015). These approaches use
information on indirect drivers such as demography or energy at the global and regional level to drive
spatially-explicit land use models at a range of spatial scales including subnational levels.
Values coverage: The concept of value was only considered in 50% of the integrated assessment
studies, with 29% including values explicitly and 21% implicitly. For example, Garcia-Llorente et al.
(2012) included the concept of value explicitly when analyzing local preferences for different land use
management options in two watersheds in Spain. In contrast, Ay et al. (2014) considered values only
implicitly, through an assessment of model-based scenarios linking climate, land use and biodiversity.
The studies included different dimensions of value: 41% used the concept of value as nature’s
contributions to people (i.e. anthropocentric instrumental values); 3% as nature (non-anthropocentric
or intrinsic values); and 6% as good quality of life (anthropocentric relational values). Most studies
focused primarily on values associated with material contributions to people (39%), followed by

846
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

regulating or supporting contributions (46%), then non-material contributions (25%). The purpose or
target of valuation within the scenario studies covered agriculture (21%), spatial planning (21%),
biodiversity/conservation (15%) and climate change (18%). These findings show that only half of
integrated assessment studies take account of the value of nature, its contributions to people, and
good quality of life. This supports the finding from the review of value representation in exploratory
scenarios in Section 5.2.1 that there is a significant gap in the current literature in recognizing the
diversity of values (e.g. IPBES, 2015a).

5.3.3 Future trends in indicators of nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good
quality of life
Out of the 37 articles found through the review, yielding 3,151 entries in our review database, only
seven evaluated indicators related to a good quality of life (e.g. equity, employment, education), 30
assessed indicators of nature’s contributions to people (e.g. provision of energy, food and materials,
regulation of freshwater quality or learning and inspiration) and 14 evaluated nature indicators (e.g.
ecosystem functioning, species population trends). Eight studies evaluated at least two indicator types,
and only two studies made a holistic evaluation across the different types of indicators (nature, its
contributions to people, and a good quality of life).
The trends for the different indicators are described by scenario archetype (Figure 5.10) and
geographic region (Figure 5.11).

847
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

848
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.3.3.1 Business-as-usual
Overview: The future of the Europe and Central Asia region under the business-as-usual scenario
archetype is complex to interpret due to the regional variability of the results. Generally, southern
parts of Western and Central Europe are associated with decreasing trends in nature indicators and
nature’s material contributions to people, while northern parts are likely to benefit from enhanced
material contributions. Central Europe may face moderate impacts in the future, except for nature’s
regulating contributions to people which are more greatly impacted in this subregion than for other
indicators. Results for Central Asia are very limited and only concern nature’s material contributions in
a lake system of Uzbekistan. No results were available for Eastern Europe. Overall for all subregions,
the future under this archetype is more positive than economic optimism scenario archetype (Section
5.3.3.2), but less than regional sustainability (Section 5.3.3.4).
Nature: Nature indicators assessed under business-as-usual in European countries generally present a
stable trend (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In continental parts of Western and Central Europe, the
biodiversity vulnerability index is projected to remain stable (Harrison et al., 2013). This stable trend
was also confirmed in land ecosystems of Central Europe and aquatic ecosystems of southern parts of
Western Europe, associated with stable diversity indexes (Hirschi et al., 2013; Kirchner et al., 2015)

849
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and stable measures of ecosystem functioning such as net primary production or community
respiration (Lazzari et al., 2014). A notable exception to these projections are forest and arable species
of Alpine and southern regions of Western and Central Europe, which are projected to increase in
vulnerability under this scenario archetype (Dunford et al., 2015a). These findings are based on nine
articles which used integrated modelling approaches and as such should be treated with caution due
to the low number of studies. They can be compared to the much larger number of single component
biodiversity modelling studies under business-as-usual scenarios reported in Chapter 3, Section 3.5,
which show widespread shifts and contractions in species’ distributions, and a general deterioration in
conservation status.
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Trends in nature’s regulating contributions to people in
Western and Central Europe are complex to define as the studies using the business-as-usual scenario
archetype projected results that were highly variable across subregions, indicators and the time period
considered (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). For example, carbon sequestration is projected to decrease
in Western and Central Europe by 2030 (-17%, representing -17 Tg C year-1), but then to follow an
increase to 2050 (from 7.4 to 8.7-9.2 Mt year-1 (Dunford et al., 2015b; Verkerk et al., 2014). For both
time periods, however, Central Europe is associated with decreasing carbon sequestration for pastures
and grasslands (Lorencová et al., 2016; Lorencová et al., 2013). In Central Europe, the future of other
regulating contributions is unclear. For example, some authors project an increase in habitat diversity
and unmanaged lands and a decrease in nitrogen leaching (Harrison et al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2013;
Lorencová et al., 2016), while other studies associate the business-as-usual archetype with a decline
in the regulation of climate, negative impacts on nutrient cycling and stable greenhouse gas emissions
from agriculture (Hirschi et al., 2013; Kirchner et al., 2015).
Nature’s material contributions to people: The future of nature’s material contributions to people
generally varies between the northern and southern regions of Western and Central Europe, but is
overall more positive than the nature indicators or regulating contributions (Figure 5.10 and Figure
5.11). Several local and international studies mentioned important trade-offs between nature’s
material and marketable contributions to people, and its non-marketable contributions, which could
explain this duality (Dunford et al., 2015b; Hirschi et al., 2013; Kirchner et al., 2015; Verkerk et al.,
2014). Northern and Alpine parts of Western and Central Europe are projected to benefit from the
business-as-usual scenario archetype because of increased food production (e.g. + 3-9% agricultural
biomass production) and increased forest yield by 2050 (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013;
Kirchner et al., 2015). In contrast, food production and forest yield are both projected to decrease in
southern parts of Western and Central Europe (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013). In
continental parts of Western and Central Europe, the production of food remains stable but the forest
area decreases, possibly because of increased roundwood production (+15%, representing +73 million
m3 year-1) and increased logging residues extraction (+180%, representing +25 Tg dry matter year-1;
Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013; Verkerk et al., 2014). The water exploitation index (the
balance between water availability and use) is also projected to increase in Western and Central
Europe, except in northern regions, where it remains stable (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al.,
2013). In Central Asia, the water volume of the Aydar-Arnasay lake system is projected to decrease
(Rodina & Mnatsakanian, 2012).
Nature’s non-material contributions to people and quality of life: Trends in nature’s non-material
contributions to people and good quality of life indicators under the business-as-usual archetype are
overall stable or negative (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In the future, citizens of Western and Central
Europe may benefit from stable services such as recreational activities, tourism and landscape beauty,
but they may be more reticent about paying for recreation in forests (Hirschi et al., 2013; Verkerk et
al., 2014). On the other hand, the landscape experience index is projected to increase, which suggests

850
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

a greater “naturalness” of the landscape in much of Western and Central Europe (Dunford et al.,
2015b).

5.3.3.2 Economic optimism

Overview: The focus of this archetype on economic growth is reflected by an increase in the provision
of most of nature’s material contributions to people (e.g. food and timber), but the challenges posed
by the environmental limits within these scenarios result in general declining trends in the majority of
the nature indicators, especially in aquatic ecosystems, and a decline in regulating contributions in
general (Figure 5.10). It should be noted that ecosystem functioning and regulation of air quality show
opposite directions of change compared to these overall trends. Where data are available, the
archetype leads to improvements in learning and inspiration, and physical and psychological
interactions with the environment, as society invests in education, recreation and tourism, but to
declines in indicators related to supporting identities as society becomes more globalized. Few studies
were associated with a good quality of life, but those that were available reflect the pro-growth ethos
of this archetype through considerably more increases than decreases in income levels.
Nature: Most integrated studies under this archetype project decreases in biodiversity. This is the case,
for instance, for: coastal and wetland fishes (Forsius et al., 2013; Okruszko et al., 2011); pelagic
predators and other fish communities in southern waters of the Europe and Central Asia region
(Blanchard et al., 2012; Lazzari et al., 2014; Merino et al., 2012); birds in Western and Central Europe
(Okruszko et al., 2011); mountainous and Mediterranean species in Western Europe (Schröter et al.,
2005); coastal species of Finland (especially endangered species; Forsius et al., 2013); and an overall
decrease in biodiversity in northern Spain (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013) (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11).
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Nature’s regulating contributions to people in terrestrial
ecosystems are likely to be heavily impacted by future changes under the economic optimism scenario
archetype in Europe and Central Asia (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). A large number of the integrated
studies based on economic optimism-like scenarios project decreases in several regulating
contributions, such as carbon sequestration provided by wetlands in Western and Central Europe
(Okruszko et al., 2011), as well as by grasslands and pastures in the Czech Republic (Lorencová et al.,
2013), and crops and livestock in regions of Switzerland (Briner et al., 2013) and the Austrian Alps
(Schirpke et al., 2013). In addition, numerous local studies project decreases in air quality regulation
and erosion control in south-western Spain (Palomo et al., 2011), climate regulation in regions of
Switzerland (Hirschi et al., 2013), and protection against natural hazards and soil stability in the
Austrian Alps (Schirpke et al., 2013). However, some positive trends were projected, such as increased
carbon fluxes to Western and Central European lands in the short-term due to increased net primary
production enhanced by increased atmospheric CO2 (Schröter et al., 2005). At the regional scale, such
decreases in regulating contributions would result in increased demand for erosion control, water
regulation or disturbance mitigation by humans (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013). Many studies further
highlight important trade-offs between regulating and material contributions, mainly because
marketable services would be preferred over non-marketable services under some policies (Briner et
al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2013; Schirpke et al., 2013).
Nature’s material contributions to people: The material contributions provided by land systems, such
as wood production, are often projected to increase (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In western and
northern countries of Western Europe, especially in higher latitudes, forests are expected to spread

851
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(up to +80% growth rate) because of an increased growth season, resulting in higher stemwood and
timber production (Eggers et al., 2008; Forsius et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005). The same trend was
described at a smaller scale in part of the Basque Country in Spain (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013).
Agricultural production is projected to increase both in Central Asia, with increased crop yields in
semiarid and humid areas (Bobojonov & Aw-Hassan, 2014) and in the European Union with food
production exceeding food demand (Schröter et al., 2005) (Figure 5.10). Some regional studies showed
increased crop diversity, winter cereals production and potential distribution of bioenergy crops for
northern countries of Western Europe (Forsius et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005) and increased
agricultural production in south-western Spain (Palomo et al., 2011). A notable exception was reported
for some regions of Switzerland, where food provision was projected to drastically decrease under
economic optimism-like scenarios because of reduced financial help from the State and increased
economic competition with Western and Central European farmers (-75% to -81% food production;
Briner et al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2013). In the rest of Europe, both energy supply in Spain (Palacios-
Agundez et al., 2013) and hydropower across the European Union (Schröter et al., 2005) are expected
to increase.
In contrast, materials production (cotton in Central Asia - Bobojonov & Aw-Hassan, 2014; and reeds in
wetlands of Western and Central Europe - Okruszko et al., 2011), is projected to decrease. Nature’s
material contributions to people provided by aquatic systems, such as fish provision, are also projected
to decrease in Europe and Central Asia, but with great variation depending on the regions and
ecosystems considered (Figure 5.10). The strongest decrease in fisheries production (-15%) is
predicted in Spain. However, fish provision is projected to increase in Nordic countries, both in marine
and riparian areas. An expected 30% to 60% increase in fisheries production is expected by 2050 in
these regions, along with an increase of 26% of fishmeal production, which greatly mirror the increase
of phytoplankton biomass in these areas (Blanchard et al., 2012; Forsius et al., 2013; Merino et al.,
2012).
Quality of life: Most studies agree that, as a result of these trends in nature and nature’s contributions
to people, quality of life may be negatively affected at various scales and in all subregions of Europe
and Central Asia, with a gradual disappearance of winter tourism and urban green areas in Western
Europe (Forsius et al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005), landscape beauty and tourism
in regions of Switzerland (Hirschi et al., 2013), recreational activities in regions of Spain (Palacios-
Agundez et al., 2013), and diving in the Mediterranean Sea (Galli et al., 2017). In contrast, farmers’
revenues in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are projected to increase in general
related to the increases in crop production (Bobojonov & Aw-Hassan, 2014) (Figure 5.10 and Figure
5.11).

5.3.3.3 Regional competition

Overview: The regional competition scenario archetype reflects a future where regionalization occurs
as a result of fragmentation and competition between (and even within) countries. It is often
characterized by low technological development and limited policy effectiveness. The archetype’s
limited focus on the environment is reflected in declining nature indicators associated with declining
biodiversity and habitat creation/maintenance. The trends in other indicators such as nature’s material
and regulating contributions to people are particularly variable across countries, types of indicators

852
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and the socio-economic or climatic scenario considered. However, more indicators were available for
this archetype than for other archetypes, which covered the entire Europe and Central Asia region.
Nature: Most studies assessing the future of nature indicators reported that the regional competition
archetype generally leads to negative impacts on biodiversity (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In Western
and Central Europe, several studies project a decrease in biodiversity, especially important for
woodland and arable species (Dunford et al., 2015b; Schröter et al., 2005). Northern parts of Western
and Central Europe are particularly affected as they are projected to experience increased biodiversity
vulnerability in both land and marine ecosystems, as well as a decrease in the quality of the fisheries
(e.g. species composition and mortality) and a decrease in the species of recreational interest such as
seals and cetaceans (Harrison et al., 2013; Hattam et al., 2015). In other parts of Western and Central
Europe, however, impacts on nature indicators are less clear. In western countries, plant diversity and
flowering onset are negatively affected by the regional competition archetype, but litter quantity,
reflecting ecosystem functioning, is projected to increase (Lamarque et al., 2014). In southern parts of
Western and Central Europe, biodiversity is projected to be more vulnerable and the Mediterranean
basin is projected to have 5.6% less plankton and bacterial biomass (Harrison et al., 2013; Lazzari et
al., 2014; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013).
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Trends in nature’s regulating contributions to people
under regional competition are not uniform and highly depend on the types of indicators or regions
considered (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). European Union studies forecast declining soil organic
carbon stocks, affecting mostly croplands (between -5.4 and -5.8 Pg C by 2080) and grasslands
(between -2.7 and -2.8 Pg C - Dunford et al., 2015b; Hattam et al., 2015; Schröter et al., 2005).
However, carbon fluxes to lands and seas are projected to increase, as well as the total carbon stocks
of forests (Eggers et al., 2008; Hattam et al., 2015; Schröter et al., 2005). In southern and western parts
of Western Europe, carbon storage may remain stable or even decrease (Lamarque et al., 2014;
Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013). In the same areas, stable nitrate leaching and decreased pollination
and pest regulation can also be expected (Lamarque et al., 2014; Palomo et al., 2011). Variability across
scenarios categorized within the regional competition archetype also affects the projections of the
indicators. For instance, the number of people affected by flooding events in Western and Central
Europe is projected to decrease or remain stable under the should I stay or should I go socio-economic
scenario, whereas under the Icarus scenario the number of people flooded was reported to increase
(Brown et al., 2015; Harrison et al., 2013). In parts of Spain, two studies found opposite trends
regarding air quality, climate regulation, water regulation and quality, erosion control and soil fertility
even though they both used local participatory-based approaches (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013;
Palomo et al., 2011).
Nature’s material contributions to people: Projected trends in food and feed production in Western
and Central Europe are highly dependent on the area considered (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). Even
though a net increase in food production is projected across Western and Central Europe under the
regional competition archetype (+15% increase of KCal capita-1 day-1 by 2050; Dunford et al., 2015b;
Harrison et al., 2013), several studies show regional dependencies. The southern part of Western and
Central Europe is generally reported to experience decreased food production and reduced grazing
areas (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011).
Agriculture in western countries of Western Europe may also face a decline in its production because
of decreased farming intensity and decreased forage quality (Harrison et al., 2013; Lamarque et al.,
2014). However, the yield of bioenergy crops in Western and Central Europe is likely to increase
because more areas are dedicated to them, especially in northern countries of Western Europe (16 –
34% increase; Schröter et al., 2005). In Central Asia, food production is projected to increase for most

853
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of the crops in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (e.g. +30% potatoes production by 2100), but in Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan, agricultural yield is projected to decrease for cotton (Bobojonov & Aw-Hassan, 2014).
Regional dependencies also concern other nature’s material contributions to people such as wood
production. Stemwood production is likely to increase in northern regions of Western Europe (up to
40 – 80% increase in Finland; Forsius et al., 2013) in contrast to southern regions where it decreases
(Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). Larger studies conducted at the European Union
level are highly divided on the trend in nature’s contributions to people associated with forests. For
instance, forest area in the European Union is expected either to decrease (Harrison et al., 2013) or to
increase by 2050 (Eggers et al., 2008). Finally, a decreased biomass and abundance of fish and shellfish
populations is projected in northern waters of Western Europe (Hattam et al., 2015), although studies
conducted in southern parts of Western Europe show contradictory results concerning fisheries
(Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011).
Nature’s non-material contributions to people and quality of life: As with other contributions from
nature to people, the trends of non-material contributions and quality of life indicators are highly
variable among the studies (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). The scope of the results is also limited
because the only studies available for these indicators were conducted in Spain and Central Asia. The
authors of the studies conducted in Spain project an increase in recreational activities, good social
relations, aesthetic and spiritual value, and local identity, but a decrease in health, traditional
knowledge and beach tourism (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). In Kazakhstan and
Tajikistan, farmers may benefit from increased income due to increased crop yields (Bobojonov & Aw-
Hassan, 2014). In Uzbekistan, farmers may benefit from increased gross margins from food products
(e.g. potatoes and wheat), but may face reduced gross margins from cotton by the 2070 – 2100 period.

5.3.3.4 Regional sustainability

Overview: The regional sustainability scenario archetype focuses on approaches that are customized
to local conditions with a drive to local self-sufficiency. Nature’s regulating contributions to people
may particularly benefit from this scenario archetype as all parts of Western and Central Europe show
positive trends (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). On the other hand, the future of nature’s material
contributions to people is highly area dependent and the projections of nature indicators are not clear
among studies conducted at different scales. All of these projections only concern Western and Central
European subregions as no data are available for Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
Nature: The future of nature indicators under the regional sustainability scenario archetype is not clear
among the studies conducted in Western and Central Europe (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). The
authors often use different socio-economic assumptions and climate models and their projections are
applied to different areas and ecosystems. For instance, two studies project a decrease of biodiversity
by 2050 – 2080 in terms of number of species and habitats, which are especially significant for birds,
Mediterranean and mountain species (Okruszko et al., 2011; Schröter et al., 2005). However, in the
Basque Country in Spain and Switzerland, habitat diversity and biodiversity are projected to increase
substantially by 2030 – 2050 (Hirschi et al., 2013; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013).
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Several Western and Central European studies project an
increase in nature’s regulating contributions to people on land ecosystems (Figure 5.10 and Figure
5.11). For instance, two international studies project an increase in carbon sequestration by land
systems, particularly forests, resulting in better air quality (Eggers et al., 2008; Schröter et al., 2005).
In 2100, Western and Central European forests may thus accumulate up to 110 Mg C ha-1 (Eggers et
al., 2008). Wetlands may, however, be more vulnerable under this scenario as they store carbon at a

854
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

slower rate and are less effective at removing nutrients affecting water quality (Okruszko et al., 2011).
A local study from Central Europe projected similar trends with increased carbon sequestration
(approximately +25% by 2036) and more stable soils (Schirpke et al., 2013). In south-western parts of
Western Europe, local studies associated with the regional sustainability scenario archetype showed
an enhancement in several of nature’s contributions to people, such as water regulation, natural
hazards mitigation, soil fertility and pest regulation (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011).
Nature’s material contributions to people: Impacts on nature’s material contributions to people are
mixed under the regional sustainability archetype, but a notable increase is projected for wood
provision in Western and Central European countries (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). Forests in these
countries are projected to benefit from greater area (+6-32% increase by 2080) and increment rate
(+9-12% increase), leading to increased wood quantity and quality (Eggers et al., 2008; Schröter et al.,
2005). Here again, wetlands may be more vulnerable as they yield reduced quantities of reed and fish
provisions (Okruszko et al., 2011). Impacts on northern countries in Western Europe are positive
overall, with growth of forests more pronounced than in other parts of Western and Central Europe,
and with a substantial increase in the potential distribution of bioenergy crops (Eggers et al., 2008;
Schröter et al., 2005). In Western Europe, forest growth rate is likely to decrease in, for example, the
Alpine areas of France, Switzerland and Austria (Eggers et al., 2008; Schröter et al., 2005). Impacts on
food and feed are, however, less clear as a decrease of food production (-60%) is projected in regions
of Switzerland (Hirschi et al., 2013) whereas, in Austria, better forage quality and quantity suggest an
increase of food production (Schirpke et al., 2013). In southern regions of Western Europe, trends in
agricultural production are also variable (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011), but these
local studies agree that this scenario archetype may result in decreased fisheries production.
Quality of life: Good quality of life indicators generally benefit from the socio-economic and climatic
changes associated with the regional sustainability archetype (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In two
regional studies of Spain, authors project an increase in recreational activities, nature tourism,
aesthetic and spiritual values, health and satisfaction with the state of biodiversity (Palacios-Agundez
et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). However, due to climate warming, an additional 25.8 million people
in the European Union may face water insecurity (< 1700 m3 capita-1 year-1) by 2080 (Schröter et al.,
2005).

5.3.3.5 Global sustainable development

Overview: The global sustainable development scenario archetype has a focus on top-down
governance and international cooperation to deliberately target long-term sustainability and improve
quality of life. This results in impacts that are largely positive for most of the indicators of nature, of its
contributions to people, and of quality of life (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). This scenario archetype
mainly benefits regulating contributions and the nature indicators of most of the Europe and Central
Asia regions. Other indicators such as material contributions and quality of life indicators are also
positive overall, except in southern regions of Western Europe where negative impacts, such as a
decline in water provisioning and non-material contributions, such as identity or psychological
experiences, are projected.
Nature: The future of nature indicators under the global sustainable development archetype is
generally positive for the north-western part of Western Europe, especially for marine ecosystems
(Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). The biomass of fish and shellfish populations are projected to increase
and to develop enhanced traits (e.g. length, health), and to benefit from increased species diversity
and greater intactness index (Hattam et al., 2015). In northern, continental and Atlantic areas of

855
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Western and Central Europe, arable and forest species are expected to remain resilient to the changes
associated with this archetype (Dunford, Smith, et al., 2015b). However, biodiversity vulnerability is
expected to be greater in southern and Alpine areas as well as in Germany, France and Greece (Brown
et al., 2014; Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005). In the Mediterranean
Sea, stable measures of ecosystem functioning such as net or gross primary production, and bacterial
biomass suggest that the marine biodiversity of this region may not be impacted by this scenario
archetype (Lazzari et al., 2014).
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Nature’s regulating contributions to people, such as
disturbance mitigation (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013) and total organic carbon regulation (Hattam et
al., 2015) benefit from the environmental policies and the strong cooperation between countries
under this scenario archetype (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). Carbon storage by agriculture, forests or
marine waters is projected to be enhanced across Western and Central Europe (Dunford et al., 2015b;
Eggers et al., 2008; Hattam et al., 2015; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005). This
estimated increase in carbon sequestration is particularly important in continental areas and may
increase the tree carbon stocks of Western and Central Europe from 60 Mg ha-1, as evaluated in 2000,
to 131 Mg ha-1 in 2100 (IPCC SRES B1 storyline; Eggers et al., 2008). Other authors also forecast an
increase in soil fertility, air quality and climate regulation in the Doñana and Biscay regions and the
Basque Country of Spain by 2035 - 2050 (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011), as well as
an increase of erosion control provided by ecosystems by 2050 - 2080 (Lorencová et al., 2013; Palacios-
Agundez et al., 2013). However, in line with the projected decrease in water availability, a growing
number of forest fires is expected in the Mediterranean (Schröter et al., 2005).
Nature’s material contributions to people: Most of the nature’s material contributions to people in
Europe and Central Asia may benefit from the global sustainable development scenario archetype
(Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). In Western and Central Europe, food production is projected to be
enhanced due to improved agriculture practices, higher land use diversity or increased arable land
area (Brown et al., 2015; Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013). Similarly, forest area and timber
production are projected to increase substantially in Western and Central Europe (+19 Mt wood year-
1
by 205 - Dunford et al., 2015b; Eggers et al. 2008). There are, however, clear differences in the trends
of material contributions between northern and southern countries of Western and Central Europe.
Several studies highlight positive impacts in northern countries, such as increased biomass of fish and
shellfish populations (Hattam et al., 2015), increased forest products (by more than 19% - Eggers et
al., 2008; Forsius et al., 2013) and increased agricultural yield (by more than 20% - Dunford et al.,
2015b), all of which benefit from increased temperature and from greater afforestation efforts.
Southern countries may also benefit from greater fisheries and increased food production, but a
decrease in water availability in this region may lead to an additional 44.3 million people facing water
insecurity (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011; Schröter et al., 2005). The future of
forest production is less clear as some international studies project a decrease of this contribution of
nature to people in southern countries of Western and Central Europe due to greater water stress
(Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013), while local studies from Spain project an increase
(Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). In a lake system in Uzbekistan, both the water
volume of the lake and the quantity of fish inhabiting it are projected to grow (Rodina & Mnatsakanian,
2012).
Quality of life: As with other contributions of nature to people, several studies conducted in the Europe
and Central Asia region project an increase of various indicators of good quality of life under the global
sustainable development scenario archetype (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). These positive projections
include the number of species of recreational interest, aesthetic and spiritual value, nature and beach
tourism and recreational activities (Hattam et al., 2015; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al.,

856
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2011; Rodina & Mnatsakanian, 2012). Some exceptions to these beneficial impacts were reported in a
study of the Basque Country in Spain, such as a decrease in traditional knowledge or a decrease of
local identity due to the global nature of the scenario archetype (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013).

5.3.3.6 Inequality
Overview: The results associated with the inequality scenario archetype are very limited because only
two studies have been undertaken. Both studies were conducted in Western and Central Europe and
their projections do not encompass nature’s non-material contributions to people or good quality of
life indicators. Overall, this archetype does not show a clear trend in the future of the nature indicators
or material contributions. However, a clear decline is projected in regulating contributions such as
habitat creation and maintenance, and natural hazard regulation.
Nature: The state of the nature indicators under the inequality archetype is stable overall, but is clearly
area-dependent (Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11). Biodiversity is projected to be more vulnerable in the
northern and western parts of Western Europe and more resilient in the eastern and southern parts
of Western and Central Europe (Harrison et al., 2013).
Nature’s regulating contributions to people: Both studies using the inequality archetype agree on a
general decrease in nature’s regulating contributions to people in Western and Central Europe (Figure
5.10 and Figure 5.11). For example, flood mitigation and the proportion of unmanaged lands are
projected to decrease across these subregions (Harrison et al., 2013). The trend is less clear for the
index of land use intensity, with one study projecting a stable trend in this index (Brown et al., 2015)
and another projecting a decrease (Harrison et al., 2013).
Nature’s material contributions to people: As with the nature indicators, trends in nature’s material
contributions to people in Western and Central Europe depend on the areas considered (Figure 5.10
and Figure 5.11). For the northern part of Western and Central Europe, material contributions are
generally projected to increase (Harrison et al., 2013). This is, for example, the case for intensive and
extensive farming and forest area. In southern parts of Western and Central Europe, the inequality
archetype is associated with a decrease in food and forestry-related contributions, but an increase in
the water exploitation index as water demand exceeds supply.

5.3.3.7 Comparing impacts across subregions

Despite clear differences between impacts in nature, its contributions to people, and quality of life
indicators under the six scenario archetypes, some consistent trends within each of the subregions of
Europe and Central Asia are apparent across all or most archetypes (Figure 5.12). Note this figure and
accompanying text focus on trends, which broadly agree on the direction of the impact across the
scenario archetypes, sometimes with one exception. The reader is referred to the previous sections,
Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11 for detailed descriptions of impacts within each subregion of Europe and
Central Asia for each individual scenario archetype. In Figure 5.12 the Western Europe subregion has
been sub-divided into five areas due to the larger number of studies for this subregion, which provide
greater information on geographical variation in impacts.

857
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Western Europe: In the northern part of Western Europe, most scenario archetypes project increases
in agricultural production for bioenergy, food and feed (Brown et al., 2015; Dunford et al., 2015b;
Forsius et al., 2013; Harrison et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005) and increases in forest area and timber
provision (Eggers et al., 2008; Forsius et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005), with the exception of the
inequality archetype, where it declines (Harrison et al., 2013). However, such increases in agricultural
areas may result in an overall increase in biodiversity vulnerability for both land and aquatic
ecosystems across archetypes (Harrison et al., 2013; Hattam et al., 2015), with the exception of global
sustainable development, where it is more resilient (Harrison et al., 2013).
In the Atlantic region of Western Europe, forest area and yield is projected to decrease under all
scenario archetypes (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013) except for inequality, which projects
increases in forest area (Harrison et al., 2013). This results in stable or decreasing carbon sequestration
in most scenario archetypes (Dunford, et al., 2015b; Lamarque et al., 2014; Verkerk et al., 2014), except
global sustainable development where it increases (Eggers et al., 2008). Enhanced growth and biomass
of marine populations are projected for all archetypes (Blanchard et al., 2012; Forsius et al., 2013;
Hattam et al., 2015; Lazzari et al., 2014; Merino et al., 2012), but regional competition which shows
decreases in the biomass and quality of fish communities (Hattam et al., 2015). Adaptive marine
management strategies aimed at reducing nutrient loads as well as sustainable fishery were suggested
as being vitally important for the area in the future, as climate change is expected to intensify the
challenges in the area (Meier et al., 2012, 2014).

858
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Southern parts of Western Europe and the Mediterranean region show decreases in agricultural
production (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013) and timber production (Dunford et al., 2015b;
Harrison et al., 2013) across scenario archetypes, as well as increases in water stress (Dunford et al.,
2015b; Eggers et al., 2008; Schröter et al., 2005). Greater biodiversity vulnerability in land ecosystems
(Brown et al., 2015; Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2013), stable or slight declines in bacterial
and planktonic populations (Lazzari et al., 2014) and decreases in the number of terrestrial species
(Eggers et al., 2008; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005) are also projected across all
scenario archetypes. Some positive impacts are projected across most scenario archetypes. These
include increases in air quality regulation (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011), with the
exception of economic optimism (Palomo et al., 2011), and greater recreational activities and tourism
(Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011), except in regional competition where beach
tourism declines (Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011). Successful international and
cross-sectoral coordination of adaptive measures, such as in global sustainable development, was
projected to be crucial for dealing with these environmental challenges (Dunford et al., 2015b).
Projections for Alpine areas of Western Europe show consistent decreases in climate regulation
(Hirschi et al., 2013) and stable or declining landscape beauty, tourism and recreational activities
(Forsius et al., 2013; Hirschi et al., 2013; Schirpke et al., 2013; Schröter et al., 2005) across scenario
archetypes. Studies found that the farmers’ awareness of the values of nature’s contributions to
people can lead to more sustainable land use practices, with beneficial consequences in service
provision levels (e.g. forage quantity and quality) and nature protection (Lamarque et al., 2013).
Synergetic relationships between carbon storage (regulation of climate) and forest protective
functions (regulation of the natural hazards of avalanches and rockfalls) and nature indicators in
Central and Western European mountain forests were identified under some scenarios (Mina et al.,
2017). Adaptive management practices were also projected to alter the vulnerability of the majority
of nature’s contributions to people, but no single management strategy was found to be beneficial for
all areas. Rather each site has to be considered individually as adaptive management can create shifts
in the synergies and trade-offs between contributions (Mina et al., 2016).
Central Europe: In Central Europe, most scenario archetypes project increases in timber production,
logging residues and forest increment (Dunford et al., 2015b; Eggers et al., 2008; Verkerk et al., 2014),
but decreases in carbon sequestration (Lorencová et al., 2016; Lorencová et al., 2013; Verkerk et al.,
2014). Predominantly decreasing impacts on contributions in agricultural systems were also projected
for climate, erosion and water quality regulation, but increasing impacts for food provision in the Czech
Republic (Lorencová et al., 2016; Lorencová et al., 2013). Biodiversity is also projected to be more
resilient across scenario archetypes according to integrated modelling studies (Dunford et al., 2015b;
Kirchner et al., 2015), although single sector studies reported in Chapter 3 show decreases in species
abundance and diversity under the business-as-usual scenario. Ruijs et al. (2013) suggest that win-win
solutions can be achieved for biodiversity and carbon sequestration on the one hand and agriculture
on the other, if nature’s contributions to people are improved in areas with low opportunity costs and
agriculture is intensified in the areas with high opportunity costs.
Increases in water stress were projected under dystopian scenarios (similar to the economic optimism
and regional competition scenario archetypes) (Dunford et al., 2015b; Harrison et al., 2015; Kara,
2014), leading to significant decreases in the contributions of wetlands (Okruszko et al., 2011). The
studies suggest that adaptive management is required to protect environmental flows, especially for
reservoir operation rules. Best management practices, such as vegetation management, tillage
practices, early crop sowing and erosion control in forest and agricultural fields, were also projected
to regulate hydrological flows and reduce nutrient loads in lakes (Burek et al., 2012; Erol & Randhir,
2013). Alternatively, Schröter et al. (2005) found that reforestation of mountainous areas in the

859
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Danube River catchment results in shifts in the seasonality of flows and increases in water stress.
Similarly, Piniewski et al. (2014) showed that a sustainable “greening” scenario would lead to lower
environmental flows 36 than a business-as-usual scenario. The authors suggest that this potentially
counter-intuitive result can be interpreted as a trade-off whereby producing a “greener” environment
in terms of larger percentages of forests and extensive grasslands is at the cost of surface water
resources and potentially aquatic ecosystems.
Eastern Europe: There were only a few integrated modelling studies available for Eastern Europe, but
these projected consistent impacts across scenario archetypes for increases in fisheries production in
Russia (Merino et al., 2012), showing that effective fisheries management coupled with technological
advances would enable fish demand to be met. Studies also projected greater effects of wildfires on
ecosystems (Chertov et al., 2014; Shanin et al., 2011) across scenario archetypes. However, the effects
of forest management strategies on trade-offs between wood extraction and carbon sequestration
varied by scenario archetype. Scenarios assuming natural forest development (i.e. no cuttings) resulted
in the forest ecosystem becoming a carbon sink under the influence of climate change, whereas
management scenarios focusing on wood harvesting resulted in the forest ecosystem becoming a
carbon source (Shanin et al., 2011; Zamolodchikov et al., 2014). Reforestation of areas set aside from
agricultural activities in Russia were also suggested to improve carbon accumulation in the future.
Central Asia: There were also only a few integrated modelling studies available for Central Asia. These
projected increases in food and feed provisions in the short-term (2010-2040) leading to increases in
farmer revenues (Bobojonov & Aw-Hassan, 2014) across archetypes. The authors suggest that farmers
will face trade-offs between cash crop production and more extensive sustainable production as the
profitability of different crops and resource scarcity change under climate change and different
management regimes. Nitrogen retention is also projected to improve near agricultural fields due to
increases in irrigation water reuse resulting from decreased water availability (Jarsjö et al., 2017). This
may also increase the amount of nitrogen in soils and dissolved in the groundwater aquifers next to
agricultural fields.
The region is also projected to experience greater water stress and the drying out of lakes (Medeu et
al., 2015; Rodina & Mnatsakanian, 2012; Schlüter & Rüger, 2007). Sustainable integrated water and
land management strategies, including water recycling, renovation of irrigation systems, installation
of more efficient irrigational systems and improved restoration of pastures, were suggested as options
to negate these negative effects. Capacity building (including providing farmers with access to
technologies, such as improved irrigation systems) and cooperation between Central Asian countries
was also considered to be crucial for tackling water stress and counteracting the negative effects of
climate change on the volume of the lakes in the region.

5.3.3.8 Comparing impacts related to the different governance approaches in the scenario
archetypes
Contrasting impacts are projected across the different plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia
(Figure 5.10). Generally, the indicators related to nature, its contributions to people, and good quality
of life show more positive impacts under the global sustainable development and regional
sustainability scenario archetypes than under the economic optimism, regional competition, inequality
and business-as-usual scenario archetypes. This is particularly noticeable for the set of indicators of

36 Environmental flows describe the quantity, quality and timing of water flows that are required to maintain the components,

functions, processes, and resilience of aquatic ecosystems.

860
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

nature’s contributions to people. These broad variations in impacts under different types of plausible
futures have been discussed by various authors. For example, Palacios-Agundez et al. (2013), Palomo
et al. (2011), and Schröter et al. (2005), showed that in general terms, nature’s contributions to people
are expected to be more negatively influenced under socio-economic scenarios which are associated
with a reactive governance of environmental issues (e.g. economic optimism or regional competition)
than under the proactive environmental policies that are found in sustainable scenarios (e.g. global
sustainable development or regional sustainability).
Furthermore, the main objective of the “sustainability” archetypes is to promote a more holistic
approach to managing human and environmental systems, which supports multifunctionality and
many of nature’s contributions to people. Alternatively, the economic optimism, regional competition
and inequality scenario archetypes are motivated by economic growth or national security. These
archetypes focus more on the self-interest of individuals or “elite” groups in society and tend to
promote a more limited number of nature’s contributions to people, particularly material
contributions such as agricultural and timber production. This is supported by studies that examined
trade-offs between nature’s contributions to people and showed that increases in food provision
(generally associated with the expansion of agricultural land or the intensification of livestock
production and fish captures) were linked to decreasing provision of regulating contributions (e.g.
prevention of soil erosion, regulation of water quality and quantity) and nature values (e.g. ecosystem
functioning and compositional intactness indicators) (Briner et al., 2013; Dunford et al., 2015b;
Harrison et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011; Posthumus et al. 2010). Similar trade-offs have also been
identified between other material contributions (e.g. timber extraction) and regulating (e.g. carbon
storage) and non-material contributions (e.g. aesthetic value). For example, Dunford et al. (2015b);
Schirpke et al. (2013); Verkerk et al. (2014) found that increasing wood extraction reduces the value
of forests as a carbon sink and ultimately leads to highly managed forest that are aesthetically
unattractive (decreasing its cultural/recreation values) and/or biodiversity poor.
Bateman et al. (2013) demonstrated that future changes in market (e.g. agricultural production) and
non-market values (e.g. open-access recreation, urban green space and wild-species diversity) in the
UK show opposite trends depending on the severity of the environmental regulations of the scenario
considered, regardless of climate trends. The authors concluded that reactive scenarios with weaker
environmental regulations, such as economic optimism, tend to promote high-intensity agriculture
even at the expense of converting protected areas. This results in strong positive effects in market
values and negative effects in non-market values. Alternatively, proactive scenarios with strong
environmental regulations, such as global sustainable development, lead to strong positive effects in
non-market values and losses in market values. This also highlights the importance of implementing
integrated management approaches which aim to optimize both market and non-market values
simultaneously, although the authors acknowledge the difficulty in developing such approaches given
the clear trade-offs that exist between some indicators of nature and its contributions to people (e.g.
agricultural yields and wild-species diversity).
A more detailed description of impacts on indicators of nature and its contributions to people across
different scenario archetypes is provided in Box 5.5 based on an integrated modelling study for
Western and Central Europe which included multiple drivers, multiple sectors and was conducted as
part of a participatory process involving inputs from different groups of relevant stakeholders.
Box 5.5: A detailed example of the use of scenario archetypes in regional integrated assessment
modelling: The CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform.

861
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This box provides an illustrative example of scenario exploration within an integrated modelling study included
in our literature review: the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform (IAP) for Europe (defined as the European
Union plus Norway and Switzerland). The CLIMSAVE IAP is an interactive, web-based, cross-sectoral modelling
platform that uses a coupled-component modelling approach combining models for six sectors: urban,
agriculture, water, forestry, fluvial/coastal flooding, and biodiversity (Figure 5.13).
There are four socio-economic scenarios embedded within the CLIMSAVE IAP, which were developed with
stakeholders. These scenarios include one utopian scenario of the global sustainable development archetype (we
are the world); two dystopian scenarios of the regional competition archetype (should I stay or should I go and
Icarus) and an inequality archetype (riders on the storm). These socio-economic scenarios are combined with a
range of climate change scenarios representing different emissions pathways. This allows the influence of climate
and socio-economic drivers to be explored independently or in combination to answer questions related to the
limits of adaptation: What influence does a green society have in an extreme climate? What are the impacts of
a dystopian society under moderate climate change?
The CLIMSAVE IAP produces outputs of nature’s contributions to people including: food and timber provision,
water availability, climate regulation and habitat for species (Dunford et al., 2015a, 2015b). It also provides proxy
indicators related to land use composition “land use experience”, non-urban land not allocated to the production
of food or timber, and “land use diversity” which reflects the variety of different land uses available and is seen
as a proxy for ecosystem multifunctionality. Dunford et al. (2015b) modelled impacts on nature’s contributions
to people in the European Union as well as Norway and Switzerland for the global sustainable development (we
are the world) and regional competition (should I stay or should I go) scenarios combined with both moderate
and extreme climate change scenarios (Figure 5.14).

862
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Figure 5.14 highlights the differences between plausible combinations of climate and socio-economic scenarios:
the regional competition scenario with an extreme climate driven by high emissions and the global sustainable
development scenario with a moderate climate driven by lower emissions. Within both scenarios food provision
targets for the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland are projected to be met by increasing the provision
of food in continental, northern and Alpine regions. However, within the regional competition scenario, the
combined pressures of failed technological innovation and an expanding population lead to significant stress
being put on the agricultural system to feed the population. Lack of technological development leads to limited
options to increase food production in current agricultural areas. Instead, the model projects that it is more cost-
effective to expand the agricultural area leading to significant land use change reducing forested land and, thus,
nature’s forest-based contributions to people. This is shown by a decline in timber provision and atmospheric
regulation across these parts of Western and Central Europe (Figure 5.14).

863
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The global sustainable development scenario shows quite different impacts. As with the regional competition
scenario, the model projects an increase in food demand due to an increase in population (although more
moderate). However, this does not lead to widespread land use change, due to a high level of technological
development, which makes irrigation 26% more effective and agricultural yields 15% higher due to
improvements in agronomy. As this allows more food to be produced in less space and without needing to change
spatial patterns of land use, there is considerably less change in habitats and their associated contributions of
nature to people than was seen in the regional competition scenario. Instead, timber provision increases in the
northern, Alpine and continental parts of Europe (in this case the European Union plus Norway and Switzerland)
while atmospheric regulation increases in the northern, Alpine and southern parts. In addition, the global
sustainable development scenario leads to a reduced level of water exploitation relative to the impacts under
climate change alone because of increases in water savings through technology and behaviour change.
Results show that trade-offs are projected between nature’s contributions to people in both scenarios,
particularly between southern and northern Europe with respect to agricultural- and forest-related contributions
(Dunford et al., 2015b). The authors show that southern Europe becomes less able to maintain competitive
agriculture even under moderate climate change, while agriculture in northern Europe largely benefits from the
warmer climate. In northern Europe, the scenarios result in trade-offs between projected increases in agricultural
production to meet European food demand and decreases in forestry (due to agricultural competition for land)
and the associated impacts on timber, recreation and cultural identify. Alternatively, in southern Europe,
projected decreases in food production are shown to have considerable impacts on social, local and national
heritage and tourism-related contributions of nature to people dependent on local food production.

864
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The analysis of Dunford et al. (2015b) also highlights that, while climate scenarios have a significant influence on
nature’s contributions to people, socio-economic scenarios (consisting of indirect drivers) have an equally if not
more significant role in modifying these contributions. Sustainability-type scenarios, where technology and
behavioural change focus on reduced water use, improved irrigation efficiency, improved crop yields and less
red meat consumption, considerably reduce the pressure placed on the agricultural system and lead to less
dramatic land use change with less knock-on impacts on nature’s contributions to people.
End of Box 5.5

5.3.4 Linking future impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of
life, to policy goals and targets
The projections of impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life indicators
under the six scenario archetypes for Europe and Central Asia were compared with the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets using expert opinion to estimate the extent to which
these policy goals and targets are likely to be achieved under the different scenario archetypes. Results
of this analysis show relative estimations of success (projected positive impacts) and failure (projected
negative impacts) to reach individual Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets
under the different scenario archetypes (Figure 5.15), recognizing the different time frame of the
scenarios to those stated in the policy targets. As the analysis is based on expert opinion and a limited
number of integrated studies, we do not interpret results for specific targets, but rather aim to provide
a broad indication of the scenario archetypes which are likely to lead to success instead of failure across
the full range of Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
The analysis shows that the “sustainability” scenario archetypes (regional sustainability and global
sustainable development) are estimated to achieve the majority of Sustainable Development Goals
and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Such scenarios attempt to provide various contributions of nature to
people and aspects of a good quality of life. Thus, they represent a greater diversity of values, but often
at the expense of lower, or less intensive, production of material contributions. In contrast, the
fragmented world of regional competition is expected to lead to failure in the majority of the targets,
while economic optimism is estimated to have a mixed level of success in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals, but would fail to achieve the majority of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This may
be because such scenarios tend to lead to trade-offs between nature’s material contributions to people
and regulating and non-material contributions through prioritizing market values. Their focus on
instrumental values and individualistic perspectives, with little acknowledgement of relational or
intrinsic values, are unlikely to offer effective sustainable solutions to environmental and social
challenges (Jacobs et al., 2016).
The reliability of the results for business-as-usual and inequality is lower than for the other scenario
archetypes due to the more limited number of modelling results for these types of scenarios. Bearing
in mind this lower reliability, business-as-usual is estimated to lead to failure in most of the Sustainable
Development Goals, but mixed to positive effects on the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The inequality
scenario archetype shows mixed results for those policy targets for which modelled indicators were
available, with slightly more failure than success for the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

865
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

These results are consistent with recently published research by Kubiszewski et al. (2017), who
presented an assessment of the future total annual values of nature’s contributions to people under
four global scenarios: market forces (part of the economic optimism archetype); fortress world (part of
the regional competition archetype); policy reform (part of the global sustainable development
archetype); and great transitions (part of the regional sustainability archetype). The authors show that
total annual values of nature’s contributions to people decrease the most under the fortress world
scenario, with an average reduction in the value of contributions of -29% across Europe and Central
Asian countries (range from -87 to -4%). The market forces scenario also leads to reductions in values
of these contributions, albeit slightly smaller than under fortress world (-19% average, -72 to +2%
range). In contrast, the policy reform scenario results in only small changes from current 2011 values
(+2% average, -10 to +9% range), while the great transitions scenario results in substantial
improvements in values of nature’s contributions to people of +24% on average across Europe and
Central Asian countries (+19 to +44% range). The authors conclude that the great transitions scenario
(and to a lesser extent the policy reform scenario) embodies many of the Sustainable Development

866
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Goals, and that, therefore, achieving the Goals would involve greatly enhanced contributions of nature
to people, good quality of life and sustainability.
This section has highlighted that the choices made by decision-makers and society in Europe and
Central Asia will likely lead to large differences in impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and
good quality of life. Decisions related to resolving trade-offs are likely to be needed under all scenario
archetypes, even sustainable futures. Such trade-offs would be more likely minimized if decision-
making adopted a holistic (i.e. not siloed) approach that takes account of multiple drivers, diverse
values and competing interests across sectors and regions. Approaches and actions that decision-
makers can take to move society away from futures with undesirable trade-offs towards more
sustainable outlooks are considered in Sections 5.4 and 5.5.

5.4 Visions of sustainable development

Sections 5.2 and 5.3 assessed what might happen in the future under different plausible, exploratory
scenarios for Europe and Central Asia. The next two sections assess what society as a whole, or groups
within the society, want to happen in the future, i.e. visions of desirable futures (Section 5.4, but see
also 5.1.2) and pathways, which attempt to describe a course of actions to achieve such visions (Section
5.5). In particular, Sections 5.4 and 5.5 focus on visions and pathways for sustainable development that
are similar to the scenario archetypes regional sustainability (Sections 5.2.3.4 and 5.3.3.4) and global
sustainable development (Sections 5.2.3.5 and 5.3.3.5). Sustainable development, as conceptualized
in the Sustainable Development Goals or Aichi Biodiversity Targets (see Sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2), is a
global priority, a goal shared by many countries and at the centre of the questions framing the IPBES
regional assessments. Beyond this, we note that societal visions are diverse and some visions may
aspire to futures not related to, or even conflicting with, sustainable development.
Visions have been developed by different stakeholder groups in Europe and Central Asia to guide and
foster their perception of sustainable development and associated pathways to a sustainable future.
We reviewed these visions to (i) analyze their framing of nature, its contributions to people, and good
quality of life, and the linkages between these elements as described by the IPBES conceptual
framework, and (ii) assess which areas for action are being given more importance (see also Section
5.1.2), based on their coverage of key sustainability and biodiversity conservation issues, as formulated
by the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This analysis provides the basis
for assessing the mainstreaming of goals and targets across sectors and the cross-scale coherence of
the visions in Europe and Central Asia.

5.4.1 Review of Europe and Central Asia visioning and pathway exercises
Visions with associated pathways, and a minimum time frame of 15 years, were included in the review.
To be inclusive, we accepted all documents stating to pursue sustainable development or, more
particularly given the focus of IPBES, environmental sustainability. Individual corporate level visions
for private companies were not considered. Relevant documents were identified using keyword
searches in Google, Scopus and Web of Science covering both the scientific and grey literature focusing
on visions, pathways, normative or target-seeking scenarios. This was supplemented by more targeted
searches to fill gaps related to marine studies, wetlands, urban environments, conservation areas and
indigenous and local knowledge. As accessible visions and pathways were rare for most of the Eastern
Europe and Central Asia subregions, we additionally included governmental cross-sectoral

867
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

development strategies and national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). These focus on
biodiversity conservation targets and are often developed for time frames shorter than 15 years.
For our analysis of policy coherence across scales, we also searched for and reviewed 22 global visions
(for the results of the cross-scale comparison see Section 5.1.2, Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4).
Information was systematically extracted from the vision documents on the vision developers (i.e.,
type of actors/stakeholders), target region and geographic scale, activity sector, time frame and main
goals. Furthermore, we examined the framing of nature, its contributions to people, and good quality
of life in the construction of these visions, and how each vision captured the links between these
elements. We also assessed visions’ priority areas for action towards sustainable development and
biodiversity conservation. Here, we used as a reference the list of Sustainable Development Goals and
Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which were related to a dominant dimension of sustainability, that is,
biophysical (Goals 6, 13-15), economic (Goals 8-10, 12), and social (Goals 1-5, 7, 11, 16) (Folke et al.,
2016). Aichi Biodiversity Targets are predominantly related to the biophysical dimension.
The review resulted in 18 visions for the three subregions of Europe in general, and four governmental
development strategies and ten national biodiversity strategies and action plans covering countries in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Details of the reviewed visions and their key features are summarized
in supporting material Appendix 5.1. A targeted search for national or local visions was not undertaken
due to language constraints, but a few thematic exceptions were added to the review. Nevertheless,
we acknowledge that such visions are potentially available and could provide relevant insights.
Examples of visions for topics that are rarely covered are given in boxes, namely an example for
indigenous and local knowledge and the Sami people (Box 5.6) and for a marine protected area (Box
5.7). A box on visions related to bioeconomy (Box 5.8), addresses the special request raised in the
scoping report for the Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia.

5.4.2 Key characteristics of visions of sustainable development for Europe and Central
Asia
Notwithstanding the limited number of retrieved regional visions, the findings from the review suggest
that a broad range of sectors of relevance to nature (e.g. agriculture, forestry, environment, energy
and fisheries), nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life have already been included in
visioning exercises (see supporting material Appendix 5.1). Exceptions are sectors involved in the
development of urban areas or transport, for which there were no sectoral visions at the broad Europe
and Central Asia regional scale. However, several examples on how individual cities envision their
future urban development, including transport, are available (e.g. UK - Eames et al., 2013; Tight et al.,
2011). Sectoral visions were developed by multiple actor initiatives, international organizations, NGOs
or business-oriented organizations.
The vast majority of visions were developed in a participatory way, including diverse stakeholder
groups, for example through workshops, expert interviews and consultations. This shows that a
diversity of perspectives has been incorporated in developing the visions and pathways, and indicates
that deliberation of strategic planning and agenda setting is becoming mainstreamed. Consideration
of indigenous and local knowledge was rarely covered explicitly in the development of visions and
pathways. Most visions included stakeholder or local knowledge, but none explicitly included
indigenous knowledge. However, it was not possible to determine with certainty whether the
stakeholders involved in the participatory development processes were indigenous and local
knowledge holders, nor whether there was a diversity of stakeholders involved (public, private, third
sector stakeholders). Nevertheless, some visions explicitly including indigenous and local knowledge

868
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and practices were found at the national level and below (see Box 5.6). National biodiversity strategies
and action plans and governmental development plans were drafted by governmental agencies,
sometimes including other actors such as academic experts and NGOs, but no further stakeholder
groups.
Most visions were developed with the aim of providing policy support, namely by proposing strategic
areas for action and policy instruments as part of the associated pathways (Section 5.5). For the
reviewed visions, specific goals were often qualitative, providing general guidance instead of clear end-
targets. An exception is the Vision for 2030 of the European Forest-based Sector (where Europe is
defined as 19 European Union countries, plus Norway, Switzerland and Russia), which envisions that
“Recovery, reuse and recycling of forest-based products account for 70% of all recyclable material. The
remaining is used for energy production” (The Forest-based Sector, 2013). Other visions, such as the
EATIP (2012) vision for aquaculture, include quantitative goals for sectoral development and growth
potential, but were less specific on measures of sustainability. The absence of clear end-goals (e.g.
targets that are quantitative, spatially and temporally specific, and that integrate trade-offs with other
targets) can be potentially problematic, as allocation of responsibilities when assessing levels of
achievement or trade-offs between goals is difficult (see Chapter 6 for further discussion).
The interdependency between nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life was best
covered by environmental visions (Table 5.4). Visions from the other reviewed sectors often show
concern about the effects of environmental pressures, such as climate change, conversion of natural
habitat to agriculture, or water pollution, and aim to reduce the impacts, but their goals often miss the
underpinning role of nature in the delivery of nature’s contributions to people and the maintenance
of quality of life. This lack of focus on biodiversity and nature’s contributions is also true for some cross-
sectoral visions although they tend to consider both the need to reduce pressures from human activity
and the need for proactive measures to enhance environmental conditions, partly also through
protection and restoration (e.g., PBL & SRC, 2009).

869
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The sectoral visions exhibit certain foci. The provision of food, fibre, water and energy (including
biofuels), climate change mitigation, and transition to sustainable production modes and consumption
were the prevalent goals among reviewed visions. In this respect, most visions focused on material
and nature’s regulating contributions to people, namely climate regulation, water regulation, natural
hazard regulation and soil protection. Nature’s non-material contributions to people often focused on
physical and psychological experiences, such as recreation.
The development strategies for Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and Belarus focus on economic and
social sustainable development. Although these are cross-sectoral visions, the sectors are addressed
independently from one another, masking potential trade-offs and synergies between different goals.
Sectoral strategies focus on resource extraction and production, with an emphasis on mining, water
and intensive agriculture and intensive forestry. Environmental aspects of the visions relate to the
control of pollution and waste. The national biodiversity strategies and action plans for the countries
of Eastern Europe and Central Asia provide extensive descriptive information on the status of
biodiversity using Red List approaches as a baseline for their primary goal to stop biodiversity loss,
mostly based on the rational of intrinsic values of biodiversity. The concept of ecosystem services (or
nature’s contributions to people) is hardly mentioned at all. Recent national biodiversity strategies and
action plans are mostly aligned with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and, in some cases, also with
Sustainable Development Goals-relevant targets related to poverty alleviation; but not to vulnerable
groups and gender, with the exception of Georgia. Most national biodiversity strategies and action
plans express strong optimism towards achieving conservation as a side effect of economic
development. At the same time, consequences of development such as extractive processes, e.g.
mining, overexploitation, pollution or fragmentation, are named as some of the key drivers of
biodiversity loss.

Box 5.6: Visions including indigenous and local knowledge: an example from the Sami people.

Photo: Geir Rudolfsen

870
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

A number of stakeholder reports and studies from Sweden (The Sami Parliament, 2009), Finland (e.g. Kitti et al.,
2006) and Norway (Norwegian Saami Association, 2008) reflect knowledge from the Sami people. The Sami
Parliament’s Living Environment Program (The Sami Parliament, 2009) for Sweden provides a vision, which
focuses on both sustainable nature and culture: “We wish to live in a resilient Sápmi which is rooted in both
healthy nature and a living (thriving) Sami culture. People and nature shall have a long-term capacity to renew
themselves and to sustainably evolve even in times of significant changes. Both aspects – nature and culture –
shall be experienced as enriching for the surrounding world”.
The vision specifically mentions protection of habitats and ecosystems, and states that “All activities are
conducted according to the precautionary principle. Use of natural resources is conducted sustainably and with
a long-term perspective. Nature is kept clean from non-degradable waste and from materials which threaten
biological diversity or human health”. Sustainable use of forests is emphasized: “both the forest structure,
biological diversity, supply of lichens and connectedness with other important grazing grounds shall be
protected”, but linked to the needs of the reindeer herding industries as found by Sandström et al. (2016).
“Among other things this means that trees are left to grow old, there is no clear-felling and infrastructure such
as roads and windmill-parks are scarce or adapted to the needs of the reindeer”.
End of Box 5.6

Box 5.7: Visions for marine protected areas in France.

Photo: Anthony Caro

In France, including its overseas territories, the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable development and Energy
developed a national strategy for the creation and management of marine protected areas (Government of
France, 2012). This strategy lays down the framework and principles to set up a national network of marine
protected areas. Within each marine protected area belonging to this network, a visioning exercise engaging
local stakeholders (e.g. fishermen, local administrations, tourism operators, energy companies) was undertaken
to define the targets and sub-targets that should be reached within the next 15 years. The visions and associated
targets pertain to natural heritage, water quality, natural resources, sustainable use and development, cultural
heritage, education and governance. Targets can be specific to local contexts, but all marine protected area

871
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

visions link and integrate the protection and management of marine natural resources and heritage, sustainable
development and cultural heritage. The visions included targets for maintaining or improving habitats, species
and communities to ensure that they achieve a good conservation status to maintain high levels of biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning. Other biodiversity-related targets included ensuring terrestrial run-off is compatible
with high standards of water quality, good conservation of marine resources, sustainable management of
fisheries and the associated sector, and the promotion of economic activities which are respectful of the marine
environment.
End of Box 5.7

5.4.3 Key global sustainability goals and targets reflected in visions for Europe and
Central Asia
Overall, Europe and Central Asia visions give priority to sustainable economic growth in tandem with
sustainable industrialization, sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and management of
natural resources in general (see Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 in Section 5.1.2). Climate action through
land use management and the increased share of renewable energy is another priority for the region
(see also Box 5.8). Also perceived as critical is changing people’s behaviour towards more sustainable
consumption patterns and lifestyles. All three dimensions of sustainability are present in Europe and
Central Asia visions (see Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4), in particular the biophysical dimension linked to
nature conservation and sustainable management of natural resources, and the economic dimension
linked to sustainable production and consumption.
Biodiversity related goals, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, are covered to a narrower extent in
the visions than the Sustainable Development Goals (Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4). The overall narrowing
of biodiversity dimensions towards the targets on indirect (Target 4) and direct drivers (Target 7) in
visions for Europe and Central Asia, in particular market pressures from consumption patterns and
direct pressures from agriculture, fisheries and forestry activity, suggests a strong regional priority on
actions to mitigate the cause of environmental impacts (Strategic Goals A and B of the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011-2020). Interestingly, when compared to the global visions (Figure 5.4), the need
to eliminate harmful subsidies (i.e. Target 3) appears to be of lower priority in visions for Europe and
Central Asia. This could be due to a predisposal towards positive policy formulation in countries of the
region, creating new measures and actions, and lower use or acceptance of formulations for
“dismantling” or “disinvestment” or “phasing out” of existing policy measures (Sanderson, 2000).
In addition, the stronger coverage of the Sustainable Development Goals, when compared to the
coverage of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in particular of goals directly related to elements of good
quality of life and to drivers of environmental degradation, could in part be explained by the framing
of several visions in the former set of the Millennium Development Goals, which relied more on
indicators of quality of life and less on nature indicators than the Sustainable Development Goals.
Moreover, the difference in the level of coverage of sustainability and biodiversity conservation issues,
as formulated by the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets, also argues for
the need to move beyond a focus on human needs and quality of life to a more comprehensive
perspective that acknowledges not only socio-ecological systems and their dynamics, but also the
primary role of biodiversity in sustainable development.

Box 5.8: Increasing demand for biological raw materials in a bioeconomy context.

In the scoping document for this chapter, a special request was included to “consider issues that include
increasing demand for biological raw materials in a bioeconomy context (bioenergy, fibres and organic matter),

872
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and water availability.” A number of definitions exist for the bioeconomy, e.g. the OECD “refers to the set of
economic activities relating to the invention, development, production and use of biological products and
processes.” The European Commission (2012) (p.3) defines bioeconomy as “the production of renewable
biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste streams into value-added products, such
as food, feed, bio-based products and bioenergy. Its sectors and industries have strong innovation potential due
to their use of science, enabling and industrial technologies, along with local and tacit knowledge.” The
underlying intention is, however, similar - namely the substitution of fossil fuel resources and to close material
cycles in industrial processes by using renewable resources such as plant materials like wood, agricultural crops,
animal by-products and waste (Hagemann et al., 2016).
When looking, for example, at the European White Paper on the Bioeconomy (BECOTEPS, 2011), Sustainable
Development Goals or Aichi Biodiversity Targets are not directly considered. However, according to a
communiqué of the Global Bioeconomy Summit 2015 a sustainable bioeconomy could make essential
contributions to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals as its potential is particularly geared to the
Sustainable Development Goals related to food security and nutrition (Goal 2), healthy lives (Goal 3), water and
sanitation (Goal 6), affordable and clean energy (Goal 7), sustainable consumption and production (Goal 12),
climate change (Goal 13), oceans, seas and marine resources (Goal 14), and terrestrial ecosystems, forests,
desertification, land and soil degradation, and biodiversity (Goal 15) (see El-Chichakli et al., 2016, for more
details). Anand (2016) also found that the development of the bioeconomy could potentially contribute to Goals
1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 7 (clean energy), 13 (climate action), 14 (life below water) and 15 (life on land),
as it facilitates access to food, drinking water, cheap energy, effective health care and sustainable agriculture
through intensive use of biomass and bioenergy, and the development of biotechnologies. However, there are a
number of issues resulting from an increasing demand for biological raw materials in a bioeconomy context, such
as:
• Inappropriate management of the available biomass resources. To date, one of the major obstacles in
this respect is the lack of biomass utilization and management strategies that take into account the
available regional resources as well as the regional technical and human capacities and infrastructures.
To implement the bioeconomy while at the same time making use of the regional resources
appropriately, there is a need to establish regional bioeconomy strategies (Bezama, 2016).
• This leads to the second issue, namely the current low involvement of national and regional
stakeholders in the definition of regional strategies. There is a need to establish a “regional critical mass”
that defines the key issues and development aspects that should be the basis for the regional strategies.
This would not only allow the definition of the regional issues, but can also be the basis for improving
social acceptance towards the issue of biomass utilization in the bioeconomy field (Thrän & Bezama,
2017).
• On the other hand, there are also issues regarding the development of the industrial sector associated
with the bioeconomy. The implementation of the bioeconomy strategy will not be successful if the
technological development process is carried out in the traditional way. A new, more integrative
technological development process is needed, which is currently being promoted by the new circular
economy strategy. Such a systems perspective for technological development will foster proper
integration of the industrial sector and the biomass production sector, as discussed by Hildebrandt et
al. (2017).

End of Box 5.8

5.4.3.1 Key global sustainability goals and targets in sectoral visions

The main policy priorities identified in the different sectoral visions are matched to the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets in Figure 5.16 and Figure 5.17. The sustainable use
of terrestrial ecosystems (Goal 15) is pursued by all the reviewed agricultural visions, being therefore
a key priority for this sector. Moreover, agricultural visions show a relatively balanced coverage of

873
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

goals similar to the Sustainable Development Goals and their associated dimensions of sustainability
(Figure 5.16). However, visions goals related to Goals 3 to 5 on health, education and gender equity,
which are associated with the social dimension of sustainability, and to Goal 10 on reducing
inequalities between countries, are virtually absent. The reviewed environmental visions agree with
the agricultural visions on the need to work towards goals similar to Goal 15 on protection and
sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, and show a stronger emphasis on the biophysical dimension
of sustainability. Cross-sectoral visions, on the other hand, appear to give lower priority to the
management of nature and natural resources. All reviewed visions aim at sustainable cities (Goal 11),
sustainable consumption habits and lifestyle (Goal 12) and sustainable industrialization (Goal 9).

Regarding the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, both agricultural and cross-sectoral visions focus on Targets
4 and 7, while environmental visions show a balanced coverage of all strategic goals, in particular
Strategic Goal C that focuses on biodiversity condition (Figure 5.17). The weak or even inexistent
coverage of Aichi Biodiversity Targets addressing Strategic Goals C, D and E, especially by the
agricultural and cross-sectoral visions, could reduce the efficiency in efforts to achieve sustainability.
For example, actions related to Target 15 were only found in the visions for the environmental and
forestry sectors and one cross-sectoral vision, despite the urgent need to restore degraded land in
Europe and Central Asia and to enhance ecosystem resilience. This includes solutions both to restore
ecosystems degraded by intensive agriculture and forestry, and to enhance the resilience of
ecosystems affected by agricultural abandonment (Leadley et al., 2013).
The distribution of sectoral priorities not only highlights how the different sectors could promote
synergies for the attainment of global goals, but also reveals potential trade-off between the sectors.
Sectoral actions to promote a particular goal or set of goals may obstruct efforts from other sectors
towards other goals. For instance, the promotion of biofuels by the energy sector, or food production
by the agricultural or fisheries sector, may conflict with efforts to improve water savings and enhance
water quality by the water sector and efforts to conserve nature when land- and seascapes are

874
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

cultivated. Hence, while focusing on the most relevant goals for their sector, sectoral visions should
anticipate cross-sectoral interactions and strive for smart solutions that reduce their impact on other
sectors or even promote synergies with other sectors. Often these trade-offs become apparent only if
the pathways, on how to achieve visions, are analyzed.

5.4.3.2 Key global sustainability goals and targets in regional visions

The main policy priorities identified in the different regional visions are matched to the Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets in Figure 5.3, Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.18. For
example, the cross-sectoral strategies for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Figure 5.18) show a more
balanced coverage of dimensions of sustainability than cross-sectoral strategies for Europe and Central
Asia in general (Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4), but also more diversification (or lower agreement) in the
goals targeted by each document. Investment in clean energy (Goal 7) is the more consensual goal,
pursued by all development strategies. Regarding biodiversity conservation targets, Strategic Goal D,
related to nature’s contributions to people and the maintenance or enhancement of key ecosystems,
appears to be of higher priority than the other strategic goals (Figure 5.19).
National biodiversity strategies and action plans focus inherently on biodiversity conservation and,
therefore, are expected to address Aichi Biodiversity Targets more thoroughly. However, while most
post-2010 national biodiversity strategies and action plans for Eastern European and Central Asian
countries mention the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 as
an overarching goal, not all establish a direct link between national goals and the targets. Those that
do explicitly address a direct link, tend to cover a diverse and almost complete range of Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. A similar pattern was found for national biodiversity strategies and action plans

875
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

from the other subregions of Europe and Central Asia (data not shown, but available at
https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/targets/default.shtml), which also cover a wider range of Aichi
Biodiversity Targets in contrast to what was found in the visions analysis. This divergence between
national biodiversity strategies and action plans, developed by governmental institutions, and societal
visions suggests that more effort is required to mainstream biodiversity and its various dimensions into
strategic planning and decision-making in Europe and Central Asia.

5.4.3.3 Mainstreaming interregional flows in regional visions

While there are some regional differences in visions, a similarity appears to be the disregard of Goal
10 of the Sustainable Development Goals to reduce inequalities within and among countries. This
omission could have important implications in the future. For example, Kitzes et al. (2008) project that
in a business-as-usual scenario we will require the biocapacity of two worlds to satisfy human demand
for nature’s contributions to people by 2050. As shown in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.4, the current
ecological impact measured in global footprint is distributed unevenly among countries. Business-as-
usual scenarios show that the spatial polarization between consuming high income countries
(including Western Europe) and providing poorer countries (including Central and Eastern Europe) will
further increase (Teixidó-Figueras & Duro, 2014). A more concrete example, is provided by Gerbens-
Leenes et al. (2012), who use a scenario approach to analyze global water-use changes related to
increasing biofuel use for road transport in 2030 and evaluate the potential contribution to water

876
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

scarcity. The study finds that amongst the largest biofuel consuming countries, only Brazil will dispose
of sufficient capacity within the country to provide the required water. France and Italy, with ongoing
biofuel production, and Spain and Germany (even without biofuel production) will depend on flows of
water from neighbouring countries.
Lenschow et al. (2015) suggest that the interregional connectedness created by the flows of nature’s
contributions to people between countries, and even continents, gives rise to specific sustainability
challenges, which require new governance solutions. Using the example of soy trade between Brazil
and Germany, Lenschow et al. (2015) show that global governance approaches are likely to result in
unspecific and therefore ineffective policies. The authors suggest that collaboration between nations
might offer more promising opportunities for developing specific solutions. Another policy option
suggested in the literature is to decouple economic growth and ecological impact. By projecting the
decoupling potential of different policy mixes in the European Union, Watkins et al. (2016) find that a
technical policy approach will not be sufficient to reduce environmental impacts, for example on
biodiversity, land use and other indicators. Instead, they suggest medium-term changes in culture and
behavioural patterns to achieve sustainability. Working together towards mainstreaming Goal 10 of
the Sustainable Development Goals further into visions and policies might reveal a way to deal with
this sustainability challenge.

5.5 Pathways for sustainable development

Pathways consist of different strategies for moving from the current situation towards a desired future
vision or set of specified targets. They are purposive courses of actions that build on each other, from
short-term to long-term actions into broader transformation (Ferguson et al., 2013; Frantzeskaki et al.,
2012; Wise et al., 2014). As such, pathways (i) build or re-create favourable resilience and break down
undesired resilience as well as reduce vulnerability through mitigation, adaptation and transformation
actions that address drivers and impacts of system change; and (ii) build the system’s capacities that
establishes the conditions for the pathway trajectories (Poustie et al. 2016; Wise et al., 2014).
Pathways studies have only been recently developed in research on nature and its contributions to
people (e.g. Brown et al., 2016), building on experience from the energy sector, sustainability studies
and climate adaptation. They provide information to policy- and decision-makers on which strategies
and actions may be compatible with an identified vision. Such evidence can support the design of long-
term policy, allowing for innovation and creativity in the development of solutions that enhance nature
and its contributions to people, and foster a good quality of life.
This section reviews pathways that have been developed to realize the visions analyzed in Section 5.4
as well as goals and targets similar to the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. Furthermore, it compares the consistency of the pathways with the scenario archetypes
described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 from the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi
Biodiversity Targets.

5.5.1 Review of global, and Europe and Central Asian pathways

As detailed in Section 5.4.1, visions and pathways that target sustainable development were selected
for this review. In addition to the studies analyzed for their visions (Section 5.4), a specific review of
the pathways literature was conducted focusing on local-scale studies, and especially on studies
incorporating indigenous and local knowledge and societal transformations, such as no-GDP growth,

877
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

lifestyle change or other societal transformations (supporting material Appendix 5.2). Information
extracted from the document sources included trade-offs addressed, actions related to land/sea use
and management, nature, its contributions to people, good quality of life and/or anthropogenic assets.
Furthermore, we analyzed pathways’ coherence, and whether the actions suggested by the pathways
could be considered transformational. We also checked whether the pathways took into account cross-
sectoral integration, including the mainstreaming of environmental objectives into other sectors, or
cross-scale interactions and related trade-offs, and which values were considered and how.
As mentioned in Section 5.4, no study explicitly included indigenous knowledge at the scale of Europe
and Central Asia. Noteworthy exceptions are provided in local level case studies (Hanspach et al., 2014;
Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011, see Box 5.9 for further details) and a study on strategies
to deal with frictions in transformation movements (Demeulenaere, 2014). Moreover, while
indigenous and local knowledge does not explicitly feature in countries’ development strategies or the
national biodiversity strategies and action plans of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, some of them
mention indigenous and local knowledge-related issues, for example, the importance of traditional
crop varieties and breeds for adaptation to climate change.
More than two thirds of the pathways studies considered the concept of value. Among those
considering values, this was explicit in about 80% of the cases, and implicit otherwise. Pathways studies
included different dimensions of value: about 60% used the concept of value as good quality of life
(anthropocentric relational values); about 30% as nature’s contributions to people (i.e.
anthropocentric instrumental values) and only about 10% as nature (non-anthropocentric or intrinsic
values). Most studies focused primarily on values associated with non-material contributions to people
(60%), followed by regulating contributions (20%), and finally material contributions (20%).
Box 5.9: Pathways including indigenous and local knowledge and practices (based on Oteros-Rozas
et al., 2013).

This study focused on the agro-pastoral strategy of transhumance in south-central Spain as a traditional way of
adapting to fluctuating and seasonal environmental factors for livestock production. This long-term practice
rooted in prehistory has been shaping and maintaining biodiversity at all levels. Today this practice is declining
or already abandoned because of the integration of animal production into the global market economy and the
dominance of the global food system. In light of global environmental change, including climate and land use
change, sustainable livestock production systems adapted to local environments have seen renewed interest.
Against this background, participatory scenario planning was performed with 68 stakeholders including herders,
administrators, NGOs and scientists. The aim was to envision plausible futures for transhumance and to enlighten
policymaking on the maintenance of this practice along the “Consequence Drove Road”, one of the largest
transhumant social-ecological networks still in use in Spain. Among the specific goals was also to analyze trade-
offs between different contributions of nature to people between different scenarios and their effect on a good
quality of life.
Four plausible future scenarios were built, each showing clear trade-offs in the delivery of 19 studied
contributions, such as food, fibre, soil fertility, fire prevention, cultural identity, local ecological knowledge and
other dimensions of good quality of life. Nine management strategies for the maintenance of transhumance
were identified by the stakeholders. Priority was given to implementation of payment schemes for nature’s
contributions to people, the enhancement of social capital among transhumants, the improvement of product
marketing and the restoration of the drove roads. All the mentioned measures will enhance and make
transhumance economically viable for younger generations. The results and recommendations of the
participatory exercise were linked to the current reform of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy that
aims for sustainable food production by strengthening links between food production and various contributions
from nature to people. Thus, this study is an example of how to design pathways towards the goal/vision of
sustainable livestock production by incorporating indigenous and local knowledge, a foundation in the
transhumance practice, into a scenario exercise.

878
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 5.9

The majority of the pathways reviewed for Europe and Central Asia are open-ended storylines (without
quantification) and mainly present orientations for strategic action to address a respective vision.
Examples of pathways supported by quantification from exploratory scenarios are highlighted in
Section 5.5.5. In line with the international agenda on sustainable development (e.g. FAO, 2014; IGBP,
2009; IPCC, 2012) and the Sustainable Development Goals, the pathways broadly aim to address
several sustainability challenges, including: (i) food provision (Goal 2) while ensuring water availability
and water quality (Goal 6) and minimizing biodiversity loss (Goal 15); (ii) mitigating climate change
(Goal 13) while enhancing energy security (Goal 7), contributing to health (Goal 3) and offering
practical and workable solutions for low carbon transport systems; and (iii) promoting economic
wealth (Goals 8 and 9), relational values and equity (Goal 10). In line with these international priorities,
Europe and Central Asia visions prioritize (Section 5.1.2; Figure 5.3):
• two Sustainable Development Goals relating to the biophysical dimension of sustainability:
Goals 13 (climate action) and 15 (life on land);
• three Sustainable Development Goals relating to the economic dimension of sustainability:
Goals 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry and innovation) and 12 (responsible
consumption and production); and
• two Sustainable Development Goals relating to the social dimension of sustainability: Goals 7
(clean energy) and 11 (sustainable cities).
In addition to addressing the above challenges, the pathways also aim to mitigate trade-offs between
different aspects of nature, its contributions to people and good quality of life. Major trade-offs
relating to land, addressed by pathways studies and national biodiversity strategies and action plans
alike, concern on the one hand food, fibre and energy provisioning, and on the other hand biodiversity
and regulating contributions for the preservation of soils, water quantity and quality, and regulation
of water-related hazards, climate and air quality.
In the European Union, Prins et al. (2017) and Van Zeijts et al. (2017) suggest that most future conflicts
and synergies will potentially occur in urbanized and mountainous regions. For example, in urban and
peri-urban regions, synergies may be found between cultural landscapes that are attractive for
recreation and regulating services, such as pollination. Alternatively, conflicts could arise between the
development of private landscape parks and free accessibility for recreation, and between intensive
agriculture and the attractiveness of landscapes. In mountainous areas, regulating services, such as
water retention and carbon sequestration, may be compatible with the large-scale development of
wild nature and private parks for tourism. While the development of large nature areas with natural
dynamics may conflict with the conservation of historically characteristic landscapes (Prins et al., 2017;
van Zeijts et al., 2017).
In the Mediterranean region and Eastern Europe, pathways for land address additional trade-offs
resulting from land abandonment regarding biodiversity, the regulation of fire hazards, and nature’s
non-material contributions to people associated with indigenous and local knowledge (e.g. Hanspach
et al., 2014; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013). In northern areas of Western Europe (Sami land) and Russia /
Central Asia, trade-offs between exploitative land use, e.g. mining, and pastoral activities by
indigenous herders are at the core of current conflicts and future pathways (Heikkinen et al., 2012;
Roué & Molnar, 2017).
In coastal areas, pathways address the tension between intensive food production (fisheries,
aquaculture and intensive agriculture), nature’s material contributions to people and non-material

879
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

contributions associated with tourism on the one hand, and on the other hand biodiversity and
regulating contributions for the preservation of freshwater quantity and quality, coastal and marine
water quality, and for hazard regulation (Palomo et al., 2011; Palacios-Agundez et al., 2013).
In the following sections actions within pathways regarding nature, its contributions to people, and
good quality of life are described in terms of four types of narratives (Section 5.5.2), including the
policy instruments considered to support these actions (Section 5.5.3). The trade-offs observed within
pathways are then reviewed (Sections 5.5.4 and 5.5.5), and how these may be mitigated by cross-scale
integration and the mainstreaming of environmental goals across sectors (Section 5.5.6).

5.5.2 Narratives of pathways for nature, nature’s contributions to people, and a good
quality of life
Pathways can be clustered into internally consistent narratives based on the alternative system
properties that they mobilize through their actions and strategies (in a similar manner to how scenarios
are clustered into scenario archetypes in Section 5.2 based on the changes in drivers they represent).
Luederitz et al. (2017) distinguish four groups of narratives describing pathways to sustainability
according to the structural and societal transformations, and associated system properties, upon
which they focus:
• The green economy narrative addresses transitions toward decreased environmental
degradation and resource depletion through green growth supported by “policy instruments
that incentivize and regulate specific economic activities” (Luederitz et al., 2017).
• The low carbon transformation narrative encompasses all pathways focusing primarily on
mitigating climate change and adapting to climate change impacts, whether at large
geographic and governance scales through incentives and regulatory instruments or through
local spatial planning and behavioural control. Similar to the green economy narrative priority
is given to the top-down governance of transitions to sustainability.
• The ecotopian solutions narrative addresses unsustainable development and associated
environmental impacts through transitions toward “greater socio-ecological integrity”. It does
this by challenging current belief systems, lifestyles and living spaces with bottom-up,
politically alternative initiatives of self-organization at the community or neighbourhood level
to work towards local-scale, self-sufficiency.
• The transition movements narrative also focuses on fundamental individual and social changes
to propose alternatives to economic growth and globalization, and their negative social and
environmental impacts. Although also starting from local, bottom-up initiatives, in contrast to
ecotopian solutions, transition movements aim to scale-up to whole system transformation.
Importantly, these four narratives are complementary and non-exclusive, with specific themes such as
innovation or multifunctional land use incorporated within multiple narratives.
The Europe and Central Asia pathways were classified according to the four narratives of Luederitz et
al. (2017). For each narrative, alternative pathways could be identified, which vary in their sets of
concrete actions and strategies (Figure 5.19). Below we describe the main features of each narrative
adapted for the Europe and Central Asia studies in terms of their component actions for land use and
land management, nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life.

880
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.5.2.1 Green economy and low carbon transformation pathways

The majority of pathways for Europe and Central Asia fit the green economy or low carbon
transformation narratives. In the green economy narrative, pathways rely on diversification and
sustainable intensification of all production activities (agriculture, forestry, fisheries) and increased
protection and restoration of biodiversity. The pathways promote improved quality and diversity of
forest, agricultural and marine production, supported by healthy soils and wetlands/water.
Furthermore, they contribute to employment and improved food safety, nutrition and health. As a
result, these pathways rely largely on relational values (e.g. governance and justice, security and
livelihoods, health and well-being) mentioned in around 50% of the studies, but they also consider
instrumental values (e.g. nature’s material and non-material contributions to people) (ca. 30%)
followed by a no-values perspective about nature (ca. 20%). Intrinsic values (e.g. biodiversity,
biophysical processes) were not explicitly mentioned in any of the studies associated with the green
economy pathway.
Pathways from the low carbon transformation narrative may be considered as a subset of the green
economy narratives, with a specific focus on biofuel production, reforestation and forest management.
Based on a similar set of values to green economy, but with a much greater focus on instrumental
values, they contribute to increased regulation of climate, energy access and security, improved health
(regulation of air quality), and reduced risks from regulation of hazards and extreme events.
Alternative pathways within the green economy and the low carbon transformation narratives focus
on the following three different sets of actions:

881
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

• Innovation pathways within green economy and low carbon transformation narratives rely on
technological innovation to address sustainability and resolve trade-offs. They do this by
supporting more efficient land use allocation and management through, for example, agro-
ecological practices, water-smart agriculture, precision farming, smart and sustainable forest
use, increased fish farming, biofuels and biogas. These benefit nature by reducing land/sea
area consumption, decreasing climate impacts, increasing climate change adaptation of
production activities and supporting nature protection and restoration. While mostly focused
on increasing nature’s material contributions to people, and thereby employment, income and
nutrition, they explicitly aim to reduce their trade-offs with regulating contributions and to
improve health.
• Multifunctionality within green economy and low carbon transformation narratives can play
out at different scales. The most common multifunctionality pathways rely on land sharing
with lower management intensity and diversification of production of nature’s contributions
to people within individual land/sea/water uses and across uses at landscape to regional scale.
Apart from decreasing intensification, such subregional scale multifunctionality, is often
associated with the promotion of conservation, restoration and sustainable use of land and
wetlands. Direct benefits of these land use actions are expected for agricultural, forest, soil,
water and wetland biodiversity. The improvement of nature is in turn expected to support
both quality production and nature’s regulating contributions to people, especially in soils and
water. Further benefits are expected for climate resilience and mitigation, and for recreation.
• Although less common, green economy land sparing pathways promote regional (Europe and
Central Asia)-scale multifunctionality. These focus on concentrating production activities in the
most favourable areas, while protecting, and in some cases abandoning, selected ecosystems
or areas. According to such pathways, this land allocation and management strategy is
suggested to benefit nature conservation and total provision of nature’s contributions to
people, at the regional scale, including in particular climate change mitigation and recreation
or wilderness tourism, especially for urban dwellers. Implicit in this pathway is the assumption
that the biodiversity of cultural landscapes has a lower value to society compared to the
resumption of “wild” biodiversity.
Overall, for the green economy or low carbon transformation narratives, most actions in pathways at
the Europe and Central Asia level focus on land-freshwater-sea use or management and nature and its
contributions to people, with fewer actions directly targeting a good quality of life.

5.5.2.2 Transition movements pathways

In contrast to the green economy and low carbon transformation narratives, pathways of the transition
movements narrative involve changes in relational values towards resource-sparing lifestyles, and in
some cases, they emphasize explicitly non-GDP growth. They incorporate the development of
innovative forms of agriculture combining indigenous and local knowledge with technological
innovations (e.g. agroecology, agroforestry, organic agriculture, urban agriculture), and transport and
energy models that limit impacts on nature, climate and water. Relational values are at the centre of
proposed actions, including education, the incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge and
cultural diversity. Enhancing quality of life, especially by supporting the Sustainable Development
Goals, is complemented by a focus on reduced social inequities and full employment. These goals are

882
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

enabled by new social models, which aim to reduce market globalization and interregional flows, and
support cultural identities, knowledge sharing and transformative capabilities. Here, transformative
capabilities are defined as individual and collective capacities to improve and enrich their quality of life
by changing factors affecting their lives, of which the environment is central. Apart from education,
they include for instance social capital, local leadership and empowerment, building trust and
collaboration. All types of values are represented within transitions movements pathways, with
relational values having the greatest emphasis (ca. 41%) followed by instrumental (ca. 18%) and
intrinsic values (ca. 9%).
Specific pathways of transition movements narratives focus on resource-sparing lifestyles (including
e.g. food and energy), or on transformative capabilities (including common actions), though these two
categories are not mutually exclusive.
• Resource-sparing lifestyle pathways emphasize change in dietary and overall consumption
patterns. These changes are associated with innovative land use or management such as agro-
ecological methods, including organic agriculture, possibly also in coexistence with more
intensive production regionally. Other changes suggest a radically reduced energy
consumption and new urban spatial structure and planning. All these changes in lifestyles are
intended to have beneficial effects for biodiversity at species, habitat and landscape levels.
With explicit inclusion of intrinsic and relational values, these pathways invoke a strong
reliance on nature’s regulating contributions to people, as well as benefits from material and
non-material contributions. Together these promote all aspects of a good quality of life,
including continuous education, participatory transdisciplinary research and social capital, and
the preservation of cultural diversity, indigenous and local knowledge and social equity.

• Transformation capabilities pathways mostly emphasize the role of local empowerment,

deliberation and social cohesion for achieving diversified, sustainable land use and livelihood
strategies at the subregional scale. As such, they do not target transformation of lifestyles or
economic growth per se, but nevertheless share many actions of resource-sparing pathways
regarding quality of life as a secondary effect of social changes.

5.5.2.3 Ecotopian solutions pathways

Ecotopian solutions pathways share many elements with transition movements in terms of lifestyles,
land use or management types and innovations, and societal transformation. However, ecotopian
solutions have an even stronger focus on bottom-up actions and politically alternative initiatives of
self-organization than transition movements pathways. Similar to transition movements, they include
all values: relational (ca. 60%), intrinsic (ca. 20%) and instrumental (ca. 20%). The inclusiveness and
balance among different types of values in this pathway support sustainability efforts through
changing social behaviour.
Local-scale multifunctionality is a cornerstone of ecotopian solutions pathways. For this, ecotopian
solutions pathways rely on fine-grained landscape mosaics of diversified land uses with
multifunctionality within individual land uses and connecting green infrastructure (e.g. corridors). They
also highlight new production methods and new technologies, but in contrast to other pathway
narratives, their focus is to achieve community-level food and energy self-sufficiency and the
production of multiple contributions from nature to people. Two pathways can be distinguished within
the ecotopian solutions narrative depending on whether they focus on innovation or local
multifunctionality. Those pathways with a strong emphasis on innovation and associated instrumental

883
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

values, often along with radical social innovation and shifts in worldviews, generally focus on urban
design and food production.
Unlike transition movements pathways, ecotopian solutions pathways, and specific actions therein,
focus solely on local scales and may therefore only be applicable at community, or even very local
levels (e.g. wealthy neighbourhoods). Scaling-up to the regional level and beyond may not be easy,
especially due to trade-offs and spill-over effects (Maestre Andrés et al., 2012). For example, the
pathway of local multifunctionality at the European scale (Western, Central and Eastern Europe) is not
compatible with objectives of nature protection (e.g. connectivity, natural protected areas, forest
biodiversity protection) or climate mitigation at the European Union level, and may ultimately increase
net global trade in agricultural products (Verkerk et al., 2016).
Overall, local level studies of pathways from transition movements and ecotopian solutions narratives,
and some studies of visions of societal transformations towards sustainability (Capellán-Pérez et al.,
2015; Davies & Doyle, 2015; Fauré et al., 2016; Robertson, 2016; Videira et al., 2014) offer a rich set of
actions focusing on good quality of life, anthropogenic assets and institutions. However, in a number
of cases, specific actions on land use or management, nature and its contributions to people, are
lacking. Nevertheless, such studies suggest a diversity of alternative transition pathways which may
act as “seeds” for future sustainability (Bennett et al., 2016), yet need to be further developed to
incorporate explicit sets of actions related to land use or management, nature, and its contributions
to people.
Box 5.10 summarizes a local transition movements pathway as a demonstration of a coherent pathway
incorporating indigenous and local knowledge developed for southern Transylvania (Hanspach et al.,
2014).
Box 5.10: Pathway to sustainability for southern Transylvania (based on Hanspach et al., 2014).

Alternative target-seeking scenarios for the future of rural areas in southern Transylvania were developed using
a participatory process. The balance brings beauty scenario offers a possible pathway towards regional and local
sustainability based on a complete reorientation of European Union agricultural and rural policies towards
sustainability and environmentally friendly land use. Subsidies and policies foster small- and medium-scale
organic farming, low-intensity forestry and the discontinuation of previously common exploitation of resources
(e.g. soil, forest). This major policy change is combined with a high ability of local people to capitalize on
opportunities. This is supported by a fundamental change in the social fabric; from communities that were
shaped by mistrust, corruption, ethnic conflicts and poor education to communities with high social capital,
mutual learning and collaboration, equality and excellent education. Importantly, knowledge and practice of

884
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

traditional land use, traditions and cultural and natural heritage are maintained and people are proud of their
landscape.
The continuation of sustainable, small-scale farming based on indigenous and local knowledge is a keystone for
this pathway. Due to pro-environmental policies, this is only organic farming, with an increase in intensity
(abandoned land taken into use again). Farming is undertaken by local farmers who are well connected and
collaborate. Thus, large or external farming companies have no influence on land use. Forest resources are
maintained with only low-intensity harvesting. Land use and livelihood strategies are diversified (farming for
crops, vineyards, orchards, hay-meadows, livestock grazing on (wood) pastures, tourism).
Small-scale farming maintains biodiversity at its current level overall, but the intensification of land use (less
abandoned fields) leads to a slight decline, particularly of farmland biodiversity. Farming practices rely on, and
ensure a balance between nature’s regulating and material contributions to people, while the level of non-
material contributions, especially in relation to indigenous and local knowledge is preserved. People are relatively
happy in spite of limited economic growth. Ethnic conflicts are settled and there are few inequalities. Community
spirit is high and people are proud of the cultural and natural heritage of their landscape.
End of Box 5.10

5.5.3 Policy instruments associated with pathways to sustainability

The sets of actions and priorities in the pathways studies are supported by specific policy instruments.
These have been analyzed using the following instrument categories in line with Chapter 6 and IPBES
(2015b): (i) legal and regulatory instruments (e.g. laws); (ii) economic and financial instruments (e.g.
taxes, subsidies); (iii) social and information-based instruments (e.g. education); and (iv) rights-based
instruments and customary norms (e.g. strengthening collective rights).
In the green economy pathways, legal and regulatory instruments are included in almost all studies
(Table 5.5). These mostly involve the articulation and implementation of laws and regulations, but the
setting of social and environmental standards and planning are also mentioned frequently. Legal and
regulatory instruments are often combined with economic and financial instruments. An example of
such a policy mix is the implementation of a regulation to deter illegal fishing accompanied by
incentives for business models that embrace certification schemes and cooperative marketing in
aquaculture (FAO, 2014). Another example is provided by Verkerk et al. (2016), where area protection
is combined with incentives, e.g. payments for carbon sequestration and payments for recreation
services.
A similar reliance on a mix of economic and financial instruments with legal and regulatory instruments
was found for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where mainly national documents such as national
biodiversity strategies and action plans and strategies for sustainable development were analyzed. For
example, in Ukraine, an increase in pollution taxes as an economic instrument was combined with a
revision of the permitted pollution thresholds in surface waters as a regulatory instrument (Parliament
of Ukraine, 2016). In Belarus, including sustainable biodiversity use in spatial planning documents was
suggested together with the introduction of payments for ecosystem services in financing nature
conservation (Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, 2015).
Of similar importance to legal and regulatory instruments in green economy pathways, and again often
mentioned as policy mixes, are social and information-based instruments. A wealth of instruments and
tools are cited in the pathways related to the provision of information, e.g. via monitoring, valuation
exercises and research. Environmental education and training are also important. For instance, the
inclusion of “ecological trails” in tourist routes was proposed in Belarus (Council of Ministers of the
Republic of Belarus, 2015). Participatory approaches are mentioned in a number of studies, but only a

885
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

few of these are from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Least important in the green economy
pathways are rights-based instruments and customary norms. Here, strengthening of rights and local
rights is mentioned occasionally.

Low carbon transformation pathways were particularly vague concerning policy instruments (Table
5.5). Standards and targets are mentioned as legal and regulatory instruments, such as energy
efficiency standards for all buildings combined with economic and financial instruments, such as
energy taxation (WWF/Ecofys/OMA, 2011). Social and information-based instruments are almost
exclusively associated with research and monitoring. As in the green economy pathways, rights-based
instruments and customary norms played only a minor role.
The most important instruments in the transition movements pathways are social and information-
based instruments (Table 5.5). These instruments focus on community actions, participatory
processes, shared visions and voluntary agreements. Examples from the Europe and Central Asia
pathways include changing individual consumption patterns towards sharing coupled with an animal
welfare and rights perspectives, and the inclusion of ecological knowledge and criteria in decision-
making (Kirveennummi et al., 2013). Rights-based instruments and customary norms are included in a
few pathways, often in combination with social and information-based instruments. For example, in
combination with increased participation, Palomo et al. (2011) highlight the importance of maintaining
and including indigenous and local knowledge norms and customary rights perspectives to foster
transformative capabilities and identity and conserve ecosystem qualities.
The importance of cross-scale integration and the mainstreaming of targets related to nature and its
contributions to people into policymaking across a broad range of policy sectors, is also frequently
considered in transition movement pathways in relation to social and information-based instruments.
One pathway from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggests a
combination of mainstreaming with other policy instruments for the governance of groundwater. In
this study, the implementation of legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks for groundwater that
establish public guardianship and collective responsibility, permanent engagement of stakeholders
and beneficial integration with other sectors is coupled with assessments, monitoring, up-to-date
information and communication techniques, capacity building and incentive frameworks and
investment programmes to foster sustainable, efficient groundwater use and adequate groundwater
resources protection (FAO, 2015). Other studies, dealing with sustainability transitions additionally

886
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

highlight rules safeguarding access to resources for vulnerable groups (Videira et al., 2014), trade
barriers, and limits for energy use and CO2 emissions (Capellán-Pérez et al., 2015; Grabs et al., 2016).
The few ecotopian solutions pathways all include legal and regulatory instruments, with planning
playing a prominent role (Table 5.5). Of similar importance are social and information-based
instruments, with the provision of information receiving substantial attention. Economic and financial
instruments such as incentives are also important, whereas rights-based instruments are not reflected
in the studies.
In general, the pathways analyzed refer to very different levels of implementation and almost no
pathway indicates directly how an instrument is supposed to be developed and implemented in order
to produce a certain outcome or impact on the state of nature or its contributions to people. While
the instruments mentioned in most studies can be interpreted as policy mixes, little information is
given concerning the order of implementation of the different instrument types involved in the mixes.
In particular, most of the studies from Eastern European and Central Asia envision only short time
horizons and the instruments mentioned might be perceived as initial steps towards improved
environmental governance. Overall, most studies remained rather vague on specific policy
instruments, allowing for only a superficial analysis. However, this analysis might still provide some
useful insights into future policy options when considered in combination with the analysis of current
policy instruments provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.1.
While there are differences between the pathway narratives, there are also similarities in the level of
individual instruments and strategies to support these instruments. Investments, and more specifically
ensuring conditions to foster environmentally friendly investments, play a role in all the narratives.
The investments are meant to support the implementation of instruments, for example, the regulation
of investments in the context of delivering consistent and transparent business regulations (e.g. WEF,
2010), but also in the context of fostering renewable energy production (e.g. Greenpeace, 2009),
sustainable groundwater management (e.g. FAO, 2015) and food production (UNEP, 2012).
Investments in research and development are also important across pathway narratives (e.g. Forest
Europe, 2011; WWF/Ecofys/OMA, 2011).
The most prominent policy instrument described across all pathway narratives is the use of awareness-
raising tools and education. Participation is also frequently mentioned, although the specificities and
intensities of participation vary across the narratives, e.g. in transition movements or ecotopian
solutions narratives, collaborative participation including the delegation of power and control by
citizens is given preference over consultative forms of participation.
The pathways studies often rely on known policy instruments and tools (see a discussion of these tools
in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.2), despite the future visions often being radical. Most of the pathways across
the four narratives strongly rely on cross-scale integration, especially in terms of governance, with the
exception of some ecotopian solutions pathways. The pathways mention a diversity of planning
approaches and integrated impact assessment tools for achieving cross-scale integration (see
discussions of such instruments and tools in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.3). Finally, while rights-based and
customary norms instruments are neglected in most studies, other categories of instruments are
frequently combined in policy mixes (see discussions on policy mixes in Chapter 6, Section 6.6.4).

5.5.4 Analysis of synergies and trade-offs within pathways

The pathways for Europe and Central Asia involve alternative ways of mitigating trade-offs and
capitalizing on synergies. Trade-offs within individual pathways may occur when the expected impact

887
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of actions within a pathway on nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life compromise
a given contribution in favour of another; this could result from sectoral trade-offs and spatial trade-
offs. For example, several pathways focus on trade-offs and synergies between material contributions
(food, timber, fish, water) and water quality regulation, global climate regulation and nature
conservation. The four narratives propose different solutions for this: green economy and low carbon
transformation narratives focus on technological innovation or land planning from the regional
(Europe and Central Asia) to subregional scale; ecotopian solutions and to some degree transition
movement narratives concentrate on resolving trade-offs locally through changing demand for
nature’s contributions to people, often along with innovation and multifunctional practices.
Analysis of such trade-offs is challenging because of the qualitative nature of the pathways, many of
which were designed to guide the direction for action and change, rather than as comprehensive
analyses. Furthermore, the studies strongly emphasize the synergies between nature’s material and
regulating nature’s contributions to people afforded by the proposed pathways, but offer limited
analysis, even qualitatively, of resulting trade-offs. Finally, limited information was available regarding
non-material contributions (but see Brunner et al., 2015; Hanspach et al., 2014; Palacios-Agundez et
al., 2013; Palomo et al., 2011), risk mitigation (but see Brunner et al., 2015) or biotic regulation, such
as pollination for which no explicit information was available.
In the following section we explore trade-offs within pathways first by summarizing the synergies and
trade-offs between different contributions from nature to people, or between nature and different
contributions found in the pathways studies. We then analyze trade-offs and synergies between the
four different pathway narratives by considering their links to the Sustainable Development Goals and
Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

5.5.4.1 Synergies and trade-offs between different contributions of nature to people and between
nature and its contributions to people
Several trade-offs could be identified within the specific sets of actions suggested by the individual
pathways. In general, management aimed at increasing nature’s material contributions to people,
associated with fish-farming, forest harvest, biofuels and agricultural products as depicted in green
economy or low carbon transformation pathways implies an increase in land or water use or more
intensified production. In these pathways, increased production of food and other natural resources
might therefore imply a trade-off against alternative contributions from nature to people, and
biodiversity associated with semi-natural or protected sea- or landscapes. Conversely, promoting
nature conservation and some regulating contributions comes at a cost to production of food and
other natural resources, in particular in transition movements and ecotopian solutions pathways.
Nevertheless, some transition movements pathways promise to promote synergies between increased
quantity and quality of food, regulating contributions and nature protection through agro-ecological
practices based on combining indigenous and local knowledge and innovations.
Overall, many critical trade-offs revealed in pathways studies concern food production: (i) competition
between food and biofuel (energy) production; (ii) trade-offs between food production and climate
regulation, water provision and quality, soil quality or biodiversity; and (iii) trade-offs between biofuel
(energy) production, soil quality and water provision and quality. In global level studies, such as the
FAO (2014) vision, the two pathways on water and agriculture are argued to be so well integrated and
in synergy that even the trade-off between water use for ecological functions and for food production
is resolved, but this cannot be validated by the report itself.

888
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Trade-offs with biodiversity are also mentioned with respect to energy infrastructure and forest
products, while forest products themselves are cited as trading-off against water provision and soil
quality. Lastly, trade-offs among components of nature associated with different ecosystems are also
implicit in some pathways, especially in regional multifunctionality pathways that advocate land
abandonment and rewilding at the expense of cultural biodiversity of extensively farmed areas (Pedroli
et al., 2015; Prins et al., 2017; Sylvén & Widstrand, 2013). Even under transition movements pathways
where land management relies on nature’s contributions to people and synergies between nature and
these contributions are fostered, some authors argue that tightly managing or engineering nature may
ultimately not be ideal because it limits some natural processes (e.g. species dispersal and gene flow)
(Heikkinen et al., 2012). Thus, the studied pathways only partly succeed in mitigating the critical trade-
offs around food, water, nature and climate, which they aim to resolve.

5.5.4.2 Relating pathways to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets

As outlined in Section 5.4, the Europe and Central Asia visions prioritize Aichi Biodiversity Targets 4
and 7. The actions within the different pathways targeting nature, its contributions to people, and
good quality of life were examined to assess how they address the different strategic goals of the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 (although not necessarily in line with their timeframe of 2020)
(supporting material Appendix 5.2). Insufficient evidence was available to undertake a reliable analysis
of specific Aichi Biodiversity Targets due to uncertainties regarding the information in the pathways
about specific actions, especially regarding indirect drivers.
Overall, targets within Strategic Goal A to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by
mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society are covered weakly across all pathway
narratives. Strategic Goal E to enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge
management and capacity building is also poorly covered. Here, only the transition movements
pathways offered sets of actions to change resource-intensive lifestyles, and foster education, good
social relations and equity, for instance in urban or rural settings (see Section 5.5.2 for further details
on the actions).
Consistent with the focus of the pathways on direct drivers, Strategic Goal B to reduce direct pressures
on biodiversity and promote sustainable use and, more specifically, Target 7 (sustainable management
of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry) is addressed by all pathways except for the low carbon
transformation – innovation pathway, through their land planning and land management actions, for
instance, targeting multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation either at local or regional scales. A
similarly good coverage is found for Strategic Goal D to enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity
and ecosystem services as nearly all pathways include actions targeting at least some of nature’s
contributions to people. Coverage of Strategic Goal C on the improvement of the status of biodiversity
by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity was mixed.

5.5.4.3 Relating pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals

Synergies and trade-offs within pathways were also assessed in terms of the Sustainable Development
Goals. Here, we analyzed how the intended sets of actions within pathways could be helpful in
achieving particular Sustainable Development Goals (although not necessarily in line with their
timeframe of 2030). This involved using the expert opinion of the author team to combine information
on how different indicators of nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life relate to the
Sustainable Development Goals, and how these indicators are likely to be affected by the actions in

889
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the pathways and the predominant dimensions of sustainability represented by each Sustainable
Development Goal: biophysical (Goals 6, 13, 14, 15), economic (Goals 8, 9, 10, 12) and social (Goals 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 16) (Figure 5.20).
Of the Sustainable Development Goals which were found to be prominent across visions for Europe
and Central Asia (Section 5.1.2) the majority, that is Goals 13 (climate), 15 (life on land), 11 (sustainable
cities) and 12 (responsible production and consumption), are addressed significantly by at least half of
the pathways, and even by all of them in the case of Goal 15. Therefore, when aiming to achieve goals
11, 12, 13 and 15 different sets of actions from diverse pathways could be employed. In particular,
multifunctionality based on the combination of traditional and innovative practices in agriculture and
forest management is critical for achieving these goals, but can be operationalized at different scales
depending on pathways, and across different regions of Europe and Central Asia.
However, the focus on the biophysical dimension associated with Goals 13 and 15 in some pathways,
for example, in the green economy narrative, can come at a cost of ignoring other goals associated
with the economic and social dimensions of sustainability, such as Goal 7 (clean energy), and especially
Goals 8 (decent work) and 9 (industry and infrastructure). These were highlighted as important in the
Europe and Central Asia visions, but are hardly addressed across pathways with the notable exception
of transition movements pathways for Goals 8 and 9.
Low carbon transformation or ecotopian solutions pathways with a focus on innovation address
biophysical objectives less strongly than other pathways, particularly for Goal 15 (except ecotopian
solutions - local multifunctionality). There are also few actions associated with Goal 13 for ecotopian
solutions pathways. In contrast, transition movement pathways address all of the Sustainable
Development Goals identified as being important in the Europe and Central Asia visions, except Goal
7, because they offer the broadest set of actions targeting elements of nature, multiple contributions
from nature to people (material, regulating and non-material) and multiple dimensions of a good
quality of life.

890
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

891
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Based on this analysis, the ability of the pathway narratives to address the Sustainable Development
Goals was divided into three groups in terms of their representation of dimensions of sustainability as
follows:
• First, the three green economy pathways and the ecotopian solutions - local multifunctionality
pathway have a strong focus on the biophysical dimension, along with some on the social
dimension, but fewer on the economic dimension. Within this group, the focus on the
economic dimension is more developed in the green economy – innovation pathway, while it
is absent in the green economy – land sparing pathway, and solely focused on Goal 12
(responsible production and consumption) in the green economy – land sharing and the
ecotopian solutions - local multifunctionality pathways (Figure 5.20 A).
• Second, pathways focusing primarily on climate action including the two low carbon
transformation pathways and the ecotopian solutions - innovation pathway have a weaker
focus on the biophysical dimension, but address the social dimension more than the first
group. In particular, they include actions targeting Goals 2 (food) and 11 (sustainable cities and
communities), along with a strong focus on Goal 12 (responsible production and consumption)
for the economic dimension (Figure 5.20 B).

892
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

• Third, the two transition movements pathways promise to address the greatest diversity of
Sustainable Development Goals and thus cover biophysical, social and economic dimensions.
As such, they best fulfil the three dimensions of sustainability articulated in visions for Europe
and Central Asia (Figure 5.20 C).
The analysis shows that the four pathway narratives lead to different trade-offs and synergies between
Sustainable Development Goals and associated dimensions of sustainability. Nevertheless, a recurring
trade-off was found between food provision and nature conservation goals on the one hand and some
important social and economic goals on the other hand. This trade-off seems to be difficult to mitigate
across all the pathways. More specifically, based on the actions they reported, none of the pathway
narratives could fully resolve the major trade-off between Goals 2 (food), 14 (oceans) and 15 (land)
with Goals 7 (clean energy), 9 (industry and infrastructure), 10 (equity), 16 (justice) and 17 (global
responsibility). Interestingly, the ability to achieve Goal 12 was found to vary independently of this
trade-off, suggesting that pathways towards responsible production and consumption can be
considered in combination with either the first (2, 14 and 15) or the second (7, 9, 10, 16 and 17) sets
of goals.
Overall, transition movements pathways appear to be the most promising in achieving a wide range of
Sustainable Development Goals and addressing trade-offs across biophysical, social and economic
dimensions of sustainability. However, the actual effectiveness of the actions proposed by the
different pathways in mitigating negative impacts and promoting positive impacts would need support
from scenario and modelling studies (see next section and examples in Box 5.11 and Kubiszewski et
al., 2017 described in Section 5.3.4).

Box 5.11: Assessing the impact of pathways using an integrated assessment model.

Models can be applied to pathways to simulate the potential impacts resulting from their proposed actions, for
example on biodiversity conservation, or trade-offs between nature and its contributions to people. Such
information is needed to compare alternative pathways and to inform decision-making. A study by the
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, 2012) assessed the impacts of three alternative pathways
on global biodiversity, analyzing the extent to which the pathways help to meet the 2050 Vision of the Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. The different pathways (consisting of combinations of biophysical and
behavioural options) were designed to step-up and scale-up efforts within activity sectors towards biodiversity-
friendly production. They included:
• A global technology pathway, which in line with the green economy – innovation narrative relies on
large-scale technologically-optimal solutions and a high level of international coordination;
• A decentralized solutions pathway, which in line with the green economy – land sharing narrative
focuses on regional solutions; and
• A consumption change pathway, which in line with the transition movements – resource sparing
narrative prioritizes changes in human consumption patterns.

Model results show that the actions within the three pathways are able to prevent more than half of the loss of
biodiversity that is projected to take place worldwide in the coming 35 years (Figure 5.21).
The results highlight the importance of mainstreaming policy objectives concerning biodiversity across sectors
and the need to take account of synergies and trade-offs between nature’s contributions to people, in planning
long-term solutions that lead to a halt in biodiversity loss while maintaining multiple contributions. For example,
the agricultural sector was identified in all pathways as playing a critical role in contributing to biodiversity loss
in forests, water bodies and coastal ecosystems. Increased use of bioenergy or hydropower resulting from
climate change mitigation and adaptation policies may reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity in

893
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the coming decades, but is also projected to cause an expansion of agricultural lands and increased river
fragmentation, which would in turn have detrimental impacts on biodiversity (PBL, 2012).
A further multi-model and expert assessment was carried out by Prins et al. (2017) for four pathways for the
European Union plus Switzerland (28 countries) (van Zeijts et al., 2017). These four pathways included:

• Strengthening cultural identity, closest to the transition movements – resource sparing pathway;
• Allowing nature to find its way, illustrating a green economy – land sparing pathway incorporating
rewilding;
• Going with the economic flow, another green economy – land sparing pathway with a strong liberal
component and elements of innovation; and
• Working with nature, a green economy – land sharing pathway, proposed as a possible means to bridge
with and upscale transition movements pathways.

The analysis showed that some of the actions are fully compatible across pathways, particularly those associated
with the conservation of cultural landscapes and the use of nature’s regulating contributions to people in
agriculture, which were included in strengthening cultural identity, allowing nature to find its way and working
with nature. Conversely, some interventions were incompatible across pathways, such as the establishment of
large dynamic nature areas in allowing nature to find its way with the land sharing approach of strengthening
cultural identity and working with nature.
Nevertheless, some combinations of actions could lead to synergies given careful management. For example,
agricultural abandonment of less productive land under going with the economic flow would provide the large
nature areas envisioned in allowing nature to find its way, potentially resulting in a significant nature protection
network given top-down planning and regulation. As another example, the private parks favoured in going with
the economic flow could support cultural landscapes for strengthening cultural identity given negotiation on
access and citizen participation. Overall, the exploration of these combinations using modelling and expert
assessment highlighted how pathways reflecting different worldviews and objectives may be complementary
across Europe and Central Asia.

894
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 5.11

5.5.5 Linking pathways to exploratory scenarios

An alternative method for assessing trade-offs within pathways is to link the pathways to one of the
scenario archetypes introduced in Section 5.2, based on similar features in terms of the types of policy
and management actions they represent. This allows the impacts on nature, its contributions to people
and a good quality of life under the scenario archetypes (described in Section 5.3) to be related to the
pathways. The synthesis is based on 15 pathways studies, which also used exploratory scenarios.
Information from these 15 pathways studies was used to assign scenario archetypes to the four groups
of pathway narratives.
The pathway narratives tended to be consistently associated with certain scenario archetypes. Overall,
innovation or land sparing pathways from low carbon transformation and green economy narratives
were associated with the global sustainable development scenario archetype (with a focus on
behavioural and technological change or strong governments, see Section 5.3.3.5). Meanwhile, with
few exceptions (Brunner et al., 2015; Mont et al., 2014), green economy - land sharing, transition

895
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

movements or ecotopian solutions pathways were associated with the regional sustainability scenario
archetype, with a strong predominance of collaborative solutions (see Section 5.3.3.4).
Impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality of life under the global sustainable
development scenario archetype from Section 5.3.3.5 (and Figure 5.10) can be summarized as largely
positive for all indicators of nature, its contributions to people, and quality of life. More specifically,
nature indicators are projected to improve in all regions of Europe and Central Asia, except for some
studies in southern and Alpine parts of Western Europe. In terms of nature’s contributions to people,
regulating (e.g. climate regulation, air quality regulation, erosion control and soil fertility) and material
contributions (e.g. food and timber) are mainly projected to be enhanced, although negative impacts
due to water stress may be experienced in southern parts of Western and Central Europe and in Central
Asia. Similarly, most quality of life indicators improve, with the exception of traditional knowledge and
local identity due to the global nature of this scenario archetype and the focus of actions on top-down
regulatory instruments.
The regional sustainability scenario archetype is associated with similarly positive overall impacts for
indicators of nature’s contributions to people and quality of life, but impacts on nature are unclear
with some studies showing improvements and others declines in biodiversity vulnerability. This may
be because fewer modelling studies were found for this scenario archetype, with no studies from
Central Asia. More specifically, all regulating contributions and quality of life indicators included in
modelling studies showed improvements. Results for material contributions were more variable, with
increases in forests/timber production and bioenergy, but mixed impacts for food production
depending on the region and study.
To summarize, both scenario archetypes perform well in their likely achievement of many of the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and Sustainable Development Goals (Section 5.3.4; Figure 5.15). Global
sustainable development (and hence the linked pathways of green economy and low carbon
transformation) provide more consistent improvements in nature’s material contributions to people,
alongside regulating contributions, while regional sustainability (and hence the linked pathways of
transition movements, ecotopian solutions and green economy - land sharing) provide more consistent
improvement in quality of life indicators alongside regulating contributions, but sometimes through
actions which result in lower material contributions.

5.5.6 Addressing trade-offs by mainstreaming and cross-scale integration

As discussed in Chapter 6, 20% of land- and seascapes are currently protected. Mainstreaming nature
and its contributions to people across all sectors in private and public decision-making on the
remaining 80% of land- and seascapes appears as one of the most important issues in the future (see
also Bouwma et al., 2018; Schleyer et al., 2015). A need for mainstreaming was implicitly suggested by
the pathways studies, as they were often developed for a single sector with a focus on a given
narrative. Several alternative pathways often exist for the same sector. For example, for food and
agriculture in Western, Central and Eastern Europe, three pathways were identified: green economy -
innovation narrative (European Commission, 2015), green economy - subregional land sharing
narrative (Food Drink Europe, 2012), and transition movements narrative (Barabanova et al., 2015).
Likewise, green economy pathways for forestry at the scale of Western, Central and Eastern Europe
may either be based primarily on innovation (Forest Europe, 2011) or on subregional multifunctionality
(Forest Europe, 2011). The transition to sustainability of the water sector, a sector particularly critical
for the Mediterranean or Eastern Europe and Central Asia, is also addressed by either global narratives
of green economy with technical and governance innovation (Cosgrove & Rijsberman, 2014; UNESCO,

896
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2015) or by a European transition movements narrative also relying on technical and governance
innovation (van Vliet & Kok, 2015). Here, “Europe” refers to “Greater Europe reaching to the Caucasus
and Ural Mountains, and including the Mediterranean rim countries of North Africa and the Near East”.
A diversity of options from different pathways is seen as an asset for adaptation and sustainability
transition (Wise et al., 2014). Incorporating several alternative scenarios, which effectively represent
alternative pathways to sustainability and specific Sustainable Development Goals, is considered
essential for designing policy at the regional scale that considers alternatives depending on specific
nations or biogeographic areas and on prevailing societal choices (Prins et al., 2017).
For Western and Central Europe, the three alternative cross-sectoral pathways of the VOLANTE project
(Brown et al., 2016; Pedroli et al., 2015) illustrate trade-offs across green economy - land sparing and
subregional land sharing pathways, and a third ecotopian local multifunctionality narrative. For the
food production sector, Barabanova et al. (2015) offer insights into policy and social trade-offs
between a green economy narrative of technical innovation and a transition movements narrative of
changed food and dietary patterns for implementing organic agriculture in the European Union. In
particular, only the transition movements pathway fosters the integration of knowledge from different
social and ethnic groups. As a local example, Palomo et al. (2011) also contrasted a green economy
narrative of technical innovation with a transition movements narrative of transition capabilities in
Spain. Both pathways enabled the reconciliation of food production, water management and tourism,
but with contrasting approaches to whole landscape management (the protected area and the land
surrounding it) and to the education and empowerment of local people.
Pathways may not need to be alternative, but could instead be sequenced over time. In sustainability
transitions studies (Frantzeskaki et al., 2012; Rotmans et al., 2001), pathways usually start with
incremental and often non-disruptive actions in the short-term, often tuned to adaptation rather than
mitigation or transformation, such as those depicted in green economy and low carbon transformation
narratives. These short-term actions do not challenge current worldviews or institutions but pave the
way and condition the implementation of more radical, disruptive actions in the medium- and long-
term (Butler et al., 2014; Fazey et al., 2015; Wise et al., 2014), such as those imagined in transition
movements or ecotopian solutions narratives, and in visions of societal transformations towards
sustainability. This view is also consistent with the concept of “seeds” of transformation, where early
local transformation may later be scaled-up to regions and globally (Bennett et al., 2016).
Many of the trade-offs highlighted by this analysis straddle across socio-economic sectors. Cross-
sectoral mainstreaming and cross-scale integration is seen as a means to mitigate trade-offs within
pathways and across scales. Across the different regions of Europe and Central Asia, the overwhelming
majority of pathways referred to at least potential, cross-sectoral interactions, irrespective of their
initial sectoral focus. The concept of the food-water-energy nexus, that is the multiple interactions
(synergies and trade-offs) between food, water and energy provisioning, demand and access, and their
environmental and social determinants, is core to many pathways. Other critical cross-sectoral
interactions concern integration across productive land uses, tourism, education, planning and nature
conservation, or the consideration of how human activities affect freshwater and coastal waters. A
specific idea found in the context of innovation pathways for the green economy narrative, is the
notion of bioeconomy landscapes, which rely on cross-sectoral networks of scientific, technological
and managerial excellence (van Zeijts et al., 2017). Pathways within the transition movements
narrative focus particularly strongly on the integration of multiple dimensions of governance,
technology, economy and society. In addition to these cross-sectoral interactions within individual
pathways, there is great scope for mainstreaming (not just interactions) by, in future steps, integrating
pathways formulated for different sectors.

897
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Likewise, cross-scale integration, whether across adjacent scales, or across the whole range of scales
from local to subnational, national, regional and in some instances to global (e.g. for energy / climate
or food systems), is a strong common feature of most proposed sustainability pathways, with the
exception of some ecotopian solutions. Verkerk et al. (2016) found that, under the available policy
options and modelling constraints, local multifunctionality was not feasible across the whole of the
European Union, even if successful for some areas due to spatial trade-offs and spill-over effects, as
highlighted in Section 5.5.2. In contrast, transition movements pathways aim at integration with larger
scales, especially in terms of governance. For example, the global Greenpeace (2009) pathway includes
both actions at the local scale (use of agroecology) and actions at the larger scale (protection of areas
with high conservation value – globally and regionally), thus combining land sharing and land sparing
approaches in a transition movements narrative. While mainstreaming from local “green pioneers”
solutions to a green society as a whole remains a great challenge, pathways for such spatial integration
(scaling-up) are now starting to be imagined (van Zeijts et al., 2017). Bennett et al. (2016) suggest in
particular to use combinations of exemplary transition movement “seeds” in large-scale (e.g. global)
scenarios, as well as in local participatory scenarios.

5.6 Conclusions

5.6.1 Overall synthesis

Chapter 5 focuses on the future interdependencies between nature and society. It asks to what extent
findings from reviewed literature can establish future interactions between indirect drivers (such as
human population change, economic or foreign policy), direct drivers (such as land use patterns or
climate change), nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality of life. Each of these
interactions represents a complex set of interrelationships. Scenarios and models are useful tools for
advancing understanding of these interrelationships and how they might change in the future.
Four linked assessments on exploratory scenarios, integrated assessment models, visions of
sustainable development, and pathways or normative scenarios for achieving such visions were
undertaken to better comprehend what might happen to nature, its contributions to people, and a
good quality of life in the future, and the actions decision-makers can take to move away from
undesirable futures towards more sustainable futures.
The assessment of exploratory scenarios revealed that existing scenario studies for Europe and Central
Asia can be categorized into six broad scenario archetypes, which describe different plausible futures
for the region:
• Business-as-usual assumes that the future will be characterized by a continuation of past and
current trends in indirect and direct drivers.
• Economic optimism assumes that global developments are steered by economic growth
resulting in a strong dominance of international markets with a small degree of regulation.
Environmental problems are only dealt with when solutions are of economic interest.
• Regional competition assumes an increasingly fragmented world with a growing gap between
rich and poor, and increasing problems with crime, violence and terrorism. This leads to a
strong focus on national or regional security, increased trade and other barriers to
cooperation, and often low concern for the environment.
• Regional sustainability assumes a shift towards local and regional decision-making, which is
strongly influenced by environmentally aware citizens. A proactive attitude to environmental

898
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

management prevails, but poor international collaboration obstructs coordination to solve

global environmental issues.
• Global sustainable development assumes a globalized world with an increasingly proactive
attitude of policymakers and the public at large towards environmental issues, which are dealt
with using a high level of top-down regulation.
• Inequality assumes fundamental and growing economic, political and social inequalities with
power becoming concentrated in a relatively small political and business elite that takes
environmental responsibility, while keeping the large lower-class poor, but satisfied.
Impacts on nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality of life within each of these plausible
futures, as simulated by integrated assessment models, are summarized in Table 5.6. This provides a
broad indication of whether impacts, on average, are positive, negative or mixed. More positive
impacts are projected under futures that assume proactive decision-making on environmental issues,
such as the global sustainable development and regional sustainability scenario archetypes, than those
that are reactive, such as economic optimism, regional competition and business-as-usual. The two
sustainability scenario archetypes also promote a more holistic approach to managing human and
environmental systems, which supports multifunctionality and multiple contributions from nature to
people. Alternatively, the economic optimism scenario archetype tends to promote a more limited
number of services, particularly material contributions such as agricultural and timber production
resulting in strong positive effects in market values and negative effects in non-market values. Such
scenarios are often associated with trade-offs between increases in food provision (generally
associated with the expansion of agricultural land or the intensification of livestock production and
fish captures) and decreases in the provision of regulating contributions (e.g. prevention of soil
erosion, regulation of water quality and quantity) and nature values. Similar trade-offs were also
identified between increases in timber provision and decreases in regulating (e.g. carbon
sequestration) and non-material contributions (e.g. aesthetic value).
Trade-offs were also apparent under the sustainability scenario archetypes, particularly under regional
sustainability, where society chooses to live less resource-intensive lifestyles and hence nature’s
material contributions to people, tend to decrease, while nature and regulating contributions increase.
Most of the trade-offs projected in the sustainability scenarios relate to the use of land and water.
These included: (i) agricultural extensification leading to increases in agricultural areas and consequent
decreases in other land uses, such as forests, to maintain food production levels and not to create
displacement effects to other regions; (ii) expansion of bioenergy croplands at the expense of food
production or biodiversity-rich forests; (iii) and reforestation or afforestation to improve climate
regulation or natural hazard regulation resulting in reductions in surface water resources, leading to
water stress and potentially detrimental effects on aquatic ecosystems (although it is also recognized
that in some circumstances reafforestation can lead to improved water resources). In tackling such
trade-offs to develop sustainable land and water management strategies, cooperation between
sectors and countries to foster strategic planning was considered crucial, as characterized as part of
the global sustainable development scenario archetype.

899
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Interpretation of these broad findings for decision-making should bear in mind that scenario and
modelling studies are projections of the future and involve different sources of uncertainties. These
include uncertainties arising from scenario assumptions, model structure, model inputs and the
propagation of uncertainties across the integrated components of the systems, amongst others.
The reviews of visions and pathways of sustainable development aimed to synthesize knowledge on
the actions decision-makers can take to move away from undesirable futures, such as regional
competition, towards more sustainable futures, such as regional sustainability. Many visions, and the
pathways to achieve them, have been developed for policy support and can be linked to the
Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals or Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
However, the Sustainable Development Goals tend to be more consistently covered, relative to the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets, suggesting that the strong focus on elements of good quality of life in visions
is not sufficiently supported by goals related to the nature and ecosystems that underpin nature’s
contributions to people and a good quality of life. This implies a need to further mainstream
biodiversity in its various dimensions into strategic planning and decision-making.
Multiple pathways were found at global, regional and local scales that offer the means to devise
courses of actions towards visions of sustainable development. The pathways could be grouped into
four distinctive sustainability narratives: green economy, low carbon transformation, transition
movements and ecotopian solutions. The green economy and low carbon transformation narratives,
which dominate at global and regional scales, build towards sustainability without challenging the
economic growth paradigm. They share three alternative pathways: technological innovation, land
sparing with strong nature protection in designated areas, or land sharing with lower use intensity and
diversification of production of nature’s contributions to people. Combinations of top-down legal and
regulatory instruments mixed with economic and financial instruments designed at regional (European
Union) or national levels (Eastern Europe and Central Asia) are essential to support pathways of green
economy and low carbon transformation. Such pathways are often formulated at a sectoral level, and
integration across sectoral pathways is critical. However, because green economy and low carbon
transformation pathways do not fully mitigate trade-offs between production activities and the
conservation of nature and regulating and non-material contributions, as well as with important
aspects of good quality of life, such as equity and indigenous and local knowledge, they may not be
sufficient alone to achieve sustainability.

900
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Instead, they may pave the way for the first steps of transition movements pathways towards future
transformation to meet ambitious goals for nature and its contributions to people, to support better
quality of life. At the same time, nurturing of diverse local, bottom-up transition movements or
ecotopian solutions pathways is suggested. Such pathways reconsider fundamental values and
lifestyles through sets of actions focusing on less resource intensive lifestyles, education, good social
relations and equity (e.g. food and dietary patterns, transport, energy and consumption patterns).
Transition movements pathways also develop bottom-up transformative capabilities by combining
rights-based instruments and customary norms (including indigenous and local knowledge) and social
and cultural instruments. So far, innovative thinking for bridging scientifically and institutionally from
these local, bottom-up and sectoral options, to systemic, regional and global solutions remains limited.
The incorporation of combinations of exemplary transition pathways into large-scale scenario
exercises and into participatory scenario development has been suggested as a way forward.
The last step in this synthesis section presents a combined analysis of the results from the scenario
archetypes and pathways assessments. The extent to which policy goals and targets, such as the
Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets, are likely to be achieved under the
different scenario archetypes, and the extent to which the pathway narratives are likely to influence
the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (although not necessarily in line with their
timeframe of 2030) is summarized in Table 5.7. Regional competition is estimated to lead to failure in
the majority of the targets. Economic optimism is estimated to have a mixed level of success in
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, but fails to achieve the majority of the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets, while business-as-usual shows the opposite effect. These scenarios focus on instrumental
values and individualistic perspectives, with a more limited acknowledgement of relational or intrinsic
values, and hence are unlikely to offer effective sustainable solutions. Alternatively, regional
sustainability and global sustainable development are estimated to achieve the majority of Sustainable
Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets due to their focus on value diversity across multiple
contributions from nature to people, and aspects of a good quality of life.
Transition movement pathways address all of the Sustainable Development Goals identified as being
important in the Europe and Central Asia visions (Section 5.1.2 and 5.5.4), except one, because they
offer the broadest set of actions targeting elements of nature, multiple contributions from nature to
people (material, regulating and non-material) and multiple dimensions of a good quality of life. The
other pathways include actions that focus on specific Sustainable Development Goals more than
others. For example, the green economy – land sharing and the ecotopian solutions - local
multifunctionality pathways have a strong focus on nature and intrinsic values, the green economy –
innovation pathway has a greater focus on instrumental values, while the two low carbon
transformation pathways and the ecotopian solutions - innovation pathway have a weaker focus on
intrinsic values, but address relational values to a greater extent than other pathways (albeit with a
similar level to the transition movements pathways).
In summary, the different pathway narratives offer alternative sets of actions for decision-makers (see
Section 5.5.2) that can be tailored according to regional needs and societal preferences. The pathways
are non-exclusive and the actions within them can be sequenced over time to address environmental
and social challenges, including cross-sector and cross-scale interactions and trade-offs, and to move
society towards a sustainable future. Chapter 6, and more specifically Section 6.6, provides further
detailed information on policy options to realize the sustainable futures laid out in Chapter 5.

901
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.6.2 Knowledge gaps and uncertainties

In this section, the knowledge gaps and uncertainties that appeared across all the sections of Chapter
5 are first listed followed by knowledge gaps specific to the assessments undertaken within each
section.
Knowledge gaps and uncertainties across all sections of the chapter:
• The assessment of how findings from the different reviews related to policy goals or targets
similar to the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets was mostly based
on the expert judgement of the author team, as most documents reviewed did not explicitly
include links to these goals or targets. The absence of direct links to these international goals
in reviewed documents is related, on the one hand, to the fact that scenarios usually deal with
time horizons going beyond 2020 and even 2030. Furthermore, most studies were published
before the Sustainable Development Goals were adopted and naturally did not include the
goals. Moreover, the partial coverage of the full set of these international goals is related to
their regional prioritization and reflects the dominant regional values. Lastly, our primary focus
on studies targeting at least nature and its contributions to people meant that other strategic
documents focusing on good quality of life with only loose links to nature were not considered.
• All reviews reveal knowledge and information gaps for Central Asia and, to a lesser extent, for
Eastern Europe. In general, higher uncertainties in outcomes are expected from regions where
evidence is based on very few studies. There is a high diversity in the complexity and degree
of integration reflected in the four reviews, which is explored further below.

902
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

• Studies which explicitly covered indigenous and local knowledge were largely unrepresented
in all the reviews. This is related to the focus of some of the reviews on the national scale or
higher. Yet, while indigenous and local knowledge was often not included explicitly, a range of
studies, particularly in the visions and pathways review, were developed together with
stakeholders and revealed valuable insights into nature’s non-material contributions to people
and relational values. This confirms the suggestion made by the IPBES “Guide on the
production and integration of assessments from and across all scales” (IPBES/4/INF/9) as well
as in the IPBES Methodological Assessment of Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2016b), where participatory scenario development and modelling
are recommended as powerful approaches for knowledge co-production and the inclusion of
indigenous and local knowledge. The development of new scenarios for IPBES (Rosa et al.,
2017) will open up opportunities for such approaches and work towards the appropriate
inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge in future assessments.
• The coverage of nature’s non-material contributions to people, and quality of life indicators
was poor in most scenario and modelling studies and they were absent from, or limited to,
recreational benefits in most visions and pathways studies.
• Studies covering the marine realm were poorly represented, and almost absent from visions
and pathways. Consequently, very few results and conclusions on associated ecosystems can
be provided.
• The analysis of how values were included in the exploratory scenario and normative scenario
(or pathways) literature showed that some dimensions of value (i.e. intrinsic values) were not
considered by the majority of futures studies. This highlights a significant gap in the current
literature in recognizing the diversity of values where most studies predominantly focus on
anthropocentric values (i.e. instrumental). Furthermore, socio-cultural approaches to
valuation were used to a much lesser extent than biophysical or economic methods.
In the following, knowledge gaps and uncertainties for each of the individual reviews are highlighted:
The review on exploratory scenarios revealed that the indirect drivers of institutional change, cultural
change and technology were rarely explicitly included within scenario analyses, but frequently
subsumed within common socio-economic storylines (i.e. IPCC SRES, SSPs). Only limited aspects of
these driver categories were addressed by the studies, for example efficiency of governance, level of
international collaboration and proactivity of environmental management among institutional drivers;
diet, material and meat consumption and environmental awareness among cultural drivers; and
agricultural efficiency among technological drivers. Given the frequent presence of technology,
cultural and governance drivers within qualitative storylines, we hypothesize that the relative absence
of explicitly quantified technology and governance drivers is due to the complexities involved in
parameterizing such uncertain drivers for inclusion in models. Economic drivers were frequently
parametrized through increasingly questioned indicators, such as GDP.
The direct drivers of pollution and invasive alien species also had limited coverage in exploratory
scenarios compared to other direct drivers, such as climate change and land use change. Among
pollution drivers, only nutrient emissions from agriculture were covered more frequently. Biological
invasions were addressed only generally in most cases, assuming high or low levels of invasive alien
species, without specific assumptions regarding individual species.
The review of integrated models revealed that integrated studies which attempt to capture some of
the complex interdependencies between human and environmental systems under multiple drivers of

903
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

change are rare, particularly for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Furthermore, they are often limited
in the different social and ecological components that are coupled and the feedbacks between them
that are represented. Few studies specifically focus on nature and its contributions to people, although
such aspects can be included as part of a model chain or by linking the output of integrated models to
biodiversity or ecosystem service models. This is a key priority for future work to quantify impacts on
nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life indicators under both exploratory and
normative scenarios (or pathways), including the uncertainties associated with such model
projections. Moreover, integrated models that accounted for nature’s non-material contributions and
aspects of a good quality of life were rare, and the few that were found used simplified expert-based
approaches for representing the interrelationships. Few integrated modelling approaches have been
benchmarked or inter-compared to fully capture and quantify uncertainties from different approaches.
There is a significant gap in integrated assessments in terms of exploring the full range of synergies
and trade-offs between the multiple aspects of nature, its contributions to people, and a good quality
of life under different scenario archetypes and across different scales.
Furthermore, nature is not a simple unit. Rather, any change in drivers will likely favour some
dimension of biodiversity (i.e. some species, variants, combinations of species that produce a given
ecological function) at the expense of others. As a result, nature is rarely included as a dependent
variable in scenarios. However, according to the IPBES conceptual framework, knowledge on the
responses of various facets of nature to various direct and indirect drivers, and on the effects of
changes in nature on changes in its contributions to people, would be crucial. Moreover, the
multifaceted character of biodiversity may also explain why integrated models struggle to capture
detailed impacts on biodiversity (many use simple indicators, such as mean species abundance or
biodiversity vulnerability indices). Coupling more sophisticated (process-based rather than statistical)
models of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning with models of human processes within integrated
assessment models would provide a more realistic assessment of the trade-offs between nature and
other indicators of socio-ecological systems. Despite these drawbacks, integrated modelling
approaches offer great promise in capturing some of the important interrelationships in complex
systems which are key to understanding the impacts of drivers on nature, its contributions to people,
and a good quality of life.
The visions literature search yielded only a limited number of regional visions, with a small number of
visions from the scientific literature. For Western, Central and Eastern Europe, visions have already
been developed by different stakeholder groups and for several activity sectors. In Central Asia,
however, future planning is only covered by the strategic plans developed by governmental agencies.
Thematic gaps, for which societal visions have not been found, include marine ecosystems and urban
systems at the broad regional scale. The level of development of visions was very heterogeneous (from
a single paragraph to detailed descriptions of vision components), and most lacked quantitative goals
providing only qualitative orientating goals. Moreover, reviewed visions did not explicitly include a
diverse range of values in their narratives. Visions can also be “stakeholder-specific” with different
societal groups having different (and potentially conflicting) visions of the future. Visioning processes
which rationalize or accommodate these different viewpoints in their analysis are rare, although cross-
sectoral visions involving multiple stakeholders were found.
Environmental goals within visions were mostly related to the need to reduce or avoid environmental
impacts derived from human activity or in the context of nature’s contributions to people. The
underpinning role of nature and ecosystems in the delivery of these contributions and the
maintenance of good quality of life was often missed. Finally, the analysis of visions content suggests
that interregional flows are being overlooked, which could result in an aggravation of global
inequalities.

904
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The pathways review found that there are very few fully developed pathways studies that go beyond
narrative presentations of pathways and are supported by quantitative modelling. Nevertheless, well-
developed narrative approaches may be just as valuable (if sometimes not more so) for empowering
decision-makers and stakeholders, but this makes results more difficult to link with exploratory
scenarios and formal analyses of specific drivers (i.e. analytical approaches) using quantitative
modelling approaches. In addition, this lack of quantitative analysis means that pathway narratives
express intent rather than feasibility, and that some trade-offs may be underestimated. Many
pathways studies addressed trade-offs between nature’s material contributions to people (food,
timber, fisheries) and water provisioning and quality, global climate regulation and biodiversity
conservation. However, consideration of biotic regulation services (e.g. pollination, pest control),
natural hazard protection and non-material contributions were largely absent from trade-off analyses.
Detailed descriptions and sequencing of actions within pathways was rare, as was information on
combinations of policy instruments for implementing specific actions. With the notable exception of
transition movements narratives, pathways to sustainability focused on very few dimensions of a good
quality of life. 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. Furthermore,
while investments were mentioned in a number of studies across the chapter, none of them provided
systematic research to appropriately respond to the role of investments in the protection of
ecosystems.

905
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5.7 References

Acosta-Michlik, L. A., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Bakker, M., Van Doorn, A., Gómez-Delgado, M., & Delgado,
M. (2014). An agent-based assessment of land use and ecosystem changes in traditional
agricultural landscape of Portugal. Intelligent Information Management, 6(2), 55–80.
http://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2014.62008
Alexander, P., Prestele, R., Verburg, P. H., Arneth, A., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Jain, A. K., Meiyappan,
P., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Brown, C., Holzhauer, S., Dendoncker, N., Steinbuks, J., Lenton, T.,
Powell, T., Sands, R. D., Kyle, P., Wise, M. A., Doelman, J., Stehfest, E., Schaldach, R., Jacobs-
Crisioni, C., Lavalle, C., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Baumanns, K., Butler,
A., Liu, J., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2017). Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Global
Change Biology, 23, 767–781. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13447
Anand, M. (2016). Innovation and sustainable development: A bioeconomic perspective. Brief for GSDR
– 2016 Update. Retrieved from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/982044_Anand_Innovation%20an
d%20Sustainable%20Development_A%20Bioeconomic%20Perspective.pdf
Audsley, E., Trnka, M., Sabaté, S., Maspons, J., Sanchez, A., Sandars, D., Balek, J., & Pearn, K. (2015).
Interactively modelling land profitability to estimate European agricultural and forest land use
under future scenarios of climate, socio-economics and adaptation. Climatic Change, 128(3–4),
215–227. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1164-6
Ay, J., Chakir, R., Doyen, L., Jiguet, F., & Leadley, P. (2014). Integrated models, scenarios and dynamics
of climate, land use and common birds. Climate Change, 126, 13-30.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1202-4
Barabanova, Y., Zanoli, R., Schlüter, M., & Stopes, C. (2015). Transforming food & farming: An organic
vision for Europe in 2030. Brussels, Belgium: IFOAM EU Group.
Barthel, R., Reichenau, T. G., Krimly, T., Dabbert, S., Schneider, K., & Mauser, W. (2012). Integrated
modeling of global change impacts on agriculture and groundwater resources. Water Resources
Management, 26(7), 1929–1951. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0001-9
Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe,
A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon,
A., Lovett, A. a, Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van
Soest, D., & Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making:
Land use in the United Kingdom. Science, 341(6141), 45–50.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1234379
BECOTEPS. (2011). The European bioeconomy in 2030: Delivering sustainable growth by addressing the
grand societal challenges. Retrieved from http://www.epsoweb.org/file/560
Bennett, E. M., Solan, M., Biggs, R., McPhearson, T., Norström, A. V., Olsson, P., Pereira, L., Peterson,
G. D., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Biermann, F., Carpenter, S. R., Ellis, E. C., Hichert, T., Galaz, V., Lahsen,
M., Milkoreit, M., Martin López, B., Nicholas, K. A., Preiser, R., Vince, G., Vervoort, J. M., & Xu, J.
(2016). Bright spots: seeds of a good Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment,
14(8), 441–448. http://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1309
Bezama, A. (2016). Let us discuss how cascading can help implement the circular economy and the bio-
economy strategies. Waste Management & Research, 34(7), 593–594.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0734242x16657973

906
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bezama, A. (2017). Implementing novel technologies under the bioeconomy strategy: Challenges from
a regional perspective.
Blanchard, J. L., Jennings, S., Holmes, R., Harle, J., Merino, G., Allen, J. I., Holt, J., Dulvy, N. K., & Barange,
M. (2012). Potential consequences of climate change for primary production and fish production
in large marine ecosystems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
367(1605), 2979–89. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0231
Blanco, V., Holzhauer, S., Brown, C., Lagergren, F., Vulturius, G., Lindeskog, M., & Rounsevell, M. D. A.
(2017). The effect of forest owner decision-making, climatic change and societal demands on
land-use change and ecosystem service provision in Sweden. Ecosystem Services, 23, 174–208.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.12.003
Bobojonov, I., & Aw-Hassan, A. (2014). Impacts of climate change on farm income security in Central
Asia: An integrated modeling approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 188, 245–255.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.033
Bolliger, J., Kienast, F., Soliva, R., & Rutherford, G. (2007). Spatial sensitivity of species habitat patterns
to scenarios of land use change (Switzerland). Landscape Ecology, 22(5), 773–789.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9077-7
Bourdôt, G. W., Lamoureaux, S. L., Watt, M. S., Manning, L. K., & Kriticos, D. J. (2012). The potential
global distribution of the invasive weed Nassella neesiana under current and future climates.
Biological Invasions, 14(8), 1545–1556. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9905-6
Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K. J., Berry, P., Young, J., Carmen, E., Spulerova, J., Bezak,
P., Preda, E., & Vadineanu, A. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies.
Ecosystem Services, 29, 213-222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011
Briner, S., Huber, R., Bebi, P., Elkin, C., Schmatz, D. R., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2013). Trade-offs between
ecosystem services in a mountain region. Ecology and Society, 18(3). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
05576-180335
Brown, C., Brown, E., Murray-Rust, D., Cojocaru, G., Savin, C., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2015). Analysing
uncertainties in climate change impact assessment across sectors and scenarios. Climatic Change,
128, 293–306. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1133-0
Brown, C., Holzhauer, S., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J. S., & Rounsevell, M. (2016). Land managers’
behaviours modulate pathways to visions of future land systems. Regional Environmental
Change, 18(3), 831-845). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0999-y
Brown, C., Murray-Rust, D., van Vliet, J., Alam, S. J., Verburg, P. H., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2014).
Experiments in globalisation, food security and land use decision making. PLoS ONE, 9(12),
e114213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114213
Brunner, S. H., Huber, R., & Grêt-Regamey, A. (2015). A backcasting approach for matching regional
ecosystem services supply and demand. Environmental Modelling & Software, 75, 439-458.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.018
Burek, P., Mubareka, S., Rojas, R., de Roo, A., Bianchi, A., Baranzelli, C., & Lavalle, C. (2012). Evaluation
of the effectiveness of natural water retention measures. Support to the EU blueprint to safeguard
Europe’s waters. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Busch, G. (2006). Future European agricultural landscapes - What can we learn from existing
quantitative land use scenario studies? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114(1), 121–
140. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.007

907
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Butler, J. R. A., Suadnya, W., Puspadi, K., Sutaryono, Y., Wise, R. M., Skewes, T. D., Kirono, D., Bohensky,
E. L., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., Kisman, M., Suharto, I., Hanartani, Supartarningsih, S., Ripaldi, A.,
Fachry, A., Yanuartati, Y., Abbas, G., Duggan, K., & Ash, A. (2014). Framing the application of
adaptation pathways for rural livelihoods and global change in eastern Indonesian islands. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 368–382. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.004
Capellán-Pérez, I., Mediavilla, M., de Castro, C., Carpintero, Ó., & Miguel, L. J. (2015). More growth?
An unfeasible option to overcome critical energy constraints and climate change. Sustainability
Science, 10(3), 397–411. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0299-3
CBD. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
CBD/MNP. (2007). Cross-roads of life on Earth - Exploring means to meet the 2010 biodiversity target.
Solution-oriented scenarios for the Global biodiversity outlook 2. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Chertov, O. G., Komarov, A. S., Gryazkin, A. V, Smirnov, A. P., & Bhatti, D. S. (2014). Simulation modeling
of the impact of forest fire on the carbon pool in coniferous forests of European Russia and
central Canada. Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 6(7), 727–733.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425513070032
Cheung, W. W. L., Jones, M. C., Reygondeau, G., Stock, C. A., Lam, V. W. Y., & Frölicher, T. L. (2016).
Structural uncertainty in projecting global fisheries catches under climate change. Ecological
Modelling, 325, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.12.018
Chytrý, M., Wild, J., Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Dendoncker, N., Reginster, I., Pino, J., Maskell, L. C., Vila, M.,
Pergl, J., Kuhn, I., Spangenberg, J. H., & Settele, J. (2012). Projecting trends in plant invasions in
Europe under different scenarios of future land-use change. Global Ecology and Biogeography,
21(1), 75–87. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00573.x
Cosgrove, W. J., & Rijsberman, F. R. (2014). Our vision of water and life in 2025. In World water vision:
making water everybody’s business (pp. 49-58). London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. (2015). Strategy on the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity. Approved by the Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 1707 on
19.11.2010, amended on 03.09.2015. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/by/by-
nbsap-v2-p2-en.pdf
Davies, A. R., & Doyle, R. (2015). Transforming household consumption: From backcasting to homelabs
experiments. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 425–436.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.1000948
De Vries, W., & Posch, M. (2011). Modelling the impact of nitrogen deposition, climate change and
nutrient limitations on tree carbon sequestration in Europe for the period 1900-2050.
Environmental Pollution, 159(10), 2289–2299. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.11.023
Demeulenaere, E. (2014). A political ontology of seeds: The transformative frictions of a farmers’
movement in Europe. Focaal, 2014(69), 45–61. http://doi.org/10.3167/fcl.2014.690104
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigaderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico,
S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E.,
Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G. M., Martin-López,
B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E. S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.
J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z. A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh,
Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, T. S., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, A. L., Caillaux, J.,

908
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A. M. M., Fu,
B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W. A.,
Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J. P., Mikissa, J. B., Moller, H.,
Mooney, H. A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A. A., Pataki, G., Roué,
M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Teo-Chang,
Y., & Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Dietrich, O., Steidl, J., & Pavlik, D. (2012). The impact of global change on the water balance of large
wetlands in the Elbe Lowland. Regional Environmental Change, 12(4), 701–713.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0286-5
Dullinger, S., Dendoncker, N., Gattringer, A., Leitner, M., Mang, T., Moser, D., Mucher, C. A., Plutzar,
C., Rounsevell, M., Willner, W., Zimmermann, N., & Hülber, K. (2015). Modelling the effect of
habitat fragmentation on climate-driven migration of European forest understorey plants.
Diversity and Distributions, 21(12), 1375–1387. http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12370
Dunford, R. W., Harrison, P. A., Jäger, J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Tinch, R. (2015a). Exploring climate
change vulnerability across sectors and scenarios using indicators of impacts and coping capacity.
Climatic Change, 128(3–4), 339–354. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1162-8
Dunford, R. W., Harrison, P. A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2014). Exploring scenario and model uncertainty
in cross-sectoral integrated assessment approaches to climate change impacts. Climatic Change,
132(3), 417–432. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1211-3
Dunford, R. W., Smith, A. C., Harrison, P. A., & Hanganu, D. (2015b). Ecosystem service provision in a
changing Europe: Adapting to the impacts of combined climate and socio-economic change.
Landscape Ecology, 30(3), 443–461. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0148-2
Eames, M., Hunt, M., Dixon, T., & Britnell, J. (2013). Retrofit city futures: Visions for urban sustainability.
Retrieved from www.retrofit2050.org.uk
EATIP. (2012). The future of European aquaculture - our vision: A strategic agenda for the future of
European aquaculture. Retrieved from http://www.eatip.eu/default.asp?SHORTCUT=92
Edjabou, L. D., & Smed, S. (2013). The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate
friendly diets - The case of Denmark. Food Policy, 39, 84–96.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.12.004
Eggers, J., Lindner, M., Zudin, S., Zaehle, S., & Liski, J. (2008). Impact of changing wood demand, climate
and land use on European forest resources and carbon stocks during the 21st century. Global
Change Biology, 14(10), 2288–2303. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01653.x
Eickhout, B., van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., & van Rheenen, T. (2007). Economic and ecological
consequences of four European land use scenarios. Land Use Policy, 24(3), 562–575.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.01.004
Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Semerádová, D., Thaler, S., Svobodová, E., Hlavinka, P., Siska, B., Takac, J.,
Malatinska, L., Novakova, M., Dubrovsky, M., & Žalud, Z. (2013). Regional climate change impacts
on agricultural crop production in Central and Eastern Europe - Hotspots, regional differences
and common trends. Journal of Agricultural Science, 151(6), 787–812.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859612000767
El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D., & Philp, J. (2016). Policy: Five cornerstones of a

909
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

global bioeconomy. Nature, 535(7611), 221–223. http://doi.org/10.1038/535221a

Eliseev, A. V, & Mokhov, I. I. (2011). Uncertainty of climate response to natural and anthropogenic
forcings due to different land use scenarios. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 1215–1232.
http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-010-0054-8
Erol, A., & Randhir, T. O. (2013). Watershed ecosystem modeling of land-use impacts on water quality.
Ecological Modelling, 270, 54–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmode1.2013.09.005
European Commission. (2012). Innovating for sustainable growth: A bioeconomy for Europe. Industrial
Biotechnology, 8(2), 57-61. http://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2012.1508
European Commission. (2015). Global food security 2030. Assessing trends with a view to guiding.
http://doi.org/10.2788/5992
FAO. (2014). Building a common vision for sustainable food and agriculture: Principles and approaches.
FAO. (2015). Groundwater governance, a call for action: A shared global vision for 2030.
Fauré, E., Svenfelt, Å., Finnveden, G., & Hornborg, A. (2016). Four sustainability goals in a Swedish low-
growth/degrowth context. Sustainability, 8(11), 1080. http://doi.org/10.3390/su8111080
Fazeni, K., & Steinmüller, H. (2011). Impact of changes in diet on the availability of land, energy
demand, and greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 1, 6.
http://doi.org/10.1186/2192-0567-1-6
Fazey, I., Wise, R. M., Lyon, C., Câmpeanu, C., Moug, P., & Davies, T. E. (2015). Past and future
adaptation pathways. Climate and Development, 8(1), 26-44.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2014.989192
Ferguson, B. C., Frantzeskaki, N., & Brown, R. R. (2013). A strategic program for transitioning to a water
sensitive city. Landscape and Urban Planning, 117, 32–45.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.04.016
Fischer, D., Moeller, P., Thomas, S. M., Naucke, T. J., & Beierkuhnlein, C. (2011). Combining climatic
projections and dispersal ability: A method for estimating the responses of sandfly vector species
to climate change. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 5(11), e1407.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001407
Flörke, M., Bärlund, I., Schneider, C., & Kynast, E. (2012). Pan-European freshwater resources in a
changing environment: How will the Black Sea region develop? Water Science and Technology:
Water Supply, 12(5), 563–572. http://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2012.027
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and
biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 41.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341
Food Drink Europe. (2012). Environmental sustainability vision towards 2030.
Forest Europe. (2011). Updated Forest Europe work programme. Pan-European follow-up of the Forest
Europe ministerial conference, Oslo June 2011.
Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., & Meadowcroft, J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to
sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 15(1/2), 19-36.
http://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2012.044032
Fronzek, S., Carter, T. R., & Jylhä, K. (2012). Representing two centuries of past and future climate for
assessing risks to biodiversity in Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(1), 19–35.

910
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00695.x
Galli, G., Solidoro, C., & Lovato, T. (2017). Marine heat waves hazard 3D maps and the risk for low
motility organisms in a warming Mediterranean Sea. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 1–14.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00136
Gálos, B., Mátyás, C., & Jacob, D. (2011). Regional characteristics of climate change altering effects of
afforestation. Environmental Research Letters, 6(4), 44010. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/6/4/044010
Gao, X., & Giorgi, F. (2008). Increased aridity in the Mediterranean region under greenhouse gas forcing
estimated from high resolution simulations with a regional climate model. Global and Planetary
Change, 62(3–4), 195–209. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.02.002
Garcia-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Lopez-Santiago, C. A., Aguilera, P. A., &
Montes, C. (2012). The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural
landscapes: An ecosystem service approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 19-20, 136-146.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006
Garrote, L., Granados, A., & Iglesias, A. (2016). Strategies to reduce water stress in Euro-Mediterranean
river basins. Science of the Total Environment, 543, 997–1009.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.106
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., van Lienden, A. R., Hoekstra, A. Y., & van der Meer, T. H. (2012). Biofuel
scenarios in a water perspective: The global blue and green water footprint of road transport in
2030. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 764–775.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.04.001
Government of France. (2012). Stratégie nationale pour la création et la gestion des aires marines
protégées [National strategy for the creation and management of marine protected areas].
Retrieved from https://www.ecologique-
solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Strat%C3%A9gie%20nationale%20de%20cr%C3%A9ation%2
0et%20de%20gestion%20des%20aires%20marines%20prot%C3%A9g%C3%A9es.pdf
Grabs, J., Langen, N., Maschkowski, G., & Schäpke, N. (2016). Understanding role models for change:
A multilevel analysis of success factors of grassroots initiatives for sustainable consumption.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 98–111. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.061
Grazhdani, D. (2014). An approach for assessing ecosystem services with application in a protected
area case study: Al-Prespa. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 20(Suppl.), 118–124.
Greenpeace. (2009). Greenpeace Climate Vision.
Guillem, E. E., Murray-Rust, D., Robinson, D. T., Barnes, A. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2015). Modelling
farmer decision-making to anticipate tradeoffs between provisioning ecosystem services and
biodiversity. Agricultural Systems, 137, 12–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.006
Hagemann, N., Gawel, E., Purkus, A., Pannicke, N., & Hauck, J. (2016). Possible futures towards a wood-
based bioeconomy: A scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability, 8(2), 98.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su8010098
Haines-Young, R., Paterson, J., Potschin, M., Wilson, A., & Kass, G. (2011). Scenarios: Development of
storylines and analysis of outcomes. In UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Technical report (pp.
1195–1264). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and

911
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

human well-being. In D. G. Raffaelli & C. L. J. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis (pp.
110–139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Håkanson, L., & Bryhn, A. C. (2014). Controlling eutrophication in the Baltic Sea and the Kattegat. In A.
A. Ansari, S. S. Gill, G. R. Lanza, & W. Rast (Eds.), Eutrophication: Causes, consequences and control
(pp. 17–67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9625-8
Hanspach, J., IPBES, Hartel, T., Milcu, A. I., Mikulcak, F., Dorresteijn, I., Loos, J., von Wehrden, H.,
Kuemmerle, T., Abson, D., Kovacs-Hostyanszki, A., Baldi, A., & Fischer, J. (2014). A holistic
approach to studying social-ecological systems and its application to southern Transylvania.
Ecology and Society, 19(4). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06915-190432
Harmáčková, Z. V., & Vačkář, D. (2015). Modelling regulating ecosystem services trade-offs across
landscape scenarios in Třeboňsko wetlands biosphere reserve, Czech Republic. Ecological
Modelling, 295, 207–215. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.10.003
Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R. W., Holman, I. P., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2016). Climate change impact
modelling needs to include cross-sectoral interactions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 885–892.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3039
Harrison, P. A., Holman, I. P., & Berry, P. M. (2015). Assessing cross-sectoral climate change impacts,
vulnerability and adaptation: An introduction to the CLIMSAVE project. Climatic Change, 128(3–
4), 153–167. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1324-3
Harrison, P. A., Holman, I. P., Cojocaru, G., Kok, K., Kontogianni, A., Metzger, M. J., & Gramberger, M.
(2013). Combining qualitative and quantitative understanding for exploring cross-sectoral
climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe. Regional Environmental Change,
13(4), 761–780. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0361-y
Hattam, C., Böhnke-Henrichs, A., Börger, T., Burdon, D., Hadjimichael, M., Delaney, A., Atkins, J. P.,
Garrard, S., & Austen, M. C. (2015). Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and
valuation: Mixed methods or mixed messages? Ecological Economics, 120, 126–138.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.011
Hattermann, F. F., Huang, S., & Koch, H. (2015). Climate change impacts on hydrology and water
resources. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 24(2), 201–211. http://doi.org/10.1127/metz/2014/0575
Hauck, J., Schleyer, C., Priess, J. A., Haines-Young, R., Harrison, P. A., Dunford, R., Kok, M., Young, J.,
Berry, P., Primmer, E., Veerkamp, C., Bela, G., Vadineanu, A., Dick, J., Alkemade, R., & Görg, C.
(2017). Policy Scenarios of future change. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 2.5.
Hauck, J., Winkler, K. J., & Priess, J. A. (2015). Reviewing drivers of ecosystem change as input for
environmental and ecosystem services modelling. Sustainability of Water Quality and Ecology, 5,
9–30. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2015.01.003
Heikkinen, H. I., Sarkki, S., & Nuttall, M. (2012). Users or producers of ecosystem services? A scenario
exercise for integrating conservation and reindeer herding in northeast Finland. Pastoralism:
Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 11. http://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-11
Hickler, T., Vohland, K., Feehan, J., Miller, P. A., Smith, B., Costa, L., Giesecke, T., Fronzek, S., Carter, T.
R., Cramer, W., Kühn, I., & Sykes, M. T. (2012). Projecting the future distribution of European
potential natural vegetation zones with a generalized, tree species-based dynamic vegetation
model. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(1), 50–63. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-
8238.2010.00613.x

912
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Hildebrandt, J., Bezama, A., & Thrän, D. (2017). Cascade use indicators for selected biopolymers: Are
we aiming for the right solutions in the design for recycling of bio-based polymers? Waste
Management & Research, 35(4), 367–378. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16683445
Hirschi, C., Widmer, A., Briner, S., & Huber, R. (2013). Combining policy network and model-based
scenario analyses: An assessment of future ecosystem goods and services in Swiss mountain
regions. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 42. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05480-180242
Holguin-Gonzalez, J., Boets, P., Everaert, G., Pauwels, I. S., Lock, K., Gobeyn, S., Benedetti, L.,
Amerlinck, Y., Nopens, I., & Goethals, P. L. (2014). Development and assessment of an integrated
ecological modelling framework to assess the effect of investments in wastewater treatment on
water quality. Water Science and Technology, 70(11), 1798-1807.
http://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.316
Holman, I. P., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Berry, P. M., & Nicholls, R. J. (2008a). Development and application
of participatory integrated assessment software to support local/regional impact and adaptation
assessment. Climatic Change, 90(1–2), 1–4. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9452-7
Holman, I. P., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Cojacaru, G., Shackley, S., McLachlan, C., Audsley, E., Berry, P. M.,
Fontaine, C., Harrison, P. A., Henriques, C., Mokrech, M., Nicholls, R. J., Pearn, K. R., & Richards,
J. A. (2008b). The concepts and development of a participatory regional integrated assessment
tool. Climatic Change, 90(1–2), 5–30. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9453-6
Hunt, D. V. L., Lombardi, D. R., Atkinson, S., Barber, A. R. G., Barnes, M., Boyko, C. T., Brown, J., Bryson,
J., Butler, D., Caputo, S., Caserio, M., Coles, R., Cooper, R. F. D., Farmani, R., Gaterell, M., Hale, J.,
Hales, C., Hewitt, C. N., Jankovic, L., Jefferson, I., Leach, J., MacKenzie, A. R., Memon, F. A., Sadler,
J. P., Weingaertner, C., Whyatt, J. D., & Rogers, C. D. F. (2012). Scenario archetypes: Converging
rather than diverging themes. Sustainability, 4(4), 740–772. http://doi.org/10.3390/su4040740
IGBP. (2009). 2050 - A vision for our planet. Global Change, 74, 16–19.
IPBES. (2015a). IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple
values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services
(deliverable 3 (d)). Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-4-plenary
IPBES. (2015b). IPBES/4/12: Work on policy support tools and methodologies (deliverable 4 (c)).
Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-4-plenary
IPBES. (2016a). IPBES/4/INF/9: Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and
across all scales (deliverable 2 (a)). Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-4-plenary
IPBES. (2016b). Methodological assessment report of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services. S. Ferrier,
K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. Cheung, V.
Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. Pereira, G.
Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. H. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. Wintle (Eds.). Bonn, Germany:
Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services.
IPCC. (2012). Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation - Special report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K.
Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer., & C. von
Stechow (Eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D. N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F.,

913
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

McGrath, F. L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K. J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P.,
Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R. H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R.,
Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K. S.-H. Phelan, A., Rincón, A. R., Rogers, S. H., Turkelboom, F., Van
Reeth, W., van Zanten, B. T., Wam, H. K., & Washbourn, C. L. (2016). A new valuation school:
Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22,
213–220. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007
Jakeman, A. J., & Letcher, R. A. (2003). Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and
examples for catchment management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 18(6), 491–501.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00024-0
Jarsjö, J., Törnqvist, R., & Su, Y. (2017). Climate-driven change of nitrogen retention–attenuation near
irrigated fields: multi-model projections for Central Asia. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(3),
117. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6418-y
Jiménez-Guerrero, P., Gómez-Navarro, J. J., Baró, R., Lorente, R., Ratola, N., & Montávez, J. P. (2013).
Is there a common pattern of future gas-phase air pollution in Europe under diverse climate
change scenarios? Climatic Change, 121(4), 661–671. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0944-
8
Kamp, J., Urazaliev, R., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Green, R. E., Lamb, A. J., & Phalan, B. (2015).
Agricultural development and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Eurasian steppes: A
comparison of land-sparing and land-sharing approaches. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(6),
1578–1587. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12527
Kara, F. (2014). Effects of climate change on water resources in Omerli Basin (Doctoral dissertation).
Kebede, A. S., Dunford, R., Mokrech, M., Audsley, E., Harrison, P. A., Holman, I. P., Nicholls, R. J.,
Rickebusch, S., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Sabaté, S., Sallaba, F., Sanchez, A., Savin, C., Trnka, M., &
Wimmer, F. (2015). Direct and indirect impacts of climate and socio-economic change in Europe:
a sensitivity analysis for key land- and water-based sectors. Climatic Change, 128(3–4), 261–277.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1313-y
Kelly, R., Jakeman, A. J., Barreteau, O., Borsuk, M. E., ElSawah, S., Hamilton, S. H., Henriksen, H. J.,
Kuikka, S., Maier, H. R., Rizzoli, A. E., van Delden, H., & Voinov, A. A. (2013). Selecting among five
common modelling approaches for integrated environmental assessment and management.
Environmental Modelling and Software, 47, 159–181.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.05.005
Kelly, R., Leach, K., Cameron, A., Maggs, C. A., & Reid, N. (2014). Combining global climate and regional
landscape models to improve prediction of invasion risk. Diversity and Distributions, 20(8), 884–
894. http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12194
Kirchner, M., Schmidt, J., Kindermann, G., Kulmer, V., Mitter, H., Prettenthaler, F., Rüdisser, J.,
Schauppenlehner, T., Schönhart, M., Strauss, F., Tappeiner, U., Tasser, E., & Schmid, E. (2015).
Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes - The impact
of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies. Ecological Economics, 109,
161–174. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.005
Kirveennummi, A., Mäkelä, J., & Saarimaa, R. (2013). Beating unsustainability with eating: Four
alternative food-consumption scenarios. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 9(2), 83–91.
Kitti, H., Gunslay, N., & Forbes, B. C. (2006). Defining the quality of reindeer pastures: The perspectives
of Sámi reindeer herders. In Reindeer management in northernmost Europe (pp. 141–165). Berlin,

914
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Germany: Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31392-3_8

Kitzes, J., Wackernagel, M., Loh, J., Peller, A., Goldfinger, S., Cheng, D., & Tea, K. (2008). Shrink and
share: Humanity’s present and future ecological footprint. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 467–475. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2164
Koch, F., Prasch, M., Bach, H., Mauser, W., Appel, F., & Weber, M. (2011). How will hydroelectric power
generation develop under climate change scenarios? A case study in the upper Danube basin.
Energies, 4(10), 1508–1541. http://doi.org/10.3390/en4101508
Kok, K., Gramberger, M., Simon, K.-H., Jäger, J., Omann, I. (2013). The CLIMSAVE Project: Report on the
new methodology for scenario analysis, Including guidelines for its implementation.
Kok, K., & Pedde, S. (2016). IMPRESSIONS socio-economic scenarios. EU FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project
Deliverable D2.2.
Kok, K., van Vliet, M., Bärlund, I., Dubel, A., & Sendzimir, J. (2011). Combining participative backcasting
and exploratory scenario development: Experiences from the SCENES project. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 78(5), 835–851. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.004
Kolomyts, E. G. (2006). Prognosis of the impact of global climate change on zonal ecosystems of the
Volga River basin. Russian Journal of Ecology, 37(6), 391–401.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S1067413606060051
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Anderson, S., & Sutton, P. (2017). The future value of ecosystem services:
Global scenarios and national implications. Ecosystem Services, 26, 289–301.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.004
Lamarque, P., Artaux, A., Barnaud, C., Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S. (2013). Taking into
account farmers’ decision making to map fine-scale land management adaptation to climate and
socio-economic scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, 147–157.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.012
Lamarque, P., Meyfroidt, P., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S. (2014). How ecosystem services knowledge and
values influence farmers’ decision-making. PLoS ONE, 9(9). e107572.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572
Latkovska, I., Apsite, E., Elferts, D., & Kurpniece, L. (2012). Forecasted changes in the climate and the
river runoff regime in Latvian river basins. Baltica, 25(2), 143–152.
http://doi.org/10.5200/baltica.2012.25.14
Lazzari, P., Mattia, G., Solidoro, C., Salon, S., Crise, A., Zavatarelli, M., Oddo, P., & Vichi, M. (2014). The
impacts of climate change and environmental management policies on the trophic regimes in the
Mediterranean Sea: Scenario analyses. Journal of Marine Systems, 135, 137–149.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2013.06.005
Leadley, P. W., Krug, C. B., Alkemade, R., Pereira, H. M., Sumaila, U. R., Walpole, M., Marques, A.,
Newbold, T., Teh, L. S. L, van Kolck, J., Bellard, C., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., & Mumby, P. J.
(2013). Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An assessment of biodiversity trends,
policy scenarios and key actions. CBD technical series 78. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-
78-en.pdf
Lenschow, A., Newig, J., & Challies, E. (2015). Globalization’s limits to the environmental state?
Integrating telecoupling into global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 4016, 1–
24. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1074384

915
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Lorencová, K. E., Harmáčková, Z. V., Landová, L., Pártl, A., & Vačkář, D. (2016). Assessing impact of land
use and climate change on regulating ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Ecosystem Health
and Sustainability, 2(3).
Lorencová, E., Frélichová, J., Nelson, E., & Vačkář, D. (2013). Past and future impacts of land use and
climate change on agricultural ecosystem services in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy, 33,
183–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012
Louca, M., Vogiatzakis, I. N., & Moustakas, A. (2015). Modelling the combined effects of land use and
climatic changes: Coupling bioclimatic modelling with Markov-chain cellular automata in a case
study in Cyprus. Ecological Informatics, 30, 241–249.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.05.008
Luck, G. W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P. A., Kremen, C., Berry, P. M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T. P., de Bello,
F., Díaz, S., Feld, C. K., Haslett, J. R., Hering, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, M. D. A.,
Samways, M. J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M. T., van den Hove, S., Vandewalle, M., & Zobel, M.
(2009). Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provison of ecosystem services.
BioScience, 59, 223–235. http://doi.org/10.1025/bio.2009.59.3.7
Ludwig, W., Bouwman, A. F., Dumont, E., & Lespinas, F. (2010). Water and nutrient fluxes from major
Mediterranean and Black Sea rivers: Past and future trends and their implications for the basin-
scale budgets. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 24(4), 1–14.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003594
Luederitz, C., Abson, D. J., Audet, R., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Many pathways toward sustainability: not
conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustainability Science, 12(3), 393–407.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0414-0
Maes, J., Barbosa, A., Baranzelli, C., Zulian, G., Batista e Silva, F., Vandecasteele, I., Hiederer, R., Liquete,
C., Paracchini, M. L., Mubareka, S., Jacobs-Crisioni, C., Castillo, C. P., & Lavalle, C. (2015). More
green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use
change in Europe. Landscape Ecology, 30(3), 517–534. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0083-
2
Maestre Andrés, S., Calvet Mir, L., van den Bergh, J. C. J. M., Ring, I., & Verburg, P. H. (2012). Ineffective
biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosystem Services, 1, 101–110.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.003
MEA. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2. Washington DC, USA: Island
Press.
Medeu, A., Malkovsky, I., & Toleubaeva, L. [Медеу, А., Малиновский, И., & Толеубаева, Л.]. (2015).
Водная безопасность Казахстана: проблемы и решения [Water Security in Kazakhstan: issues
and solutions]. In The role of geography in study and prevention of natural–anthropogenic
hazards on the territories of the CIS and Georgia [Роль географии в изучении и
предотвращении природных-антропогенных катастроф на территории СНГ и Грузии]
(pp. 242–253).
Meier, H. E. M., Andersson, H. C., Arheimer, B., Blenckner, T., Chubarenko, B., Donnelly, C., Eilola, K.,
Gustafsson, B. G., Hansson, A., Havenhand, J., Höglund, A., Kuznetsov, I., MacKenzie, B. R., Müller-
Karulis, B., Neumann, T., Niiranen, S., Piwowarczyk, J., Raudsepp, U., Reckermann, M., Ruoho-
Airola, T., Savchuk, O. P., Schenk, F., Schimanke, S., Väli, G., Weslawski, J.-M., & Zorita, E. (2012).
Comparing reconstructed past variations and future projections of the Baltic Sea ecosystem—
first results from multi-model ensemble simulations. Environmental Research Letters, 7(3),

916
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

34005. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034005
Meier, H. E. M., Andersson, H. C., Arheimer, B., Donnelly, C., Eilola, K., Gustafsson, B. G., Kotwicki, L.,
Neset, T. S., Niiranen, S., Piwowarczyk, J., Savchuk, O. P., Schenk, F., Wȩsławski, J. M., & Zorita, E.
(2014). Ensemble modeling of the Baltic Sea ecosystem to provide scenarios for management.
Ambio, 43(1), 37–48. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0475-6
Merino, G., Barange, M., Blanchard, J. L., Harle, J., Holmes, R., Allen, I., Allison, E. H., Badjeck, M. C.,
Dulvy, N. K., Holt, J., Jennings, S., Mullon, C., & Rodwell, L. D. (2012). Can marine fisheries and
aquaculture meet fish demand from a growing human population in a changing climate? Global
Environmental Change, 22(4), 795–806. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.03.003
Milestad, R., Svenfelt, Å., & Dreborg, K. H. (2014). Developing integrated explorative and normative
scenarios: The case of future land use in a climate-neutral Sweden. Futures, 60, 59–71.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.04.015
Mina, M., Bugmann, H., Cordonnier, T., Irauschek, F., Klopcic, M., Pardos, M., & Cailleret, M. (2016).
Future ecosystem services from European mountain forests under climate change. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 54(2), 389-401. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12772
Mina, M., Bugmann, H., Klopcic, M., & Cailleret, M. (2017). Accurate modeling of harvesting is key for
projecting future forest dynamics: a case study in the Slovenian mountains. Regional
Environmental Change, 17(1), 49-64. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0902-2
Mitchley, J., Price, M. F., & Tzanopoulos, J. (2006). Integrated futures for Europe’s mountain regions:
Reconciling biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods. Journal of Mountain Science, 3(4),
276–286. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-006-0276-5
Mokrech, M., Kebede, A. S., Nicholls, R. J., Wimmer, F., & Feyen, L. (2014). An integrated approach for
assessing flood impacts due to future climate and socio-economic conditions and the scope of
adaptation in Europe. Climatic Change, 128(3–4), 245–260. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-
1298-6
Mont, O., Neuvonen, A., & Lähteenoja, S. (2014). Sustainable lifestyles 2050: Stakeholder visions,
emerging practices and future research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 24–32.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.007
Murray-Rust, D., Rieser, V., Robinson, D. T., Miličič, V., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2013). Agent-based
modelling of land use dynamics and residential quality of life for future scenarios. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 46, 75–89. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.02.011
Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Yong
Jung, T, Kram, T., La Rovere, E. L., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T, Pepper, W., Pitcher, H., Price,
L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A, Rogner, H, Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R.,
van Rooijen, S., Victor, N., & Dadi, Z. (2000). Special report on emissions scenarios. N. Nakicenovic,
& R. Swart (Eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Neteler, M., Metz, M., Rocchini, D., Rizzoli, A., Flacio, E., Engeler, L., Guidi, V., Luthy, P., & Tonolla, M.
(2013). Is Switzerland suitable for the invasion of Aedes albopictus? PLoS ONE, 8(12), 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082090
Nol, L., Verburg, P. H., & Moors, E. J. (2012). Trends in future N2O emissions due to land use change.
Journal of Environmental Management, 94(1), 78–90.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.053
Norwegian Saami Association. (2008). Miljøpolitisk Program for Norske Samers Riksforbund (NSR).
917
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Saksframlegg til landsmøtet i Norske Samers Riksforbund 2008 Sak 10 Miljøpolitisk

prinsipprogram [Environmental Policy Program for the Norwegian Saami Association (NSR).
Presentation of issues for the Norwegian Saami Association congress 2008, issue 10,
Environmental Policy Paper (2008)]. Retrieved from http://www3.nsr.no/files/LM 2008/Sak 10
Miljopolitisk prinsipprogram.pdf
Nunneri, C., Windhorst, W., Kerry Turner, R., & Lenhart, H. (2007). Nutrient emission reduction
scenarios in the North Sea: An abatement cost and ecosystem integrity analysis. Ecological
Indicators, 7(4), 776–792. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.09.002
O’Neill, B. C., Kriegler, E., Ebi, K. L., Kemp-Benedict, E., Riahi, K., Rothman, D. S., van Ruijven, B. J., van
Vuuren, D. P., Birkmann, J., & Kok, K. (2015). The roads ahead: Narratives for shared
socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental
Change, 42, 169–180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004
Obersteiner, M., Walsh, B., Frank, S., Havlík, P., Cantele, M., Liu, J., Palazzo, A., Herrero, M., Lu, Y.,
Mosnier, A., Valin, H., Riahi, K., Kraxner, F., Fritz, S., & Van Vuuren, D. (2016). Assessing the land
resource - food price nexus of the Sustainable Development Goals. Science Advances, 2(9),
e1501499. http://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1501499
Oesterwind, D., Rau, A., & Zaiko, A. (2016). Drivers and pressures - Untangling the terms commonly
used in marine science and policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 181, 8–15.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.05.058
Okruszko, T., Duel, H., Acreman, M., Grygoruk, M., Flörke, M., & Schneider, C. (2011). Broad-scale
ecosystem services of European wetlands — Overview of the current situation and future
perspectives under different climate and water management scenarios. Hydrological Sciences
Journal, 56(8), 1501–1517. http://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.631188
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Daw, T. M., Bohensky, E., Butler, J., Hill, R., Martin-Ortega, J.,
Quinlan, A., Ravera, F., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Thyresson, M., Mistry, J., Palomo, I., Peterson, G.,
Plieninger, T., Waylen, K., Beach, D., Bohnet, I., Hamann, M., Hanspach, J., Hubacek, K., Lavorel,
S., & Vilardy, S. (2015). Participatory scenario-planning in place-based social-ecological research:
Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 32.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07985-200432
Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., López, C. A., Palomo, I., & González, J. A. (2013). Envisioning the
future of transhumant pastoralism through participatory scenario planning: a case study in Spain.
The Rangeland Journal, 35(3), 251-272. http://doi.org/10.1071/RJ12092
Ozolincius, R., Lekevicius, E., Stakenas, V., Galvonaite, A., Samas, A., & Valiukas, D. (2014). Lithuanian
forests and climate change: Possible effects on tree species composition. European Journal of
Forest Research, 133(1), 51–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0735-9
Palacios-Agundez, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., & Onaindia, M. (2013). The relevance of local
participatory scenario planning for ecosystem management policies in the Basque Country,
northern Spain. Ecology and Society, 18(3), UNSP 7. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05619-180307
Palomo, I., Martín-Lopéz, B., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Participatory scenario planning
for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: The Donana social-
ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 23.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03862-160123
Parliament of Ukraine. (2016) Law of Ukraine “On the Main Principles (Strategy) of the National

918
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Environmental Policy of Ukraine until 2020” No. 2818. Adopted on December, 21, 2010. Retrieved
from https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ua/ua-nbsap-v3-en.pdf
Partidário, M. R., Sheate, W. R., Bina, O., Byron, H., & Augusto, B. (2009). Sustainability assessment for
agriculture scenarios in Europe’s mountain areas: Lessons from six study areas. Environmental
Management, 43(1), 144–165. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9206-3
Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Diaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E.,
Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S.
Al-Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J. Bullock, C., Cáceres,
D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D.,
Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue,
W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.
B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., & Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to
people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26, 7–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Paul, A. G., Hammen, V. C., Hickler, T., Karlson, U. G., Jones, K. C., & Sweetman, A. J. (2012). Potential
implications of future climate and land-cover changes for the fate and distribution of persistent
organic pollutants in Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(1), 64–74.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00547.x
Payne, M. R., Barange, M., Cheung, W. W. L., MacKenzie, B. R., Batchelder, H. P., Cormon, X., Eddy, T.
D., Fernandes, J. A., Hollowed, A. B., Jones, M. C., Link, J. S., Neubauer, P., Ortiz, I., Queirós, A. M.,
& Paula, J. R. (2015). Uncertainties in projecting climate-change impacts in marine ecosystems.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(5), 1272–1282. http://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv231
PBL. (2012). Roads from Rio+20. Pathways to achieve global sustainability goals by 2050. The Hague,
The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
PBL & SRC. (2009). Getting into the Right Lane for 2050: A primer for EU debate. Bilthoven, The
Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Pedroli, B., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J., & The VOLANTE Consortium. (2015). The
VOLANTE Roadmap towards sustainable land resource management in Europe. VOLANTE final
project document. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alterra Wageningen UR.
Pereira, H. M., Mota, R., Ferreira, M., & Gomes, I. (2009). Cenários socioecológicos para Portugal
[Socio-ecological scenarios for Portugal]. In Ecossistemas e Bem-Estar Humano: Avaliação para
Portugal do Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Evaluation
for Portugal’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] (pp. 91–125). Lisbon, Portugal: Escolar Editora.
Piniewski, M., Okruszko, T., & Acreman, M. C. (2014). Environmental water quantity projections under
market-driven and sustainability-driven future scenarios in the Narew basin, Poland .
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59(3–4), 916–934. http://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.888068
Pont, D., Logez, M., Carrel, G., Rogers, C., & Haidvogl, G. (2015). Historical change in fish species
distribution: Shifting reference conditions and global warming effects. Aquatic Sciences, 77(3),
441–453. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0386-z
Popp, A., Calvin, K., Fujimori, S., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Stehfest, E., Bodirsky, B. L., Dietrich, J. P.,
Doelmann, J. C., Gusti, M., Hasegawa, T., Kyle, P., Obersteiner, M., Tabeau, A., Takahashi, K.,
Valin, H., Waldhoff, S., Weindl, I., Wise, M., Kriegler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Fricko, O., Riahi, K., &
Vuuren, D. P. van. (2017). Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Global

919
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Environmental Change, 42, 331–345. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002

Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., & Bodirsky, B. (2010). Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-
CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 451–
462. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.001
Posthumus, H., Rouquette, J. R., Morris, J., Gowing, D. J. G., & Hess, T. M. (2010). A framework for the
assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England.
Ecological Economics, 69(7), 1510–1523. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.011
Poustie, M. S., Frantzeskaki, N., & Brown, R. R. (2016). A transition scenario for leapfrogging to a
sustainable urban water future in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 105, 129–139. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.008
Prestele, R., Alexander, P., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Arneth, A., Calvin, K., Doelman, J., Eitelberg, D.,
Engström, K., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Jain, A., Krisztin, T., Kyle, P.,
Meiyappan, P., Popp, A., Sands, R., Schaldach, R., Schüngel, J., Stehfest, E., Tabeau, A., van Meijl,
H., van Vliet, J., & Verburg, P. H. (2016). Hotspots of uncertainty in land use and land cover change
projections: A global scale model comparison. Global Change Biology, 22, 3967–3983.
http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13337
Prins, A. G., Pouwels, R., Clement, J., Hendriks, M., De Knegt, B., Petz, K., Beusen, A., Farjon, H., van
Hinsberg, A., Janse, J., Knol, O., van Puijenbroek, P., Schelhaas, M., & Van Tol, S. (2017).
Perspectives on the future of nature in Europe: Impacts and combinations. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Pukšec, T., Mathiesen, B. V., Novosel, T., & Duic, N. (2014). Assessing the impact of energy saving
measures on the future energy demand and related GHG (greenhouse gas) emission reduction of
Croatia. Energy, 76, 198–209. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.06.045
Reder, K., Kynast, E., Williams, R., & Malve, O. (2013). European scenario studies on future in-stream
nutrient concentrations. Transactions of the ASABE, 56(6), 1407–1417.
http://doi.org/10.13031/trans.56.9961
Reed, M. S., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., Broad, K., Burt, T. P., Fazey, I. R., Fraser, E. D. G., Hubacek, K.,
Nainggolan, D., Quinn, C. H., Stringer, L. C., & Ravera, F. (2013). Participatory scenario
development for environmental management: A methodological framework illustrated with
experience from the UK uplands. Journal of Environmental Management, 128, 345–62.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016
Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., Van Den Berg, M., & Alkemade, R. (2006). Impacts of land-use change on
biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment, 114(1), 86–102. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.026
Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K.,
Dellink, R., Fricko, O., Lutz, W., Popp, A., Cuaresma, J. C., KC, S., Leimbach, M., Jiang, L., Kram, T.,
Rao, S., Emmerling, J., Ebi, K., Hasegawa, T., Havlik, P., Humpenöder, F., Da Silva, L. A., Smith, S.,
Stehfest, E., Bosetti, V., Eom, J., Gernaat, D., Masui, T., Rogelj, J., Strefler, J., Drouet, L., Krey, V.,
Luderer, G., Harmsen, M., Takahashi, K., Baumstark, L., Doelman, J. C., Kainuma, M., Klimont, Z.,
Marangoni, G., Lotze-Campen, H., Obersteiner, M., Tabeau, A., & Tavoni, M. (2017). The shared
socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications:
An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153–168.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009

920
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Robertson, S. (2016). A longitudinal quantitative–qualitative systems approach to the study of

transitions toward a low carbon society. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128, 221–233.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.074
Rodina, K., & Mnatsakanian, R. (2012). Spills of the Aral Sea: Formation, functions and future
development of the Aydar-Arnasay Lakes. In Environmental Security in Watersheds: The Sea of
Azov (pp. 223–240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-
2460-0
Rosa, I. M. D., Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Alkemade, R., Acosta, L. A., Akcakaya, R., Belder, E., Fazel, A.
M., Fujimori, S., Harfoot, M., Harhash, K. A., Harrison, P. A., Hauck, J., Hendriks, R. J. J., Hernández,
G., Jetz, W., Karlsson-vinkhuyzen, S. I., Kim, H., King, N., Kok, M. T. J., Kolomytsev, G. O., Lazarova,
T., Leadley, P., Lundquist, C. J., Márquez, J. G., Meyer, C., Navarro, L. M., Nesshöver, C., Ngo, H.
T., Ninan, K. N., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, L. M., Peterson, G. D., Pichs, R., Popp, A., Purvis, A.,
Ravera, F., Rondinini, C., Sathyapalan, J., & Schipper, A. M. (2017). Multiscale scenarios for nature
futures. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1(10), 1416-1419. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-
0273-9
Rothman, D. S. (2008). A survey of environmental scenarios. In J. Alcamo (Ed.), Environmental futures.
The practice of environmental scenario analysis (pp. 37–65). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier B.V.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition
management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.
http://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003
Roué, M., & Molnar, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Knowing our lands and resources: Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
Rounsevell, M. D. A., Dawson, T. P., & Harrison, P. A. (2010). A conceptual framework to assess the
effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(10),
2823–2842. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9838-5
Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Harrison, P. A. (2016). Drivers of change for ecosystem services. In M. Potschin,
R. Young-Haines, R. Fish, & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ecosystem services (p. 640).
London, UK: Routledge.
Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Developing qualitative scenario storylines for
environmental change assessment. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4), 606–
619. http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.63
Rounsevell, M. D. A., Reginster, I., Araújo, M. B., Carter, T. R., Dendoncker, N., Ewert, F., House, J. I.,
Kankaanpää, S., Leemans, R., Metzger, M. J., Schmit, C., Smith, P., & Tuck, G. (2006). A coherent
set of future land use change scenarios for Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
114(1), 57–68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.027
Rozman, Č., Pažek, K., Kljajić, M., Bavec, M., Turk, J., Bavec, F., Turk, J., Bavec, F, Kofjač, D., & Škraba,
A. (2013). The dynamic simulation of organic farming development scenarios - A case study in
Slovenia. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 96, 163–172.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.05.005
Ruijs, A., Wossink, A., & Kortelainen, M. (2013). Assessing trade-offs between food production,
biodiversity and carbon sequestration for Eastern Europe. 15th Annual BIOECON Conference

921
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Conservation and Development: Exploring Conflicts and Challenges, 1–26.

Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of
plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1999–2012. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0207
Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6(4), 433–454.
http://doi.org/10.1177/13563890022209415
Sandström, C., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Lindahl, K. B., Sonnek, K. M., Mossing, A., Nordin, A., Nordström,
E. M., & Räty, R. (2016). Understanding consistencies and gaps between desired forest futures:
An analysis of visions from stakeholder groups in Sweden. Ambio, 45, 100–108.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0746-5
Schirpke, U., Leitinger, G., Tasser, E., Schermer, M., Steinbacher, M., & Tappeiner, U. (2013). Multiple
ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future. International
Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 9(2), 123–135.
http://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.751936
Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., & Winkler, K. J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming
the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosystem
Services, 16, 174–181. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014
Schlüter, M., & Rüger, N. (2007). Application of a GIS-based simulation tool to illustrate implications of
uncertainties for water management in the Amudarya river delta. Environmental Modelling and
Software, 22(2), 158–166. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.09.006
Scholten, A., Rothstein, B., & Baumhauer, R. (2014). Mass-cargo-affine industries and climate change:
The vulnerability of bulk cargo companies along the River Rhine to low water periods. Climatic
Change, 122(1–2), 111–125. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0968-0
Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I. C., Araújo, M. B., Arnell, N. W., Bondeau, A.,
Bugmann, H., Carter, T. R., Gracia, C. A., de la Vega-Leinert, A. C., Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Glendining,
M., House, J. I., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R. J. T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M. J., Meyer, J.,
Mitchell, T. D., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, J., Smith, P.,
Sykes, M. T., Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S., & Zierl, B. (2005). Ecosystem service
supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752), 1333–1337.
http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115233
Schwilch, G., Bachmann, F., & Liniger, H. (2009). Appraising and selecting conservation measures to
mitigate desertification and land degradation based on stakeholder participation and global best
practices. Land Degradation & Development, 20(3), 308–326. http://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.920
Seidl, R., Rammer, W., Jäger, D., & Lexer, M. J. (2008). Impact of bark beetle (Ips typographus L.)
disturbance on timber production and carbon sequestration in different management strategies
under climate change. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(3), 209–220.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.002
Seitzinger, S. P., Mayorga, E., Bouwman, A. F., Kroeze, C., Beusen, A. H. W., Billen, G., Van Drecht, G.,
Dumont, E., Fekete, B. M., Garnier, J., & Harrison, J. A. (2010). Global river nutrient export: A
scenario analysis of past and future trends. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 24, GB0A08.
http://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003587
Shanin, V. N., Komarov, A. S., Mikhailov, A. V., & Bykhovets, S. S. (2011). Modelling carbon and nitrogen
dynamics in forest ecosystems of central Russia under different climate change scenarios and

922
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

forest management regimes. Ecological Modelling, 222(14), 2262–2275.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.11.009
Sheate, W. R., Partidário, M. R. do, Byron, H., Bina, O., & Dagg, S. (2008). Sustainability assessment of
future scenarios: Methodology and application to mountain areas of Europe. Environmental
Management, 41(2), 282–299. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9051-9
Spangenberg, J. H., Bondeau, A., Carter, T. R., Fronzek, S., Jaeger, J., Jylhä, K., Kühn, I., Omann, I., Paul,
A., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Schweiger, O., Stocker, A., Sykes, M. T., & Settele, J. (2012).
Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21(1), 5–18.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00620.x
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., Van Vuuren, D. P., Den Elzen, M. G. J., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009).
Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95(1–2), 83–102.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9534-6
Steidl, J., Schuler, J., Schubert, U., Dietrich, O., & Zander, P. (2015). Expansion of an existing water
management model for the analysis of opportunities and impacts of agricultural irrigation under
climate change conditions. Water, 7(11), 6351–6377. http://doi.org/10.3390/w7116351
Stocker, A., Großmann, A., Hinterberger, F., & Wolter, M. I. (2014). A low growth path in Austria:
Potential causes, consequences and policy options. Empirica, 41(3), 445–465.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-014-9267-x
Stocker, A., Omann, I., & Jäger, J. (2012). The socio-economic modelling of the ALARM scenarios with
GINFORS: Results and analysis for selected European countries. Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 21(1), 36–49. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00639.x
Strokal, M. P., Kroeze, C., Kopilevych, V. A., & Voytenko, L. V. (2014). Reducing future nutrient inputs
to the Black Sea. Science of the Total Environment, 466–467, 253–264.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.004
Sylvén, M., & Widstrand, S. (2013). A vision for wilder Europe. Wild 10. Retrieved from
http://www.wildlandresearch.org/media/uploads/WILD10-Vision-Wilder-Europe-2015-ver-2-
FINAL.pdf
Teixidó-Figueras, J., & Duro, J. A. (2014). Spatial polarization of the ecological footprint distribution.
Ecological Economics, 104, 93–106. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.022
Thaler, S., Zessner, M., Weigl, M., Rechberger, H., Schilling, K., & Kroiss, H. (2015). Possible implications
of dietary changes on nutrient fluxes, environment and land use in Austria. Agricultural Systems,
136, 14–29. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.01.006
The Forest-based Sector. (2013). Horizons – Vision 2030 for the European Forest-based Sector.
Retrieved from
http://www.cepi.org/system/files/public/documents/publications/forest/2013/FTP_Vision_fina
l_Feb_2013.pdf
The Sami Parliament. (2009). The Sami Parliament’s living environment program. Sametinget [The Sami
Parliament]. Retrieved from https://www.sametinget.se/9008
Thrän, D., & Bezama, A., (2017): The knowledge-based bioeconomy and its impact in our working field.
Waste Management & Research, 35(7), 689 - 690. http://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17719605
Tight, M., Timms, P., Banister, D., Bowmaker, J., Copas, J., Day, A., Drinkwater, D., Givoni, M.,
Gühnemann, A., Lawler, M., Macmillen, J., Miles, A., Moore, N., Newton, R., Ngoduy, D.,

923
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Ormerod, M., O’Sullivan, M., & Watling, D. (2011). Visions for a walking and cycling focused urban
transport system. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1580–1589.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.03.011
Titeux, N., Henle, K., Mihoub, J. B., Regos, A., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Cramer, W., Verburg, P. H., &
Brotons, L. (2016). Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land-use changes. Global Change Biology,
22(7), 2505–2515. http://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13272
UNEP. (2012). Scenarios and sustainability transformation. In GEO 5 - Environment for the future we
want. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/geo/
UNEP. (2015). Policy coherence of the Sustainable Development Goals: A natural resource perspective.
UNESCO. (2015). Water for a sustainable world.
Uthes, S., Sattler, C., Sahrbacher, A., Hutar, V., Amon, G., Perret, E., Rapey, H., Podmaniczky, L.,
Ciancaglini, A., Wasilewski, J., & Mogensen, L. (2009). A scenario-wise analysis of economic and
environmental impacts in the MEA-scope case study regions. Rural Landscapes and Agricultural
Policies in Europe, 123–142. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79470-7_7
van den Hurk, B., Hirschi, M., Schaer, C., Lenderink, G., van Meijgaard, E., van Ulden, A., Rockel, B.,
Hagemann, S., Graham, P., Kjellstrom, P., & Jones, R. (2005). Soil control on runoff response to
climate change in regional climate model simulations. Journal of Climate, 18, 3536–3551.
http://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3471.1
van Egmond, N. D., & de Vries, H. J. M. (2011). Sustainability: The search for the integral worldview.
Futures, 43(8), 853–867. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.027
van Meijl, H., van Rheenen, T., Tabeau, A., & Eickhout, B. (2006). The impact of different policy
environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
114(1), 21–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006
van Slobbe, E., Werners, S. E., Riquelme-Solar, M., Bölscher, T., & van Vliet, M. T. H. (2016). The future
of the Rhine: Stranded ships and no more salmon? Regional Environmental Change, 16(1), 31–
41. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0683-z
van Vliet, M., & Kok, K. (2015). Combining backcasting and exploratory scenarios to develop robust
water strategies in face of uncertain futures. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, 20(1), 43–74. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9479-6
van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M., Girod, B., Lucas, P. L., & de Vries, B. (2012). Scenarios in global
environmental assessments: Key characteristics and lessons for future use. Global Environmental
Change, 22(4), 884–895. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.06.001
van Wijnen, J., Ivens, W. P. M. F., Kroeze, C., & Löhr, A. J. (2015). Coastal eutrophication in Europe
caused by production of energy crops. Science of the Total Environment, 511, 101–111.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.032
van Zeijts, H., Prins, A. G., Dammers, E., Vonk, M., Bouwma, I., Farjon, H., & Pouwels, R. (2017).
European nature in the plural. Finding common ground for a next policy agenda. The Hague, The
Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Vanham, D., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2013). The water footprint of the EU for different
diets. Ecological Indicators, 32, 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.020
Verboom, J., Alkemade, R., Klijn, J., Metzger, M. J., & Reijnen, R. (2007). Combining biodiversity
modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries. Ecological

924
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Economics, 62(2), 267–276. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.04.009

Verburg, P. H., Eickhout, B., & van Meijl, H. (2008). A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing
the future dynamics of European land use. The Annals of Regional Science, 42(1), 57–77.
http://doi.org/10.1016/10.1007/s00168-007-0136-4
Verburg, P. H., van Berkel, D. B., van Doorn, A. M., van Eupen, M., & van den Heiligenberg, H. A. R. M.
(2010). Trajectories of land use change in Europe: A model-based exploration of rural futures.
Landscape Ecology, 25(2), 217–232. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9347-7
Verkerk, P. J., Lindner, M., Pérez-Soba, M., Paterson, J. S., Helming, J., Verburg, P. H., Kuemmerle, T.,
Lotze-Campen, H., Moiseyev, A., Müller, D., Popp, A., Schulp, C. J. E., Stürck, J., Tabeau, A.,
Wolfslehner, B., & van der Zanden, E. H. (2016). Identifying pathways to visions of future land use
in Europe. Regional Environmental Change, 18(3), 817-830. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-
1055-7
Verkerk, P. J., Mavsar, R., Giergiczny, M., Lindner, M., Edwards, D., & Schelhaas, M. J. (2014). Assessing
impacts of intensified biomass production and biodiversity protection on ecosystem services
provided by European forests. Ecosystem Services, 9, 155–165.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.004
Videira, N., Schneider, F., Sekulova, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Improving understanding on degrowth
pathways: An exploratory study using collaborative causal models. Futures, 55, 58–77.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.11.001
Vogiatzakis, I. N., Stirpe, M. T., Rickebusch, S., Metzger, M. J., Xu, G., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Bommarco,
R., & Potts, S. G. (2015). Rapid assessment of historic, current and future habitat quality for
biodiversity around UK Natura 2000 sites. Environmental Conservation, 42, 31–40.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892914000137
Watkins, E., ten Brink, P., Schweitzer, J. P., Rogissart, L., & Nesbit, M. (2016). Policy mixes to achieve
absolute decoupling: An ex ante assessment. Sustainability, 8(6), 528.
http://doi.org/10.3390/su8060528
WEF. (2010). Realizing a new vision for agriculture: A roadmap for stakeholders. Retrieved from
http://www.weforum.org/projects/new-vision-agriculture
Westhoek, H. J., Van Den Berg, M., & Bakkes, J. A. (2006). Scenario development to explore the future
of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114(1), 7–20.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.005
Wimmer, F., Audsley, E., Malsy, M., Savin, C., Dunford, R., Harrison, P. A., Schaldach, R., & Flörke, M.
(2015). Modelling the effects of cross-sectoral water allocation schemes in Europe. Climatic
Change, 128(3–4), 229–244. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1161-9
Wirsenius, S., Azar, C., & Berndes, G. (2010). How much land is needed for global food production
under scenarios of dietary changes and livestock productivity increases in 2030? Agricultural
Systems, 103(9), 621–638. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.07.005
Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Archer Van Garderen, E. R. M., &
Campbell, B. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of
change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325–336.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002
WWF. (2016). Living Planet Report 2016. Risk and resilience in a new era. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.

925
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

WWF/Ecofys/OMA. (2011). The Energy Report. 100% Renewable Energy by 2050. Retrieved from
https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-wwf-2011-the-energy-report.pdf
Zamolodchikov, D., Grabovskiy, V., & Kurts, V. [Замолодчиков, Д., Грабовский, B., & Куртс, B.].
(2014). Управление балансом углерода лесов России: прошлое, настоящее и будущее
[Managing carbon balance in the forests of Russia: past, present and future]. Устойчивое
Лесопользование [Sustainable Forest Management], 2(39), 23–31.
Zurek, M. B. (2006). GECAFS Working Paper 1: A short review of global scenarios for food systems
analysis. In Tenth GECAFS Executive Committee Meeting.

926
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6 Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across

scales and sectors

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Irene Ring (Germany), Camilla Sandström (Sweden)

Lead Authors:
Sevil Acar (Turkey), Malkhaz Adeishvili (Georgia), Christian Albert (Germany), Christina Allard
(Sweden), Yaakov Anker (Israel), Raphaël Arlettaz (Switzerland), Györgyi Bela (Hungary), Ben ten Brink
(The Netherlands), Anke Fischer (Germany/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
Christine Fürst (Germany), Bella Galil (Israel), Stephen Hynes (Ireland), Ulan Kasymov (Kyrgyzstan),
Cristina Marta-Pedroso (Portugal), Ana Mendes (Portugal), Ulf Molau (Sweden), Roland Olschewski
(Germany/Switzerland), Jan Pergl (Czech Republic), Riccardo Simoncini (Italy)

Fellow:
Luca Coscieme (Italy/Ireland)

Contributing Authors:
Çiğdem Adem (Turkey), Kirsty Blackstock (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
Jennifer Hauck (Germany), Johanna Johansson (Sweden), Caroline Lasson (Germany), Natalya
Minchenko (Belarus), Elsa Reimerson (Sweden), Martin Schläpfer (Switzerland), Eugene A. Simonov
(Russian Federation), Mark Snethlage (The Netherlands/Switzerland), Johanna Söderasp (Sweden)

Review Editors:
Susan Baker (Ireland/ United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ), Piotr Matczak (Poland),
Eeva Primmer (Finland)

This chapter should be cited as:

Ring, I., Sandström, C., Acar, S., Adeishvili, M., Albert, C., Allard, C., Anker, Y., Arlettaz, R., Bela, G., ten
Brink, B., Coscieme, L., Fischer, A., Fürst, C., Galil, B., Hynes, S., Kasymov, U., Marta-Pedroso, C.,
Mendes, A., Molau, U., Olschewski, R., Pergl, J. and Simoncini, R. Chapter 6: Options for governance
and decision-making across scales and sectors. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment report
on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Rounsevell, M., Fischer, M., Torre-
Marin Rando, A. and Mader, A. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem services, Bonn, Germany, pp. xx-xx.

927
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table of contents
6 Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors.................. 927
Executive summary ......................................................................................................................... 931
6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 936
6.2 Framing institutions and policy options for biodiversity and ecosystem governance........... 937
6.3 International, regional and transboundary environmental governance ............................... 944
6.3.1 Intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations ............................................ 944
6.3.1.1 Intergovernmental organizations ...................................................................................... 944
6.3.1.2 International non-governmental organizations and hybrid organizations ........................ 945
6.3.2 Responses to global environmental challenges ............................................................ 947
6.3.2.1 Global binding instruments ............................................................................................... 948
6.3.2.2 Regional binding instruments ............................................................................................ 949
6.3.2.3 The European Union and European Union environmental law ......................................... 950
6.3.2.4 Soft law instruments and capacity building ....................................................................... 952
6.3.2.5 Environmental rights approaches ...................................................................................... 953
6.3.2.6 International standards on indigenous peoples and local communities ........................... 954
6.3.2.7 Information-based instruments building on private and business initiatives ................... 955
6.3.3 Responses to transboundary environmental challenges .............................................. 956
6.3.3.1 Groundwater and freshwater degradation and restoration ............................................. 956
6.3.3.1.1 Binding legal instruments ............................................................................................. 957
6.3.3.1.2 Environmental rights approaches ................................................................................. 958
6.3.3.1.3 Soft law instruments and capacity building .................................................................. 958
6.3.3.1.4 Intergovernmental organizations, programmes and projects ...................................... 959
6.3.3.1.5 Private and business initiatives ..................................................................................... 959
6.3.3.2 Marine and coastal systems .............................................................................................. 960
6.3.3.2.1 Binding legal instruments ............................................................................................. 960
6.3.3.2.2 Soft law instruments and capacity building .................................................................. 961
6.3.3.2.3 Private and business initiatives ..................................................................................... 962
6.3.3.2.4 Assessment of transboundary challenges in marine and coastal areas........................ 962
6.3.3.3 Invasive alien species ......................................................................................................... 963
6.3.3.3.1 Binding legal instruments ............................................................................................. 964
6.3.3.3.2 Soft law instruments and capacity building .................................................................. 964
6.3.3.3.3 Assessment of challenges related to invasive alien species ......................................... 965
6.4 Environmental and conservation policies in Europe and Central Asia .................................. 966
6.4.1 Policies for biodiversity and nature conservation ......................................................... 966
6.4.1.1 Policy objectives ................................................................................................................ 966
6.4.1.2 Governance modes and policy instruments ...................................................................... 968
6.4.1.3 Constraints and opportunities ........................................................................................... 975

928
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.4.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 979

6.4.2 Environmental governance for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people:
synergies and trade-offs .............................................................................................................. 980
6.4.2.1 Key environmental policies................................................................................................ 980
6.4.2.2 Governance modes and policy instruments ...................................................................... 982
6.4.2.3 Constraints and opportunities ........................................................................................... 984
6.4.2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 987
6.5 Sector policies and instruments: key constraints and opportunities..................................... 988
6.5.1 Agriculture ..................................................................................................................... 988
6.5.1.1 Policy objectives in Western and Central Europe .............................................................. 988
6.5.1.2 Governance modes and policy instruments in Western and Central Europe ................... 989
6.5.1.3 Constraints and opportunities in Western Europe and Central Europe ............................ 992
6.5.1.4 Agriculture context in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.................................................. 1000
6.5.1.5 Transformation of environmental governance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia ....... 1002
6.5.1.6 Assessment of environmental governance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia ............. 1003
6.5.1.7 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1008
6.5.2 Forestry ........................................................................................................................ 1009
6.5.2.1 Policy objectives .............................................................................................................. 1009
6.5.2.2 Governance modes and policy instruments .................................................................... 1011
6.5.2.3 Constraints and opportunities ......................................................................................... 1012
6.5.2.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1013
6.5.3 Fisheries and aquaculture ........................................................................................... 1014
6.5.3.1 Policy objectives .............................................................................................................. 1014
6.5.3.2 Governance modes and policy instruments .................................................................... 1014
6.5.3.3 Constraints and opportunities ......................................................................................... 1016
6.5.3.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1018
6.5.4 Resource extracting sectors and manufacturing ......................................................... 1019
6.5.4.1 Policy objectives .............................................................................................................. 1019
6.5.4.2 Governance modes and policy instruments .................................................................... 1020
6.5.4.3 Constraints and opportunities ......................................................................................... 1024
6.5.4.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1027
6.5.5 Services sector ............................................................................................................. 1028
6.5.5.1 Policy objectives .............................................................................................................. 1028
6.5.5.2 Governance modes and policy instruments .................................................................... 1030
6.5.5.3 Constraints and opportunities ......................................................................................... 1031
6.5.5.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1032
6.6 Mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people ..................................... 1032
6.6.1 Three key steps of mainstreaming .............................................................................. 1032
6.6.2 Synthesis of the current state of mainstreaming in different sectors ........................ 1034
6.6.3 Raising awareness, providing information and strengthening participation .............. 1037

929
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.6.3.1 Accounting, monitoring, footprints ................................................................................. 1038

6.6.3.2 Sustainable consumption and production ....................................................................... 1040
6.6.3.3 Communication, capacity building and public participation ........................................... 1041
6.6.4 Defining policy objectives ............................................................................................ 1043
6.6.4.1 Policy integration ............................................................................................................. 1044
6.6.4.2 Integration through spatial planning ............................................................................... 1046
6.6.5 Designing, implementing and assessing instruments and policy mixes ...................... 1048
6.6.5.1 Legal and regulatory instruments .................................................................................... 1049
6.6.5.2 Economic and financial instruments................................................................................ 1049
6.6.5.3 Social and information-based instruments...................................................................... 1051
6.6.5.4 Rights-based instruments and customary norms ............................................................ 1053
6.6.5.5 Policy mix ......................................................................................................................... 1054
6.6.6 Safeguarding biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life in a
changing world .......................................................................................................................... 1059
6.7 References ............................................................................................................................ 1061

930
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Executive summary

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 (well established) (6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6). Key steps of mainstreaming include
awareness raising, defining policy objectives as well as designing appropriate policy instruments and
policy mixes (6.6, Table 6.11). Mainstreaming of biodiversity is one of the major goals of international,
regional and national biodiversity strategies through clear and measurable objectives such as the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and relevant Sustainable Development Goals (6.1, 6.3, 6.4.1). Partial progress has
been made towards mainstreaming biodiversity, and nature’s contributions to people as well as
tackling the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, by setting up, reviewing and updating biodiversity
strategies and action plans at multiple levels. Nevertheless, substantial efforts to effectively implement
existing legislation, and additional commitments to improve on the current situation, are required to
halt biodiversity loss and further ecosystem degradation (6.3, 6.4.1). Mainstreaming biodiversity is
essential for environmental policies (6.4.2), but even more so for economic sectors and business actors
depending on, or influencing, biodiversity (6.4.1, 6.5, 6.6, Table 6.10, Table 6.11), such as agriculture
(6.5.1), forestry (6.5.2), fisheries (6.5.3), energy and mining, manufacturing (6.5.4) and services sectors
(6.5.5). Opportunities to more successfully mainstream biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people, in public as well as private policy and decision-making, can be harnessed through three key
steps (6.6, 6.6.1, Figure 6.13, Table 6.11): 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 socio-
cultural 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.
Developing integrated approaches across sectors would enable more systematic consideration of
biodiversity and nature´s contribution 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) (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 (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). In Western Europe, multiple formal and informal institutions work
against a societal transition to a low carbon economy in the European Union (6.4.2). Similarly, in
Central Asia, the combination of harmful subsidies and low energy and water prices that do not take
into account the “polluter-pays” principle, and environmental standards based on outdated
technology, may counteract general government priorities such as resource efficiency and promotion

931
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

of renewable energy (6.6.4). Policies only targeting supply security and growth in the manufacturing,
mining and energy sectors may come at the expense of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people, if they lack sufficient integration in wider policy agendas (6.5.4). 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). While
recognizing and promoting synergies and solutions to the extent possible through policy integration,
dealing with trade-off decisions will probably remain the rule rather than the exception (6.6.4).
Conflicting policy goals between different sectors may lead to conflicting roles of instruments, and thus
to trade-offs between biodiversity and the delivery of nature’s contributions to people. 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).
Legal and regulatory instruments are the backbone of policy mixes and are necessary to promote
the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as fair ecosystem
governance for the long-term maintenance of ecosystems and for good quality of life (well
established) (6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.6.5.1, Table 6.5, Table 6.11). Formal instruments such as laws,
regulations, standards and planning instruments usually set the basic framework for other policy
instruments to function (6.2, 6.3, 6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.5, Table 6.2, Table 6.6, Table 6.9). They work through
command and control, representing binding rules for governments, businesses, land users and citizens.
These formal instruments are increasingly complemented by informal instruments. Ratifying and
implementing international treaties and transboundary agreements provides a strong impetus for
improving national and subnational policies in all sectors (6.3). For example, effective implementation
of the Natura 2000 network in the European Union, as well as the Emerald Network as its extension to
non-European Union countries and the Pan-European Ecological Network, help considerably to meet
conservation objectives under international law. Marine protected areas, however, need more
attention (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. Such planning helps to safeguard sensitive areas, improve the state of
ecosystems, minimize current and potential future impacts, as well as to identify synergistic land-use
options. Urban planning has particular responsibility in ensuring biodiversity conservation and the
delivery of nature’s contributions to people today and in the future, and in enhancing the quality of
life of an increasing number of urban dwellers (6.6.4.2). Planning informed by biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people can facilitate public participation and stewardship and provide the basis for
targeted investments in nature’s contributions to people, for example by designating specific areas for

932
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

results-oriented agri-environmental measures (6.6.4.2). Although regulatory instruments are the

backbone of policy mixes, one key factor constraining the effectiveness of existing environmental
governance arrangements is limited enforcement due, for example, to lack of institutional capacities
and financial means, or corruption (6.3.1, 6.4.1, 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) (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, Table 6.5, Table 6.6, Table 6.11). Economic and financial instruments include a wide
range of designs and implementation approaches, both traditional and new (Table 6.2). 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 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 (6.4.1,
6.4.2, 6.5.1-6.5.5, 6.6.2, 6.6.3.2, 6.6.5.2). However, economic and financial instruments are context
dependent and sometimes contested, as different actors hold different norms and values towards
monetary incentives and towards using markets to achieve environmental and conservation goals (6.2,
6.4.1, 6.4.2, 6.6.2, 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). These instruments need, therefore, to be
implemented with caution as they can have unintended social consequences and can also be
detrimental to efforts to maintain and restore biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, for
example when promoting intensification of agricultural and forest land use.
Social and information-based policy instruments have attracted significant interest in many policy
sectors due to their capacity to integrate environmental concerns and 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 6.11). If social
and information-based instruments, such as voluntary market standards or social and environmental
reporting, are to operate effectively as tools for conservation of biodiversity, sustained delivery of
nature’s contributions to people and poverty reduction, they have to be paired with the development
of capacity-building and compliance mechanisms (6.4.2). 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 6.11). 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 (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, human rights and rights of indigenous peoples and
local communities (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

933
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.11). 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 indigenous rights,
in relation to conservation varies considerably between countries in Europe and Central Asia (Table
6.11). Further efforts would be needed, therefore, to develop better rights-based approaches to fully
integrate the fundamental principles of good governance, equalizing power relations, and facilitating
capacity building. Examples of such development can be seen in the governance trend emerging within
the mining sector where traditional governance modes to mining are no longer sufficient for
indigenous peoples and local communities. The demand for a greater share of income and
participation has opened up for mining companies to gain a “social license to operate” from local
communities, to avoid conflicts (6.5.4.3).
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). 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, Table 6.1,
Table 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. These policies promote the protection,
management, planning, and governance of cultural landscapes and voluntary forms of land
management, such as through biosphere reserves or model forests. This development is driven by the
importance of integrating various forms of knowledge, and the need to increase collective learning
and adaptive management of natural resources. The evolution of governance, which includes changing
responsibilities of public authorities, and how sectors are organized, varies substantially between
sectors due to specific sector characteristics such as property rights, stakeholder commitments,
transparency and degree of multi-functionality. 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, 6.6.2.2,
Table 6.8, Box 6.7, Box 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).
Improving biodiversity conservation and nature’s contributions to people across administrative
boundaries is limited without coordination, cohesiveness and sufficient mobilization of financial
resources (well established) (6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.4.1, 6.5.4, 6.6.2, 6.6.4). Increasing coordination between
governance scales and levels and developing cohesive strategies and policy objectives among
multilateral environmental agreement with the capacity to address problems related to biodiversity
and nature´s contribution to people could improve the current multilevel governance system. This also
holds for the uneven distribution of benefits and costs across space, actors, and time. Coordinated,
multilevel approaches are especially important when ecosystems cut across administrative
jurisdictions between and within countries, and for addressing large-scale transboundary problems

934
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

such as invasive alien species (6.3, 6.6). Furthermore, a key challenge for policy success consists in
sufficient mobilization of financial resources (6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.4.1, 6.5.4, 6.6.2, 6.6.4). Lack of adequate
financing is a major constraint on efforts to achieve biodiversity conservation and ecosystem
restoration (6.4.1). While a number of Western and some Central European countries of the European
Union already provide substantial biodiversity-related financial development assistance to countries
all over the world, there is still a need to mobilize more financial resources in Western Europe, but
even more so in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Increased funding from public as well as
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).
There is no “one size fits all” for sustainable governance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people in a region as vast and ecologically, socially, politically and economically diverse as Europe
and Central Asia (well established) (6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6). There are difficulties in transferring policies
across regions, nations and sectors. Governance schemes and policies that are not designed and
adapted to different economic, policy and societal sectors run the risk of not achieving their purpose.
However, the role of learning, between different countries within Europe and Central Asia or from
other world regions, should not be underestimated. On the contrary, it is important to create
opportunities for accelerated development of learning and innovation processes if sustainable
governance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is to be achieved. Developing and
improving governance systems to promote adaptive or transition management is therefore essential,
if public and private actors are to achieve the overarching objective of safeguarding biodiversity,
nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life (6.6.6). Furthermore, learning and policy
diffusion could be reinforced by improved coordination among international and transboundary
institutions and across decision-making levels, taking due account of regional, national and subnational
requirements; scientific as well as indigenous and local knowledge; and different socio-cultural
contexts and related values (6.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.3, 6.4.2.2, 6.5, 6.6).
Dealing with change is a matter of societal choice. The way in which we choose to organize our
societies and institutions, in both public and private spheres, is key to the realization of 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. 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).

935
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.1 Introduction

This chapter explores governance options and institutional arrangements for better consideration of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in public and private decision-making in Europe
and Central Asia. Biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life are relevant to
a wide range of sectors and actors. Addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and ecosystem
degradation requires a critical assessment of primary economic sectors such as agriculture, forestry
and fisheries as well as energy and mining (PBL, 2014; UNEP, 2011a). Their management practices, and
the way in which these impact on nature, call for implementing existing policies more effectively and
improving the current situation through additional commitments (UNEP & UNECE, 2016). There is
considerable potential for more biodiversity-friendly land-use practices, production methods and
healthier consumer choices, for example through improved awareness raising, accounting tools,
education and information-based instruments. This potential is also available to industries,
manufacturing and the service sectors (TEEB, 2012). However, mainstreaming biodiversity across
economic sectors and different stakeholder groups requires joint efforts by public and private actors
and strong public policies to enable implementation of appropriate strategies (PBL, 2014; CBD, 2011,
2014). Strengthening political support for environmental improvement is as necessary as building
competent and effective environmental institutions, mobilizing finance for environmental and
conservation priorities, monitoring progress and readjusting targets and integrating environmental
policies into sectoral policies. This is highlighted by the regular Environmental Performance Reviews
that cover the countries of Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the Balkan countries of Central Europe.
Environmental governance and financing as well as integration of environmental considerations with
economic sector policies are core elements of these reviews (UNECE, 2007, 2017c).
Previous ecosystem assessments at global, regional and national levels such as the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) or the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) have shown that
policy integration across sectors and scales remains a crucial task (MEA, 2005a, 2005b; UK NEA, 2011).
Countries’ 5th national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2016b) confirm that
these challenges persist. As the interim assessment of national biodiversity strategies and action plans
(NBSAPs) (Pisupati & Prip, 2015: 2) states, there is generally a poor correlation between these
strategies and action plans and poverty alleviation, on the one hand, and strategies related to the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), on the other, as well as between national biodiversity
strategies and action plans and sectoral policies. The close link between human rights, ecosystem
services and biodiversity is an important topic at the Human Rights Council, with the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment calling for more action from States to respect
and protect the rights especially of those who are most vulnerable to the degradation and loss of
biodiversity (HRC, 2017). However, with the recently adopted 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, the strengthening of human rights in relation to environmental issues has been
improved as part of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (United Nations, 2015). The
Sustainable Development Goals are an integrated international policy agenda for the coming years;
they are universal and apply to all countries in Europe and Central Asia. In this way, the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development is an overarching theme for the region (UNEP & UNECE, 2016).
“Mainstreaming” biodiversity involves “the integration of the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity in both cross-sectoral plans such as sustainable development, poverty reduction, climate
change adaptation/mitigation, trade and international cooperation, and in sector-specific plans such
as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining, energy, tourism, transport and others. It implies changes in
development models, strategies and paradigms” (CBD, 2011, p. 5). Mainstreaming biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people across sectors in private and public decision-making, and

936
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

simultaneously addressing challenges at various spatial and temporal scales, remains an important and
continuous task. As the recently published GEO-6 assessment for the pan-European region (UNEP &
UNECE, 2016, p. 8) has put it: “Living within planetary boundaries will require fundamental transitions
in energy, food, mobility and urban systems and entails profound changes in predominant institutions,
practices, technologies, policies and lifestyles. New governance coalitions involving national and
subnational levels of government, businesses and citizens are urgently needed.” A wide range of policy
support tools and methodologies as well as different policy instruments are needed to realize these
transitions (IPBES, 2015b). These tools and instruments address different actors in relevant sectors.
Together they form policy mixes, with each of the instruments having a specific role in the overall
policy mix for biodiversity conservation and the sustained provision of nature’s contributions to people
(Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2015).
Section 6.2 provides a framework for assessing governance options, institutional arrangements and
policies in the context of the IPBES Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia, highlighting
linkages between actors, sectors and instruments at different spatial scales. Section 6.3 provides an
assessment of international, regional and transboundary environmental governance relevant to
Europe and Central Asia. Sections 6.4 on biodiversity conservation and environmental policies and 6.5
on major economic sectors affecting biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, adopt a sectoral
perspective: What are the major policy objectives, predominant governance modes and instruments
currently governing these sectors? What are key constraints or opportunities within these sectors
regarding biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people? Which existing and novel options have
been proposed in the scientific literature for better governance of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people in these sectors and to what extent have these options and opportunities been
implemented or initiated by different actors? Finally, Section 6.6 synthesizes major insights for
mainstreaming and integrating biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people within and across
different sectors; highlights areas for successful integration such as environmental accounting, spatial
planning or progress in sustainable consumption and production; and assesses major categories of
policy instruments.

6.2 Framing institutions and policy options for biodiversity and ecosystem
governance

Smart governance options and institutional arrangements are essential for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development
(Meadowcroft et al., 2012). Institutions and governance and other indirect drivers affecting
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people have deliberately been placed at the centre of the
IPBES conceptual framework (Díaz et al., 2015), and this has been highlighted as an improvement on
the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Borie & Hulme, 2015; MEA, 2005a). The way in which people
and societies organize themselves and their interactions with nature at different scales indirectly drives
biodiversity and ecosystem change (Díaz et al., 2015). Governance and institutions thus influence all
aspects of relationships between people and nature. Formal and informal institutions determine
values and the ways in which responsibilities, costs and benefits of biodiversity conservation are
distributed across society. Formal institutions include written constitutions, laws, policies, rights and
regulations enforced by official authorities. Informal institutions are mostly unwritten social norms and
rules, customs and traditions such as those related to collective action (North, 1990; Ostrom, 1990).
Biodiversity and ecosystem governance benefits from involving the full range of public and private
actors, and drawing on a variety of coordination and interaction mechanisms. In contrast to public

937
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

policies pursued by governments at various administrative levels, biodiversity and ecosystem

governance promotes societal transformation by a number of different actors, including governments,
business and civil society (Paavola et al., 2009; Ring, 2008a). Governance processes occur at various
spatial (local to international) and temporal scales, and affect different societal, economic and policy
sectors (Lange et al., 2013). Different modes of governance are typically viewed along a continuum
between state intervention and societal autonomy (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1: Governance modes, public and private actors and their interaction. Source: Adapted from
Driessen et al. (2012) and Lange et al. (2013).

Hierarchical Decentralized Public-private Self-governance/

governance governance governance Private governance
(centralized)
Actors Mainly central Governmental actors Central government Mainly non-
governmental (or at lower levels agencies; private governmental:
supranational) (subsidiarity) sector – market Private sector or civil
bodies actors (business, society (NGOs,
consumers) indigenous peoples
and local
communities,
citizens)
Power Coercion Coercion Competitiveness Autonomy
(prices); contracts;
agreements
Represen- Pluralist Pluralist Corporatist Partnerships
tation ((supra)national (local elections) (formalized public- (participatory
elections) private private-private
arrangements) as governing
well as public-private arrangements)
partnerships
Mechanisms Top-down; Sub-national Private actors decide Mainly bottom up;
of social command and governments decide autonomously about social learning,
interaction control autonomously within collaborations within deliberation,
top-down top-down negotiation
determined determined
boundaries boundaries or based
on negotiations

At one end of the continuum, hierarchical decision-making by governments has traditionally shaped
environmental and biodiversity conservation policies through standards and other regulatory
measures. Decentralized governance is still top-down in its approach, yet subsidiarity allows lower
governmental levels to take decisions autonomously. These publicly determined governance modes
have increasingly been complemented by other approaches. These range from institutionalized public-
private relations, that leave market actors more freedom to choose their actions within predetermined
boundaries (e.g., incentive-based instruments such as environmental taxes or payments for
environmental services), to public-private partnerships with negotiated agreements, to modes of self-
governance at the other end of the continuum (e.g., by private-social partnerships). With the centre
of power no longer only involving the state, but different spheres in society (State, market actors, and
civil society), polycentric governance has become increasingly important (Driessen et al., 2012;
Muradian & Rival, 2012; Primmer et al., 2015), transcending the above-mentioned continuum in
combining different modes of governance with various actors, from public to private.

938
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The European Union (EU), for instance, combines hierarchical governance with decentralized
governance and public-private partnerships. It provides a legal and institutional framework in almost
all policy sectors for European Union member States in Western and Central Europe. Yet, the European
Union’s “subsidiarity principle” as set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union states that
the European Union “shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be
sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can
rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level”
(European Union, 2016b). In addition, the European Union has developed new experimental modes of
governance, such as the open method of coordination that is based on soft law mechanisms such as
guidelines and indicators (EUR-lex, 2017). The open method of coordination has increased the
competence of the European Union to regulate areas where the traditional Community legislative
processes are weak, or where new areas require coordination of member state policy.
For Eastern Europe and Central Asia, most of the literature still focuses on centralized approaches to
governance, but the role of multi-actor governance is also increasingly recognized (OECD, 2005,
2012a). Civil society actors such as NGOs play an important role and can be influential in the design of
relevant legislation and programmes over time (Yamin, 2001). The European Platform for Biodiversity
Research Strategy is an example of cooperation between researchers, policymakers and other
stakeholders, a science-policy interface and forum aiming to promote knowledge for sustainability,
with a focus on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services science
and policy (EPBRS, 2016). The BioNET network is a regional network of biodiversity-related civil society
organizations in the Balkan countries in Central Europe. The network promotes democratic
development and strengthening cooperation and dialogue between local authorities, national
governments, civil society, private sector and international governmental and non-governmental
organizations conducive to nature conservation as one key element of sustainable development (GIZ,
2016). Civil society networks such as the River without Boundaries Coalition, founded by several NGOs
from Russia, China, Mongolia and USA, is uniting citizens from transboundary regions in one movement
to campaign for the protection of the Amur River basin, which is the largest free-flowing transboundary
river system in Asia (Rivers without Boundaries Coalition, 2017).
Despite improvements in governance in Europe and Central Asia, biodiversity loss and ecosystem
degradation are still exacerbated by various institutional failures. These are often catalogued as: (i) law
and policy failures (e.g., environmentally harmful subsidies); (ii) market failures (externalities in the
use of public goods and services); (iii) organizational failure (e.g., lack of transparency and political
legitimacy in decision-making, and implementation deficits); and (iv) informal institutional failures
(e.g., breakdown in collective action norms such as free-riding or crowding out intrinsic motivations
for biodiversity conservation due to erosion of trust) (IPBES, 2015a, 2015b; Ostrom, 1990; Rode et al.,
2015). To counteract these failures, strategies are formulated and concrete policy goals are set, which
aim at designing and implementing policy instruments that avoid negative impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystems services or support and promote environmentally-friendly behaviour (Figure 6.1) (IPBES,
2015b). Finally, a pool of policy support tools and methodologies is available to inform instrument
design or stakeholders’ activities for better biodiversity and ecosystem governance.

939
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Biodiversity and ecosystem governance can build on a wide range of policy instruments as well as
supporting tools and methodologies. In the context of IPBES, policy instruments have been placed into
four main categories (IPBES, 2015a, for more detail on these categories see IPBES, 2015b):
• legal and regulatory instruments;
• economic and financial instruments;
• social and information-based instruments; and
• rights-based instruments and customary norms.
Legal and regulatory instruments, or so-called “command and control” measures have long been
applied to deal with environmental degradation (Harring, 2014). Schröter-Schlaack & Blumentrath
(2011) refer to “direct regulation” as environmental and technical standards as well as spatial planning.
They provide three reasons why direct regulation is often the first choice for policymakers when faced
with an environmental problem: (i) it is supposed to permit a fast and direct response; (ii) policymakers
are experienced in using this type of instrument; and (iii) established legal institutions are often an
important prerequisite for implementing economic and financial instruments.
Economic and financial instruments comprise (i) price-based mechanisms (e.g., subsidies, taxes, fees,
payments, fiscal transfers), and (ii) quantity-based mechanisms (e.g., tradable permits, land-
development rights, habitat banking) (Schröter-Schlaack & Ring, 2011). They are intended to change
private and public actors’ behaviour through incentives or disincentives towards desired policy
objectives. Typically, they comprise a wide range of designs and implementation approaches, and are
able to support manifold strategies concerning biodiversity and ecosystem services. They can be used
to correct for policy and market failures, and aim at reflecting monetary costs or benefits of the
conservation and use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (IPBES, 2015b). Thus, environmental fiscal
reforms are important to change relative prices in the whole economy. Furthermore, Aichi Biodiversity
Target 3 highlights the importance of reducing negative impacts of harmful subsidies and increasing

940
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

positive incentives for conservation. However, until now substantial reforms have not taken place.
Several countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have taken steps towards environmental fiscal
reforms with mixed results (CBD, 2017a). The suitability of specific fiscal instruments for individual
countries depends among others on the country’s stage of development, level of resource endowment
and institutional capacity (The World Bank, 2005).
Social and information-based instruments consider the interdependence of ecosystems and
sociocultural dynamics for successful environmental management at the local, national or regional
level. They comprise: (i) information-related instruments such as environmental education, eco-
labelling, certification, and awareness raising; (ii) self-regulation, voluntary agreements and corporate
social responsibility; (iii) participation; and (iv) enhancement of collective action of indigenous peoples,
local communities, and local resource users (IPBES, 2015b).
The rights-based approach is often defined as a way of “integrating rights, norms, standards, and
principles into policy, planning, implementation, and outcomes assessment to help ensure that
conservation practice respects rights in all cases, and supports their further realization where possible”
(Campese et al., 2009). Thus, the rights-based approach offers a range of instruments to reconcile
conflicts primarily through the improvement of governance procedures of biodiversity and ecosystem
services. This includes elements that to a large extent overlap with the principles of good governance,
such as participation, transparency; accountability (Biermann & Gupta, 2011; Ratner et al., 2013), and
empowerment (Ensor et al., 2015). Rights-based instruments and customary norms are increasingly
gaining interest in the field of natural resource conservation and management (Campese et al., 2009;
Jodoin, 2014). The instruments included in the rights-based approach may offer ways to reconcile
conservation and human rights standards, and foster complementarity with human well-being (IPBES,
2015b). However, the practical implications of conserving biodiversity and, at the same time,
protecting human rights are still rather unclear and therefore subject to much debate in particular
when it comes to the rights of indigenous peoples (Reimerson, 2013).
Examples of instruments belonging to the various instrument categories are provided in Table 6.2. It
is difficult to connect value types (anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric) to specific policy
instruments or governance modes. Legal and regulatory instruments can capture a wide range of
values, including economic ones, for example through fines, and not all economic and financial
instruments relate exclusively to monetary values derived by economic valuation methodologies.
Although the design and evaluation of policy instruments has mostly focused on individual
instruments, in practice, policy instruments are used in combination, as a policy mix, which “has
evolved to influence the quantity and quality of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service
provision in public and private sectors” (Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2015). Specific policy outcomes may,
therefore, be due to individual policy instruments, but there may be cases where other instruments
create synergies towards achieving objectives or cause conflicts that impede achievement of the
envisaged outcomes. Possible interactions of instruments comprise co-existence (incl.
complementarity, redundancy and overlap), synergies, competition and conflict, and sequential
interaction (e.g. implement enabling legal and regulatory instruments before economic instruments
that may require well-defined property rights) and replacement (Jordan et al., 2013; Santos et al.,
2015b). Therefore, policy mix analysis and highlighting the role of instruments in a policy mix have
increasingly gained attention in research and policy practice (Gunningham & Young, 1997; Lehmann,
2012; OECD, 2007; Ring & Barton, 2015; Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2011). Further concepts highlighting
the coordination and integration of instruments include on the one hand the spatial fit to avoid
mismatches between ecological and social processes or boundaries, and on the other hand the
interplay and interconnections between regimes (Kim, 2004; Moss, 2012; Vatn & Vedeld, 2012).

941
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 6.2: Policy instrument categories. Source: Own representation.

Legal and regulatory Economic and financial Social and information- Rights-based
instruments instruments based instruments instruments and
customary norms

− Legislation − Taxes − Information − International and

− Standards − Tax reliefs − Pollutant release and national human rights
transfer registers instruments
− Environmental quality − Charges
objectives − Biodiversity registers − Strengthening of
− Fees
collective rights
− Planning − Allowances − Ecolabelling
− Customary norms and
− Threshold values − Offsets − Certification
institutions of
− Liability rules − Emissions trading − Counselling indigenous peoples
− Impact regulations − Habitat trading − Education/Training and local communities
− Long-term − Ecological fiscal − Opinion forming − Equitable and fair
agreements transfers − Corporate Social management of
− Environmental − Subsidies Responsibility natural resources
classification − Self-regulation − Heritage sites: e.g.,
− Compensation
− Technology payments − Voluntary agreements sacred sites, peace
requirements parks, indigenous and
− Payments for − Cooperation and
− Supervision community-conserved
environmental consultation
areas
services − Networks

The different conceptualizations of the diverse values of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people are important for choosing the most appropriate instruments and further options in any
context (see Chapters 2 and 3; Chan et al., 2012; IPBES, 2016a; Kenter et al., 2015, 2016). The choice
of policy instruments often implies altering the distribution of responsibilities for the conservation and
use of biodiversity that goes along with changing the advantages and disadvantages for different actor
groups. Different actors also hold competing norms and values that influence the type of policies they
support, and this relates to the choice and design of policy instruments to achieve certain objectives.
Whereas some stakeholders prefer regulatory instruments, others favour economic and financial
instruments. However, any policy instrument can only be effective if the supporting formal and
informal institutions are in place. Legal and regulatory instruments such as laws, regulation and plans
usually set the boundaries within which economic instruments are then applied to incentivize public
and private actors towards more environmentally-friendly behaviour (Vatn, 2015). Local communities
and indigenous peoples often build on traditional knowledge for land-use practices. They may have
developed customary norms in relation to special places in nature, respected as sacred sites or
community-conserved areas, but these may not be recognized in formal conservation policies or
regulatory developments at distant national, regional and international levels (Babai et al., 2015;
Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004a; Samakov & Berkes, 2016). Granted concessions to business
companies for the exploration and extraction of natural resources and minerals may thus, for instance,
not recognize or may even violate indigenous and local peoples’ access to and traditional use of local
resources and ecosystem services (Bogoslovskaya, 2015; Fondahl & Sirina, 2006; Stammler & Forbes,
2006), as well as disregard their spiritual relationship with nature (Lavrillier, 2013).
Considering the mix of instruments is especially important in an ecosystem service perspective where
trade-offs and synergies may occur between biodiversity and ecosystem services or among different
ecosystem services (Elmqvist et al., 2010; Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2015). Policy-mix analysis is also

942
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

essential where policies in one sector, e.g., climate, fisheries, energy or agriculture, may jeopardize
policies in another such as nature conservation. Terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine systems in
Europe and Central Asia are exposed to manifold threats. Indirect drivers as assessed in Chapter 4
include institutional, economic, demographic, cultural and religious as well as scientific and
technological drivers. The most important direct drivers of change are natural resource extraction,
land-use change, pollution, climate change and invasive alien species (see Chapter 4). Relevant sectors,
their governance modes, policies and instruments and the coherence between them have to be
assessed at different spatial levels if the aim is to identify promising policy options and opportunities
for public and private actors, to promote positive and mitigate negative impacts on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people, and hence on good quality of life (Figure 6.2).

Policy instruments are often analyzed regarding their effectiveness and efficiency (including cost-
effectiveness) in reaching an environmental objective. Effectiveness comprises the assessment of the
outcomes achieved with respect to different policy approaches, while efficiency deals with the
(economic) comparison of inputs and outputs. Further policy assessment criteria include equity, social
and distributive impacts, policy coherence, administrative feasibility, relevance and institutional
requirements, among others (OECD, 1997; Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2011; Sterner, 2003; Turner &
Opschoor, 1994). Equity touches upon raising social awareness and enhancing participation as well as
legitimacy and transparency in the decision-making process, thereby improving the distribution of
benefits and reducing social conflicts (Bagnoli et al., 2008; Felipe-Lucia et al., 2015; Grieg-Gran et al.,
2013; Martín-López et al., 2012; McDermott et al., 2013; Wilson & Howarth, 2002) (see also Chapter
2, Section 2.3.4). However, it should be acknowledged that it is extremely difficult to assess and to
draw general conclusions on the effectiveness, efficiency or equity of any given instrument category

943
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

or a mix of instruments as, ultimately, their success largely depends on instrument design and the
coordination and integration between different policy fields.

6.3 International, regional and transboundary environmental governance

6.3.1 Intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations

In Europe and Central Asia environmental governance at the international level is based on a network
of intergovernmental organizations and international non-governmental organizations, which plays an
increasingly significant role (Esty & Ivanova, 2002) and also advocates for specific policies at the
international as well as national and subnational levels (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Bondaroff, 2014; Esty
& Ivanova, 2002). Membership of intergovernmental organizations may comprise sovereign states or
of other intergovernmental organizations with the main aim of creating a mechanism for countries to
work more successfully together in, for example, the areas of biodiversity, nature’s contributions to
people, and good quality of life. International non-governmental organizations are generally private,
voluntary organizations, whose members are individuals or associations that come together to achieve
a common purpose.

6.3.1.1 Intergovernmental organizations

Intergovernmental organizations are bodies based on a formal instrument of agreement such as a
treaty or charter and possessing a permanent secretariat performing ongoing tasks (Oberthür &
Gehring, 2006; Speth & Haas, 2006). At the global level, intergovernmental organizations relevant to
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people include the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and other specialized United Nations
agencies and commissions such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
A variety of other international organizations plays an important role in coordinating environmental
policy. The World Bank influences policy directly through its environmental strategy, and indirectly
through development activities for the environment. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) sets
priorities and processes for funding many environmental projects and the World Trade Organization
(WTO) influences environmental policies through trade agreements. The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) addresses the economic, social and governance challenges of
globalization and aims to exploit its opportunities (Oberthür & Gehring, 2006).
Within Europe and Central Asia specific intergovernmental organizations, such as the Council of Europe
and the European Union (EU) have prominent roles in environmental policymaking. The European
Union is commonly described as an international organization sui generis due to its uniqueness with
regard to supranational features and strong elements of legal integration (Tömmel, 2011). The
European Union is founded on the rule of law and on the principle of conferral (European Union,
2016b, Articles 2 and 5.2). This means that it only has the competences that have been voluntarily and
democratically transferred to it from the member States in the founding Treaties. As described in
Section 6.3.2.3 below, the European Union has developed a significant amount of environmental
legislation and policy decisions over the years, and is party to several multilateral environmental
agreements.
In addition to these intergovernmental organizations there are also a number of organizations or
treaties related to specific geographical areas within Europe and Central Asia, for example the Arctic,
the Barents, the Mediterranean and the Alpine areas. In the absence of a treaty, an intergovernmental

944
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

organization does not exist in a legal sense. For example, the G8 is not an intergovernmental
organization, but a group of eight nations that have annual economic and political summits.
Intergovernmental organizations that are formed by treaties and thereby subject to international law
are more advantageous to more informal groups since they have the ability to enter into enforceable
agreements among themselves or with states (Speth & Haas, 2006). However, this does not mean that
one should underestimate the impact of informal groups such as the G8 on the governance of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, since such groups may, based purely on the
collective influence of their members, be able to play a prominent role in global environmental
governance (Speth & Haas, 2006).
Although intergovernmental organizations have come to play a significant role due to increasing
globalization and interdependence of nations, their activities and objectives often overlap, resulting in
a complex network; or they may have difficulty integrating competing objectives, as in the following
case of global trade and the environment. The World Trade Organization still lacks a special agreement
on the environment, but most agreements formalized within its domain include environmental
regulations that require member States to ensure that the environment is duly protected. However, it
has been challenging to recognize the ecological impacts of trade, such as biodiversity losses and
destruction of ecosystems; and to develop an environmental policy framework that complements
trade policies (Santarius et al., 2004). Another challenge lies in the policy conflicts between multilateral
environmental agreements and the World Trade Organization trade policy. These conflicts arise
because environmental agreements often aim to internalize negative external costs, i.e. to reduce
environmentally harmful economic activities, while this is often ignored in free trade policies. Hence,
international trade policies have significant impact on the environment and potential to trump
international environmental policies when they come into conflict (Santarius et al., 2004).
In sum, intergovernmental organizations contribute to and develop habits of environmental
cooperation, and regular interactions among nation States. While some intergovernmental
organizations establish regularized processes of information gathering, analysis, and monitoring,
others develop procedures to make rules, to settle disputes, and to punish those who do not comply
to the rules. However, the multitude of intergovernmental organizations also gives rise to fragmented,
sometimes overlapping and occasionally conflicting legal and policy mandates, which may complicate
the ability of countries in Europe and Central Asia, and beyond, to achieve established goals.

6.3.1.2 International non-governmental organizations and hybrid organizations

International non-governmental organizations are generally voluntary organizations, often politically
independent, that may participate at all political levels from the global to the local. From an
environmental governance perspective, they are increasingly significant, especially in Europe and
Central Asia. They may be funded solely through private sources or rely on partial government funds.
Currently there are 4,189 international non-governmental organizations and non-governmental
organizations that enjoy active consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (UN DESA, 2017).
As advocates for specific policies, they may offer alternative channels of political participation, and
play a role in collecting, disseminating, and analyzing information; provide input into agenda-setting
and policy development processes; perform operational functions; assess environmental conditions
and monitor compliance with environmental agreements; and advocate environmental justice
(Bernauer et al., 2013; Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Bondaroff, 2014; Esty & Ivanova, 2002). International
non-governmental organizations may also be major operators of conservation initiatives in practice at

945
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

various levels (Redford et al., 2003). In contrast to intergovernmental organizations, international non-
governmental organizations rely on soft power, i.e. information, expertise, and moral authority to
attract the support of Governments and the public (Turner, 2010). However, at the national level, non-
governmental organizations have also occasionally taken the place of a state when the state has not
been able to perform as intended in protecting the environment (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013), for
example in the case of political or military conflicts or corruption.
In general, very little is known about the degree of attention that government representatives pay to
the input of non-governmental organizations in international negotiations, or which strategies are
effective when employed to make an impact, such as activism, lobbyism or expert-influence.
International non-governmental organizations also have to evaluate their respective strategies to
make an impact in relation to the risk of being co-opted by Governments. Many non-governmental
organizations address this challenge by specializing in either activist strategies (e.g., Greenpeace) or
hybrid strategies with closer ties to governments, including partnerships (e.g., World Wide Fund for
Nature). This attracts different groups of supporters and will also influence the funding structures
ranging from public grants (e.g. European Commission and national grants), to membership
contributions, donations, or crowd funding (Rietig, 2016).
A sharp distinction is often made between intergovernmental organizations and international non-
governmental organizations. In practice, however, governments do not always strictly maintain the
separation. There is an increasing number of hybrid organizations involving both intergovernmental
organizations and international non-governmental organizations. One of the most prominent in
environmental governance is the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The International
Union for Conservation of Nature has observer status at the United Nations and consultative status
with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, Food and Agricultural Organization, and United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The International Union for Conservation of
Nature has played an important role in the management and conservation of biodiversity, globally as
well as in Europe and Central Asia. Two of their instruments have played particularly important roles:
the Red List of Threatened Species, and the framework for governance models of protected areas. The
latter has opened up for a larger variation of governance and management of protected areas also
including indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as privately managed areas. Despite this
development, most protected areas in Europe and Central Asia still have hierarchical modes of
governance (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Holmgren et al., 2016; Reimerson, 2013).
Another example where intergovernmental organizations and international non-governmental
organizations come together is the “Environment for Europe” process. This process is a public-private
partnership including 54 countries in Europe and Central Asia partnering with international
organizations as well as regional environmental centres, non-governmental organizations and the
private sector. The objective is to harmonize environmental policies and enhance the quality of the
environment across Europe, but also to help countries of Eastern Europe, Central Europe and Central
Asia to improve their environmental standards (UNECE, 2017a).
In sum, international non-governmental organizations play an important role in pushing for sustainable
development at the international level, in particular in transition countries (Bernauer et al., 2013).
They are key drivers in intergovernmental negotiations on environmental governance. International
non-governmental organizations also increasingly pay attention to social and environmental
externalities of business activity. Multinational brands may be pressured by international non-
governmental organizations challenging their labour, environmental or human rights record, for
example through “naming and shaming” activities (Keskitalo et al., 2009). International non-
governmental organizations thus play an important role in relation to both public and private activities

946
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

related to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, given that they are afforded freedom to
play a vital role and that they can find funding for their activities.
Some critics are, however, concerned that they may contribute to the fragmentation and weakening
of political action. There are, for example, often competing international non-governmental
organizations in the same policy field and their mutual contest for influence risks undercutting political
effectiveness. Supporting and incentivizing coordination and collaboration among international non-
governmental organizations is thus an important opportunity among actors at multiple levels in Europe
and Central Asia in relation to the increasing influence of civil society in environmental governance at
the global level (Esty & Ivanova, 2002).

6.3.2 Responses to global environmental challenges

Since many natural resources are shared and many environmental problems have a global or
transboundary nature, they can only be addressed effectively through different forms of international
or regional cooperation among States (Sands et al., 2012). To understand and assess how the
international level impacts on countries within Europe and Central Asia with respect to biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people, one needs to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of the
international system, especially of the international environmental law. In the international arena,
States are the primary legal subjects and the bearers of rights and obligations (Cassese, 2005).
International law, or law of nations, consists of rules for the legal relations between and among States,
international organizations and non-state actors. All international cooperation is voluntary, since all
States are sovereign and equal (Sands et al., 2012). However, ensuring compliance with international
law is often problematic, since international agreements seldom include direct reprisals or sanctions
(Beyerlin & Marauhn, 2011). Implementation and enforcement of international law in general, and
environmental law in particular, rest on States’ political standing and good will to comply (Sands et al.,
2012), and their ability to establish effective international cooperation. International environmental
law provides a meta-framework for international relations, thereby providing rules and regulations
that for example determine the legality of State actions with respect to ecosystem services that cross
national boundaries. International law is thus important in providing a platform for identifying,
integrating and implementing legal, scientific, and policy issues at national level relevant to the
conservation and use of biodiversity, and nature’s contributions to people, that cross political or
administrative boundaries.
In contrast to the four categories of policy instruments adapted from IPBES (IPBES, 2015a, 2015b) and
introduced in Section 6.2, international law is broadly divided into two main categories: 1) legally
binding international law (hard law); and 2) non-legally binding international law (soft law). The Statute
of the International Court of Justice, in its Article 38, declares that there are three main sources of
binding international law: a) international treaties, conventions and protocols (binding only on the
parties to the agreement); b) international custom, built on established practice and considered to be
binding on all States; and c) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations (Thirlway, 2014).
Today there has been an increasing use of non-binding normative instruments in the international
arena (Shelton, 2014). Such soft law instruments, international resolutions and declarations, or
informal supervisory organs to international agreements, are commonly described as including
hortatory, i.e. incentivizing or encouraging means, rather than legal obligations (Guzman & Meyer,
2010). New governance mechanisms and increasing interactions between governance levels are
established today at the international level (Derkx & Glasbergen, 2014; Glasbergen et al., 2007;
Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012).

947
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Over time, a vast number of international and regional environmental governance arrangements,
containing both hard law and soft law instruments, have been developed. Globally, there are more
than 1,100 formal, legally binding and multilaterally negotiated “multilateral environmental
agreements”. Many of these multilateral environmental agreements are also represented in Europe
and Central Asia (Widerberg & Pattberg, 2015).

6.3.2.1 Global binding instruments

Even though measuring the effectiveness of binding international environmental law, i.e. treaty law,
is difficult, the general trend seems to be toward greater compliance and better implementation
among States over the past thirty years (Bodansky, 2015). This trend has been strengthened within
Europe and Central Asia, especially in Central and Eastern Europe where “open regional funds” support
a transition (GIZ, 2017). States that opt for accession to the European Union, such as Serbia, are
encouraged to take necessary steps to achieve the highest levels of environmental protection and
response to climate change (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2017). Potential and existing member States to the
European Union need to comply with the body of European Union laws, rules and policies, including
international agreements.
In general, the binding character of an international agreement seems to promote compliance, not
least since States take legal commitments more seriously than political ones and therefore are more
careful in negotiating and accepting them (Bodansky, 2015). However, international environmental
law has been weakest when it comes to resolving major environmental challenges, such as loss of
biodiversity and climate change (Bodansky, 2015; Leadley et al., 2014). Despite good examples such as
the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (and the follow-up Montreal Protocol)
which, through the banning of stratospheric ozone–depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), contributed
to a reduction of emissions into the atmosphere (Canan et al., 2015; Gonzalez et al., 2015), there are
numerous examples in which treaties have failed to achieve their stated purpose (Adam, 2010; Harrop,
2011).
This applies, unfortunately, not least to the issue of biodiversity conservation, despite efforts in the
framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Bodansky, 2015). The Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 that was adopted by Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity and recognized or supported by the governing bodies of other biodiversity-related
conventions will most likely not be fulfilled in 2020 (O’Connor et al., 2015; Tittensor et al., 2014). This
is considered to be a consequence of having inadequate institutional structures and governance in
place, and applies equally to Europe and Central Asia.
According to the literature several reasons for protection and conservation failures can be identified
(Young, 2011), where overlaps and fragmentation among the treaties are problematic. In the case of
biodiversity there are, for example, seven global conventions with somewhat similar aims although
with different foci; the Convention on Biodiversity, the Convention on Conservation of Migratory
Species, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands, the World Heritage Convention, and the International Plant Protection Convention (see
supporting material Appendix 6.1 Table 6.1.1). Although each of these “biodiversity-related
conventions” has developed complementary approaches and operational tools, the treaty system
remains fragmented and when considering various contributions from nature to people, often
compartmentalized. Other examples are sustainable forest management and the protection of marine
and water resources, which also are covered in separate treaties or agreements, with sometimes

948
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

complementary and sometimes competing objectives to those of the biodiversity-related conventions

(e.g. sustainable use vs protection) (Susskind, 2008; Susskind & Ali, 2015).
Another problem characterizing the global environmental treaty-making system is the level of
ratification of treaties by States (Bodansky, 2015; Koivurova, 2014). This is not a major problem within
Europe and Central Asia, where almost all countries have ratified, for example, the seven global
biodiversity-related conventions. A larger problem, however, concerns the fragmentation of the treaty
system. The implementation of treaties in the domestic legal systems may be slow due to, for example,
lack of political will or financial resources at the national level, or due to the lack of proper enforcement
mechanisms (Susskind & Ali, 2015). Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly as part of the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (see
Chapter 5 Section 5.4.3), embracing the so-called “triple bottom line” approach to human well-being
(i.e. the combination of economic development, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion).
Although non-binding, they have the potential to contribute to the reduction of the current
fragmentation of the international law system by enabling synergistic interactions between existing
legal instruments, the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the goals, and consistency between targets
within goals at multiple levels (Oberthür & Gehring, 2006; Yoshida & Zusman, 2015).
Binding instruments at the international level are important for Europe and Central Asia as they define
many of the objectives and means to protect and conserve, for instance, biodiversity. The advantages
and problems related to international cooperation, such as compliance with, and enforcement of,
international environmental law, apply also to the countries of Europe and Central Asia.

6.3.2.2 Regional binding instruments

Regional binding instruments are, by contrast to global treaties, limited in their geographical scope to
certain regions, e.g. Europe, the Nordic countries, the Mediterranean or Central Asia. Such instruments
address certain shared focal areas and objectives with respect to environmental protection, and
function much in the same way that global binding instruments do, forming part of international law.
For relevant agreements in Europe and Central Asia see supporting material Appendix 6.1 Table 6.1.2.
See also Section 6.3.3 where regional environmental instruments are addressed by theme
(transboundary challenges). A significant proportion of regional binding instruments in Europe and
Central Asia stems from the European Union, see further Section 6.3.2.3. As an organization, the
European Union is partner to several international environmental agreements regarding the
protection of the environment and biodiversity. Importantly for their enforcement, these agreements
have been transformed into binding European Union law through the adoption of regulations and
directives.
Although not formally a partner, the European Union coordination of sustainable spatial development
is anchored by the Council of Europe Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000) and applied
through the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and is a convention to which many states
in Europe and Central Asia are party. There are several other regional agreements, for instance
concerning watercourses: the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses
and International Lakes from 1992, and more detailed rules on specific water courses or lakes, have
been negotiated, for example for the rivers Rhine, Elbe, Mosel and Danube as well as the water courses
between Norway and Finland and between Sweden and Finland.
The Arctic Council, established by the Ottawa Declaration in 1996 (Arctic Council, 1996), includes the
following countries from Europe and Central Asia: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and
Denmark (note that Greenland, although Danish territory, is assessed under the IPBES Regional

949
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Assessment for the Americas). It is distinguished by the six main indigenous people’s organizations in
the Arctic (two of which pertain to Europe and Central Asia, the Saami Council and the Russian
Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North) that have permanent representation at the Council.
The first binding agreement from the Arctic Council is the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement from
2011, encompassing an observatory function for accidental oil spills that could impact on Arctic coastal
biodiversity and fisheries. On the basis of major societal and environmental changes confronting the
Arctic there is a knowledge gap with respect to what types of institutions work best to improve the
well-being of Arctic residents, including what roles formal and informal institutions will play in meeting
future needs (Larsen & Fondahl, 2015).
Although the bulk of regional environmental agreements in Europe and Central Asia exist in Western
and Central Europe, including the environmental legislation of the European Union, the same
implementation and enforcement gaps are present as seen with global international treaties (Susskind
& Ali, 2015). An exception to some extent is the European Union, which has stronger enforcement
mechanisms for obliging member States to comply with legislation.

6.3.2.3 The European Union and European Union environmental law

European Union law for the governance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is
immensely important and is a role model for non-European Union countries in Europe and Central
Asia. Hence, it is discussed in detail here. The key European Union institutions are the European
Commission, the European Council, the Council of the European Union (the Council), the European
Parliament, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (European Union, 2016c, Articles 14-19).
The European Union founding treaties are the primary source of law, regulating the policy areas where
the European Union can adopt secondary legislation (i.e. regulations and directives).
Implementation and enforcement are key factors for the effective application of European Union
environmental law and policy (European Union, 2013a). While implementation lies foremost with the
member States, the responsibility for enforcement is shared between the member States and the
European Commission. While the member States are primarily responsible for providing adequate and
appropriate sanctions for environmental offences, the European Commission ensures that European
Union law is sufficiently implemented and applied throughout the member States. For this purpose,
the European Commission may bring legal action against a member State before the Court of Justice
of the European Union, where the member State risks being condemned for infringement of the
obligations under the treaties (European Union, 2016b, Articles 258 and 260). The Court of Justice of
the European Union therefore forms an essential part of the enforcement of the European Union
legislation. There is also an informal European Union network created especially to improve
enforcement, called Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law.
European Union environment policy under the treaties rests on the principle of integrating
environmental concerns into other policy areas (European Union, 2016c, Article 11), a high level of
environmental protection, the polluter pays principle, and on the principles of precaution, prevention
and rectifying pollution at source (European Union, 2016c, Article 191-193). In addition, the following
environmental objectives guide Union action on the environment:
• to preserve, to protect and to improve environmental quality;
• to protect human health;
• to utilize natural resources prudently and rationally; and

950
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

• to promote measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental

problems, and in particular combating climate change (European Union, 2016c, Article 191.1).
Together, the objectives and principles of the treaties lay the foundation for more substantial
environmental law and policy within the Union (Krämer, 2011). In the environmental field, the treaties
authorize European Union institutions to act in all sectors of European Union environmental policy
(see Table 6.3), i.e. climate change; protection of air, water and biodiversity; waste management; and
sustainable consumption (European Union, 2016c, Articles 191-193; Krämer, 2011). Policy decisions,
such as multiannual environment action programmes or policy decisions covering a specific sector of
European Union environment policy (e.g. the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy), provide priority objectives
and strategic guidance for more concrete environmental actions in the forthcoming years (Jans &
Vedder, 2012). The European Union has developed several horizontal strategies for the conservation
of biodiversity and restoration of ecosystems over the years, the latest being the 2020 Biodiversity
Strategy from 2011 (European Commission, 2011a). Protection, conservation and enhancement of
natural capital within the European Union is also one of the priority objectives in the 7th and latest
European Action Programme entitled “living well, within the limits of our planet” (European Union,
2013a).
Binding environmental actions take the form primarily of regulations, and of directives, which create
specific legal obligations for European Union member States. The aim of regulations is to totally
harmonize member States’ legislation in a certain field, to promote integration and the proper function
of the internal market (Jans & Vedder, 2012). A directive is, instead, legally binding in terms of results
to be achieved within a prescribed time, but leaves the form and method for implementation to the
member States (European Union, 2016c, Article 288). The member States are expected to loyally
implement, interpret and apply European Union law under the principle of sincere cooperation
(European Union, 2016b, Article 4.3). The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality applied to the
environmental field mean that Union action normally is justified for environmental matters that have
transboundary effects, and that framework directives leaving implementation responsibilities to the
member States are preferred over detailed, harmonizing regulations (European Union, 2016b, Article
193, 2016c, Article 5; Jans & Vedder, 2012).
Despite many institutional initiatives and strong enforcement mechanisms, also within the European
Union, poor implementation remains a fact even if compliance may vary across different policy areas
as well as within and between member States (Falkner & Treib, 2008; Jordan, 1999; Nicolaides &
Oberg, 2006). The Court of Justice of the European Union has also, on numerous occasions, disallowed
member State’s attempts to transpose a directive into national law for reasons of being too unclear
and vague (Krämer, 2011).
Table 6.3: Key European Union strategies and related directives. Source: EEA (2015e).

Topic Overarching strategies Related directives

Biodiversity Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Birds Directive
Habitats Directive
Invasive Alien Species Regulation
Land and soil Thematic Strategy on Soil Roadmap to a
Resource-Efficient Europe
Water Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Water Framework Directive
Resources Flood Risk Directive
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Priority Substances Directive
Drinking Water Directive
Groundwater Directive

951
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Nitrates Directive
Marine Integrated Maritime Policy including the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Common Fisheries Policy and Blue Growth Maritime Spatial Planning Directive
Strategy
Air Thematic Strategy on air pollution Ambient Air Quality Directive
National Emission Ceilings Directive
Climate European Union Strategy on Adaptation to Renewable Energy Directive
Climate Change Biomass Directive
2020 Climate and energy package Energy Efficiency Directive

6.3.2.4 Soft law instruments and capacity building

As indicated above (see 6.3.2), there is an increasing use of non-binding normative instruments instead
of, or as a complement to, legally binding international law. Soft law instruments, such as charters,
resolutions, declarations or recommendations or guidelines by the world community, have thus come
to play an important role in the growth of international norms in environmental protection. The impact
of non-binding soft law instruments should not be underestimated since they can be effective by
working indirectly, through persuasion and not coercion. Soft law often develops into a binding treaty
or by being recognized as customary law (Ahmed & Mustofa, 2016).
Instead of creating rules and obligations that must be strictly followed, soft law creates goals and
aspirations that States can strive to achieve. If a State fails to achieve the environmental objectives
encompassed in a soft law document there is no recourse available or enforcement mechanism to
force compliance. Despite these weaknesses there are certain advantages compared to hard law.
While creating binding rules is often time-consuming and tends to undermine national sovereignty,
soft law instruments provide alternative means to establish relationships and partnerships. These
include more flexible solutions, which allows states to tailor their commitment to their particular
situation and find compromises which can be more easily adapted to national contexts and under
scenarios of uncertainty (Abbott & Snidal, 2000; Guzman & Meyer, 2010).
Soft law is, however, dependent on effective monitoring schemes for the fulfilment of the aim of
adoption of such instruments, as well as improved financial incentives (Ahmed & Mustofa, 2016).
There is an urgent need to develop financing opportunities and mechanisms for capacity building to
support the implementation of soft as well as hard law. Currently general mechanisms such as
voluntary contributions fund United Nations agencies, while multilateral development banks such as
the Global Environment Facility provide more specific funding. Capacity building can also come in the
form of programmes such as the Environmental Performance Review programme that assists countries
in the improvement of their environmental management and performance (e.g. by way of the Global
Environment Facility Trust Fund; UNECE, 2017d). Within the Arctic region the Arctic Council initiates
assessments through its six permanent working groups, all of which are more or less relevant for
biodiversity and ecosystem services, such as the Sustainable Development Working Group, the Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme and Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora. These
assessments provide a better understanding of major issues related to sustainable human
development in the Arctic, and identify priorities and develop policies and plans to address them. All
in all, various forms of capacity building are necessary to enhance the compliance of environmental
law at regional and national level, also in Europe and Central Asia.

952
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.3.2.5 Environmental rights approaches

Globally and regionally the link between environmental protection and human rights has been
increasingly emphasized over recent decades (Anton & Shelton, 2011; Boyle & Anderson, 1996;
Picolotti & Taillant, 2003). When it comes to human rights approaches to protecting human health or
the environment, a distinction is commonly made between substantive environmental rights (a right
to a healthy environment) and environmental rights, which are procedural in nature (Anderson, 1996).
The most prominent example of the latter is the Aarhus Convention from 1998: Convention on Access
to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Within Europe and Central Asia, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has in particular
been developing the link between human rights and environmental performance under the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms from 1950. A number of
court cases, above all linking poor environmental performance by state authorities to human well-
being and health aspects, have taken place over recent years with the Lopez Ostra case in 1994 as a
starting point (Shelton, 2014; Turgut, 2007). Hence, the relevant instruments are global and regional
human rights conventions with their protocols, which emphasize basic rights such as the right to
health, property, equality, and respect for private and family life as well as binding multilateral
environmental agreements. The latter often include participatory and benefit-sharing mechanisms,
indicating participation in environmental decision-making as more or less a moral imperative (e.g., the
Aarhus Convention, Convention on Biological Diversity, the Forest principles). Such environmental
rights have thus become important policy instruments to legitimize both the procedures and outcome
of environmental policy processes (Johansson, 2013).
In assessing the effectiveness of the human rights approach to environmental protection, it has been
suggested that the approach is individualistic and anthropocentric, steeped in Western philosophy and
does not adequately address the intrinsic value of the environment and ecosystems (Gearty, 2010;
Grear, 2011). The concept of participation and its practice has also been subject to significant critique
(Nabatchi, 2012; Nabatchi et al., 2015; Nabatchi & Leighninger, 2015); participation is often applied
with the intent to increase efficiency or support governmental reform and implementation and not as
a component of environmental rights (Hovik et al., 2010; Reimerson, 2013). Ever since the link between
human rights and environmental protection was recognized in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration, three
main options to further the interaction between human rights and environmental policies have been
discussed. The first option would, based on human rights laws, include for example a right to a clean
environment. The second option would be to leverage environmental laws, for better protection of
human rights. The third option would be to fuse environmental law and human rights (UNEP, 2012).
The recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals seem to be moving in this third direction and
the implications are currently being debated among social science scholars (Williams & Blaiklock,
2016).
In sum, these human rights approaches provide an alternative means to environmental and health
protection for individuals where domestic environmental regulation fails to take biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people, as well as good quality of life, into consideration. This is also relevant
in Europe and Central Asia, where the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has substantiated
such approaches through case law. Moreover, this rights-based approach, with its focus on
participation and power relations and rights claimed by citizens, has the potential to contribute to
social action among indigenous peoples and local communities. The approach centres around
principles such as equality, environmental justice and the identification of how, why and to what
extent certain individuals or groups may be marginalized in formal and informal processes and actions
(Dehm, 2016). The literature does, however, emphasize the complex trade-offs that exist between
human well-being and biodiversity conservation goals (McShane et al., 2011).

953
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.3.2.6 International standards on indigenous peoples and local communities

Over the last two to three decades the rights of indigenous peoples have been increasingly
acknowledged and strengthened within the international legal system (Åhrén, 2016; Anaya, 2004;
Xanthaki, 2009), a prominent example being the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Indigenous peoples’ international status has also
rapidly evolved from being viewed as objects of protection towards acceptance as self-governing
nations who wish to preserve their culture and ways of life (Heinämäki, 2015). Hence, indigenous rights
to self-determination, equality, non-discrimination, health and cultural matters are recognized
internationally as well as in domestic legal systems – also within Europe and Central Asia.
In northern Europe, the Nordic Sámi are organized transnationally via the Sámi Council, while across
Central Asia there are numerous indigenous communities and the Russian Association of Indigenous
Peoples of the North is a key organization in the North, Siberia and Far East in Russia. Across Europe
and Central Asia indigenous peoples and local communities represent a plethora of languages and
livelihood practices. Within the Arctic there are trends of increased indigenous empowerment and
improved local political and economic autonomy (Larsen & Fondahl, 2015). For the involvement of
indigenous peoples’ organizations in the Arctic of Europe and Central Asia, see Arctic Council under
Section 6.3.2.2.
A specific contentious issue, in particular with respect to resource developments within indigenous
traditional areas, are the land rights of indigenous peoples, including their possession over lands and
traditionally used natural resources (Allard, 2015; Bankes & Koivurova, 2013; Gilbert, 2016). The right
to be consulted or the “free prior and informed consent” of indigenous communities (UNDRIP, Articles
19, 28, 32) are instrumental when developments impact on biodiversity, nature’s contributions to
people, and good quality of life in traditional territories. The “free prior and informed consent” is a
tool used to mitigate harmful effects on a specific community and its livelihood, including uneven
power structures. Such tools rest on a notion that indigenous peoples are self-governing powers vis-a-
vis the State, i.e. based on a “nation-to-nation” approach, which is not expected for minorities within
international law (Anaya, 2004; Newman, 2014). As a result, partnerships with indigenous groups have
created co-management regimes of certain protected areas, such as the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage site Laponia in northern Sweden (Reimerson,
2015).
The traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities is increasingly being
recognized in the area of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources (Hernandez et al.,
2014). Hence, international standards for environmental governance are focusing on decentralization
and local influence, promoting public participation, and stressing the important role of indigenous
peoples and local communities in natural resource and conservation governance and management
(Fauchald et al., 2014; Heinämäki, 2009; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006; Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen, 2013;
Reed, 2008). The Convention on Biological Diversity and its ecosystem approach, and the “new
paradigm” established under the auspices of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, are
of particular importance in this development. Article 8(j) of the Convention, and its related provisions,
stress the importance of including indigenous peoples and local communities in nature conservation
efforts.
International and non-governmental organizations, not least the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, have been fundamental to indigenous claims
(Brosius, 2004; Fourmile, 1999; Posey, 1996; Richardson, 2001; Schroeder, 2010). The changing

954
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

approaches towards indigenous peoples in international frameworks for natural resource and
conservation governance are largely a result of those efforts. The outcomes of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature’s World Parks Congresses in 2003 and 2014 were a result of the broad
mobilization of indigenous peoples demanding that protected areas recognize their rights,
responsibilities, and contributions to conservation (Brosius, 2004; Stevens, 2014).
Indigenous peoples’ organizations, however, continue to criticize international authorities for failing
to fulfil their targets and obligations to indigenous peoples (Forest Peoples Programme, 2008, 2011,
IIFB, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014). Traditional power structures and conservation ideals are still
present in protected area policy and practice (Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010; Sandlos, 2014; Wilshusen
et al., 2002), and national and local implementation of international standards often proves
challenging (Benjaminsen & Svarstad, 2010; Koivurova & Heinämäki, 2006; Lane, 2003; Lane & Corbett,
2005; Minter et al., 2014; Paulson et al., 2012; Schroeder, 2010). Furthermore, indigenous peoples are
largely left outside the development of treaty texts and the implementation of the treaties and, when
included, they are often considered only holders of traditional knowledge. This risks reproducing
discourses or ideas prioritizing conservation objectives over indigenous rights and reducing the ways
indigenous peoples may influence the decision-making within the context of international treaties
(Agrawal, 1995; Berkes, 2009; Berkes et al., 2000; Reimerson, 2013; Turi & Keskitalo, 2014). This is also
important for Europe and Central Asia with its different indigenous peoples and local communities and
their varying historical legacies.

6.3.2.7 Information-based instruments building on private and business initiatives

There is increasing recognition of the need to enhance the use of economic instruments, such as
market-based incentives, to complement traditional regulatory policy instruments at the international
as well as national level. This is justified in assuming that such instruments are more efficient than
traditional regulatory instruments, in particular when it comes to the implementation of multilateral
environmental agreements. However, with the exception of payments for ecosystem services
schemes, the adoption of economic instruments has mainly been advocated in developed countries,
while their uptake in developing countries and countries in transition has been limited. This can partly
be explained by the lack of capacity, in these countries, to design and implement economic
instruments due, for example, to unclear property rights (Karsenty & Ongolo, 2012). Yet, the increasing
uptake of economic instruments in the global environmental arena has opened up for various forms
of sustainability standards, such as certification schemes, voluntary corporate initiatives, public-
private partnerships, and transparency-based reporting schemes (Cashore, 2002; Derkx & Glasbergen,
2014; Glasbergen et al., 2007; Gulbrandsen, 2014; Johansson, 2014).
In particular, voluntary and market-based certification schemes have emerged as innovative and
dynamic institutions for non-State governance. Various certification schemes have been proposed and
their number has grown rapidly over the last two decades. This has been largely in response to public
failures to halt deforestation, depleting fish stocks (Gulbrandsen, 2010), and unsustainable production
and consumption of a variety of commodities (Auld et al., 2008), and certification has become an
institutionalized governance approach to sustainable development (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012).
Today, consumers encounter organic or fair-trade labels on a variety of products, implying improved
environmental conditions or more equitable market transactions (Auld, 2014).
Although such initiatives have been driven by private institutions, evidence suggests that the
regulatory system and the political and administrative culture have influenced their adoption in
different countries. This implies that the legal, socio-economic and political contexts may facilitate or

955
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

hinder successful implementation in different sectors. For successful implementation, well-functioning

legal systems and property rights must work, especially since private instruments are supposed to
supplement, not replace, domestic legislation and enforcement (Gulbrandsen, 2010). Consequently,
private instruments may not enhance the overall protection of natural resources in regions where
government institutions are weak. At the same time, other aspects are also important here, such as
the size and structure of the industry in the specific country, ownership of the resource (private vs
public), and export dependence (Cashore et al., 2004).
Analyses of previous research on various private social and information-based instruments confirm
this picture, but show a relatively uneven distribution of uptake and effectiveness in different sectors
(Auld, 2014; Gulbrandsen, 2010; Pirker et al., 2016; Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2015), and considerable
variability among the social and distributive impacts of these instruments (Biermann & Gupta, 2011;
Schouten & Glasbergen, 2012). For instance, certification schemes are important private alternatives,
not least for the formulation of forest policies to halt deforestation, and such initiatives have received
significant scholarly attention. One of the most well-known examples, the stakeholder-driven Forest
Stewardship Council – attentive also to indigenous rights – has to date certified 48.2% of total FSC-
certified area (94,389,400 ha) in Europe and Central Asia (FSC, 2017). Despite the considerable
academic attention they have received, the sustainability impacts of forest certification standards, in
terms of tangible change on-the-ground, is largely unknown (Johansson, 2013; Visseren-Hamakers et
al., 2015; Visseren-Hamakers & Pattberg, 2013).

6.3.3 Responses to transboundary environmental challenges

This section examines challenges related to the governance of ecosystems and the implementation of
ecosystem-based management approaches across country boundaries and provides examples of
regional cooperation. The focus is on broad ecosystem types and issues: groundwater and freshwater
degradation and restoration, marine and coastal ecosystems, and invasive species. Each issue is
examined under the headings, where relevant, of binding legal instruments, environmental rights
approaches, soft law instruments and capacity building, and intergovernmental organizations. For
responses to transboundary environmental challenges related to land degradation, we refer to the
global IPBES Assessment on Land Degradation and Restoration, in particular Chapters 6 and 8 and the
recently published reports of the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative (ELD Initiative, 2015a,
2015b). One regional report of the latter initiative has been dedicated to a synthesis of national studies
in Central Asia (Quillérou et al., 2016).

6.3.3.1 Groundwater and freshwater degradation and restoration

Groundwater and freshwater degradation processes are not constrained by national boundaries and
are affected by cross-boundary policies and activities. This obligates cooperation and coordination in
matters of natural resource management. Nevertheless, such collaborations are not very common
(Saunders & Briggs, 2002). The capacity of freshwater systems for nutrient cycling and nutrient
removal is particularly valuable in Europe because of the heavy pressure placed on water by human
populations (Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1.7). At present, surface and groundwater availability is expected
to decrease in many countries due to changing precipitation patterns and higher evapotranspiration
(Chapter 5, Section 5.2.3.2). This trend will endanger habitats that depend on surface water dynamics,
whereas those dependent on groundwater dynamics and water balance would be more buffered
against hydrological stress (Chapter 5, Section 5.6.1).

956
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.3.3.1.1 Binding legal instruments

Challenges with regard to water resources in Europe and Central Asia call for integrative transboundary
cooperation. In Central and Western Europe such efforts mainly rely on implementation of a number
of policies and practices, including water pricing, efficient use of water, action against illegal water
abstraction, measures to promote restoration and sustainable development (EEA, 2000, 2010). While
in Central Asia, efforts rely merely on the principle of sustainability applied conjunctly by local
governments and the coordinating support of international regulatory programmes (GIZ, 2013; GWP,
2014). However, constrained public human and financial resources dramatically limit the
implementation of multilateral environmental agreements, which is thus heavily dependent on
external cooperation and support (e.g. ERP Tajikistan, UNECE, 2012).
Nonetheless, in Central Asia the World Heritage Convention (and possibly Ramsar Convention) has
been used to prevent transboundary impacts (e.g. impacts from hydropower planned in Mongolia on
Lake Baikal in Russia (UNESCO, 2017). Both conventions include special provisions guiding parties on
how to prevent damage to designated sites in other countries (UNESCO, 2016). Southern Caucasus
countries have also signed conventions on watershed management, and while a report from the Global
Water Partnership noted that a focus on integrated water resource management is not generally
applied in the Caucasus, the water sectors in many of the countries are undergoing reform and new
legislative water codes have been developed (GWP, 2014).
The importance of joint management of transboundary rivers and lakes to address water resource
shortage and deterioration has long been recognized by governments. One of the oldest examples of
an intergovernmental agreement to manage joint water bodies is the Albufeira Convention that dates
from the 18th century. Nonetheless, it was not until 1992 that joint international governance
mechanisms in United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization regions were
established, leading to the establishment of the Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (also known as the Water Convention), which
protects and ensures the quantity, quality and sustainable use of transboundary water resources
through facilitated cooperation. Conservation and restoration of freshwater ecosystems is a specific
obligation under this convention, which requires parties to take “all appropriate measures” to this end,
including the establishment of water-quality objectives and criteria, and the development of concerted
action programmes for the reduction of pollution. This convention has currently 42 signatories from
Europe and Central Asia, but Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Turkey have not yet
ratified it, due mostly to historical conflict issues (UNECE, 2011). Despite the fact that the status of
these waters is now improving, transboundary water resources remain “under great stress as a result
of poor management practices, pollution, overexploitation, unsustainable production and consumption
patterns, hydromorphological pressures, inadequate investment in infrastructure and low efficiency in
water use” (UNECE, 2011).
The European Union Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC; European Community, 2000)
was established to contribute to the implementation of community obligations under international
conventions on water protection and management, notably the 1992 Water Convention. The river
basin approach and the focus on ecology and sustainable use of water are the core innovative aspects
of this directive. A similar focus is also to be seen in the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC; European Union,
2007b).
The basin approach is applied for the protection of groundwater in about 600 transboundary aquifers,
against pollution and deterioration, under Directive 2006/118/EC (European Union, 2006). This

957
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Directive establishes specific criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status and
criteria for the identification and reversal of significant and sustained upward trends and for the
definition of starting points for trend reversals. This directive also complements the provisions
preventing or limiting inputs of pollutants into groundwater already contained in the European Union
Water Framework Directive, and aims to prevent the deterioration of the status of all bodies of
groundwater.
The European Union Water Framework Directive, Article 3.4, stipulates a general obligation for the
member States to cooperate. However, it does not prescribe any concrete instruments to shape this
cooperation, nor does it provide exemptions in case of not achieving the results by a member State
because of certain acts or omissions of another member State (Gilissen et al., 2010). This often leads
to problems between member States that have different systems and governmental responsibilities
for water management.

6.3.3.1.2 Environmental rights approaches

The right to drinkable freshwater was first suggested as a binding law in the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 and was also a target in the Millennium
Development Goals (Scanlon et al., 2004) and now the Sustainable Development Goals. The
environmental rights to terrestrial systems are mainly allocated to indigenous communities as defined
by the United Nations Human Rights Office as “rights to their lands, territories and resources”
(UNOHCHR, 2013). Under this perspective the natural habitat of indigenous people should also be
preserved, except when the indigenous community is overexploiting their natural habitat (Kaapcke,
1994; Mustonen et al., 2011; Roberts, 1992).
Rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to subsistence use of lands and natural resources,
including subsistence fisheries, have been widely recognized in resource management systems of the
northern parts of the Europe and Central Asia region. Presently, however, these rights are being
reduced due to, for example, progressive resource privatization and increased population pressure
(Simonov & Simonova, 2016).

6.3.3.1.3 Soft law instruments and capacity building

Although scientific research on transboundary preservation issues is fairly comprehensive, the actual
implementation of management recommendations is commonly hindered by the absence of funding
mechanisms. In addition, the definition of freshwater and its restoration are subjects of debate, even
among researchers and organizations, with consequent implications for the development of common
policy options (McDonald et al., 2016).
The Central Asia subregion has a well-established, although limited, legal framework for inter-State
cooperation in the management and use of transboundary water. From a legal point of view, it includes
both binding instruments and numerous semi-formal arrangements and documents that are merely
recommendations, i.e. soft-law instruments. Regional agreements of a general nature are in place, as
well as several bilateral agreements on practical issues relating to specific watercourses or areas of
interaction. However, the river-basin approach is not reflected in the existing agreements. The legal
framework does not properly establish the hierarchy and mechanisms for the coordination and
collaboration of the existing institutions, does not clearly delineate their competence and does not pay
sufficient attention to reporting procedures, decision-making processes, implementation and
enforcement (UNECE, 2011). A testing time for existing mechanisms came in 2016 when Kyrgyzstan

958
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

suspended its participation in the International Commission for Sustainable Development, as Tajikistan
started to build a major hydropower dam (Rogun HPP) without consent of downstream countries. This
signifies that existing arrangements are subject to amendment and that some of the transboundary
water management regimes may deteriorate due to divergent interests of parties.
Transnational cooperation on ecosystem-related topics is important for defining problems, obtaining
information, and pursuing joint solutions. Examples include the prevention of water pollution in
Russia-Mongolia and Russia-China relations (see supporting material Appendix 6.2 Table 6.2.1) in the
context of the Amur River basin. However, despite Amur’s importance for biodiversity, fisheries and
food production, wetlands conservation or climate change adaptation, international treaties that have
been signed to date have not been able to provide a solid basis for a holistic river basin management.
It has been argued that the health of river ecosystems is yet to become a real practical priority in
bilateral water management agreements and management efforts in Central Asia (Simonov &
Egidarev, 2017).

6.3.3.1.4 Intergovernmental organizations, programmes and projects

An example of project facilitation across intergovernmental organizations is the World Bank and its
Global Environment Facility, which promotes the Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project,
between Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe is also engaged in transboundary regions preservation, within its regional dialogue and
cooperation on land and water resources in Central Asia; aimed in particular at the Alazabi/Ganyykh
basin and the Syr Darya (Aral Sea) Basin (UNECE, 2015c). A similar programme for the Isfra river basin
is being coordinated by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH,
which is synchronizing bilateral transboundary preservation operation between the Kyrgyz Republic
and Tajikistan with the financial support of the European Union (GIZ, 2013).

6.3.3.1.5 Private and business initiatives

A recent report of the Economics of Land Degradation initiative highlighted that the returns from
sustainable land management are realized through the use of robust economic valuation
methodologies (ELD Initiative, 2015b). Those returns are provoking the private sector to promote
economic growth, food security and sustainable livelihoods and to reduce conflict over natural
resources. The scope of institutions set up at the river basin often includes groundwater management,
in particular where aquifer boundaries do not follow the boundaries of the river basin. Where
groundwater does not follow a particular river basin, a water framework plan is assigned with
integrated valuation to the nearest or most appropriate river basin. Less frequently, a mechanism is
set up specifically at the aquifer level concerning potential trade-offs and power relations (Mechlem,
2016).
Transboundary associations of non-governmental organizations’ activists and experts identify and
draw attention to transboundary ecosystem degradation problems and policy solutions are illustrated
by the recent report on integrated flood management options prepared by several non-governmental
organizations and expert bodies for the transboundary Amur River Basin published by the World Wide
Fund for Nature (Simonov et al., 2016a, 2016b).
There is a widely recognized gap in existing regulations on spatial planning of industrial activities,
especially in a transboundary context. Often industrial facilities (such as hydropower plants, cement
plants or coal mines) are placed at inappropriate locations where they cause huge damage to

959
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

biodiversity and ecosystem services. Strategic assessments of sectoral development schemes and
programmes are often employed to direct development away from sensitive areas. A good example of
this is the strategic assessment of basin-wide hydropower impacts performed jointly by companies
and non-governmental organizations for the Amur River Basin (Simonov et al., 2015, see also Section
6.5.4).

6.3.3.2 Marine and coastal systems

Transboundary issues are particularly relevant for marine and coastal ecosystems where processes can
impact huge areas that do not adhere to any clear political or administrative boundaries. An essential
feature of ecosystem-based management is that account is taken of aggregate pressures and impacts
rather than just analyzing individual pressures and impacts in isolation. This also implies conducting
the analysis across an entire ecosystem’s range rather than just for parts of it (i.e. instead of within
member State political boundaries). As pointed out by the European Environment Agency (EEA,
2015d), it is a significant challenge to properly account for cumulative pressures and impacts across
such large areas, especially because not accounting for these cumulative pressures and impacts poses
tremendous risks to adequately assessing ecosystem health and safeguarding key ecosystem services.
This fact is recognized by the existence of a number of Regional Sea Conventions and international
organizations that monitor the status of the marine environment and the level of pressures from
different sectors or sources, on regional marine and coastal ecosystems. The following section outlines
the major instruments and approaches employed to facilitate cross-border protection of marine
ecosystems and the transboundary challenges that need to be overcome in order to facilitate more
effective governance and protection.

6.3.3.2.1 Binding legal instruments

The key binding legal instrument in the European Union aimed at formalizing an ecosystem-based
approach to marine environmental management is the European Union Marine Strategy Framework
Directive. It is important from a transboundary perspective as it specifically requires regional and
transboundary cooperation (European Union, 2008, Article 5.2). Article 10 also specifically refers to
the Regional Sea Conventions: “Member States shall take into account the continuing application of
relevant existing environmental targets laid down at national, community or international level in
respect of the same waters, ensuring that these targets are mutually compatible and that relevant
transboundary impacts and transboundary features are also taken into account, to the extent
possible”. In addition to the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the European
Union’s Maritime Policy Action Plan recognizes that efforts to coordinate current sectoral policies
require integrated and cross-cutting actions that operate across national boundaries. The action plan
recognizes the fact that an integrated maritime policy requires a governance framework that applies
the integrated approach at every level, as well as horizontally and with the use of cross-cutting policy
tools.
There are a number of key conventions aimed at fostering transboundary marine protection in Europe
and Central Asia (see supporting material Appendix 6.2 Table 6.2.2). The Regional Sea Conventions
have demonstrated that it is possible to develop an integrated ecosystem assessment on a regional
scale. The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM, 2010), for example achieved
this under the Helsinki Convention by harmonizing and combining maps of ecosystem features with
maps of pressures resulting from human activities in a combined spatial analysis that crosses national

960
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

jurisdictions. This allowed for a spatial description of the relative impacts of human activities across
the Baltic Sea (Figure 6.3).

The Regional Sea Conventions have been seen to be successful in the joint management and
conservation of large marine areas, but an early report by the United Nations Environmental
Programme on their success did warn that “In many regions the level of expertise and facilities
available for the actual implementation and conduct of the agreed action plans is limited” (UNEP,
1982). More recently Mackelworth (2016) notes that while modern conservation principles are
explicitly incorporated or implicitly applied under the relevant regional instruments, they still require
further operationalization and consistent application by all organizations and countries involved.
Rochette and Chabason (2011) also highlighted the differences in regional arrangements and
fragmented international governance in limiting the success of the conventions. An assessment of
management effectiveness by Van Lavieren and Klaus (2013) revealed variable levels of performance
across the members and the authors recommended the adoption of the Regional Protocol on
Biological Diversity and Specially Protected Areas.

6.3.3.2.2 Soft law instruments and capacity building

Softer forms of international cooperation for the joint management and conservation of the seas
include the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. Since 1978, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark
have cooperated to protect the Wadden Sea as an ecosystem. The guiding principle of the Trilateral
Wadden Sea Cooperation is to “achieve, as far as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in
which natural processes proceed in an undisturbed way”. The Cooperation is based on the “Joint
Declaration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea”, which was first signed in 1982 and then updated in
2010. The Joint Declaration is a declaration of intent, including objectives and areas of cooperation, as
well as institutional and financial arrangements. For over 30 years, the Cooperation has united partners
from politics, nature conservation, science and administration, along with local stakeholders, who

961
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

together represent an enormous store of knowledge and experience. It is a unique example of effective
transboundary ecosystem-based collaboration to jointly conserve a World Heritage site (Common
Wadden Sea Secretariat, 2017).
Through its European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Union works with its southern and eastern
neighbours to achieve the closest possible political association and the greatest possible degree of
economic integration. The European Neighbourhood Policy is a key part of the European Union's
foreign policy. Partner countries have agreed on a European Neighbourhood Policy action plan or an
Association Agenda with the European Union demonstrating their commitment to, amongst other
issues, environmental protection and sustainable development. In particular, this intergovernmental
policy seeks to strengthen marine environment protection across borders with the European Union by
“better preserving shared natural resources and improving conditions for fisheries” and by ensuring
“the protection of shared seas and river basins”. The European Neighbourhood Policy is a jointly owned
initiative and its implementation requires action on both sides, by the neighbouring state and by the
European Union. There are currently 16 neighbouring states involved including, Jordan, Israel, Georgia,
Armenia and Azerbaijan (Wesselink & Boschma, 2017).

6.3.3.2.3 Private and business initiatives

The use of ecolabels and certificates of sustainability may be an effective means of promoting more
sustainable practices in shared marine waters for wild-captured fisheries, but also for the aquaculture
industry. Companies may also employ instruments other than eco-labels such as green procurement
(Runhaar, 2016). According to estimates, there are over 400 existing ecolabels marking consumer
products worldwide (Golden, 2010). The marine-based ecolabels tend to certify sustainability of caught
or farmed marine seafood. For example, Unilever and the World Wide Fund for Nature joined forces
in 1997 to create the Marine Stewardship Council. The Council is a non-profit organization that has
developed a global environmental standard for sustainable fishing. Some of the standards measured
by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) include the maintenance of sustainable fish populations and
the minimization of environmental impacts. At present, 286 certified fisheries can be found in 36
countries, accounting for 10% of all global catch (92 still in assessment) and there are 37,121 sites with
chain-of-custody certification which assures consumers and seafood-buyers that MSC-labelled seafood
comes from a certified sustainable fishery (Marine Stewardship Council, 2016). Although overfishing
and depletion of global fish stocks continue, there are indications that, in Marine Stewardship Council-
certified fisheries, some improvements are being made in fisheries management and practices (Agnew
et al., 2014; Gulbrandsen, 2010).

6.3.3.2.4 Assessment of transboundary challenges in marine and coastal areas

Hanley and co-authors (2015) point out that the integration of economic and biophysical ecosystem
service valuation into marine policy formation remains challenging due to the fact that these
ecosystems tend to be large, and often overlap multiple political jurisdictions. The authors also point
to the fact that, even in the European Union, where an integrated institutional framework exists for
the governance of regional seas in the form of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, member
States have not yet been able to collaborate in an effective manner at the regional seas level when
carrying out the assessment work that is a requirement of the Directive. Elsewhere Oinonen and co-
authors (2016) point out that several of the descriptors of “good environmental status” under the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive are already regulated by existing legislation and recommend
that economic analysis for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive should

962
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

place particular emphasis on those descriptors that are not covered by any other piece of legislation,
such as underwater noise and marine litter.
The political commitment to cooperative management by the Governments of countries bordering
regional seas is a fundamental requirement for success of any agreements aimed at the
implementation of environmental protection measures. This regional cooperation translates into the
meaningful exchange of information across countries. Many marine ecosystems and the
environmental pressures and impacts acting upon them are transboundary in nature. Therefore, the
information and databases needed to identify these pressures must cover all of the ecosystems in
question rather than the parts of it that lie within a country’s border.
It is also recognized that the effective management of marine ecosystems requires the use of cost-
benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources
(European Union, 2008, Article 8). These economic tools can also help to identify cost-effective
approaches and abatement options to protect or restore the provision of marine ecosystem services.
It has been pointed out elsewhere (Oinonen et al., 2016), however, that if cost-effectiveness analysis
were to be carried out at the regional seas level, more cost-effective abatement alternatives may
present themselves that might not be obvious at the individual member State level. This could result
in more cost-effective alternatives being chosen to achieve the environmental goals.
It is worth noting that a report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2015) points
out that starting regional cooperation initiatives in geographical areas with little experience of an inter-
State cooperation requires a discussion of possible institutional models of the future interstate
regional cooperation to be developed. It gives the example of the Aral Sea Basin where many regional
cooperation organizations operate with rules and procedures that are a mix of the approaches from
the former Soviet centralized system and are partly based on the principles of the cooperation
between the independent States. Ultimately, the success of any transboundary conservation
instrument will depend on the effective collaborate of the bordering parties.

6.3.3.3 Invasive alien species

Invasive alien species are a major concern within Europe and Central Asia. However, their control is
complex and, in many cases, difficult to handle with legal instruments. This situation is reflected in a
vague text on invasive alien species from the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to
the Convention on Biological Diversity in Cancún, Mexico (CBD, 2016a). Achieving Aichi Biodiversity
Target 9 on preventing and controlling invasive alien species is likely to be a considerable challenge.
Trade and transport are important factors affecting the introduction and spread of invasive alien
species (Hulme, 2009; Pyšek et al., 2012), with the amount of exchanged commodities expanding more
than 30-fold since 1950 (WTO, 2013). In addition to the direct effects of trade on the spread of invasive
alien species, new transport corridors and enlarging of existing ones supports an upsurge of
introductions. The Suez Canal recently underwent a major enlargement (Suez Canal Authority, 2016),
and the expansion of the Panama Canal was intended to double its capacity and transit vessels three
times as big as possible in 2015. A third canal may also be built, across Nicaragua. While global trade
and shipping are vital to society, existing international environmental agreements also recognize the
urgent need for sustainable practices that minimize the unwanted impacts and long-term
consequences of bio-invasions – these are essentially transboundary issues.

963
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.3.3.3.1 Binding legal instruments

The need to tackle biological invasions, to develop a common policy and to establish an early warning
system, has been recognized at European Union level, for example by the European Commission (i.e.
Communication “Towards an EU Strategy on Invasive Species” - European Commission, 2008) and EU
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Other instruments recognizing the spread of invasive alien species are
listed in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Instruments for addressing invasive alien species. Source: Own representation.

Responsible
Policy area Instrument Title Description
Institution
Directive 92/43/EEC lists over 1,000 animal and plant species, as
The Habitats European well as 200 habitat types under protection. Its sole mention of non-
European Union
Directive Commission native species pertains to provision for supplementary measures to
govern their possible introduction.
Adopted in 1976, amended in 1995 and came into force on 9 July
Mediterranean Barcelona United 2004. An Action Plan concerning species introductions and invasive
Sea Convention Nations species in the Mediterranean Sea was adopted in 2003 (UNEP, n.d.),
and again in 2016 (UNEP, 2016b).
The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention recommended in
Western, Central 2003 that Contracting Parties implement national strategies on
Council of
and Eastern Bern Convention invasive alien species and co-operate in the prevention, mitigation
Europe
Europe and eradication of invasive alien species, where feasible and
practical.
European Union
Regulation Entered into force January 1st 2015. It is an important instrument
European
European Union 1143/2014 on setting out the provisions and responsibilities concerning invasive
Commission
Invasive Alien alien species of Union, regional and member State concern.
Species
The convention provides seven protocols to address specific aspects
The Barcelona European of Mediterranean environmental conservation including marine
Mediterranean
Convention Commission biological diversity and pollution from exploration and exploitation
offshore.
European Union
Marine Strategy European Acknowledges the critical role of vectors in biological invasions and
European seas
Framework Commission considers it crucial to manage the pathways.
Directive

Under the Convention’s terms, ships will be required to manage

Ballast Water International their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake
Caspian Sea Management Maritime or discharge of aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast
Convention Organization water and sediments. However, IMO’s guidelines for the control and
management of ships' biofouling, is voluntary.

Many countries in Europe and Central Asia have only scattered legislative or advisory tools (e.g. codes
of conducts; Caffrey et al., 2014; Halford et al., 2014; Heywood & Brunel, 2011). The United Kingdom
is the exception with its invasive non-native species strategy and dedicated secretariat.

6.3.3.3.2 Soft law instruments and capacity building

Several bodies serve in an advisory capacity concerning monitoring, research and management of alien
species across national boundaries at both global and regional levels. These include the European
Environment Agency and the European Invasive Species Specialist Group of the International Union for
Conservation of Nature. At the international level, there is a long-lasting cooperation in the field of
phytosanitary, veterinary and pest management regulatory principles through the European Plant

964
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Protection Organization, European Food Safety Authority and the United Kingdom Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Similarly, these agricultural branches have efficient domestic
regulations based on a long history leading to effective monitoring and management of pests.
Present national and regional inventories of alien species are heterogeneous in terms of their spatial,
temporal and taxonomic coverage as well as their accuracy. At continental level notable datasets
include the European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS, 2017) or Delivering Alien Invasive
Species Inventories for Europe (DAISIE, 2017). The new European Union invasive alien species
regulation calls for a centralized information system collating the existing information on alien species
in the Union and allowing access to information on the presence of species, their spread, ecology,
invasion history and all other information available. This was partly achieved by Delivering Alien
Invasive Species Inventories for Europe, which initiated the collection of data from adjacent non-
member States and less developed countries. Recently, a data aggregating portal linking some existing
national and continental sources was constructed through The European Alien Species Information
Network (EASIN, 2017).
The recent meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols (Barcelona Convention)
adopted an action plan and monitoring and assessment programme that ostensibly deals with non-
indigenous and invasive species (UNEP, 2016a, 2016b). Though replete with expressions of concern for
the Mediterranean marine environment, neither document deals with the most significant pathway
and the majority of the invasive alien species.
The spread of invasive alien species along trade routes such as the “new silk road” which, if successful,
may soon triple or quadruple trade in Europe and Central Asia, is expected to lead to accelerating
biological invasions (Ding et al., 2008; Zhang & Jiang, 2016). Responding to these developments, the
China Ministry of Environment already started research on possible ways to control the spread of
invasive or exotic species in the region in 2015. Given that great numbers of marine and terrestrial
invasive species may come to Europe and Central Asia from East Asia this is considered a timely effort
that may need focused international cooperation in the realm of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, China-European Union cooperation and other multilateral platforms.

6.3.3.3.3 Assessment of challenges related to invasive alien species

Current legislative and management efforts have failed to address the introduction and spread of
invasive alien species in terrestrial, inland aquatic and marine environments across Europe and
neighbouring regions for a number of reasons (Galil et al., 2018; García-de-Lomas & Vilà, 2015;
Genovesi et al., 2015; Hulme, 2009):
1. The European Union invasive alien species regulation should focus on preventive actions
concerning vectors and pathways of introductions, in addition to control and mitigation measures
of significantly-impacting invasive alien species already present.
2. International cooperation is insufficient.
3. Transboundary impacts of man-made corridors of introduction are neglected.
4. Transfer of best-practice management in dealing with invasive alien species lacks support (e.g. use
of chemical treatment).
5. Border control is limited.
6. Timely information exchange of invasive alien species distribution and their impacts is lacking.

Mediterranean countries have not taken sufficient measures to address biosecurity hazards relating
to movement of stock, feed, and equipment that may result in the introduction of marine invasive

965
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

alien species (CIESM, 2007; Golani et al., 2015; Marchini et al., 2016) or illegal introductions. The
appearance of five non-indigenous prawn species in the Mediterranean, all of commercial interest and
newly recorded in the past decade, suggest intentional introduction, particularly as these species have
been found in the vicinity of fish and shellfish farms. The European Union established a legal
framework to limit the environmental risks related to the introduction and translocation of non-native
species in aquaculture (European Union, 2007a) but, as it pertains only to member States, and is
unevenly regulated even in those countries, illegal introductions and intra-national translocation of
shellfish stocks (and their associated biota) continue to contribute to the introduction and spread of
marine invasive alien species in the Mediterranean Sea (Bakir & Aydin, 2016).

6.4 Environmental and conservation policies in Europe and Central Asia

6.4.1 Policies for biodiversity and nature conservation

6.4.1.1 Policy objectives
Nature conservation and biodiversity policy objectives usually relate to the following four major areas:
i) the conservation of nature and biodiversity; ii) the sustainable use of biological resources; iii) the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources; and iv) the restoration of
degraded ecosystems. Although these objectives are at first sight policy objectives of the conservation
sector only, mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into national sectoral
and cross-sectoral strategies, policies, plans and programmes is a priority of both international and
European Union biodiversity strategies (European Commission, 2011a; CBD, 2011). This section will
address the first and, to some extent, the third objective, while sustainable use will be dealt with in
Section 6.5, especially agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The fourth objective, ecosystem restoration,
is becoming ever more important due to unabated land-use intensification and land degradation in
many parts of Europe and Central Asia (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5). As this topic is comprehensively
assessed in the IPBES Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment (see Chapters 6 and 8 for
response options), it is only shortly addressed here (see also Quillérou et al., 2016, for a synthesis on
the economics of land degradation for Central Asian countries).
In Europe and Central Asia, nature and biodiversity conservation activities are embedded in a complex
network of international and regional objectives and targets. At the international level, several
biodiversity-related conventions and strategies promote the implementation of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD, 2010), such as the Ramsar Convention, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora or the Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals (see Section 6.3 and supporting material Appendix 6.1, Table 6.1.1
on Multilateral Environmental Agreements). The United Nations Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011
– 2020) includes the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets to promote the implementation of the Convention
on Biodiversity. These targets cover the protection of biodiversity from anthropogenic pressures, the
distribution of benefits from biodiversity and ecosystem services and the enhancement of
implementation through participation, knowledge management and capacity-building. In Europe and
Central Asia an increasing number of countries have become Parties to the Nagoya Protocol on Access
to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, which
is addressed in Aichi Biodiversity Target 16. By 2014, when the Nagoya Protocol entered into force,
eight parties to the Protocol (15%) in Europe and Central Asia had ratified the Protocol, while by 2017,
the number had grown to 25 (46%), including the European Union (CBD, 2017b). Through national
biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs), the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been translated

966
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

into national-level targets in all except 13 countries in Europe and Central Asia
(https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/) (see also Chapter 3), with varying weights assigned to different aspects
of the targets (Pisupati & Prip, 2015). Hence, there are good reasons to assume that action will be
developed in most of the countries that have completed their post-2010 national biodiversity
strategies and action plans and thereby fulfilled one important part of Aichi Biodiversity Target 17. In
Western and Eastern Europe, almost all countries have submitted a plan, whereas in Central Asia and
Central Europe, a number of countries has not yet submitted (CBD, 2016c). However, the fact that a
national biodiversity strategy and action plan has been submitted does not necessarily mean that
intended measures, such as the mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people,
will be effectively implemented. On the contrary, our assessment of the various policy sectors shows
that there are still a number of opportunities to increase the pace of implementation and thereby
improve the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (see synthesis Table 6.11).
In 2015, the 193 member States of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Sustainable Development Goals) that were
agreed to replace the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2015). Of these, Goal 14
(Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources) and Goal 15 (Protect, restore
and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss) are of particular
relevance for nature conservation.
For Europe and Central Asia, the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS)
was conceived as an instrument to support the implementation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity. It was endorsed in 1995 by the Ministers of Environment in the region covered by the United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe and thus, reached well beyond the European Union at the
time 37. Its aim was to support implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and to serve
as a coordinating and unifying framework for strengthening and building on existing initiatives (UNEP
& UNECE, 2016). In Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, the strategy and related activities
were successful in facilitating capacity building for the implementation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity and in enhancing NGO involvement. The strategy was terminated in 2011. Prip (2013, p. 5)
has drawn a key lesson from this process – “that policy on its own does not deliver action unless
supported by allocation of resources”. The lack of a financial mechanism with adequate, stable and
predictable funding was deemed a major obstacle to the strategy’s implementation. Another lesson
was that full support from the European Union and its member States was lacking, especially after the
enlargement of the European Union. In 2011, a new strategy, the Pan-European 2020 Strategy for
Biodiversity (UNEP, 2011b), was developed as the successor to PEBLDS. This new strategy refocuses
efforts to prevent further loss of biodiversity in the pan-European region, in line with the Strategic Plan
for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
The “EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020” (European Commission, 2011a, an expansion of the EU
Biodiversity Action Plan of 2006) has been instrumental in creating momentum for better integrating
aspects of biodiversity and ecosystem services into the European legislation. It works as an umbrella
for existing, more specific policies. The strategy consists of six complementary targets whose
implementation should contribute to mitigating the main drivers of biodiversity loss in the European
Union. The achievement of these targets relies principally on better uptake of existing European Union
legislation, notably through a better anchoring of biodiversity objectives in key sectoral policies.

37Although the United Nations Environment Programme pan-European region comes close to the area covered by the IPBES
Regional Assessment for Europe and Central Asia, it is not quite identical (see UNEP & UNECE, 2016 for an overview of
countries belonging to the pan-European region).

967
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Specifically, the six targets focus on: 1) the full implementation of the European Union nature
legislation, in particular the Bird and Habitats Directive (improvements of the Natura 2000 network);
2) better protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services, notably via a greater
reliance on green infrastructure development; 3) more sustainable farmland and forestry
management, as the agriculture and forestry sectors combined cover almost 72% of the land in the
European Union (ameliorations in the Common Agricultural Policy); 4) sustainable management of fish
stocks and fisheries (75% of European Union fisheries are overexploited) through a coherent
ecosystem approach and reducing bycatch; 5) a tighter control of invasive alien species; and 6) all this
in an effort to avert the global biodiversity crisis, notably through a reduction in negative drivers. Each
target is accompanied by an ambitious action plan, while indicators for monitoring (since 2010) are
provided to ensure the effectiveness of future implementation towards the 2020 biodiversity targets.
Although there has been progress in the implementation of the strategy, it seems unlikely that most
of its objectives and targets will be met within the allotted timeframe (EEA, 2015c; European
Commission, 2015b; Tittensor et al., 2014; CBD, 2016d; Chapter 3). In the European Union, the mid-
term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy concluded that, despite progress in most fields and areas,
biodiversity loss and ecosystem services degradation continues unabatedly, which casts serious doubts
on the “capacity of biodiversity to meet human needs in the future” (European Commission, 2015b, p.
4 and 19). The remainder of this section is an assessment of the reasons for this failure, highlighting
opportunities for improvements.

6.4.1.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

While top-down, hierarchical governance is still the dominant mode of governance in the conservation
sector, international conventions such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Aarhus
Convention and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, call for alternative modes of
governance to include effective collaboration among different public and private actors and
stakeholders to solve environmental problems (see Figure 6.2). Greater public engagement through
consultation, negotiation, and cooperation in policy design, and in the governance and management
of biodiversity, is assumed to be linked with increased effectiveness, sharing of knowledge and
understanding and legitimacy of biodiversity conservation and restoration policies (Ansell & Gash,
2008; Bodin & Crona, 2009; Couix & Gonzalo-Turpin, 2015; Decker et al., 2016; Larrosa et al., 2016;
Paloniemi et al., 2015; Whitehead et al., 2014). As a response to this call, European Union member
States and, increasingly, also countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (Kluvánková-Oravská et al.,
2009; OECD, 2005), tend to highlight the importance of decentralization or public-private governance
in conservation policies and strategies. Such governance modes may contribute toward better taking
account of the needs of local governments, communities, citizens and local knowledge holders when
designing and implementing conservation policies and actions (Yang et al., 2015).
New modes of governance have been applied, for example, in the governance of national parks and
other protected areas (Holmgren et al., 2016; Kluvánková-Oravská et al., 2009; Reimerson, 2015;
Yakusheva, 2017) and in the governance and management of large carnivores and other species. In
Western Europe, the legislative and budgetary responsibilities of protected area governance are often
vested at subnational levels with important roles for subnational authorities. For example,
decentralization processes in France led to closer involvement of local authorities in the management
of protected areas, and gave subnational authorities the power to create nature reserves (IUCN France,
2013). This development was further strengthened, giving local authorities a greater role in the
governance of national parks, accompanied by changes in intergovernmental fiscal transfers that
provided local authorities with more financial resources (Borie et al., 2014). In Central and Eastern

968
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

European countries, there is a shift from spatially isolated protected areas with top-down regulations
towards more connected bottom-up approaches (Kluvánková-Oravská et al., 2009; Yakusheva, 2017).
In Central Asia, the institutional mechanisms for biodiversity conservation were developed during the
Soviet era and, over the last decades, the management of protected areas has been strengthened,
partly due to financial support from international donors. Moreover, protected area coverage has
expanded and protection regimes have been widened by introducing categories of protection
stipulated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Yakusheva, 2017).
With large carnivores recolonizing many European countries (Chapron et al., 2014), mitigation
measures to manage human-wildlife conflicts are needed. Norway introduced regional large carnivore
committees, with local politicians appointed by the Ministry of the Environment. Sweden has wildlife
management delegations at a regional level with politicians and stakeholders, while Finland uses
national, regional and local large carnivore management organizations including public and private
actors (Redpath et al., 2017; Sandström et al., 2009). These committees are in charge of developing
and adopting management plans, determining or providing advice on population targets (including
hunting quotas), and mitigating conflicts between wildlife and livestock. They are often also included
in monitoring and information sharing (Sjölander-Lindqvist et al., 2015). Human-wildlife conflicts have
recently also increased due to the success of the European Union’s conservation policies with strictly
protected species such as cormorants, otters and the Baltic seal becoming more abundant. This caused
the original conflicts with fisheries and aquaculture to resurge so that reconciliation strategies were
needed (Klenke et al., 2013a). Such conflicts require relevant stakeholder groups to be brought
together, thus moving from hierarchical protection strategies to public-private partnerships, co-
management and possibly modes of self-governance. This includes policy instruments such as damage
compensation programmes and rewarding land users for biodiversity-friendly practices or monitoring
activities as certain human-wildlife conflicts also raise justice concerns in terms of the distribution of
their damages (Jacobsen & Linnell, 2016; see also Chapter 2, Box 2.5). As the core of the conflict usually
consists of different interests and values among different stakeholder groups, successful conflict
reconciliation strategies take stakeholder perceptions seriously and build on participatory processes
(Klenke et al., 2013b; Manfredo et al., 2009). Further empowerment of national and local stakeholders
is also considered key to success in wildlife management in Central Asia. Successful conservation
measures require multi-stakeholder partnership and integrated efforts, yet regional cooperation in
Central Asia still faces a number of challenges (Michel et al., 2015). These include the economic
situation, with continuous financing depending on external donors, and differing cultural perceptions
and values with regard to wildlife and hunting.
Although the arguments in favour of these new modes of governance and the studies supporting these
claims are many, there is also evidence that participation does not always deliver substantial benefits.
Hence, caution is warranted against considering these new modes of governance as solutions for all
kinds of conservation challenges. For example, there are problems related to the representation of
different interests, the lack of opportunities for deliberation, the lack of mechanisms for conflict
resolution, and misunderstandings of the mechanism by which decisions are made (Ansell & Gash,
2008). Nevertheless, in spite of these problems, studies also show the potential of participatory
processes to contribute to social and organizational learning, as well as to the achievement of
conservation and management outcomes (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).
The toolbox of policy instruments for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration and sustaining
nature’s contributions to people, is well equipped. Due to the many challenges and complexities, real-
world policies for the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity typically apply
multiple instruments at the same time. These challenges involve dealing with heterogeneity and
multiple objectives, irreversibility in the face of species extinction and tipping points in ecosystems,

969
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

information gaps, diverse values, multiple market, policy and institutional failures, a wide range of
drivers impacting nature, and multiple actors at different spatial scales (OECD, 1999; Ring & Schröter-
Schlaack, 2011, 2015; TEEB, 2011b). A comprehensive literature review of the various instruments for
biodiversity conservation and the sustained provision of ecosystem services showed that combinations
of instruments can be justified for a range of motives. Based on this review, Table 6.5 presents
characteristics of the major instruments reviewed as well as the main findings for the performance of
the different instruments (Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2011, 2015; Schröter-Schlaack & Ring, 2011). Each
instrument category covered (legal and regulatory, economic and financial, social and information-
based instruments) has a role to play in an overall policy mix due to varying goals, actors addressed,
and policy context.
Legal and regulatory instruments are the backbone of policy mixes, necessary to promote the
conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity. Establishment of protected areas and
their networks is an essential policy response to habitat loss and fragmentation (see Chapter 4, Section
4.5) (CBD, 2014; UNEP & UNECE, 2016). This legal instrument is implemented in all subregions of
Europe and Central Asia, although with room for improvement (see corresponding column in synthesis
Table 6.11). The core of the European Union biodiversity policy is the Habitats Directive and the Birds
Directive, which established the Natura 2000 network. Member States have to implement the Nature
Directives through national conservation law. Although not obligatory, the European Commission
strongly recommends management plans as an operational instrument outlining practical measures to
achieve the conservation objectives for Natura 2000 sites (EEA, 2015c). Whether part of management
plans or not, member States are required to draw up conservation measures applying to all habitats
and species on the Natura 2000 sites. A recent analysis of national reports by the European
Environment Agency (EEA, 2015c) showed that conservation measures related to spatial planning (e.g.
establishing protected areas or sites, legal protection of habitats and species, and other spatial
measures) dominate the commonly reported conservation measures. Further significant categories
include measures related to wetland, freshwater and coastal habitats, agriculture and open habitats
and forest habitats. As the terrestrial part of the Natura 2000 network is predominantly covered by
woodland, cropland and grassland, mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture and forestry is a key
task (Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2).

970
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 6.5: Reviewing the performance of selected single instruments for biodiversity conservation.

Instrument Direct regulation, e.g. Offsets, habitat banking and Tax reliefs Ecological fiscal transfers Payments for ecosystem Certification,
type protected area designation permit trading services (PES) e.g. forest certification
Goal Safeguard important areas for Account for and mitigate Account for positive Compensating decentralized Incentivizing land users for Promote biodiversity- and
species and habitat conservation inevitable impacts on environmental externalities governments for opportunity biodiversity conservation and environmentally-friendly forest
biodiversity and ecosystems provided by land users and/or management costs as ecosystem service provision, e.g. production in accordance with
well as spillover benefits of by compensating for associated legal codes and certification
protected areas opportunity and management requirements
costs
Actors Private and public actors Private and public actors Private actors Public actors Mostly private actors/land users Private actors (consumers)
addressed
Baseline and Protection provided by other Impacts allowed by Tax payers’ behaviour without Protected areas coverage when Land-use practice without National forestry regulation,
policy context primary instruments (e.g. (management / emission / the tax relief (business as usual instrument is introduced incentives by payment for certification process most often
emission / management performance) standards might be biodiversity friendly ecosystem services schemes progressive and adaptive
standards) or existing protected anyhow) (business as usual could be
area network, very often no either static, declining or
protection at all improving)
Conservation High – increase in and Medium – although typically Low – depending on tax burden Medium to high – increase in Low to high – depending on Medium – impacts dependent
effectiveness conservation of biodiversity and designed to allow for a “no net relieved (existence of tax, actual quantity and quality of instrument design regarding on rigorousness of standard and
ecosystem service provision; loss”-goal, problems arise in enforcement of payments, and protected areas likely (especially baseline, and additionality, framing conditions, such as
however, effectiveness may be assuring equivalence of sufficient tax rate); non-targeted when beneficiary of transfers leakage, permanence and intensity of investment,
at risk due to weak enforcement mitigation measures and their approach can influence quantity and participation difficulties in transport and
or may erode in the future due long-term monitoring quality of protected areas) licensing, land tenure and
to changing environmental conflicts with competing land
conditions (e.g. climate change) uses
Associated Medium – though protected High – in particular the option to Medium – low transaction costs Medium – low transaction costs Medium to high – no up-front Medium – administrative costs
costs and areas very often show a positive trade mitigation measures as resting on existing as it builds on existing public investment for buying of certification scheme may be
proxies for benefit-cost-relationship, local significantly reduces opportunity administrative procedure; mechanism (fiscal transfer land, auction-based substantial (in particular in
cost-effective- opportunity costs can be costs; however, some ecosystem however, very often incentives schemes and protected areas programmes limit excessive tropical forests)
ness substantial or habitat types may be (too) provided insufficient for designation) rents; however potentially high
costly to restore required change in land-use transaction costs
practice
Social impacts Medium – ecosystem services Medium – increase in Medium – compensation for Medium – depending on entry Medium – support of rural Low to medium – difficult to
and equity protected by protected areas education/job and income opportunity costs of point of protected areas in fiscal livelihoods, resource reach smaller operators due to
may benefit (local) population; opportunities for rural environmentally friendly land- transfer systems; fiscal transfers management and social complex procedures;
however, substantial landowners marketing offsets; use practices; however, only as such address inequalities coordination capacities; but communities often benefit
opportunity costs and risk to compensation of opportunity applicable to tax debtors (e.g. between jurisdictions enrolment constrained by through workforce participation
revoke informal rights (e.g. cost of land conservation landowners) insecure property rights and and engagement in co-benefits
access/abstraction) in area (tradable development rights) transaction costs, mixed effect
designation on poverty alleviation
Source: Adapted from Ring & Schröter-Schlaack (2015); Schröter-Schlaack & Ring (2011). Based on individual instrument reviews from Kaechele et al. (2011); Oosterhuis (2011); Porras et al. (2011);
Ring et al. (2011, 2017); Santos et al. (2015b); Schröter-Schlaack & Blumentrath (2011).

971
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Many of the recent improvements in biodiversity conservation have been a result of effective
regulation. The European Union Nature Directives allow the European Union to meet its objectives
under international law, and, by way of the Natura 2000 network, have led to an increase in the
number and quality of protected areas (UK NEA, 2011, p. 53). The Natura 2000 network is now the
most extensive network of protected areas in the world, including more than 27,000 sites and covering
18% of the terrestrial area of the European Union member States and 4% of European Union marine
waters (EEA, 2015c). The marine component of the Natura 2000 network is still very incomplete,
particularly for offshore sites, yet with substantial designations in recent years (EEA, 2012a, 2015c).
The Natura 2000 network forms the backbone of the European Union’s green infrastructure (Mazza et
al., 2011). The Emerald Network launched by the Council of Europe in 1999 is based on the same
principles as Natura 2000 and represents its extension to non-European Union countries (EEA, 2012a;
UNEP & UNECE, 2016). The Pan-European Ecological Network, originally launched in the framework of
the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy, builds on the Natura 2000 network and
the Emerald network. In addition to the latter two, the Pan-European Ecological Network aims at
linking core areas physically by way of preserving and restoring corridors (Jongman et al., 2011; UNEP
& UNECE, 2016). Protected areas as a legal conservation policy instrument are widely applied in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia, although problems exist with enforcing regulations and effective
monitoring due to insufficient institutional capacities and human and financial resources (Mammadov
et al., 2016; OECD, 2005).
Economic and financial instruments in conservation policies penalize activities that negatively affect
the environment, or they provide public and private actors with the resources needed to achieve
conservation goals and to implement conservation measures. Biodiversity financing by way of public
financial support programmes is an important topic in Europe and Central Asia. Apart from a few
dedicated biodiversity conservation funding schemes such as the LIFE fund, the European Union’s
approach to financing biodiversity and nature conservation is largely based on “integrated financing”,
using a range of existing financial instruments from other sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries and
regional development, as well as social and cohesion funds (Kettunen et al., 2017). Since financial
resources still fall far short of providing sufficient resources to achieve agreed biodiversity objectives
(Gantioler et al., 2010; Tucker et al., 2013b), Kettunen et al. (2017) suggest a range of policy
instruments as opportunities for innovative biodiversity financing in the European Union, among them
ecological fiscal transfers (EFT), tax reliefs, marketed products as well as fees and charges (Kettunen &
Illes, 2017). Ring & Barton (2015) and Ring & Schröter-Schlaack (2011) provide a review of economic
instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and the sustained provision of ecosystem
services, assessing their effectiveness, associated costs and social impacts, and pointing to
shortcomings and misperceptions of the relevant instruments (Table 6.5). Whereas payments for
ecosystem services are commonly implemented in Western and Central Europe (although with scope
for improvement, see synthesis Table 6.11), further economic instruments are only applied in a few
countries, are under development or have only recently started. Portugal was the first European Union
member State to introduce ecological fiscal transfers, using Natura 2000 sites and other national
protected areas as indicators for redistributing general tax revenues from the national level to all
municipalities hosting such areas (Santos et al., 2012). In this way, economic instruments can support
the implementation of legal and regulatory instruments by providing financial resources to subnational
governments responsible for managing such sites.
There is room for considerable development of economic instruments in nature conservation and
ecosystem restoration policies especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where few countries
apply such instruments (Kobakhidze, 2015; OECD, 2005; UNEP & UNECE, 2016). The current work
programme of the Pan-European Biodiversity Platform includes as one of its three overarching
priorities, “improving the manner in which biodiversity and ecosystem services concerns and
972
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

requirements are reflected in economic and development frameworks and policies” (UNEP, 2014b, p.
7). Selected activities supported under this priority include: (i) mapping and assessing ecosystems and
their services; (ii) in-country and subregional studies following the approach of the international
initiative on the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB); and (iii) capacity support for the use
of market-based instruments (UNEP, 2014b). Especially following the publications of the TEEB
initiative, marked-based instruments have been gaining ground in policy strategies for conservation.
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, for example, payments for environmental services have been
introduced and tested as pilot projects in some countries. However, these initiatives are supported by
donors and their national ownership is low. There is no observed trend of wider application of this
instrument in the region.
Social and information-based instruments operate by providing additional information for policy
target groups on the impacts of their activities regarding biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people. Certification acts as a bridge between market regulation and conservation governance by
emphasizing specific criteria in response to consumers’ demands for sustainably produced products
(see Sections 6.5, 6.6.2 and 6.6.5.3 for applications in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and the role of
certification as part of a policy mix; synthesis Table 6.11). Regarding science, data, indicators and
monitoring, the Environmental Performance Reviews of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe provide regular knowledge updates on a number of biodiversity-relevant issues, covering
countries in Central Europe, Eastern Europe (except Russian Federation) and Central Asia (see UNECE,
2017b for reviewed countries, 2017c; UNEP & UNECE, 2016).
Rights-based instruments and customary norms are especially important for indigenous and local
people. Over recent decades, the rights of indigenous peoples have been increasingly acknowledged
and strengthened within the international legal system (Section 6.3.2.6). To some extent, this is also
reflected in national-level biodiversity conservation polices in Europe and Central Asia. One example
of this policy change is the management arrangement for the Laponia World Heritage site in northern
Sweden where the Sami have secured significant influence over the management of the site, and label
it a victory for Sami political struggle (Reimerson, 2015). There are also many marine areas where the
customary laws of indigenous peoples are recognized and respected by the broader society (EEA,
2012a). Indigenous and local knowledge is a rich source of local understandings and traditional
management practices that can play an important role in the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity (Babai et al., 2015; Hartel et al., 2015; Molnár, 2014; Oteros-Rozas et al., 2013; Roué &
Molnár, 2017; Varga et al., 2016; Varga & Molnár, 2014). Examples of such traditional management
practices and extensive measures are livestock grazing in lowland grasslands; mowing by hand in
montane grasslands, and; coppicing, pollarding or small-scale felling in forests. Local foresters, herders
and rangers may recognize and provide explanations to structural and species compositional changes
in different ecosystems and their knowledge is often passed on over many generations (Berkes et al.,
2000).
The mobilization of financial resources is a continuous task, to which Aichi Biodiversity Target 20 is
dedicated. Sufficient financial resources are considered crucial if biodiversity is to be conserved and
the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems enhanced. This holds especially true for developing
countries with limited domestic funds (Richerzhagen et al., 2016). In Europe and Central Asia, Turkey
and the Ukraine were among the top 10 recipients globally of bilateral biodiversity-related official
development assistance, whereas 20 Western European and 3 Eastern European countries as well as
the European Union were providers of such assistance (Figure 6.4). The top 10 providers account for
nearly 90% of biodiversity-related official development assistance, among them six European countries
and the European Union (all figures 2011-1015 average) (OECD, 2016a). Figure 6.5 shows the global

973
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

distribution of biodiversity-focused aid from Development Assistance Committee members of the

OECD for the years 2006 – 2012, with only few recipients in Europe and Central Asia.

974
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.4.1.3 Constraints and opportunities

Despite accelerating policy and management responses to the global loss of biodiversity, the impacts
of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020
(Tittensor et al., 2014). In view of these developments, Di Marco et al. (2016) call for a refocus of
biodiversity conservation priorities, by defining sufficient and more ambitious biodiversity targets,
increasing the amount of financial resources necessary to achieve these targets, and spending them
more efficiently. Recent reviews and assessments at the regional level mirror these findings and
necessities stated for the global level, including for Europe and Central Asia. The mid-term review of
the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European Commission, 2015b) emphasizes that key threats to
biodiversity continue to exert pressure. Land-use change, in particular through urban sprawl,
agricultural intensification, land abandonment and intensively managed forests, pollution, extraction
of natural resources (e.g. mining, fisheries), invasive species and climate change, still cause loss of
species and habitats and result in ecosystem degradation and weakening of ecosystem resilience
(Chapter 4) (EEA, 2015d; European Commission, 2015b; UNEP & UNECE, 2016).
The failure of the European Union’s 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss has been attributed to the
following major problems (Fournier et al., 2010; Tinch et al., 2011): “(a) incomplete implementation of
existing legislation; (b) insufficient funding; (c) limited awareness about biodiversity; (d) inadequate
governance and administrative capacity; and (e) gaps in skills and knowledge.” Despite the adoption
of the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011 – 2020, it has been argued that these problems still apply (Tucker
et al., 2013a). In a similar vein, Steiner (2009) (cited in Tinch et al., 2011), stated from a global
perspective that current governance systems cannot achieve environment and development goals
“due to lack of adequate financing, incoherence among bodies, weak linkages between science and
policy, insufficient capacity at the national level to implement laws and policies, and a significant
975
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

disconnect between the environmental and the economic and social spheres.” Therefore, short-term
priorities tend to dominate long-term visions, and societies fail to consider and develop transformative
strategies for achieving sustainability. Recognition of the need for profound societal transformation
towards sustainability has just started. It is gaining momentum in Western Europe (EEA, 2015d), but
still needs to be initiated in other subregions of Europe and Central Asia (see synthesis Table 6.11). All
policy options and opportunities related to awareness raising in the synthesis Table 6.11, would need
stronger support in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to become effective.
Mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into all policy areas that depend on
or affect biodiversity, has become a key strategy to counteract these deficiencies. In Europe and
Central Asia, as well as globally, the concept of a “green economy” is gaining increasing support
(Economic Commission for Europe, 2016; European Commission, 2013b; UNEP, 2011a, 2016a).
Biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use and ecosystem restoration feature prominently on
the agenda of these strategies. However, despite the long recognition of the need for mainstreaming,
there remain important barriers such as “shortcomings in training and a lack of skills, guidance and
tools to enable non-specialists from other sectors to take account of both their dependence and their
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems” (Tinch et al. 2010). Promoting information sharing,
transparency, knowledge management and training is of special relevance in Eastern Europe and
Central Asia (see synthesis Table 6.11).
The heterogeneity of biodiversity conservation, with its multiple taxa, organizational levels and
multiple objectives, represents a key challenge for policy development. Biodiversity also affects many
aspects of society, different sectors, and is highly relevant in spiritual, religious and cultural contexts.
In response to these complex challenges, a huge number of international and regional conventions
and policy instruments deal with biodiversity in Europe and Central Asia. For many countries in the
region, it has become increasingly difficult to fully implement or even follow the targets set by the
Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, due to its vast range of topics and issues (UNEP & UNECE,
2016). Institutional fragmentation between different policy sectors represents another barrier to
achieving biodiversity objectives. It involves split competences, conflicts, and scale and boundary
mismatches between regulatory authorities and biodiversity processes (Koetz et al., 2012). Such
fragmentation can lead to policies harmful to biodiversity. Examples are found in policy sectors such
as energy, transport, fisheries or agriculture (see Sections 6.5.1, 6.5.3, 6.5.4 and 6.5.5). Phasing out of
harmful subsidies remains an important task for all policy sectors and across all subregions of Europe
and Central Asia (synthesis Table 6.11). Conversely, more progress has been made in relation to taxing
and charging negative environmental impacts, with the exception of the fisheries sector (see Section
6.5.3 and synthesis Table 6.11) (Hansjürgens et al., 2011b; Lehmann et al., 2011; OECD, 2013b).
Mainstreaming and policy integration remain a priority. This includes setting and achieving objectives
in policy areas not directly targeted by biodiversity policies, notably other environmental policies such
as climate, air, chemicals, water and soil protection (see next Section 6.4.2) and further sector policies
such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, resource extraction and manufacturing, and the services sector
(see Section 6.5) (EEA, 2015c; European Commission, 2015b; PBL, 2014; Tinch et al., 2011; UNEP &
UNECE, 2016). Beyond certain thresholds or “tipping points”, impacts may be irreversible and cause
species extinction or ecosystem collapse. Small impacts accumulating over a long period may create
large losses with irreversible outcomes. Making trade-offs and tipping points visible at the relevant
spatial scales remains an important policy option for all subregions of Europe and Central Asia
(synthesis Table 6.11). If early warnings are taken seriously and preventative action is taken, negative
outcomes can be avoided or at least reduced. Precautionary approaches can help manage the fast-
changing, multiple, systemic challenges the world faces today (EEA, 2013b).

976
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Recent progress in establishing policy frameworks needs to be translated into concrete actions at
national, subnational and local levels, if the status of biodiversity is to improve on the ground. Full
exploitation of current commitments is needed, as well as stepping up efforts to improve on the
current situation in critical policy areas such as biodiversity (UNEP & UNECE, 2016). Improved science-
policy interfaces such as IPBES, and relevant interfaces and networks at subregional, national and
subnational levels, currently serve as valuable mechanisms to provide the best available evidence for
evidence-based policymaking. A key opportunity is to demonstrate to business the benefits it derives
from biodiversity, and the ways in which it can manage its impacts on biodiversity (see Aichi
Biodiversity Target 4) (TEEB, 2012) (See also Sections 6.5.4, 6.5.5 and 6.6.3.2). Due to the multi-
facetted relationships and interlinkages between so many policy sectors and societal actors, the
concept of nature’s contributions to people provides opportunities to better assess synergies and
trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and the many contributions of nature to people and
quality of life (Bouma & van Beukering, 2015; Elmqvist et al., 2010; Potschin et al., 2016; for ecological
restoration: Tolvanen & Aronson, 2016) (Box 6.1).
Box 6.1: Synergies and trade-offs: assessing the links between biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people.

Although the number of publications on ecosystem services has increased markedly in recent years (see Chapter
1 and Chapter 2), we still have limited understanding of the synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people, or ecosystem services (Elmqvist et al., 2010; Turkelboom et al., 2016). Trade-
offs exist between material contributions to people (or provisioning services) and biodiversity, but also between
biodiversity and other categories of ecosystem services, as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005c)
has prominently stated. Intensification in the provision of material contributions may arise from objectives in
other policy sectors, e.g. climate and related agricultural, forestry or energy policies (see Sections 6.4.2, 6.5.1,
6.5.2 and 6.5.4).
For example, policies for climate change mitigation involve moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources,
often accompanied by financial incentives to land users in agriculture or forestry that lead to intensified
production. Albert and co-authors, for example, assessed biodiversity and ecosystem service trade-offs in
agrarian landscapes that arise from increased biogas production in Germany (Albert et al., 2016b). Policies
promoting forest expansion for increased carbon sequestration at the expense of semi-natural grasslands may
further risk the overall reduction of biodiversity in the European Union (Burrascano et al., 2016). In Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, many low-income rural households still rely on traditional biomass (straw, wood or coal)
for cooking and heating. Here, the development of proper management systems promises to prevent the loss of
biodiversity and degradation of local biomass resources (IEA, 2015; Kobakhidze, 2015).
Mainstreaming biodiversity into climate change mitigation and adaptation policies also has the potential for
various synergies. This is the case for peatland conservation and re-wetting of farmed peatlands, sustainable
forest management or the conservation and restoration of near-natural floodplains (TEEB-DE, 2015). Further
synergies relate to the significant overlap between Natura 2000 sites and regions with high carbon content across
European Union countries. Biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation through conservation of soil
carbon could be simultaneously achieved in Natura 2000 sites and beyond (Jantke et al., 2016). Considering
bundles of ecosystem services and the multifunctionality of landscapes helps to tease out such synergies (Howe
et al., 2014; Mouchet et al., 2017; Ruijs et al., 2013; Sil et al., 2016).
At a more general level, mapping and assessments of nature’s contributions to people provide valuable
information for a range of public and private decision-makers (Chapter 2). The provision of biophysical maps of
ecosystem services at the European Union level is regarded as a crucial step in setting new targets for biodiversity
(Rodwell et al., 2013). Maes et al. (2014, 2015, 2016) and Schröter et al. (2016) have taken important steps
towards mapping and assessing ecosystem services in the European Union. Comparable initiatives exist for
Eastern Europe (Bukvareva et al., 2015; Grunewald et al., 2014). In Central Asia, most recent ecosystem (service)
assessments have been performed in relation to sustainable land management by the Economics of Land
Degradation (ELD) initiative (Quillérou et al., 2016).

977
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 6.1

It is expected that the shift from traditional hierarchical modes of governance towards more inclusive
modes such as public-private partnerships or co-governance would result in better decisions and policy
outcomes. This holds for the literature assessed, as well as international conventions and national
policies. The inclusion of stakeholders and/or previously marginalized actors in consensus-based,
deliberative processes in policymaking and decision-making is seen as a promising mechanism for
managing environmental problems including conservation. This would enhance the effectiveness,
efficiency and equity of the decision-making process, by reducing transaction costs, improving the
legitimacy of decisions, and increasing the sustainability of resources and livelihoods (Bodin, 2017).
While there is a growing literature on these more inclusive modes of governance in relation to wider
environmental issues, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (see Sections 6.4.2 and 6.5), there is no
comprehensive overview on the role of participation in setting priorities for biodiversity policies.
Furthermore, the focus in the literature is often on the processes of inclusion and not on the outcomes
in terms of overall effectiveness of biodiversity policy. Although some countries in Europe and Central
Asia, for example, produced second-generation national biodiversity strategies and action plans in the
early 2000s through participatory processes (Moreno & Mueller, 2015; CBD, 2016d), there remains a
considerable gap in addressing issues of public involvement, in particular concerning gender equality
and women’s empowerment, as well as the participation of indigenous peoples. Indigenous and local
knowledge of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in conservation policy and
management is not sufficiently taken into consideration despite the recognition of the importance of,
for instance, traditional farming (European Commission, 2014a; Roué & Molnár, 2017). Furthermore,
linkages between science and policy, and between science and society, can be strengthened in this
context (Arlettaz et al., 2010; Buizer et al., 2011; Mihók et al., 2015; Pullin et al., 2009). By taking
individual and social preferences of people seriously, economics, the wider social sciences, and the
humanities, may help to facilitate conservation policies, actions and outcomes that are more
legitimate, salient, robust and effective compared to the current situation (Bennett et al., 2017; Moon
& Blackman, 2014). This has proven to be fruitful in relation to human-wildlife conflicts, where human
dimensions of wildlife have developed as a transdisciplinary research field (Manfredo et al., 2009;
Paxton et al., 2016). The same holds for nature’s contributions to people, which have been developed
as a boundary concept between the natural and the social sciences (Bouma & Beukering, 2015;
Potschin et al., 2016).
Although budgets for financing biodiversity conservation activities have been increased in recent
years, adequate financing of biodiversity conservation is still lacking at the national level and
throughout Europe and Central Asia (Florentina et al., 2015; Kettunen et al., 2017; Mammadov et al.,
2016; Tucker et al., 2013b). The interim assessment of revised national biodiversity strategies and
action plans found that many strategies and action plans were overly ambitious, while at the same
time lacking a strategy for financing their implementation (Pisupati & Prip, 2015). The situation is
especially serious in Central and Eastern Europe as well as in Central Asia, where insufficient capacity
has been identified at the national level to implement laws and policies as well as to better deploy
participatory approaches (Mammadov et al., 2016; Mihók et al., 2017; Niedziałkowski et al., 2015;
Simeonova et al., 2016). The financial resources for scientific research, monitoring and training of
specialists in the field of biodiversity conservation are deemed seriously insufficient in Eastern Europe
and Central Asia (Kobakhidze, 2015).
However, lack of resources for biodiversity financing also applies to European Union member States.
The mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy stated that achieving biodiversity targets requires
adequate funding, yet there is still no detailed insight into the actual funding and financing of nature
978
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation by each member State. The review, supported by more recent assessments, calls for
expanding the multi-fund approach to biodiversity financing, better linking the various existing
financing tools, and exploring new economic and financial policy instruments that can provide funds
for achieving objectives related to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (European
Commission, 2015b, 2016b; Kettunen et al., 2017). For example, countries such as India and Brazil use
conservation-related indicators for redistributing general tax income much more prominently than any
country in Europe or Central Asia (Busch & Mukherjee, 2017; Ring, 2008b; Schröter-Schlaack et al.,
2014). Redistributing public revenues through intergovernmental fiscal relations from higher to lower
levels of government may account for the opportunity costs of conservation, reward conservation
activities of municipalities, and thus can provide incentives for conservation, when considering
ecological and conservation-related indicators in redistribution formulas (Droste et al., 2017). Such
approaches also have the potential to be transferred to the distribution of European Union funds
between the European Union and member States (Droste et al., 2018; Kettunen et al., 2017), or, more
generally, for redistributing international funds, for example in relation to REDD+ initiative (Ring et al.,
2010).

6.4.1.4 Summary
There is a widespread call to strengthen the synergies between biodiversity-related conventions, to
improve policy integration and mainstream biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into
relevant policy sectors, as the complexity and fragmentation of biodiversity governance is seen as a
constraint to effective policy design and implementation. IPBES may play an important role in the
integration of relevant political processes and instruments (UNEP & UNECE, 2016, p. 89). Current
assessments of status and trends of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people as well as policy
responses indicate the need to strengthen the implementation of existing policies (EEA, 2015d;
Tittensor et al., 2014; UNEP & UNECE, 2016) (see Chapters 2–5). This requires full exploitation of
current commitments to reach agreed environmental goals and targets and proactive learning from
the wide spectrum of good-practice in the region. In critical areas, such as biodiversity, additional
commitments and efforts are needed to improve on the current situation, including sufficient
mobilization of financial resources (UNEP & UNECE, 2016).
Legal and regulatory instruments are the backbone of policy mixes for biodiversity conservation. Direct
regulation, including, for example, protected areas, land-use management standards, or zoning
regulations by spatial planning, is the most widely used approach in environmental protection, and
this also holds true for biodiversity conservation (Schröter-Schlaack & Blumentrath, 2011). A well-
defined and comprehensive regulatory framework provides the essential baseline for introducing
other instruments (Hansjürgens, Schröter-Schlaack, et al., 2011b). It can help to assure a safe minimum
standard of conservation, making it an important ingredient in any conservation strategy. However, its
social and equity impacts are somewhat mixed (Schröter-Schlaack & Ring, 2011), especially in relation
to indigenous and local people (Allard, 2006; Elenius et al., 2017). On the one hand, regulation makes
use or access rights legally enforceable due to clearly defined property rights. This is an important
enabling condition for the use of market-based instruments in conservation policies to work
effectively. On the other hand, there is the risk of precluding informal property rights, such as those of
indigenous peoples. For Kyrgyzstan, Kalkanbekov and Samakov (2017) suggest sacred sites to be
considered as indigenous protected areas or, in other words, community-conserved areas, to increase
their recognition as valuable nature-related cultural sites.
Applying and improving a wider range of economic instruments in the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity and natural resources, as well as ecosystem restoration policies, remains a task in

979
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

all subregions. It is important to note, however, that economic instruments include more options than
only “market-based” instruments. The latter term is widely used by many stakeholders, often
confusing everything related to economics, with markets (Vatn, 2015; Vatn et al., 2011). Economic
instruments in general require: (i) creation of the enabling conditions through legal and regulatory
instruments; (ii) smart design and effective implementation; and (iii) consideration of their social
impacts on the ground (Adams et al., 2016; Kettunen & Illes, 2017; Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2011;
Santos et al., 2015b; Tinch et al., 2011).
Social and information-based instruments are essential in the wider policy mix for biodiversity
conservation. Although regular reporting and monitoring on the state of nature is now common
practice in Europe and Central Asia, further streamlining and harmonization is needed to reduce
differences in methodologies applied, which make data aggregation and comparison difficult. The
quality of data reported suggests that countries need to further develop or complement their
inventories and monitoring schemes (EEA, 2015c; OECD, 2005). In this regard, training, education and
capacity-building are important steps forward (see synthesis Table 6.11).
Regarding rights-based instruments and customary norms, Varga et al. (2017) emphasize that
conservation management practices (e.g. mulching hay meadows, shredding shrubbery) are often very
different from traditional practices (Holl & Smith, 2002), as conservation managers’ education is
almost exclusively based on western science (Primack, 2010). At the same time, the ability of
traditional ecological knowledge holders to protect their rights and to advance their own interests is
relatively low (Heikkinen et al., 2012). Policy instruments to reinforce the role indigenous peoples and
local communities may include: strengthening the capacities of national human rights institutions;
ensuring that national laws are harmonized with international human rights treaty standards;
legislation with the purpose of defining property rights or access right to land; collaborative
arrangements where the participation of indigenous groups and local communities are secured; and
the implementation of mechanisms for free, prior and informed consent. Despite the fact that
emerging and new approaches have contributed to changes with respect to indigenous rights and
nature conservation, there are a number of challenges and difficulties in combining indigenous values
with the views of western understandings of conservation (Elenius et al., 2017).

6.4.2 Environmental governance for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people:

synergies and trade-offs
6.4.2.1 Key environmental policies
In addition to the nature conservation policies described in Section 6.4.1, a broad range of
environmental policies shape changes in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, notably
those addressing water quality and quantity (both marine and freshwater), flood management, air and
wider environmental pollution, waste management, mitigation of, and adaptation to climate change,
soil management and land degradation. These policies complement, overlap and intersect with policies
in other sectors, for example, on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, resource extraction and energy
(Section 6.5). In many cases, such environmental policies are intended to constrain land-use practices
and abstraction of natural resources to safeguard environmental quality. While the general objective
of these environmental policies is thus by definition to improve environmental quality, including the
provision of nature’s contributions to people, three main questions emerge. First, there might be
implicit trade-offs between managing for different ecosystem services and/or biodiversity-related
goals, for example, related to biofuel targets (Tosun & Schulze, 2015) or water management and
biodiversity conservation (Beunen et al., 2009): How do environmental policies deal with these
conflicts, which ecosystem services are favoured, and which are negatively affected? Second, policies
980
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

do not always achieve their intended aims, often due to a lack of enforcement or insufficient alignment
across sectors: What are the de facto implications of the existing environmental policies for
biodiversity and ecosystem services? Third, what are the options that emerge from this analysis to
improve environmental governance in the future? This section concentrates on these questions,
building on the presentation of international, regional and transboundary governance arrangements
that address environmental challenges (Section 6.3) and providing the backdrop for the analysis of
sectoral policies (Section 6.5).
In the European Union, there is a widespread perception that, in terms of the adoption and
effectiveness of environmental policies, a lot of progress has been made over recent decades (EEA,
2015d; IEEP, 2013; Selin & VanDeveer, 2015), but that the challenges ahead are enormous (e.g., related
to climate change), and that efforts therefore need to be sustained (EEA, 2015d). There is a recognition
that societal-level transformations are needed rather than just gradual or very specific changes, i.e.
that current lifestyles and associated expectations and value systems have to significantly change.
However, the political and societal drive for economic growth and prosperity still does not tend to align
with environmental aims and objectives, despite increasing efforts to identify win-win situations (e.g.,
IEEP, 2013). The recognition of this challenge has led to the incorporation of notions of societal change
towards sustainability into environmental policy goals, blended with a language that is seen as
compatible with economic thinking, using terms such as “natural capital” and “nature-based
solutions”. In this respect, policies are more than just sets of rules; they shape and are shaped by
discourse and ways of thinking. Partly because of this realization, recent environmental policies in the
European Union tend to adopt a much more systemic perspective than they previously did, grouping
policies into larger packages rather than addressing single issues (EEA, 2015d; Hüesker & Moss, 2015).
For example, the idea of a “circular economy” has been introduced to shape and provide the
conceptual umbrella for strategies to deal with resource use and waste (EEA, 2015d; Lazarevic & Valve,
2017), while the ”low-carbon society” provides direction to policies targeting the mitigation of climate
change (EEA, 2015d) (see also Box 6.2 for an example influenced by the “ecosystem approach”).
However, Bouwma et al. (2018) suggest that within the body of European Union environmental law
(the “acquis”, which consists of more than 500 directives, regulations and decisions; EEA, 2015d; see
Section 6.3 for an overview of the most important directives) the concept of ecosystem services has
not yet been fully mainstreamed beyond those policies that focus on nature or natural resources.
Box 6.2: Scotland’s Land Use Strategy 2016-2021.

Although the United Kingdom has been characterized as having a strongly hierarchical approach to governance
(Pierre, 2000), recent developments in the devolved administration in Scotland suggest a move to a more
networked approach, characterized by steering instruments providing strategic direction. A good example of this
is the Scottish Land Use Strategy (Scottish Government, 2016). The strategy was initiated as an action arising
from the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, and has recently been refreshed for a second five-year period. The
Land Use Strategy encompasses all land in Scotland, both rural and urban, and is therefore a cross-sectoral and
integrative steering mechanism to encourage a more holistic approach to land-use planning and practice. One of
its guiding principles is the adoption of an Ecosystem Approach (Waylen et al., 2014), promoting recognition of
natural functions, working with nature’s contributions and engaging people. The approach focuses on providing
a strategic framework for voluntary action at local, regional and national scales. Recent pilots of a Land Use
Strategy regional framework, in the Scottish Borders and Aberdeenshire, have illustrated the benefits of spatially
explicit evidence of trends in ecosystem service delivery; the ability to explore possible future trajectories; and
public engagement to determine what people want from their land and the best ways to achieve it (Davidson et
al., 2015). The pilots confirmed that while some win-win solutions are available, often land-use change involves
difficult choices surrounding trade-offs. Overall, the approach made impacts of land-use decisions on biodiversity
and other regulating ecosystem services more visible. The deliberations that were part of the approach helped
stakeholders from diverse sectors to appreciate the distribution of impacts and to better understand the basis
for differences in preferences about land use and land-use change. However, achieving material improvements
981
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

to the integrated management of land still requires a combination of incentives and sanctions to prop up this
strategic steer. Whilst the pilots illustrated the promise of the approach, there was no actual implementation of
the approach beyond the pilots. Therefore, the pilots illustrated both substantive and instrumental advantages
of participatory processes (see Section 6.6), but support of other policy instruments is required to achieve
benefits for ecosystems and biodiversity (Verburg et al., 2016). The Land Use Strategy has a policy to develop a
network of regional land-use partnerships in order to stimulate this deliberative and systems-orientated
approach to land use across the whole of Scotland.
End of Box 6.2

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and in Central European countries outside the European Union,
the overall picture appears to be more ambivalent. There is recognition that the region is very diverse
and that a lot of progress has been made in recent years (OECD, 2012a; UNECE, 2015a, 2015b, 2016a,
2016b) compared with previous, much more negative assessments (OECD, 2005). However, the
effectiveness of environmental policies still seems heavily dependent on legacies in the governance
systems of these countries (Carmin & VanDeveer, 2005; Winqvist & Wolf, 2013) and their interactions
with approaches adopted more recently (Agarin & Grīviņš, 2016). Framework legislation on
environmental issues in these countries underwent a reform process in the 1990s and 2000s (OECD,
2005), and many countries have subsequently developed more detailed regulations and action plans
(Winqvist & Wolf, 2013). In Central Asia, but also in Eastern and Central Europe, donor support and
international assistance (see e.g., http://www.naturalresources-centralasia.org/) have played a strong
role in the development of action plans and policies (OECD, 2005, 2012a; UNECE, 2015a). However,
such reforms are not necessarily effective yet and have sometimes been compromised by subsequent
interventions. In Georgia, for example, a reorganization of the environmental authorities in 2011
involved substantial cuts in budget and staff. Although partly reversed in 2013, these cuts still had
longer-term impacts on institutional capacities (UNECE, 2016b). By comparison, in Serbia, new
environmental laws and a large number of subsidiary regulations were adopted in recent years
(UNECE, 2015b). However, not all of the new legal instruments have been followed up with strategies,
action plans, reporting, or other operationalization and enforcement mechanisms. Overall it appears
that, even where strong pro-environmental legislation exists, consistent implementation is often still
lacking and would also benefit from being streamlined across sectors (OECD, 2012a). Currently, there
are many encouraging developments towards more holistic management approaches, for example, in
relation to Integrated Water Resources Management (OECD, 2005) and integrated management of
peatlands (Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, 2015). Overarching discourses such as
“green growth” (e.g., OECD, 2012a) have also been used in an attempt to work towards more
integrated approaches to policymaking. However, integration of environmental policies and
management approaches into broader policy contexts across sectors seems to be still in its infancy, as
does inter-sectoral coordination, for example, between ministries within a country (OECD, 2005),
although progress has been made recently in some Eastern European and Central Asian countries
(OECD, 2012a).

6.4.2.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

Environmental governance modes and policy instruments (see Section 6.2 for definitions) are
extremely diverse and multi-faceted. Given the complexity and diversity of environmental governance
across Europe and Central Asia as outlined above (Section 6.4.2.1), it is only possible to present a very
selective review of the key governance mechanisms, their opportunities and constraints. The search
terms used in the literature review couched the topic as “governance”. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the
majority of the reviewed literature addressed hierarchical or decentralized governance modes and
982
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

legal, regulatory, economic and financial policy instruments. This notwithstanding, even within this
sub-segment of the literature, a wide range of governance mechanisms is described.
For Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the majority of the literature focuses on hierarchical approaches
to governance, including, for example, environmental quality standards, environmental impact
assessments and permits as legal and regulatory instruments; national environmental action plans for
overarching guidance; and pollution charges, pricing and fees for the abstraction of natural resources
as economic instruments (OECD, 2005, 2012a). However, research that draws on a sociological
perspective also highlights the role that culturally shared understandings of responsibility, agency and
governance can play in shaping environmentally relevant behaviour. For example, a qualitative study
from the Kalmyk Republic, Russia, found that individuals who had participated in Buddhist teachings
had a much stronger sense of personal agency (i.e., a feeling of being able to act and change
something). Consequently, they engaged much more in small-scale pro-environmental action, than
those who adhered to a hierarchical collectivist understanding of governmental responsibility for
environmental quality (Waylen et al., 2012).
For the European Union, Bomberg (2007) describes how market-based instruments, informational
schemes and voluntary agreements gained in importance in environmental policy during the 2004
round of accessions. These are often not obligatory, but are part of a portfolio of policy instruments
that member States are able, and sometimes actively encouraged, to use when translating framework
regulations (Section 6.3) into national or sub-national governance approaches (Bomberg, 2007). Such
“new” policy instruments might be particularly attractive for the European Union with its complex
decision-making structures that require new, creative ways of governing (Kassim & Le Galès, 2010;
Jordan et al., 2013). More recent arrangements have been even more multi-faceted and integrative,
but the guidance collaboratively elaborated through such interactive approaches still needs to be
complemented by additional enforcement and incentive mechanisms in order to be effective (Box 6.2).
From the viewpoint of environmental psychology, the role of social norms and other social factors in
shaping environmentally relevant behaviour, such as climate-relevant behaviour, has been evidenced
for many societies in Western, Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Nyborg et al., 2016).
Environmental governance is often nested, especially in the European Union. In other words,
instruments interact with each other across multiple levels, often with those at higher levels acting as
an umbrella for those lower down. For example, the European Union Water Framework Directive
(WFD), as one way of achieving good status for surface and groundwater, requires member States to
identify river basin districts and related authorities, which would then develop management plans and
programmes of measures. Local and regional governance is thus embedded in national and European
Union-level governance (Jager et al., 2016). Similar structures have also been developed in non-
European Union countries such as Ukraine that share river basins with European Union countries such
as Poland and are willing to align their management approaches with those of the European Union
(Hagemann et al., 2014) (see Section 6.3 for more on transboundary cooperation). The European Union
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), which aims to achieving good environmental status in
European Union marine waters, has a similar architecture. It defines marine regions according to
geographical and ecological criteria and requires member States sharing a marine region to cooperate
in developing national marine strategies (Boyes et al., 2016).
Overall, in the European Union countries and, increasingly, in countries in Eastern Europe and Central
Asia (OECD, 2005), the role of multi-actor environmental governance is recognized (Arts et al., 2006;
Newig & Fritsch, 2009). This involves both state and non-state actors at different levels from the local
to the international (Betsill & Bulkeley, 2004). For example, the Water Framework Directive explicitly
demands public participation in river basin management (Jager et al., 2016). The implementation of
the Directive can be regarded as co-management (Moss, 2012), i.e., management (or in many
983
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

instances, governance - Fischer et al., 2014) that is shared between governmental and non-
governmental actors. However, the terms “co-management” and “local knowledge” appear much less
in the literature on the governance of non-biotic environmental issues than in relation to protected
areas, wildlife, forestry or nature conservation; but also in the governance of, for example, water
catchments, local ecological (and hydrological) knowledge has an important role to play (Iniesta-
Arandia et al., 2015; Mustonen, 2013).
Private and civil society actors such as environmental NGOs and industry representatives can also
potentially shape the implementation of legislation through lobbying (Selin & VanDeveer, 2015), as
shown for the adoption of European Union biofuel targets in both European Union member States,
and non-member States in Eastern Europe (Tosun & Schulze, 2015). Similarly, international
environmental NGOs can significantly influence the adoption process of new environmental policy
instruments such as financial instruments and voluntary action in new accession states (Bomberg,
2007). The effects of their engagement can, however, be complex and are not necessarily always
positive for ecosystem services (Section 6.3.2; Agarin & Grīviņš, 2016). Together with the increasingly
nested nature of governance structures that is inherently multi-levelled, such multi-actor approaches
to polycentric governance may span all levels from the international to the local, as described for
climate governance (Jordan et al., 2015) and for policy networks around the European Union mercury
policy (Adelle et al., 2015).
Economic and non-economic policy instruments interact with each other, often across sectors, but
often with environmentally adverse effects. For example, the OECD’s report on “green growth” (OECD,
2012a) points out that in several Eastern European and Central Asian countries, the low financial price
attached to pollution and the use of energy or water, subsidies that encourage environmentally
harmful practices, and regulations that set environmental standards on the basis of dated technology
work together to counteract general government priorities such as energy efficiency and renewable
energies. The same can be said about the multiple formal and informal institutions that work against
a societal transition to a low carbon economy in the European Union, a declared policy objective
(European Commission, 2016a). Improvements in environmental policy integration, notably the
explicit integration of environmental policy issues into all phases of policy development and
implementation, could help to address this (Beunen et al., 2009).

6.4.2.3 Constraints and opportunities

One of the key factors that constrain the effectiveness of existing environmental governance
arrangements is their limited enforcement, which is affected by a range of circumstances. For example,
the existence of a large informal (shadow) economy in many Eastern European and Central Asian
countries means that governance instruments such as taxation or pollution charges can influence only
a limited proportion of all economic activities. At the same time, a complex regulatory framework
might deter some economic actors from moving from the informal to the formal sector (OECD, 2012a).
Improvements to those environmental governance arrangements that might be seen as overly
complicated could facilitate this move (OECD, 2012a). In their systematic review of studies evaluating
low-carbon policies, Auld et al. (2014) find a major trade-off between the efficiency of policies and
their accountability and impact. Notably, they found that voluntary agreements tended to be less
costly and more efficient than government-led instruments, but at the same time, accountability and
effectiveness were limited, as they were lacking compliance mechanisms and clearly assigned
responsibilities. Similar patterns might be found in the Water Framework Directive (Voulvoulis et al.,
2017).

984
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Effectiveness of existing governance mechanisms is also limited by the sheer size of the environmental
impact of human activities. Although this is not often stated explicitly, it seems that even progressive
governance approaches such as the European Union Water Framework Directive are often not able to
achieve environmental policy objectives, especially in areas of intensive agriculture and high
population densities such as in parts of Western and Central Europe. Addressing these shortcomings
requires, at the very least, an even more integrated and cross-sectoral approach to land and resource
management (EEA, 2015d).
Challenges associated with quantifying the targets within environmental policies make effective
implementation difficult. For example, European Union member States have found it difficult to define,
in a manner that is measurable, what is meant by “good environmental status” in the context of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. In the absence of a clearly defined good environmental status,
it is not always possible to measure the impacts on, or risks to, the marine environment. Furthermore,
the definition of good environmental status and its indicators are generally left to the interpretation
of the individual member States, which may lead to variation in implementation (Boyes et al., 2016).
Economic considerations are also central for developing the marine strategies required by the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive as well as the Water Framework Directive. For example, cost-
effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis have to be carried out before the implementation of
any new measure to reach good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
These economic assessments can play a major role in justifying exceptions from the requirement to
reach good environmental status, but their meaningfulness is limited when there is ambiguity
surrounding the definition of good environmental status as the target state (Bertram et al., 2014).
Effectiveness might also be constrained by limited encouragement for innovation within the existing
policies. For example, existing pollution charges in Eastern Europe and Central Asia are often low and
based on present technological standards, thereby missing out on the opportunity to incentivize
technological improvements, for example, in terms of energy efficiency. Substantial subsidies for fossil
fuel use in both businesses and households counteract intentions to move to a low carbon economy
(OECD, 2012a). Generally, policies that leave scope for flexibility to choose from different options and
pathways to achieving the same goal, for example, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, tend to be
more efficient and procedurally superior to narrower and more rigid instruments. However, if policies
offer too much flexibility (and thus loopholes), they might defeat their own purpose, or have negative
side-effects on social objectives such as equity (Auld et al., 2014). However, the incentive character of
governance approaches (i.e., the degree to which these act in an encouraging way) also has to be
considered for participatory approaches. In the Water Framework Directive, participatory processes
lack political power. In the long term, this may make it difficult to encourage public participation in
further processes, damage public trust in authorities and undermine the legitimacy of plans and
measures (Jager et al., 2016).
Environmental or ecological fiscal reform aims at redirecting a government’s taxation and expenditure
programmes to create an integrated set of incentives to support the shift to sustainable development
(National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2002). It refers to a range of taxation
and pricing measures that can raise fiscal revenues while furthering environmental goals. This means
that taxation schemes are designed in a way that they place the tax burden on environmentally
undesirable activities, rather than on those that might be environmentally desirable. Such schemes
have to be carefully developed to be fiscally and environmentally effective, administratively feasible,
and to avoid disadvantaging those actors that are already disadvantaged. For example, taxation can
have both direct positive and negative impacts on money available in a household, as well as indirect
impacts on employment or access to resources. Earmarking tax revenue to support pro-environmental
activities can help to implement new governance tools that require financial resources (such as

985
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

payments for environmental services), but can also obscure the overall governmental budgeting
process and decrease transparency and accountability (OECD, 2013b). To focus their impact, taxes on
environmentally harmful behaviour can be combined with subsidies for less harmful options. Again,
however, these need to be carefully designed to avoid constraining alternative pathways of innovation
(Pfaller, 2010). Although attempts have been made to develop environmental taxes in several
countries, there remains substantial potential for more profound reforms and increased effectiveness
(see also Chapter 4, Sections 4.3.2, 4.4.4, 4.4.5) (Ludewig et al., 2010; Pfaller, 2010). More recently,
the concept of ecological fiscal reform has been expanded to address land-use issues, biodiversity
conservation and ecosystem services provision and thus, towards rewarding environmentally-friendly
behaviour by way of fiscal instruments such as ecological fiscal transfers (Ring, 2011; UNDP, 2017).
Increasing effectiveness through economic instruments is a challenge that needs to be complemented
by non-economic approaches. Prices attached to resource use or abstraction (e.g., water, energy) need
to consider effects on poorer parts of the population. Increasing the price of energy and water has
implications for the affordability of these resources among poorer households. The key challenge is to
improve both efficiency and economy of use in a way that is pro-poor. This can happen through
economic instruments, such as differential tariffs for industrial and domestic customers as in Moldova
(OECD, 2012a) or progressive taxes and compensation measures for poorer households (OECD, 2013b),
but other, non-economic instruments need to contribute here, too.
Integration of resource management might cause tensions in terms of the appropriateness of
governance level and “institutional fit” (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). For example, Integrated Water
Resource Management, and thus the river basin management approach adopted in the Water
Framework Directive, can be seen as a positive development as it moves beyond single-issue policies.
However, the conclusion that governance of a river basin should be based on the corresponding
hydrological unit can lead to institutional misfits in other regards as river basin management is not
solely a hydrological issue (Jager et al., 2016; Moss, 2012).
Integration and implementation of novel governance approaches often remain incomplete, and
therefore ineffective. For example, in the case of the Water Framework Directive, many member States
have opted to retain existing structures and procedures as far as possible, without transferring
responsibilities and power to the new river basin authorities (Jager et al., 2016). Member States often
continue with traditional water management practices focused on specific pollutants, rather than
addressing catchment governance in a systemic way. Programmes of measures are often not
implemented, which compromises delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives (Voulvoulis et al.,
2017). The flexibility conceded to member States in the Water Framework Directive might thus hamper
its effectiveness.
Changes in governance arrangements instigated by intentions of European Union alignment or
accession – even if long-term and aspirational, or if accession is not aimed for – are often regarded as
opportunities for improving environmental governance (Juelich, 2005; Rosell Perez, 2013).
Organizations like the Energy Community can be seen as facilitating steps towards such alignment
(Tosun & Schulze, 2015). While substantial progress has been made overall (EEA, 2015d), in many cases
further steps need to be taken to make policy change really effective (Juelich, 2005; Rosell Perez,
2013). For example, the Ukraine has modified legislative and regulatory instruments for water quality
and monitoring both in response to guidance from the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe and European Union policies (Hagemann et al., 2014). In Serbia, the process of adopting the
European Union environmental acquis has also progressed, but this rather complex task has been
hampered by a lack of staff to develop the necessary legislation (UNECE, 2015b) (see also UNECE,
2015a on Montenegro).

986
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

However, institutional change, even if intentional and planned (Fischer et al., 2007) might be much
less linear and direct than expected (Cleaver, 2002). For example, Waylen and co-authors (2015)
identify the impacts of institutional, cognitive and political “sticking points”, i.e., legacy effects, on the
development of natural resource management initiatives working towards the adoption of an
ecosystems approach. Kasymov and co-authors (2016) describe how in Kyrgyzstan, the revision of
legislation that governs pasture use by livestock herders was based on a learning process that included
trial and error (see also Section 6.5.1.2). They stress that such joint learning processes that allow for
adaptation in a dynamic world should be seen as positive and an opportunity to develop governance
arrangements that work on the ground. However, they also recognize that any such arrangements
were (by-)products of larger policy discourses, such as the Washington Consensus that gave primacy
to privatization and decentralization in the early stages of the revision process, and later ideas of
community-based resource management and inter-sectoral cooperation.

6.4.2.4 Summary
While assessing the relevant bodies of literature on environmental governance, the diversity of existing
governance arrangements and opportunities for the future in Europe and Central Asia, a number of
knowledge gaps became apparent.
First, there seem to be limited studies that take a multidisciplinary systemic perspective on
environmental governance in the region, and that combine an analysis of policy instruments with an
analysis of the behaviour of (economic) actors (e.g., households, companies) and the overarching
economic and social system in which these behaviours are embedded. Such perspectives would
provide insights into the root causes of the limited effectiveness of environmental governance.
Second, while there is some literature that comments on the effectiveness of environmental
governance arrangements, few publications assess their implications for equity and environmental
justice. There are also very limited comparative insights into the effectiveness and ways of working of
alternative policy instruments, and their interactions with each other in context (Jordan et al., 2013).
Third, analyses that trace the impacts of governance arrangements on biodiversity and ecosystem
services (or nature’s contributions to people) in some depth, and that report on synergies and trade-
offs or conflicts between their impacts, are very scarce (see Box 6.2 for an exception). For example,
more research is needed on the interplay between the different European Union directives dealing
with the natural environment (Boeuf & Fritsch, 2016). Synergies are sometimes assumed but are not
necessarily an explicit topic of investigation.
Fourth, and perhaps to some extent an artefact of the search process applied, literature on
environmental governance seems to be largely focused on policy instruments and formal institutions.
For the environmental sector, much less research and analysis is available on informal and hybrid
governance mechanisms such as co-management and public-private partnerships. In particular, there
are very few analyses of governance as a process (rather than an assemblage of institutions) in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, and analyses of local governance mechanisms and the role of local knowledge
in environmental issues beyond water management.
Keeping these knowledge gaps in mind, our overview suggests that overall, the governance literature
focuses predominantly on hierarchical governance modes as opportunities for improvements, rather
than on public-private partnerships or private and civil society governance. This is especially true for
publications like those of the OECD and other reports that might be informing policymakers’ views
more directly than academic journal papers. This is positive, as it does not shift responsibilities away
from governmental actors by putting the onus of delivery on citizens who might not be equipped for

987
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the task. Such tendencies, labelled “the neoliberal agenda” have been widely criticized elsewhere, for
example, in the context of rural development and community empowerment (MacKinnon & Derickson,
2012). A strong reliance on civil society to effect larger change, for example, a transition to a low-
carbon society, will also miss out on the power of hierarchical governance approaches. However,
businesses and corporations also bear significant responsibility for such a transition. Finally, a stronger
consideration of a wider set of governance modes and instruments that includes grassroots action and
social and information-based instruments might help to make environmental governance both more
resilient and more effective (Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Stirling, 2014).

6.5 Sector policies and instruments: key constraints and opportunities

6.5.1 Agriculture
6.5.1.1 Policy objectives in Western and Central Europe
In Western and Central Europe, the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) exerts a great influence on
agricultural land and rural areas of the European Union member States. Since its inception in the early
1960s, the overall objective of the Common Agricultural Policy was to enhance agricultural production.
This has been achieved mainly through a market and price policy, subsidizing production and regulating
import and export (EEA, 2016; European Commission, 2004; Hodge et al., 2015; Zanten et al., 2014).
Production, reaching a peak in the mid-1980s, led also to the destruction, stocking, or dumping of
agricultural surplus in developing countries, and to the increase of Common Agricultural Policy
expenditures to around 70-75% of the total European Union budget (European Commission, 2004,
2013a). Unfortunately, the increase in production and productivity, achieved through agricultural
intensification (e.g. by chemical inputs and mechanization), undermined other nature’s contributions
to people such as the provision of water quality, soil erosion and water run-off control, conservation
of species and habitats, and maintenance of traditional agricultural landscapes and cultural identities
(see also Chapter 2) (EEA, 2015a, 2015b; Henle et al., 2008; Stoate et al., 2009; Zanten et al., 2014).
Recognizing the economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable model of the Common
Agricultural Policy, reforms were undertaken in 1992, 1999, 2003, 2008 (CAP health check) and 2013.
The overall objectives of these reforms were: changing the policy from a production support system
to one more suitable to adapt to market conditions in a system of liberalization of world trade;
reducing agricultural surplus; keeping budget costs stable and manageable; and making the policy
more flexible and better shaped to the social, economic and environmental needs and conditions of
different rural areas. The 1992 Common Agricultural Policy reform introduced some accompanying
measures such as Reg. 2080/92 on forestry, Reg. 2078/92 on agri-environmental measures, the set
aside of arable land, and the marketing of quality products. Then Reg. 1257/99, and later Reg. 1698/05,
unified in one Regulation for Rural Development a number of structural and accompanying measures
and disciplines. The 2003 reform introduced de-coupling of payments from agricultural production and
structured the Common Agricultural Policy into two pillars: the first addressing the common market
organization (i.e. agricultural commodities), the second focusing on rural development and delivering
of public goods. Cross-compliance 38 by farmers, was made compulsory to render them eligible for
direct payments of pillar 1 by the 2003 Reform, envisaging also the transferring of funds from pillar 1
to 2 (i.e. modulation). In pillar 2 new measures were introduced for management practices of

38
Cross-Compliance comprises Statutory Management Requirements (SMR), referring to standards in environment, food
security and animal welfare, and Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAEC) referring to soil protection,
maintenance of soil organic matter and structure, avoiding the deterioration of habitats and water management (Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009).
988
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

agricultural land compatible with the conservation of the environment and biodiversity (e.g. Natura
2000 payments).
The main objectives of the last 2013 Common Agricultural Policy reform were: 1) to ensure long-term
food security for people in Europe and to contribute to the growing global demand for foodstuffs; 2)
to sustainably produce diversified, high-quality food while conserving natural resources and
biodiversity; and 3) to ensure the viability of rural areas (European Commission, 2013c). This reform
has seen the reduction of pillar 1 funding by about 13% and of pillar 2 funding by about 18% compared
with the previous programme period 2007-2013 (Pe’er et al., 2014). Another objective of this reform
was to further enhance the joint provision of private and public goods by increasing the integration of
pillar 1 and 2 in a more targeted, efficient and complementary way (European Commission, 2013c).
For example, this included the introduction of the mandatory greening component (making up 30% of
direct payments under Common Agricultural Policy pillar 1) conditional on the adherence of farmers
to three “greening requirements” 39.

6.5.1.2 Governance modes and policy instruments in Western and Central Europe
The policy instruments implemented by the Common Agricultural Policy cover almost all governance
modes applied to the agricultural sector: hierarchical (e.g. directives and regulations), decentralized
(e.g. rural development plans), public-private governance (e.g. agri-environmental measures contracts
between national or local public administrations and farmers) and private (e.g. agricultural markets)
governance modes.
Among the most relevant regulatory instruments used by the Common Agricultural Policy, are the
cross-compliance and greening requirements and European Union Directives concerning
environmental issues. The European Union Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD) and the
Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), are implemented by the Common Agricultural Policy through cross-
compliance requirements such as “protection and management of water” and to “protect water
against pollution and run-off and manage the use of water” (Matthews, 2013). Under the Habitats
(Directive 92/43/ECC) and Birds Directives (Directive 79/409/EEC amended in Directive 2009/147/EC),
there are 57 types of habitats and 259 species recognized as depending on or somehow linked to the
continuation of agricultural practices (European Commission, 2014a). The Framework Directive on the
Sustainable Use of Pesticides (Directive 2009/128/EC) delegates to member States the delivery of
national action plans to reduce the impacts of pesticides and promote alternative techniques such as
integrated pest management.
Box 6.3: Agri-environmental policy in Turkey.

Agriculture in Turkey, covering around 50% of the territory, has a far greater importance for the economy than
it has in the EU-28. In 2012 agriculture in Turkey accounted for around 9% of GDP and 23.5% of total employment
compared with 1.6% and 5%, respectively, in the EU-28 (European Commission, 2014d). Turkish farm structure
is largely characterized by small farms, most of which are managed by families employing family labour, and
practicing semi-subsistence agriculture (European Commission, 2014d).

In the last decades of the 20th century, the agricultural sector in Turkey was heavily influenced by government
interventions such as the management of commodity prices through purchases and sales (e.g. cereals, sugar and
tobacco), import tariffs and export subsidies, subsidized farm inputs (e.g. chemical fertilizers, diesel), and credit
and investments in irrigation and other infrastructure (Larson et al., 2014). Since 2001, following loan agreements

39
The three greening requirements are: 1) to cultivate at least two or three different crops in case of arable land exceeding
10 ha or 30 ha, respectively ; 2) to maintain permanent pasture; and 3) to establish ecological focus areas on at least 5% of
arable land exceeding 15 ha (Hodge et al., 2015).
989
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

with the International Monetary Fund, the Agricultural Reform Implementation Project (ARIP) was undertaken
to change the commodity price support into ”farm direct income support” de-coupled from production (Akder,
2007; Tan et al., 2015). The resulting intensification of agriculture has caused on the one side, in the decade
between 2003 and 2013, an annual wheat production of around 20 million tons (Tan et al., 2015) and on the
other, the loss of genetic diversity as testified by the low share (under 1%) of local wheat landraces in the total
area of wheat production (FAO, 2015). Other environmental problems are related to soil erosion, over-
consumption and waste of water, and excessive use of chemicals (Republic of Turkey, 2012). Unfortunately,
although environmental issues in agriculture have been addressed by the Turkish Government since the 1990s,
and are supposed to be increasingly considered by following the adoption of the Acquis Communautaire in the
pre-accession process (Government of Turkey, 2012), the implementation of agri-environmental schemes is still
in its infancy. Protection of the environment is mainly pursued through regulations while agri-environmental
measures are still promoted only at a preparatory and pilot level, and organic agriculture has so far developed
through export markets without any significant government support (Republic of Turkey, 2012).
There are clearly opportunities for improvement of agri-environmental policy, particularly considering that
Turkey has an enormous potential to promote sustainability in agriculture because of a great richness of
biodiversity and yet unexploited agro-ecosystems resulting from traditional extensive farming practices. Because
of its geographical position, many fruit species, such as cherries, apricots, almonds and figs, originated in Turkey
as well as wild relatives of other cultivated species such as wheat, chickpea, lentil, apple, pear, chestnut, hazelnut
and pistachio (Republic of Turkey, 2012). Because wheat cultivation has been carried out for more than 8,000
years in Turkey, beside wild relatives and semi-domesticated varieties there is a large number of wheat landraces
(FAO, 2015).
End of Box 6.3

The most important economic and financial policy instruments are direct payments (i.e. basic
payments and the greening payments) (pillar 1) and rural development measures (pillar 2). In the
financial year 2013 direct payments from pillar 1 amounted to 71% of the whole Common Agricultural
Policy expenditure showing an increase from 61% in the financial year 2000 and 65% in the financial
year 2005, mainly due to new member States joining the European Union (European Commission,
2014b). The level of direct payments differs between countries and farmers because they are
calculated as compensation for support-price reduction taking historical production and past income
support as reference. This has resulted in large productive farms receiving more payments than small
ones, creating problems with distribution and social cohesion (European Commission, 2014b). For the
period 2014-2020, 118 rural development plans with economic, environmental and social objectives
for pillar 2 have been proposed by national or local administrations on the basis of European Union
Reg. 1305/2013 and co-funded by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Agri-environmental-climate payments are allowed for farmers voluntary enrolling for a minimum
period of 5-7 years and for practices going beyond cross-compliance and greening requirements. Agri-
environment payments are estimated on the basis of additional costs and income foregone, resulting
from the commitments to be undertaken by farmers. An additional payment can be granted to cover
transaction costs up to 20% of the payment, or 30% in the case of commitments undertaken by a group
of farmers. The spending for agri-environmental measures for the period 2014-2020 is foreseen to
reach 25 billion Euro (European Commission, 2015a).
Rural tourism is a private sector activity driven by market demand with important linkages to cultural
and territorial local identity, often resulting in diversification of small and medium farms’ activities.
Rural tourism represents 10-20% of rural income and employment (European Parliament, 2013). Some
rural development measures such as, for the period 2007-2013, “encouragement of tourism activities”,
and “conservation and upgrading of rural heritage” and the LEADER initiative promoting integrated
and synergic development based on the endogenous resources of rural areas (European Commission,

990
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2013d), support the maintenance of aesthetic qualities of the traditional landscape, which is a public
good (Brelik et al., 2014; Papageorgiou & Guitton, 2009).
Concerning social and information-based instruments, three European Union schemes, as part of the
European Union food quality policy (Reg. (EU) No 1151/2012), directly link agricultural products and
foodstuffs to stages of production, processing and preparation in a specific geographical area (namely
protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI)); and to traditional
composition or means of production (traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG)). By promoting and
protecting agricultural products and foodstuffs, these schemes also contribute to the maintenance of
cultural heritage related to local gastronomic specialities and associated traditional agricultural
landscapes and agro-biodiversity (i.e. local animal breeds and plant varieties) (Bérard & Marchenay,
2006).
In the European Union the conservation of traditional agricultural landscapes is crucial to retain local
cultural identities and to achieve the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy targets (Beaufoy & Cooper, 2009;
EEA, 2012b). The concept of “High Nature Value Farmland” 40 was developed in the early 1990s
(Beaufoy & Cooper, 2009) and was adopted as an environmental indicator for the Common Monitoring
and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) of the Common Agricultural Policy in the 2007-2013 programming
period (see Figure 6.6 below). It is included among the priorities and targets for rural development to
be addressed by the measures of pillar 2 and proposed by the European Commission also for the period
beyond 2013 (EEA, 2012b).

Indigenous local knowledge and practices are among the most important factors in managing high
nature value farmland (Babai et al., 2015; Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2014). Biodiversity-rich landscapes are
the result of traditional agricultural practices and local socio-economic features such as labour-

40 “Three types of high nature value farmland are identified: Type 1: Farmland with a high proportion of semi-natural
vegetation; Type 2: Farmland with a mosaic of low intensity agriculture and natural and structural elements, such as field
margins, hedgerows, stone walls, patches of woodland or scrub, small rivers etc.; Type 3: Farmland supporting rare species
or a high proportion of European or world populations” (European Commission, 2014a).
991
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

intensive management and low mechanical and chemical inputs, small rotational parcel systems,
mixed crops-forests-grazing systems, subsistence agriculture, traditional local knowledge, norms and
institutions (Fischer et al., 2012b; Molnár et al., 2016). Unfortunately, while some Common
Agricultural Policy instruments support general extensive management practices, the majority are not
well suited to, or implemented by, particularly, Central European countries, to support indigenous and
local knowledge and practices of small and semi-subsistence farms in high nature value farmland
(Sutcliffe et al., 2015).

6.5.1.3 Constraints and opportunities in Western Europe and Central Europe

In this sub-section, the assessment of constraints and opportunities is carried out by following
categories of policy instruments. Table 6.6 at the end of this section summarizes the results by looking
at selected contributions of nature to people.
A number of factors would increase the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of policy instruments.
These 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 delivery of nature’s contributions to people at landscape level; a more explicit
disclosure of trade-offs and synergies between different objectives; and more balanced and
transparent funding between production of agricultural commodities and the delivery of public goods
(Pe’er et al., 2014) (see also synthesis Table 6.11).
With regard to legal and regulatory instruments (see synthesis Table 6.11), both cross-compliance and
greening requirements have been criticized for the general environmental requirements being too
loose to actually result in relevant ecological benefits (Hauck et al., 2014; Hodge et al., 2015; Pe’er et
al., 2014). Cross-compliance and the effectiveness of greening requirements, and that of regulatory
instruments in general, depend on baseline, land-use alternatives, farming systems and site specific
ecological characteristics (Hauck et al., 2014), and on how European Union legislation is transposed
and enforced by national Governments (Keenleyside et al., 2014a). Art. 43 of Reg. 1307/2013 on rules
for direct payments envisages the possibility of member States selecting greening equivalent practices
tailored to their national situation, which “yield an equivalent or higher level of benefit for the climate
and the environment” compared with the greening requirements. However, according to Hart (2015)
this seems more an opportunity to facilitate the implementation of greening by farmers than actually
increasing environmental outcomes. The actual provision of public goods by cross-compliance and
greening requirements should be verified on a territorial basis and, in case of problems of
effectiveness, reference levels should be adjusted locally (see also Tangermann, 2011) (synthesis Table
6.11). The integration of the territorial dimension in regulatory instruments is not new in European
Union policy. It was already implemented in the European Union Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC) (i.e. “good ecological status” baselines for water quality and river basins management
plans) (EEA, 2015d) and in the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) concerning the protection of waters
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (i.e. definition of ”nitrate vulnerable
zones” and implementation of farming practices following codes of good agricultural practice) (Stoate
et al., 2009).
With regard to the conservation of biodiversity-rich agricultural habitats, out of 57 habitats associated
with agricultural activities only 30 and 19 habitats have at least 60% and 30%, respectively, of their
area included in the Natura 2000 Network. This precludes a large proportion of agricultural habitats
that are rich in biodiversity from legal protection (European Commission, 2014a; Keenleyside et al.,
2014a). An opportunity to improve this situation is integrating biodiversity-rich agricultural habitats in

992
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the implementation of green infrastructure networks (EEA, 2014; European Commission, 2012, 2013b)
(see also synthesis Table 6.11).
With regard to economic and financial instruments, food production has historically been heavily
subsidized by the Common Agricultural Policy, at first by support prices and then, after the 1992
reform, increasingly by direct payments (Tangermann, 2011). Political justification for Common
Agricultural Policy pillar 1 income support to European Union farmers are that farming is subject to
volatile market prices, unpredictable weather conditions and variable input costs (European
Commission, 2015a), essential to achieve food security and fundamental for the provisioning of some
public goods of environmental and social character (Matthews, 2013; Tangermann, 2011). This
approach has been criticized for lacking a robust rationale and clear objectives (Hodge et al., 2015;
Pe’er et al., 2014). The rationale underlying the design of cross-compliance and greening requirements,
to promote provision of public goods also by pillar 1, is that of having the greatest number of European
Union farmers adhering to environmental requirements, so contributing to achieving positive
ecological impacts and biodiversity conservation in agro-ecosystems. However, the definition of cross-
compliance and greening requirements without appropriately considering local ecological and
agronomic specificities, and therefore also different local opportunity costs, may result in ineffective,
inefficient and inequitable policy (Matthews, 2013; Tangermann, 2011). Direct payments could be
defined more transparently in terms of the income supporting objective and the ecological objective
(Matthews, 2013) (see synthesis Table 6.11).
Amongst rural development measures of Common Agricultural Policy pillar 2, those supporting
integrated pest management contribute to reducing pressures on fresh water bodies and to increasing
pollination through reduced use of pesticides (Bengtsson et al., 2005; Tuck et al., 2014). However, the
introduction of cross-compliance and greening requirements in pillar 1 makes the spending for
integrated pest management (e.g. reduction and appropriate timing in pesticide use) less justifiable
(synthesis Table 6.11). Integrated pest management could be included amongst the environmental
requirements of pillar 1. This would free-up funds for other, more effective, agri-environmental
payments such as organic agriculture and the establishment of buffer strips along water courses (Pe’er
et al., 2014; Stutter et al., 2012). It could also help fund new measures such as the Green Infrastructure
Strategy, as an innovative instrument for the conservation of habitats favourable to biodiversity and
pollinators species (Liquete et al., 2015; Pe’er et al., 2014) (see also synthesis Table 6.11).
Agri-environmental policy design under the European Union Common Agricultural Policy has been
largely based on action-oriented measures (i.e. farmers are required to adopt specific management
practices) horizontally implemented (i.e. valid all over the European Union agricultural land) rather
than based on results-oriented measures (i.e. compensation paid on the achievement of positive
ecological impacts) addressing specific agro-ecosystems (see synthesis Table 6.11). The political,
economic, ecological and social reasons for this are well understood (e.g. opportunity to enroll for the
majority of farmers, farmers acceptance, high transaction and monitoring costs of result-oriented
measures, success or failures in achieving an ecological target depending on causes other than the on-
farm management practices such as climate, diffuse pollution, or the performance of neighbouring
farms). However, there is also evidence to suggest that the effectiveness of action-oriented measures
is lower than of results-oriented measures (Berendse et al., 2004; Burton & Schwarz, 2013; Hodge et
al., 2015; Stoate et al., 2009). In Western Europe, there is mounting evidence of already implemented
and well-functioning result-oriented schemes (see Figure 6.7 below) (Keenleyside et al., 2014b; Russi
et al., 2016). By adopting result-based agri-environmental policy, measures could be targeted more
towards specific agro-ecosystems and socio-ecological systems. Contracts with farmers to deliver
some of nature’s contributions to people (e.g. maintenance of particular habitat, endemic species,
scenery, cultural heritage, territorial identity) could be made at landscape level through collaborative

993
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

agri-environmental schemes (McKenzie et al., 2013; Prager, 2015). This would achieve critical
territorial extension and reduce transaction and monitoring costs (Berendse et al., 2004; Fleury et al.,
2015; Zanten et al., 2014) (see synthesis Table 6.11). Moreover, results-oriented measures would also
have cultural and psychological advantages. Paying farmers for contributing to biodiversity
conservation and delivering ecological services at landscape level could enhance their environmental
culture by adapting practices to local agro-ecosystems and offering them the opportunity to
demonstrate their skills, and indigenous and local knowledge and practices in managing their farms
(Burton & Paragahawewa, 2011). (See also Box 6.4 below and synthesis Table 6.11).

Box 6.4: Are only economic incentives at the base of adopting ecological behaviour by farmers? The
case of Switzerland.

Since 1993 in Switzerland a voluntary agri-environmental scheme promoting integrated production was
introduced. In 1998 the standards of integrated production became the basis of compulsory cross-compliance
requirements, named “proof of ecological performance”, to be adhered to by farmers to be eligible for direct
payments (Herzog et al., 2008). Cross-compliance further requires animal welfare, nutrient balance, crop
rotations with a minimum number of crops per farm, and the establishment of “biodiversity promotion areas”
(formerly called ecological compensation areas until 2014) on at least 7% of the area of a farm (Aviron et al.,
2009). Biodiversity promotion areas include extensively managed meadows and pastures, traditional high-stem
fruit trees, hedges, stone walls and wildflower strips (Albrecht et al., 2007; Birrer et al., 2007; FOAG, 2015; Home
et al., 2014). The 2014-2017 agricultural policy revised the direct payment system to promote species and habitat
diversity in agriculture through contributions to cultural and quality landscape, to ecological compensation, to
biodiversity quality and to linking of habitats and designation of biodiversity acreages as parts of the Swiss
ecological infrastructure, to production systems which are in harmony with nature and animal and environmental
friendly, and to resource efficient practices (FOAG, 2015).
In Switzerland, according to Aviron and co-authors (2009), cross-compliance payments amount to 20% of farms’
returns. The economic incentive effect of the agri-environmental scheme is therefore fundamental to maintain
extensive agricultural practices beneficial to biodiversity. However, to enhance the effectiveness of agri-
environmental schemes by increasing quality and connectivity of biodiversity promotion areas, it is necessary
also to consider other motivations of farmers to adopt more ecological behaviour. According to Home and co-
994
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

authors (2014), for farmers in Swiss lowlands such factors, beside financial incentives, also include their personal
experiences and identities, trust in the expected outcome of the scheme, and the fact that they feel somehow
trapped between societal expectation to conserve nature and the pride to show productive success towards
other farmers. Schenk and co-authors (2007) highlighted that, beside subsidies, factors such as clear information,
face to face communication, active co-operation of farmers in agri-environmental scheme design and
consideration of different perceptions of environmental problems held by authorities and farmers, are all key in
the formation of long-term acceptance of nature conservation measures. Also, there is the need for a concerted
effort by farmers, policymakers, NGOs and landscape planners to improve agri-environmental schemes by
addressing the specificity of more vulnerable target species at landscape level (Aviron et al., 2009; Meyer et al.,
2017; von Glasenapp & Thornton, 2011). Von Glasenapp and Thornton (2011) report of an ongoing
Vernetzungsprojekt (project to connect habitats and biodiversity) in Vals to incentivize farmers to adopt
biodiversity-friendly practices beyond mandatory requirements. In this project payments are negotiated on an
individual basis by the farmer and a biologist together assessing the farm biodiversity value and classifying the
land into different categories eligible for payments. The adoption of agricultural practices suitable for the land is
the result of these “walking negotiations”, enhancing the share of scientific as well as indigenous and local
knowledge (von Glasenapp & Thornton, 2011).
End of Box 6.4

A finer targeting of agri-environmental measures to the local socio-ecological context is required also
for high nature value farmland, where farms are disadvantaged by their low profitability compared
with more intensive agricultural areas and therefore depend more on Common Agricultural Policy
support measures. Unfortunately, many farms in high nature value farmland, particularly in Central
Europe, are not eligible or unable to receive direct payments from pillar 1 and agri-environmental
payments from pillar 2 (Keenleyside et al., 2014a; Sutcliffe et al., 2015). This is because of high
administrative costs, small size, lack of financial capital, non-inclusion in the agricultural land
categories defined by the European Union, or insufficient payment entitlements based on low
historical support records. This situation further exacerbates the loss of indigenous and local
knowledge and the abandonment of traditional agricultural land (Fischer et al., 2012b; Molnár et al.,
2016) (see also synthesis Table 6.11). Besides benefiting from a better fine-tuning of agri-
environmental measures to indigenous and local knowledge, farmers managing high nature value
farmland could take advantage also of the opportunities offered by rural tourism being attracted to
traditional agricultural landscapes. Market opportunities for small to medium-sized farms located in
high nature value farmland could be further enhanced by promoting short food supply chains such as
farm direct selling of local products to visitors, farmers’ markets and e-commerce (Simoncini, 2015),
and networking of farmers.
Among social and information-based instruments, information and training for farmers is crucial for
the management of biodiversity and delivering of nature’s contributions to people in farmland. The
lack of advice and training for conservation of biodiversity related to Natura 2000 has been highlighted
as a major shortcoming (European Commission, 2016c) (see also Box 6.5 below and synthesis Table
6.11). A study reviewing the social aspects of Natura 2000 (European Commission, 2016d) found that
“the limited participation of stakeholders, the negative perceptions of the network and a lack of
consideration of the local context hinder the network’s effectiveness”, and that these need to be
tackled by increasing public awareness. Advisory services on the delivery of public goods (e.g.
biodiversity, cultural, territorial and relational values generated by local food production, processing,
selling and consumption) could be enhanced (European Network for Rural Development, 2013) and
the resulting advantages for farmers and civil society clearly explained (Fleury et al., 2015) (see
synthesis Table 6.11).

995
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Stoate et al. (2009) indicate that in France around 70% of the Protected Denomination of Origin
products are found in high nature value farmland. The design of an innovative eco-labelling European
Union scheme for those agricultural products coming from high nature value farmland and Natura
2000 areas, could be an opportunity to allow European consumers to contribute to biodiversity
conservation while buying traditional and high-quality food (see synthesis Table 6.11). However, a
strategy to enhance the sustainability of high nature value farmland should also consider non-
economic benefits such as motivations of farmers to manage high nature value farmland, their
indigenous and local knowledge and practices, their socio-ecological context and life style, and their
need for social and political recognition (EIP-AGRI Focus Group, 2016; Fischer et al., 2012b; Gómez-
Baggethun & Reyes-García, 2013; Iniesta-Arandia et al., 2015).
Box 6.5: Shortcomings in the implementation of Natura 2000 payments by European Union member
States.

Agricultural land included in the Natura 2000 network covers 10.6% of utilized agricultural area of the EU-27
(European Commission, 2013d). Most Common Agricultural Policy pillar 2 direct policy instruments for
biodiversity and habitats conservation are Natura 2000 payments supporting areas associated with agriculture
and forestry. However, in the 2007-2013 period in the EU-27, Natura 2000 payments and Natura 2000 payments
linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) comprised only 0.1% and 0.5%, respectively, of the
European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development expenditures for Axis 2 of rural development on the
environment (European Commission, 2013d). Consequently, this resulted in under-funding of Natura 2000 areas
(Hansjürgens et al., 2011a; Hochkirch et al., 2013). During the 2007-2013 programming period, only half of
European Union member States included Natura 2000 payments in their rural development plans. According to
the European Commission (European Commission, 2016c) reasons for this vary from legal constraints (England)
to the small number of approved management plans (Romania and Slovenia) (European Commission, 2016c). In
other cases Natura 2000 payments were implemented only in agricultural areas (Portugal, Spain-Aragon) or
forestry areas (Germany, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) and only in some cases in both (Bulgaria, Slovakia and
Estonia) (European Commission, 2016c). To increase the impact of Natura 2000, the lack of adoption of Natura
2000 payments in national and regional rural development plans by member States and the low enrolment by
farmers need to be addressed by a multifaceted strategy. This includes increasing awareness of the positive
Natura 2000 effects among national governments and the general public, advice and training to farmers, better
tailoring of the measures to the local context, improving monitoring and reporting, and studying the promotion
of a result-based “biodiversity conservation premium” (see synthesis Table 6.11).
End of Box 6.5

996
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Table 6.6: Main policy objectives, instruments, status and trend of delivery and key findings for selected contributions from nature to people in agricultural
land in Western and Central Europe.

(See also Highlights in supporting material Appendix 6.3)

Nature’s Main Policy Objectives Main Policy Instruments State and trends of Key Findings: Constraints Key Findings: Opportunities
contributio delivery of nature’s
ns to contributions to people
people
Food long-term food security in Regulatory e.g. cross-compliance, Stable but at risk of Difficult traceability of some food chains Cross-compliance and greening levels better defined
European Union; growing and greening requirements dependency on imports → (e.g. meat) if accounting for local ecological and agronomic
global food demand; Economic: e.g. World markets; Stenmark et al. (2016) estimated that in requirements
sustainable production subsidies such as farm direct 2012 in EU-28, food wastes amounted to Possibility to increase modulation from pillar 1 to
payments 88 million tonnes of which 53% was pillar 2
Social and information-based: attributable to households, 19% to
Incentivize short food supply chains
processing, 12% to food service, 11% to
quality product certification Reducing industrial meat production due to its
production and 5% to wholesale and
retail environmental impacts and large dependency on
imports
Competition with other contributions
from nature to people Promoting extensive livestock farming and
pastoralism
Halting land grabbing, land degradation and sealing
Energy European Union Directive Regulatory: RED (art. 17, 18, 19) Supply not at risk ↗ Possible intensification of energy crops Important source of energy for remote rural areas
(Biomass- 2009/28/EC on renewable mandatory sustainability criteria for production with direct and indirect
Local production and consumption of bio-based
based) energy (RED) sets a 20% biofuels and bio-liquids; RED impacts on biodiversity and trade-off energy is usually more sustainable than having
share of energy from excludes land categories with high with other contributions from nature to
biomass travelling long distances
renewable sources to be biodiversity value from being used people (e.g. food production)
achieved by 2020 for bio-fuel production; Common Emissions from transportation of
Agricultural Policy CC requirements biomass from sites of production to be
Economic: RD measures supporting consumed far away
production of biomass for bio-
Competition with other contributions
energy; Energy and CO2 prices from nature to people
Regulating Surface water bodies to reach Regulatory (e.g. WFD, Nitrates Self-purification as a Need to further improve CC, efficiency of Clear policy targets and territorial approaches such as,
Fresh Water Good Ecological Status by Directive, Common Agricultural service delivery is nitrogen use, waste water management respectively, Good Ecological Status and river basin
quality 2015 Policy pillar 1, CC, greening) decreasing ↘ and full compliance with the Nitrates plans, allows better monitoring and feedback for
Economic: Pricing policy (Full Cost Water quality increasing Directive (EEA, 2015c) amelioration of policies
Recovery of water services) due to limitation of Need to restore riparian vegetation Establishing green infrastructure strategy
pollutants from policies but
still at risks of insufficiency
for surface water ↗

997
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Climate Objectives of RD linked to Regulatory e.g. CC, and greening Sufficient in extensive Use of fossil fuels, chemical inputs, and Possibility for European Union member States to use
regulation climate 1) Restoring, requirements agricultural land (also deep ploughing, intensive rearing of some RD measures of Common Agricultural Policy
preserving, enhancing because of forest surface cattle are amongst the main factors pillar 2 to address climate emissions and CO2
Economic: RD measures supporting
agriculture & forestry establishing of semi-natural areas, increases) → contributing greenhouse gases sequestration
ecosystems; 2) Promoting CO2 sequestration, promoting Not sufficient in intensive emissions from agriculture Greening conservation of grassland and ecological
resource efficiency and the
reduced emissions and energy use agricultural land → focus area could have some positive effects on carbon
shift towards a low carbon & sequestration if thresholds are set at an appropriate
efficiency;
climate resilient economy level
Energy and CO2 prices
Emissions from agriculture are decreasing
Pollination to produce diversified, high- Regulatory (e.g. Framework Insufficient delivering ↓ Too loose and general reference levels Green Infrastructure Strategy could be an innovative
quality food while conserving Directive on the sustainable use of by Common Agricultural Policy CC and instrument for the conservation of habitats
natural resources and pesticides, Common Agricultural GR of Common Agricultural Policy pillar favourable to pollinators species but it is still under
biodiversity Policy pillar 1, CC, greening) 1 development
Economic (PES such as Agri- Referenced level in CC requirements should match
environmental measures for actual IPM and agri-environmental payments should
integrated pest management & be allowed only for organic agriculture (see also
organic agriculture) responses in Table 6.4.1 and Table 6.4.2.1, chapter 6
IPBES Pollination Assessment (Dicks et al., 2016)
Habitat & EU Biodiversity Strategy Regulatory (e.g. habitats and Insufficient delivering ↓ Too loose and general reference levels CC and GR tailored on agro-ecosystem typologies;
Biodiversity 2020; To halt the loss of species Directives; WFD; Common for supplying also public goods by CC and Increasing advisory services for farm biodiversity
biodiversity by 2020; Achi Agricultural Policy pillar 1 CC and GR of Common Agricultural Policy management
Biodiversity Targets Greening) Insufficient funding of instruments Establishing green infrastructure strategy
Economic (AEM such as Natura 2000 targeted to habitat & biodiversity Enforcing the delivering of management plans for
payments) Insufficient political commitment at biodiversity conservation in order to receive
Social and information-based: national and local levels compensations
HNVF concept Severe under-funding of Natura 2000 Design of local result-oriented AEM
areas and HNVF by insufficient Adequate compensation to the income forgone (and
implementation of locally relevant AEM
to ecological added value)
Insufficient advisory services for farm
biodiversity management
Physical & Not identified Economic (e.g. Rural tourism Increasing in traditional Missing thorough official statistics data Increasing offer and demand for recreational
Psycholo- demand; AEM on encouragement of agricultural landscape↗ on rural tourism at European Union level activities and rural tourism
gical tourism activities); social and Risk of tourism congestion in some areas The private character of rural tourism business is
information-based (e.g. some Insufficient in areas of
experience and absence in others linked to the delivering of other public goods such as
LEADER initiatives) agriculture intensification maintenance of traditional landscapes and cultural
Competition with other contributions
Social and information-based: from nature to people heritage
HNVF concept, farmers’ indigenous
and local knowledge
Heritage Protection, management & Regulatory (e.g., national laws) Increasing awareness but Homogenization of culture and tastes; Understanding motivations of farmers managing
planning of landscape in Economic (e.g. AEM on still insufficient in intensive Costs of maintenance of traditional rural HNVF
Europe (Council of Europe, agricultural areas ↗ infrastructure Societal recognition of the importance of farmers
Conservation of rural heritage)
2000) managing HNVF

998
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Directive 2006/144/EC lists Social and information-based: Insufficient maintenance of Difficulties on making HNVF concept Increasing solidarity between farmers and the public;
conservation and labelling, HNVF concept, farmers’ indigenous and local operational because of lack of data and Developing short food supply chains (e.g. Quality
development of HNVF as a indigenous and local knowledge and knowledge→ different methodologies used to identify product market niches, On-Farm direct selling, Farmer
priority for RD 2007/2013 some LEADER initiatives HNVF (Beaufoy & Cooper, 2009; EEA, markets, delivering box schemes, e-commerce)
2012b; Keenleyside et al., 2014a) Establishing a European Union labelling for
Low profitability of HNVF agricultural products from HNVF and Natura 2000
Difficulties in accessing Common areas
Agricultural Policy payments by small
farms in HNVF

Legend
Trend of nature’s contributions to people delivering State of nature’s contributions to people delivering at the end of the Abbreviations
period
↑= strongly increasing Oversupply AEM = Agri-Environmental Measures
↗= increasing Delivering at risk of oversupply CC = Cross Compliance
→=stable Supply not at risk GR = Greening Requirements
↘= decreasing Delivering at risk of insufficiency HNVF = High Nature Value Farmland
↓=strongly decreasing Insufficient delivering IPM = Integrated Pest Management
PES = Payments for Environmental Services
RD = Rural Development
WFD = Water Framework Directive

999
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.5.1.4 Agriculture context in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

The agricultural sector is crucial for the economic development of Eastern Europe. As the region
benefits from a mild climate and highly productive agricultural soil, it can contribute to meeting the
increasing global demand for food in the future. Water resources and developed irrigation systems are
other important assets of the subregion’s agricultural sector (OECD, 2011). Radical land reform
implemented after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 has strongly affected agriculture in the
region in the 1990s. Agricultural land was divided into small plots and distributed among former farms’
members and employees. However, large areas of land such as pastures and reserve lands remained
in public ownership. In Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, the agricultural sector is represented largely
by small rural households whose main agricultural activities include animal husbandry, grazing in high
mountain pastures, and cultivation of plateaus. Small farms produce mostly for subsistence
consumption with a small surplus being sold at local markets (about 95% of agricultural products in
Georgia and Azerbaijan, and 97% in Armenia). Conversely, in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine the sector is
dominated by large agro-enterprises producing grains and oilseeds for export (FAO, 2012).
Privatization reforms in Eastern Europe were initiated with the objective of facilitating fast
development of land markets, economies of scale and farm management. However, this did not
happen in the majority of countries. Instead, the reforms shifted the sector to less intensive
agricultural production and decreased productivity, which has generally benefited the environment
(FAO, 2012). Prishchepov et al. (2012) report that institutional change in many post-Soviet countries
led to agricultural land abandonment and that many abandoned agricultural fields are slowly reverting
to grassland and forest. This may have major implications for biodiversity. For example, land
abandonment may increase landscape heterogeneity and biodiversity of bird population.
There are, however, indications that the economies of transition countries are starting to grow, and
pressure on natural resources will increase again, again with major implications for biodiversity and
ecosystem services (Sutton et al., 2008). The challenge faced today is how to encourage the
development of more sustainable production systems and the provision of ecosystem services. Failure
to do so has serious economic, environmental and social costs. For example, in Moldova, soil erosion
is estimated to cost at least $40 million per year; in Ukraine about 50% of agricultural land is eroded;
and contamination of water by agricultural nutrients and pesticides is of great concern across the
subregion.
Similar to Eastern Europe, Central Asian countries (Box 6.6) experienced the Soviet regime and are
facing rapid transformation processes since independence in 1991, thereby gaining valuable
experience in designing institutions in natural resource management that had to be adapted to the
specific natural conditions and agricultural practices of the subregion. The agricultural sector is of
fundamental importance in the subregion’s economies. The use of 399.4 million hectares of
agricultural land is constrained, however, by biophysical factors of arid and continental climate. Most
of the territory of Central Asia is covered by deserts, steppes and mountains. Winters are extremely
cold and summers hot and dry, and precipitation relatively low (up to 150mm in deserts of
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, up to 400mm in Kazakhstan’s steps and up to 800mm in the mountain
areas of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). Due to climatic and topographic conditions, grassland is a dominant
type of land here with only 8% of arable and 4% forest land (Figure 6.8).
Box 6.6: Agriculture in Central Asian countries (Quillérou et al., 2016).
In Kyrgyzstan, seasonal migratory grazing was historically the main type of livestock management. However,
more accessible spring/autumn pastures are now used during all seasons. As a result, they are overgrazed,
requiring improvement of their management.

1000
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

In Tajikistan, most economic and livelihood activities of the country’s population take place in the foothills and
low mountains where the country has largest type of pastures (by size).
In Turkmenistan, lowland pastures provide around 60% of the economic value of ecosystem services to
traditional rural communities.
Uzbekistan consumes the largest share of available water in the region to irrigate the largest area of land, which
contributes 20-30% to the country’s GDP.
Kazakhstan has the second largest area of irrigated land. Moreover, about 80% of pastures depend on manmade
facilities using subsurface water.
End of Box 6.6

Small and medium-sized family farms established in Central Asian countries during the last decade play
a crucial role in agriculture today. Their share of gross agricultural output is between 71% (Kazakhstan)
and 98% (Uzbekistan) (Schroeder, 2016). However, the opposite trend has also been observed
recently, i.e. the accumulation of land by large agro-holding companies in Kazakhstan, and an increase
in farm size in Uzbekistan as a result of the governmental policy of “land optimization”. Although land
is leased to farmers for up to 50 years in Uzbekistan, they may lose their land if they do not execute
state orders for producing cotton and wheat (Schroeder, 2016).

High unemployment in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan contributes to poverty, which has
become a serious problem in these countries (Table 6.7). Although as Soviet republics they were
already the poorest of the USSR (in particular Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), the situation has substantially
1001
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

worsened over the last decade. This is especially the case for rural populations living in areas where
fertile land and water are scarce, and where deterioration of these resources is a serious problem.
Extensive degradation is observed in the region with estimates that 4-10% of cropped land, 27-68% of
pastures and 1-8% of forest land, are degraded (Quillérou et al., 2016). As a result, migration from rural
areas is increasing. The majority of migrants move to cities and neighbouring countries such as
Kazakhstan and Russia. According to Schroeder (2016), about 4.5 million migrants from Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan live and work in Russia.
Table 6.7: Population wealth and livelihood indicators in Central Asian countries. Source: IMF (2015);
World Bank (2015); UN DESA (2015), cited in Schroeder (2016).

Population Average Per Average Unemployment Agriculture

population capita GDP growth rate value-added
growth GDP
(mln.) (annual %) (USD) (annual %) (%) (% of GDP)
2014 2010-2014 2014 2010-2014 2014 2014
World 7,259.7 1,19 10,739 2.5 5.9 3.1
Kazakhstan 17.3 1.4 12,276 6.0 4.1 4.6
Kyrgyzstan 5.8 1.6 1,269 3.7 8.1 17.3
Tajikistan 8.3 2.3 1,114 7.1 10.1 27.4
Turkmenistan 5.3 1.3 9,032 11.0 10.5 14.5
Uzbekistan 30.7 2.0 2,038 8.2 10.6 18.8

6.5.1.5 Transformation of environmental governance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the importance of environmental protection is usually recognized
in the statements of agricultural policies, but countries often struggle to implement these. An
illustrative example of this is the soil protection institutions in Ukraine. Stupak (2016, p. 86) argues
“that having destroyed the elaborate Soviet soil protection system, Ukraine did not manage to develop
a new set of legal rules, nor their enforcement mechanisms, to enable soil protection in the new political
and economic setting”. During the last decade of post-socialist transition, agricultural policies in the
subregion have been dominated by privatization reforms implemented with strong technical and
financial backstopping from international donors. The World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund conceptually and financially supported the design and implementation of the transition reforms
for all post-Soviet countries. The objective of these purely economic policy-based prescriptions, known
as the “Washington Consensus”, consisted of four policy interventions: price liberalization,
stabilization, privatization and minimization of the state role. The reforms had a powerful impact on
the management of natural resources and shifted the governance modes away from hierarchical
centralized governance. The situation varies from country to country, but it seems that the new modes
of governance (decentralized, public-private partnerships and private governance) are still under
development and the mismatch between the hierarchical governance structures and the new
decentralized institutions persists in many post-socialist countries (Kluvánková-Oravská et al., 2009).
The literature reports a land-grabbing problem in post-Soviet Eurasia (Visser & Spoor, 2011). This is
particularly relevant for Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan where large domestic and foreign state and
private companies acquire vast areas of farmland. Deininger & Byerlee (2011 p. 88) warn: “If property
rights are secure, markets function well, and areas with high social or environmental value are
protected effectively (possibly using market mechanisms, such as payments for environmental services)
1002
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the public sector’s role is mainly regulatory. The public sector takes care of environmental externalities
and allows markets, including those for land, to function smoothly and to encourage expansion into
low grade pastures and degraded forest rather than into areas already occupied or with high
biodiversity value. But if land rights are insecure or ill-defined, large-scale land acquisition may threaten
forest or lead to conflict with existing land users”. The large-scale land acquisitions in these countries
might well have far-reaching consequences for the livelihoods of the rural population, nature’s
contributions to people and biodiversity.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, independent Eastern European and Central Asian
countries have implemented reforms and policies transforming environmental governance. Many
natural resource management systems such as irrigation, forest, and pasture organizations were highly
centralized and had to undergo fundamental transformation.
In Central Asia, decentralization policies were introduced with the objective of promoting the more
sustainable use of natural resources. Countries received strong financial and logistic support from
international donor agencies. For instance, Kyrgyzstan implements devolution of power and
decentralization of authority in pasture management to the newly created political level of “local self-
governance” and “pasture user unions and pasture committees” (Box 6.7). Other Central Asian
countries are currently considering following this example by introducing new regulations with
individual or common forms of tenure (Robinson et al., 2012).
With regard to irrigation water, Central Asian countries have transferred authority for management to
non-commercial voluntary organizations of water users that finance themselves through members’
payments for water service delivery. They are responsible for operating, maintaining and rehabilitating
the irrigation system, delivering water to end users, purchasing water from the state, and collecting
water fees from users (Herrfahrdt et al., 2006; Ul Hassan et al., 2004; Sehring, 2007 cited in Bichsel et
al., 2010).
This represents a fundamental change in the relationship between state, market and civil society with regard
to pasture and irrigation water management, by moving away from the hierarchical top-down governance
and command and control policy instruments, inherited from the Soviet past (Box 6.7).

6.5.1.6 Assessment of environmental governance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Despite the challenges in transforming environmental governance in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,
there are several positive trends reported in the literature (Sutton et al., 2008). For instance, the latest
agricultural strategies incorporate or integrate environmental targets including their evaluation, while
inter-ministerial cooperation is improving in most countries (see synthesis Table 6.11). Moreover,
agricultural and research systems are increasingly addressing environmental and sustainability issues.
However, other important policy instruments such as awareness and capacity building of farmers are
generally inadequate (see synthesis Table 6.11). The non-existence of advisory and extension services
may contribute to the problem. The previous system of top-down directives to collective and state
farms is no longer relevant and has to be replaced, but only a few countries have experimented with
innovative and low-cost alternatives. Other problematic issues to be addressed include: the need to
strengthen monitoring systems, lack of programmes addressing widespread erosion problems; weak
certification policies and nutrient management; and lack of strategies to promote organic farming and
certification (see synthesis Table 6.11) (Sutton et al., 2008).
The Central Asian experience of the decentralization of environmental governance offers valuable
insights. Based on the design and implementation of irrigation water management reforms, it can be
observed that, despite the introduction of different agricultural policies and formal institutions, the
1003
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

problems remained similar. This includes weak, newly established institutions; poor public acceptance
and lack of legitimization of new regulations and governance structures among resource users; and
the growing gap between the implemented policies and the users’ resource use and management
practices (Hamidov, 2015; Sehring, 2007). This is very much true for the pasture sector (Box 6.7). A
brief review of the literature presented here offers some important insights regarding constraints
faced by policymakers and resource users in both key sectors.
The life and scope of action of resource users and policymakers in Central Asia are profoundly affected
by multiple historic turning points, each characterized by a radical change of systems and ideologies.
Transformation in natural resource use and management in Central Asia has been shaped not only by
its Soviet past, but also its colonial past (Schmidt, 2013). Decentralization policies are largely built on
the longstanding misconception of traditional institutions (Jacquesson, 2010). For instance, agro-
pastoral communities in Central Asia are often perceived as homogenous, which they no longer are.
Increasingly, rural communities are characterized by striking power asymmetries (Kerven et al., 2011;
Steimann, 2011). Furthermore, the role of bargaining power is underestimated in policymakers’
societal perceptions, beliefs and formal institutions, but it plays a huge role in access to the resource
itself and the creation of informal rules among resource users. The ability of policy interventions to
reduce power asymmetries is decisive in changing informal rules and resource use and management
practices (Kasymov, 2016).
Box 6.7: Shifting governance arrangements and policy reforms in Central Asia: The case of pasture
management in Kyrgyzstan.

Pasture land is a key natural resource in Kyrgyzstan (Figure 6.9). There is strong consensus among scholars today
that sustainable pasture use and management in Central Asia depends largely on pastoral migration (Figure
6.10). However, the early post-Soviet pasture management reforms in Kyrgyzstan did not recognize the
importance of institutions coordinating pastoral migration and did not take into account the economic and
political dynamics related to mobile herding (Dörre, 2012; Jacquesson, 2010; Steimann, 2011; Undeland, 2005).
As a result, a massive reduction in pastoral mobility was observed after implementation of those early reforms
(1991-2009). Reduced mobility led to the overgrazing of pastures, decreasing livestock productivity and
increasing conflicts between pasture users over access to the resource (Farrington, 2005; Ludi, 2003; Undeland,
2005; Wright et al., 2003). In Kyrgyzstan, overgrazing causing soil and land degradation is also perceived as the
key pressure and driver of changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services. For instance, the National Report on
Conservation of Biodiversity states that pressure on more than 3,500 species, which grow on pastures, increases
due to overgrazing (Government of Kyrgyzstan, 2013).

1004
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Responding to pasture-related problems the Kyrgyz parliament adopted a new law ”on pasture” in January 2009
(Government of Kyrgyzstan, 2009). With the objective of promoting more sustainable use of pastures, the new
law introduced radical changes to the pasture management system: (1) it abolished the three-level Soviet-era
system of state pasture management based on spatial pasture characteristics – transferring the responsibility for
1005
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

pasture management substantially to the local level and placing it on municipalities and the newly formed
pasture user unions and pasture committees; (2) it abolished the area-based long-term pasture lease system and
introduced an annual livestock-based pasture fee (“pasture ticket”); and, lastly, (3) it introduced a planning and
monitoring system for pasture use and management. By 2011, pasture user unions and pasture committees had
been created in 454 municipalities in Kyrgyzstan (World Bank, 2011).
The shift in governance is a fundamental change of roles and positions between state, market and civil society
with regard to use and management of pastures and is an attempt to move away from the hierarchical top-down
governance, inherited from the Soviet period, to a hybrid one – a mix between the “decentralized”, “self-
governance” and “private governance” modes. As a result, considerable changes of actors and institutional
features have occurred in Kyrgyzstan (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8: Governance modes in pasture management in Kyrgyzstan. Source: Own representation.
Hierarchical Decentralized Public-private Self-governance
governance before (since 1995) governance (since 1991)
1991 (since 2009)
Actors Department of Pasture Department of pasture Municipalities, pasture Pasture users
at the Ministry of at the Ministry of user unions and (e.g., herders and
Agriculture at national Agriculture at national pasture committees livestock owners)
level level
Departments of Departments of
pasture at the regional pasture at the regional
and district levels and district levels
Municipalities
Power Coercion Coercion Competitiveness Autonomy of pasture
users
Informal leaders
Social capital and trust
Representation Pluralist Pluralist Partnerships Partnerships
((supra) national (local elections) Arrangements Participatory private-
elections) between pasture private governing
committees and arrangements
pasture users (e.g., informal herding
arrangements)
Mechanism of Top-down; command Municipalities decide Pasture Committees Bottom up; social
social and control autonomously on develop and enforce learning, deliberation
interaction pastures within their the implementation of and negotiation
boundaries the pasture regarding access to
management plans in and use of the
a participatory process resource

Since 1991, new key actors have emerged, changing the configuration of stakeholders: (a) after the dissolution
of state farms and privatization of livestock, private livestock owners and herders became de facto managers of
pastures; (b) municipalities within the borders of former collective/state farms were created during the
decentralization reform; and (c) pasture committees and pasture user unions were established within the latest
pasture legislation. Power relations among those stakeholders have also changed significantly. Initially, the main
responsibility for managing pastures within the municipality borders was delegated from the national and
regional levels to the municipal level. Later, this responsibility was shifted again to the newly established pasture
committees and pasture user unions. Furthermore, “representation” has changed from “pluralistic” at the
national and regional level to a mix between the “pluralistic” and “corporatist” at the local level, when pasture-
use agreements are to be negotiated between pasture committees and pasture users. Finally, the “mechanism
of social interaction” has been transformed from “top down” and “command and control” to a less formal and
more interactive one.
An important feature of the latest pasture reform is that a mix of policy instruments was developed just after
the legislation was approved by the parliament in 2009, and tested while the reform was implemented (Table
6.9). One of the first tasks for each newly established pasture committee is the collection of pasture fees and the
1006
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

allocation of pasture tickets to pasture users. The collected pasture fees finance the committee’s overhead costs
and are invested in pasture infrastructures and improvement. The pasture fee is defined annually by the pasture
committee for each type of livestock as well as for each type of pasture. It cannot be lower than the basic tax for
using a pasture, and it needs to be approved by the respective municipality. The collection of pasture fees is,
however, a difficult task, since livestock monitoring is a problem in many communities. The pasture ticket is
allocated according to annual pasture use and a management plan, which is developed and implemented under
the coordination of the responsible pasture committee. The capacity and condition of pastures (productivity and
level of degradation) and the size of livestock populations need to be monitored and assessed annually by pasture
committees as a basis for negotiations concerning the allocation of pastures for the following year’s pasture use
plan.

Table 6.9: Policy instruments in pasture management in Kyrgyzstan since 2009. Source: Own
representation.

Legal and regulatory Economic and financial Social and information- Rights-based
instruments instruments based instruments instruments and
customary norms
Pasture Law (2009) Pasture fee and land tax Information regarding Pasture collective rights
Pasture use and Grants to pasture pastures (e.g., Customary norms and
management planning committees and pasture distribution, state) institutions
Pasture use monitoring unions Awareness building and
trainings organized by
NGOs and extension
services

The literature is divided in assessing the effectiveness of the more recent pasture reform in Kyrgyzstan
(implemented since 2009): to what extent did the policy intervention contribute to achieving a more sustainable
use of pastures as the main policy objective? Critical assessments of the reform’s impact are offered by Crewett
(2015) and Dörre (2015). While Crewett investigates how policy implementers at the local level (”street-level
bureaucrats”) simplify information rules in the donor-initiated natural resource governance reforms at the
expense of a more participatory resource user involvement, Dörre (2015, p. 1) compares “promises” of
Kyrgyzstan’s pasture-related legislation and “realities” of its implementation. In his opinion, “the recent
innovation in pasture law has not comprehensively resulted in the desired outcomes on the ground”.
Furthermore, Ridder et al. (2017) evaluate the costs and instrumental benefits of different land-use strategies
with regard to pasture degradation. The study comparatively assesses alternative pasture management
strategies, reflecting on their impact on pasture and livestock productivity. The authors conclude that allowing
pastures to rest will lead to higher net benefits and would be a more beneficial choice for herders economically.
However, awareness about the relationship between overgrazing and pasture or livestock productivity has not
been translated into action by pasture users due to the lack of consensus between experts and herders regarding
which interventions are needed and how they should be organized (Ridder et al., 2017). Kasymov (2016, p. 7)
argues, on the other hand, that enforcement of new formal institutions in pasture use and management affects
the relative bargaining power and distributional advantage of actors. Thus, it has a redistributive character in
supporting less powerful actors and contributing to the selection of more socially-optimal strategies adopted by
pasture users. All authors agree, however, that the latest reform in pasture management in Kyrgyzstan is still a
“work in progress” and a longer-term perspective as well as more research will be required to evaluate the
environmental and social impacts.

End of Box 6.7

Governance of natural resources and biodiversity requires compatibility between ecological and social
systems (Paavola & Adger, 2005) and implies that institutions coordinate complex interactions

1007
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

between people and nature, maintaining the ability of the ecological system to support the social and
economic systems (Hodgson, 2004). To address the problems listed above, Eastern European and
Central Asian countries may need to transform environmental governance, redefining the role of state
and civil society, their power, and mechanisms of interactions in natural resource management.
Several aspects need to be considered when designing policy interventions in Eastern Europe and
Central Asia. First, for the countries rich in land resources, such as Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, an
important governance challenge is to address land grabbing and the potential exploitation of existing
institutional weaknesses by powerful investors (see also synthesis Table 6.11). Second, the governing
dynamics of land abandonment observed during the initial transition period, and recent intensification
of land use, will be crucial for protecting environmental services and biodiversity in the regions. Finally,
Central Asian experiences in decentralization and devolution illustrate that the process of institutional
change is not straightforward but rather, complex and dynamic. As institutions are designed to
coordinate complex interactions between ecological and social systems, which is characterized by
processes of evaluation and co-evolution, institutional development is also very much a result of co-
adaptation and learning. Therefore, institutional design to protect biodiversity and environmental
services must strengthen and build upon local knowledge, practices and agricultural institutions
(synthesis Table 6.11).

6.5.1.7 Summary
In recent decades, the governance of the agricultural sector has undergone important changes in
Europe and Central Asia.
In Western and Central Europe, the establishment of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy
saw at first strong support for production by government intervention, which led to unsustainable
negative impacts on the economic, socio-cultural and environmental systems. Then, from the 1980s,
Common Agricultural Policy reforms promoted the decoupling of farm income support from
production, the reduction of agricultural surplus, the control of budget costs and the integration of
socio-cultural and environmental objectives into the policy. Various policy instruments from different
instrument categories were used to achieve these objectives, such as relevant environmental
regulations and laws, rural development plans, agri-environmental measures, food quality labelling,
participatory processes involving stakeholders, and the adaptation to market conditions by farms.
While the Common Agricultural Policy budget spent on production of agricultural commodities was
reduced and agricultural pressures on the environment lessened, significant progress is still lacking in
enhancing the delivery by the agricultural sector of some of nature’s contributions to people that are
public goods such as air, water, and climate regulation, soil erosion and water run-off control,
conservation of habitats and biodiversity, and maintenance of traditional culture and agricultural
landscapes. The delivery of nature’s contributions to people may be supported by the agricultural
sector if the Common Agricultural Policy objectives are defined more clearly (e.g. what are farm
income and environmental objectives supported in the policy’s pillar 1) (see also synthesis Table 6.11)
and policy instruments are made more efficient and effective. This could be achieved, for example, by
fine tuning the Common Agricultural Policy cross-compliance and greening requirements to critical
ecological thresholds for nature’s contributions to people delivery by agro-ecosystems at local level in
pillar 1 and by developing more effective and more result-oriented agri-environmental measures
tailored to local conditions in pillar 2 (see synthesis Table 6.11).
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led to a
decentralization of governance of the agricultural sector and to privatization and redistribution of land
to farmers. This has, in many countries, resulted in a reduction of big state farms in favour of small to
1008
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

medium-sized private farms producing for subsistence consumption and local markets. It also resulted
in the establishment of large agro-enterprises producing grains and oilseeds for exports in Russia,
Belarus and Ukraine in Eastern Europe and Kazakhstan in Central Asia, and big farms as a result of “land
optimization” governmental policy in Uzbekistan. The results of these land reforms, from an
environmental point of view, have been less intensive agricultural production, a decrease in
productivity in small- to medium-size farms, and land abandonment that have generally benefited the
environment. However, the transition toward a market economy is already showing signs of increasing
intensification of agricultural practices leading to big environmental impacts (e.g. soil erosion in
Moldova), high unemployment rates in rural areas (e.g. in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), and
land-grabbing problems in post-Soviet Eurasia (e.g. Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan). Since the
dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, in independent Central Asian countries many natural resource
management systems such as irrigation, forest, and pasture organizations have transferred authority
to local stakeholders (e.g. pasture user unions and pasture committees in Kyrgyzstan, non-commercial
voluntary organizations of water users for irrigation of water). This represents a fundamental change in
the relationship between state, market and civil society with regard to pasture and irrigation water
management, by moving away from the hierarchical top-down governance and command-and-control
policy instruments, inherited from the Soviet past.
Despite these positive trends, such as the integration and evaluation of environmental targets, inter-
ministerial cooperation, and improved research systems (see also synthesis Table 6.11) there are many
pitfalls. These include the lack of awareness and capacity building of farmers, non-existence of advisory
and extension services, weakness of newly established institutions, poor public acceptance and lack of
legitimization of new regulations and governance structures among resource users, and the growing
gap between the implemented policies and actual management practices (see also synthesis Table
6.11). To address these problems, there is a need to transform environmental governance by
redefining the role of state and civil society, their power, and mechanisms of interactions in natural
resource management (see also synthesis Table 6.11). To enhance nature’s contributions to people
and biodiversity conservation in the regions, new governance systems will also have to address the
problem of land grabbing and the potential exploitation of existing institutional weaknesses by
powerful investors (e.g. in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan). Governance systems will also have to
address the abandonment of land and the recent intensification of land use by securing property rights
and responsibilities, as well as designing and enforcing legal standards to sustain biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people (see synthesis Table 6.11).

6.5.2 Forestry
6.5.2.1 Policy objectives
Forests and other wooded land cover about 1,172 million ha in Europe and Central Asia. Since 2000
there has been a net increase of forest in nearly all countries due to afforestation policies and natural
expansion on, for example, abandoned agricultural land (see Chapter 4) (UNECE/FAO, 2015). The forest
area is heterogeneously distributed across the region (UNECE/FAO, 2015). The Russian Federation has
by far the most, with 890 million hectares, which represent 54% of its total land area. This is far above
the average proportion for other Eastern European countries (approximately 40%), as well as Western
Europe (about 35%), and Central Asia (< 10%). The economic significance of forestry varies between
countries of the region. Based on the current system of national accounts (see Section 6.6.3), the
contribution of the forestry sector to the overall GDP is below 1% on average, except for several
eastern and northern European countries, such as Latvia (6.5%), Estonia (4.3%), Finland (4.3%), Sweden
(2.9%), Slovakia (2.4%), Lithuania (2.4%), Romania (1.9%), Slovenia (1.8%). In addition to the variation

1009
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

in biophysical and socio-economic factors, there is a large variation in forest property rights within
Europe and Central Asia. Private ownership of forest land ranges from about 40 to 80% in the northern
and north-western European countries and from 10 to 60% in Eastern Europe. Small-scale land holding
(up to 5 ha) makes up about 85% of all forest owners in surveyed countries in Western and Central
Europe (Schmithüsen & Hirsch, 2010). In Central Asia, almost all forests are publicly owned, mainly by
the central government (FAO, 2010). User or access rights, e.g. for the purpose of recreation or berry
and mushroom picking, as well as usufruct rights for indigenous peoples and local communities, also
exist in some countries in Europe and Central Asia. These factors have shaped the forest policies and
forest acts of individual countries in this region towards either a more production or a more post-
production orientation (Arts, 2014; Forest Europe, 2015). The goal of these policies is often a
multifunctional forest, including the mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3). They include both managed and ”near-natural” landscape
elements and frequently aim – besides timber production – at providing ecological functions and
recreation opportunities (Hunziker et al., 2012). In Forest Europe member countries, more than 30
million hectares of forests have been protected for the main purpose of conserving biodiversity,
habitats or landscapes (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3). Over 110 million ha of forests are designated to
protect water, soil and ecosystems as well as infrastructures. In mountainous regions, larger forest
areas are designated for natural hazard control (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1.8). A majority of countries
name soil protection as one of the main policy objectives, while about 30 percent indicate water
protection as a priority (Forest Europe, 2015). However, this does not correspond to the policy goals
set in various international and national policies. Biodiversity is still deteriorating in many countries.
There are, however, many opportunities to improve the situation to achieve overarching policy
objectives for the conservation of forest land, and to mainstream biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people into forest policy (see synthesis Table 6.11).
One such opportunity would be to develop international forest policies to ensure both the
conservation of biodiversity and the mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature´s contributions to
people at multiple levels. Almost all European and Central Asian countries are currently participating
in one or more of the international or European processes towards the establishment of criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management (e.g., “Forest Europe”, the “Montreal process” and the
“Near East Process”). However, the internationalization of forest policy poses substantial challenges
for actors in the policy process (Werland, 2009). Several forest-related instruments are applied in
parallel, and processes take place simultaneously at different governance levels, which can be
distinguished into relatively “hard” legal instruments (e.g., United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, Convention on Biological Diversity, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), “soft”
international laws (e.g., United Nations Conference on Environment and Development Forest
Principles, Agenda 21, United Nations Forum on Forests), and “private” international laws (e.g., Forest
Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) (Giessen, 2013). In other
areas soft laws (defined as non-binding), through “carefully negotiated and drafted statements” (Birnie
et al., 2009, p. 34), have been transformed into binding treaties, such as international environmental,
bioethics or human rights law. In the forest sector the emerging mixed policy regime has been
characterized as fragmented, ineffective and failed (Giessen, 2013), mainly due to the failure to agree
on legally-binding commitments, the existence of multiple policy arenas and actors, and the change of
guiding principles over time (Singer & Giessen, 2017). Major drivers of fragmentation of the
international forest regime can be found in the international as well as in the domestic realm (Giessen,
2013). The main reasons for this fragmentation have been identified as institutional competition,
inconsistent targets and differing sectoral interests, as well as the simultaneous application of different
policy instruments (e.g. hierarchical regulation and financial incentives or “soft” measures, such as
discursive or informative approaches) (Sotirov et al., 2015). Hence, Winkel and Sotirov (2016, p. 496)
1010
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

define the current situation in terms of a “policy (dis)integration paradox”, since little policy integration
at multiple levels has been achieved, although several initiatives are in place recognizing the need to
develop an international forest policy.
Although there are many opportunities to develop policies to take forests and forestry into
consideration, a similar situation can be found at the European Union-level since there is no explicit
forest policy mandate at this level. This can primarily be explained due to the principle of subsidiarity,
variations in the management of forests and the responsibility of conducting negotiations (Edwards &
Kleinschmit, 2013). In the European Union, forest issues are seen as appendices to the agricultural,
energy, or environmental sector (Söderberg & Eckerberg, 2013). The European Union’s biodiversity
policy, in particular Natura 2000, is for example supposed to have a major impact on the protection of
forest land at the national level (Forest Europe, 2015). However, relatively little information is available
concerning the formal and financial implementation of the policy in the national forest sector (Winkel
et al., 2015). This is partly because decisions concerning the national allocation of European Union
forest funding are increasingly taken by the domestic governments according to their priorities (Kati
et al., 2014; Sotirov et al., 2015).

6.5.2.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

Governance modes in the forest sector vary depending on the share of private and public forest land
in different countries. In countries with a large share of public forest land, the forest sector is often
governed through traditional hierarchical governance modes, while in countries with a large share of
private forest owners, various forms of decentralized partnerships or even private governance are
more common (Beland Lindahl et al., 2017).
New governance systems are evolving in the forestry sector aiming to secure sustainability of timber
production and forest ecosystems through the mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. Whether these emerging systems lead to a simultaneous retreat of the state
and a reduction in governmental control is subject to debate (Arts, 2014). A possible relocation of
political power could take three different directions: upward to the international level as mentioned
above, downward to the sub-national level, and outward to private and semi-public levels (Pierre &
Peters, 2000). However, there are still substantial challenges, especially in Eastern Europe and Central
Asia, in developing integrated environmental governance systems, including the adaptation of
regulations and the enhancement of education measures in the forest sector (Carter et al., 2010;
Djanibekov et al., 2015; Křenová & Kindlmann, 2015) (see also synthesis Table 6.11). New international
tools and financial incentives could trigger such changes. However, a strong ”ideological and
institutional anchoring” of the stakeholders in the national forestry sectors might impede major
improvements in the development of new and more integrative governance modes and mechanisms
(Brukas, 2015; Singer & Giessen, 2017).
Forest laws are the most important regulatory policy instrument in all European and East Asian
countries. However, in countries with a large share of private forest owners, where national
governments are dependent on forest owners’ willingness to protect forests, governments and
authorities are making increasing use of voluntary contracts or public-private partnerships with private
forest owners to protect biodiversity (Amacher et al., 2014; Primmer et al., 2013). In this mixed ”public-
private area”, financial payment is the main instrument applied to incentivize targeted private forest
management activities. However, the suitability and effectiveness of such initiatives depend on the
appropriateness of the programme design as well as on the institutional context, and might vary from
country to country, as demonstrated by voluntary environmental agreements in forestry (Forest
Stewardship Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) or fishery (Marine
1011
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Stewardship Council) (Prakash & Potoski, 2012; See also 6.3). Further, due to competition rules,
European Union regulation constrains the use of these instruments in ways that would reward
biodiversity impacts (Raitanen et al., 2013). In Eastern European countries the compulsory forest
planning process is often conducted by governmental agencies without active participation of forest
owners, thereby impeding the enhancement of learning and adaptation capacities (Bouriaud et al.,
2013) (see also synthesis Table 6.11). Further, insufficient knowledge and a low priority of biodiversity
conservation, a lack of planning tools and transparency, as well as limited resources, can reduce the
effectiveness of policy implementation (Blicharska et al., 2011; Demeter, 2017; Kirchhoff & Fabian,
2010; Krilašević, 2010).
Concerning the private level, forest certification is often considered as one of the most important
private or self-governance initiatives (see Figure 6.2 and Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3), due to the inclusion
of stakeholder groups (environmental non-governmental organizations, and social groups such as
indigenous peoples and labour organizations) and forest owners in the schemes. Certification of
forestry is lacking in Central Asia and Russia, and forest management planning is not a legal
requirement in several countries (UNECE/FAO, 2015). Power asymmetries and a lack of transparency
and accountability in private governance tend to undermine the effectiveness to achieve stated
environmental objectives as well as equity-related goals among the actors involved (Auld &
Gulbrandsen, 2010; Auld et al., 2008; Johansson, 2013). Furthermore, advice on concrete goal-
oriented management practices is often missing (Foster et al., 2010). In consequence, sustainable
forest management may have to be pursued through trial-and-error, which may be ineffective and
inefficient. Despite their shortcomings, certification schemes have shown to be particularly important
for indigenous peoples such as the Sami people, who have usufruct rights to herd reindeer in
approximately 30-50 % of the forest land in Norway, Finland and Sweden. Certification has, in the
absence of national legislation to protect indigenous traditional use of forestry, not only opened up
for collaborative arrangements between the Sami and the forest industry, but also paved the way for
the Human Rights Committee to engage in this conflict (Human Rights Committee, 2005). Although
conflicts still occur, certification schemes provide an important framework for the development of new
policy instruments such as participatory GIS and indigenous mapping (Roturier, 2009; Roturier &
Bergsten, 2006; Sandström & Widmark, 2007; Sandström et al., 2012). In addition, specifically in the
private-owner context, information instruments are still crucial for integrating biodiversity
conservation into forestry. Criteria and indicators, such as the six pan-European criteria for sustainable
forest management, provide crucial information for policy development, assessment and
communication at different governance levels (Forest Europe, 2016). Forest inventories support
national planning, and planning at the local level is often merged with forest owner advice systems
(Primmer, 2011).

6.5.2.3 Constraints and opportunities

Several possibly interdependent challenges have been identified for mainstreaming nature
conservation in forest policy (see synthesis Table 6.11): (i) balancing of conservation and production
aspects; (ii) integration of science and stakeholders; (iii) climate change; (iv) effective funding; and (v)
conflicts with policies related to other sectors (Keskitalo & Pettersson, 2016; Makkonen et al., 2015;
Winkel et al., 2015). Concerning sectoral policies, 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 (Sotirov et al., 2015), for example to the Bioeconomy Strategy or Rural
Development Policy as well as the Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2016c; UNEP &
UNECE, 2016), see Sections 6.3.2 and 6.4.2). To utilize this potential and to overcome the current
fragmented policy framework, horizontal coordination between the different sectors (i.e. forestry,
1012
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

conservation, energy) is required as well as vertical coherence of policy targets and institutions at the
different governance levels (international, European Union, national, regional). These targets might be
hindered by decentralizing forest policy decision-making. Thus, it is advisable to supplement the
current policy framework with a bottom-up process, including broad participation and conflict
management processes at the different governance levels (Sotirov et al., 2015; Ulybina, 2014). As an
example, Veenman et al. (2009, p. 202) analyzed the process of ”de-institutionalization” in the
Netherlands, which led to a nearly complete integration of forest policy into nature policy. They
identified the four dimensions of “discourse, power, rules and actors”, which have been working in the
same direction, as an explanation for this development. However, such a convergence is an exception
rather than the rule.
Another option would be to elaborate more systematically on environmental policy integration
through novel governance modes. However, countries thus need to overcome challenges related to (i)
the currently established legal and policy system, and (ii) the capacity of new, private actors to be
involved in policy formulation and implementation. Concerning the first aspect, Schulz et al. (2014)
compare nine European Union countries and subnational jurisdictions and analyze the relationship
between property rights and economic importance on the one hand, and the degree of formally
implemented “integrative nature conservation” in forest policy on the other. They found that the more
important the forest sector and the more decision-making is influenced by small “peak interest
organizations”, the less conservation rules are formally implemented. Related to the second aspect,
Howlett & Rayner (2006) recognize the importance of private actors and interest groups in the
reconfiguration of governance structures. Decentralization and participatory approaches have become
important issues in the forestry sector, and are seen as measures to increase the effectiveness of forest
policy. As a means to bring decision-making closer to the implementation level, four variables are most
important for achieving sustainable forest management via nation-wide Forest Programmes:
participation, collaboration, inter-sectoral cooperation, and long-term iterative adaptive approaches
(Humphreys, 2004, p. 18). At the local level, participatory approaches such as forest collaborative
arrangements or partnerships seem promising, but have so far often been underutilized (e.g., between
forestry and reindeer husbandry (Roturier et al., 2017). Impeding factors can be fragmented private
ownership, strong interest groups and clientelism, established legal traditions and policy cultures.
Decentralization does not necessarily mean a withdrawal of the government, because “control by the
state and self-governance by people go hand in hand” (Arts, 2014, p. 17). In general, such programmes
make less use of participants’ inputs than they could, and the participatory processes are generally not
designed to resolve conflicts or trade-offs (Primmer & Kyllönen, 2006; Saarikoski et al., 2012).

6.5.2.4 Summary
The key aspects of an effective and sustainable integrated forest policy and management approach,
including the protection of biodiversity and mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature´s contributions
to people, can be summarized as: (i) bringing together different public and private actors; (ii)
encouraging joint learning and developing a common understanding; (iii) identifying and addressing
trade-offs; (iv) developing a coherent policy at different levels; and (v) managing conflicts by applying
various policy instruments appropriately designed for the respective institutional context (Sotirov et
al., 2015).
However, structural governance change happens at different speeds, to different degrees and is
influenced by various factors. The scope of change can vary from changing the policy setting, while
instruments and goals remain the same, to changing setting and instruments without changing the
goals, and changing all three elements (setting, instruments, and goals) of forest policy (Borrass et al.,

1013
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2015). The degree of change depends on the national legal and policy system currently in place, as well
as the readiness of interest groups to participate in the process of multilevel governance. Given the
diverse character of change, it can be quite demanding for private actors to develop respective
capacities and coping strategies (Juerges & Newig, 2015; Tysiachniouk & McDermott, 2016). This is
particularly the case for indigenous peoples who lack the necessary organizational capacity to adapt
to this change (Widmark, 2009). Furthermore, success or failure of governance shifts can be
determined by external factors such as “adjacent policy arrangements, socio-political trends and shock
events”, and internal factor such as “policy entrepreneurs” (Arnouts et al., 2012, p. 47) (see also
Chapter 4). Examples from Europe and Central Asia show that this holds for eastern as well as western
countries (Blicharska et al., 2011; Borrass et al., 2015; Bouriaud et al., 2013; Brukas, 2015; Krilašević,
2010; Vuletić et al., 2010).

6.5.3 Fisheries and aquaculture

6.5.3.1 Policy objectives
Fisheries and aquaculture policies such as the European Union Common Fisheries Policy and the
European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture have the policy
objectives of ensuring that fishing and aquaculture are environmentally, economically and socially
sustainable and that they provide a source of healthy food for consumers. Such policies are also aimed
at fostering a dynamic fishing and aquaculture industry and ensuring a fair standard of living for coastal
communities (European Commission, 2017). The fisheries sector – fisheries and aquaculture – is
important from a marine ecosystem and biodiversity sustainability perspective due to its
interconnectivity with, and reliance on, aquatic ecosystems (UNEP, 2014a). Indeed, globally,
aquaculture has been the fastest growing food production sector of the past 40 years and now supplies
more than half of the world’s fish produce. Fishing and aquaculture policy that promote overfishing or
targeting of species when they are at a vulnerable stage of their lifecycle, can affect biodiversity by
reducing species richness (Lee & Safina, 1995).
Fisheries pressure on biodiversity can also affect the heritable adaptations of a species and alter its
characteristics and the characteristics of an ecosystem over time. Fishing and aquaculture related
policies can also introduce new species to a given ecosystem. For example, the Pacific oyster was
introduced to help boost Britain's declining commercial shellfish fishery. It was assumed that this
species would not reproduce in Britain’s cooler waters, but it is now spreading in the wild. Fisheries
policy can also cause loss of genetic variability simply by reducing a species to such a low level that
there are not enough individuals in the gene pool to carry the full range of variability that once
comprised the population. For example, an Irish commercial fishery for orange roughy began in the
North East Atlantic in 2001 with the assistance of government grants. The fishery began as an open
access, non-quota fishery. Similar to orange roughy fisheries elsewhere the fishery resulted in
unsustainable fishing levels and the subsequent depletion of the fish population. Given that orange
roughy is often found near deep water seamounts and cold-water corals, there was also collateral
damage to cold water corals. Foley and co-authors (2011) suggest that, in the absence of the subsidies,
deep water trawling for orange roughy would not have been viable and the depletion of the species
by the Irish fleet would have been avoided.

6.5.3.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

Numerous policies and governance mechanisms attempt to control the impact of fishing and
aquaculture activities on the marine environment. At an international level the United Nations is a
1014
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

leading player with bodies established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), notably the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) committee on fisheries and regional fisheries management organizations. The
European Union also operated a number of policies aimed at governing fisheries and aquaculture
across European Union territorial waters. Early European Union environmental policies like the
Surfaces Water Directive and Bathing Water Directive gave way to a more comprehensive Directive in
the form of the Water Framework Directive. Given the interrelated nature of freshwater aquatic
systems, reaching eventually to coastal estuaries, saltmarshes and bays, even this more
comprehensive directive could not stand alone if aquatic habitats and ecosystems were to be managed
effectively. The Water Framework Directive, with its aim of “good ecological status”, is thus intended
to operate alongside the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which provides policy guidelines on
management of the entire marine environment through the attainment of good environmental status.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive itself must then operate alongside the Common Fisheries
Policy such that good environmental status can be attained. Operating in tandem with these polices is
the Habitats and Birds Directive and the Natura 2000 network.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive was adopted in June 2008 and, similarly to the Water
Framework Directive, aims to achieve good environmental status of the European Union’s marine
waters by 2020 (European Union, 2008). Given that one of the major indicators of good environmental
status under the Directive is fishing pressure levels in European Union marine waters, it is clear that its
implementation has major implications for the European Union fishing sector. In addition to the level
of fishing pressure, other fishery-related indicators of good environmental status include the
reproductive capacity of fishing stocks as well as their population age and size distribution. Since the
main policy vehicle used to manage fisheries and improve these indicators of a fishery’s status within
the European Union is the Common Fisheries Policy, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will be
required to operate alongside Common Fisheries Policy legislation. Indeed, it is likely that only through
a successful application of the recent reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy the good environmental
status target of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive may be realized.
European fishing waters are currently governed as part of the Common Fisheries Policy according to
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83. The Common Fisheries Policy is a collaborative effort by all
European Union member States to ensure the sustainable governance of European Union fisheries.
The policy tries to ensure sustainable fishing practice by setting “total allowable catch”, limiting the
number of days at sea (fishing effort), restricting the use of certain fishing gear (technical conservation
measures (TCM)) and reducing overcapacity in the European Union fishing fleet (through fleet
decommissioning) (European Commission, 2011b). Total allowable catch levels are set for each
European Union fishing zone. Figure 6.11 shows the international fishing zones defined by the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. The quantity of fish landed from each zone by the
European Union fleet is recorded and quotas are set under the Common Fisheries Policy for those
zones within European Union jurisdiction. The procedure for carrying this out is provided for by Council
Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 of 1983 and establishes a system for the conservation and management
of fishery resources. In 2013, the European Parliament and Council of Ministers agreed on a new and
reformed European Common Fisheries Policy to be implemented across all European Union marine
waters in January 2014. One outcome of the agreements is that quotas and the use of species’
maximum sustainable yields will remain the primary means by which member States attempt to
achieve sustainable fisheries.
Other mechanisms to achieve sustainable fisheries are also being considered. For example, closed
areas are tools proposed through the ecosystem-based management approach for fisheries. These can
be temporary closures or more permanent marine protected areas (Andrello et al., 2015; Hynes et al.,

1015
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2016; Lagabrielle et al., 2014). Management in marine protected areas is very diverse, with local
restrictions ranging from “no-take” to zoning or gear limitations. While there is consistent evidence for
the positive effects of full and partial protection on the density and biomass of protected species, it
has been shown that fishers may feel alienated from the management process and may feel more
comfortable with reserve managers and marine protected area regulations if they are involved in the
management process (Himes, 2003).
Elsewhere, regional fisheries management organizations are international organizations formed by
countries with fishing interests in an area. Their role is to guarantee the management, conservation
and sustainable exploitation of the fish and other marine species by setting catch limits, technical
measures and control obligations. In Central Asia, an example of a regional fisheries management
organization is the Central Asian and Caucasus Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission
(CACFish). The objectives of CACFish are to promote the development, conservation, rational
management and best utilization of living aquatic resources, as well as the sustainable development
of aquaculture in Central Asia and the Caucasus. Following the United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development (Rio+20), United Nations efforts have also focused on the launching of an
Implementing Agreement under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea for the conservation
and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

6.5.3.3 Constraints and opportunities

Political problems with fisheries management and with maintaining the scientifically recommended
maximum sustainable yield throughout the political process have been documented within the
European Union (Daw & Gray, 2005). Despite these highlighted problems, the reforms of the Common
1016
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Fisheries Policy indicate that the degree to which scientific recommendations of maximum sustainable
yield are adhered to in practice will be far more binding than has been the case historically, such that
by 2020, all stocks are to be managed at maximum sustainable yield. Negotiations that will take place
on the allocation of quota in UK versus non-UK waters following Brexit are also likely to add to the
complexity of fisheries management at a European level.
Further changes to the Common Fisheries Policy include a banning of all discards and the adoption of
multi-annual and multi-species planning. The new landing obligation means that from 1 January 2015
onwards fishermen in certain parts of the European Union must land all the fish they catch. By 2019,
all fishermen will have the same obligation. This means that the quantity of any fish stock that can be
sustainably harvested will be determined on the basis of interaction with, and impacts upon, other
species and marine habitats. If fisheries are to become sustainable, the impact of fishing for a single
commercial species on other commercial species will be of great importance. It is foreseeable that, in
waters where the by-catch of biologically sensitive species is high, quotas for any target species in
question will be set lower than their potential maximum sustainable yield level would be had they
been considered in isolation.
According to the European Commission, European Union legislators will only define the general
framework, the basic principles and standards and the overall targets of the Common Fisheries Policy,
while member States will themselves develop recommendations on the actual implementing measures
(European Commission, 2016e). National policymakers will thus be charged with the responsibility of
deciding on and implementing the medium-term management initiatives that will achieve the overall
targets of the Common Fisheries Policy. In this new policy environment, when setting species’ total
allowable catches, fishery managers must pay particular attention to the multispecies impact of
harvesting an individual species, not least, the impact on other commercial species within the fishery
and in neighbouring fisheries.
Models assisting the management process that follows the reforms will need to assess the
environmental and ecosystem impacts of commercial fishing activity. In addition, behavioural
economic models have a role to play, since they offer a framework for attempting to describe the
response of fishermen to any policy changes. According to Fulton and co-authors (2011), human
behaviour, and in particular fishermen behaviour, is almost never explicitly considered by fisheries
scientists in the assessment and management process. They posit that the uncertainty generated by
unexpected resource-user behaviour is as critical as ecosystem and environmental uncertainty
because it has unplanned consequences and leads to unintended management outcomes. Indeed,
technical measures can lead to results which actually work directly against specific sustainability
targets for which they are designed (Briand et al., 2004; Dinmore et al., 2003; Polacheck & Davies,
2008; White & Mace, 1988). In relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, clarification is still
needed as to how biodiversity and the goods and services of marine ecosystems can contribute to the
Directive’s good environmental status target and this needs to be further developed. For this, marine
and coastal ecosystem services indicators and models for assessment (including fisheries and food
webs) need to be further developed to demonstrate how they can contribute to good ecological status
(Liquete et al., 2013).
A recent report by the Central Asian and Caucasus Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission
(CACFish, 2016) highlighted a number of constraints in implementing the code of conduct for
responsible fisheries in the Central Asian and Caucasus region. The main constraints highlighted were
related to inadequate scientific research, statistics and access to information, insufficient budgetary
resources and institutional weaknesses, insufficient fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance and
overcapacity in fisheries.

1017
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

The European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture sets out the
European Union’s policy for the development and growth of aquaculture. The original strategy of 2002
was considered to have been successful in the areas of environmental management, food safety and
quality, but has not resulted in growth of production in the sector across the European Union, in
contrast with the rest of the world (European Commission, 2009a). In 2009, the Commission undertook
a review of the strategy. The renewed 2013 strategy sought to identify causes of the European Union
stagnation and identified policy actions to address competitiveness, sustainability and governance in
the sector. Following the review, the Commission published strategic guidelines for the sustainable
development of aquaculture in the European Union (European Commission, 2013e). The strategic
guidelines implement the new Common Fisheries Policy approach to promoting aquaculture through
an open method of coordination: a voluntary process for cooperation based on strategic guidelines
and multiannual national strategic plans identifying common objectives and, where possible,
indicators to measure progress towards these goals. These plans have now been published, and the
European Commission has produced a summary of the implementation (European Commission,
2016f).
There are also three European Commission regulations that establish a framework governing
aquaculture practices in relation to alien and locally absent species to assess and minimize the possible
impact of these and any associated non-target species on aquatic habitats (Council Regulation (EC) No.
708/2007 of 11 June 2007; Commission Regulation (EC) No. 506/2008 of 6 June 2008 amending Annex
IV to Council Regulation (EC) No. 708/2007; Commission Regulation (EC) No. 535/2008 of 13 June 2008
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 708/2007).
Aquaculture can also be affected by sectoral activity on land (e.g. agricultural runoff) and on the coast.
The link between freshwater systems, coastal habitats and the sea at large is catered for in a policy
sense via a new policy framework, which builds upon previous integrated coastal zone management
legislation and incorporates marine spatial planning to account for at-sea projects and development,
such as new aquaculture facilities, as well as that pertaining to areas of coastal proximity. These two
sets of policy, run concurrently, are intended to allow stakeholders, coastal managers and other
relevant parties to cooperate in designing coastal and marine management initiatives that promote
environmental sustainability, but also allow for local economic development (Domínguez-Tejo et al.,
2016). It has also been shown that intensive freshwater aquaculture can deplete groundwater supplies.
For example fish farming was found to be a major contributor to the depletion of underground and
surface water resources in the Ararat Valley of Armenia (Trifonova, 2016).
In addition to the now extensive (and growing) legislation that exists for marine and coastal
management, the European Union integrated marine policy is intended to act almost as a buffer
between the various pieces of legislation in this area and a stopgap for arising maritime issues that do
not fall under the jurisdiction of any of the aforementioned legislations. Furthermore, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, the
Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive also
influence the potential development of aquaculture in environmentally sensitive areas and its impact
on marine ecosystems.

6.5.3.4 Summary
European Union, Eastern European and Central Asian environmental policy relating to marine and
coastal areas is still very much under development, but the rate of change is rapid and transforming
the face of marine environmental management. Fisheries and aquaculture management
methodologies that attempt to incorporate spatial and integrated methodologies and which can help
1018
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

to balance the environmental and economic trade-offs of economic development and natural
conservation will be important for the success of this transformation. To date, however, successful
governance of marine fisheries remains elusive. In a recent article, Colloca and co-authors (2017) point
to “a worrisome picture where the effect of poorly regulated fisheries, in combination with the ongoing
climate forcing and the rapid expansion of non-indigenous species are rapidly changing the structure
and functioning of the ecosystem”, and add that “the management system implemented in the region
appears too slow and probably inadequate to protect biodiversity and to secure fisheries resources for
future generations”. Indeed, across the European Union, the continued misalignment of short-term
political objectives for jobs and revenue maximization and the scientific community’s long-term
objectives for the sustainability of marine biodiversity remain issues to be resolved. The practical
implementation of the landing obligation under the Common Fisheries Policy is also an area that will
require close monitoring and active adaption if it is to be successful. While many countries in Central
Asia and the Caucasus are now employing adaptive management and conservation measures in
accordance with FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the region continues to face
challenges caused by significant declines in total fish biomass in recent decades. According to CACFish
(2016) the development of regional education and training programmes as well as a researcher
exchange scheme with countries that have successfully implemented integrated approaches to
fisheries management, are avenues to be explored to reverse the declines.

6.5.4 Resource extracting sectors and manufacturing

6.5.4.1 Policy objectives
Energy. As the focus on economic growth continues worldwide, energy remains a key issue in boosting
production and consumption. Meanwhile, energy choices and policies are directly important for
nature’s contributions to people as they reshape ecological systems and the environment. This
concerns both renewable and non-renewable energy systems which, as Holland and co-authors (2016)
show, have considerable impacts on nature’s contributions to people through extensive infrastructure
and habitat loss and may thus negatively affect terrestrial, marine and freshwater realms. Low carbon
development, energy efficiency and reduction of the impacts of energy are among the policy objectives
in Europe and Central Asia. In addition, the European Union's Renewable Energy Directive sets a
binding target of 20% renewable sources for the entire energy consumption by 2020, and at least 27%
by 2030, in the European Union as a whole. Another binding directive is the 2012 Energy Efficiency
Directive, which sets measures to help the European Union reach its 20% energy efficiency target by
2020. However, in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, all “environmental” targets and guidelines for the
energy sector are largely focused on reducing carbon emissions and do not explicitly address the
degradation of habitats and loss of species and nature’s contributions to people. An extreme example
can be found in Mongolia, where emission reduction targets and other energy and environment
policies focus on supporting large hydropower construction. Although Mongolia falls outside the
boundaries of Europe and Central Asia, such policies may adversely affect rivers of the region and Lake
Baikal World Heritage Site in the Russian Federation.
Mining. Mining is most relevant to terrestrial environments. Fluvial ore mining (placer mining) has
been widespread for several millennia (BRGM, 2001), and marine mining in the deep-sea (ISA, 1999)
and marine shelf (United Nations, 2016) is rapidly expanding. Placer gold mining has had widespread
and severe impacts on several river ecosystems in Eurasia, particularly in Russia, China and Mongolia,
destroying riverine habitats, creating serious pollution and transforming sedimentation processes. This
practice is often uneconomical, bringing marginal financial returns and surviving only because no fines
are charged for environmental degradation in remote wilderness areas (Egidarev & Simonov, 2015).

1019
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Marine mining operations may create sediment suspension which, at large scales, can harm benthic
fauna and flora; and may also change the nutrient balance, causing changes in species assembly ratios.
Auxiliary mining operations are also likely to damage mining sites, thus affecting local natural habitats
(Van Dover et al., 2011). Hence, in relation to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, the
main objective of mining policies and any particular mining activity is often to restrict both direct and
indirect impacts to the site perimeter and to have an a priori rehabilitation programme in place. In
some cases, the aim is to leave as small a footprint as possible, whereas in others a complete change
of landscape may be unavoidable. Although the awareness of the negative impacts of mining is high
among involved actors, and relevant international conventions and agreements are signed by most
countries in Europe and Central Asia, much remains to be done to reduce the negative effects of mining
on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
Manufacturing. Reduction of the impacts of manufacturing on nature’s contributions to people is the
main regulatory policy objective. Sustainable production and consumption as well as a transition
towards a “circular economy” are among the emerging political goals that can contribute to achieving
some of the sustainable development goals. The circular economy concept gains prominence as
resources become scarcer and environmental degradation increases with increasing production and
consumption of goods and services. A circular economy is considered to be a solution that harmonizes
ambitions for economic growth with environmental protection (Lieder & Rashid, 2016). Its origins can
be traced back in the fields of both ecology and economics (Murray et al., 2017). Despite growing
political will to pursue such strategies, it is important to point out that action is still needed. This idea
is clearly expressed in the conclusions of the Council of the European Union on the European Union
action plan for the circular economy (European Union, 2016a). The European Council (2016) recognizes
that a “circular economy offers great potential to achieve sustainable growth and boost the European
Union's competitiveness, create jobs, decrease the European Union's dependency on non-renewable
primary raw materials, achieve resource and energy efficiency and a smaller environmental footprint,
promote locally produced goods, prevent and minimize waste generation, protect nature and natural
capital, strengthen ecological resilience and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the world-wide efforts towards a green economy”.
The Council also states “the importance of developing a system of valuation of natural capital through
appropriate indicators for monitoring economic progress and further developing ecosystem accounts”
(European Council, 2016). Still, there is a need for mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services
and at the same time there are many opportunities to improve the situation (see synthesis Table 6.11).
In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, initial decline in manufacturing after the dissolution of the Soviet
Union significantly reduced pressures on natural resources. However, a challenge the regions face
today is how to address environmental degradation re-emerging with the recovery and fast
development of the sector.

6.5.4.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

Energy. Energy sector management is conducted mainly through national authorities dealing with
energy, environment, climate and natural resources (see also Section 6.4.2 on environmental policies).
Such ministries and their associated committees or agencies are responsible for managing the energy
sector by developing national strategic energy plans, promoting energy efficiency, regulating energy
conservation, developing alternative or renewable energy, and disseminating energy technologies. In
addition, according to the Lisbon Treaty (European Union, 2007c), the European Union energy policy
aims to ensure the functioning of the energy market; to ensure security of energy supply in the Union;
to promote energy efficiency, energy saving, and the development of new and renewable forms of

1020
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

energy; and to promote the interconnection of energy networks (European Parliament, 2017). Article
194 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (European Union, 2016c) lists several
specific energy provisions including energy supply, energy networks, coal and nuclear energy. Last, but
not the least, the Biofuels Directive (Directive 2003/30/EC) aims to promote the use of biofuels or
other renewable fuels for transport. The initial target was to ensure that biofuels and other renewable
fuels are placed on European Union member State markets at a share of a minimum 2% by the year
2005, which was not attained. Later the Directive was replaced by Directive 2009/28/EC, which
introduced a target of 20% by 2020. Such targets, if not coordinated with other policy areas, can easily
lead to conflicts with biodiversity conservation or regulating and non-material contributions of nature
to people (see Box 6.1 and Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.2).
There are various studies on multiple instruments that are utilized in the energy sector. Property and
access rights are defined and responsibility is ensured in most of the region, to the greatest extent in
Western and Central Europe, and developing in the transition economies of Eastern Europe and
Central Asia. Governments can provide financial incentives, including direct payments, tax credits,
payments for environmental services and grants, to different market actors (see synthesis Table 6.11).
Besides, Governments may introduce mandates with sustainability requirements and national
standards for certification. Governments can either recognize the sustainability standards that are
usually developed jointly by various stakeholders or set their own standards and sustainability
requirements. These standards are generally useful as they rely on local circumstances, and answer
local needs and concerns. Finally, capacity building is crucial in enabling the development of a
sustainable energy sector. Such programmes consist of information sharing and dissemination,
education and research, and training. Rossi and Cadoni (2012) stress that several factors, such as the
financial resources available and the administrative and enforcement capacity of the government,
determine the success of these instruments for the bioenergy sector in any country. Similar categories
of policy instruments may apply to other types of energy such as wind and solar power where
sustainability is a concern. An example on Finland’s bioenergy sector is provided by Makkonen and co-
authors (2015), who concentrate on land-use aspects. They show that forest bioenergy, which is an
asset exchanged in the market, is governed with more explicit instruments (such as financing the
tending of young stands, and the energy wood harvesting from young forests) than is carbon
sequestration, whose policies remain relatively abstract, possibly due to the late emergence and high
uncertainty embodied in these markets.
The use of economic instruments, such as energy-related taxes and subsidies, is common in Europe
and Central Asia. Environmental taxes usually cover “energy taxes” according to the definitions of the
OECD, the International Energy Agency and the European Commission, and are defined as “any
compulsory, unrequited payment to general government levied on tax-bases deemed to be of particular
environmental relevance”, where the “tax bases” are comprised of energy products, motor vehicles,
waste, measured or estimated emissions, natural resources, etc. (OECD, 2006b). According to the
OECD statistics, environmentally-related tax revenue as a share of GDP as of 2014 is the highest in
Denmark (4.11%), followed by Slovenia (3.86%), Italy (3.85%), Turkey (3.83%), and Israel (2.97%), and
energy taxes made the most of these tax revenues. In fact, around 70% of all environmentally related
taxes are raised on energy products, including vehicle fuels. However, almost zero effective energy tax
rates per tonne of CO2 can be observed in several countries such as Russia. A study on Turkey found
that the country pays among the most for fuels – especially gasoline and diesel – in the world due to a
special consumption tax. Yet, it is observed that differential taxation of fuels fails to attain
environmentally-friendly aims. In the absence of any viable sources of alternative energy, final
consumers suffer from the very low elasticity of demand for energy sources. Without any provision of
alternative sources of energy, (indirect) taxation itself does not help to reduce the utilization of fossil
fuels, but leaves households and firms stuck in expensive and ecologically unsustainable patterns of
1021
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

consumption and production (Acar et al., 2014). Meanwhile, renewable energy development is
supported via financial incentives such as direct payments, tax credits, feed-in tariffs, in the European
Union, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey (see e.g. Acar et al., 2015; IEA/IRENA, 2016; OECD, 2016b,
respectively).
Substantial fossil fuel subsidies across the whole region, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,
pose major challenges for the environment. According to International Energy Agency statistics,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan were among the major provider
countries of fossil fuels worldwide with the highest shares of such subsidy of GDP in 2015 (15.4%, 9.8%,
2.3%, 1.9%, and 1.8% respectively). Most of these subsidies are wastefully consumed and counter-
productive to energy-efficiency as well as clean energy approaches.
Mining. While marine mining is transboundary by nature and regulated by international policies,
regulations and treaties (ISA, 2002), terrestrial mining is regulated mainly by national policies, which,
in the European Union, are based on European Union directives (Hámor, 2004). Mining and quarrying
are regulated by policies applying to operational actions (BRGM, 2001) and through legislation
regulating various types of waste that are categorized as mining waste (European Community, 1975).
European Union mining operation regulations have developed since the general guidelines of the
75/442/EEC directive and currently new mining permits demand the application of the “best available
technique – integrative pollution prevention and control” (BAT-IPPC) techniques, for mining operations
as well as waste treatment. The choice of best available technique applied for tailings or waste-rock
management depends mainly on an evaluation of three factors, namely cost, environmental
performance and risk of failure (European Commission, 2009b). European Union directives for mining
and quarrying are accordant with international regulations such as US mining laws and Australian laws
of mining (Chambers, 2008).
In Central Asian countries, in general, there is no legal framework for mining regulation, which
addresses its impact on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Moreover, since mining and
quarrying are the major developing industries for most Central Asian countries, the ability to apply
environmental restrictions is limited. In several countries, the lingering effects of Soviet-era hazardous
ores and complex mining persist, such as the release of toxic radioactive mining waste from mining
operations (USAID, 2001). As there is no evident improvement in either national mining regulations or
pollution prevention infrastructures, the negative impact of mining on human environments in
general, and transboundary issues in particular, are visible. Yet, several Central Asian regulative
transboundary strategies for mining waste remediation are being promoted by United Nations-
affiliated NGOs (UNEP, 2012). Moreover, some countries, such as Georgia and Kazakhstan, voluntarily
develop “low emission development strategies” to promote the transition to climate-resilient, low
emission, sustainable development (USAID, 2017) via their mining and energy industries. Hence, there
are many opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity in the mining sector (see synthesis Table 6.11).
In the early 21st century, the governments of China, Mongolia and several Russian provinces assessed
operations of placer gold mining. In north-eastern China, placer gold mining has been fully halted as a
part of comprehensive efforts to preserve and restore large forest ecosystems as well as ecosystem
functions and the services they provide. In Mongolia, a similar logic led to an NGO-induced enactment
in 2009 of a “law to prohibit mining in forests, water protection zones and river sources”, but
implementation has been inconsistent and largely unsuccessful. In Russian Siberia, despite being
presented with overwhelming evidence of extreme harm from the placer gold mining, regional
authorities continue to allow this activity on the premise that it provides local employment. As a result
Russia received an influx of placer gold mining equipment and miner crews from adjacent China, where
this activity is fully prohibited (Simonov et al., 2013).

1022
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Manufacturing. The uptake of ecosystem services by the private sector is a growing trend following
pioneer initiatives such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), that dedicated one
of its major reports to business (TEEB, 2012), and the Ecosystem Valuation Initiative from the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The manufacturing sector is not an exception
to this trend as evidenced below. In the European Union, there has been no consistent sectoral
regulatory framework built upon the concept of ecosystem services or ecosystem services-based
metrics applying directly to the manufacturing sector so far. The European Union Environmental
Liability Directive (European Union, 2004) and the Water Framework Directive (European Community,
2000) are perhaps two of the most prominent examples of regulatory instruments applying to the
manufacturing sector. Such directives can rapidly evolve into an explicit recognition of the ecosystem
services concept and ecosystem services-based metrics, once considering their current wording,
scope, and objectives. Despite this apparent absence of regulatory frameworks, it is important to recall
that the European Union’s environmental legislation is complemented by a variety of other non-
binding policy instruments such as strategies, programmes, and action plans to address the wider use
of terrestrial and marine resources. In this regard, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (European
Commission, 2011a) is an important step towards mainstreaming the concept of ecosystem services
and associated metrics into different policies in the short term (Matzdorf & Meyer, 2014), including
those regulating the manufacturing sector. The private sector is encouraged to analyze the impacts,
dependencies, opportunities and risks of individual sectors as they relate to biodiversity and ecosystem
services (CBD, 2012; X1/7 – Business and biodiversity).
While emerging regulatory frameworks and policy context are motivating the private sector’s interest
in nature’s contributions to people, other factors are shaping this new corporate management
paradigm, regardless of the sectors of economic activity. As pointed out by the TEEB-initiative (TEEB,
2012, p. 29), “the idea that biodiversity and ecosystem services have economic value is scarcely
reflected in the conventional measures used to assess and report on company performance, and to
weigh alternative business opportunities and risks. As a result, business decisions are made based on a
partial understanding of environmental costs and benefits”. Hence, the new paradigm aims to
counteract business-as-usual corporate decision-making. Business activities may give rise to
externalities regarding ecosystems and their services and their internalization in product value calls for
different policy instruments ranging from voluntary to mandatory. The World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, while recognizing that all business activities not only depend on, but also
affect, nature’s contributions to people, declares that corporate strategy should face this proactively
and integrate the risks and opportunities arising from the interdependence in strategy and
management goals (see Table 6.10 for an overview of risks and opportunities).
Circular economy practice is gaining political support in many regions including the European Union.
In December 2014, the European Parliament adopted the communication from the European
Commission, “Towards a Circular Economy: a zero-waste programme for Europe” (European
Commission, 2014c). This communication and the associated legislative package are related to the
broad context of the European Union’s 2020 strategy, “a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive
growth” (European Commission, 2010).
To provide incentives for the sustainable use of natural resources in manufacturing, various legal and
economic instruments have been applied. For instance, in Uzbekistan, licensing, permissions, export
and import certification, and quotas have been introduced and national systems of assessment,
monitoring, and environmental audit developed, to assess economic activities, which potentially have
environmental impact. Environmental insurance, preferential taxation and eco-labelling systems are
planned within the context of the Batumi Initiative on Green Economy (BIG-E) (Government of
Uzbekistan, 2017). Similarly, the national biodiversity strategy and action plan of Russia (CBD, 2016c)

1023
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

recognizes the importance of nature’s contributions to people (Russian Academy of Sciences, 2001).
However, biodiversity is mainly perceived from the consumption perspective (i.e. as a source of
marketed products such as timber and fish) in this report, whereas the diverse values of ecosystems
are not taken into account. Hence, there are many opportunities for policymakers to improve the
situation (see synthesis Table 6.11).

6.5.4.3 Constraints and opportunities

Energy. Despite the importance of the energy sector, it is lacking coordination and regulation and, as
such, it is considered inefficient. According to Florini & Sovacool (2009), there are “enormous gaps in
the international system's capacity to manage energy commodities, address their externalities, and
ensure a successful transition over time to low-carbon sources”. The energy sector both at the national
and the international level is thus governed in a piecemeal fashion, mostly through ad-hoc responses,
involving a number of actors and creating an incoherent policy landscape of uncoordinated efforts
(Dubash & Florini, 2011; Filatova, 2014; Florini, 2011; Florini & Dubash, 2011; Florini & Sovacool, 2009).
Due to the extraordinary importance of energy transition and the tipping points in relation to climate
change, there are, however, numerous examples of global or regional efforts to improve the
governance of energy and make it more secure, affordable and sustainable, such as the European
Union’s Energy Union.
There are also constraints regarding the use of widely-established energy policies and policy
instruments. As reviewed and demonstrated in Chapters 3 and 4, all known renewable energy sources
can have consequences for biodiversity and animal migration. For aquatic and semi-aquatic fauna,
hydropower presents by far the greatest array of problems in terms of diversity and severity of impacts
(CMS, 2011, 2014). Environmental policy of the largest Russian hydropower company Rushydro states
that further development of the sector is constrained primarily by the fact that most suitable dam
locations are in wilderness areas that are known as key habitats for endangered species (PAO
Rushydro, 2016). Oil, gas and coal extraction or exploration in many parts of Europe and Central Asia
(e.g. Germany, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan) as well as extraction of uranium and other minerals
(e.g. Kazakhstan) lead to biodiversity losses. Apart from the conventional sources of energy, mainly
consisting of fossil fuels, hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) also puts pressure on the environment and
ecosystems causing potential water and soil contamination from surface leaks or from improperly
designed well-casing, spills of improperly treated water, and increased competition for water usage
(UNEP, 2012).
Initiatives like “green economy” in Kazakhstan target clean and renewable energy development as well
as water conservation; however, they embody the risk of paying more attention to energy supply and
less to biodiversity. It is axiomatic that, even if an energy source is generally clean, it may still have
negative implications for nature’s contributions to people arising from the size or construction of
power plants, the location of wind turbines on bird migration routes, the location of solar panels in
agricultural land, hydropower impacts on river ecosystems, and stream restoration impacts on
ecosystem functioning. Hastik and co-authors (2015) specifically focus on renewable energy policy in
the Alpine region. As mountains are rich in biodiversity and provide scenic landscapes, they contribute
to high non-anthropocentric and cultural value. Attempts to increase renewable energy development
in these mountains creates concerns about preservation of these values and gives rise to land-use
conflicts.
Substantial fossil fuel subsidies in Europe and Central Asia are another major constraint. It is significant
that G20 leaders committed to “rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel
subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption” in 2009 (G20 Information Centre, 2009) and this
1024
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

engagement was later endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. Currently the topic
of fossil fuel subsidies is gaining momentum in a post-Rio+20 context. The recommendation to
gradually phase out fossil fuel subsidies has ranked as one of the most highly supported
recommendations (66% of support) among the Rio Dialogues and Rio Votes processes (see:
http://vote.riodialogues.org/results2.html#4). The reform of environmentally harmful subsidies is also
part of the European Union’s 2020 strategy.
Low carbon transition entailing a switch towards cleaner fuels, renewable energies or cleaner
technologies can create new opportunities in terms of reduced biodiversity impact and greenhouse
gas emissions. The shift towards zero-emission energy production offers additional economic benefits.
Mining. The key issues that are addressed for the prevention of mining waste’s negative environmental
impact consist of tailings or waste-rock that often contain hazardous chemical compounds, leachate
generation over long periods of time and acidity effects. The collapse of any type of mining facility can
have short-term and long-term effects such as flooding, blanketing or suffocating, crushing, cut-off of
infrastructure, poisoning in the form of metal accumulation in plants and animals, contamination of
soil, and finally direct poisoning of people or animal life. In each case, adverse environmental impacts
need to be kept to a minimum.
The dynamic nature of site manipulation during the excavation process prevents meticulous
rehabilitation planning because, once mining operations have ended, the restoration procedure is
subjected to the regulatory leverage on the perimeter as well as financing limitations. The absence of
effective monitoring procedures is another hindrance to the prevention of negative impacts of mining
operations on nature’s contributions to people.
In principle, mining site rehabilitation and aftercare, once an operation ends, should strive to complete
rehabilitation of the site. In the European Union, at least for the past few decades, plans for closure
and site clean-up have been part of permitting to use a site, right from the planning stage onwards,
and should therefore have undergone regular updating with every change in the operation and in
negotiations with stakeholders. The concept of “design for closure” implies that the closure of a site is
planned in the feasibility study of a new mining site and is updated during the mine’s life cycle
(European Commission, 2009b). If carefully planned, mineral extraction can positively contribute to
biodiversity conservation through creation of wildlife habitats during restoration (see Chapter 4,
Section 4.4.4.1).
Energy and mining activities and their policies may have adverse effects on indigenous populations
(e.g. in the Russian Federation, Fennoscandinavia and Greenland - Koivurova, 2014). For instance,
Lavrillier (Lavrillier, 2013, p. 263-264) notes that the nomadic and settled Evenk and Even Siberian
people face pollution from local mining companies, construction of dams, roads, railways and
pipelines, coal power plants and other exploitation of natural resources, which bear negative impacts
on the immediate natural environment of the hunters, herders and fishermen. The United Nations
special rapporteur on indigenous issues and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs have
repeatedly monitored how the indigenous peoples in Fennoscandinavia are affected by extractive
industries. Consequently, they have urged countries to ratify the International Labour Organization’s
Convention No. 169, and to implement the “free prior and informed consent”, i.e. the principle that a
community has the right to give or withhold its consent to proposed projects that may affect the lands
they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use (Rohr, 2014). Norway is the first country to ratify ILO
169 (in 1990) and to implement a consultation procedure with the Sami parliament. Besides, there is
an interesting governance trend emerging within the mining sector where local actors start to play an
important role in governance. According to Prno and Slocombe (2012) traditional governance modes
of mining are no longer sufficient for these actors. The demand for a greater share of income and

1025
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

participation has urged mining companies (e.g. in Norway, Finland, and Sweden) to gain a “social
license to operate” from local communities to avoid conflicts (Koivurova et al., 2015).
Manufacturing. Table 6.10 presents a compilation of business-related risks and opportunities that are
relevant for the manufacturing sector as well as businesses from other sectors. Risks and opportunities
are classified according to five business dimensions: operational, regulatory and legal, reputational,
market and product, and financing. It identifies the actions, mechanisms or institutional arrangements
in place for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, and governance that companies can
undertake voluntarily. A growing number of examples illustrate how risks and opportunities are
addressed and integrated in business strategies to comply with the emerging regulatory frameworks.
Manufacturing industries are classified in divisions 10-33 of the International Standard Industrial
Classification of economic activities (UNSTATS, 2017). Given the diversity of industries that integrate
such a categorization, it is hard to imagine one division that does not depend on or affects nature’s
contributions to people. More often, both the impacts and dependencies are observed at different
stages of supply chains ranging from resource extraction to components manufacture, transportation,
packaging, use, disposal, and recycling. The use of life cycle analysis is hence being pointed out as a
means to trace and identify dependencies and impacts of the manufacturing sector on biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people in the academic sphere (e.g., Adams et al., 2015; Bruel et al., 2016;
Gopalakrishnan et al., 2016; Teillard et al., 2016); in corporate practice or guidelines scoping (see e.g.,
beverage sector - Aukema & Vigerstol, 2012; the automotive sector - ten Have et al., 2016; and
chemical sector - Cefic, 2013). Despite the academic discussion on how to better integrate biodiversity
and ecosystem services in life cycle analysis (see the references above), there is a growing recognition
that life cycle thinking can play an important role in incorporating nature’s contributions to people in
corporate strategy. Other examples showing this life cycle system thinking in the manufacturing sector,
while not necessarily explicitly adopting a life cycle thinking-based methodology, are provided in Aiama
et al. (2016) and Kering (2015), covering different segments of the manufacturing sector.
Table 6.10: Business-related risks and opportunities in relation to biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. Source: Adapted from World Resources Institute, Meridian Institute, World
Business Council for Sustainable Development (Hanson et al., 2012). Risks and opportunities are not
exhaustive. The selection presented aims at providing insight on mechanisms to take action (on a
voluntary basis).

Business dimensions Risks Opportunities Corporate action

The risks and Higher costs for Identify the source of To design payment for
opportunities relate to freshwater due to water scarcity or quality ecosystem services
the day-to-day scarcity or water depletion and set up schemes.
Operational
activities, expenditures, quality. agreements to
and processes of the counteract the situation
company. (water infiltration and
depuration).
The risks and Permit or license In some situations, To develop
opportunities relate to suspension. restoring or protecting conservation banks.
Regulatory the laws, government an ecosystem can help a
& policies, and court business make the case
legal actions that can affect to regulators that it
corporate performance. should be allowed to
expand activities
elsewhere.
The risks and Damage to brand or Improve or differentiate Product certification
opportunities relate to image due to direct or brand. (price premium); select
Reputational
the company’s brand, indirect environmental suppliers based on
image, or relationship impact. transparency.
with customers, the

1026
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

general public, and

other stakeholders.

The risks and Changes in private Markets for certified Product certification
opportunities relate to sector customer products. (price premium).
product and service preferences.
Market & Entrance fees for
offerings, customer
product owned assets
preferences, and other
(recreational
market factors that can
opportunities).
affect corporate
performance.
The risks and A business may face a Managers may find Environmental and
opportunities relate to higher cost of capital or some lenders and social impacts
the cost and availability more rigorous lending socially responsible disclosure.
of capital from requirements as the investment funds
Financing
investors. financial sector becoming more
becomes more attuned interested in investing
to the implications of in their companies.
ecosystem degradation
for borrowers or clients.

6.5.4.4 Summary
Low carbon development, energy efficiency, sustainable production and consumption, circular
economy, and reduction of the impacts of the resource extracting sectors, such as energy and mining,
as well as manufacturing, are among the policy objectives in Europe and Central Asia. Sectoral policies
that merely target supply, security and growth usually come at the expense of biodiversity and
ecosystem services, as these policies lack sufficient integration and awareness and do not reflect the
real changes in diverse values. This is easily demonstrated by the array of conflicting development
policy goals and sectoral policies. An integrated approach is necessary for external cost evaluation for
each sector and the possible trade-offs. Evaluation of the true cost of any sectoral activity needs to
consider social, health, and environmental costs together with production costs. To better govern
nature’s contributions to people in relation to the policies of the resource extracting sectors and
manufacturing requires a well-structured assessment of the effects of these sectors on biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people in different realms. As natural resources become increasingly
scarce, environmental regulations become stricter and public awareness grows regarding the impacts
of the extractive sectors, a new management paradigm has emerged, which focuses on managing risks
and opportunities related to nature’s contributions to people (depletion and conservation,
respectively). Governance modes in place are diverse and reflect both top-down and bottom-up
approaches. The same holds for policy instruments that can range from voluntary agreements (e.g.
payment schemes) to command and control approaches. There is, nevertheless, a long way to go
towards the aim of mainstreaming nature’s contributions to people into corporate management and
public policy.
Impacts from extractive sectors can be managed much better when decisions are made on a strategic
planning level and not postponed until after an investor selects a certain project. Strategic
environmental assessment presents a particularly promising tool for resolving conflict between these
sectors and nature’s contributions to people (see Box 6.9, Section 6.6.1). The assessments aim to find
the best available technology alternative to satisfy certain societal needs. Recent policy advice
developed by the Netherlands Commission on Environmental Assessment (NCEA, 2016) argues that
decision-makers do not take an integral systems perspective through a strategic planning phase.
Strategic environmental assessment may be the most promising way to decrease impacts through
analysis of available resources for alternative options and the comparison of potential development
1027
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

outcomes (Simonov et al., 2015). Apparently, there are many options for policymakers to improve the
situation by raising awareness, defining clear objectives, and designing instruments as well as policies
(see synthesis Table 6.11).

6.5.5 Services sector

6.5.5.1 Policy objectives
A service economy is considered a mature economy, having evolved from a phase of heavy reliance on
natural resources, with negative local environmental impacts (Fischer-Kowalski et al., 2011; Giljum et
al., 2005). Despite dematerialization of the economy and decoupling GDP growth from environmental
impact proving to be highly unfeasible in absolute terms (e.g., Pulselli et al., 2015; Ward et al., 2016),
there is no doubt that managing for the services sector creates opportunities for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity as well as the continued provision of nature’s contributions to people.
Trade-offs between the economy and the environment within a service economy need to be resolved
as far as possible by decision-making and policies both within the private and the public spheres.
Health and education are service areas whose implementation is crucial for the realization of universal
human rights. For this reason, accessible health and education have priority with respect to economic
interests and this priority can be safeguarded by policy. In Europe and Central Asia, the vast majority
of countries explicitly addresses health-related benefits and risks in their national biodiversity
strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and national reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD, 2016c) (see Figure 6.12 and Chapter 2, supporting material Appendix 2.8).
Degraded ecosystems can jeopardize people´s health, while biodiversity and ecosystem services play
a crucial role in supporting a good health status (WHO & CBD, 2015). Social health and well-being are
also related to specific ecosystem services integrated into cultural motifs and practices, which are
linked to concepts of sense of place, sense of identity, or sense of community. Policy objectives can be
defined to regulate management of nature’s contributions to people by investigating and quantifying
their effects towards achieving health-related Sustainable Development Goals (i.e. Goal 3 (good health
and well-being), and Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation), among others) and related targets. At the
local scale, planning for urban green infrastructure and parks is more effective when coordinated with
health policies and accounting for ecosystem services (Hornberg et al., 2016; Lõhmus & Balbus, 2015).
Improving education, capacity building and access to research and training ensures that people are
becoming more aware of the importance of nature’s contributions and more information is available
for environmental management (see synthesis Table 6.11). Policy objectives to 2030 can be defined
according to the Sustainable Development Goals framework, in particular Goal 4 (quality education)
and its targets. Good health and quality education are conditions required to generate and diffuse
sustainable behaviours that will ultimately be translated into other service areas such as sustainable
tourism.

1028
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Most transport policies have a specific focus on global climate regulation and air pollution. A
mandatory greenhouse gas reduction regime for international shipping was adopted by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO, 2011). The current European Commission roadmap on
transport, for example, follows a list of 40 initiatives, some of which have a direct effect on the
environmental impacts of transport. In particular, key goals by 2050 include: a 60% cut in transport
carbon emissions; 40% use of low carbon fuels in aviation; a 40% cut in shipping emissions; zero
conventionally-fuelled cars in cities; and a 50% shift of medium distance intercity passenger and freight
journeys from road to rail and waterborne transport (European Commission, 2011c). Sustainable
policies to reduce transport activity are usually local and diverse.
Finance is also a crucial service sector essential for achieving sustainable development. As highlighted
by the overarching Goal 17 on “partnership for the goals”, “urgent action is needed to mobilize, redirect
and unlock the transformative power of trillions of dollars of private resources to deliver on sustainable
development objectives”.

1029
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.5.5.2 Governance modes and policy instruments

The Convention on Biological Diversity reported, together with the World Health Organization, on the
state of knowledge on the interlinkages between biodiversity and human health (WHO & CBD, 2015),
highlighting the emergence of vector-borne diseases in Europe and Central Asia and other temperate
areas. Flexible “integrated vector management” of vector-borne diseases has already been successful
in developing countries and such successful approaches can be taken as good examples by
policymakers in Europe and Central Asia. Integrated vector management is based on the premise that
effective control requires the collaboration of health, environment, and development institutions and
community participation rather than exclusive action by the health sector. Integrated vector
management is rarely achievable through small-scale intervention projects from actors outside local
communities. Effective governance and policy instruments in this sense link to international initiatives
and involve a strong participation of local communities (WHO & CBD, 2015). In developed countries,
health concerns are market drivers to consider when designing relevant policy instruments. Different
degrees of implementation of instruments and policy mixes can be observed in the subregions of
Europe and Central Asia (see synthesis Table 6.11).
The role of consumer education is evident in the manifold eco-labelling and environmental
certification schemes that were created through a bottom-up process of public concern about
biodiversity and ecosystem services loss (e.g. the Forest Stewardship Council – FSC; the Marine
Stewardship Council – MSC; Rainforest Alliance and others). Eco-labelling and certification schemes
are well implemented in the European subregions (synthesis Table 6.11). Environmental certification
is also a highly effective tool in promoting sustainable ecotourism. Sustainable tourism, both in
environmental and economic terms, is achievable if regulators favour the access to biodiversity and
other environmental resources exclusively to businesses with track record of good environmental
stewardship (TEEB, 2012). The tourism sector is developing tools to evaluate specific risks associated
with climate change, water pollution, and unsustainable tourism practices (Patterson et al., 2007), and
to adapt to these risks. Investments by public-private partnerships of tourism companies, governments
and NGOs to establishing and maintaining natural parks can be highly beneficial for biodiversity and
ecosystem services, supporting businesses and livelihoods (TEEB, 2012). Instead of viewing nature
conservation and the mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectoral policies as something for which we
have to sacrifice our well-being, perceiving nature as natural capital can help in the business world to
better consider it as one of society's important assets (Liu et al., 2010). This is also true for retailers
and consumers, with an increasing share of the latter looking for certified products.
The European Union recognizes that social and environmental costs of transport are not fully borne by
transport users in European Union member States. Without policy intervention, transport users are
faced with incentives that may lead to uninformed travel decisions. The implementation of market-
based instruments to internalize the external costs of transport could inform efficient transport
pricing. This has been advocated by a series of European Commission policy documents, such as the
2011 White Paper on Transport, and the technical support study for policy analysis “IMPACT”: a
summary of the existing scientific and practitioner’s knowledge on “internalization measures and
policies for all external cost of transport” (Korzhenevych et al., 2014). If decision-makers would like to
improve the situation by promoting mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people, methodological guides to raise customers’ awareness of CO2 emission levels are effective tools
that governments can provide and the business sector can implement (synthesis Table 6.11). One such
example is a guide provided by the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy
(Government of France, 2012) and implemented by the French National Rail Company SNCF; another
is the carbon offset scheme implemented by the Portuguese National Airline Company TAP (Act Eco).
Market-based and financial instruments, such as carbon cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes, are

1030
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

effective at incentivizing simultaneously different initiatives towards reducing environmental impacts

of the transport sector (Flachsland et al., 2011). Fuel taxes generate higher fuel prices that stimulate
the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles, reducing travelled distances, vehicle ownership and
per capita fuel expenditures (Goodwin et al., 2004; Litman, 2013; IPCC, 2014).
From the 1970s onwards, infrastructure development became increasingly unbundled through forms
of corporatization or privatization, spurring fragmentation and spatial inequality in many countries
(UN-HABITAT, 2009). Landscape fragmentation caused by land-use change is an important driver with
negative consequences for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Section 3.3.2; Sections
4.5 and 4.6). Transport planning and respective infrastructure development as an effect of meeting
projected transport demand has proved to be unsustainable and detrimental for biodiversity and the
environment (Banister et al., 2011; Saleh & Sammer, 2009). More effective policies have to be based
on providing high quality public transport and coordinating various land uses and transport planning.
Regarding transport planning, effective regulatory instruments are based on speed limit control (that
can generate a 15% reduction in daily fuel consumption) (IEA, 2014; IPCC, 2014), carpool and
telecommuting, car free days and efficient and clean cars. Fuel economy (or CO2 equivalent) standards
are in force in most European and Central Asian countries. These standards are considered as an
effective policy (as part of a policy mix). Their effectiveness mainly depends on their structure and level
of stringency. The effective performance of single policy instruments is highly context dependent
(Santos et al., 2010a, 2010b). Feasible and applicable policy options depend on local history and social
culture, and have equity implications (IPCC, 2014). Voluntary agreements can also be effective such as
the one implemented in 2013 by the International Maritime Organization, making the “ship energy
efficiency management plan” a mandatory measure for all ships (IMO, 2011). Voluntary agreements
are well implemented in Western Europe while under development or started in the other subregions
of Europe and Central Asia (synthesis Table 6.11). Effective policy intervention can thus reduce
transport activity growth and fossil fuel carbon intensity. Furthermore, it generates diverse co-benefits
such as improving biodiversity, urban living, energy security, and enhancing nature contributions to
people and environmental quality. Despite the fact that energy efficiency improvements and a shift to
hybrid vehicles are successful and important measures, reduction of overall transport activity is
essential to avoid rebound effects (Goodwin, 2012; IEA, 2014; Meyer et al., 2012; Millard-Ball &
Schipper, 2011; IPCC, 2014; Schipper, 2011).
The finance sector increasingly responds to the wishes of a new group of investors that are willing to
forego a fraction of their financial returns in exchange for positive social and environmental dividends.
Novel tools and approaches such as green bonds, sustainability stock indexes or novel interpretations
of pension funds’ fiduciary duties to include social and environmental responsibilities are being used
to direct funds away from socially and environmentally damaging projects, towards projects that are
more sustainable (Paranque & Perez, 2016).

6.5.5.3 Constraints and opportunities

Economic activities of the services sector can either damage biodiversity or help to conserve it.
Especially for the services sector, manifold opportunities arise when mainstreaming biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people in decision-making, notwithstanding the fact that biodiversity loss
and ecosystem degradation are accompanied by many constraints (synthesis Table 6.11, and text
below).
Biodiversity loss constrains businesses that seek to exploit medicinal and other properties of wild
plants and animals (e.g. in the health sector) with repercussions on society at large. In a world of
declining biodiversity, the public and private health sectors, including biotechnology development,
1031
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

need to plan for increased raw material costs that will bring along increasing health spending and
spread of infectious diseases, exacerbated by poor water quality, degraded biodiversity and ecosystem
services (TEEB, 2012). Therefore, in view of these developments, the health sector is important in
mainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services into decision-making.
Climate change and water body pollution are strong drivers altering the availability of nature’s
contributions to people upon which the service sector relies. For example, the tourism sector is
especially affected by the loss of natural assets such as coral reefs (TEEB, 2009a). There is a high risk,
mainly related to land degradation, of losing ecotourism opportunities, recreational options, specific
knowledge of managing certain ecosystems, and places that are spiritually important. Land-use
regulations and policies can help preserving future options as well as cultural and heritage values
related to the tourism sector (Scott et al., 2016).
Ultimately, the demand for ecosystem services is influenced by evolving consumer preferences and
increasing consumers concerns about the environment (TEEB, 2012). An example is the decreasing
acceptance of fur clothing in Europe and North America, with knock-on effects on both hunting and
farming of animals for their fur (TEEB, 2012). Increasing awareness is influencing purchasing behaviour:
consumers are less willing to buy products from companies that disregard ethical sourcing practices
and might be willing to pay more to compensate for negative impacts of consumption on biodiversity
and ecosystem services.
The field of sustainable finance is still in its infancy, and faces some risks, such as greenwashing
attempts. On the one hand, the financial sector heavily impacts nature and nature´s contributions to
people in cases where lenders or investors make their money available for projects that generate
financial returns at the expense of social or environmental capital. On the other hand, the importance
of the financial sector as a key player for moving towards sustainability is probably underappreciated,
as the finance sector has the means to mobilize resources supporting the transition to sustainability
when appropriately designed and implemented.

6.5.5.4 Summary
The services sector is a crucial sector for the realization of sustainable development pathways. Health,
education, capacity-building and research are strong motivators for raising awareness of the
importance of nature and nature’s contributions to people for a good quality of life. While tourism,
transport and finance continue to exert negative pressure on nature in many occasions, there are also
many developments that can render these sectors more sustainable. Therefore, mainstreaming
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into decision-making and policymaking is especially
important in these areas, calling for the most suitable instruments as part of the overall policy mix.

6.6 Mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

6.6.1 Three key steps of mainstreaming

Mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into national sectoral and cross-
sectoral strategies, policies, plans and programmes at various spatial and temporal scales is a
recognized and established objective in biodiversity policies (CBD, 2016a; European Commission,
2011a), yet lacks sufficient implementation in other sectors affecting nature. Given that at most 20%
of landscapes and seascapes will be protected if the Aichi Biodiversity Targets are achieved, our
assessment shows that mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into private
and public decision-making is one of the most important future tasks with regard to the remaining 80%
1032
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(UNEP & UNECE, 2016). While many countries in Europe and Central Asia have, at least partially,
integrated the concepts of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into key policy documents
and strategies, the uptake of these concepts, for example through concrete policy instruments, is
rather weak (see Sections 6.3-6.5). Hence, there is room for improvement to protect nature effectively
from the negative impacts of sectoral policies or private activities, such as consumption and
production, and to support actively the integration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
in decision-making and policymaking. The identified gaps between current practice and behavioural
and policy changes needed to achieve future goals imply that existing policies and strategies are
underperforming in terms of achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the Sustainable Development
Goals.
This becomes even more obvious when considering future visions. In Chapter 5, four major pathways
towards sustainable development have been identified (Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2). Mainstreaming by
means of the three key steps listed below plays an important role in all four of these narratives. Most
prominent across them is the use of awareness-raising tools, such as education and participation
(Section 6.6.3). Further, a range of approaches for policy integration such as planning and
environmental impact assessment is identified (Section 6.6.4). Concerning policy instruments,
preferences for instrument categories differ across the mentioned narratives. While rights-based
instruments and customary norms are neglected in most studies, legal, economic or social instruments
are frequently applied and combined in policy mixes (Section 6.6.5). When comparing the current
integration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into sector policies (see Sections 6.4-
6.5) and potential future governance options aiming at sustainability transitions (Chapter 5, Section
5.5.2), there is a clear gap between the state of the art and desired pathways. However, it also means
that there are many opportunities to close the gap by promoting more effective, efficient and
equitable policies, where mainstreaming can play a prominent role.
Given the importance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people for human well-being and a
good quality of life our assessment provides opportunities to increase mainstreaming efforts by
considering three key steps. The first step is raising awareness of human dependence on natural
resources and nature’s contributions to people (incl. provisioning of information, enhancing capacity
building and strengthening participation). The second is defining policy objectives related to the
ecological, economic and socio-cultural requirements for achieving a sustainable living. The third is
designing instruments and policy mixes to support the implementation of mainstreaming of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in public and private decision-making able to achieve
the satisfaction of human needs (see Figure 6.13). After presenting a synthesis of the assessment of
mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people across sectors in Europe and Central
Asia, the remaining part of the chapter is structured based on these three steps.

1033
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.6.2 Synthesis of the current state of mainstreaming in different sectors

Table 6.11 shows the current state of policy options and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia subregions. It synthesizes the sector
analyses in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 and identifies promising options and opportunities across the different
sectors. They are based on available literature in combination with expert judgements. Enhancing
research and improving access to literature especially from Eastern European and Central Asian
countries would allow for a more comprehensive assessment.

Table 6.11: Policy options and opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity and 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 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.

1034
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1035
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1036
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Some general conclusions can be drawn from the synthesis. While only a few options are effectively
implemented, there is ample room for using opportunities along all three key steps and in all sectors.
Specifically in the agricultural, conservation and services sectors, there are opportunities to increase
the mainstreaming efforts in most subregions. While legal and regulatory instruments are
implemented quite frequently, there are opportunities to enhance the application of other
instruments. Several knowledge gaps exist, therefore, there is a need to further develop and deepen
the assessment to remedy these gaps in the future. For more specific results regarding the three steps,
see the detailed sector analyses in previous sections.
The findings in Table 6.11 have similar conclusions to the fourth Global Biodiversity Outlook (CBD,
2014), which summarizes the latest data on the status and trends of biodiversity and draws conclusions
relevant to the further implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity by assessing the
progress towards meeting the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Public awareness concerning the
importance of biodiversity and ecosystem services seems to be increasing (Target 1). Further, progress
has been made in integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in planning processes and national
accounting (Target 2). However, there are still policy instruments in place that negatively affect the
environment (Target 3), and even if resources are used more efficiently, it is unlikely that current
production and consumption patterns are sustainable (Target 4). Therefore, mainstreaming
biodiversity and ecosystem services across governments, society and economic sectors aims to address
the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and environmental pressure. A crucial prerequisite – besides
taking indigenous, local and scientific knowledge into account (Targets 18, 19) – is the implementation
of standards concerning terminology, methods, data and reporting (Polasky et al., 2015). National
biodiversity strategies and action plans (Target 17) are important steps towards realizing the aims of
the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 at the national level, and to date most of the countries in
Europe and Central Asia have compiled these plans. Integrating policy mixes is needed to address the
holistic nature of socio-ecological systems. To be successful their implementation requires
participatory planning, capacity building as well as mobilizing financial resources (Target 20). Based on
the presented aspects current policies and initiatives can be assessed concerning their potential to
reduce environmental pressures, and to capture the opportunities provided by biodiversity and
ecosystem services, with the aim of enhancing benefits to all (Target 16). In a similar vein to the Global
Biodiversity Outlook 4, this assessment shows that there are many options and opportunities for
improvements. The following sections elaborate on the potential to accelerate progress in terms of
mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people through various options and
opportunities related to the three key steps of mainstreaming.

6.6.3 Raising awareness, providing information and strengthening participation

In the last decade substantial progress has been made in awareness raising based on (i) increasing
knowledge in various scientific disciplines, (ii) disseminating results, and (iii) acknowledging their
importance by governments, corporations and civil society (Kareiva et al., 2015; Schröter et al., 2014).
Table 6.11 shows that awareness raising is implemented or under development in several sectors.
However, not all available options are applied and there is scope for improvement, especially in
Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Making the diverse values of nature’s contributions to people visible,
for example through accounting and valuation of ecosystem services, showing trade-offs and tipping
points, as well as demonstrating the impact of changing production and consumption patterns are
promising opportunities to raise public awareness, participation and transparency in the decision-
making process. Communication, capacity building and public participation allow individuals,

1037
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

communities, firms, and governments to speak the same language and to develop a common
understanding of the environmental problems to be solved.

6.6.3.1 Accounting, monitoring, footprints

Making the diverse values of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people visible is a crucial
prerequisite for mainstreaming. However, current economic indicators, such as GDP, are not able to
reflect all dimensions of nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life (Dasgupta, 2009;
Schleyer et al., 2015). Therefore, further options are needed to measure national welfare and
sustainable development. Moving towards “measuring what we manage” will facilitate the comparison
between sectors as well as interaction and coordination among them (TEEB, 2009b).
In an attempt to take natural capital and the environment explicitly into account, the “System of
Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) 2012-Central Framework” was developed as the first
international standard for environmental-economic accounting (United Nations, 2014). However, the
SEEA still falls short of providing actual total economic values. Besides, major current challenges in
environmental-economic accounting necessitate improvement of the database and development and
employment of extensive modelling to link services to the status of ecosystems and to the
beneficiaries.
As a parallel initiative to the SEEA, the “Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services”
partnership (WAVES) aims to ensure that “natural resources are mainstreamed into development
planning and national economic accounts” by developing an ecosystem service accounting
methodology, establishing a “global platform for training and knowledge sharing” of stakeholders, and
building international consensus concerning natural capital accounting (WAVES, 2015, p. 18). These
initiatives point to moving beyond measuring economic activity and growth towards a broader concept
of social welfare comprising multiple dimensions and perspectives (Fleurbaey, 2009). Though
challenging, the opportunity exists to develop such a “comprehensive methodological approach in
which biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary value domains can be explicitly considered and
integrated into decision making processes” (Martín-López et al., 2014, p. 220). Promising attempts to
develop experimental statistics along these lines include the UK freshwater ecosystem assets and
services accounts by Khan & Din (2015).
Griggs and co-authors (2013, p. 306) suggest redefining the term sustainability as development that
meets the present needs while “safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of
current and future generations depends”. A major challenge, when applying this definition to
policymaking, is how to decide on an appropriate set of indicators of nature’s contributions to people.
To fulfil Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy on maintaining ecosystems and their services, Action
5 requires member States to map and assess the state and economic value of ecosystems and
ecosystem services and to promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting
systems at European Union and national level by 2020 (European Commission, 2011a). Achieving this
target requires the adaptation of multiple, biophysical and economic indicators relevant for each
context (Stiglitz et al., 2009). Here, ecosystem service standards that “define terminology, acceptable
data and methods, and reporting requirements” are a crucial prerequisite for mainstreaming
ecosystem services into public and private sectors (Polasky et al., 2015, p. 7356). Integrating the spatial
dimensions of ecosystem services within decision-making at different scales would raise awareness,
inform about the human dependence on diverse natural resources and enhance the recognition of
their values (UK NEA, 2011).

1038
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

However, a key point of attention is the interaction between environmental accounting and policy.
Jakob & Edenhofer (2015) conclude that, based on current green accounting systems, it is hardly
possible to provide guidance for “real world-policymaking”. They favour the option of a multi-
dimensional concept of “welfare diagnostics”, where policy should focus on establishing “minimum
thresholds” or “guardrails” for critical capital stocks that matter for welfare. Oosterhuis et al. (2016)
name three opportunities to make environmental accounting a more effective tool for policy advice:
(i) to improve coordination between providers and users of environmental accounts and cooperation
with other organizations both collecting and using accounts; (ii) to enhance interpretation, assessment
and policy evaluation based on the accounts, which requires a different set of expertise, including
integrated valuation methods, policy instruments, indicator development and modelling, and that this
role requires dedicated organizations; and (iii) to use multiple channels for presenting environmental
accounts in a policy relevant way. However, for environmental accounting to make a substantial
contribution to mainstreaming, there is an urgent need to develop the ways in which it can effectively
inform policymaking.
Box 6.8: Ecological footprint and interregional flows.

The impact of production and trade on environment, ecosystems, and species has been demonstrated in various
studies (see Chapter 2). The ecological footprint is an important tool which can be disaggregated into diverse
footprints, e.g. for imports, exports and domestic production. This de-composition can be useful for policymakers
in understanding the regional and international trade impact. Andersson & Lindroth (2001) list four different
ways in which trade may affect ecological footprint: (i) a positive ”allocation effect”, which reduces the ecological
footprint as trade enables specialization of countries on products with higher domestic productivity; (ii) a
negative ”income effect”, which increases the ecological footprint as trade leads to higher domestic income, and
thereby, consumption; (iii) a negative ”rich-country-illusion effect”, which highlights the false impression in rich
countries that their lifestyle is sustainable thanks to the possibility of importing bio- and sink capacity from poorer
countries; and (iv) a negative “terms-of-trade distortion effect”, which hints at the tendency of poorer countries
to exploit natural resources beyond sustainable levels to avoid falling terms-of-trade during boost periods in
world demand.
Lenzen and co-authors (2012) argue that several species are in danger of extinction due to international trade
along complex routes. The authors show evidence that international trade threatens 30% of global species.
Furthermore, the consumption footprint of imported coffee, tea, sugar, textiles, fish and other manufactured
items happens to be much larger abroad than in the country producing the good. Similarly, Aşıcı & Acar (2016)
find that countries tend to relocate their ecological footprint as their income increases. The analysis was carried
out for a panel of 116 countries by employing the production and import components of the ecological footprint
data of the Global Footprint Network for the period 2004-2008. Within the income range of the selected
countries, the import footprint was found to increase with income. Another study found that footprints of, for
example, Turkish imports and exports increased with income during the period 1961–2008 (Acar & Aşıcı, 2017).
This implies that countries tend to export the negative consequences of their consumption through imports
rather than producing the environmentally harmful products domestically.
Weighell (2011) proposes biomass material flow analysis as a framework for policy implementation. His study
shows that the UK’s biomass imports (except from Northern America) supply around 30% of the UK’s overseas
land requirements, thereby leading to important environmental changes in these regions. The recognition of the
original source of biomass helps to design targeted international policies in favour of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. In addition to supply-side concerns, demand-side policies have the potential to alter the
impacts of biomass flows. For instance, a more efficient use of biomass especially through a reduction in waste
along the food chain, can substantially impact national and international biomass demand (Weighell, 2011). As
the material flow analysis helps to identify the imports, exports and domestic extraction of environmental
resources, it is also utilized in relation to sustainable development in Switzerland. The Swiss government's
Sustainable Development Strategy (Swiss Federal Council, 2008) puts forward the Integrated Product Policy as a
means to attain several sustainable development goals. For instance, sustainable material management targeting
the reduction of consumption and environmental damage along with product quality improvements is part of
the Integrated Product Policy.

1039
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 6.8

6.6.3.2 Sustainable consumption and production

Sustainable consumption and production is the result of actions taken by many different actors, from
producers to final consumers (see Figure 6.14). The supply-chain perspective enables a comprehensive
view on production and consumption, and provides information on relevant relations and possible
opportunities for mainstreaming actions. The United Nations Environment Programme’s sustainable
consumption and production clearinghouse shows 149 sustainable consumption and production
initiatives in Europe and Central Asia, many of which contribute to reducing pressures on biodiversity
and ecosystem services as they focus on agri-food, chemicals, mining, waste, building and
construction, energy, manufacturing and water. Several projects bring in the supply-chain perspective
through labelling, value chains and fair trade, and in this way contribute to a global perspective on
sustainable consumption and production (Leadley et al., 2014; SCP Clearinghouse, 2017). Currently
policies seem to focus predominantly on the production side, while consumer-oriented policies are
applied less frequently and mostly limited to information and nudging strategies.

The explicit aim of Sustainable Development Goal 12 is to ensure sustainable consumption and
production patterns, where developed countries should take the lead (United Nations, 2015). For
countries in Europe and Central Asia, this implies contributing their fair share to the global challenge
of staying within safe ecological limits. In evaluating current policies and initiatives a differentiation
can be made between sustainable consumption and production policies which aim (i) at reducing

1040
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

pressures on biodiversity and ecosystem services and (ii) at capturing the opportunities provided by
natural capital and ecosystem services.
Concerning the first aim, options to reduce environmental impact or pressure can be identified by the
so-called IPAT identity (IPCC, 2000): Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology, where affluence
can be approximated by production and consumption. The European Environment Agency (EEA,
2013a) identified three main environmental pressure types: material extraction, greenhouse gas
emissions and air emissions. Main contributors to these impacts are agriculture and food products,
forestry and fibre products, the electricity industry, water services, construction, transportation
services, and basic manufacturing industries such as refinery, chemical products and basic metals; in
the future possibly also bio-energy production. Food and lodging, housing and infrastructure, and
mobility contribute most to the consumers’ part.
Drawing on global environmental assessments (OECD, 2012b; UNEP & UNECE, 2016) five generalized
types of options can be identified along the supply chain to reduce the main negative impacts on
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people:
1. Increase resource efficiency, including circular resource use (production)
2. Enhance sustainable resource production (production)
3. Design products with cradle-to-cradle-approach (production)
4. Promote consumption patterns with less environmental impacts (consumption)
5. Reduce waste at different stages (production & consumption)

These complementary strategies for reducing the impacts of consumption and production seem to fall
within the paradigm of “sustainable growth”, considered an oxymoron by many (Daly & Townsend,
1993). Options for reducing consumption are worked out in Steady-State Economics (Daly, 1996), New
Economics of Prosperity (Jackson, 2009; NEF, 2009; Schor, 2011); and Degrowth (Kallis et al., 2012;
Latouche, 2009) (see Chapter 4).
Sustainable consumption and production policies in Europe and Central Asia have so far focused (i) on
the contribution of the United Nations sustainable consumption and production 10-year framework,
and (ii) on resource efficiency as part of competitiveness and European Union green economy strategy.
However, beyond the European Union biodiversity strategy, there are promising opportunities for
raising awareness of natural capital and nature’s contributions in consumption and production policies
in order to mainstream biodiversity and ecosystem services.

6.6.3.3 Communication, capacity building and public participation

In recent decades, large efforts have been made to raise awareness and to integrate stakeholders and
the wider public into the governance of nature’s contributions to people, for example through public
debate, communication and knowledge sharing as well as public participation, organizational and
individual learning and capacity building. Although these efforts have led to substantial progress, there
are still significant opportunities to further harness the support of a wide range of actors to raise the
awareness of the need for mainstreaming (Korn et al., 2004) (Table 6.11). These opportunities are in
line with Goal 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals, which calls to “revitalize the global
partnership for sustainable development”; and Goal 16, aiming to “provide access to justice for all and
build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels”. Further, they are directly related to
Strategic Goal E of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, namely to “enhance implementation
through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building” (Aichi Biodiversity
Targets 17-20). Communication, capacity building and public participation, while all playing different

1041
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

roles in this endeavour, are intricately linked. For example, public engagement and participation can
facilitate a broader understanding of nature’s contributions to people for all actors involved, but also
lead to greater acceptance, legitimacy and long-term efficiency of the outcome of the process
(Blackstock, 2017; Young et al., 2013). Participation can also help to build the capacity of civil society
to engage in governance processes (Jones-Walters & Çil, 2011; Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, 2005).
However, to make effective use of these opportunities, one needs to know how the concepts of
ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people are understood and used by stakeholders and
the wider public. Essentially, this equates to the very wide-ranging and challenging question of how
people understand their relationship with nature (Flint et al., 2013). Especially the notion of ecosystem
services, as well as cognate notions such as “natural capital” (Costanza & Daly, 1992), bear the inherent
risk of “crowding out” intrinsic ideas of values (Flint et al., 2013; Setten et al., 2012). In addition, as
with other specialist concepts such as biodiversity (Buijs et al., 2008; Fischer & Young, 2007) or climate
change (Fischer et al., 2012a), the population is likely to have a rough understanding of the phenomena
captured, even though it might not be familiar with the exact terminology (Lock & Cole, 2011). The use
of a streamlined terminology might thus unduly simplify or restrict the more complex notions held by
other actors. Such externally-defined frameworks are also prone to obscuring or omitting emotional
and experiential dimensions of understanding nature’s contributions to people (Kassam et al., 2011;
Verma et al., 2015; Williams & Harvey, 2001).
These considerations notwithstanding, a substantial number of studies, usually framed with reference
to specific ecosystems in Western and Central Europe, have assessed people’s awareness of ecosystem
services and perceptions of their relative importance (Agbenyega et al., 2009; Hartel et al., 2014;
López-Santiago et al., 2014; Martín-López et al., 2012; Plieninger et al., 2013). Generally, such studies
seem to reveal widespread appreciation of nature’s contributions to people. While detailed findings
vary a lot between studies (Agbenyega et al., 2009; Martin-Lopez et al., 2012), these differences are
likely related to the socio-ecological context and framing of the evaluation. In addition, people’s
perceptions of ecosystem services vary with their backgrounds, roles, identities and experiences and
are related to socio-demographic variables (Fischer & Eastwood, 2016; Kassam et al., 2011; López-
Santiago et al., 2014; Martín-Lopez et al., 2012; Young et al., 2013). Underpinning these are their
broader understandings of, and relationships with, nature (Buijs, 2009; López-Santiago et al., 2014),
and wider discursive contexts (Kull et al., 2015). The main implication of much of this literature is, as
Lock & Cole (2011, p. 8) put it, that “[greater knowledge exchange around ecosystems services is
required: efforts to enhance public knowledge and understanding […] may improve public acceptability
of interventions […]. In turn, such interventions could be more sensitively designed when based on a
better understanding of the ways in which the public value these services and spaces (i.e. when
decisions are made using both lay and expert knowledge)” (see also a global literature review by
Sterling et al., 2017).
Such participation and joint learning has been increasing over recent decades, and the scientific
literature on these issues is burgeoning. There has been widespread uptake of approaches such as co-
management, co-governance and other collaborative arrangements (Ansell & Gash, 2008) (Section
6.4.2), as well as stakeholder participation in environmental decision-making (Young et al., 2013) in
many places across Europe and Central Asia. However, there is still significant scope for an expansion
of these approaches across all relevant sectors, as, for example, Young et al. (2007) have pointed out
for Central and Eastern Europe (see also Griewald et al., 2017; Stringer & Paavola, 2013; Ulybina, 2014).
Stakeholder participation, besides being a policy instrument in itself (Section 6.2), can be fruitfully
combined with a wide range of other policy instruments, and is, in fact, already an integral part of
some pieces of legislation such as the European Union Water Framework Directive (Sections 6.3 and
6.4) (Blackstock et al., 2012). But even where no explicit provision for the use of participatory methods

1042
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

exists, participation and joint learning can, in many cases, improve the governance of biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people (Jones-Walters & Çil, 2011).
For example, in some areas in Germany, NGOs and civil society have relatively recently gained
influence in decision-making processes in the forestry sector, which previously only involved
traditional forestry actors (Maier et al., 2014). Conversely, the process of establishing and drawing up
management plans for designated areas such as marine protected areas (Ruiz-Frau et al., 2015),
Biosphere Reserves under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(Bridgewater & Babin, 2017) or European Union Natura 2000 sites (Brescancin et al., 2017; Young et
al., 2013) can also be an opportunity for joint learning and participatory decision-making. Studies show
the main effect of stakeholder participation in processes around three Natura 2000 sites in Scotland
was an increase in trust (Young et al., 2013). Their findings also highlight that local views have to be
taken seriously, rather than participation being just a token exercise. As a result perspectives that
deprioritize ecosystem services might also have to be accepted (Maier et al., 2014). Institutional
processes need to be designed such that there are clear ways in which the outcomes of participatory
activities can be fed into decision-making (Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, 2005; Reed, 2008). Participatory
approaches also run the risk of privileging certain perspectives over others – often those by “high
income, well-educated and time-rich” stakeholders (Blackstock, 2017, p. 343) or those that use
specialist language and knowledge to dominate the decision-making process (Maier et al., 2014).
Cultural differences in terms of discussion styles and willingness to allow conflictive encounters might
also act as barriers to successful participatory processes (Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, 2005). This is
particularly true for countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia that may lack experience in
deliberative democracy and collaborative decision-making. Non-state actors are keen to participate,
but their transformative capacity is often severely constrained (Ulybina, 2014). Furthermore, attempts
to increase participation in policy development often result in the re-appropriation of power by
traditionally powerful stakeholders (Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, 2005).
Finally, repeated stakeholder involvement – especially if outcomes and actual policy uptake are unclear
– can lead to stakeholder fatigue and withdrawal (Blackstock, 2017; Reed, 2008). Far from being a
panacea (Blanchard, 2015), participation is thus a social process that has risks and costs as well as
benefits. Not least because of these challenges, participatory approaches require skilled facilitators
(Blackstock, 2017; Reed, 2008), drawing on the large amount of collective experience to further
enhance the mainstreaming of biodiversity and nature´s contribution to people.

6.6.4 Defining policy objectives

The ecosystem service concept and the further developed concept of nature´s contributions to people
offer a framework to identify policy objectives and contribute to identifying limits for trading off one
service for another, beyond which intended substitution can lead to catastrophic results (Bastian,
Corti, & Lebboroni, 2007; Jax, 2014; Mace et al., 2014; Rockström et al., 2009; Simoncini, 2009). Given
that the same ecosystem processes and components often provide bundles of diverse services
simultaneously, a comprehensive assessment of the ecological, economic and social conditions is
needed. Policy integration and spatial planning are two important options to consider synergies and
trade-offs when defining policy objectives.

1043
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.6.4.1 Policy integration

The status of biodiversity and the quality and quantity of ecosystem services are often determined by
economic, trade, agricultural, forestry and other sectors (MEA, 2005b). Improved coordination across
sectors, actors and scales offers opportunities for effective action to address problems related to
biodiversity and ecosystem services for human well-being. Although this has been recognized by the
European Union for more than a decade, only few countries make intensive efforts to develop
integration strategies (EEA, 2005). Thus, mainstreaming biodiversity and the multiple values of
nature’s contributions to people remains an essential task (MEA, 2005b; PBL, 2014; UNEP, 2011a). In
this context, identifying synergies to conserve and enhance multiple services is as important as
recognizing potential trade-offs between ecosystem services (Vira et al., 2011).
The identification and analysis of relationships among multiple levels of socio-ecological systems at
different spatial and temporal scales is a core challenge to achieve sustainability (Ostrom, 2009). This
includes the need to recognize the holistic nature of socio-ecological systems. More specifically,
integrated policies have to be designed and implemented, requiring policy integration within and
across different economic, policy and societal sectors. Coordination needs to be improved among
international institutions and across decision-making levels, taking due account of scientific insights,
local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ knowledge, as well as different socio-cultural contexts and
related value systems. A core task in this context is integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into
poverty reduction and development strategies. Drawing on the sector policy analyses earlier in this
chapter, conflicts of forestry with other sector policies have been highlighted as one of the major
challenges for the integration of nature conservation into forest policy (Winkel et al., 2015). The
relation between the forestry sector and Sami reindeer herders in Sweden can be seen as an example,
where neglecting the holistic character (including biological, geographical and climatic, as well as
linguistic, socio-economic and management issues) and a missing mutual understanding can aggravate
conflicting situations (Kitti et al., 2006; Roturier & Roué, 2009). Improving information tools for
decision-makers is one important strategy to follow.
Integrated policies are necessary to consider consumption and production processes at different
scales, at local, regional and national levels, and relating to impacts displaced to foreign countries (see
Section 6.6.2.1). Some examples are (i) land-use policies to enforce and regulate transnational land
acquisitions (”land-grabbing”) (Rulli et al., 2013); (ii) regulation and monitoring of conflict-free mineral
trade (Young et al., 2014); and (iii) the adoption of “principles for responsible agro-investment”
(Deininger & Byerlee, 2011).
Besides individual policy instruments and their interaction in policy mixes, which are dealt with in
Section 6.6.5 below, there are a number of policy-support tools specifically dedicated to checking for
consistency between objectives, instruments and potentially adverse impacts from one to another
strategy, policy, programme or individual project (see IPBES web portal on policy support tools: IPBES,
2017). Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) provide
promising options to improve mainstreaming attention for biodiversity and ecosystem services across
a wider range of sectors, beyond environment and conservation (Geneletti, 2013; Helming et al., 2013;
Lamorgese & Geneletti, 2013).
Box 6.9: Policy support tools to integrate across sectors and scales: strategic environmental
assessment and environmental impact assessment.

As a key instrument to ensure good quality of policies, planning and programmes, strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) has been established in most countries, for example at European Union level through directive
2001/42/EC. In addition, environmental impact assessment (EIA, 2014/52/European Union) performs an appraisal
of the effects of environmentally relevant public or private projects. Both assessment tools take account of spatial

1044
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and temporal scales, and provide options for conceptualizing the diverse values of biodiversity. They have a great
potential to mainstream biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people by applying assessment, decision and
monitoring criteria, and they can highlight development opportunities and potentially warn about negative
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people impacts (Geneletti, 2013) (Figure 6.15). Providing a process-
oriented assessment framework, strategic environmental assessment could contribute to evaluation of the
coherence, synergies and conflicts between different policy sectors using biodiversity and ecosystem services
standards and indicators to enable a multidimensional and multi-scale trade-off analysis. Another challenge
consists in considering biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in a transboundary context. Here, the
Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Glasson et al., 2013; OECD,
2005; United Nations, 1991) obliges the 45 ratifying countries to perform an environmental impact assessment of
proposed activities on the environment at an early stage of planning. States are obliged to inform and consult
others on all major projects that might have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries. The
integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in such mutual assessment and information processes could
greatly contribute to set standards for critical thresholds or tipping points, delineate impact areas and identify
appropriate instruments and actions to avoid environmental degradation.
Strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment frameworks could provide suitable
instruments to assess and improve the coherence between different policy sectors and to create synergies
considering their direct or indirect impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, marine and coastal systems. Further, they
could promote and integrate stakeholder views on the importance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people (Slootweg et al., 2009), and may be combined with information tools and scenario modelling (see Chapter
5) to provide tailored information for different types of actors. However, formal and informal participation needs
to be implemented more concisely. Adapted participatory instruments could help to consider different socio-
cultural contexts of public and private decision-making in planning and natural resource management. However,
the effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment to enhance the consideration of environmental aspects
in planning is still debated and seems to be context dependent (Cashmore et al., 2010; Hilding-Rydevik &
Bjarnadóttir, 2007) (see Section 6.6.1). Further, caution is warranted regarding who assesses policies or projects
for whom. As holds for any assessment, independence of those who assess from those who finance, or investors
whose projects are being assessed, as well as transparency, legitimacy and credibility, are crucial for the outcomes
to be widely accepted (Lebel, 2006).

1045
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 6.9

6.6.4.2 Integration through spatial planning

Spatial planning is a “[…] key instrument for establishing long-term, sustainable frameworks for social,
territorial and economic development both within and between countries. Its primary role is to enhance
the integration between sectors such as housing, transport, energy and industry, and to improve
national and local systems of urban and rural development, also taking into account environmental
considerations. […]” (UNECE, 2008, p. vii). It usually combines legal and regulatory instruments with
more informal instruments. These can be complemented by financial instruments such as the common
agricultural policy (CAP), rural development policy 41 and LEADER 42 (see Section 6.4). Spatial planning
can both positively and negatively influence the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and
nature’s contributions to people (von Haaren et al., 2016), the key opportunity being its integrative
potential through providing a cross-disciplinary view towards more sustainable development
(Goodstadt et al., 2012; Niemelä et al., 2010; UNECE, 2008). It is increasingly recognized that a social-
ecological perspective is key in effective planning due to its potential to include resilience into spatial
recommendations (Folke, 2006) and thus to identify and address impacts and trade-offs of policy
options and ensure informed decisions for sustainable development (Chan et al., 2006; Goodstadt et
al., 2012; Zisenis, 2009).
If implemented without consideration of social-ecological implications, planning development can
have a substantial negative impact on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, for example

41 https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/policy-in-action/policy-framework_en
42 https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/leader-clld_en

1046
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

if ecosystem processes and functions are destroyed, landscapes are fragmented or soils are sealed
(Forman & Collinge, 1997; Opdam et al., 2002; Scolozzi et al., 2012). Conversely, a well-balanced social-
ecological spatial planning framework positively affects the provision of biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people and subsequently quality of life, for example by reducing the ecological
footprint of cities; enhancing accessibility to, and the cooling effect of, green spaces in urban
agglomerations; and overcoming trade-offs from single-sector focused decisions (Bateman et al., 2013;
TEEB, 2011a). A case in point are urban areas, which illustrate contrasting urbanization trends and
examples of emerging science–policy linkages for improving urban landscapes for human health and
quality of life. Cities increasingly engage in protecting and enhancing the capacity of their ecosystems
to meet urban resident needs, for example through novel management systems in Stockholm, civic
engagement in Berlin, and a shift towards nature-based flood mitigation in Rotterdam (Schewenius et
al., 2014). Urban planning has particular responsibilities to ensure biodiversity protection and nature’s
contributions to people delivery today and in the future to enhance the quality of life of an increasing
number of urban dwellers (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013). It can help to avoid costs in nature’s
contributions to people impairments and identifying safe-to-fail strategies or probes that will allow the
nature of emergent possibilities to become more visible (Ahern et al., 2014; Grêt-Regamey et al., 2013;
Niemelä et al., 2010). Concepts such as green infrastructure help to identify and communicate the
benefits which conserving and sustainably using biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people have
for nature and human well-being (Tzoulas et al., 2007) (see Chapter 3). As shown in Section 6.3.2
marine spatial planning has also proved successful in considering biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people (Flannery & Ó Cinnéide, 2008).
Targeted spatial planning that integrates across sectors and scales can substantially enhance the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Bateman et al.,
2013). The particular opportunity for spatial planning exists in its capacity to make explicit, and support
the integration of, diverse interests and policy fields. Spatial planning addresses multiple scales,
incorporating the local and regional scale, the different policy scales as well as sectoral and
infrastructural aspects. Hierarchies and the level of detail at which topics are addressed, as well as
institutional responsibilities, vary considerably among countries (OECD, 2001). Spatial planning has the
capacity to safeguard sensitive areas, enhancing the state of ecosystems, minimizing current and
potential future impacts, and identifying synergistic land-use options. For example, Swedish forest
policy has gradually picked up science-based biodiversity conservation in line with the Convention of
Biodiversity (Angelstam et al., 2011). Informed planning can furthermore enhance the engagement
and experience of nature among citizens, facilitate public participation, enhance environmental
behaviour and stewardship, and provide the basis for targeted investments in nature’s contributions
to people, for example by designating specific areas for results-oriented agri-environmental measures
(Beatley & London, 2011; Hartig et al., 2001; Wells & Lekies, 2006).
Important challenges remain for an enhanced consideration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people in spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia (EEA, 2009). The sectoral nature of policies
leads to fragmented spatial strategies that fall short of a comprehensive consideration of
environmental issues. Spatial proposals to improve biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people
need to be developed and better implemented. Delivery mechanisms for proposed actions are poor,
since separate actors often administer planning and implementation. The uptake of environmental
considerations is further complicated by limitations in political support and financial resources, spatial
misfits between planning constituencies and ecosystems (Trepel, 2010), and distributed
responsibilities in federal systems (von Haaren & Reich, 2006).
If the consideration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people is to be enhanced in spatial
planning, a multi-scale approach needs to be applied to decision-making and to ensure that public

1047
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

interests and the benefits provided by functioning ecosystems are considered in decision-making
(TEEB, 2011a). Trade-offs between different contributions by nature to people, as well as between
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, need to be accounted for in decision-making about
preferable spatial planning strategies and implementation actions. Key issues that would benefit from
a better consideration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people are, among others, human
health and quality of life, issues of water and energy security, climate adaptation and mitigation, and
flood control, recreation and locational quality (cf. Chapters 2, 4, 5). Several studies illustrate options
for better integration of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in planning, for example
landscape planning (Albert et al., 2016a; Albert et al., 2014; van Oudenhoven et al., 2012), urban
planning and economic valuation (Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013; Schewenius et al., 2014), or
Strategic Environmental Assessment (Geneletti, 2013). Successful examples for integrating biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people in spatial planning include river restoration in Vitoria-Gasteiz
(Kopperoinen, 2015) and protected area management in Doñana, Spain (Palomo et al., 2011).
Three methodological challenges for a systematic assessment can be pointed out: (i) an assigning
problem related to difficulties in detecting cause-effect relations between planning measures and
outcomes; (ii) an indicator problem because it is not possible to quantitatively measure the qualitative
impact; and (iii) a time framing problem due to the long time span between implementation and
impact of a measure (Fürst, 2005). Knowledge gaps exist concerning a comparative overview of spatial
planning throughout Europe and Central Asia. Comparative studies on spatial planning and its
effectiveness across such a diverse group of countries is particularly challenging: most literature on
planning is only available in national languages and often differences exist between planning as
described in the legislation, and applied practices. Further knowledge is needed on how particular
planning modes and planning instruments affect biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and
how respective information could best be integrated and communicated in planning processes so that
it is understood and appropriately considered in decision-making (Albert et al., 2016a; de Groot et al.,
2010).

6.6.5 Designing, implementing and assessing instruments and policy mixes

Nature contributes in diverse ways to human well-being. Depending on the character as private or
public goods or services, various institutional failures concerning their provision can lead to
biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation (TEEB, 2010). Mainstreaming can contribute to
overcoming these failures by designing and implementing different policy instruments and tools
(Costanza et al., 2014; Kenter et al., 2015; Muradian & Rival, 2012; Parks & Gowdy, 2013). The
assessment of specific policy instruments in the realm of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people is, however, a major challenge. On the one hand it comprises quite heterogeneous and complex
systems involving multiple actors and governance levels (Buizer et al., 2011; Paloniemi et al., 2015).
On the other hand, instruments have to be applied and assessed under uncertainty due to severe
information gaps (e.g., concerning scientific knowledge about ecological production functions or bio-
physical trade-offs). Further, different future pathways (see Chapter 5) often call for a policy mix
embedded in specific institutional settings, which makes it difficult to assess them in an isolated way.
Such a policy mix could start top-down with the design of regulatory instruments based on socio-
ecological indicators in the proximity of tipping points, in order to assure a minimum sustainable
provision of nature’s contributions to people. Beyond this point, ecosystem service delivery could be
further enhanced by applying economic, financial and information-based instruments, including
bottom-up approaches. By adopting this architecture for policy design, it is possible to envisage

1048
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

promising opportunities to enable a re-thinking of the decision-making process particularly for policies
envisioning specific pathways.

6.6.5.1 Legal and regulatory instruments

In principle, regulatory instruments can contribute to all policy strategies, including mainstreaming of
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people, and Table 6.11 shows that they are widely applied
in Europe and Central Asia. However, a balancing of practical flexibility and legal certainty in the design
and implementation of these instruments is necessary to ensure their effectiveness and efficiency
(Garmestani et al., 2013; IPBES, 2015b). Recent research has shown that traditional environmental
monitoring and enforcement are still dominant when the aim is to improve environmental quality in
many countries (Gray & Shimshack, 2011). However, direct regulations are discussed controversially
at the same time. For example, Santos et al. (2015a) emphasize the limited ability to have an impact
on broader land-use patterns and pressures undermining biodiversity and ecosystem services, while
others doubt that regulations are flexible enough and able to appropriately deal with current
environmental problems (Harring, 2014). As an example, enhancing landscape diversity is sometimes
hindered by regulations that forbid or strongly limit converting woodland to agricultural land
(Agnoletti, 2006). Kenward et al. (2011) found that there is a lack of empirical evidence concerning the
performance of particular governance strategies. Based on a novel analytical framework they analyzed
34 case studies and conclude that, while biodiversity conservation was positively associated with
regulation, ecosystem service provisioning and regulation are negatively correlated. Their results seem
to support a multiple-option approach, including both regulatory and market-based measures.

6.6.5.2 Economic and financial instruments

Beside taxation, economic and financial instruments currently play a minor role in mainstreaming
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people (Table 6.11). However, there are further
opportunities, such as price-based and quantity-based mechanisms, to incentivize environmentally
friendly behaviour.
Price-based mechanisms
In the context of agricultural landscapes, Pascual & Perrings (2007) point out that changes in
biodiversity are ultimately the result of decentralized decisions at the farm level, where land owners
or users decide on the uptake of environmentally advantageous management practices. The correction
of market failures is thus a necessary, but insufficient condition for effectively reducing biodiversity
loss. Here, appropriate institutions can contribute to creating favourable conditions and incentives for
farmers to act accordingly. However, for economic mechanisms to be effective, diverse environmental
values have to be demonstrated, captured, and distributed to the individuals who actually bear the
costs of conservation measures (TEEB, 2010). Furthermore, taking local traditional knowledge into
account avoids a weakening of the traditionally strong relationship between human and natural
systems (Babai & Molnár, 2014).
The effectiveness of price-based instruments is called into question given the often highly complex
relationships between land-use practices and their actual impact on biodiversity and ecosystem
services (Porras et al., 2011). To develop this mechanism to an operational and efficient degree, the
following conditions should ideally be fulfilled: (i) assuring clear and enforceable property rights; (ii)
increasing the number of buyers and sellers; (iii) providing complete information; (iv) reducing
transaction costs and (v) avoiding entry and exit barriers to markets (Alvarado-Quesada et al., 2014).

1049
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

However, even if these conditions are met, it is still uncertain how to ensure conservation in the long
run, given that governmental policies might change and insufficient future funding might reduce the
credibility of market-based instruments and environmental governance as a whole. Further problems
are related to leakage effects if negative effects are displaced instead of being reduced, and to lacking
additionality in case that payments are made for practices that would have been adopted anyway
(Porras et al., 2011).
In general, there are two options for financing conservation; targeted and untargeted payments.
Cudlínová et al. (1999) analyzed environmental subsidies in the Czech Republic and found they may be
ineffective if the payments are not directed towards the appropriate target groups. By contrast, when
appropriately targeted, subsidies can be very effective and essential for the continuity of traditional
land-use systems (e.g. herding in the Pyrenees); up to an extent that herders substantially rely on such
payments, which makes them particularly vulnerable to policy changes (Fernández-Giménez &
Estaque, 2012). Mayrand & Paquin (2004) emphasize possible trade-offs between effectiveness,
efficiency and equity (see Figure 6.16). While targeted payments might be effective, untargeted
payments might be more equitable by including small scale land owners and more efficient by reducing
transaction costs (Jack et al., 2008; Runhaar, 2016).

Quantity-based mechanisms
Tradable permits and habitat banking provide further opportunities for mainstreaming. They aim to
offset environmental damages in one place by restoring habitats of equivalent ecological
characteristics elsewhere (Wissel & Wätzold, 2010). The underlying principle of such biodiversity
offsets is that of “no net loss” of biodiversity (Bull et al., 2013; Gardner et al., 2013). Due to their
flexible character, such instruments are becoming increasingly popular. One of their advantages is seen
in the ability to reduce information asymmetries: by using trading opportunities land owners reveal
private information, that would otherwise not be available to public decision-makers, which can be
used to enhance the effectiveness of the applied mechanism (Ring et al., 2010). Further, ensuring
competitive conditions among potential service providers can lead to environmental solutions at
lowest costs (Pirard, 2012). However, several practical drawbacks and weaknesses have to be taken
into account. Besides management and compliance problems, such concepts suffer from a flawed
logical basis of the offset mechanism and “immature, imprecise and complex science, which results in
difficulties in determining biodiversity values” (Burgin, 2008, p. 807). There are several dimensions in
which destroyed and replaced habitat might differ: (i) the suitability of a site for certain species
(dimension of type), (ii) the size and configuration of a site as well as distance and connectivity of sites

1050
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

(dimension of space), and (iii) the time it takes for a habitat to regenerate or for a species to recolonize
(dimension of time) (Wissel & Wätzold, 2010). These differences might hinder the establishment of
tradable permit markets, due to high transactions costs and difficulties in finding matching trading
partners. Similar to the case of price-based instruments, there is a need for an appropriate institutional
framework given that property rights are to be transferred. Furthermore, scientific expertise as well
as local and indigenous knowledge are required. In contrast to carbon credits, where quantities are
measured in a single and global metric (tonnes of CO2 equivalents), other nature’s contributions to
people comprise more complex aspects which can hinder trade at local and at coarser scales. This
might be the reason why tradable right approaches in conservation are less successful in reality than
corresponding mechanisms in markets for pollution and water rights (Reeson, 2015).
According to Santos and co-authors (2015b), it is hardly possible to draw a general conclusion on the
effectiveness of quantity-based mechanisms. First, because the concept of ”biodiversity markets” is
still at an initial stage and there are only very few programmes developing, mainly in Western Europe
(European Union, France, Germany, Sweden, and UK) (Madsen et al., 2010, 2011). Second, available
studies often refer to output-based indicators, such as area covered or credits traded, but it remains
uncertain whether the goal of “no net loss” of biodiversity has actually been achieved. Under certain
conditions, such as substantial ecological uncertainty or lack of legal safeguards for compliance (Bull
et al., 2013), a precautionary approach by avoiding damages and protecting non-fungible habitats
seems more appropriate.

6.6.5.3 Social and information-based instruments

The potential opportunities of social and information-based instruments are widely underutilized in
Europe and Central Asia. While eco-labelling and environmental certification are quite frequently used
approaches and private environmental reporting is increasing, the transparency and accountability of
these voluntary instruments could be enhanced (Table 6.11).
Certification of resource production and trade
Producing and extracting resources in a more sustainable manner is an important strategy for
sustainable production and consumption. To achieve this aim, social instruments such as voluntary
market standards are increasingly being used (Potts et al., 2014). These standards contain a range of
criteria for more efficient operational management and for production practices that positively affect
environmental and socio-economic conditions. When production is verified for compliance to the
standards’ criteria, the produced and traded resources are certified and labelled with well-known
sustainability logos such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for wood, Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) for caught fish and UTZ Certified for cacao. Further, the Fairtrade initiative addresses the
imbalance of power in trading relationships and is based on a partnership of producers and consumers,
including Central Asian countries, such as Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan (Fairtrade.net, 2012).
As a result of enhanced consumer awareness, business commitment and sustainable government
procurement, the market shares of certified products have risen considerably on consumer good
markets during the last decade (Potts et al., 2014). Concerning Europe and Central Asia, the only sector
with major certification activities is forestry. In 2013 the share of certified forested area (Forest
Stewardship Council and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification) in the most forested
countries differed substantially, from less than 5% in the Russian Federation to about 80% in Poland
and more than 90% in Finland, Norway and Croatia (Potts et al., 2014). Special effort in further
countries and additional products is necessary, if voluntary standards are to operate effectively as tools
for environmental conservation and poverty reduction. Furthermore, sector-specific certification

1051
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

standards, e.g. in forestry, do not consider the conservation of cultural landscapes as a whole.
Maintaining landscape mosaics by using traditional production patterns can increase the
competitiveness of goods, such as cheese or fruits, on national and international markets, while
contributing to local biodiversity and autonomy (Agnoletti, 2006; Demeulenaere & Bonneuil, 2010).
In principle, market standards can be beneficial for conserving and enhancing ecosystem services (CBD
& UNEP-WCMC, 2012). A desk-study on the monetary costs and benefits of certified production that
takes the value of ecosystem services explicitly into account showed that certified production systems
may offer effective and cost-efficient solutions for protecting and safeguarding ecosystem services.
However, a quick scan of a selection of standards reveals that not all services are as yet equally well
addressed and treated (van Oorschot et al., 2016). Furthermore, an analysis of standard criteria
suggests that newer, mainstream-oriented standards apply criteria of reduced depth and breadth as a
means to allow a more rapid market uptake (Potts et al., 2014).
Although certification holds the promise of creating positive impacts in resource producing regions,
convincing proof on the positive impacts of certification on environmental and socio-economic
conditions is scarce and results are mixed (Blackman & Rivera, 2011; SCSKASC, 2012). A comprehensive
research agenda for standards has been developed (Milder et al., 2012, 2015), spurred by cross-
standard platforms for discussion and improving credibility, such as the International Social and
Environmental Accreditation and Labelling Alliance (ISEAL) (Loconto & Fouilleux, 2014). Up to now, the
protection of nature’s contributions to people has not been routinely and explicitly addressed. Wider
promotion of sustainable production standards, improving the ability of standards to address
ecosystem services, and conducting better impact research are all options to be pursued for improving
the outreach and effectiveness of this instrument. This might motivate private firms to take proactive
measures ahead of legislation, while later regulatory decisions will possibly be aligned to the already
developed practice (Lyon & Maxwell, 2002).
Social and environmental reporting
Social and environmental reporting is defined as all forms of non-financial reporting by business to
external stakeholders that focus on environmental, social and governance issues. Such reporting is
intended to measure consequences of economic activity not covered by traditional accounting systems
(Gray, 2010) and has grown and developed over the past decades (van der Esch & Steurer, 2014).
Although at present mainly focused on businesses, there is an emerging trend to extend it to other
institutions such as NGOs and government agencies at different levels (Owen, 2008). Non-financial
reporting is most often based on specific guidelines such as developed by the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) or the Natural Capital Coalition
(NCC, 2015). Those in turn may have a base in, or link to, more general, global principles.
There are different internal and external drivers that may incentivize companies to engage in
sustainability reporting (see Figure 6.17). On top of that there are semi-mandatory rules, such as
intending as a company to comply with certain principles or guidelines that require reporting, and in
many countries legal obligations. In Europe and Central Asia, governments have created policies to
stimulate or to mandate sustainability reporting by companies in their jurisdictions (van der Esch &
Steurer, 2014).

1052
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Characteristically, policies that stimulate non-financial reporting by companies are indirect. They use
transparency as a tool that aims to set other changes in motion. This indirectness makes it complex to
find evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental reporting policies, as additionality
is hard to proof. At the user end, the data collected through non-financial reporting can be used for
management, engagement and dialogue within the company, as well as by external stakeholders
(Figure 6.17). Rating agencies use this information increasingly to guide and support investors, with
large investors by now routinely incorporating this information in their decision-making framework.

6.6.5.4 Rights-based instruments and customary norms

The current state of mainstreaming through rights-based instruments and customary norms has a huge
potential for improvement. Despite the fact that rights-based approaches are at the very centre of the
recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals, which aim at integrating human rights into all three
dimensions of sustainable development (United Nations, 2015), our assessment shows that these
types of instruments are rarely implemented and there are huge knowledge gaps in several sectors
(Table 6.11). However, following the 2030-Agenda, we assume that the rights-based approach will be
emphasized as an option to contribute to mainstreaming biodiversity and nature´s contributions to
people. To implement the Sustainable Development Goals agenda including the rights-based approach
there is a need to develop more explicit guidelines for public and private decision-makers on how to
contribute to e.g. the financing of development, an equitable trading system and a renewed and
strengthened global partnership (Kindornay & Twigg, 2015).
The rights-based approach also offers opportunities to identify problems and prospects related to, for
example, the implementation of conservation policies in line with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and
the Sustainable Development Goals. The conservation of biodiversity has, on the one hand,
contributed to the recognition of both procedural rights by safeguarding the right to participate in
decision-making, and substantive rights by supporting sustainable natural resources and human well-
being (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004b). Conservation measures have, on the other hand, undermined
or violated human rights, through human translocations, abolishment of traditional practices,
centralization of governance and management or the prioritization of one industry (e.g., wildlife
tourism) over traditional industries (e.g. live-stock herding) (Dowie, 2009).
The application of the rights-based approach implies a need (i) to transform systemic and structural
imbalances in power and (ii) to ensure participation in the governance and management of biodiversity
and nature’s contributions to people, thereby generating an opportunity to avoid such problems
related to conservation polices. However, there is also a need to further develop and implement policy
instruments such as “free, prior, and informed consent” and the United Nations “protect, respect and
remedy” framework (Campese et al., 2009; Hill & Lillywhite, 2015) for States to avoid violating the
rights of indigenous peoples (Adams & Hutton, 2007; Anaya, 2015; Otis & Laurent, 2013; Reimerson,

1053
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

2013) and to take diverse world views, trust issues, imbalance of power or hidden historical issues into
consideration (Redpath et al., 2015). Through the promotion of a rights-based approach, instead of
being the source of conflicts, indigenous peoples and local communities can often provide
opportunities for learning about more sustainable natural resource uses. One positive example is the
development of the joint knowledge generation by Hungarian herders and scientists (Molnár et al.,
2017).

6.6.5.5 Policy mix

Basically, a policy mix aims to overcome the flaws of single instruments with respect to effectiveness,
efficiency and equity, while highlighting the functional role of the relevant instrument in the mix
(Schröter-Schlaack & Ring, 2011). The different pathway narratives presented in Chapter 5, Section
5.5.2 emphasize the opportunities of specific instrument mixes to achieve future developments.
Several additional aspects call for an analysis and assessment of instruments within a broader policy
mix: There are quite different ecosystems with different actors and multiple objectives involved.
Furthermore, multiple drivers, sectors and governance levels have to be taken into account. In
addition, existing policy regimes and sectoral policies already in place have decisive impact on the
effectiveness and efficiency of new instruments to be implemented. Thus, there is a need for more
systematic comparative analyses and empirical evidence to specify the interaction between new and
traditional measures (Jordan et al., 2013).
Policy analysis considering the role of individual instruments in the real-world policy mix, including
interactions with instruments within the same or from other policy sectors, has been mostly dealt with
in climate and energy policies (Gawel et al., 2014; Lehmann, 2012; OECD, 2007; Sorrell & Sijm, 2003).
Besides a few exceptions in the past (Barton et al., 2014; Gunningham & Young, 1997; Howlett &
Rayner, 2006; Ring & Barton, 2015; Ring & Schröter-Schlaack, 2015; Schröter-Schlaack & Ring, 2011),
policy mix analysis in biodiversity and ecosystem governance still holds some potential for further
research and policy implementation, especially in a cross-sectoral perspective and spatially explicit
analysis on the ground.
Direct regulations have often been the first choice for dealing with environmental problems, especially
in the case of safeguarding against irreversible developments and overstepping ecological tipping
points. In addition, they are seen as a precondition for the effectiveness of other instruments, for
example by determining property rights before applying market-based instruments. However, given
that direct regulation often neglects opportunity costs and equity aspects (including disregard of
traditional and informal rights), their appropriateness can be questioned, and their acceptance can
possibly be increased in combination with other instruments. In this regard, regulation and incentive-
based instruments are seen as complements in a dual or multiple approach rather than substitutes
(Kenward et al., 2011). Designing such policy mixes provides opportunities to mainstreaming
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.
Taking the agricultural sector as an example (Box 6.10), the European Union’s cross-compliance
mechanism combines direct payments with the compliance by farmers with basic regulatory standards
concerning the environment, climate change, public health, food safety, animal and plant health and
animal welfare, as well as the requirement of maintaining land in good agricultural and environmental
condition (European Union, 2013b). In addition, farmers may qualify for agri-environmental payments
for agricultural practices, which go beyond cross-compliance and greening requirements (European
Commission, 2013c). This policy design could be further adapted to mainstream and implement the
concept of nature’s contributions to people in sectors such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries and

1054
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

environmental policy and land-use planning. Legal and regulatory instruments in the form of
environmental standards and requirements could be fine-tuned to approximate as much as possible
the level of ecological thresholds or tipping points not to be trespassed. These standards can then be
combined with economic and financial instruments to further promote the provision of selected
contributions of nature to people by land users or fishermen.
Box 6.10: Mix of instruments in agri-environmental policy.

Despite being criticized for setting too loose and general criteria for cross-compliance and greening (see also
Section 6.5.1.3; Hauck et al., 2014; Hodge et al., 2015; Pe’er et al., 2014), the 2013 Common Agricultural Policy
reform has made explicit the rationale underlying the policy design to achieve the delivery of public goods by
both pillars of the policy (European Commission, 2013c). This policy architecture envisages the use and
integration of different policy instruments (Figure 6.18 A). This strategy is implemented by requiring farmers to
respect cross-compliance requirements (some of which are based on European Union environmental legislation
such as the Water Framework Directive and Nitrate Directive) to be eligible for 70% of direct payments, and of
greening requirements to be eligible for the remaining 30% of direct payments under pillar 1. Once farmers have
respected both cross-compliance and greening requirements they are eligible to enroll in voluntary agri-
environmental measures with payments under pillar 2 for agricultural practices which go beyond cross-
compliance and greening requirements (European Commission, 2013c). Furthermore, administrative penalties
may be applied as in cases of non-compliance with eligibility criteria, commitments or other obligations resulting
from the application of agricultural legislation (European Union, 2013b) (Figure 6.18 A).

1055
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

This policy architecture could be adapted to mainstream and to implement the concept of nature’s contributions
to people (Figure 6.18 B). This can be done by fine tuning cross-compliance and greening requirements to
approximate as much as possible the level of ecological thresholds or tipping points not to be trespassed in a
specific agro-ecosystem to achieve the delivery of selected contributions of nature to people. Above this
reference level payments for agri-environment-climate measures could be tailored to specific nature’s
contributions to people or local conditions by allowing farmers to choose between action- or result-based agri-
environmental payments (Section 6.5.1.3) to enhance the nature’s contributions to people delivery beyond
thresholds or tipping points (Figure 6.18 B). The effectiveness and efficiency of result-oriented agri-
environmental measures could be further enhanced by issuing territorial contracts for groups of farmers to reach
the critical mass necessary to deliver selected nature’s contributions to people and at the same time reducing
transaction costs.

1056
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

End of Box 6.10

Policy mix analysis is also essential from a cross-sectoral perspective where policies in one sector (e.g.,
climate, fisheries, energy or agriculture) may jeopardize policies in other sectors (e.g., nature
conservation). A comprehensive policy mix also comprises the integration of environmental aspects in
non-environmental policy sectors, with the aims (i) to reduce conflicts between sectoral policies and
(ii) to directly target the drivers of environmental pressures and degradation (Runhaar et al., 2014).
For example, publicly financed support programmes for biodiversity measures on farmland can hardly
be effective if, at the same time and in the same area, public subsidies favour agricultural
intensification and monocultures to increase bioenergy production (TEEB-DE, 2015). However,
scientific insight is scarce concerning the reasons for hindering or favouring policy integration
(Biesbroek et al., 2013; Brouwer et al., 2013). This calls for the development of a systematic framework
for the analysis of effective policy integration strategies (Runhaar et al., 2014).
For environmental policy instruments to be effective, they have to be supported by the general public
(Harring, 2014). Here, attitudes and judgements concerning specific instruments vary substantially
across countries. Combining scientific evidence with legal, political and social institutions can be a
promising approach for balancing environmental protection and development. Further, economic
instruments should not only focus on private actors but also include the role of public actors and
promote a “mindset of cooperation and shared responsibility” (Santos et al., 2015a, p. 94). Such a
mindset could also contribute to overcoming aspects of procedural and distributive justice and
comprise an equitable integration of scientific insights and lay knowledge (Paloniemi et al., 2015). The
dialogue and engagement of different actors in the political process is not a novel phenomenon
(EUFORGEN, 2017). The important issues are how actors cooperate and which combination of actors
is most effective in providing successful governance (Peters, 2014). The policy outcomes concerning
non-governmental certification in the forestry and fishery sector are examples of public-private policy
interaction at multiple levels. However, more research is needed to identify causal mechanisms and to
explore whether sector-specific solutions are successfully applicable within and across other sectors
(Gulbrandsen, 2014). Concerning Central Asia, a recently finished European Union FP7-research
project assessed the policy mix in the field of science and innovation (IncoNet Central Asia, 2016). The
applied peer-review exercise could serve as an example for a similar initiative related to nature’s
contributions to people.
Box 6.11 presents a policy-mix analysis for the Norwegian system of fisheries management based on
the IPBES categories of policy instruments and families of policy support tools and methodologies
(IPBES, 2015b; Lasson, 2016). Norway’s experience has shown that it is possible to drastically reduce
subsidies without destroying the industry (Lehmann et al., 2011; OECD, 2006a) and it provides a best-
practice example of how considering relevant actors and various policy instruments in a mix can lead
to effective outcomes. Therefore, integrating and mainstreaming biodiversity into key sectors and
policies is a major strategic goal, at national, regional and global levels (CBD, 2010; European
Commission, 2011a).
Box 6.11: Policy mix analysis of the Norwegian system of fisheries management.

Today’s system of fisheries management in Norway is often cited as best practice of effective and well-
coordinated policymaking, which is, however, the result of decades of gradual reforms. As a major paradigm
shift, sustainable resource management instead of state support to industry became the main management
priority. The ecosystem approach is now a central principle in fisheries management, which at the same time is
increasingly coordinated with other marine uses. Since the 1990s, the negative trend in stock levels has been

1057
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

reversed: major stocks have been rebuilt or are still in the rebuilding phase, and catches and profitability of the
sector increased (Gullestad et al., 2014; Misund, 2014).
Within the policy mix, legal and regulatory instruments naturally play a key role. Limiting access to fisheries and
reducing the number of vessels was the starting point of reforms in the 1970s (Misund, 2014; OECD, 2013a, p.
369). Also, overall quotas were cut and are mostly set according to scientific advice (Diamond & Beukers-Stewart,
2011). Limiting access to fisheries by licenses is a form of rights-based instruments and customary norms: today,
all offshore and most coastal fisheries are access-regulated. To mitigate social impacts, a number of free access
licenses are granted to young fishermen in small-scale coastal fisheries (Eliasen et al., 2009, p. 31). In 2011, an
agreement was reached with the indigenous Sami population regarding their fishing rights and increased
involvement in decision-making (Government of Norway, 2012, p. 114; OECD, 2013a, p. 369).
One of the main economic and financial instruments in fisheries management are subsidies. In the mid-1960s,
Norwegian fisheries started to be heavily subsidized, which counteracted both conservation and profitability
objectives. It took until the early 1980s when the problem was addressed and subsidies started to be reduced.
Since then, they have been temporarily increased to buffer short-term crisis in the sector but have been cut to a
negligible level since the mid-1990s. Another economic instrument concerns the discard ban: to increase
compliance of fishermen – which is arguably hard to enforce on the high seas – they can keep, under certain
conditions, a percentage of the sales value of their landed bycatch.
Transparency is considered an important element of social and information-based instruments. A database
containing the fishing licenses and quotas for each vessel is publicly available; an instrument that is assumed to
enhance compliance with regulations. The same effect is attributed to the fact that the fishing industry is given
responsibility in terms of monitoring and self-control. Environmental education and awareness campaigns are
carried out by agencies which are also involved in fisheries management, for example in the development of the
integrated ocean management plans.
The overall effectiveness of the policy mix is closely tied to a range of policy support tools and methodologies.
Namely a trustful and well-established cooperation with the fishing industry and increasingly also other
stakeholders, and extensive monitoring of both ecosystems and fisheries in combination with strict enforcement
contribute to the viability of policy instruments. Table 6.12 shows an exemplary overview of these and other
support tools.
Table 6.12: Examples of policy support tools and methodologies in Norwegian fisheries
management.

Assembling data and Scientific surveys increasingly run as “ecosystem cruises”, collecting data not only on fish
knowledge but also on plankton, benthos, marine mammals and seabirds as well as on
oceanographic conditions.
Additional data are collected by the Norwegian Reference Fleet, a group of commercial
fishing vessels performing scientific sampling of their catch.
Assessment and evaluation Biophysical ecosystem considerations in stock assessments, for example modeling
predator-prey relationships.
Public discussion, involvement Formal and informal involvement of fishermen’s associations and other stakeholders in
and participatory process quota setting, allocation and other management issues, with positive effects on
legitimacy and compliance.
Selection and design of policy Fisheries legislation mainly as enabling acts, delegating decision-making power to
instruments administration and de-coupling it from shifting political agendas; strong commitment to
conservation goals.
”Stock and Fisheries tables” as tool to prioritize policy requirements and as basis for
discussion with stakeholders.
Implementation, outreach and High coverage of Coast Guard inspections, carried out in respectful and non-provocative
enforcement manner.
Training and capacity building Training of scientists and Coast Guard inspectors in international collaboration, especially
with Russia.
Social learning, innovation and Regular formal and informal meetings between stakeholders and managers at national
adaptive governance and local scales (Gullestad et al., 2017; Mikalsen & Jentoft, 2003).

1058
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

General openness of system to innovation and testing of new policies (Gullestad et al.,
2015).

End of Box 6.11

6.6.6 Safeguarding biodiversity, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life
in a changing world
The design of promising governance options and smart institutional arrangements is central to the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Mainstreaming
biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people into different sectors at multiple scales is a crucial
precondition to achieving long-term human well-being and sustainable development (CBD, 2016a;
Meadowcroft et al., 2012; UNEP & UNECE, 2016; United Nations, 2015). How we choose to organize
our societies – both the public and the private spheres - is key for the realization of pathways towards
a world with ecosystems capable of meeting future human needs (see Chapter 5). Hence, the literature
on governance towards sustainability focuses in particular on finding promising governance modes (or
mixes of modes) suitable to promote sustainable development (Lange et al., 2013). Our assessment
shows that new modes of governance, such as decentralization, public-private partnerships or private
forms of governance, increasingly emerge in parallel to traditional hierarchical governance. They allow
better involvement of different actors in policy and decision-making with the aim of promoting shared
responsibility for our common future. However, due to the intrinsic complexity of human societies,
there is no single panacea for successful governance of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to
people (Ostrom et al., 2007).
To govern complexity or complex adaptive systems (see Chapter 4), which often includes various forms
of incomplete knowledge, and involves risk, uncertainty, ambiguity or even ignorance (Leach et al.,
2010), it is frequently argued that the design of promising governance options should aim at building
robustness, enhancing resilience, and considering risk. While robustness refers to the maintenance of
system performance to avoid disruption (Anderies & Janssen, 2013), resilience measures the maximum
disturbance of a system before flipping to a different state (Walker et al., 2004), and can be
characterized as “a kind of insurance against reaching a non-desired state.” (Mäler & Li, 2010, p. 708).
A risk approach has a slightly different focus of enabling societies to benefit from change while
minimizing the negative consequences of associated risks (Lidskog et al., 2010). While the concepts
are appealing, resilience in particular can be difficult to apply to designed or managed systems (Rist &
Moen, 2013), while robustness and risk, which explicitly build on designed systems, often fail to make
necessary trade-offs (Barnett & Anderies, 2014). Nevertheless, the various approaches to governance
of complexity share important characteristics, since they all promote policy processes that stimulate
adaptation and learning. Hence, to take up the challenge of successfully governing complexity and
better adapting policies and instruments to specific contexts, approaches of biodiversity conservation
and mainstreaming into sectoral policies, programmes and strategies need to be seen as experiments
that require (i) governance and management for change, rather than against change, and (ii)
systematic continuous monitoring and evaluation (Rist & Moen, 2013). This can be achieved
incrementally through adaptive governance and management and the systematic improvement of
policy implementation (Hasselman, 2017), or via transition governance and management, and the
organization of evolutionary processes of societal change (Mårald et al., 2017).
Over the last three decades promising governance modes have emerged that support biodiversity
conservation and mainstreaming in Europe and Central Asia. However, our assessment shows that
there are underutilized opportunities for policy integration and mainstreaming that might facilitate

1059
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

the transition towards an inclusive green economy (see e.g. “Greening Economies in the Eastern
Neighbourhood Programme” (EaP-Green) (UNEP & UNECE, 2016, p. 154). Developing and improving
governance systems to promote adaptive or transition management is therefore essential, if public
and private actors are to achieve the overarching objective of safeguarding biodiversity, nature’s
contributions to people and good quality of life. Mainstreaming biodiversity and nature’s contributions
to people along the three key steps of raising awareness, defining policy objectives, and designing
policies and instruments (Figure 6.13) is crucial to the success of this endeavour.

1060
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

6.7 References

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International
Organization, 54(3), 421–456. http://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551280
Acar, S., & Aşıcı, A. A. (2017). Nature and economic growth in Turkey: What does ecological footprint
imply? Middle East Development Journal, 9(1), 101–115.
http://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2017.1288475
Acar, S., Challe, S., Christopoulos, S., & Christo, G. (2014). Fossil fuel subsidies as a lose-lose: Fiscal and
environmental burdens in Turkey. In 14th IAEE European Energy Conference, 28-31 October 2014,
Rome, Italy.
Acar, S., Kitson, L., & Bridle, R. (2015). Subsidies to coal and renewable energy in Turkey. International
Institute for Sustainable Development.
Adam, R. (2010). Missing the 2010 biodiversity target: A wake-up call for the Convention on
Biodiversity? Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, 21(1), 123–166.
Adams, P. W. R., Shirley, J. E. J., & McManus, M. C. (2015). Comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle
assessment of wood pellet production with torrefaction. Applied Energy, 138, 367–380.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.002
Adams, W. M., Hodge, I. D., Macgregor, N. A., & Sandbrook, L. C. (2016). Creating restoration
landscapes: partnerships in large-scale conservation in the UK. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 1.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08498-210301
Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity
conservation. Conservation and Society, 5(2), 147–183.
Adelle, C., Jordan, A., & Benson, D. (2015). The role of policy networks in the coordination of the
European Union’s economic and environmental interests: The case of EU mercury policy. Journal
of European Integration, 37(4), 471–489. http://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2015.1004632
Agarin, T., & Grīviņš, M. (2016). Chasing the green buck? Environmental activism in post-communist
Baltic states. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 49(3), 243–254.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.06.001
Agbenyega, O., Burgess, P. J., Cook, M., & Morris, J. (2009). Application of an ecosystem function
framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy, 26, 551–557.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.08.011
Agnew, D. J., Gutierrez, N. L., Stern-Pirlot, A., & Hoggarth, D. D. (2014). The MSC experience: developing
an operational certification standard and a market incentive to improve fishery sustainability.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(2), 216–225. http://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst091
Agnoletti, M. (2006). Traditional knowledge and the European common agricultural policy (PAC): The
case of the Italian National Rural Development Plan 2007-2013. In J. Parrotta, M. Agnoletti, & E.
Johann (Eds.), Cultural heritage and sustainable forest management: The role of traditional
knowledge (pp. 17–25). Florence, Italy: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe. Retrieved from http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/volume_1c.pdf
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development
and Change, 26(3), 413–439. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00560.x
Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban

1061
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning,
125, 254–259. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020
Ahmed, A., & Mustofa, M. J. (2016). Role of soft law in environmental protection: An overview. Global
Journal of Politics and Law Research, 4(2), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.eajournals.org/wp-
content/uploads/Role-of-Soft-Law-in-Environmental-Protection-An-Overview.pdf
Åhrén, M. (2016). Indigenous peoples’ status in the international legal system. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Aiama, D., Carbone, G., Cator, D., & Challender, D. (2016). Biodiversity risks and opportunities in the
apparel sector. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Akder, A. H. (2007). Policy Formation in the process of implementing agricultural reform in Turkey.
International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 6(4/5), 514-532.
http://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2007.013509
Albert, C., Aronson, J., Fürst, C., & Opdam, P. (2014). Integrating ecosystem services in landscape
planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landscape Ecology, 29(8), 1277–1285.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0085-0
Albert, C., Galler, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., & Lovett, A. (2016a). Applying
ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-planning
framework. Ecological Indicators, 61, 100–113. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.029
Albert, C., Hermes, J., Neuendorf, F., von Haaren, C., & Rode, M. (2016b). Assessing and governing
ecosystem services trade-offs in agrarian landscapes: The case of biogas. Land, 5(1), 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.3390/land5010001
Albrecht, M., Duelli, P., Müller, C., Kleijn, D., & Schmid, B. (2007). The Swiss agri-environment scheme
enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed
farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 813–822. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2007.01306.x
Allard, C. (2006). Two sides of the coin: rights and duties: the interface between environmental law and
Saami law based on a comparison with Aoteoaroa/New Zealand and Canada. Luleå University of
Technology. Retrieved from https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:999489/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Allard, C. (2015). Some characteristic features of Scandinavian law and their influence on Sami matters.
In C. Allard & S. F. Skogvang (Eds.), Indigenous rights in Scandinavia: autonomous Sami law (pp.
49–64). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Alvarado-Quesada, I., Hein, L., & Weikard, H.-P. (2014). Market-based mechanisms for biodiversity
conservation: a review of existing schemes and an outline for a global mechanism. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 23, 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0598-x
Amacher, G. S., Ollikainen, M., & Uusivuori, J. (2014). Forests and ecosystem services: Outlines for new
policy options. Forest Policy and Economics, 47, 1–3. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.002
Anaya, S. J. (2004). Indigenous peoples in international law. Second Edition. New York, USA: Oxford
University Press.
Anaya, S. J. (2015). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on extractive
industries and indigenous peoples. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 32(1),
109–142.

1062
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Anderies, J. M., & Janssen, M. A. (2013). Robustness of social-ecological systems: Implications for
public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 513–536. http://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12027
Anderson, M. R. (1996). Human rights approaches to environmental protection: An overview. In A. E.
Boyle & M. R. Anderson (Eds.), Human rights approaches to environmental protection (pp. 1–23).
Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Andersson, J. O., & Lindroth, M. (2001). Ecologically unsustainable trade. Ecological Economics, 37(1),
113–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00272-X
Andrello, M., Jacobi, M. N., Manel, S., Thuiller, W., & Mouillot, D. (2015). Extending networks of
protected areas to optimize connectivity and population growth rate. Ecography, 38(3), 273–282.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.00975
Angelstam, P., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Elbakidze, M., Jonsson, B. G., & Roberge, J. (2011).
Protecting forest areas for biodiversity in Sweden 1991-2010: the policy implementation process
and outcomes on the ground. Silva Fennica, 45(5), 1111–1133. http://doi.org/10.14214/sf.90
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. http://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Anton, D. K., & Shelton, D. L. (2011). Environmental protection and human rights. New-York, USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Arctic Council. (1996). Ottawa Declaraion. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-
council.org/handle/11374/85
Arlettaz, R., Schaub, M., Fournier, J., Reichlin, T. S., Sierro, A., Watson, J. E. M., & Braunisch, V. (2010).
From publications to public actions: When conservation biologists bridge the gap between
research and implementation. BioScience, 60(10), 835–842.
http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10
Arnouts, R., van der Zouwen, M., & Arts, B. (2012). Analysing governance modes and shifts —
Governance arrangements in Dutch nature policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 43–50.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.04.001
Arts, B. (2014). Assessing forest governance from a “Triple G” perspective: Government, governance,
governmentality. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 17–22. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934114000793
Arts, B., Leroy, P., & van Tatenhove, J. (2006). Political modernisation and policy arrangements: A
framework for understanding environmental policy change. Public Organization Review, 6(2), 93–
106. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-006-0001-4
Aşıcı, A. A., & Acar, S. (2016). Does income growth relocate ecological footprint? Ecological Indicators,
61, 707–714. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.022
Aukema, J. E., & Vigerstol, K. L. (2012). Impacts and dependencies of the beverage sector on biodiversity
and ecosystem services: An introduction. Retrieved from www.bieroundtable.com
Auld, G. (2014). Constructing private governance. The rise and evolution of forest, coffee, and fisheries
certification. London, UK: Yale University Press.
Auld, G., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2010). Transparency in nonstate certification: Consequences for
accountability and legitimacy. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 97–119.
http://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00016

1063
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. L. (2008). Certification schemes and the impacts on
forests and Forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 187–211.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.013007.103754
Auld, G., Mallett, A., Burlica, B., Nolan-Poupart, F., & Slater, R. (2014). Evaluating the effects of policy
innovations: Lessons from a systematic review of policies promoting low-carbon technology.
Global Environmental Change, 29, 444–458. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.002
Aviron, S., Nitsch, H., Jeanneret, P., Buholzer, S., Luka, H., Pfiffner, L., Pozzi, S., Schupbach, B., Walter,
T., & Herzog, F. (2009). Ecological cross compliance promotes farmland biodiversity in
Switzerland. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(5), 247–252.
http://doi.org/10.1890/070197
Babai, D., & Molnár, Z. (2014). Small-scale traditional management of highly species-rich grasslands in
the Carpathians. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 182, 123–130.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.018
Babai, D., Tóth, A., Szentirmai, I., Biró, M., Máté, A., Demeter, L., Szépligeti, M., Varga, A., Molnár, Á.,
Kun, R., & Molnár, Z. (2015). Do conservation and agri-environmental regulations effectively
support traditional small-scale farming in East-Central European cultural landscapes? Biodiversity
and Conservation, 24(13), 3305–3327. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-
015-0971-z
Bagnoli, P., Goeschl, T., & Kovács, E. (2008). People and biodiversity policies. Impacts, issues and
strategies for policy action. Paris, France: OECD. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264034341-en
Bakir, K., & Aydin, I. (2016). New localities in the Aegean Sea for alien shrimps Penaeus aztecus (Ives,
1891) and Metapenaeus affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1837). Acta Adriatica, 57(2), 273–279.
Banister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M., & Schwanen, T. (2011). Transportation and the
environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 247–270.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-032310-112100
Bankes, N., & Koivurova, T. (Eds.). (2013). The proposed Nordic Saami convention: National and
international dimensions of indigenous property rights. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Barnett, A. J., & Anderies, J. M. (2014). Weak feedbacks, governance mismatches, and the robustness
of social-ecological systems: an analysis of the southwest Nova Scotia lobster fishery with
comparison to Maine. Ecology and Society, 19(4), 39. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06714-190439
Barton, D. N., Ring, I., Rusch, G., Brouwer, R., Grieg-Gran, M., Primmer, E., May, P., Santos, R., Lindhjem,
H., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Lienhoop, N., Similä, J., Antunes, P., Andrade, D. C., Romerio, A.,
Chacón-Cascante, A., & DeClerck, F. (2014). Guidelines for multi-scale policy mix assessments.
POLICYMIX Technical Brief No. 12. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). Retrieved
from http://policymix.nina.no/
Bastian, O., Corti, C., & Lebboroni, M. (2007). Determining environmental minimum requirements for
functions provided by agro-ecosystems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 27(4), 279–291.
http://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2007027
Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R. T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., Binner, A., Crowe,
A., Day, B. H., Dugdale, S., Fezzi, C., Foden, J., Hadley, D., Haines-Young, R., Hulme, M., Kontoleon,
A., Lovett, A. A., Munday, P., Pascual, U., Paterson, J., Perino, G., Sen, A., Siriwardena, G., van
Soest, D., & Termansen, M. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision-making:
Land use in the United Kingdom. Science, 341(6141), 45–50. Retrieved from

1064
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6141/45.abstract
Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: Integrating nature into urban design and planning. Washington, DC:
Island Press. Retrieved from https://islandpress.org/book/biophilic-cities
Beaufoy, G., & Cooper, T. (2009). Guidance document: The application of the high nature value impact
indicator. 2007-2013. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission Agriculture and Rural
Development.
Beland Lindahl, K., Sandström, C., & Sténs, A. (2017). Alternative pathways to sustainability?
Comparing forest governance models. Forest Policy and Economics, 77, 69–78.
http://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORPOL.2016.10.008
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, A.-C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity
and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261–269.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x
Benjaminsen, T. A., & Svarstad, H. (2010). The death of an elephant: Conservation discourses versus
practices in Africa. Forum for Development Studies, 37(3), 385–408. Retrieved from
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/08039410.2010.516406
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T.
J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R.,
Veríssimo, D., & Wyborn, C. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating
human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Bérard, L., & Marchenay, P. (2006). Local products and geographical indications: Taking account of local
knowledge and biodiversity. International Social Science Journal, 187, 109–116.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2451.2006.00592.x
Berendse, F., Chamberlain, D., Kleijn, D., & Schekkerman, H. (2004). Declining biodiversity in
agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Ambio, 33(8), 499–
502. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.499
Berkes, F. (2009). Indigenous ways of knowing and the study of environmental change. Journal of the
Royal Society of New Zealand, 39(4), 151–156. http://doi.org/10.1080/03014220909510568
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive
management. Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1251–1262. http://doi.org/10.1890/1051-
0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2
Bernauer, T., Böhmelt, T., & Koubi, V. (2013). Is there a democracy–civil society paradox in global
environmental governance? Global Environmental Politics, 13(1), 88–107.
http://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00155
Bertram, C., Dworak, T., Görlitz, S., Interwies, E., & Rehdanz, K. (2014). Cost-benefit analysis in the
context of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive: The case of Germany. Marine Policy, 43,
307–312. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.016
Betsill, M. M., & Bulkeley, H. (2004). Transnational networks and global environmental governance:
The cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 471–493.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00310.x
Beunen, R., van der Knaap, W. G. M., & Biesbroek, G. R. (2009). Implementation and integration of EU
environmental directives. Experiences from The Netherlands. Environmental Policy and

1065
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Governance, 19(1), 57–69. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.495

Beyerlin, U., & Marauhn, T. (2011). International environmental law. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Bichsel, C., Fokou, G., Ibraimova, A., Kasymov, U., Steimann, B., & Thieme, S. (2010). Natural resource
institutions in transformation: The tragedy and glory of the private. In H. Hurni & U. Wiesmann
(Eds.), Global change and sustainable development: A synthesis of regional experiences from
research partnerships (pp. 255–269). Bern, Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia.
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research
framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.008
Biesbroek, G. R., Klostermann, J. E. M., Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Kabat, P. (2013). On the nature of barriers
to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 13(5), 1119–1129.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y
Birnie, P., Boyle, A., & Redgwell, C. (2009). International law and the environment. Third Edition.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-law-and-the-environment-
9780198764229?cc=de&lang=en&
Birrer, S., Spiess, M., Herzog, F., Jenny, M., Kohli, L., & Lugrin, B. (2007). The Swiss agri-environment
scheme promotes farmland birds: but only moderately. Journal of Ornithology, 148(2), 295–303.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-007-0237-y
Blackman, A., & Rivera, J. (2011). Producer-level benefits of sustainability certification. Conservation
Biology, 25(6), 1176–1185. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01774.x
Blackstock, K. L. (2017). Participation in the context of ecological economics. In C. L. Spash (Ed.),
Routledge handbook of ecological economics (pp. 341–350). London, UK: Routledge.
Blackstock, K. L., Waylen, K. A., Dunglinson, J., & Marshall, K. M. (2012). Linking process to outcomes -
Internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning.
Ecological Economics, 77(2012), 113–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.015
Blanchard, A. (2015). Choosing our food futures through participation? A critique of `scenario
workshops’ in Lofoten. In S. Hongladarom (Ed.), Food security and food safety for the twenty-first
century: Proceedings of APSAFE2013 (pp. 217–227). Singapore: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-417-7_19
Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Antonson, H., Elbakidze, M., & Axelsson, R. (2011). Road, forestry and
regional planners’ work for biodiversity conservation and public participation: a case study in
Poland’s hotspot regions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(10), 1373–
1395. http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.575297
Bodansky, D. (2015). Legal realism and its discontents. Leiden Journal of International Law, 28(2), 267–
281. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156515000072
Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-
ecological systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114
Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What
relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
Boeuf, B., & Fritsch, O. (2016). Studying the implementation of the water framework directive in

1066
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Europe: A meta-analysis of 89 journal articles. Ecology and Society, 21(2), 19.

http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08411-210219
Bogoslovskaya, L. S. [Боголовская, Л. С.]. (2015). Коренные народы Российского Севера в условиях
глобальных климатических изменений и воздействия промышленного освоения
[Indigenous peoples of the Russian North in the face of global climate change and the impact of
industrial development]. Библиотека Коренных Народов Севера [Library of Indigenous Peoples
of the North], 16, 134. Retrieved from http://www.csipn.ru/publications/2013-02-25-09-14-
00#.WW8iTtOGNsM
Bomberg, E. (2007). Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: environmental NGOs and new
policy instruments. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 248–268.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13501760601122522
Borie, M., & Hulme, M. (2015). Framing global biodiversity: IPBES between mother earth and
ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 487–496.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.009
Borie, M., Mathevet, R., Letourneau, A., Ring, I., Thompson, J. D., & Marty, P. (2014). Exploring the
contribution of fiscal transfers to protected area policy. Ecology and Society, 19(1), 9.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05716-190109
Borrass, L., Sotirov, M., & Winkel, G. (2015). Policy change and Europeanization: Implementing the
European Union’s Habitats Directive in Germany and the United Kingdom. Environmental Politics,
24, 788–809. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2015.1027056
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Broome, N. P., Phillips, A., & Sandwith, T.
(2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to action. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., & Oviedo, G. (2004a). Indigenous and local communities and
protected areas: Towards equity and enhanced conservation (No. 11). Gland, Switzerland: World
Commission on Protected Areas.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M. T., Kothari, A., & Renard, Y. (2004b). Sharing power:
learning by doing in co-management of natural resources throughout the world. London, UK:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Bouma, J., & van Beukering, P. (Eds.). (2015). Ecosystem services: From concept to practice. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107477612
Bouriaud, L., Nichiforel, L., Weiss, G., Bajraktari, A., Curovic, M., Dobsinska, Z., Glavonjic, C., Jarsky, V.,
Sarvasova, Z., Teder, M., & Zalite, Z. (2013). Governance of private forests in Eastern and Central
Europe: An analysis of forest harvesting and management rights. Annals of Forest Research, 56(1),
199–215.
Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K. J., Berry, P., Young, J. C., Carmen, E., Spulerova, J.,
Bezak, P., Preda, E., & Vadineanu, A. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU
policies. Ecosystem Services, 29, 213-222. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011
Boyes, S. J., Elliott, M., Murillas-Maza, A., Papadopoulou, N., & Uyarra, M. C. (2016). Is existing
legislation fit-for-purpose to achieve good environmental status in European seas? Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 111(1–2), 18–32. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.079
Boyle, A., & Anderson, M. R. (1996). Human rights approaches to environmental protection. Oxford,
UK: Clarendon.

1067
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Brelik, A., Kułyk, P., & Brelik Piotr Kułyk, A. (2014). The evaluation of the attractiveness of the tourist
commune as conditioning of the development of agricultural tourism farms. Management, 18(1),
504-517. http://doi.org/10.2478/manment-2014-0037
Brescancin, F., Dobšinská, Z., De Meo, I., Šálka, J., & Paletto, A. (2017). Analysis of stakeholders’
involvement in the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in Slovakia. Forest Policy and
Economics, 78, 107–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.010
BRGM. (2001). Management of mining, quarrying, and ore-processing waste in the European Union
(No. RP-50319-FR). 79 p., 7 Figs., 17 Tables, 7 annexes, 1 CD-ROM (collected data). Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/mining/0204finalreportbrgm.pdf
Briand, G., Heckelei, T., Matulich, S. C., & Mittelhammer, R. C. (2004). Managing fishing power: the
case of Alaska red king crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 61(1), 43–53. http://doi.org/10.1139/F03-138
Bridgewater, P., & Babin, D. (2017). UNESCO–MAB biosphere reserves already deal with ecosystem
services and sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 114(22), E4318–E4318. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702761114
Brosius, J. P. (2004). Indigenous peoples and protected areas at the World Parks Congress.
Conservation Biology, 18(3), 609–612. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01834.x
Brouwer, S., Rayner, T., & Huitema, D. (2013). Mainstreaming climate policy: The case of climate
adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy. Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy, 31(1), 134–153. http://doi.org/10.1068/c11134
Bruel, A., Troussier, N., Guillaume, B., & Sirina, N. (2016). Considering ecosystem services in life cycle
assessment to evaluate environmental externalities. Procedia CIRP, 48, 382–387.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.143
Brukas, V. (2015). New World, old ideas — A narrative of the Lithuanian forestry transition. Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(4), 495–515.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2014.993023
Buijs, A. E. (2009). Public natures: social representations of nature and local practices. Retrieved from
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/382322
Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Rink, D., & Young, J. C. (2008). Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps:
Understanding public representations of biodiversity. International Journal of Biodiversity Science
& Management, 4, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1
Buizer, M., Arts, B., & Kok, K. (2011). Governance, scale and the environment: The importance of
recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 21.
Bukvareva, E. N., Grunewald, K., Bobylev, S. N., Zamolodchikov, D. G., Zimenko, A. V., & Bastian, O.
(2015). The current state of knowledge of ecosystem and ecosystem services in Russia: status
report. Ambio, 44(6), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0674-4
Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Biodiversity offsets in
theory and practice. Oryx, 47(3), 369–380. http://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531200172X
Burgin, S. (2008). BioBanking: an environmental scientist’s view of the role of biodiversity banking
offsets in conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17(4), 807–816.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9319-2
Burrascano, S., Chytrý, M., Kuemmerle, T., Giarrizzo, E., Luyssaert, S., Sabatini, F. M., & Blasi, C. (2016).

1068
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Current European policies are unlikely to jointly foster carbon sequestration and protect
biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 201, 370–376.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.005
Burton, R. J. F., & Paragahawewa, U. H. (2011). Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental
schemes. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 95–104. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001
Burton, R. J. F., & Schwarz, G. (2013). Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their
potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 629–641.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.002.
Busch, J., & Mukherjee, A. (2017). Encouraging state governments to protect and restore forests using
ecological fiscal transfers: India’s tax revenue distribution reform. Conservation Letters, 11(2), 1-
10. http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12416
CACFish. (2016). Monitoring the implementation of CACFish decisions and the code of conduct for
responsible fisheries in the region. CACFish/V/2016/4 E. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Central Asian and
Caucasus Regional Fisheries and Aquaculture Commission.
Caffrey, J., Baars, J., Barbour, J., Boets, P., Boon, P., Davenport, K., Dick, J. T., Early, J., Edsman, L.,
Gallagher, C., Gross, J., Heinimaa, P., Horrill, C., Hudin, S., Hulme, P., Hynes, S., MacIsaac, H.,
McLoone, P., Millane, M., Moen, T., Moore, N., Newman, J., O’Conchuir, R., O’Farrell, M., O’Flynn,
C., Oidtmann, B., Renals, T., Ricciardi, A., Roy, H., Shaw, van R., van Valkenburg, J. L. C., Weyl, O.,
Willams, F., & Lucy, F. (2014). Tackling invasive alien species in Europe: the top 20 issues.
Management of Biological Invasions, 5(1), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.3391/mbi.2014.5.1.01
Campese, J., Sunderland, T., Greiber, T., & Oviedo, G. (Eds.). (2009). Rights-based approaches:
Exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.
Canan, P., Andersen, S. O., Reichman, N., & Gareau, B. (2015). Introduction to the special issue on
ozone layer protection and climate change: the extraordinary experience of building the
Montreal Protocol, lessons learned, and hopes for future climate change efforts. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(2), 111–121. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0224-1
Carmin, J., & VanDeveer, S. D. (Eds.). (2005). EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change
and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe. London, UK: Routledge.
Carter, J., Grisa, E., Akenshaev, R., Saparbaev, N., Sieber, P., & Samyn, J.-M. (2010). Revisiting
collaborative forest management in Kyrgyzstan: What happened to bottom- up decision-making?
Gatekeeper Series, 148, 18.
Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness
of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political
constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30(6), 371–379.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.01.004
Cashore, B. W. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state
market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–
529. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00199
Cashore, B. W., Auld, G., & Newsom, D. (2004). Governing through markets forest certification and the
emergence of non-state authority. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.
Cassese, A. (2005). International law. Second edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
CBD. (2010). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

1069
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

CBD. (2011). NBSAP training modules version 2.1 – Module 3. Mainstreaming biodiversity into national
sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies, policies, plans and programs. Montreal: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/training/
CBD. (2012). Decision XI/7: Business and biodiversity.
CBD. (2014). Global biodiversity outlook 4. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/gbo4/
CBD. (2016a). Cancun declaration on mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity for well-being. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/cop/cop-13/hls/in-
session/cancun-declaration-draft-dec-03-2016-pm-en.pdf
CBD. (2016b). Fifth national report. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from https://www.cbd.int/reports/nr5/
CBD. (2016c). National reports and NBSAPs. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from
https://www.cbd.int/reports/search/
CBD. (2016d). UNEP/CBD/COP/13/8/Rev.1: Updated report on progress in the implementation of the
Convention and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and towards the achievement of the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-
dec-01-en.pdf
CBD. (2017a). Environmental fiscal reforms. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from
https://www.cbd.int/financial/0020.shtml
CBD. (2017b). Parties to the Nagoya Protocol. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from
https://www.cbd.int/abs/nagoya-protocol/signatories/default.shtml
CBD & UNEP-WCMC. (2012). Best policy guidance for the integration if biodiversity and ecosystem
services for the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in standards. Montreal:
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from
http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=0AB7507535D0F6
B6CE06F0E6EDB080CF?id=MON-089076%7B&%7Dindex=literature
Cefic. (2013). Biodiversity and ecosystem services - What are they all about? Brussels, Belgium: The
European Chemical Industry Council.
Chambers, R. H. (2008). An overview of the Australian legal framework for mining projects in Australia.
Melbourne, Australia: Chambers & Company.
Chan, K. M. A., Satterfield, T., & Goldstein, J. (2012). Rethinking ecosystem services to better address
and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics, 74, 8–18.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011
Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation
planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., Arx, M. von, Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec,
M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedõ, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser,
U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C.,
Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F.,
Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A.,
Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek,
R. W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H.,

1070
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšk, T., Stojanov, A.,
Swenson, J. E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R.,
Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wolfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D., & Boitani, L. (2014). Recovery
of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346(6216), 1517–
1519. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257553
CIESM. (2007). CIESM workshop monographs, n°32. Retrieved September 9, 2017, from
http://www.ciesm.org/online/monographs/Lisboa.html
Cleaver, F. (2002). Reinventing institutions: Bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource
management. European Journal of Development Research, 14, 11–30.
CMS. (2011). UNEP/CMS/Inf.10.33: Review of freshwater fish. Retrieved from
http://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/inf_33_freshwater_fish_eonly_0.pdf
CMS. (2014). UNEP/CMS/Resolution 11.27: Renewable energy technologies and migratory species:
Guidelines for sustainable deployment.
Colloca, F., Scarcella, G., & Libralato, S. (2017). Recent trends and impacts of fisheries exploitation on
Mediterranean stocks and ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 244.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00244
Common Wadden Sea Secretariat. (2017). The trilateral cooperation on the protection of the Wadden
Sea. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from http://www.waddensea-secretariat.org/
Costanza, R., & Daly, H. E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology,
6(1), 37–46. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.610037.x
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., &
Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental
Change, 26, 152–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002
Couix, N., & Gonzalo-Turpin, H. (2015). Towards a land management approach to ecological restoration
to encourage stakeholder participation. Land Use Policy, 46, 155–162.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.025
Council of Europe. (2000). ETS No.176: European Landscape Convention.
http://doi.org/http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm
Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus. (2015). Resolution No. 1111 of 30.12.2015 on a strategy
for the conservation and wise (sustainable) use of peatlands. Retrieved from
http://www.by.undp.org/content/belarus/en/home/library/environment_energy/strategy-for-
conservation-and-wise--sustainable--use-of-peatland.html
Crewett, W. (2015). Street-level bureaucrats at work: A municipality-level institutional analysis of
community-based natural resource management implementation practice in the pasture sector
of Kyrgyzstan. Sustainability, 7(3), 3146–3174. http://doi.org/10.3390/su7033146
Cudlínová, E., Lapka, M., & Bartos, M. (1999). Problems of agriculture and landscape management as
perceived by farmers of the Sumava Mountains (Czech Republic). Landscape and Urban Planning,
46, 71–82. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00048-1
DAISIE. (2017). Delivering alien invasive species inventories for Europe. Retrieved October 14, 2017,
from http://www.europe-aliens.org/
Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, USA: Beacon
Press.

1071
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Daly, H. E., & Townsend, K. (Eds.). (1993). Valuing the Earth: Economics, ecology and ethics. Cambridge,
USA: The MIT Press.
Dasgupta, P. (2009). The welfare economic theory of green national accounts. Environmental and
Resource Economics, 42(1), 1–38. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9223-y
Davidson, J., Birnie, I., Irvine, R., Gimona, A., Blackstock, K., Baggio, A., Byg, A., Donnelly, D., Somevi, J.,
Aalders, I., Dunn, S., & Sample, J. (2015). Aberdeenshire land use strategy pilot. Retrieved from
https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/media/6237/aberdeenshirelandusestrategypilotfinalreport
march2015.pdf
Daw, T., & Gray, T. (2005). Fisheries science and sustainability in international policy: a study of failure
in the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, 29(3), 189–197.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.03.003
de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the
concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision
making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
Decker, D., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle-Capitman, C., Schuler, K., & Organ,
J. (2016). Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conservation
Letters, 9(4), 290–295. http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12211
Dehm, J. (2016). Indigenous peoples and REDD+ safeguards: rights as resistance or as disciplinary
inclusion in the green economy? Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 7(2), 170–217.
http://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2016.02.01
Deininger, K., & Byerlee, D. (2011). Rising global interest in farmland. Can it yield sustainable and
equitable benefits? Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. http://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8591-
3
Demeter, L. (2017). Biodiversity and ecosystem services of hardwood floodplain forests: Past, present
and future from the perspective of local communities in west Ukraine. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár
(Eds.), Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and
Central Asia (pp. 6–19). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Demeulenaere, E., & Bonneuil, C. (2010). Cultiver la biodiversité. Semences et identité paysanne.
[Cultivate biodiversity. Seeds and peasant identity]. In B. Hervieu, N. Mayer, P. Müller, F.
Purseigle, & J. Rémy (Eds.), Les mondes agricoles en politique. De la fin des paysans au retour de
la question agricole [The politics of agricultural worlds: from the end of the peasants to the return
of the agricultural issue] (pp. 73–92). Paris, France: Les Presses de Sciences.
Derkx, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2014). Elaborating global private meta-governance: An inventory in the
realm of voluntary sustainability standards. Global Environmental Change, 27, 41–50.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.016
Di Marco, M., Watson, J. E. M., Venter, O., & Possingham, H. P. (2016). Global biodiversity targets
require both sufficiency and efficiency. Conservation Letters, 9, 395–397.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12299
Diamond, B., & Beukers-Stewart, B. D. (2011). Fisheries discards in the North Sea: Waste of resources
or a necessary evil? Reviews in Fisheries Science, 19(3), 231–245.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10641262.2011.585432
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S.,
Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E.,

1072
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., Koetz, T., Leadley, P., Lyver, P., Mace, G. M., Martin-Lopez,
B., Okumura, M., Pacheco, D., Pascual, U., Pérez, E. S., Reyers, B., Roth, E., Saito, O., Scholes, R.
J., Sharma, N., Tallis, H., Thaman, R., Watson, R., Yahara, T., Hamid, Z. A., Akosim, C., Al-Hafedh,
Y., Allahverdiyev, R., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Asfaw, Z., Bartus, G., Brooks, L. A., Caillaux, J.,
Dalle, G., Darnaedi, D., Driver, A., Erpul, G., Escobar-Eyzaguirre, P., Failler, P., Fouda, A. M. M., Fu,
B., Gundimeda, H., Hashimoto, S., Homer, F., Lavorel, S., Lichtenstein, G., Mala, W. A.,
Mandivenyi, W., Matczak, P., Mbizvo, C., Mehrdadi, M., Metzger, J. P., Mikissa, J. B., Moller, H.,
Mooney, H. A., Mumby, P., Nagendra, H., Nesshover, C., Oteng-Yeboah, A. A., Pataki, G., Roué,
M., Rubis, J., Schultz, M., Smith, P., Sumaila, R., Takeuchi, K., Thomas, S., Verma, M., Yeo-Chang,
Y., & Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework — connecting nature and people.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Dicks, L., Viana, B. F., Arizmendi, C., Bommarco, R., Brosi, B., Cunningham, S., Galetto, L., Lopes, A., &
Taki, H. (2016). Chapter 6: Responses to risks and opportunities associated with pollinators and
pollination. In 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, & B. F. Viana (Eds.), Assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators,
pollination and food production. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
Ding, J., Mack, R. N., Lu, P., Ren, M., & Huang, H. (2008). China’s booming economy is sparking and
accelerating biological invasions. BioScience, 58(4), 317–324. http://doi.org/10.1641/B580407
Dinmore, T., Duplisea, D. E., Rackham, B. D., Maxwell, D. L., & Jennings, S. (2003). Impact of a large-
scale area closure on patterns of fishing disturbance and the consequences for benthic
communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60(2), 371–380. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-
3139(03)00010-9
Djanibekov, U., Dzhakypbekova, K., Chamberlain, J., Weyerhaeuser, H., Zomer, R., Villamor, G. B., &
Xu, J. (2015). Agroforestry for landscape restoration and livelihood development in Central Asia
(No. 186). Kunming, China: World Agroforestry Centre East and Central Asia Regional Programme.
Domínguez-Tejo, E., Metternicht, G., Johnston, E., & Hedge, L. (2016). Marine spatial planning
advancing the ecosystem-based approach to coastal zone management: A review. Marine Policy,
72, 115–130. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.023
Dörre, A. (2012). Legal arrangements and pasture-related socio-ecological challenges in Kyrgyzstan. In
H. Kreutzmann (Ed.), Pastoral practices in High Asia. Agency of “development” effected by
modernization, resettlement and transformation (pp. 127–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3846-1_7
Dörre, A. (2015). Promises and realities of community-based pasture management approaches:
Observations from Kyrgyzstan. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 15.
http://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-015-0035-8
Dowie, M. (2009). Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation and
native peoples. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
Driessen, P. P. J., Dieperink, C., van Laerhoven, F., Runhaar, H. A. C., & Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2012).
Towards a conceptual framework for the study of shifts in modes of environmental governance

1073
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

– Experiences from The Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(3), 143–160.
http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1580
Droste, N., Lima, G. R., May, P. H., & Ring, I. (2017). Municipal responses to ecological fiscal transfers
in Brazil: A microeconometric panel data approach. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(4),
378–393. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1760
Droste, N., Ring, I., Santos, R., & Kettunen, M. (2018). Ecological fiscal transfers in Europe – evidence-
based design options of a transnational scheme. Ecological Economics, 147, 373-382.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.031
Dubash, N. K., & Florini, A. (2011). Mapping global energy governance. Global Policy, 2, 6–18.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00119.x
EASIN. (2017). European alien species information network (EASIN)- European Commission. Retrieved
October 14, 2017, from https://easin.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
Economic Commission for Europe. (2016). Declaration: “Greener, cleaner, smarter!” Report of the
eighth environment for Europe ministerial conference. ECE/BATUMI.CONF/2016/2/Add.1.
Edwards, P., & Kleinschmit, D. (2013). Towards a European forest policy — Conflicting courses. Forest
Policy and Economics, 33, 87–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.002
EEA. (2000). Annual report 1999. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/corporate_document_2008_4
EEA. (2005). Environmental policy integration in Europe — State of play and an evaluation framework.
EEA Technical Report No. 2/2005. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/technical_report_2005_2
EEA. (2009). Ensuring quality of life in Europe’s cities and towns. EEA Report No. 5/2009. Retrieved
from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/quality-of-life-in-Europes-cities-and-towns
EEA. (2010). Annual report 2009 and Environmental statement 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/annual-report-2009
EEA. (2012a). Protected areas in Europe — an overview. EEA Report No. 5/2012. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/protected-areas-in-europe-2012
EEA. (2012b). Updated high nature value farmland in Europe. An estimate of the distribution patterns
on the basis of CORINE Land Cover 2006 and biodiversity data. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/high-nature-value-farmland
EEA. (2013a). Environmental pressures from European consumption and production — A study in
integrated environmental and economic analysis. EEA Technical Report No. 2/2013. Retrieved
from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental-pressures-from-european-
consumption
EEA. (2013b). Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation. EEA Report No.
1/2013. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2
EEA. (2014). Spatial analysis of green infrastructure in Europe. EEA Technical Report No. 2/2014.
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/spatial-analysis-of-green-
infrastructure
EEA. (2015a). Abundance and distribution of selected species. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/abundance-and-distribution-of-

1074
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

selected-species-6/assessment
EEA. (2015b). High nature value (HNV) farmland. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/data/high-nature-value-farmland
EEA. (2015c). State of nature in the EU. Results from reporting under the nature directives 2007–2012.
EEA Technical Report No. 2/2015. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/state-of-nature-in-the-eu
EEA. (2015d). The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report. Retrieved from
https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
EEA. (2015e). The European environment — state and outlook 2015. 3. Protecting, conserving and
enhancing natural capital. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer
EEA. (2016). Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: progress and challenges.
Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/mapping-europes-ecosystems
Egidarev, E. G., & Simonov, E. A. (2015). Assessment of the environmental effect of placer gold mining
in the Amur River basin. Water Resources, 42(7), 897–908.
http://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807815070039
Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M., & Bondaroff, T. N. P. (2014). From advocacy to confrontation: Direct
enforcement by environmental NGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 58(2), 348–361.
http://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12132
EIP-AGRI Focus Group. (2016). Sustainable high nature value (HNV) farming. Final report. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-
agri_fg_hnv_farming_final_report_2016_en.pdf
ELD Initiative. (2015a). Report for policy and decision makers: Reaping economic and environmental
benefits from sustainable land management. Retrieved from www.eld-initiative.org
ELD Initiative. (2015b). The value of land: Prosperous lands and positive rewards through sustainable
land management. Retrieved from www.eld-initiative.org
Elenius, L., Allard, C., & Sandström, C. (2017). Indigenous rights in modern landscapes Nordic
conservation regimes in global context. London, UK: Routledge.
http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315607559
Eliasen, S., Sverdrup-Jensen, S., Holm, P., & Johnsen, J. P. (2009). Nordic experience of fisheries
management: Seen in relation to the reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. Tema Nord (No.
579). Retrieved from http://norden.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A701979&dswid=8670
Elmqvist, T., Maltby, E., Barker, T., Mortimer, M., Perrings, C., Aronson, J., De Groot, R., Fitter, A., Mace,
G., Norberg, J., Sousa Pinto, I., & Ring, I. (2010). Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services.
In P. Kumar (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic
foundations (pp. 41–111). London, UK: Earthscan.
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Evaluating the productivity of collaborative governance regimes: A
performance matrix. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(4), 717–747.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016
Ensor, J. E., Park, S. E., Hoddy, E. T., & Ratner, B. D. (2015). A rights-based perspective on adaptive
capacity. Global Environmental Change, 31, 38–49.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.005

1075
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

EPBRS. (2016). European Platform Biodiversity Research Strategy in a nutshell. Retrieved December
18, 2016, from http://www.epbrs.org/static/show/info
Esty, D. C., & Ivanova, M. H. (2002). Global environmental governance: Options & opportunities. New
Haven, USA: Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
EUFORGEN. (2017). EUFORGEN – the European Forest Genetic Resources Programme. Retrieved
November 15, 2017, from http://www.euforgen.org/about-us/overview/
EUR-lex. (2017). Open method of coordination. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/open_method_coordination.html
European Commission. (2004). The Common Agricultural Policy explained. Retrieved from
http://www.seerural.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/04_THE-COMMON-AGRICULTURAL-
POLICY-EXPLAINED.pdf
European Commission. (2008). Towards an EU strategy on invasive species. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/docs/1_EN_ACT_part1_v6.pd
European Commission. (2009a). Building a sustainable future for aquaculture. A new impetus for the
Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0162:FIN:EN:PDF
European Commission. (2009b). Reference document on best available techniques for management of
tailings and waste-rock in mining activities. Retrieved from
http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/BREF/mmr_adopted_0109.pdf
European Commission. (2010). A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Retrieved from
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020
European Commission. (2011a). Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to
2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN
European Commission. (2011b). Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products.
Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0416_
/com_com(2011)0416_en.pdf
European Commission. (2011c). Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a
competitive and resource efficient transport system. White Paper on European transport policy.
Office for Official Publications of the European Union. Retrieved from
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/fuel-prices-and-taxes/roadmap-to-a-
single-european
European Commission. (2012). The multifunctionality of green infrastructure. Science for environment
policy. In-depth report. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf
European Commission. (2013a). CAP expenditure in the total EU expenditure (2007 constant prices),
CAP post-2013: Key graphs and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.learneurope.eu/files/3613/7456/1565/Cap_expenditure_en.pdf
European Commission. (2013b). Green infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s natural capital.

1076
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0249

European Commission. (2013c). Overview of CAP reform 2014-2020. Agricultural policy perspectives
brief, No 5. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-
briefs/05_en.pdf
European Commission. (2013d). Rural development in the EU. Statistical and economic information:
Report 2013. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/rural-development/2013/full-
text_en.pdf
European Commission. (2013e). Strategic guidelines for the sustainable development of EU
aquaculture. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/docs/body/com_2013_229_en.pdf
European Commission. (2014a). Farming for Natura 2000. Guidance on how to support Natura 2000
farming systems to achieve conservation objectives, based on Member States good practice
experiences. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/FARMING%20FOR%2
0NATURA%202000-final%20guidance.pdf
European Commission. (2014b). Report on the distribution of direct aids to agricultural producers
(financial year 2013). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap-
funding/beneficiaries/direct-aid/pdf/annex2-2013_en.pdf
European Commission. (2014c). Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/circular-economy-
communication.pdf
European Commission. (2014d). Turkey. Bilateral relations in agriculture. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/bilateral-relations/pdf/turkey_en.pdf
European Commission. (2015a). EU agriculture spending focused on results. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/cap-funding/pdf/cap-spending-09-
2015_en.pdf
European Commission. (2015b). The mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Report
from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0478
European Commission. (2016a). Accelerating Europe’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-500-EN-F1-1.PDF
European Commission. (2016b). Fitness check of the EU nature legislation (Birds and Habitats
Directives). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/fitness-check-eu-nature-
legislation-birds-and-habitats-directives-directive-2009-147-ec-conservation-wild-birds-and-
council-directive-92-43-eec-conservation-natural-habitats-and-wild-fauna-and-flora-and-rsb-
opinion_en
European Commission. (2016c). Integration of Natura 2000 and biodiversity into EU funding (EAFRD,
ERDF, CF, EMFF, ESF). Analysis of a selection of operational programmes approved for 2014-2020.
Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Natura2000_integration_
into_EU funds.pdf

1077
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

European Commission. (2016d). Science for Environment Policy. Natura 2000 conservation: how can
social-science research enhance conservation outcomes? Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/natura_2000_social_sci
ence_research_enhance_conservation_outcomes_467na1_en.pdf
European Commission. (2016e). Scientific advice on managing fish stocks. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/scientific_advice/index_en.htm
European Commission. (2016f). Summary of the 27 multiannual national aquaculture plans. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/multiannual-national-plans_en
European Commission. (2017). The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Management of EU fisheries.
Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en
European Community. (1975). Directive 75/442/EEC on Waste. Official Journal of the European
Communities, L 194/39, 1-10. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1975L0442:20031120:EN:PDF
European Community. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/1, 1–72. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-
756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
European Council. (2016). Council conclusions on the EU action plan for the circular economy.
Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/20-envi-
conclusions-circular-economy/
European Network for Rural Development. (2013). Coordination committee focus group delivery of
environmental services. Retrieved from https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/1af310a9-
aa6b-a904-5dbb-8c71cef3257e.pdf
European Parliament. (2013). Industrial heritage and agri/rural tourism in Europe. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495840/IPOL-
TRAN_ET%282013%29495840_EN.pdf
European Parliament. (2017). Energy policy: general principles. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_5.7.1.html
European Union. (2004). Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April
2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental
damage. Official Journal of the European Union, L 143/56, 56–75. Retrieved from https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02004L0035-20130718
European Union. (2006). Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 12
December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration. Official
Journal of the European Union, L372/19, 19–31. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0118
European Union. (2007a). Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 of 11 June 2007 concerning use of alien
and locally absent species in aquaculture. Official Journal of the European Union, L 168/1.
Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007R0708&from=EN
European Union. (2007b). Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23
October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. Official Journal of the European

1078
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Union, L 288/27, 27–34. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007L0060
European Union. (2007c). Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/01. Retrieved
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT
European Union. (2008). Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17
June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union, L 164/19,
19–40. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0056
European Union. (2013a). Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 “Living well,
within the limits of our planet.” Official Journal of the European Union, L 354/171, 171–200.
http://doi.org/10.2779/57220
European Union. (2013b). Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. Official Journal
of the European Union, L 347/549, 549–607. Retrieved from http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-
756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
European Union. (2016a). Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the circular economy. In Outcome of
proceedings (Vol. 10518/16, pp. 1–14). Brussels: General Secretariat of the Council.
Retrieved from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10518-2016-INIT/en/pdf
European Union. (2016b). Treaty on European Union (TEU). Official Journal of the European Union,
59(C202/13), 13–46. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2016:202:FULL&from=EN
European Union. (2016c). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Official Journal of
the European Union, 59(C202/1), 47–200. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2016:202:FULL&from=EN
Fairtrade.net. (2012). Bringing fairtrade to Central Asia. Retrieved from
http://www.fairtrade.net/new/latest-news/single-view/article/bringing-fairtrade-to-central-
asia.html
Falkner, G., & Treib, O. (2008). Three worlds of compliance or four? The EU-15 compared to new
Member States. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 46(2), 293–313.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00777.x
FAO. (2010). Forest tenure in West and Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Russian Federation. Forestry
Policy and Institutions Working Paper (Vol. 25). Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7544e/k7544e00.pdf
FAO. (2012). Assessment of the agriculture and rural development sectors in the eastern partnership
countries. Regional report. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/009/aq676e/aq676e.pdf
FAO. (2015). Wheat landraces in farmers’ fields in Turkey: National survey, collection, and conservation,
2009-2014. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5316e.pdf
Farrington, J. D. (2005). De-development in eastern Kyrgyzstan and persistence of semi-nomadic
livestock herding. Nomadic Peoples, 9(1), 171–197.

1079
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.3167/082279405781826191
Fauchald, O. K., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & Zachrisson, A. (2014). Internationalization of protected areas in
Norway and Sweden: examining pathways of influence in similar countries. International Journal
of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(3), 240–252.
http://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.938122
Felipe-Lucia, M. R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, J., & Comín, F. A.
(2015). Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PloS One, 10(7),
e0132232. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0132232
Fernández-Giménez, M. E., & Estaque, F. F. (2012). Pyrenean pastoralists’ ecological knowledge:
Documentation and application to natural resource management and adaptation. Human
Ecology, 40, 287–300. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9463-x
Filatova, T. (2014). Market-based instruments for flood risk management: A review of theory, practice
and perspectives for climate adaptation policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 37, 227–242.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.005
Fischer, A., & Eastwood, A. (2016). Coproduction of ecosystem services as human – nature interactions
— An analytical framework. Land Use Policy, 52, 41–50.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004
Fischer, A., Peters, V., Neebe, M., Vávra, J., Kriel, A., Lapka, M., & Megyesi, B. (2012a). Climate change?
No, wise resource use is the issue: Social representations of energy, climate change and the
future. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(3), 161–176. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1585
Fischer, A., Petersen, L., Feldkötter, C., & Huppert, W. (2007). Sustainable governance of natural
resources and institutional change - an analytical framework. Public Administration and
Development, 27(2), 123–137. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pad.442
Fischer, A., Wakjira, D. T., Weldesemaet, Y. T., & Ashenafi, Z. T. (2014). On the interplay of actors in the
co-management of natural resources – A dynamic perspective. World Development, 64, 158–168.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.026
Fischer, A., & Young, J. C. (2007). Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: Implications for
biodiversity management and conservation. Biological Conservation, 136(2), 271–282.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.024
Fischer, J., Hartel, T., & Kuemmerle, T. (2012b). Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes.
Conservation Letters, 5(3), 167–175. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00227.x
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E. U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann,
F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., & Siriban Manalang, A. (2011).
Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. A Report of
the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Retrieved from
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=151&menu=1515
Flachsland, C., Brunner, S., Edenhofer, O., & Creutzig, F. (2011). Climate policies for road transport
revisited (II): Closing the policy gap with cap-and-trade. Energy Policy, 39(4), 2100–2110.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.053
Flannery, W., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2008). Marine spatial planning from the perspective of a small seaside
community in Ireland. Marine Policy, 32(6), 980–987.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.02.001

1080
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure of social welfare. Journal of Economic
Literature, 47(4), 1029–1075. http://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.4.1029
Fleury, P., Seres, C., Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., & Pauthenet, Y. (2015). “Flowering meadows”, a result-
oriented agri-environmental measure: Technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity. Land
Use Policy, 46, 103–114. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.007
Flint, C. G., Kunze, I., Muhar, A., Yoshida, Y., & Penker, M. (2013). Exploring empirical typologies of
human-nature relationships and linkages to the ecosystem services concept. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 120, 208–217. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.002
Florentina, G. I., Maria, C. S., Adrian, L., & Simona, M. (2015). Better governance for biodiversity
conservation is possible in Romania? Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering
Technology, 3, 2–10. http://doi.org/10.12974/2311-8741.2015.03.01.1
Florini, A. (2011). The International Energy Agency in global energy governance. Global Policy, 2, 40–
50. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00120.x
Florini, A., & Dubash, N. K. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Governing energy in a fragmented
world. Global Policy, 2, 1–5. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00131.x
Florini, A., & Sovacool, B. K. (2009). Who governs energy? The challenges facing global energy
governance. Energy Policy, 37(12), 5239–5248. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.039
FOAG. (2015). Biodiversity for food and agriculture in Switzerland. Abridged version and main findings
of Switzerland’s country report on the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture. Retrieved
from https://www.blw.admin.ch/blw/en/home/services/publikationen/berichte.html
Foley, N. S., van Rensburg, T. M., & Armstrong, C. W. (2011). The rise and fall of the Irish orange roughy
fishery: An economic analysis. Marine Policy, 35(6), 756–763.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.003
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses.
Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002
Fondahl, G., & Sirina, A. (2006). Oil pipeline development and indigenous rights in Eastern Siberia.
Indigenous Affairs, (2–3), 58–67.
Forest Europe. (2015). State of Europe’s Forests 2015. Summary for Policy Makers. Retrieved from
http://www.foresteurope.org/documentos/summary-policy-makers.pdf
Forest Europe. (2016). SFM (sustainable forest management) criteria and indicators. Retrieved April
25, 2016, from http://foresteurope.org/sfm-criteria-indicators2/
Forest Peoples Programme. (2008). Inaction to recognise indigenous peoples’ rights is frustrating
conservation goals. Retrieved from
http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2011/01/fpp_barcelona_press_release_en
g.pdf
Forest Peoples Programme. (2011). Sharing power - the end of “fortress” conservation? Retrieved from
http://www.forestpeoples.org/en/topics/participatory-resource-
mapping/news/2011/01/press-release-sharing-power-end-fortress-conserva
Forman, R., & Collinge, S. (1997). Nature conserved in changing landscapes with and without spatial
planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37(1), 129–135. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-
2046(96)00378-7

1081
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Foster, B. C., Wang, D., Keeton, W. S., & Ashton, M. S. (2010). Implementing sustainable forest
management using six concepts in an adaptive management framework. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry, 29(1), 79–108. http://doi.org/10.1080/10549810903463494
Fourmile, H. (1999). Indigenous peoples, the conservation of traditional ecological knowledge, and
global governance. In N. Low (Ed.), Global ethics and environment. London, UK: Routledge.
Fournier, N., Gantioler, S., Good, St., Herkenrath, P., & Mees, C. (2010). European Commission
biodiversity knowledge base. Assessment of the EU biodiversity action plan as a tool for
implementing biodiversity policy. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/bap_2010/4%20EC_Kno
wledge_Base_Assessment_BAP_final.pdf
FSC. (2017). Forest Stewardship Council: Facts and figures. Retrieved from
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiJzPW1_
tbXAhWEORoKHVF6C3IQFgg-MAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fic.fsc.org%2Ffile-download.facts-
figures-july-2017.a-2020.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1068IQ7hnmYX7pcW7s0X0b
Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M., Smith, D. C., & van Putten, I. E. (2011). Human behaviour: the key source
of uncertainty in fisheries management. Fish and Fisheries, 12(1), 2–17.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00371.x
Fürst, D. (2005). Entwicklung und Stand des Steuerungsverständnisses in der Raumplanung
[Development and status of governance understanding in spatial planning]. disP - The Planning
Review, 41(163), 16–27. http://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2005.10556937
G20 Information Centre. (2009). G20 Leaders Statement: The Pittsburgh Summit. Retrieved from
http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2009/2009communique0925.html
Galil, B. S., Marchini, A., & Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. (2018). East is east and West is west? Management
of marine bioinvasions in the Mediterranean Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 201, 7-16.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.12.021
Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., McConville, A., Landgrebe, R., Gerdes, H., & ten
Brink, P. (2010). Costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network.
Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benef
its.pdf
García-de-Lomas, J., & Vilà, M. (2015). Lists of harmful alien organisms: Are the national regulations
adapted to the global world? Biological Invasions, 17(11), 3081–3091.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-0939-7
Gardner, T. A., Von Hase, A., Brownlie, S., Ekstrom, J. M. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Savy, C. E., Stephens, R. T.
T., Treweek, J., Ussher, G. T., Ward, G., & Ten Kate, K. (2013). Biodiversity offsets and the
challenge of achieving no net loss. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1254–1264.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12118
Garmestani, A. S., Allen, C. R., & Benson, M. H. (2013). Can law foster social-ecological resilience?
Ecology and Society, 18(2), 37. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05927-180237
Gawel, E., Strunz, S., & Lehmann, P. (2014). A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix
in the EU — How do the emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact?
Energy Policy, 64, 175–182. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.008
Gearty, C. (2010). Do human rights help or hinder environmental protection? Journal of Human Rights
1082
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and the Environment, 1(1), 7–22. http://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2010.01.01

Geneletti, D. (2013). Ecosystem services in environmental impact assessment and strategic
environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 1–2.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.005
Genovesi, P., Carboneras, C., Vila, M., & Walton, P. (2015). EU adopts innovative legislation on invasive
species: a step towards a global response to biological invasions? Biological Invasions, 17, 1307–
1311. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0817-8
Giessen, L. (2013). Reviewing the main characteristics of the international forest regime complex and
partial explanations for its fragmentation. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 60–70.
http://doi.org/10.1505/146554813805927192
Gilbert, J. (2016). Indigenous peoples’ land rights under international law: From victims to actors.
Second revised edition. Ardsley, USA: Transnational Publishers. Retrieved from
http://www.brill.com/indigenous-peoples-land-rights-under-international-law
Gilissen, H. K., van Kempen, J. J. H., & van Rijswick, H. F. M. W. (2010). The need for international and
regional transboundary cooperation in European river basin management as a result of new
approaches in EC water law. ERA Forum, 11(1), 129–157. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-009-
0145-0
Giljum, S., Hak, T., Hinterberger, F., & Kovanda, J. (2005). Environmental governance in the European
Union: strategies and instruments for absolute decoupling. International Journal of Sustainable
Development, 8(1/2), 31–46. http://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007373
GIZ. (2013). A source of peace – Transboundary water management in Central Asia. Factsheet.
Retrieved from https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2013-en-transboundary-water-
management-central-asia.pdf
GIZ. (2016). Open regional fund for South-East Europe – Biodiversity. Regional Network of Biodiversity
Related Civil Society Organisations (BioNET). Retrieved September 7, 2017, from
https://www.giz.de/expertise/downloads/giz2016-en-orf-biodiversity-bionet.pdf
GIZ. (2017). Open regional funds South-East Europe. Retrieved from
https://www.giz.de/expertise/html/4702.html
Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., & Mol, A. (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. http://doi.org/10.4337/9781847208668
Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2013). Introduction to environmental impact assessment.
Fourth edition. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NefZAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=glasson+in
troduction+to+environmental&ots=doEGRm8H_Y&sig=YnbNAMyCiYDPo1njfpyx44DvBIA
Golani, D., Sonin, O., & Rubinstein, G. (2015). Records of Paralichthys lethostigma and Sciaenops
ocellatus in the Mediterranean and Channa micropeltes in Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel.
Marine Biodiversity Records, 8, e39. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1755267215000081
Golden, J. S. (Ed.). (2010). An overview of ecolabels and sustainability certifications in the global
marketplace. Durham, USA: Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/20586265/An_Overview_of_Ecolabels_and_Sustainability_Certifica
tions_in_the_Global_Marketplace.

1083
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban
planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–245. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.019
Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2013). Reinterpreting change in traditional ecological
knowledge. Human Ecology, 41, 643. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9577-9
Gonzalez, M., Taddonio, K. N., & Sherman, N. J. (2015). The Montreal Protocol: how today’s successes
offer a pathway to the future. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(2), 122–129.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0208-6
Goodstadt, V., Partiário, M. R., Calcaterra, E., Förster, J., Lorena, L., Ludlow, D., Mader, A., Natarajan,
L., Robrecht, H., & Slootweg, R. (2012). Spatial planning and environmental assessments. In H.
Wittmer & H. Gundimeda (Eds.), TEEB in local and regional policy and management (pp. 165–
194). London, UK: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
Goodwin, P. (2012). Three views on “peak car.” World Transport, Policy and Practice, 17, 8–18.
Goodwin, P., Dargay, J. M., & Vythoulkas, P. C. (2004). Elasticities of road traffic and fuel consumption
with respect to price and income. Transport Reviews, 24(3), 275–292.
http://doi.org/10.1080/0144164042000181725
Gopalakrishnan, V., Bakshi, B. R., & Ziv, G. (2016). Assessing the capacity of local ecosystems to meet
industrial demand for ecosystem services. AIChE Journal, 62, 3319–3333.
http://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15340
Government of France. (2012). CO2 information for transport services. Application of Article L. 1431-3
of the French transport code: Methodological guide. Retrieved from
http://www.objectifco2.fr/docs/upload/86/Information_CO2_ENG_Web-2.pdf
Government of Kyrgyzstan [Правительство Кыргызстана]. (2009). Закон Кыргызской Республики о
пастбищах, N 30 [Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on pasture, No. 30]. Retrieved from
https://online.toktom.kg/Toktom/87873-15?documentFtsExpr=закон%20о%20пастбищах%20
Government of Kyrgyzstan. (2013). Fifth national report on conservation of biodiversity of the Kyrgyz
Republic. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/reports/search
Government of Norway. (2012). The High North: Visions and strategies. Report to the Storting (white
paper). Retrieved from
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/a0140460a8d04e4ba9c4af449b5fa06d/en-
gb/pdfs/stm201120120007000en_pdfs.pdf
Government of Turkey. (2012). Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance Rural Development (IPARD)
Programme (2007-2013). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/enlargement/assistance_en
Government of Uzbekistan. (2017). Batumi Initiative on Green Economy (BIG-E). Actions by the Republic
of Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan: The State Committee for Nature Protection. Retrieved from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/greeneconomy/The_Batumi_Initiative_on_Green_
Economy/Commitments/Uzbekistan.English_translation.BIG-E.e_ENG.pdf
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would
we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
Gray, W. B., & Shimshack, J. P. (2011). The effectiveness of environmental monitoring and
enforcement: A review of the empirical evidence. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy,

1084
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

5(1), 3–24. http://doi.org/10.1093/reep/req017

Grear, A. (2011). The vulnerable living order: human rights and the environment in a critical and
philosophical perspective. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 2(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2011.01.02
Grêt-Regamey, A., Celio, E., Klein, T. M., & Wissen Hayek, U. (2013). Understanding ecosystem services
trade-offs with interactive procedural modeling for sustainable urban planning. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 109(1), 107–116. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.011
Grieg-Gran, M., Svarstad, H., Porras, I., & Mohammed, E. Y. (2013). Best practice guidelines for
assessing social impacts and legitimacy of conservation policy instruments (No. 8 POLICYMIX
Technical Brief). Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no
Griewald, Y., Clemens, G., Kamp, J., Gladun, E., & Hölzel, N. (2017). Developing land use scenarios for
stakeholder participation in Russia. Land Use Policy, 68, 264–276.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.049
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Ohman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W.,
Glaser, G., Kanie, N., & Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet.
Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. http://doi.org/10.1038/495305a
Grunewald, K., Bastian, O., & Drozdov, A. (Eds.). (2014). TEEB-Prozesse und Ökosystem-Assessment in
Deutschland, Russland und weiteren Staaten des nördlichen Eurasiens [TEEB-processes and
ecosystem assessment in Germany, Russia and other states of northern Eurasia]. Retrieved from
http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/Skript_372.pdf
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2010). Transnational environmental governance: the emergence and effects of the
certification of forests and fisheries. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2014). Dynamic governance interactions: Evolutionary effects of state responses
to non-state certification programs. Regulation and Governance, 8, 74–92.
http://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12005
Gullestad, P., Abotnes, A. M., & Bakke, G. (2017). Towards an ecosystem based fisheries management
in Norway – practical tools for keeping track of relevant issues and prioritizing management
efforts. Marine Policy, 77, 104–110. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.11.032
Gullestad, P., Aglen, A., Bjordal, Å., Blom, G., Johansen, S., Krog, J., Misund, O. A., & Røttingen, I. (2014).
Changing attitudes 1970–2012: evolution of the Norwegian management framework to prevent
overfishing and to secure long-term sustainability. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71(2), 173–
182. http://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst094
Gullestad, P., Blom, G., Bakke, G., & Bogstad, B. (2015). The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in
efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries. Marine Policy, 54, 1–9.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.025
Gunningham, N., & Young, M. D. (1997). Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity
conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24(2), 243–298. http://doi.org/10.15779/Z38BN7K
Guzman, A. T., & Meyer, T. L. (2010). International soft law. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(1), 171–225.
Retrieved from
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlegan2&div=7&g_sent=1&collection=jo
urnals#
GWP. (2014). Integrated water resources management in Central Asia: The challenges of managing

1085
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

large transboundary rivers. Retrieved from

https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/publications/technical-focus-papers/05-
integrated-water-resources-management-in-central-asia.pdf
Hagemann, N., Klauer, B., Moynihan, R. M., Leidel, M., & Scheifhacken, N. (2014). The role of
institutional and legal constraints on river water quality monitoring in Ukraine. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 72(12), 4745–4756. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3307-5
Halford, M., Heemers, L., van Wesemael, D., Mathys, C., Wallens, S., Branquart, E., Vanderhoeven, S.,
Monty, A., & Mahy, G. (2014). The voluntary Code of conduct on invasive alien plants in Belgium:
Results and lessons learned from the AlterIAS LIFE+ project. EPPO Bulletin, 44(2), 212–222.
http://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12111
Hamidov, A. (2015). Institutions of collective action for common pool resources management:
Conditions for sustainable water consumers associations in semi-arid Uzbekistan. K. Hagedorn &
V. Beckmann (Eds.). Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.
Hámor, T. (2004). Sustainable Mining in the European Union: The Legislative Aspect. Environmental
Management, 33(2), 252–261. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0081-7
Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Jobstvogt, N., & Paterson, D. M. (2015). Economic valuation of marine and coastal
ecosystems: Is it currently fit for purpose? Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, 2, 1–38.
http://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1014
Hansjürgens, B., Kettunen, M., Schröter-Schlaack, C., White, S., & Wittmer, H. (2011a). Framework and
guiding principles for the policy response. In P. ten Brink (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and
biodiversity (TEEB) in national and international policy making (pp. 47–75). London, UK:
Earthscan. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
Hansjürgens, B., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Tucker, G., Vakrou, A., Bassi, S., ten Brink, P., Ozdemiroglu, E.,
Shine, C., & Wittmer, H. (2011b). Addressing losses through regulation and pricing. In P. ten Brink
(Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) in national and international policy
making. (pp. 299–343). London, UK: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Iceland, C., & Finisdore, J. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services
review: Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change.
Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/corporate_ecosystem_services_review.pdf
Harring, N. (2014). Corruption, inequalities and the perceived effectiveness of economic pro-
environmental policy instruments: A European cross-national study. Environmental Science and
Policy, 39, 119–128. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.011
Harrop, S. R. (2011). “Living in harmony with nature”? Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya conference of
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Journal of Environmental Law, 23(1), 117–128.
http://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqq032
Hart, K. (2015). Green direct payments: implementation choices of nine Member States and their
environmental implications. London, UK: IEEP. Retrieved from
http://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/greening_implementation_report_ieep
.pdf
Hartel, T., Fischer, J., Campeanu, C., Milcu, A. I., Hanspach, J., & Fazey, I. (2014). The importance of
ecosystem services for rural inhabitants in a changing cultural landscape in Romania. Ecology and
Society, 19(2), 42. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06333-190242
Hartel, T., Plieninger, T., & Varga, A. (2015). Wood-pastures in Europe. In K. J. Kirby & C. Watkins (Eds.),
1086
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Europe’s changing woods and forests: from wildwood to managed landscapes (pp. 61–76).
Wallingford, UK: CABI. http://doi.org/10.1079/9781780643373.0061
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive
motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 590–607.
http://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973142
Hasselman, L. (2017). Adaptive management; adaptive co-management; adaptive governance: what’s
the difference? Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 24(1), 31–46.
http://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2016.1251857
Hastik, R., Basso, S., Geitner, C., Haida, C., Poljanec, A., Portaccio, A., Vrščaj, B., & Walzerd, C. (2015).
Renewable energies and ecosystem service impacts. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
48, 608–623. http://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.004
Hauck, J., Schleyer, C., Winkler, K. J., & Maes, J. (2014). Shades of greening: Reviewing the impact of
the new EU agricultural policy on ecosystem services. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological
Systems, 1, 51–62. http://doi.org/10.2478/cass-2014-0006
Heikkinen, H. I., Sarkki, S., & Nuttall, M. (2012). Users or producers of ecosystem services? A scenario
exercise for integrating conservation and reindeer herding in northeast Finland. Pastoralism:
Research, Policy and Practice, 2(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-7136-2-11
Heinämäki, L. (2009). Protecting the rights of indigenous peoples – Promoting the sustainability of the
global environment? International Community Law Review, 11(1), 3–68.
http://doi.org/doi:10.1163/187197309X401406
Heinämäki, L. (2015). The rapidly evolving international status of indigenous peoples: an example of
the Sami people in Finland. In C. Allard & S. F. Skogvang (Eds.), Indigenous rights in Scandinavia:
autonomous Sami law (pp. 189–204). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. (2017). Chapter 27 in Serbia: Still under construction. Retrieved October 14,
2017, from https://rs.boell.org/en/2017/01/25/chapter-27-serbia-still-under-construction
HELCOM. (2010). Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment.
Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki Commission.
Helming, K., Diehl, K., Geneletti, D., & Wiggering, H. (2013). Mainstreaming ecosystem services in
European policy impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 40, 82–87.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.01.004
Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., McCracken, D., Moritz, R. F. A., Niemelä,
J., Rebane, M., Wascher, D., Watt, A., & Young, J. C. (2008). Identifying and managing the conflicts
between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe-a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment, 124, 60–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.09.005
Hernandez, R. R., Easter, S. B., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Maestre, F. T., Tavassoli, M., Allen, E. B.,
Barrows, C. W., Belnap, J., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Ravi, S., & Allen, M. F. (2014). Environmental impacts
of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 766–779.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041
Herrfahrdt, E., Kipping, M., Pickardt, T., Polak, M., Rohrer, C., & Wolff, C. F. (2006). Water governance
in the Kyrgyz agricultural sector: on its way to integrated water resource management? Bonn,
Germany: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.
Herzog, F., Prasuhn, V., Spiess, E., & Richner, W. (2008). Environmental cross-compliance mitigates

1087
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from Swiss agriculture. Environmental Science and Policy, 11,
655–668. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.06.003
Heywood, V., & Brunel, S. (2011). Code of conduct on horticulture and invasive alien plants. Nature and
environment, no. 162. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235611812_Code_of_conduct_on_horticulture_and
_invasive_alien_plants
Hilding-Rydevik, T., & Bjarnadóttir, H. (2007). Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA
implementation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(7), 666–684.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.009
Hill, C., & Lillywhite, S. (2015). The United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework: Six years
on and what impact has it had? The Extractive Industries and Society, 2(1), 4–6.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2014.08.005
Himes, A. H. (2003). Small-scale Sicilian fisheries: Opinions of artisanal fishers and sociocultural effects
in two MPA case ctudies. Coastal Management, 31, 389–408.
http://doi.org/10.1080/08920750390232965
Hochkirch, A., Schmitt, T., Beninde, J., Hiery, M., Kinitz, T., Kirschey, J., Matenaar, D., Rohde, K., Stoefen,
A., Wagner, N., Zink, A., Lötters, S., Veith, M., & Proelss, A. (2013). Europe needs a new vision for
a Natura 2020 network. Conservation Letters, 6(6), 462–467. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12006/full
Hodge, I., Hauck, J., & Bonn, A. (2015). The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies
in the European Union. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 996–1005.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12531
Hodgson, G. M. (2004). The evolution of institutional economics: Agency, structure, and Darwinism in
American institutionalism. London, UK: Routledge.
Holl, K., & Smith, M. (2002). Ancient wood pasture in Scotland: Classification and management
principles. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA108. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Scottish Natural Heritage.
Holland, R. A., Scott, K., & Hinton, E. D. (2016). Bridging the gap between energy and the environment.
Energy Policy, 92, 181–189. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.037
Holmgren, L., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2016). Protected area governance in Sweden: new
modes of governance or business as usual? Local Environment, 22(1), 22–37.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1154518
Home, R., Balmer, O., Jahrl, I., Stolze, M., & Pfiffner, L. (2014). Motivations for implementation of
ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland farms. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 26–36.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.007
Hornberg, C., Beyer, R., Classen, T., Herbst, T., Hofmann, M., Honold, J., Van Der Meer, E., Wissel, S., &
Wüstemann, H. (2016). Stadtnatur fördert die Gesundheit [Urban nature promotes health]. In I.
Kowarik, R. Bartz, & M. Brenck (Eds.), Naturkapital Deutschland - TEEB DE, Ökosystemleistungen
in der Stadt. Gesundheit schützen und Lebensqualität erhöhen [Natural capital Germany - TEEB
DE, Ecosystem services in the city. Protecting health and increasing quality of life] (pp. 98–124).
Berlin, Germany: Technische Universität Berlin. Retrieved from
https://www.ufz.de/teebde/index.php?de=43782
Hovik, S., Sandström, C., & Zachrisson, A. (2010). Management of protected areas in Norway and
1088
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sweden: Challenges in combining central governance and local participation. Journal of

Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(2), 159–177. http://doi.org/10.1080/15239081003719219
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., & Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem
services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in
the real world. Global Environmental Change, 28(1), 263–275.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005
Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2006). Globalization and governance capacity: Explaining divergence in
national forest programs as instances of “next generation” regulation in Canada and Europe.
Governance, 19(2), 251–275. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00314.x
HRC. (2017). A/HRC/34/49: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations
relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment on his mission to
Mongolia. Retrieved from http://srenvironment.org/2017/01/19/report-on-biodiversity-and-
human-rights/
Hüesker, F., & Moss, T. (2015). The politics of multi-scalar action in river basin management:
Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Land Use Policy, 42, 38–47.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.07.003
Hulme, P. E. (2009). Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of
globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(1), 10–18. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2664.2008.01600.x
Human Rights Committee. (2005). Jouni Länsman et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 1023/2001, U.N.
Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1023/2001. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/1023-2001.html
Humphreys, D. (Ed.). (2004). Forests for the future: National forest programmes in Europe - Country
and regional reports from COST action E19. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. Retrieved from http://www.cost.eu/media/publications/04-03-Forests-
for-the-Future-National-Forest-Programmes-in-Europe-Country-and-Regional-Reports-from-
COST-Action-E19
Hunziker, M., von Lindern, E., Bauer, N., & Frick, J. (2012). Das Verhältnis der Schweizer Bevölkerung
zum Wald. Waldmonitoring soziokulturell: Weiterentwicklung und zweite Erhebung – WaMos 2
[The relationship of the Swiss population to forest - Forest monitoring socio-cultural: Further
development and second survey – WaMos 2]. Retrieved from
https://www.dora.lib4ri.ch/wsl/islandora/object/wsl:10268
Hynes, S., Gerritsen, H., Breen, B., & Johnson, M. (2016). Discrete choice modelling of fisheries with
nuanced spatial information. Marine Policy, 72, 156–165.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.004
ICES. (2017). Ecoregions including fishing zones of the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES). Retrieved March 3, 2017, from http://www.ices.dk/marine-
data/Documents/Maps/ICES-Ecoregions-hybrid-Statistical-Areas.png
IEA. (2014). Executive summary. In Capturing the multiple benefits of energy efficiency (pp. 18–25).
Paris, France: OECD, International Energy Agency. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264220720-en
IEA. (2015). Energy policies beyond IEA countries: Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Paris,
France: OECD, International Energy Agency. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264211513-en
IEA/IRENA. (2016). IEA /IRENA joint policies and measures database: Kazakhstan. Retrieved from
1089
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

https://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/renewableenergy/
IEEP. (2013). Report on the influence of EU policies on the environment. London, UK: Institute for
European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1230/Final_Report_-
_Influence_of_EU_Policies_on_the_Environment.pdf
IIFB. (2006). COP 8 - Opening statement. Retrieved from http://www.tebtebba.org/index.php/all-
resources/category/34-indigenous-peoples-declaration-statements-and-
interventions?download=200:iifb-opening-statement-cop-8
IIFB. (2008). COP 9 - Opening statement. Retrieved from http://iifbmedia.blogspot.de/2008/05/iifb-
opening-statement-in-cop9.html
IIFB. (2010). COP 10 - Opening statement. Retrieved from
http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/default/files/news/2010/10/Final_IIFB_OpeningStatement
_longversion_eng.pdf
IIFB. (2012). COP 11 - Opening statement. Retrieved from
http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2012/10/IIFB-COP11-OpeningStatement-
FINAL.pdf
IIFB. (2014). COP 12 - Opening statement. Retrieved from https://iifb-fiib.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/COP12-IIFB-Opening.pdf
IMO. (2011). Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) – 62nd session: 11 to 15 July 2011, of
the International Maritime Organization. Retrieved October 5, 2017, from
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/42-mepc-ghg.aspx#.WdZkwVtSzIU
IMF. (2015). World economic outlook database. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/02/weodata/index.aspx
IncoNet Central Asia. (2016). STI international cooperation network for Central Asian Countries.
Retrieved from http://www.inco-ca.net/
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Aguilera, P. A., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B. (2014). Socio-
cultural valuation of ecosystem services: Uncovering the links between values, drivers of change,
and human well-being. Ecological Economics, 108, 36–48.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
Iniesta-Arandia, I., García Del Amo, D., García-Nieto, A. P., Piñeiro, C., Montes, C., & Martín-López, B.
(2015). Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean
watersheds: Insights for environmental policies. Ambio, 44(4), 285–296. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-014-0556-1
IPBES. (2015a). IPBES/4/INF/13: Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple
values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services
(deliverable 3 (d)). Retrieved from http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-4
IPBES. (2015b). IPBES/4/INF/14: Information on work related to policy support tools and methodologies
(deliverable 4 (c)). Retrieved from http://www.ipbes.net/plenary/ipbes-4
IPBES. (2017). Policy support catalogue. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
https://www.ipbes.net/policy-support
IPCC. (2000). Emission Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic, & R. Swart (Eds.). Cambridge: Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved from

1090
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=49
IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the
fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team,
R. K. Pachauri, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
ISA. (1999). Deep-seabed polymetallic nodule exploration: Development of environmental guidelines.
In Proceedings of the International Seabed Authority’s workshop held in Sanya, Hainan Island,
People’s Republic of China, 1-5 June 1998 (pp. 1–289). Retrieved from
https://www.isa.org.jm/node/246
ISA. (2002). Standardization of environmental data and information - Development of guidelines. In
Proceedings of the International Seabed Athority’s workshop held in Kingston, Jamaica, 25-29
June 2001 (pp. 1–539). Retrieved from https://www.isa.org.jm/documents/standardization-
environmental-data-and-information-development-guidelines
IUCN France. (2013). Protected areas in France: a diversity of tools for the conservation of biodiversity.
Retrieved from http://uicn.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Espaces_naturels_proteges-EN-
ok.pdf
Jack, B. K., Kousky, C., & Sims, K. R. E. (2008). Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from
previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9465–9470.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705503104
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite planet. London, UK: Earthscan.
Jacobsen, K. S., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Perceptions of environmental justice and the conflict
surrounding large carnivore management in Norway - Implications for conflict management.
Biological Conservation, 203, 197–206. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.041
Jacquesson, S. (2010). Reforming pastoral land use in Kyrgyzstan: from clan and custom to self-
government and tradition. Central Asian Survey, 29(1), 103–118.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02634931003765571
Jager, N., Challies, E., Kochskämper, E., Newig, J., Benson, D., Blackstock, K., Collins, K., Ernst, A., Evers,
M., Feichtinger, J., Fritsch, O., Gooch, G., Grund, W., Hedelin, B., Hernández-Mora, N., Hüesker,
F., Huitema, D., Irvine, K., Klinke, A., Lange, L., Loupsans, D., Lubell, M., Maganda, C., Matczak, P.,
Parés, M., Saarikoski, H., Slavíková, L., van der Arend, S., & von Korff, Y. (2016). Transforming
European water governance? Participation and river basin management under the EU Water
Framework Directive in 13 Member States. Water, 8(4), 156. http://doi.org/10.3390/w8040156
Jakob, M., & Edenhofer, O. (2015). Green growth, degrowth, and the commons. Oxford Review of
Economic Policy, 30(3), 447–468. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gru026
Jans, J. H., & Vedder, H. H. B. (2012). European environmental law: After Lisbon. 4th Edition. Groningen,
The Netherlands: Europa Law Publishing.
Jantke, K., Müller, J., Trapp, N., & Blanz, B. (2016). Is climate-smart conservation feasible in Europe?
Spatial relations of protected areas, soil carbon, and land values. Environmental Science & Policy,
57, 40–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.11.013
Jax, K. (2014). Thresholds, tipping points and limits. In M. Potschin & K. Jax (Eds.), OpenNESS ecosystem
services reference book. Retrieved from http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-
book
1091
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Jensen, C., Quested, T., & Moates, G. (2016). Estimates of European food waste levels. IVL-report C 186.
Stockholm, Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
Jodoin, S. (2014). Can rights-based approaches enhance levels of legitimacy and cooperation in
conservation? A relational account. Human Rights Review, 15(3), 283–303.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-014-0312-8
Johansson, J. (2013). Constructing and contesting the legitimacy of private forest governance: The case
of forest certification in Sweden (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A585033&dswid=-5288
Johansson, J. (2014). Towards democratic and effective forest governance? The discursive legitimation
of forest certification in northern Sweden. Local Environment, 19(7), 803–819.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.792050
Jones-Walters, L., & Çil, A. (2011). Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. Journal for Nature
Conservation, 19(6), 327–329. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.09.001
Jongman, R. H. G., Bouwma, I. M., Griffioen, A., Jones-Walters, L., & Van Doorn, A. M. (2011). The pan
European ecological network: PEEN. Landscape Ecology, 26(3), 311–326.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9567-x
Jordan, A. (1999). The Implementation of EU environmental policy; A policy problem without a political
solution? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17(1), 69–90.
http://doi.org/10.1068/c170069
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T. J., Schoenefeld, J. J., Tosun, J., Forster, J.,
& Boasson, E. L. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects.
Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 977–982. http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2725
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. R. (2013). Still the century of “new” environmental policy
instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 155–
173. http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.755839
Juelich, R. (2005). Progress in Environmental Law Drafting in South Eastern Europe. Szentendre,
Hungary: Regional Environmental Centre.
Juerges, N., & Newig, J. (2015). How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape
in the EU: A case study from Germany. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 228–235.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.07.015
Kaapcke, G. (1994). Indigenous identity transition in Russia: An international legal perspective.
Retrieved from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-
quarterly/indigenous-identity-transition-russia-international-legal#main-content
Kaechele, K., May, P. H., Primmer, E., & Ludwig, G. (2011). Forest certification: A voluntary instrument
for environmental governance. In I. Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.), Instrument mixes for
biodiversity policies (pp. 162–174). Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental
Research - UFZ. Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no/
Kalkanbekov, S., & Samakov, A. (2016). Sacred sites and biocultural diversity conservation in
Kyrgyzstan: Co-production of knowledge between traditional practitioners and scholars. In M.
Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services
in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 126–134). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Kallis, G., Kerschner, C., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2012). The economics of degrowth. Ecological Economics,

1092
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

84, 172–180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.08.017

Kareiva, P. M., McNally, B. W., McCormick, S., Miller, T., & Ruckelshaus, M. (2015). Improving global
environmental management with standard corporate reporting. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7375–7382.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408120111
Karsenty, A., & Ongolo, S. (2012). Can “fragile states” decide to reduce their deforestation? The
inappropriate use of the theory of incentives with respect to the REDD mechanism. Forest Policy
and Economics, 18, 38–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.006
Kassam, K.-A., Bulbulshoev, U., & Ruelle, M. (2011). Ecology of time: Calendar of the human body in
the Pamir Mountains. Journal of Persianate Studies, 4(2), 146–170.
http://doi.org/10.1163/187471611X600369
Kassim, H., & Le Galès, P. (2010). Exploring governance in a multi-level polity: A policy instruments
approach. West European Politics, 33(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903354031
Kasymov, U. (2016). Designing institutions in a post-socialist transformation process: Institutions in
regulating access to and management of pasture resources in Kyrgyzstan. V. Beckmann & K.
Hagedorn (Eds.). Greifswald, Germany: Shaker Verlag GmbH.
Kasymov, U., Undeland, A., Dörre, A., & Mackinnon, A. (2016). Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan and the learning
experience in the design of pastoral institutions. Development of pastoral institutions in
Kyrgyzstan. Revue Scientifique et Technique - Office International des Epizooties, 35(2), 511–521.
http://doi.org/10.20506/rst.35.1.2538
Kati, V., Hovardas, T., Dieterich, M., Ibisch, P. L., Mihok, B., & Selva, N. (2014). The challenge of
implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conservation Biology,
29(1), 260–270. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12366
Keenleyside, C., Beaufoy, G., Tucker, G., & Jones, G. (2014a). High nature value farming throughout
EU-27 and its financial support under the CAP. Report prepared for DG Environment, Contract No
ENV B.1/ETU/2012/0035. London, UK: Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/agriculture/pdf/High Nature Value farming.pdf
Keenleyside, C., Radley, G., Tucker, G., Underwood, E., Hart, K., Allen, B., & Menadue, H. (2014b).
Results-based payments for biodiversity guidance handbook: Designing and implementing
results-based agri-environment schemes 2014-2020. London, UK: Institute for European
Environmental Policy. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/rbaps/handbook/docs/rbaps-handbook.pdf
Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K. N., Fazey, I., O’Brien, L., Orchard-
Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C. M., Reed, M. S., Tett, P., & Watson, V. (2016). Shared
values and deliberative valuation: Future directions. Ecosystem Services, 21, 358–371.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006
Kenter, J. O., O’Brien, L., Hockley, N., Ravenscroft, N., Fazey, I., Irvine, K. N., Reed, M. S., Christie, M.,
Brady, E., Bryce, R., Church, A., Cooper, N., Davies, A., Evely, A., Everard, M., Fish, R., Fisher, J. A.,
Jobstvogt, N., Molloy, C., Orchard-Webb, J., Ranger, S., Ryan, M., Watson, V., & Williams, S.
(2015). What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics, 111, 86–99.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006
Kenward, R. E., Whittingham, M. J., Arampatzis, S., Manos, B. D., Hahn, T., Terry, A., Simoncini, R.,
Alcorn, J., Bastian, O., Donlan, M., Elowe, K., Franzén, F., Karacsonyi, Z., Larsson, M., Manou, D.,

1093
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Navodaru, I., Papadopoulou, O., Papathanasiou, J., von Raggamby, A., Sharp, R. J. A., Söderqvist,
T., Soutukorva, A., Vavrova, L., Aebischer, N. J., Leader-Williams, N., & Rutz, C. (2011). Identifying
governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and
biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
108(13), 5308–5312. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007933108
Kering. (2015). Environmental profit & loss (EP&L). 2015 group results. Retrieved from
http://www.kering.com/sites/default/files/kering_group_2015_environmentalpl_0.pdf
Kerven, C., Steimann, B., Ashley, L., Dear, C., & Ur-Rahim, I. (2011). Pastoralism and farming in Central
Asia’s mountains: A research review. The mountain societies research centre background paper
series No.1. Retrieved from
http://www.ucentralasia.org/Content/Downloads/pastoralism_and_farming_in_central_asia_
mountains.pdf
Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Pettersson, M. (2016). Can adaptation to climate change at all be mainstreamed
in complex multi-level governance systems? A case study of forest-relevant policies at the EU and
Swedish Levels. In W. Leal, K. Adamson, R. Dunk, U. M. Azeiteiro, S. Illingworth, & F. Alves (Eds.),
Implementing climate change adaptation in cities and communities. Climate change
management (pp. 53–74). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-28591-7_4
Keskitalo, E. C. H., Sandström, C., Tysiachniouk, M., & Johansson, J. (2009). Local consequences of
applying international norms: Differences in the application of forest certification in northern
Sweden, northern Finland, and northwest Russia. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 1. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art1/
Kettunen, M., & Illes, A. (Eds.). (2017). Opportunities for innovative biodiversity financing in the EU:
ecological fiscal transfers (EFT), tax reliefs, marketed products, and fees and charges. A com-
pilation of cases studies developed in the context of a project for the European Commission.
Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm
Kettunen, M., Illes, A., Rayment, M., Primmer, E., Verstraeten, Y., Rekola, A., Ring, I., Tucker, G.,
Baldock, D., Droste, N., Santos, R., Rantala, S., Ebrahim, N. & ten Brink, P. (2017). Summary report
- Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of options
for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG ENV) (Project
ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014). Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm
Khan, J., & Din, F. (2015). UK natural capital – Freshwater ecosystem assets and services accounts.
Retrieved from https://www.wavespartnership.org/en/knowledge-center/uk-natural-capital-–-
freshwater-ecosystem-assets-and-services-accounts
Kim, J. A. (2004). Regime interplay: the case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental
Change, 14(4), 315–324. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.04.001
Kindornay, S., & Twigg, S. (2015). Establishing a workable follow-up and review process for the
Sustainable Development Goals. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9588.pdf
Kirchhoff, J.-F., & Fabian, A. (2010). Forestry sector analysis of the Republic of Tajikistan. Dushanbe,
Tajikistan: GTZ.

1094
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Kitti, H., Gunslay, N., & Forbes, B. C. (2006). Defining the quality of reindeer pastures – The perspective
of Sami reindeer herders. In B. C. Forbes, M. Bölter, L. Müller-Wille, J. Hukkinen, F. Müller, N.
Gunslay, & Y. Konstantinov (Eds.), Reindeer management in northernmost Europe: Linking
practical and scientific knowledge in social-ecological systems (pp. 141–165). Berlin, Germany:
Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-31392-3_8
Klenke, R. A., Ring, I., Kranz, A., Jepsen, N., Rauschmayer, F., & Henle, K. (Eds.). (2013a). Human-wildlife
conflicts in Europe - Fisheries and fish-eating vertebrates as a model case. Berlin, Germany:
Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34789-7
Klenke, R. A., Ring, I., Máñez Schwerdtner, K., Habighorst, R., Weiss, V., Wittmer, H., Gruber, B., Lampa,
S., & Henle, K. (2013b). Otters in saxony: A story of successful conflict resolution. In R. A. Klenke,
I. Ring, Kranz, N. Jepsen, F. Rauschmayer, & K. Henle (Eds.), Human-wildlife conflicts in Europe -
Fisheries and fish-eating vertebrates as a model case (pp. 107–139). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-34789-7_6
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotová, V., Banaszak, I., Slavikova, L., & Trifunovova, S. (2009). From
government to governance for biodiversity: the perspective of Central and Eastern European
transition countries. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 186–196.
http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.508
Kobakhidze, N. (2015). Sustainable management of biodiversity, South Caucasus: Impact analyses on
status of biodiversity in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and at regional level (South Caucasus).
Tbilisi, Georgia: Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). Retrieved from
http://biodivers-southcaucasus.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/83213733_Impact-Analyses-
on-Status-of-Biodiversity-South-Caucasus_Kobakhidze_2015.pdf
Koetz, T., Farrell, K. N., & Bridgewater, P. (2012). Building better science-policy interfaces for
international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental
Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. International Environmental Agreements:
Politics, Law and Economics, 12(1), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-011-9152-z
Koivurova, T. (2014). Introduction to international environmental law. London, UK: Routledge.
Koivurova, T., Buanes, A., Riabova, L., Didyk, V., Ejdemo, T., Poelzer, G., Taavo, P., & Lesser, P. (2015).
“Social license to operate”: a relevant term in Northern European mining? Polar Geography,
38(3), 194–227. http://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2015.1056859
Koivurova, T., & Heinämäki, L. (2006). The participation of indigenous peoples in international norm-
making in the Arctic. Polar Record, 42(221), 101–109.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247406005080
Kopperoinen, L. (2015). Integrating nature-based solution in urban planning. OpenNESS brief, no. 3.
Retrieved from http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/OpenNESS_brief_03.pdf
Korn, H., Schliep, R., & Epple, C. (Eds.). (2004). Report on the international workshop “Capacity-building
for biodiversity in Central and Eastern Europe” BfN-Skripten 121. Retrieved from
https://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/skript121.pdf
Korzhenevych, A., Dehnen, N., Bröcker, J., Holtkamp, M., Meier, H., Gibson, G., Varma, A., & Cox, V.
(2014). Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. Report for the European
Commission, DG Mobility and Transport. London, UK: Ricardo-AEA. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/studies/doc/2014-handbook-external-costs-
transport.pdf

1095
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Kouplevatskaya-Yunusova, I. (2005). The evolution of stakeholders participation in a process of forest

policy reform in Kyrgyz Republic. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen, 156(10), 385–395.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3188/szf.2005.0385
Krämer, L. (2011). EU environmental law. Seventh edition. London, UK: Sweet & Maxwell.
Křenová, Z., & Kindlmann, P. (2015). Natura 2000 – Solution for Eastern Europe or just a good start?
The Šumava National Park as a test case. Biological Conservation, 186, 268–275.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.03.028
Krilašević, E. (2010). The role of international organizations in the implementation of biodiversity
conservation policies - The case of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In T. Tuomasjukka (Ed.), Forest policy and
economics in support of good governance (pp. 131–140). Joensuu, Finland: European Forest
Institute. Retrieved from http://citeweb.info/20102351652
Kull, C. A., de Sartre, X. A., & Castro-Larranaga, M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services.
Geoforum, 61, 122–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004
Lagabrielle, E., Crochelet, E., Andrello, M., Schill, S. R., Arnaud‐Haond, S., Alloncle, N., & Ponge, B.
(2014). Connecting MPAs–eight challenges for science and management. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24, 94–110. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.2500/full
Lamorgese, L., & Geneletti, D. (2013). Sustainability principles in strategic environmental assessment:
A framework for analysis and examples from Italian urban planning. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 42, 116–126. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.12.004
Lane, M. B. (2003). Participation, decentralization, and civil society: Indigenous rights and democracy
in environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 360–373.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x03022004003
Lane, M. B., & Corbett, T. (2005). The tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in community-based
environmental management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(2), 141–159.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15239080500338671
Lange, P., Driessen, P. P. J., Sauer, A., Bornemann, B., & Burger, P. (2013). Governing towards
sustainability—Conceptualizing modes of governance. Journal of Environmental Policy &
Planning, 15(3), 403–425. http://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2013.769414
Larrosa, C., Carrasco, L. R., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2016). Unintended feedbacks: Challenges and
opportunities for improving conservation effectiveness. Conservation Letters, 9(5), 316–326.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12240
Larsen, J. N., & Fondahl, G. (Eds.). (2015). Arctic human development report: Regional processes and
global linkages. Copenhagen Denmark: Nordisk Ministerråd. Retrieved from
http://www.uarctic.org/news/2015/2/new-report-arctic-human-development-report-volume-
ii-published/
Larson, D., Martin, W., Sahin, S., & Tsigas, M. (2014). Agricultural policies and trade paths in Turkey.
Policy research working paper (Vol. 7059). Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Group. Retrieved
from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/225411468120876791/Agricultural-policies-
and-trade-paths-in-Turkey
Lasson, C. (2016). The Norwegian system of fisheries management - a role model for the Common
Fisheries Policy of the European Union? (Master’s thesis).

1096
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Latouche, S. (2009). Farewell to growth. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Retrieved from
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/528e2dfae4b071d72306fda7/t/54b2e821e4b027b1609
dc8d5/1421010977492/Latouche_Farewell_to_growth.pdf
Lavrillier, A. (2013). Climate change among nomadic and settled Tungus of Siberia: continuity and
changes in economic and ritual relationships with the natural environment. Polar Record, 49(3),
260–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247413000284
Lazarevic, D., & Valve, H. (2017). Narrating expectations for the circular economy: Towards a common
and contested European transition. Energy Research and Social Science, 31, 60–69.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.006
Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2010). Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social
justice. London, UK: Earthscan. Retrieved from https://steps-centre.org/publication/dynamic-
sustainabilities-technology-environment-social-justice-2/
Leadley, P. W., Krug, C. B., Alkemade, R., Pereira, H. M., Sumaila, U. R., Walpole, M., Marques, A.,
Newbold, T., Teh, L. S. L, van Kolck, J., Bellard, C., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., & Mumby, P. J.
(2014). Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets: An assessment of biodiversity trends,
policy scenarios and key actions. CBD technical series 78. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-
78-en.pdf
Lebel, L. (2006). The politics of scale in environmental assessments. In W. V. Reid, F. Berkes, T.
Wilbanks, & D. Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging scales and knowledge systems: Concepts and
applications in ecosystem assessments (pp. 37–56). Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. Retrieved
from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/bridging.03.pdf
Lee, M., & Safina, C. (1995). Effects of overfishing on marine biodiversity. The Journal of Marine
Education, 13, 5–9. Retrieved from http://aoc.rain.org/impacts/content/biodiversity.html
Lehmann, M., ten Brink, P., Bassi, S., Cooper, D., Kenny, A., Kuppler, S., von Moltke, A., & Withana, S.
(2011). Reforming subsidies. In P. ten Brink (Ed.), The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity
in national and international policy making (pp. 259–297). London, UK: Earthscan.
Lehmann, P. (2012). Justifying a policy mix for pollution control: a review of economic literature.
Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(1), 71–97. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-
6419.2010.00628.x
Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 31, 297–325. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., & Geschke, A. (2012). International trade
drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature, 486, 109–112.
http://doi.org/10.1038/nature11145
Lidskog, R., Soneryd, L., & Uggla, Y. (2010). Transboundary risk governance. London, UK: Earthscan.
Lieder, M., & Rashid, A. (2016). Towards circular economy implementation: A comprehensive review
in context of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 115, 36–51.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.042
Lindroth, M., & Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. (2013). At the crossroads of autonomy and essentialism:
Indigenous peoples in international environmental politics. International Political Sociology, 7(3),
275–293. http://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12023

1097
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Liquete, C., Kleeschulte, S., Dige, G., Maes, J., Grizzetti, B., Olah, B., & Zulian, G. (2015). Mapping green
infrastructure based on ecosystem services and ecological networks: A Pan-European case study.
Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 268–280. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.009
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., & Egoh, B. (2013). Current
status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A
systematic review. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67737. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067737
Litman, T. (2013). Understanding transport demands and elasticities. How prices and other factors
affect travel behavior. Victoria, Canada: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf
Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the
need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185(1), 54–
78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x
Lock, K., & Cole, L. (2011). Public perceptions of landscapes and ecosystems in the UK. Report to Defra
(NE0109). Retrieved from
www.psi.org.uk/pdf/2015/social_research_review_public_perceptions.pdf
Loconto, A., & Fouilleux, E. (2014). Politics of private regulation: ISEAL and the shaping of transnational
sustainability governance. Regulation and Governance, 8(2), 166–185.
http://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12028
Lõhmus, M., & Balbus, J. (2015). Making green infrastructure healthier infrastructure. Infection Ecology
& Epidemiology, 5, 30082. http://doi.org/10.3402/iee.v5.30082
López-Santiago, C. A., Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Plieninger, T., González Martín, E., &
González, J. A. (2014). Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services
in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecology and Society,
19(2), 27. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06401-190227
Ludewig, D., Meyer, B., & Schlegelmilch, K. (2010). Nachhaltig aus der Krise - Ökologische Finanzreform
als Beitrag zur Gegenfinanzierung des Krisendefizits [Sustainably out of the crisis - Ecological
financial reform as a contribution to counter-financing the crisis deficit]. Retrieved from
http://www.foes.de/pdf/Nachhaltig_aus_der_Krise.pdf
Ludi, E. (2003). Sustainable pasture management in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan: Development needs and
recommendations. Mountain Research and Development, 23(2), 119–123.
http://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2003)023[0119:SPMIKA]2.0.CO;2
Lyon, T. P., & Maxwell, J. W. (2002). “Voluntary” approaches to environmental regulation: A survey. In
M. Franzini & A. Nicita (Eds.), Economic Institutions and Environmental Policy. (pp. 142–174).
Brookfield, USA: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Mace, G. M., Reyers, B., Alkemade, R., Biggs, R., Chapin III, F. S., Cornell, S. E., Díaz, S., Jennings, S.,
Leadley, P., Mumby, P. J., Purvis, A., Scholes, R. J., Seddon, A. W. R., Solan, M., Steffen, W., &
Woodward, G. (2014). Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 289–297. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.009
MacKelworth, P. (2016). Marine transboundary conservation and protected areas. London, UK:
Routledge.
MacKinnon, D., & Derickson, K. D. (2012). From resilience to resourcefulness: A critique of resilience
policy and activism. Progress in Human Geography, 37(2), 253–270.

1098
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512454775
Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D., & Bennett, G. (2011). 2011 Update: State of biodiversity markets:
Offset and compensation programs worldwide. Washington, DC, USA: Forest Trends. Retrieved
from http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/2011_update_sbdm
Madsen, B., Carroll, N., & Moore Brands, K. (2010). State of biodiversity markets: Offset and
compensation programs worldwide. Washington, DC, USA: Forest Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf
Maes, J., Fabrega, N., Zulian, G., Barbosa, A., Vizcaino, P., Ivits, E., Polce, C., Vandecasteele, I., Rivero,
I. M., Guerra, C., Castillo, C. P., Vallecillo, S., Baranzelli, C., Barranco, R., Batista e Silva, F., Jacobs-
Crisoni, C., Trombetti, M., & Lavalle, C. (2015). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their
services: Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and
2010. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J. I., Grizzetti, B., Cardoso, A.,
Somma, F., Petersen, J.-E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E. R., Zal, N., Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A.,
Biala, K., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B., Degeorges, P., Fiorina, C., Santos-Martín, F., Naruševičius, V.,
Verboven, J., Pereira, H. M., Bengtsson, J., Gocheva, K., Marta-Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C.,
San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Pérez-Soba, M., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lillebø, A. I., Malak, D. A., Condé, S.,
Moen, J., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E. G., Zulian, G., & Lavalle, C. (2016). An indicator framework for
assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem
Services, 17, 14–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023
Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Murphy, P., Paracchini, M. L., Barredo, J. I., Grizzetti, B., Cardoso, A.,
Somma, F., Petersen, J.-E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E. R., Zal, N., Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A.,
Biala, K., Romao. C., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B., Fiorina, C., Santos, F., Naruševičius, V., Verboven, J.,
Pereira, H., Bengtsson, J., Kremena, G., Marta-Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C., San Miguel, J.,
Braat. L, Grêt-Regamey, A., Perez-Soba, M., Degeorges, P., Beaufaron, G., Lillebø, A., Malak, D.
A., Liquete, C., Condé, S., Moen, J., Östergård, H., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E. G., Zulian, G., & Lavalle, C.
(2014). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Indicators for ecosystem
assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/2ndMAESW
orkingPaper.pdf
Maier, C., Lindner, T., & Winkel, G. (2014). Stakeholders’ perceptions of participation in forest policy:
A case study from Baden-Württemberg. Land Use Policy, 39, 166–176.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.018
Makkonen, M., Huttunen, S., Primmer, E., Repo, A., & Hildén, M. (2015). Policy coherence in climate
change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sinks and bioenergy
sources. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 153–162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.003
Mäler, K.-G., & Li, C.-Z. (2010). Measuring sustainability under regime shift uncertainty: a resilience
pricing approach. Environment and Development Economics, 15, 707–719.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X10000318
Mammadov, E., Timirkhanov, S., Shiganova, T., Katunin, D., Abdoli, A., Shahifar, R., Kim, Y.,
Khodorevsakaya, R., Annachariyeva, J., & Velikova, V. (2016). Management of Caspian
biodiversity protection and conservation. In V. Velikova (Ed.), The handbook of environmental
chemistry (pp. 41–53). Berlin, Germany: Springer International Publishing.

1099
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1007/698_2016_463
Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., Brown, P. J., Decker, D. J., & Duke, E. A. (Eds.). (2009). Wildlife and society.
The science of human dimensions. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.
Mårald, E., Sandström, C., & Nordin, A. (2017). Forest governance and management across time:
developing a new forest social contract. London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.routledge.com/Forest-Governance-and-Management-Across-Time-Developing-a-
New-Forest-Social/Marald-Sandstrom-Nordin-Others/p/book/9781138904309
Marchini, A., Ferrario, J., & Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. T. (2016). The relative importance of aquaculture
and shipping as vectors of introduction of marine alien species: the case of Olbia (Sardinia). In
Rapport de la Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer Méditerranée, 41: 430.
Retrieved from
http://ciesm.org/online/archives/abstracts/pdf/41/CIESM_Congress_Volume_41.pdf
Marine Stewardship Council. (2016). From sustainable fishers to seafood lovers. Annual report 2015-
2016. Retrieved from https://www.msc.org/msc-impact-nl/MSCJaarverslag20152016.pdf
Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., García-Llorente, M., & Montes, C. (2014). Trade-offs across
value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecological Indicators, 37, 220–228.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., García Del
Amo, D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios-Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.
A., Santos-Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2012). Uncovering
ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38970.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Matthews, A. (2013). Greening agricultural payments in the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy. Bio-
Based and Applied Economics, 2(1), 1–27. Retrieved from
http://www.fupress.net/index.php/bae/article/view/12179
Matzdorf, B., & Meyer, C. (2014). The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed
countries’ environmental policies: A comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy,
38, 509–521. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.011
Mayrand, K., & Paquin, M. (2004). Payments for environmental services: A survey and assessment of
current schemes. Montreal, Canada: UNISFERA. Retrieved from
http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2171-payments-environmental-services-survey-and-
assessment-current-schemes-en.pdf
Mazza, L., Bennett, G., De Nocker, L., Gantioler, S., Losarcos, L., Margerison, C., Kaphengst, T.,
McConville, A., Rayment, M., ten Brink, P., Tucker, G., & van Diggelen, R. (2011). Green
infrastructure implementation and efficiency. ENV.B.2/SER/2010/0059. Brussels, Belgium:
Institute for European Environmental Policy. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/implementation_efficiency.pdf
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining equity: A multidimensional
framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science &
Policy, 33, 416–427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006
McDonald, T., Gann, G. D., Jonson, J., & Dixon, K. W. (2016). International standards for the practice of
ecological restoration – including principles and key concepts. Washington, DC, USA: Society for
Ecological Restoration. Retrieved from http://restoration-

1100
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

ecology.eu/CZ/data/uploads/2017/ser_international_standards.pdf
McKenzie, A. J., Emery, S. B., Franks, J. R., & Whittingham, M. J. (2013). Forum: Landscape-scale
conservation: Collaborative agri-environment schemes could benefit both biodiversity and
ecosystem services, but will farmers be willing to participate? Journal of Applied Ecology, 50,
1274–1280. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12122
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., Mutekanga, D.,
Van Thang, H., Dammert, J. L., Pulgar-Vidal, M., Welch-Devine, M., Brosius, J. P., Coppolillo, P., &
O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and
human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966–972.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038
MEA. (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC, USA: World
Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
MEA. (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Policy responses. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Retrieved from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
MEA. (2005c). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Retrieved
from http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
Meadowcroft, J., Langhelle, O., & Ruud, A. (Eds.). (2012). Governance, democracy and sustainable
development. Moving beyond the impasse. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Mechlem, K. (2016). Groundwater governance: The role of legal frameworks at the local and national
level-established practice and emerging trends. Water, 8(8), 347.
http://doi.org/10.3390/w8080347
Meyer, I., Kaniovski, S., & Scheffran, J. (2012). Scenarios for regional passenger car fleets and their CO2
emissions. Energy Policy, 41, 66–74. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.043
Meyer, S., Unternährer, D., Arlettaz, R., Humbert, J. Y., & Menz, M. H. M. (2017). Promoting diverse
communities of wild bees and hoverflies requires a landscape approach to managing meadows.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 239, 376–384.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.037
Michel, S., Yakusheva, N., Pesch, M., & Baldus, R. D. (2015). The current situation of wildlife
management in Central Asian countries. Retrieved from http://www.naturalresources-
centralasia.org/flermoneca/assets/files/2015-08-14_Summary%20on%20WM%20in%20CA.pdf
Mihók, B., Biró, M., Molnár, Z., Kovács, E., Bölöni, J., Erős, T., Standovár, T., Török, P., Csorba, G.,
Margóczi, K., & Báldi, A. (2017). Biodiversity on the waves of history: Conservation in a changing
social and institutional environment in Hungary, a post-soviet EU member state. Biological
Conservation, 211(May), 67–75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.005
Mihók, B., Kovács, E., Balázs, B., Pataki, G., Ambrus, A., Bartha, D., Czirák, Z., Csányi, S., Csépányi, P.,
Csoszi, M., Dudás, G., Egri, C., Eros, T., Gori, S., Halmos, G., Kopek, A., Margóczi, K., Miklay, G.,
Milonq, L., Podmaniczky, L., Sárvári, J., Schmidt, A., Sipos, K, Siposs, V., Standovár, T., Szigetvári,
C., Szemethy, L., Tóth, B., Tóth, L., Tóth, P., Török, K., Török, P., Vadász, C., Varga, I., Sutherland,
W. J., & Báldi, A. (2015). Bridging the research-practice gap: Conservation research priorities in a
Central and Eastern European country. Journal for Nature Conservation, 28, 133–148. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1617138115300236
Mikalsen, K. H., & Jentoft, S. (2003). Limits to participation? On the history, structure and reform of
Norwegian fisheries management. Marine Policy, 27(5), 397–407. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-

1101
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

597x(03)00025-3
Milder, J. C., Arbuthnot, M., Blackman, A., Brooks, S. E., Giovannucci, D., Gross, L., Kennedy, E. T.,
Komives, K., Lambin, E. F., Lee, A., Meyer, D., Newton, P., Phalan, B., Schroth, G., Semroc, B., Van
Rikxoort, H., & Zrust, M. (2015). An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of
sustainability standards in tropical agriculture. Conservation Biology, 29(2), 309–320.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12411
Milder, J. C., Gross, L. H., & Class, A. M. (2012). Assessing the ecological impacts of agricultural eco-
certification and standards - A global review of the science and practice. Retrieved from
http://infoagro.net/programas/ambiente/pages/agricultura/documentos/6.pdf
Millard-Ball, A., & Schipper, L. (2011). Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in
eight industrialized countries. Transport Reviews, 31(3), 357–378.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.518291
Minter, T., van der Ploeg, J., Pedrablanca, M., Sunderland, T., & Persoon, G. (2014). Limits to indigenous
participation: The Agta and the northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, the Philippines. Human
Ecology, 42(5), 769–778. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9673-5
Misund, O. A. (2014). Norwegian fisheries: Technologically advanced, biologically sustainable, and
economically profitable. Marine Technology Society Journal, 48(2), 17–23.
http://doi.org/10.4031/mtsj.48.2.1
Molnár, Z. (2014). Perception and management of spatio-temporal pasture heterogeneity by
Hungarian herders. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 67(2), 107–118.
http://doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-13-00082.1
Molnár, Z., Kis, J., Vadász, C., Papp, L., Sándor, I., Béres, S., Sinka, G., & Varga, A. (2016). Common and
conflicting objectives and practices of herders and conservation managers: the need for a
conservation herder. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 2(4), e01215.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1215
Molnár, Z., Sáfián, L., Máté, J., Barta, S., Sütó, D. P., Molnár, A., & Varga, A. (2017). “It does matter who
leans on the stick”: Hungarian herders’ perspectives on biodiversity, ecosystem services and their
drivers. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár (Eds.), Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and
ecosystem services in Europe and Central Asia (pp. 41–55). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural
scientists. Conservation Biology, 28(5), 1167–1177. http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12326
Moreno, S. P., & Mueller, M. (2015). Societal participatory processes in the revision of national
biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs). Retrieved from
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/iucn_participatory_processes_report_
_final.pdf
Moss, T. (2012). Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework
Directive. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 2. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art2/
Mouchet, M. A., Paracchini, M. L., Schulp, C. J. E., Stürck, J., Verkerk, P. J., Verburg, P. H., & Lavorel, S.
(2017). Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes.
Ecological Indicators, 73, 23–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.09.026
Muradian, R., & Rival, L. (2012). Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 93–100.

1102
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.009
Murray, A., Skene, K., & Haynes, K. (2017). The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of
the concept and application in a global context. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 369–380.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2693-2
Mustonen, T. (2013). Oral histories as a baseline of landscape restoration – co-management and
watershed knowledge in Jukajoki river. Fennia, 191, 76–91. http://doi.org/10.11143/7637
Mustonen, T., Shadrin, V., Mustonen, K., & Vasiliev, V. (2011). “Songs of the Kolyma Tundra” – Co-
production and perpetuation of knowledge concerning ecology and weather in the indigenous
communities of Nizhnikolyma, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Russian Federation. Mimeo,
University of Essex, (1), 1–14. Retrieved from http://staging.eloka-arctic.org/sites/eloka-
arctic.org/files/documents/climate_change_academic.pdf
Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to
identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x
Nabatchi, T., Ertinger, E., & Leighninger, M. (2015). The future of public participation: Better design,
better laws, better systems. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 33(S1), 35–44.
http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21142
Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (Eds.). (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy.
Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154815
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2002). Toward a Canadian agenda for
ecological fiscal reform: First steps. Ottawa, Canada: Renouf Publishing. Retrieved from
http://warming.apps01.yorku.ca/library/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/NRTEE-Toward-a-
Canadian-Agenda-for-Ecological-Fiscal-Reform_First-Steps.pdf
NCC. (2015). Natural capital protocol – Principles and framework. Retrieved from
http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/
NCEA. (2016). Better decision-making about large dams with a view to sustainable development.
Advisory report 7199. Retrieved from http://dsu.eia.nl/publications/advisory-reports/7199
NEF. (2009). Growth isn’t possible. London, UK: New Economics Foundation. Retrieved from
http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/f19c45312a905d73c3_rbm6iecku.pdf
Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level - and effective?
Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 197–214. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509
Newman, D. G. (2014). Revisiting the duty to consult aboriginal peoples. Saskatoon, Canada: Purich.
Nicolaides, P., & Oberg, H. (2006). The compliance problem in the European Union. EIPAScope, 1, 12–
18. Retrieved from http://aei.pitt.edu/6371/1/Scop06_1_2.pdf
Niedziałkowski, K., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Pietruczuk, M., & Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2015). Assessing
participatory and multilevel characteristics of biodiversity and landscape protection legislation:
the case of Poland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(10), 1891–1911.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1100982
Niemelä, J., Saarela, S.-R., Söderman, T., Kopperoinen, L., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Väre, S., & Kotze, D. J.
(2010). Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban
green spaces: a Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(11), 3225–3243.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9888-8

1103
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

NOBANIS. (2017). NOBANIS - European Network on Invasive Species. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from
https://www.nobanis.org/
North, D. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/political-
economy/institutions-institutional-change-and-economic-
performance?format=PB&isbn=9780521397346
Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schlüter, M., Adger, W. N., Arrow, K.
J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., Chapin, F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Jager, W.,
Kautsky, N., Levin, S. A., Madsen, O. J., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Walker, B., Weber, E. U., Wilen,
J., Xepapadeas, A., & de Zeeuw, A. (2016). Social norms as solutions. Science, 354(6308), 42–43.
Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6308/42.abstract
O’Connor, B., Secades, C., Penner, J., Sonnenschein, R., Skidmore, A., Burgess, N. D., & Hutton, J. M.
(2015). Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 1(1), 19–28. http://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.4
Oberthür, S., & Gehring, T. (2006). Institutional interaction in global environmental governance:
synergy and conflict among international and EU policies. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press. Retrieved
from
http://libris.kb.se/export.jsp?type=showrecord&q=onr%3A10170842&id=10170842&d=libris&p
osts=1
OECD. (1997). Evaluating economic instruments for environmental policy. Paris, France: OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (1999). Handbook of incentive measures for biodiversity. Design and Implementation. Paris,
France: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-
Management/oecd/environment/handbook-of-incentive-measures-for-
biodiversity_9789264173903-en#page1%5Cnhttp://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/environment/handbook-of-incentive-measures-for-biodiversity_9789264173903-en
OECD. (2001). Towards a new role for spatial planning. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/towards-a-new-role-for-
spatial-planning_9789264189928-en
OECD. (2005). Environmental management in Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia. Paris, France:
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environmental-
management-in-eastern-europe-caucasus-and-central-asia_9789264008991-en
OECD. (2006a). Financial support to fisheries - Implications for sustainable development. Paris, France:
OECD Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264036642-en
OECD. (2006b). The political economy of environmentally related taxes. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0022146512469014
OECD. (2007). Instrument mixes for environmental policy. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/instrument-mixes-for-environmental-
policy_9789264018419-en
OECD. (2011). Development in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. Paris, France: OECD. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264113039-
en

1104
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

OECD. (2012a). Green growth and environmental governance in Eastern Europe, Caucasus, and Central
Asia. OECD green growth papers, No. 2012-02. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/green-growth-and-environmental-governance-in-
eastern-europe-caucasus-and-central-asia_5k97gk42q86g-en
OECD. (2012b). OECD environmental outlook to 2050. Baseline. Paris, France: OECD.
http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264040519-en
OECD. (2013a). OECD review of fisheries: Policies and summary statistics 2013. Paris, France: OECD.
http://doi.org/10.1787/rev_fish-2013-en
OECD. (2013b). Scaling-up finance mechanisms for biodiversity. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/scaling-up-finance-mechanisms-for-
biodiversity_9789264193833-en
OECD. (2016a). Biodiversity-related official development assistance 2015. Paris, France: OECD.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/biodiversity.htm
OECD. (2016b). Financing climate action in Azerbaijan. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/environment/outreach/Azerbaijan_Financing%20Climate%20Action.Nov2
016.pdf
OECD. (2017). Aid activities targeting global environmental objectives. Retrieved November 15, 2017,
from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=RIOMARKERS
Oinonen, S., Börger, T., Hynes, S., Buchs, A. K., Heiskanen, A.-S., Hyytiäinen, K., Luisetti, T., & van der
Veeren, R. (2016). The role of economics in ecosystem based management: The case of the EU
Marine Strategy Framework Directive; First lessons learnt and way forward. Journal of Ocean and
Coastal Economics, 2(11), e1601367. http://doi.org/10.15351/2373-8456.1038
Oosterhuis, F. (2011). Tax reliefs for biodiversity conservation. In I. Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.),
Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011 (pp. 89–97).
Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ. Retrieved from
http://policymix.nina.no
Oosterhuis, F., Esch, S. van der, & Hoogervorst, N. (2016). From statistics to policy. The development
and application of environmental statistics and environmental accounts in the Netherlands. The
Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved from
www.pbl.nl/en
Opdam, P., Foppen, R., & Vos, C. (2002). Bridging the gap between ecology and spatial planning.
Landscape Ecology, 16(8), 767–779. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014475908949
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolutions of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://wtf.tw/ref/ostrom_1990.pdf
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.
Science, 325, 419–422. Retrieved from
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/419.abstract
Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A., & Anderies, J. M. (2007). Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15176–8.
http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104
Oteros-Rozas, E., Ontillera-Sánchez, R., Sanosa, P., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., & González,
J. A. (2013). Traditional ecological knowledge among transhumant pastoralists in Mediterranean

1105
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Spain. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 33. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05597-180333

Otis, G., & Laurent, A. (2013). Indigenous land claims in Europe: The European Court of Human Rights
and the decolonization of property. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 4(2), 156–180. Retrieved
from http://arcticreview.no/index.php/arctic/article/download/47/47
Owen, D. (2008). Chronicles of wasted time? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 240–
267. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/1e6d8833091f0d9987f83050bc59d964/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=31671
Paavola, J., & Adger, W. N. (2005). Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 53(3),
353–368. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.09.017
Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvánková-Oravská, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and
regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 148–158.
Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/eet.505
Palomo, I., Martin-Lopez, B., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Participatory scenario planning
for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: the Donana social-
ecological system in southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 23. http://doi.org/23
Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Cent, J., Bormpoudakis, D., Scott, A., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M.,
Tzanopoulos, J., Koivulehto, M., Pietrzyk-Kaszyńnska, A., & Pantis, J. D. (2015). Public
participation and environmental justice in biodiversity governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and
the UK. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25, 330–342. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1672
PAO Rushydro. (2016). Экологическая политика пао «Русгидро» [Environmental Policy of PAO
«Rushydro»]. Moscow, Russian Federation: Russian Power of Attorney. Retrieved from
http://www.rushydro.ru/upload/iblock/9e7/EKOLOGIChESKAYa-POLITIKA-PAO-RUSGIDRO.pdf
Papageorgiou, I., & Guitton, M. (2009). Improving the attractiveness of rural areas through common
strategies. Experiences in European mountains. Brussels, Belgium: Euromontana. Retrieved from
http://www.euromontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ldtr_rapport_final_en.pdf
Paranque, B., & Pérez, R. (2016). Finance reconsidered: new perspectives for a responsible and
sustainable finance. In W. Sun (Ed.), Critical studies on corporate responsibility, governance and
sustainability (pp. 3–13). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S2043-905920160000010004
Parks, S., & Gowdy, J. (2013). What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review essay.
Ecosystem Services, 3, e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.12.002
Pascual, U., & Perrings, C. (2007). Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ
biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
121, 256–268. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.025
Patterson, T. M., Niccolucci, V., & Bastianoni, S. (2007). Beyond “more is better”: Ecological footprint
accounting for tourism and consumption in Val di Merse, Italy. Ecological Economics, 62(3/4),
747–756. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.016
Paulson, N., Laudati, A., Doolittle, A., Welsh-Devine, M., & Pena, P. (2012). Indigenous peoples’
participation in global conservation: Looking beyond headdresses and face paint. Environmental
Values, 21(3), 255–276. http://doi.org/10.3197/096327112X13400390125894
Paxton, M., Scott, T., Watanabe, Y., Charles, E., Tshering, D., & Weeks, I. (2016). Silent Roar. UNDP and

1106
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

GEF in the snow leopard landscape. New York, USA: UNDP. Retrieved from
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-reduction/silent-roar---
undp-and-gef-in-the-snow-leopard-landscape.html
PBL. (2014). How sectors can contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. CBD
technical series 78. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-79-en.pdf
Pe’er, G., Dicks, L. V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T. G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory,
R. D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P. R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R. K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J.,
Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W. J., Turbé, A., Wulf, F., & Scott, A. V. (2014). EU agricultural reform
fails on biodiversity. Science, 344(6188), 1090–1092. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1253425
Penkina, L. (2004). Estestvennye pastbisha i etnokulturnye tradicii [Natural pastures and ethnocultural
traditions]. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.fao.org/3/a-x6400r.pdf
Peters, B. G. (2014). Is governance for everybody? Policy and Society, 33, 301–306.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.005
Pfaller, A. (2010). Ökosteuern in Europa. Die politökonomischen Parameter der Umweltsteuerdebatte
in Europa [Eco-taxes in Europe. The politico-economic parameters of the environmental tax
debate in Europe]. Berlin, Germany: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Retrieved from
http://www.foes.de/pdf/2010-FES-Oekosteuern-in-Europa.pdf
Picolotti, R., & Taillant, J. D. (2003). Linking human rights and the environment. Tuscon, USA: University
of Arizona Press.
Pierre, J. (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Debating-Governance-Authority-
Steering-Democracy/dp/0198297726
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2000). Governance, politics and the State. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.de/Governance-Politics-Political-Analysis-
Paperback/dp/0312231776
Pirard, R. (2012). Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon.
Environmental Science and Policy, 19–20, 59–68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.001
Pirker, J., Mosnier, A., Kraxner, F., Havlík, P., & Obersteiner, M. (2016). What are the limits to oil palm
expansion? Global Environmental Change, 40, 73–81.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.007
Pisupati, B., & Prip, C. (2015). Interim assessment of revised national biodiversity strategies and action
plans (NBSAPs). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/doc/nbsap/Interim-Assessment-of-NBSAPs.pdf
Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., & Bieling, C. (2013). Assessing, mapping, and quantifying
cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy, 33, 118–129.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Polacheck, T., & Davies, C. (2008). Considerations of implications of large unreported catches of
southern bluefin tuna for assessments of tropical tunas, and the need for independent verification
of catch and effort statistics. Hobart, Australia: CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.
Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/33575412?selectedversion=NBD42860469
Polasky, S., Tallis, H., & Reyers, B. (2015). Setting the bar: Standards for ecosystem services.

1107
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(24), 7356–
7361. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406490112
Porras, I., Chacón-Cascante, A., Robalino, J., & Oosterhuis, F. (2011). PES and other economic beasts:
assessing PES within a policy mix in conservation. In I. Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.),
Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report No. 2/2011 (pp. 119–144). Leipzig,
Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Retrieved from
http://policymix.nina.no
Posey, D. A. (1996). Protecting indigenous peoples’ rights to biodiversity. Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, 38(8), 6–45.
http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1996.9930990
Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. H., Fish, R., & Turner, R. K. (Eds.). (2016). Routledge handbook of
ecosystem services. London, UK: Routledge.
Potts, J., Lynch, M., Wilkings, A., Huppé, G., Cunningham, M., & Voora, V. (2014). The state of
sustainability initiatives review 2014. Standards and the green economy. Winnipeg, London: IISD
Retrieved from https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf
Prager, K. (2015). Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, 59–66. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.009
Prakash, A., & Potoski, M. (2012). Voluntary environmental programs: A comparative perspective.
Policy Analysis and Management, 31(1), 123–138. http://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20617
Primack, R. B. (2010). Essentials of conservation biology. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Primmer, E. (2011). Analysis of institutional adaptation: Integration of biodiversity conservation into
forestry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1822–1832.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.001
Primmer, E., Jokinen, P., Blicharska, M., Barton, D. N., Bugter, R., & Potschin, M. (2015). Governance
of ecosystem services: A framework for empirical analysis. Ecosystem Services, 16, 158–166.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002
Primmer, E., & Kyllönen, S. (2006). Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development,
and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy and
Economics, 8(8), 838–853. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.01.002
Primmer, E., Paloniemi, R., Similä, J., & Barton, D. N. (2013). Evolution in Finland’s forest biodiversity
conservation payments and the institutional constraints on establishing new policy. Society &
Natural Resources, 26(10), 1137–1154. http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820814
Prip, C. (2013). Terminal evaluation of the UNEP project supporting the implementation of the Pan-
European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS). Retrieved from
http://www.unep.org/evaluation/evaluation-reports-
search?search_api_views_fulltext_1_op=OR&search_api_views_fulltext_1=PEBLdS
Prishchepov, A. V, Radeloff, V. C., Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., & Müller, D. (2012). Effects of
institutional changes on land use: agricultural land abandonment during the transition from
state-command to market-driven economies in post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Environmental
Research Letters, 7(2), 13. http://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024021
Prno, J., & Slocombe, S. D. (2012). Exploring the origins of “social license to operate” in the mining
sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resources Policy, 37(3), 346–

1108
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

357. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.04.002
Pullin, A. S., Báldi, A., Can, O. E., Dieterich, M., Kati, V., Livoreil, B., Lövei, G., Mihók, B., Nevin, O., Selva,
N., & Sousa-Pinto, I. (2009). Conservation focus on Europe: Major conservation policy issues that
need to be informed by conservation science. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 818–824.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01283.x
Pulselli, F. M., Coscieme, L., Neri, L., Regoli, A., Sutton, P. C., Lemmi, A., & Bastianoni, S. (2015). The
world economy in a cube: A more rational structural representation of sustainability. Global
Environmental Change, 35, 41–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.002
Pyšek, P., Jarošik, V., Hulme, P. E., Pergl, J., Hejda, M., Schaffner, U., & Vila, M. (2012). A global
assessment of invasive plant impacts on resident species, communities and ecosystems: The
interaction of impact measures, invading species’ traits and environment. Global Change Biology,
18(5), 1725–1737. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02636.x
Quillérou, E., Thomas, R. J., Guchgeldiyev, O., Ettling, S., Etter, H., & Stewart, N. (2016). Economics of
Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative: Broadening options for improved economic sustainability in
Central Asia. Synthesis report. Amman, Jordan: ELD Initiative. Retrieved from www.eld-
initiative.org
Raitanen, E., Similä, J., Siikavirta, K., & Primmer, E. (2013). Economic instruments for biodiversity and
ecosystem service conservation & the EU state aid regulation. Journal for European
Environmental Planning and Law, 10(1), 6–28. http://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01001002
Ratner, B. D., Meinzen-Dick, R., May, C., & Haglund, E. (2013). Resource conflict, collective action, and
resilience: an analytical framework. International Journal of the Commons, 7(1), 183–208.
http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.276
Redford, K. H., Coppolillo, P., Sanderson, E. W., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., Dinerstein, E., Groves, C., Mace,
G., Maginnis, S., Mittermeier, R. A., Noss, R., Olson, D., Robinson, J. G., Vedder, A., & Wright, M.
(2003). Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology, 17(1), 116–131. Retrieved
from http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01467.x
Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Wood, K. A., & Young, J. C. (2015). An introduction to conservation
conflicts. In S. M. Redpath, R. J. Gutiérrez, K. A. Wood, & J. C. Young (Eds.), Conflicts in
conservation: Navigating towards solutions (pp. 3–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from
http://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/17696/excerpt/9781107017696_excerpt.pdf
Redpath, S. M., Linnell, J. D. C., Festa-Bianchet, M., Boitani, L., Bunnefeld, N., Dickman, A., Gutiérrez,
R. J., Irvine, R. J., Johansson, M., Majić, A., McMahon, B. J., Pooley, S., Sandström, C., Sjölander-
Lindqvist, A., Skogen, K., Swenson, J. E., Trouwborst, A., Young, J. C., & Milner-Gulland, E. J.
(2017). Don’t forget to look down - collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biological
Reviews, 92(4), 2157–2163. http://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12326
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.
Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Reeson, A. (2015). Tradable rights in conservation: useful policy tool or industry in themselves?
Environmental Conservation, 42(4), 289–290. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000326
Reimerson, E. (2013). Between nature and culture: exploring space for indigenous agency in the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Environmental Politics, 22(6), 992–1009.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2012.737255

1109
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Reimerson, E. (2015). Sami space for agency in the management of the Laponia World Heritage site.
Local Environment, 21(7), 808–826. http://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1032230
Richardson, B. J. (2001). Indigenous peoples, international law and sustainability. Review of European
Community & International Environmental Law, 10(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9388.00256
Richerzhagen, C., Rodríguez, J. C., & Stepping, K. (2016). Why we need more and better biodiversity aid.
Briefing Paper 13. Retrieved from https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/BP_13.2016.neu.pdf
Ridder, R., Isakov, A., & Kasymov, U. (2017). Transformation in pasture use in Kyrgyzstan. What are the
costs of pasture degradation? In V. R. Squires, S. Zhan-Huan, & A. Ariapour (Eds.), Rangelands
along the Silk Road: Transformative adaptation under climate and global change (pp. 299–322).
Hauppauge, USA: Nova Science Publishers.
Rietig, K. (2016). The power of strategy: Environmental NGO influence in international climate
negotiations. Global Governance, 22(2), 269–288.
Ring, I. (2008a). Biodiversity governance: Adjusting local costs and global benefits. In T. Sikor (Ed.),
Public and private in natural resource governance: a false dichotomy? (pp. 107–126). London, UK:
Earthscan. Retrieved from https://www.econbiz.de/Record/biodiversity-governance-adjusting-
local-costs-and-global-benefits-ring-irene/10003738295
Ring, I. (2008b). Integrating local ecological services into intergovernmental fiscal transfers: The case
of the ecological ICMS in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 25(4), 485–497.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.11.001
Ring, I., & Barton, D. N. (2015). Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and
ecosystem governance. In J. Martínez-Alier & R. Muradian (Eds.), Handbook of ecological
economics (pp. 413–449). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Retrieved from
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781783471409.00021.xml
Ring, I., Drechsler, M., van Teeffelen, A. J. A., Irawan, S., & Venter, O. (2010). Biodiversity conservation
and climate mitigation: What role can economic instruments play? Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 50–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.004
Ring, I., Droste, N., & Santos, R. (2017). Ecological fiscal transfers (EFT). In M. Kettunen & A. Illes (Eds.),
Opportunities for innovative biodiversity financing in the EU: ecological fiscal transfers (EFT), tax
reliefs, marketed products, and fees and charges. A compilation of cases studies developed in the
context of a project for the European Commission (pp. 8–43). Brussels, Belgium: Institute for
European Policy (IEEP). Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Kettunen_2017_financin
g_biodiversity_case_studies.pdf
Ring, I., May, P. H., Loureiro, W., Santos, R., Antunes, P., & Clemente, P. (2011). Ecological fiscal
transfers. In I. Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.), Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies.
POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011 (pp. 98–118). Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for
Environmental Research – UFZ. Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no/
Ring, I., & Schröter-Schlaack, C. (Eds.). (2011). Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX
Report, Issue No. 2/2011. Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ.
Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no
Ring, I., & Schröter-Schlaack, C. (2015). Policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem
service management. In K. Grunewald & O. Bastian (Eds.), Ecosystem services – Concept, methods

1110
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

and case studies (pp. 146–155). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-

662-44143-5
Rist, L., & Moen, J. (2013). Sustainability in forest management and a new role for resilience thinking.
Forest Ecology and Management, 310, 416–427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.08.033
Rivers without Boundaries Coalition. (2017). Rivers without Boundaries. Retrieved February 27, 2017,
from http://www.transrivers.org/about/
Roberts, S. (1992). A land divided: The disappearance of an artificial border in Central Asia is plausible
for the first time in 70 years. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine, 16(1). Retrieved from
https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/land-divided-
disappearance-artificial-border-central-asia
Robinson, S., Wiedemann, C., Michel, S., Zhumabayev, Y., & Singh, N. (2012). Pastoral tenure in Central
Asia: Theme and variation in the five former Soviet Republics. In V. Squires (Ed.), Rangeland
stewardship in Central Asia: Balancing improved livelihoods, biodiversity conservation and land
protection (pp. 239–274). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-
007-5367-9_11
Rochette, J., & Chabason, L. (2011). A regional approach to marine environmental protection: the
“regional seas” experience. In P. Jacquet, R. K. Pachauri, & L. Tubiana (Eds.), Oceans. The new
frontier (pp. 111–121). Dehli, India: TERI Press. Retrieved from
http://regardssurlaterre.com/sites/default/files/dossier/2016/PFL2011-LOW_22dec.pdf
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer,
M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe,
H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R. W.,
Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., & Foley, J. A. (2009).
A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.
http://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rode, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., & Krause, T. (2015). Motivation crowding by economic incentives in
conservation policy: A review of the empirical evidence. Ecological Economics, 117, 270–282.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.019
Rodwell, J., Janssen, J., Gubbay, S., & Schaminee, J. H. J. (2013). Red list assessment of European habitat
types: A feasibility study. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283417716_Red_list_assessment_of_European_ha
bitat_types_A_feasibility_study
Rohr, J. (2014). IWGIA report 18: Indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation. In D. Vinding & K.
Wessendorf (Eds.). Copenhagen, Denmark: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs
(IWGIA). Retrieved from http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=695
Rosell Perez, M. B. (2013). Climate change policies in South Eastern Europe and the LOCSEE project.
Rossi, A., & Cadoni, P. (2012). Policy instruments to promote good practices in bioenergy feedstock
production. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/1203_BEFSCI-
FAO_Policy_instruments_to_promote_good_practices_in_bioenergy_feedstock_production.pdf
Roturier, S. (2009). Managing reindeer lichen during forest regeneration procedures: Linking Sami
herders’ knowledge and forestry (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/2203/1/roturier_s_091212.pdf
Roturier, S., & Bergsten, U. (2006). Influence of soil scarification on reindeer foraging and damage to
1111
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

planted Pinus sylvestris seedlings. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 21(3), 209–220.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02827580600759441
Roturier, S., Nygard, J., Nutti, L.-E., Astot, M.-P., & Roué, M. (2017). Reindeer husbandry in the boreal
forest: Sami ecological knowledge or the science of “working with nature.” In M. Roué & Z.
Molnár (Eds.), Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe
and Central Asia (pp. 90–108). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Roturier, S., & Roué, M. (2009). Of forest, snow and lichen: Sámi reindeer herders’ knowledge of winter
pastures in northern Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(9), 1960–1967.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.07.045
Roué, M., & Molnár, Z. (Eds.). (2017). Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem
services in Europe and Central Asia. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Ruijs, A., Wossink, A., Kortelainen, M., Alkemade, R., & Schulp, C. J. E. (2013). Trade-off analysis of
ecosystem services in Eastern Europe. Ecosystem Services, 4, 82–94.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.002
Ruiz-Frau, A., Possingham, H. P., Edwards-Jones, G., Klein, C. J., Segan, D., & Kaiser, M. J. (2015). A
multidisciplinary approach in the design of marine protected areas: Integration of science and
stakeholder based methods. Ocean and Coastal Management, 103, 86–93.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.11.012
Rulli, M. C., Saviori, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2013). Global land and water grabbing. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(3), 892–897. Retrieved from
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3549107&tool=pmcentrez&render
type=abstract
Runhaar, H. (2016). Tools for integrating environmental objectives into policy and practice: What
works where? Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 59, 1–9.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.03.003
Runhaar, H., Driessen, P., & Uittenbroek, C. (2014). Towards a systematic framework for the analysis
of environmental policy integration. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24, 233–246.
http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1647
Russi, D., Margue, H., Oppermann, R., & Keenleyside, C. (2016). Result-based agri-environment
measures: Market-based instruments, incentives or rewards? The case of Baden-Württemberg.
Land Use Policy, 54, 69–77. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.012
Russian Academy of Sciences. (2001). National strategy of biodiversity conservation in Russia.
Retrieved from http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5759
Saarikoski, H., Akerman, M., & Primmer, E. (2012). The challenge of governance in regional forest
planning: An analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Society and Natural
Resources, 25, 667–682. http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.630061
Saleh, W., & Sammer, G. (Eds.). (2009). Travel demand management and road user pricing: Success,
failure and feasibility. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Retrieved from
https://www.routledge.com/products/9780754673033
Samakov, A., & Berkes, F. (2016). Ysyk-Köl Lake, the planet’s third eye: Sacred sites in Ysyk-Köl
Biosphere Reserve, Kyrgyzstan. In B. Verschuuren & N. Furuta (Eds.), Asian sacred natural sites,
philosophy and practice in protected areas and conservation (pp. 208–220). London, UK:
Routledge.

1112
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Sandlos, J. (2014). National parks in the Canadian north: Comanagement or colonialism revisited? In S.
Stevens (Ed.), Indigenous peoples, national parks, and protected areas: A new paradigm linking
conservation, culture, and rights (pp. 133–149). Tucson, USA: University of Arizona Press.
Sands, P., Peel, J. J., Fabra, A., & MacKenzie, R. (2012). Principles of international environmental law.
Third edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521769590
Sandström, C., Pellikka, J., Ratamäki, O., & Sande, A. (2009). Management of large carnivores in
Fennoscandia: New patterns of regional participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14(1), 37–
50. http://doi.org/10.1080/10871200802304726
Sandström, C., & Widmark, C. (2007). Stakeholders’ perceptions of consultations as tools for co-
management - A case study of the forestry and reindeer herding sectors in northern Sweden.
Forest Policy and Economics, 10(1–2), 25–35. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2007.02.001
Sandström, P., Sandstrom, C., Svensson, J., Jougda, L., & Baer, K. (2012). Participatory GIS to mitigate
conflicts between reindeer husbandry and forestry in Vilhelmina model forest, Sweden. Forestry
Chronicle, 88(3), 254–260. http://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2012-051
Santarius, T., Dalkmann, H., Steigenberger, M., & Vogelpohl, K. (2004). Balancing trade and
environment: An ecological reform of the WTO as a challenge in sustainable global governance.
Wuppertal Papers, (133e). Retrieved from http://d-nb.info/104980886X/34
Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Maconi, L., Shirvani, T., & Teytelboym, A. (2010a). Part I: Externalities and
economic policies in road transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1), 2–45.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2009.11.002
Santos, G., Behrendt, H., & Teytelboym, A. (2010b). Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road
transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1), 46–91.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.03.002
Santos, R., Antunes, P., Ring, I., & Clemente, P. (2015a). Engaging local private and public actors in
biodiversity conservation: The role of agri-environmental schemes and ecological fiscal transfers.
Environmental Policy and Governance, 25, 83–96. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1661
Santos, R., Ring, I., Antunes, P., & Clemente, P. (2012). Fiscal transfers for biodiversity conservation:
the Portuguese Local Finances Law. Land Use Policy, 29(2), 261–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.001
Santos, R., Schröter-Schlaack, C., Antunes, P., Ring, I., & Clemente, P. (2015b). Reviewing the role of
habitat banking and tradable development rights in the conservation policy mix. Environmental
Conservation, 42(4), 294–305. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000089
Saunders, D., & Briggs, S. V. (2002). Nature grows in straight lines - Or does she? What are the
consequences of the mismatch between human-imposed linear boundaries and ecosystem
boundaries? An Australian example. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61(2–4), 71–82.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00103-2
Scanlon, J., Cassar, A., & Nemes, N. (2004). Water as a human right? IUCN environmental policy and
law paper (Vol. 51). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Retrieved from
https://www.iucn.org/content/water-human-right
Schenk, A., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2007). Factors influencing the acceptance of nature
conservation measures - A qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental
Management, 83(1), 66–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.01.010

1113
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Schewenius, M., McPhearson, T., & Elmqvist, T. (2014). Opportunities for increasing resilience and
sustainability of urban social-ecological systems: Insights from the URBES and the cities and
biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio, 43(4), 434–444. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0505-
z
Schipper, L. (2011). Automobile use, fuel economy and CO2 emissions in industrialized countries:
Encouraging trends through 2008? Transport Policy, 18(2), 358–372.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.10.011
Schleyer, C., Görg, C., Hauck, J., & Winkler, K. J. (2015). Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming
the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU. Ecosystem
Services, 16, 174–181. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.014
Schmidt, M. (2013). Mensch und Umwelt in Kirgistan. Politische Ökologie im postkolonialen und
postsozialistischen Kontext [People and environment in Kyrgyzstan: Political ecology in
postcolonial and post-socialist context]. Stuttgart, Germany: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Schmithüsen, F., & Hirsch, F. (2010). Geneva timber and forest study paper 26. Private forest ownership
in Europe. Geneva, Switzerland: UNECE. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-26.pdf
Schor, J. B. (2011). True wealth: How and why millions of Americans are creating a time-rich,
ecologically light, small-scale, high-satisfaction economy. New York, USA: Penguin Books.
Retrieved from http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11083025-true-wealth
Schouten, G., & Glasbergen, P. (2012). Private multi-stakeholder governance in the agricultural market
place: An analysis of legitimization processes of the roundtables on sustainable palm oil and
responsible soy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15, 63–88. Retrieved
from http://www.ifama.org/resources/Documents/v15ib/Schouten-Glasbergen.pdf
SCP Clearinghouse. (2017). Sustainable consumption and production clearinghouse. Retrieved March
23, 2016, from http://www.scpclearinghouse.org/
Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and
avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics,
10(4), 317–332. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9138-2
Schroeder, K. (2016). Regional strategic review paper: Europe and Central Asia. Budapest, Hungary:
FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/b-i6102e.pdf
Schröter-Schlaack, C., & Blumentrath, S. (2011). Direct regulation for biodiversity conservation. In I.
Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.), Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report,
Issue No. 2/2011 (pp. 36–58). Leipzig, Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research –
UFZ. Retrieved from http://policymix.nina.no
Schröter-Schlaack, C., & Ring, I. (2011). Towards a framework for assessing instruments in policy mixes
for biodiversity and ecosystem governance. In I. Ring & C. Schröter-Schlaack (Eds.), Instrument
mixes for biodiversity policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011 (pp. 175–208). Leipzig,
Germany: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ. Retrieved from
http://policymix.nina.no
Schröter-Schlaack, C., Ring, I., Koellner, T., Santos, R., Antunes, P., Clemente, P., Mathevet, R., Borie,
M., & Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2014). Intergovernmental fiscal transfers to support local
conservation action in Europe. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(2–3), 98–114. Retrieved
from http://www.wirtschaftsgeographie.com/archiv/download/read/06-2014.pdf

1114
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Schröter, M., Albert, C., Marques, A., Tobon, W., Lavorel, S., Maes, J., Brown, C., Klotz, S., & Bonn, A.
(2016). National ecosystem assessments in Europe: A review. BioScience, 66(10), 813–828.
http://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw101
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E. H., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Remme, R. P., Serna-Chavez, H. M., de
Groot, R. S., & Opdam, P. (2014). Ecosystem services as a contested concept: A synthesis of
critique and counter-arguments. Conservation Letters, 7(6), 514–523.
http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091
Schulz, T., Krumm, F., Bücking, W., Frank, G., Kraus, D., Lier, M., Lovric, M., van der Maaten-Theunissen,
M., Paillet, Y., Parviainen, J., Vacchiano, G., & Vandekerkhove, K. (2014). Comparison of
integrative nature conservation in forest policy in Europe: a qualitative pilot study of institutional
determinants. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3425–3450.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0817-0
Scolozzi, R., Morri, E., & Santolini, R. (2012). Delphi-based change assessment in ecosystem service
values to support strategic spatial planning in Italian landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 21, 134–
144. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019
Scott, D., Hall, C. M., & Gössling, S. (2016). A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its
implications for tourism: why we will always have Paris. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(7),
933–948. http://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1187623
Scottish Government. (2016). Land Use Strategy 2016-2021. Retrieved from
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Countryside/Landusestrategy
SCSKASC. (2012). Toward sustainability: The roles and limitations of certification. Washington, DC, USA:
Resolve, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.resolv.org/site-assessment/files/2012/06/Report-
Only.pdf
Sehring, J. (2007). Irrigation reform in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 21(3–
4), 277–290. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10795-007-9036-0
Selin, H., & VanDeveer, S. D. (2015). Broader, deeper and greener: European Union environmental
politics, policies, and outcomes. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40(1), 309–335.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021210
Setten, G., Stenseke, M., & Moen, J. (2012). Ecosystem services and landscape management: three
challenges and one plea. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services &
Management, 8(4), 305–312. http://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.722127
Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new
research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16, 584–603. Retrieved from
http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010701419121
Shelton, D. (2014). International law and “relative normativity.” In M. Evans (Ed.), International law.
Fourth edition (pp. 137–165). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199654673.003.0006
Sil, Â., Rodrigues, A. P., Carvalho-Santos, C., Nunes, J. P., Honrado, J., Alonso, J., Marta-Pedroso, C., &
Azevedo, C. (2016). Trade-offs and synergies between provisioning and regulating ecosystem
services in a mountain area in Portugal affected by landscape change. Mountain Research and
Development, 36(4), 452–464. http://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00035.1
Simeonova, M. V., Simeonova, V., & Van Der Valk, A. (2016). Environmental policy integration: Towards
a communicative approach for integrating nature conservation in urban land use planning in

1115
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bulgaria. Land Use Policy, 57(30), 80–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.017

Simoncini, R. (2009). Developing an integrated approach to enhance the delivering of environmental
goods and services by agro-ecosystems. Regional Environmental Change, 9(3), 153–167.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008-0052-x
Simoncini, R. (2015). Introducing territorial and historical contexts and critical thresholds in the analysis
of conservation of agro-biodiversity by alternative food networks, in Tuscany, Italy. Land Use
Policy, 42, 355–366. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.010
Simonov, E. A., & Egidarev, E. (2017). Intergovernmental cooperation on the Amur River basin
management in the twenty-first century. International Journal of Water Resources Development,
1–21. http://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2017.1344122
Simonov, E. A., Goroshko, O., Egidarev, E. G., Kiriliuk, O., Kiriliuk, V., Kochneva, N., Obyazov, V., &
Tkachuk, T. (2013). Adaptation to climate change in the river basins of Dauria: ecology and water
management. Beijing, China: People’s Daily Press. Retrieved from
http://www.wwf.ru/data/news/10139/dauria.pdf
Simonov, E. A., Menshikov, D., Egidarev, E. G., & Nikitina, O. [Симонов, Е. А., Mеньшиков, Д. А.,
Егидарев, Е. Г., & Никитина, О. И.] (Eds.). (2015). Комплексная эколого-экономическая
оценка развития гидроэнергетики бассейна реки Амур [Comprehensive environmental and
socio-economic assessment of hydropower development in the Amur River basin]. Moscow,
Russian Federation: WWF-Russia. Retrieved from
http://www.wwf.ru/resources/news/article/13534
Simonov, E. A., Nikitina, O., Osipov, P., Egidarev, E. G., & Shalikovsky, A. (2016a). We and the Amur
Floods: Lessons (un) learned? Report summary and conclusions. Moscow, Russian Federation:
WWF. Retrieved from http://www.transrivers.org/2016/1796/
Simonov, E. A., Nikitina, O., Osipov, P., Egidarev, E. G., & Shalikovsky, A. [Симонов, Е. А., Никитина, О.
А., Осипов, П. Е., Егидарев, Е. Г., & Шаликовский А. В.]. (2016b). Мы и амурские наводнения:
невыученный урок? Попытка комплексного осмысления проблемы и вариантов ее
решения [We and the Amur Floods: Lessons (Un) Learned? An attempt to comprehensively
comprehend the problem and its solutions]. Moscow, Russian Federation: WWF. Retrieved from
https://new.wwf.ru/resources/publications/booklets/my-i-amurskie-navodneniya-
nevyuchennyy-urok/
Simonov, E. A., & Simonova, S. [Симонов, Е. А., & Симонова, С.]. (2016). Новое в природоохранном
планировании КНР: эко-функциональное зонирование [New environmental planning in
China: Eco-functional zoning]. В Сборнике Географические Основы Формирования
Экологических Сетей В #1. 1.Северной Евразии [Geographic Basis for Ecological Network
Formation in North Eurasia], 6, 87–94. Retrieved from http://bfn.org.ru/Econet_2016_web.pdf
Singer, B., & Giessen, L. (2017). Towards a donut regime? Domestic actors, climatization, and the
hollowing-out of the international forests regime in the Anthropocene. Forest Policy and
Economics, 79, 69–79. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411630421X
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A., Johansson, M., & Sandström, C. (2015). Individual and collective responses to
large carnivore management: the roles of trust, representation, knowledge spheres,
communication and leadership. Wildlife Biology, 21(3), 175–185.
http://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00065

1116
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Slootweg, R., Rajvanshi, A., Mathur, V. B., & Kolhoff, A. (2009). Biodiversity in environmental
assessment: enhancing ecosystem services for human well-being. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. Retrieved from
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/88417/frontmatter/9780521888417_frontmatter.pdf
Söderberg, C., & Eckerberg, K. (2013). Rising policy conflicts in Europe over bioenergy and forestry.
Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 112–119. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.015
Sorrell, S., & Sijm, J. (2003). Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(3),
420–437. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/19.3.420
Sotirov, M., Storch, S., Aggestam, F., Giurcia, A., Selter, A., Baycheva-Merger, T., Eriksson, L., Sallnäs,
O., Trubins, R., Schüll, E., Borges, J., McDermott, C. L., Hoogstra-Klein, M., Hengeveld, G., &
Pettenella, D. (2015). Forest policy integration in Europe: Lessons learnt, challenges ahead, and
strategies to support sustainable forest management and multifunctional forestry in the future.
Retrieved from http://www.integral-project.eu/images/Documents/EuPolicyPaper/Policy
Paper_WEB.pdf
Speth, J. G., & Haas, P. M. (2006). Global environmental governance. Washington, DC, USA: Island
Press. Retrieved from
http://libris.kb.se/export.jsp?type=showrecord&q=onr%3A10193763&id=10193763&d=libris&p
osts=1
Stammler, F., & Forbes, B. C. (2006). Oil and gas development in western Siberia and Timan-Pechora.
Indigenous Affairs, 6(2–3), 48–57.
Steimann, B. (2011). Making a living in uncertainty: Agro-pastoral livelihoods and institutional
transformations in post-socialist rural Kyrgyzstan. Human geography series 26. U. Müller-Böker
(Ed.). Zurich, Switzerland: University of Zurich.
Sterling, E. J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Malone, C., Pekor, A., Arengo,
F., Blair, M., Filardi, C., Landrigan, K., & Porzecanski, A. L. (2017). Assessing the evidence for
stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 209, 159–171.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008
Sterner, T. (2003). Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management.
Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future. Retrieved from
http://www.gu.se/digitalAssets/1358/1358516_policy_instruments_book_sterner_coria.pdf
Stevens, S. (2014). A new protected area paradigm. In S. Stevens (Ed.), Indigenous peoples, national
parks, and protected areas: A new paradigm linking conservation, culture, and rights (pp. 47–83).
Tucson, USA: University of Arizona Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.communityindicators.net
Stirling, A. (2014). Emancipating transformations: From controlling “the transition” to culturing plural
radical progress. Brighton, UK: STEPS Centre. Retrieved from http://steps-centre.org/wp-
content/uploads/Transformations.pdf
Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Beja, P., Boatman, N. D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G. R., Rakosky, L., &
Ramwell, C. (2009). Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe - a
review. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(1), 22–46.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005

1117
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Stringer, L. C., & Paavola, J. (2013). Participation in environmental conservation and protected area
management in Romania: A review of three case studies. Environmental Conservation, 40(2),
138–146. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000039
Stupak, N. (2016). Impact of agricultural transition on soil protection in Ukraine: The role of
institutional change. Land Use Policy, 55, 86–97.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.03.022
Stutter, M. I., Chardon, W. J., & Kronvangand, B. (2012). Riparian buffer strips as a multifunctional
management tool in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41, 297–303.
http://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0439
Suez Canal Authority. (2016). New Suez Canal. Retrieved November 4, 2015, from
http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=69
Susskind, L. E. (2008). Strengthening the global environmental treaty system. Issues in Science and
Technology, 25(1), 61–69. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/openview/12636e5a0ccb00d54b4c6fd8f95d0d52/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=32581
Susskind, L. E., & Ali, S. H. (2015). Environmental diplomacy: Negotiating more effective global
agreements. Second edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
https://lawrencesusskind.mit.edu/environmental-diplomacy-negotiating-more-effective-global-
agreements-0
Sutcliffe, L. M. E., Batáry, P., Kormann, U., Báldi, A., Dicks, L. V., Herzon, I., Kleijn, D., Tryjanowski, P.,
Apostolova, I., Arlettaz, R., Aunins, A., Aviron, S., Baležentiene, L., Fischer, C., Halada, L., Hartel,
T., Helm, A., Hristov, I., Jelaska, S. D., Kaligarič, M., Kamp, J., Klimek, S., Koorberg, P., Kostiuková,
J., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Kuemmerle, T., Leuschner, C., Lindborg, R., Loos, J., Maccherini, S.,
Marja, R., Máthé, O., Paulini, I., Proença, V., Rey-Benayas, J., Sans, F. X., Seifert, C., Stalenga, J.,
Timaeus, J., Török, P., van Swaay, C., Viik, E., & Tscharntke, T. (2015). Harnessing the biodiversity
value of Central and Eastern European farmland. Diversity and Distributions, 21(6), 722–730.
http://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12288
Sutton, W. R., Whitford, P., Montanari Stephens, E., Pedroso Galinato, S., Nevel, B., Plonka, B., &
Karamete, E. (2008). Integrating environment into agriculture and forestry: Progress and
prospects in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/6551
Swiss Federal Council. (2008). Sustainable development strategy: guidelines and action plan 2008–
2011. Retrieved from http://audit.gov.ru/en/activities/international-activities/intosai-working-
group-on-key-national-indicators/knowledge-bases/Strategy_Plan_2008-2011_14-4-10-
buleten-fl-617.pdf
Tan, S., Atak, Ú., Úengül, Ü., & Sami Tan, S. (2015). The evaluation of the changes in the agricultural
sector with common economic indicators in Turkey during the last decade. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 588–595. http://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s1p588
Tangermann, S. (2011). Direct payments in the CAP post 2013. Brussels: Directorate-General for
Internal Policies, Policy Department B, Structural and Cohesion Policies; European Parliament.
Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/438624/IPOL-
AGRI_NT(2011)438624_EN.pdf
TEEB. (2009a). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. Climate issues update. Retrieved from

1118
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2009b). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy
makers - Summary: Responding to the value of nature. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2010). Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and
recommendations of TEEB. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2011a). TEEB manual for cities: Ecosystem services in urban management. Retrieved from
http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2011b). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy
making. London, UK: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB. (2012). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in business and enterprise. London, UK:
Earthscan. Retrieved from http://www.teebweb.org
TEEB-DE. (2015). Natural capital and climate policy – Synergies and conflicts. Summary for decision-
makersBerlin, Germany: Technische Universität Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.naturkapital-
teeb.de
Teillard, F., Maia de Souza, D., Thoma, G., Gerber, P. J., Finn, J. A., & Bode, M. (2016). What does life-
cycle assessment of agricultural products need for more meaningful inclusion of biodiversity?
Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(5), 1422–1429. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12683
ten Have, C., Chambers, W. B., Asahi, H., Hirota, T., Kuroda, T., Nara, M., & Suminaga, T. (2016).
Ecosystem services and the automotive sector. Yokohama, Japan: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
The World Bank. (2005). Environmental fiscal reform - What should be done and how to achieve it.
Washington, DC, USA: The World Bank. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETENVIRONMENT/Publications/20712869/EnvFiscal
Reform.pdf
Thirlway, H. (2014). The sources of international law. In M. Evans (Ed.), International law. Fourth
edition (pp. 91–117). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
http://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199654673.003.0004
Tinch, R., Schoumacher, C., & van den Hove, S. (2011). Exploring barriers to integration of biodiversity
concerns across EU policy. In A. Gasparatos & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Biodiversity in the green economy.
London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281401823_Exploring_barriers_to_integration_of_b
iodiversity_concerns_across_EU_policy
Tittensor, D. P., Walpole, M., Hill, S. L. L., Boyce, D. G., Britten, G. L., Burgess, N. D., Butchart, S. H. M.,
Leadley, P. W., Regan, E. C., Alkemade, R., Baumung, R., Bellard, C., Bouwman, L., Bowles-
Newark, N. J., Chenery, A. M., Cheung, W. W. L., Christensen, V., Cooper, H. D., Crowther, A.
R., Dixon, M. J. R., Galli, A., Gaveau, V., Gregory, R. D., Gutierrez, N. L., Nicolas G. L., Hirsch, T.
L., Hoft, R., Januchowski-Hartley, S. R., Karmann, M., Krug, C. B., Leverington, F. J., Loh, J.,
Lojenga, R. K., Malsch, K., Marques, A., Morgan, D. H. W., Mumby, P. J., Newbold, T., Noonan-
Mooney, K., Pagad, S. N., Parks, B. C., Pereira, H. M., Robertson, T., Rondinini, C., Santini, L.,
Scharlemann, J. P. W., Schindler, S., Sumaila, U. R., Teh, L. S. L., van Kolck, J., Visconti, P., & Ye,
Y. (2014). A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science,
346(6206), 241–244. http://doi.org//10.1126/science.1257484
Tolvanen, A., & Aronson, J. (2016). Ecological restoration, ecosystem services, and land use: a European
perspective, 21(4), 47. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09048-210447

1119
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Tömmel, I. (2011). The European Union–a federation sui generis? The EU and Federalism: Polities and
policies compared. 3rd Annual EUCE Workshop on the EU in a Comparative Perspective, 41–
56. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290630705_The_European_Union_-
_A_federation_Sui_Generis
Tosun, J., & Schulze, K. (2015). Compliance with EU biofuel targets in South-Eastern and Eastern
Europe: Do interest groups matter? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,
33(5), 950–968. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15605923
Trepel, M. (2010). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of the water purification function of wetlands for
environmental planning. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 320–326.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.02.006
Trifonova, T. (2016). Case Study #8-8, intensive fish farming as a contributor to the depletion of
underground and surface water resources in the Ararat Valley. In P. Pinstrup-Andersen & F.
Cheng (Eds.), Food policy for developing countries: Case studies. Moscow, Russian Federation:
Eurasian Center for Food Security. Retrieved from http://cip.cornell.edu/dns.gfs/1489508722
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., & Bengtsson, J. (2014). Land-use intensity
and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 51, 746–755. http://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219
Tucker, G., Allen, B., Conway, M., Dickie, I., Hart, K., Rayment, M., Schulp, C., & van Teeffelen, A.
(2013a). Policy options for an EU no net loss initiative. London, UK: Institute for European
Environmental Policy.
Tucker, G., Underwood, E., Farmer, A., Scalera, R., Dickie, I., A., McConville, A., & van Vliet, W. (2013b).
Estimation of the financing needs to implement Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy.
London, UK: Institute for European Environmental Policy.
Turgut, N. Y. (2007). The European Court of Human Rights and the right to the environment. Ankara
Law Review, 5(1), 1–24.
Turi, E. I., & Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2014). Governing reindeer husbandry in western Finnmark: barriers for
incorporating traditional knowledge in local-level policy implementation. Polar Geography, 37(3),
234–251. http://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2014.953620
Turkelboom, F., Thoonen, M., Jacobs, S., & Berry, P. (2016). Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies.
In M. Potschin & K. Jax (Eds.), OpenNESS ecosystem services reference book. Retrieved from
http://www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book/sp-ecosystem-service-trade-offs-and-
synergies
Turner, E. A. L. (2010). Why has the number of international non-governmental organizations exploded
since 1960? Cliodynamics, 1(1), 81–91. Retrieved from
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/97p470sx#page-8
Turner, R. K., & Opschoor, J. B. (1994). Environmental economics and environmental policy
instruments: Introduction and overview. In J. B. Opschoor & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Economic
incentives and environmental policies: Principles and practice (pp. 1–38). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-011-
0856-0_1
Tysiachniouk, M., & McDermott, C. L. (2016). Certification with Russian characteristics: Implications for
social and environmental equity. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 43–53. Retrieved from

1120
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.07.002
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P. (2007).
Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green Infrastructure: A literature
review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
UK NEA. (2011). UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge, UK:
UNEP-WCMC.
Ul Hassan, M., Starkloff, R., & Nizamedinkhodjaeva, N. (2004). Inadequacies in the water reforms in the
Kyrgyz Republic: An institutional analysis. Research report No. 81. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute. Retrieved from
https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4281/RR81.pdf?sequence=1
Ulybina, O. (2014). Interaction, cooperation and governance in the Russian forest sector. Journal of
Rural Studies, 34, 246–253. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.02.005
UN-HABITAT. (2009). Planning sustainable cities - Global report on human settlements 2009. Abingdon,
UK: Earthscan. Retrieved from http://unhabitat.org/books/global-report-on-human-
settlements-2009-planning-sustainable-cities/
UN DESA. (2015). World population prospects: The 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables (Vol.
ESA/P/WP.2). Retrieved from
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf
UN DESA. (2017). NGO Branch. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from
http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=14
Undeland, A. (2005). Kyrgyz livestock study, pasture management and use. Washington, DC, USA:
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Retrieved from
http://landportal.info/sites/default/files/kyrgyz_livestock_pasture_management_and_use.pdf
UNDP. (2015). Human development report 2015. Work for human development. Retrieved from
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/MEX.pdf
UNDP. (2017). Ecological fiscal transfers. Retrieved October 12, 2017, from
http://www.undp.org/content/sdfinance/en/home/solutions/ecological-fiscal-transfer.html
UNECE. (2007). Critical issues in implementation of environmental policies. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/environmental-performance-
reviews/enveprpublications/environmental-performance-reviews/2007/critical-issues-in-
implementation-of-environmental-policies-unece-environmental-performance-review-
programme-october-2007
UNECE. (2008). Spatial planning. Key instrument for development and effective governance with special
reference to countries in transition. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/spatial_planning.e.pdf
UNECE. (2011). Strengthening water management and transboundary water cooperation in Central
Asia: the role of UNECE environmental conventions. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/?id=28204
UNECE. (2012). Environmental performance reviews: Tajikistan: Second review. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/epr/epr_studies/TajikistanII.pdf
UNECE. (2015a). Environmental performance reviews: Montenegro: Third review. Retrieved from

1121
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/environmental-performance-
reviews/enveprpublications/environmental-performance-reviews/2015/3rd-environmental-
performance-review-of-montenegro.html
UNECE. (2015b). Environmental performance reviews: Serbia: Third review. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/environmental-performance-
reviews/enveprpublications/environmental-performance-reviews/2015/3rd-environmental-
performance-review-of-serbia/docs.html
UNECE. (2015c). Reconciling resource uses in transboundary basins: assessment of the water-food-
energy-ecosystems nexus. Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=41427
UNECE. (2016a). Environmental performance reviews: Belarus: Third review. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=41226
UNECE. (2016b). Environmental performance reviews: Georgia: Third review. Retrieved from
http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/environmental-performance-
reviews/enveprpublications/environmental-performance-reviews/2016/3rd-environmental-
performance-review-of-georgia/docs.html
UNECE. (2017a). Environment for Europe. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from
https://www.unece.org/env/efe/welcome.html
UNECE. (2017b). Environmental performance reviews: reviewed countries. Retrieved October 26, 2017,
from https://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/environmental-performance-
reviews/reviewed-countries.html
UNECE. (2017c). ECE/CEP/2017/L.2: Role of environmental performance reviews in supporting the
achievement and monitoring of Sustainable Development Goals in the pan-European region.
Retrieved from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/documents/2017/ece/cep/ece.cep.2017.L.2.e.pdf
UNECE. (2017d). The Global Environment Facility (GEF) trust fund. Retrieved October 14, 2017, from
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/operact/documents/GEF_TrustFund.pdf
UNECE/FAO. (2015). Forests in the ECE region: Trends and challenges in achieving the global objectives
on forests. Retrieved from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/forests-
in-the-ece-region.pdf
UNEP. (n.d.). Working with regional seas. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/regionalseas/
UNEP. (1982). Achievements and planned development of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme and
comparable programmes sponsored by other bodies. Retrieved from
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/83797?ln=en
UNEP. (2011a). Green economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication.
Retrieved from www.unep.org/greeneconomy
UNEP. (2011b). Pan-European 2020 strategy for biodiversity. Retrieved from
http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/unep/document/pan-european-2020-strategy-biodiversity
UNEP. (2012). Human rights and the environment Rio+20: Joint report OHCHR and UNEP. Retrieved
from
http://www.unep.org/delc/Portals/119/JointReportOHCHRandUNEPonHumanRightsandtheEnvi
ronment.pdf
UNEP. (2014a). Guidance manual on valuation and accounting of ecosystem services for small island

1122
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

developing states. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/financial/monterreytradetech/unep-

valuation-sids.pdf
UNEP. (2014b). Pan-European biodiversity platform. Work programme 2014 - 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/fin/rmws-2014-04/other/rmws-2014-04-presentation-
day2-02-en.pdf
UNEP. (2016a). Compliance mechanisms and procedures, membership and working programme of the
compliance committee for the biennium 2016-2017. Retrieved from
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/6077/16ig22_28_22_15_eng.pdf?se
quence=1&isAllowed=y
UNEP. (2016b). Regional action plan on sustainable consumption and production in the Mediterranean.
Retrieved from https://www.switchmed.eu/en/documents/policy/scp.pdf
UNEP-WCMC & BIP. (2017). Official development assistance for biodiversity. Retrieved October 16,
2017, from https://www.bipindicators.net/indicators/official-development-assistance-provided-
in-support-of-the-convention
UNEP & UNECE. (2016). GEO-6 assessment for the pan-European region. Nairobi, Kenya: United
Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved from
http://www.ccacoalition.org/en/resources/geo-6-assessment-pan-european-region
UNESCO. (2016). WHC-16/40.COM/7: State of conservation of world heritage properties. Retrieved
from http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6817/
UNESCO. (2017). World heritage list: Lake Baikal. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/754/documents/
United Nations. (1991). Convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context.
Retrieved from http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html
United Nations. (2014). System of environmental-economic accounting 2012 - Central framework.
Retrieved from http://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seeaRev/SEEA_CF_Final_en.pdf
United Nations. (2015). A/RES/70/1: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/summit
United Nations. (2016). The first global integrated marine assessment - World ocean assessment I. New
York, USA: United Nations. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RegProcess.htm
UNOHCHR. (2013). Indigenous peoples and the United Nations human rights system, Fact sheet No.
9/Rev. 2.
UNSTATS. (2017). International standard industrial classification of all economic activities, Rev. 4.
Retrieved February 28, 2017, from https://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27
USAID. (2001). Biodiversity assessment for Central Asia: Regional overview. Retrieved from
https://rmportal.net/library/content/1/118_centralasia/at_download/file
USAID. (2017). Enhancing Capacity for Low Emission Development Stategies. Retrieved September 9,
2017, from https://www.ec-leds.org/
van der Esch, S., & Steurer, N. (2014). Comparing public and private sustainability monitoring and
reporting. PBL publication number 1437. The Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency. Retrieved from

1123
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/en/comparing-public-and-private-sustainability-monitoring-
and-reporting
Van Dover, C. L., Smith, C. R., Ardron, J., Arnaud, S., Beaudoin, Y., Bezaury, J., Boland, G., Billett, D.,
Carr, M., Cherkashov, G., Cook, A., DeLeo, F., Dunn, D., Fisher, C. R., Godet, L., Gjerde, K., Halpin,
P., Levin, L., Lodge, M., Menot, L., Miller, K., Milton, D., Naudts, L., Nugent, C., Pendleton, L.,
Plouviez, S., Rowden, A., Santos, R., Shank, T., Smith, S., Tao, C., Tawake, A., Thurnherr, A., &
Treude, T. (2011). Environmental management of deep-sea chemosynthetic ecosystems:
Justification of and considerations for a spatially-based approach. Technical study series: No. 9.
Kingston, Jamaica: International Seabed Authority. Retrieved from
https://www.isa.org.jm/documents/environmental-management-deep-sea-chemosynthetic-
ecosystems-justification-and
Van Lavieren, H., & Klaus, R. (2013). An effective regional marine protected area network for the
ROPME Sea area: Unrealistic vision or realistic possibility? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(2), 389–
405. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOLBUL.2012.09.004
van Oorschot, M., Kok, Ma., Wentink, C., Van Beukering, P., Kuik, O., Van Drunen, M., vd Berg, J.,
Ingram, V., Judge, L., Arets, E., & Veneklaas, F. (2016). Integrating values of ecosystem goods and
services into Dutch supply chains: Potential private and public benefits of voluntary markets
standards for sustainable production. The Hague, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency.
van Oorschot, M., Rood, T., Vixseboxse, E., Wilting, H., & van der Esch, S. (2012). De Nederlandse
voetafdruk op de wereld: hoe groot en hoe diep? [The Dutch footprint on the world: how big and
how deep?]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
Retrieved from http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/the-size-and-impact-of-the-dutch-footprint-
on-the-planet
van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Hein, L., & de Groot, R. S. (2012). Framework for
systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services.
Ecological Indicators, 21, 110–122. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012
Varga, A., Heim, A., Laszlo, D., & Molnár, Z. (2017). Rangers bridge the gap: Integration of traditional
ecological knowledge related to wood pastures into nature conservation. In M. Roué & Z. Molnár
(Eds.), Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe and
Central Asia (pp. 76–89). Paris, France: UNESCO.
Varga, A., & Molnár, Z. (2014). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in managing wood-
pastures. In T. Hartel & T. Plieninger (Eds.), European wood-pastures in transition: A social–
ecological approach (pp. 185–202). Abingdon, UK: Earthscan.
Varga, A., Molnár, Z., Biró, M., Demeter, L., Gellény, K., Miókovics, E., Molnár, A., Molnár, K., Ujházy,
N., Ulicsni, V., & Babai, D. (2016). Changing year-round habitat use of extensively grazing cattle,
sheep and pigs in East-Central Europe between 1940 and 2014: Consequences for conservation
and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 234, 142–153.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.018
Vatn, A. (2015). Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice. Ecological Economics,
117, 225–233. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.017
Vatn, A., Barton, D. N., Lindhjem, H., Movik, S., Ring, I., & Santos, R. (2011). Can markets protect
biodiversity? An evaluation of different financial mechanisms. Ås, Norway: Norwegian University
of Life Sciences. Retrieved from

1124
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

http://www.umb.no/statisk/noragric/publications/reports/2011_nor_rep_60.pdf
Vatn, A., & Vedeld, P. (2012). Fit, interplay, and scale: A diagnosis. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 12.
http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05022-170412
Veenman, S., Liefferink, D., & Arts, B. (2009). A short history of Dutch forest policy: The “de-
institutionalisation” of a policy arrangement. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(3), 202–208.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.03.001
Verburg, R., Selnes, T., & Verweij, P. (2016). Governing ecosystem services: National and local lessons
from policy appraisal and implementation. Ecosystem Services, 18, 186–197.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.006
Verma, A., van der Wal, R., & Fischer, A. (2015). Microscope and spectacle: On the complexities of
using new visual technologies to communicate about wildlife conservation. Ambio, 44, 648–660.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0715-z
Vira, B., Elliott, L. C., Fortnam, M., & Wilks, S. (2011). Response options. In UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical report (pp. 1309-1451). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Visser, O., & Spoor, M. (2011). Land grabbing in post-Soviet Eurasia: The world’s largest agricultural
land reserves at stake. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 299–323.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.559010
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Brondizio, E. S., Leemans, R., & Solecki, W. D. (2015). Integrative
environmental governance: enhancing governance in the era of synergies. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 14, 136–143. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.008
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Leroy, P., & Glasbergen, P. (2012). Conservation partnerships and biodiversity
governance: Fulfilling governance functions through interaction. Sustainable Development, 20,
264–275. http://doi.org/10.1002/sd.482
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Pattberg, P. (2013). We can’t see the forest for the trees: The environmental
impact of global forest certification is unknown. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and
Society, 22(1), 25–28. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/oekom/gaia/2013/00000022/00000001/art0000
8
von Glasenapp, M., & Thornton, T. F. (2011). Traditional ecological knowledge of Swiss Alpine farmers
and their resilience to socioecological change. Human Ecology, 39, 769–781.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-011-9427-6
von Haaren, C., Albert, C., & Galler, C. (2016). Spatial and landscape planning: a place for ecosystem
services. In M. Potschin, R. H. Haines-Young, R. Fish, & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Routledge handbook of
ecosystem services (pp. 568–581). London, UK: Routledge. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304023574_Spatial_and_Landscape_planning_A_pl
ace_for_ecosystem_services
von Haaren, C., & Reich, M. (2006). The German way to greenways and habitat networks. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 76(1–4), 7–22. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.09.041
Voulvoulis, N., Aron, K. D., & Giakoumis, T. (2017). The EU Water Framework Directive: From great
expectations to problems with implementation. Science of the Total Environment, 575, 358–366.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228
Vuletić, D., Potočić, N., Krajter, S., Seletković, I., Fürst, C., Makeschin, F., Galić, Z., Lorz, C., Matijašič, D.,

1125
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Zupanič, M., Simončič, P., & Vacik, H. (2010). How socio-economic conditions influence forest
policy development in Central and South-East Europe. Environmental Management, 46, 931–940.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9566-3
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social– ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5
Ward, J. D., Sutton, P. C., Werner, A. D., Costanza, R., Mohr, S. H., & Simmons, C. T. (2016). Is decoupling
GDP growth from environmental impact possible? PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0164733.
http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164733
WAVES. (2015). Natural capital accounting in brief. Retrieved from
www.wavespartnership.org/en/natural-capital-8337
Waylen, K.A., Hastings, E.J., Banks, E.A., Holstead, K.L., Irvine, R.J., Blackstock, K. L. (2014). The need to
disentangle key concepts from ecosystem-approach jargon. Conservation Biology, 28, 1215–
1224. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12331/full
Waylen, K. A., Blackstock, K. L., & Holstead, K. L. (2015). How does legacy create sticking points for
environmental management? Insights from challenges to implementation of the ecosystem
approach. Ecology and Society, 20(2). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07594-200221
Waylen, K. A., Fischer, A., McGowan, P. J. K., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2012). Interactions between a
collectivist culture and Buddhist teachings influence environmental concerns and behaviors in
the Republic of Kalmykia, Russia. Society & Natural Resources, 25(11), 1118–1133.
http://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.663065
Weighell, T. (2011). UK dependence on non-UK ecosystem services. In UK National Ecosystem
Assessment: Technical report (pp. 1045–1066). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.
Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature
experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.16.1.0001
Werland, S. (2009). Global forest governance — Bringing forestry science (back) in. Forest Policy and
Economics, 11(5–6), 446–451. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.07.002
Wesselink, E., & Boschma, R. (2017). European neighbourhood policy: History, structure, and
implemented policy measures. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 108(1), 4–20.
http://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12207
White, G. N., & Mace, P. (1988). Models for cooperation and conspiracy in fisheries: changing the rules
of the game. Natural Resource Modeling, 2(3), 499–530. Retrieved from
https://www.econbiz.de/Record/models-for-cooperation-and-conspiracy-in-fisheries-changing-
the-rules-of-the-game-white/10001141257
Whitehead, A. L., Kujala, H., Ives, C. D., Gordon, A., Lentini, P. E., Wintle, B. A., Nicholson, E., &
Raymond, C. M. (2014). Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for
biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 28(4), 992–1003.
http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12257
WHO & CBD. (2015). Connecting global priorities: Biodiversity and human health: A state of knowledge
review. http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3679.6565
Widerberg, O., & Pattberg, P. (2015). International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance:

1126
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC? Global Policy, 6(1), 45–56.
http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12184
Widmark, C. (2009). Management of multiple-use commons. Focusing on land use for forestry and
reindeer husbandry in northern Sweden (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/1953/
Williams, C., & Blaiklock, A. (2016). Human rights discourse in the sustainable development agenda
avoids obligations and entitlements; comment on “rights language in the sustainable
development agenda: Has right to health discourse and norms shaped health goals?”.
International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 5(6), 387–90.
http://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.29
Williams, K., & Harvey, D. (2001). Transcendent experience in forest environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 249–260. http://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0204
Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. C. (2002). Reinventing a square wheel:
Critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international biodiversity conservation. Society
and Natural Resources, 15(1), 17–40. http://doi.org/10.1080/089419202317174002
Wilson, M. A., & Howarth, R. B. (2002). Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing
fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 431–443.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7
Winkel, G., Blondet, M., Borrass, L., Frei, T., Geitzenauer, M., Gruppe, A., Jump, A., de Koning, J.,
Sotirov, M., Weiss, G., Winter, S., & Turnhout, E. (2015). The implementation of Natura 2000 in
forests: A trans- and interdisciplinary assessment of challenges and choices. Environmental
Science and Policy, 52, 23–32. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111500091X
Winkel, G., & Sotirov, M. (2016). Whose integration is this? European forest policy between the gospel
of coordination, institutional competition, and a new spirit of integration. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 34, 496–514. http://doi.org/10.1068/c1356j
Winqvist, G., & Wolf, H. (2013). Environment and climate change policy brief. Retrieved from
http://sidaenvironmenthelpdesk.se/wordpress3/wp-
content/uploads/2013/09/Mozambique_Env-and-CC-Policy-Brief_March-2013.pdf
Wissel, S., & Wätzold, F. (2010). A conceptual analysis of the application of tradable permits to
biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 404–411. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2009.01444.x
World Bank. (2011). Kyrgyz Republic - Agricultural policy update. Retrieved from
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/234541468302391218/Overview
World Bank. (2015). World development indicators. Washington, DC, USA: World Bank. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10986/21634
Wright, I., Malmakov, N., & Vidon, H. (2003). New patterns of livestock management: Constraints to
productivity. In C. Kerven (Ed.), Prospects for pastoralism in Kazakstan and Turkmenistan: From
state farms to private flocks (pp. 108–127). London, UK: Routledge.
http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203987476
WTO. (2013). World trade report 2013 - Factors shaping the future of world trade. Retrieved from
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report13_e.pdf

1127
 IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Xanthaki, A. (2009). Indigenous rights in international law over the last 10 years and future
developments. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 10(1), 27–37. Retrieved from
http://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1686060/Xanthaki.pdf
Yakusheva, N. (2017). Parks, policies and people: Nature conservation governance in post-socialist EU
countries. Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations 136. Stockholm, Sweden: Elanders. Retrieved from
http://sh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1088692/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Yamin, F. (2001). NGOs and international environmental law: A critical evaluation of their roles and
responsibilities. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 10(2),
149–162. http://doi.org/doi:10.1111/1467-9388.00271
Yang, A. L., Rounsevell, M. D. A., & Haggett, C. (2015). Multilevel governance, decentralization and
environmental prioritization: How is it working in rural development policy in Scotland?
Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(6), 399–411. http://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1690
Yoshida, T., & Zusman, E. (2015). How the sustainable development goals can complement existing
legal instruments: The case of biodiversity and forests. In Achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals: From agenda to action (pp. 153–170). Hayama, Japan: Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES). Retrieved from https://pub.iges.or.jp/pub/achieving-sustainable-
development-goals-agenda
Young, J. C., Jordan, A., R. Searle, K., Butler, A., S. Chapman, D., Simmons, P., & Watt, A. D. (2013). Does
stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biological Conservation, 158,
359–370. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.018
Young, J. C., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., Tartes, U., Uzunov, Y., & Watt, A.
D. (2007). Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities in the Central and
Eastern European Countries. Ambio, 36(7), 545–550. http://doi.org/10.1579/0044-
7447(2007)36[545:CBBCAH]2.0.CO;2
Young, O. R. (2011). Effectiveness of international environmental regimes: existing knowledge, cutting-
edge themes, and research strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 108(50), 19853–60. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111690108
Young, S. B., Zhe, Y., & Dias, G. (2014). Prospects for sustainability certification of metals. Metallurgical
Research & Technology, 111(3), 131–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/metal/2014008
Zanten, B., Verburg, P., Espinosa, M., Gomez-Y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., Kapfer, M.,
Lefebvre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Schaller, L., Targetti, S., Zasada, I., & Viaggi, D.
(2014). European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a
review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 309–325. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-
013-0183-4
Zhang, L., & Jiang, Z. (2016). Unveiling the status of alien animals in the arid zone of Asia. PeerJ, 4,
e1545. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1545
Zhou, Y., Zhang, L., Fensholt, R., Wang, K., Vitkovskaya, I., & Tian, F. (2015). Climate contributions to
vegetation variations in Central Asian drylands: Pre- and post-USSR Collapse. Remote Sensing,
7(3), 2449–2470. http://doi.org/10.3390/rs70302449
Zisenis, M. (2009). To which extent is the interdisciplinary evaluation approach of the CBD reflected in
European and international biodiversity-related regulations? Biodiversity and Conservation,
18(3), 639–648. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9530-1

1128
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

1129
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Annex I: Glossary

Abundance (ecological) The size of a population of a particular life form in a given area.
Acceptance Acceptance of IPBES outputs at a session of its Plenary signifies that the material has
not been subjected to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a
comprehensive and balanced view of the subject matter.
Acidification Ongoing decrease in pH away from neutral value of 7. Often used in reference to
oceans, freshwater or soils, as a result of uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Actor Individual person or group representative that is involved in a specific decision-making
context.
Adaptation Adjustment in natural or human systems to a new or changing environment, whether
through genetic or behavioural change.
Adaptive capacity The general ability of institutions, systems, and individuals to adjust to potential
damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences.
Adaptive management A systematic process for continually improving management policies and
practices by learning from the outcomes of previously employed policies and practices. In active
adaptive management, management is treated as a deliberate experiment for purposes of learning.
Afforestation Converting grasslands or shrublands into tree plantations. Afforestation is sometimes
suggested as a tool to sequester carbon, but it can have negative impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystem function, for example by reducing runoff and so decreasing water production.
Agenda setting One of four phases in the policy cycle. Agenda setting motivates and sets the
direction for policy design and implementation.
Agri-environmental schemes Schemes that provide funding to farmers and land managers to farm
in ways that support biodiversity, enhance the landscape, and improve the quality of water, air and
soil (see also agroecology as integral to such schemes).
Agricultural intensification An increase in agricultural production per unit of input (which may be
labour, land, time, fertilizer, seed, feed or cash).
Agrobiodiversity Agrobiodiversity or agricultural biodiversity is the biological diversity that sustains
key functions, structures and processes of agricultural ecosystems. It includes the variety and
variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels.
Agroecology The science and practice of applying ecological concepts, principles and knowledge
(i.e., the interactions of, and explanations for, the diversity, abundance and activities of organisms)
to the study, design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. It includes the roles of human
beings as a central organism by way of social and economic processes in farming systems.
Agroecology examines the roles and interactions among all relevant biophysical, technical and
socioeconomic components of farming systems and their surrounding landscapes.
Agroecosystem An ecosystem, dominated by agriculture, containing assets and functions such as
biodiversity, ecological succession and food webs. An agroecosystem is not restricted to the
immediate site of agricultural activity (e.g. the farm), but rather includes the region that is impacted
by this activity, usually by changes to the complexity of species assemblages and energy flows, as well
as to the net nutrient balance.

1130
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Agroforestry A collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials
(trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as
agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence.
Aichi Biodiversity Targets The 20 targets set by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention for
Biological Diversity (CBD) at its tenth meeting, under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.
Alien species See "invasive alien species".
Annual In botany, refers to plants that grow from seed to maturity, reproduction and death in one
year. Related terms are biennial (plants that take two years to complete their life cycles), and
perennial (plants that take several many years to complete their life cycles).
Anthropocentric value See "values".
Anthropogenic assets Built-up infrastructure, health facilities, or knowledge - including indigenous
and local knowledge systems and technical or scientific knowledge - as well as formal and non-formal
education, work, technology (both physical objects and procedures), and financial assets.
Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted to emphasize that a good quality of life is achieved by a
co-production of benefits between nature and people.
Approval Approval of IPBES outputs signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-
line discussion and agreement by consensus at a session of the Plenary.
Aquaculture The farming of aquatic organisms, including fish, molluscs, crustaceans and aquatic
plants, involving interventions such as regular stocking, feeding, protection from predators, to
enhance production. (In contrast, aquatic organisms which are exploitable by the public as a common
property resource, are classed as fisheries, not aquaculture).
Archetypes In the context of scenarios, an over-arching scenario that embodies common
characteristics of a number of more specific scenarios.
Aridification A chronic reduction in soil moisture caused by an increase of mean annual temperature
or a decrease in yearly precipitation.
Assessment reports Assessment reports are published outputs of scientific, technical and
socioeconomic issues that take into account different approaches, visions and knowledge systems,
including global assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services with a defined geographical
scope, and thematic or methodological assessments based on the standard or the fast-track
approach. They are composed of two or more sections including a summary for policymakers, an
optional technical summary, and individual chapters and their executive summaries. Assessments are
the major output of IPBES, and they contain syntheses of findings on topics that have been selected
by the IPBES Plenary.
Baseline A minimum or starting point to which to compare other information (e.g. for comparisons
between past and present or before and after an intervention).
Beneficiary Different social actors and groups who may be benefiting from nature and its
contributions to people in different ways and to different degrees, including individual, household or
collective levels
Benefit sharing Distribution of benefits between stakeholders.
Benefits Advantage that contribute to well-being from the fulfilment of needs and wants. In the
context of nature’s contributions to people.
Benthic Occurring at the bottom of a body of water; related to benthos.

1131
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Benthos A group of organisms, including invertebrates, that live in or on the bottom in aquatic
habitats.
Biocapacity The capacity of a country, a region, or the world, to produce useful biological materials
for its human population and to absorb waste materials.
Biocentric perspectives Recognizing the importance of non-human life.
Biocultural diversity The diversity exhibited collectively by natural and cultural systems. It
incorporates three concepts: firstly, that the diversity of life includes human cultures and languages;
secondly, that links exist between biodiversity and human cultural diversity; and finally, that these
links have developed over time through mutual adaptation and possibly co-evolution between
humans, plants and animals.
Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and
other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. This includes
variation in genetic, phenotypic, phylogenetic, and functional attributes, as well as changes in
abundance and distribution over time and space within and among species, biological communities
and ecosystems.
Biodiversity hotspot A generic term for an area high in such biodiversity attributes as species
richness or endemism. It may also be used in assessments as a precise term applied to geographic
areas defined according to two criteria: (i) containing at least 1,500 species of the world's 300,000
vascular plant species as endemics, and (ii) being under threat, in having lost 70 % of its primary
vegetation.
Biodiversity loss The reduction of any aspect of biological diversity (i.e. diversity at the genetic,
species and ecosystem levels) is lost in a particular area through death (including extinction),
destruction or manual removal; it can refer to many scales, from global extinctions to population
extinctions, resulting in decreased total diversity at the same scale.
Biodiversity offset A biodiversity offset is a tool proposed by developers and planners for
compensating for the loss of biodiversity in one place by biodiversity gains in another.
Biofuel Fuel made from biomass.
Biological diversity See “biodiversity”.
Biomass The mass of non-fossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants,
animals and micro-organisms in a given area or volume.
Biome Biomes are global-scale zones, generally defined by the type of plant life that they support in
response to average rainfall and temperature patterns. For example, tundra, coral reefs or savannas.
Biosphere The sum of all the ecosystems of the world. It is both the collection of organisms living on
the Earth and the space that they occupy on part of the Earth’s crust (the lithosphere), in the oceans
(the hydrosphere) and in the atmosphere. The biosphere is all the planet’s ecosystems.
Biota All living organisms of an area; the flora and fauna considered as a unit.
Biotic homogenization See “homogenization”.
Bureau The IPBES Bureau is a subsidiary body established by the Plenary which carries out the
governance functions of IPBES. It is made up of representatives nominated from each of the United
Nations regions, and is chaired by the Chair of IPBES.
Bushmeat Meat for human consumption derived from wild animals.

1132
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Bycatch The commercially undesirable species caught during a fishing process.

Cap-and-trade An economic policy instrument in which the State sets an overall environmental
target (the cap) and assigns environmental impact allowances (or quotas) to actors that they can
trade among each other.
Capacity-building (or capacity development) Defined by the United Nations Development
Programme as “the process through which individuals, organisations and societies obtain, strengthen
and maintain their capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time”. IPBES
promotes and facilitates capacity-building, to improve the capacity of countries to make informed
policy decisions on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Carbon cycle The carbon cycle is the process by which carbon is exchanged among the ecosystems
of the Earth.
Carbon sequestration The long-term storage of carbon in plants, soils, geologic formations, and the
ocean. Carbon sequestration occurs both naturally and as a result of anthropogenic activities and
typically refers to the storage of carbon that has the immediate potential to become carbon dioxide
gas.
Carbon storage The technological process of capturing waste carbon dioxide from industry or power
generation, and storing it so that it will not enter the atmosphere.
Carrying capacity In ecology, the carrying capacity of a species in an environment is the maximum
population size of the species that the environment can sustain indefinitely. The term is also used
more generally to refer to the upper limit of habitats, ecosystems, landscapes, waterscapes or
seascapes to provide tangible and intangible goods and services (including aesthetic and spiritual
services) in a sustainable way.
Catalogue of policy support tools and methodologies The IPBES catalogue of policy support tools
and methodologies is an evolving online resource with two main goals. The first goal is to enable
decision-makers to gain easy access to information on policy support tools and methodologies to
better inform and assist the different phases of policymaking and implementation. The second goal
is to allow a range of users to provide input to the catalogue and assess the usability of tools and
methodologies in their specific contexts, including resources required and types of outputs that can
be obtained, thus helping to identify and bridge gaps with respect to available tools and
methodologies.
Certainty In the context of IPBES, the summary terms to describe the state of knowledge are the
following:
• Well established (certainty term): comprehensive meta-analysis or other synthesis or
multiple independent studies that agree.
• Established but incomplete (certainty term): general agreement although only a limited
number of studies exist but no comprehensive synthesis and, or the studies that exist
imprecisely address the question.
• Unresolved (certainty term): multiple independent studies exist but conclusions do not agree.
• Inconclusive (certainty term): limited evidence, recognising major knowledge gaps.
Citizens/laypeople Actors living in the area / context of interest that are directly or indirectly
impacted by decisions / recommendations and hold their own (subjective) interest.
Climate change As defined in Article 1 of the UNFCCC, "a change of climate which is attributed
directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and
which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods“.

1133
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Co-management Process of management in which government shares power with resource users,
with each given specific rights and responsibilities relating to information and decision-making.
Co-production In the context of the IPBES conceptual framework, this is the joint contribution by
nature and anthropogenic assets in generating nature’s contributions to people.
Community based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) Initiatives by indigenous peoples
and local community organizations to monitor their community’s well-being and the state of their
territories and natural resources, applying a mix of traditional knowledge and innovative tools and
approaches. It is a system that promotes evidence-based policymaking while empowering
communities to participate in the process.
Community-based natural resource management Community-based natural resource
management: an approach to natural resource management that involves the full participation of
indigenous peoples’ and local communities and resource users in decision-making activities, and the
incorporation of local institutions, customary practices, and knowledge systems in management,
regulatory, and enforcement processes. Under this approach, community-based monitoring and
information systems are initiatives by indigenous peoples and local community organizations to
monitor their community’s well-being and the state of their territories and natural resources,
applying a mix of traditional knowledge and innovative tools and approaches.
Confidence See “certainty”.
Conservation agriculture Approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained
productivity, increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base
and the environment. It is characterized by three linked principles, namely: 1) continuous minimum
mechanical soil disturbance; 2) permanent organic soil cover; and 3) diversification of crop species
grown in sequences and/or associations. This covers a wide range of approaches from minimum till
to permaculture/“mimicking nature”.
Corridor A geographically defined area which allows species to move between landscapes,
ecosystems and habitats, natural or modified, and ensures the maintenance of biodiversity and
ecological and evolutionary processes.
Cost-benefit analysis A technique designed to determine the feasibility of a project or plan by
quantifying its costs and benefits.
Cropland A land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of crops for harvest.
Cross-scale analysis Cross-scale effects are the result of spatial and/or temporal processes
interacting with other processes at another scale. These interactions create emergent effects that
can be difficult to predict.
Cross-sectoral Relating to interactions between sectors (that is, the distinct parts of society, or of a
nation's economy), such as how one sector affects another sector, or how a factor affects two or
more sectors.
Customary law Law consisting of commonly repeated customs, practices and beliefs that are
accepted as legal requirements or obligatory rules of conduct.
Decomposition Breakdown of complex organic substances into simpler molecules or ions by
physical, chemical and/or biological processes.
Deforestation Human-induced conversion of forested land to non-forested land. Deforestation can
be permanent, when this change is definitive, or temporary when this change is part of a cycle that
includes natural or assisted regeneration.

1134
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Degraded land Land in a state that results from persistent decline or loss of biodiversity and
ecosystem functions and services that cannot fully recover unaided.
Denitrification Reduction of nitrates and nitrites to nitrogen by microorganisms.
Desertification Land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various
factors, including climatic variations and human activities. Desertification does not refer to the
natural expansion of existing deserts.
Direct driver See "driver".
Distributional equity/justice Allocation of costs, benefits, risks and responsibilities as well as of the
products of nature requiring the disaggregation of values to highlight who benefits and who loses,
and to demonstrate the consequences for those affected.
Double counting of services Erroneously including the same ecosystem service more than once in
an economic analysis.
Downscaling The transformation of information from coarser to finer spatial scales through
statistical modelling or spatially nested linkage of structural models.
Driver In the context of IPBES, drivers of change are all the factors that, directly or indirectly, cause
changes in nature, anthropogenic assets, nature’s contributions to people and a good quality of life.
Drylands Arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas. The term excludes hyper-arid areas, also known
as deserts. Drylands are characterized by water scarcity and cover approximately 40 % of the world's
terrestrial surface.
Ecoregion A large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural
communities that: (a) Share a large majority of their species and ecological dynamics; (b) Share similar
environmental conditions, and; (c) Interact ecologically in ways that are critical for their long-term
persistence (source: WWF). In contrast to biomes, an ecoregion is generally geographically specific,
at a much finer scale. For example, the “East African Montane Forest” ecoregion of Kenya (WWF
ecoregion classification) is a geographically specific and coherent example of the globally occurring
“tropical and subtropical forest” biome.
Ecological community An assemblage or association of populations of two or more different species
occupying the same geographical area and in a particular time.
Ecological footprint A measure of the amount of biologically productive land and water required to
support the demands of a population or productive activity. Ecological footprints can be calculated
at any scale: for an activity, a person, a community, a city, a region, a nation or humanity as a whole.
Ecological infrastructure Ecological infrastructure refers to the natural or semi-natural structural
elements of ecosystems and landscapes that are important in delivering ecosystem services. It is
similar to “green infrastructure”, a term sometimes applied in a more urban context. The ecological
infrastructure needed to support pollinators and improve pollination services includes patches of
semi-natural habitats, including hedgerows, grassland and forest, distributed throughout productive
agricultural landscapes, providing nesting and floral resources. Larger areas of natural habitat are also
ecological infrastructure, although these do not directly support agricultural pollination in areas more
than a few kilometres away from pollinator-dependent crops.
Economic and financial instruments Economic and financial instruments can be used to change
people’s behaviour towards desired policy objectives. Instruments typically encompass a wide range
of designs and implementation approaches. They include traditional fiscal instruments, including for
example subsidies, taxes, charges and fiscal transfers. Additionally, instruments such as tradable

1135
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

pollution permits or tradable land development rights rely on the creation of new markets. Further
instruments represent conditional and voluntary incentive schemes such as payments for ecosystem
services. All these can in principle be used to correct for policy or/and market failures and reinstate
full-cost pricing. They aim at reflecting social costs or benefits of the conservation and use of
biodiversity and ecosystem services of a public good nature (“getting the price right”). Financial
instruments, in contrast, are often extra-budgetary and can be financed from domestic sources or
foreign aid, external borrowing, debt for nature swaps, etc. Economic instruments do not necessarily
imply that commodification of environmental functions is promoted. Generally, they are meant to
change behaviour of individuals (e.g., consumers and producers) and public actors (e.g., local and
regional governments).
Economic valuation See “values”.
Ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-
living environment interacting as a functional unit.
Ecosystem accounting The process of constructing formal accounts for ecosystems.
Ecosystem degradation A persistent (long-time) reduction in the capacity to provide ecosystem
services.
Ecosystem function The flow of energy and materials through the biotic and abiotic components of
an ecosystem. It includes many processes such as biomass production, trophic transfer through plants
and animals, nutrient cycling, water dynamics and heat transfer.
Ecosystem health Ecosystem health is a metaphor used to describe the condition of an ecosystem,
by analogy with human health. Note that there is no universally accepted benchmark for a healthy
ecosystem. Rather, the apparent health status of an ecosystem can vary, depending upon which
metrics are employed in judging it, and which societal aspirations are driving the assessment.
Ecosystem management An approach to maintaining or restoring the composition, structure,
function, and delivery of services of natural and modified ecosystems for the goal of achieving
sustainability. It is based on an adaptive, collaboratively developed vision of desired future conditions
that integrates ecological, socioeconomic, and institutional perspectives, applied within a geographic
framework, and defined primarily by natural ecological boundaries.
Ecosystem services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems. In the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, ecosystem services can be divided into supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural.
This classification, however, is superseded in IPBES assessments by the system used under “nature’s
contributions to people.” This is because IPBES recognises that many services fit into more than one
of the four categories. For example, food is both a provisioning service and also, emphatically, a
cultural service, in many cultures.
Ecotourism Sustainable travel undertaken to access sites or regions of unique natural or ecological
quality, promoting their conservation, low visitor impact, and socio-economic involvement of local
populations.
Endangered species A species at risk of extinction in the wild.
Endemic species Plants and animals that exist only in one geographic region.
Endemism The ecological state of a species being unique to a defined geographic location, such as
an island, nation, country or other defined zone, or habitat type; organisms that are indigenous to a
place are not endemic to it if they are also found elsewhere.

1136
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Energy security Access to clean, reliable and affordable energy services for cooking and heating,
lighting, communications and productive uses.
Equity Fairness of rights, distribution, and access. Depending on context, this can refer to resources,
services, or power.
Eutrophic A condition of an aquatic system in which increased nutrient loading leads to progressively
increasing amounts of algal growth and biomass accumulation. When the algae die off and
decompose, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water becomes reduced. The term is sometimes
applied more broadly than just to aquatic systems.
Eutrophication Nutrient enrichment of an ecosystem, generally resulting in increased primary
production and reduced biodiversity. In lakes, eutrophication leads to seasonal algal blooms, reduced
water clarity, and, often, periodic fish mortality as a consequence of oxygen depletion. The term is
most closely associated with aquatic ecosystems but is sometimes applied more broadly.
Exclusive economic zone An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a concept adopted at the Third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1982), whereby a coastal State assumes jurisdiction over
the exploration and exploitation of marine resources in its adjacent section of the continental shelf,
taken to be a band extending 200 miles from the shore. The exclusive economic zone comprises an
area which extends either from the coast, or in federal systems from the seaward boundaries of the
constituent states (3 to 12 nautical miles, in most cases) to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) off the
coast. Within this area, nations claim and exercise sovereign rights and exclusive fishery management
authority over all fish and all continental shelf fishery resources.
Externality A positive or negative consequence (benefit or cost) of an action that affects someone
other than the agent undertaking that action and for which the agent is neither compensated nor
penalized through the markets.
Extinction debt The future extinction of species due to events in the past, owing to a time lag
between an effect such as habitat destruction or climate change, and the subsequent disappearance
of species.
Feedback The modification or control of a process or system by its results or effects.
Food security The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at
all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.
Formal institutions Include law and policies e.g., regulations and directives, and fiscal, agricultural
or planning policies, to name just a few examples. These are typically based on legal instruments,
treaties and customary laws. Informal institutions in turn include social norms and rules, such as those
related to collective action.
Functional diversity The range, actual values, relative abundance and distribution of functional trait
attributes in a given community.
Functional traits Any feature of an organism, expressed in the phenotype and measurable at the
individual level, which has demonstrable links to the organism’s function. As such, a functional trait
determines the organism’s response to external abiotic or biotic factors (response trait), and/or its
effects on ecosystem properties or benefits or detriments derived from such properties (effect trait).
In plants, functional traits include morphological, ecophysiological, biochemical and regeneration
traits. In animals, these traits include e.g. body size, litter size, age of sexual maturity, nesting habitat,
time of activity.

1137
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Generalist species A species able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and that
can make use of a variety of different resources (for example, a flower-visiting insect that lives on the
floral resources provided by several to many different plants).
Good quality of life Within the context of the IPBES conceptual framework – the achievement of a
fulfilled human life, a notion which may vary strongly across different societies and groups within
societies. It is a context-dependent state of individuals and human groups, comprising aspects such
as access to food, water, energy and livelihood security, and also health, good social relationships and
equity, security, cultural identity, and freedom of choice and action. “Living in harmony with nature”,
“living-well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth” and “human well-being” are examples of
different perspectives on a “good quality of life”.
Governance The way the rules, norms and actions in a given organization are structured, sustained,
and regulated.
Grassland Type of ecosystem characterized by a more or less closed herbaceous (non-woody)
vegetation layer, sometimes with a shrub layer, but – in contrast to savannas – without, or with very
few, trees. Different types of grasslands are found under a broad range of climatic conditions.
Habitat The place or type of site where an organism or population naturally occurs. Also used to
mean the environmental attributes required by a particular species or its ecological niche.
Habitat connectivity The degree to which the landscape facilitates the movement of organisms
(animals, plant reproductive structures, pollen, pollinators, spores, etc.) and other environmentally
important resources (e.g., nutrients and moisture) between similar habitats. Connectivity is
hampered by fragmentation.
Habitat degradation A general term describing the set of processes by which habitat quality is
reduced. Habitat degradation may occur through natural processes (e.g. drought, heat, cold) and
through human activities (forestry, agriculture, urbanization).
Habitat fragmentation A general term describing the set of processes by which habitat loss results
in the division of continuous habitats into a greater number of smaller patches of lesser total and
isolated from each other by a matrix of dissimilar habitats. Habitat fragmentation may occur through
natural processes (e.g., forest and grassland fires, flooding) and through human activities (forestry,
agriculture, urbanization).
Habitat service The importance of ecosystems to provide living space for resident and migratory
species (thus maintaining the gene pool and nursery service).
Harmonization The process of bringing something together, and comparing (e.g., models or
scenarios) to facilitate compatibility or consistency.
Hedgerow A row of shrubs or trees that forms the boundary of an area such as a garden, field, farm,
road or right-of-way.
Hedonic pricing An economic valuation approach that utilizes information about the implicit demand
for an environmental attribute of marketed commodities.
Homogenization When used in the ecological sense “homogenization” means a decrease in the
extent to which communities differ in species composition.
Human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) The aggregate impact of land use on
biomass available each year in ecosystems.

1138
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Impact assessment A formal, evidence-based procedure that assesses the economic, social, and
environmental effects of public policy or of any human activity.
Important Bird & Biodiversity Areas A Key Biodiversity Area identified using an internationally
agreed set of criteria as being globally important for bird populations.
Indicators A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple, measurable and
quantifiable characteristic or attribute responding in a known and communicable way to a changing
environmental condition, to a changing ecological process or function, or to a changing element of
biodiversity.
Indigenous and community conserved areas Natural and modified ecosystems including significant
biodiversity, ecological services and cultural values voluntarily conserved by indigenous and local
communities through customary laws or other effective means.
Indigenous and local knowledge systems Indigenous and local knowledge systems are social and
ecological knowledge practices and beliefs pertaining to the relationship of living beings, including
people, with one another and with their environments. Such knowledge can provide information,
methods, theory and practice for sustainable ecosystem management.
Indigenous peoples and local communities Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are,
typically, ethnic groups who are descended from and identify with the original inhabitants of a given
region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently. IPBES
does not intend to create or develop new definitions of what constitutes “indigenous peoples and
local communities.
Indirect driver See “driver”.
Indirect use value See “values”.
Institutional failure These are often catalogued as (i) law and policy failures (e.g., perverse
subsidies), (ii) market failures (externalities in the use of public goods and services), (iii) organizational
failure (e.g., lack of transparency and political legitimacy in decision-making) and (iv) informal
institutional failures (e.g., break of collective action norms due to erosion of trust.
Institutions Encompasses all formal and informal interactions among stakeholders and social
structures that determine how decisions are taken and implemented, how power is exercised, and
how responsibilities are distributed.
Instrumental value See "values".
Integrated assessment models Interdisciplinary models that aim to describe the complex
relationships between environmental, social, and economic drivers that determine current and future
state of the ecosystem and the effects of global change, in order to derive policy-relevant insights.
One of the essential characteristics of integrated assessments is the simultaneous consideration of
the multiple dimensions of environmental problems.
Integrated pest management Also known as integrated pest control. It is a broadly-based approach
that integrates various practices for economic control of pests. Integrated pest management (or IPM)
aims to suppress pest populations below the economic injury level (i.e., to below the level that the
costs of further control outweigh the benefits derived). It involves careful consideration of all
available pest control techniques and then integration of appropriate measures to discourage
development of pest populations while keeping pesticides and other interventions to economically
justifiable levels with minimal risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasizes the

1139
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages
natural pest control mechanisms.
Integrated valuation See "values".
Intrinsic value See "values".
Invasive alien species Species whose introduction and/or spread by human action outside their
natural distribution threatens biological diversity, food security, and human health and well-being.
“Alien” refers to the species having been introduced outside its natural distribution (“exotic”, “non-
native” and “non-indigenous” are synonyms for “alien”). “Invasive” means “tending to expand into
and modify ecosystems to which it has been introduced”. Thus, a species may be alien without being
invasive, or, in the case of a species native to a region, it may increase and become invasive, without
actually being an alien species.
Invasive species See "invasive alien species".
IPBES conceptual framework The IPBES conceptual framework has been designed to build shared
understanding across disciplines, knowledge systems and stakeholders of the interplay between
biodiversity and ecosystem drivers, and of the role they play in building a good quality of life.
IUCN protected area category IUCN protected area management categories classify protected areas
according to their management objectives.
Key biodiversity areas Sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. They
represent the most important sites for biodiversity worldwide, and are identified nationally using
globally standardized criteria and thresholds.
Knowledge systems A body of propositions that are adhered to, whether formally or informally, and
are routinely used to claim truth. They are organized structures and dynamic processes (a) generating
and representing content, components, classes, or types of knowledge, that are (b) domain-specific
or characterized by domain-relevant features as defined by the user or consumer, (c) reinforced by a
set of logical relationships that connect the content of knowledge to its value (utility), (d) enhanced
by a set of iterative processes that enable the evolution, revision, adaptation, and advances, and (e)
subject to criteria of relevance, reliability, and quality.
Land degradation Refers to the many processes that drive the decline or loss in biodiversity,
ecosystem functions or services and includes the degradation of all terrestrial ecosystems.
Land sharing A situation where low-yield farming enables biodiversity to be maintained within
agricultural landscapes.
Land sparing Land sparing, also called "land separation" involves restoring or creating non-farmland
habitat in agricultural landscapes at the expense of field-level agricultural production - for example,
woodland, natural grassland, wetland, and meadow on arable land. This approach does not
necessarily imply high-yield farming of the non-restored, remaining agricultural land.
Land use The human use of a specific area for a certain purpose (such as residential, agriculture,
recreation, industrial, etc.). Influenced by, but not synonymous with, land cover. Land-use change
refers to a change in the use or management of land by humans, which may lead to a change in land
cover.
Land-use change See "land use".
Landscape An area of land that contains a mosaic of ecosystems, including human-dominated
ecosystems.

1140
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Landscape configuration The distribution, size and abundances of patch types represented within a
landscape. Configuration is spatially explicit because it refers not only to the variety and abundance
of patch types, but also to their placement or location (dispersion) in the landscape.
Leaching The dissolution and movement of dissolved substances by water.
Living in harmony with nature Within the context of the IPBES conceptual framework – a
perspective on good quality of life based on the interdependence that exists among human beings,
other living species and elements of nature. It implies that we should live peacefully alongside all
other organisms even though we may need to exploit other organisms to some degree.
Mainstreaming biodiversity Mainstreaming, in the context of biodiversity, means integrating actions
or policies related to biodiversity into broader development processes or policies such as those aimed
at poverty reduction, or tackling climate change.
Mangrove Group of trees and shrubs that live in the coastal intertidal zone. Mangrove forests only
grow at tropical and subtropical latitudes near the equator because they cannot withstand freezing
temperatures.
Meta-analysis A quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or
studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is a major assessment
of the human impact on the environment published in 2005.
Mitigation In the context of IPBES, an intervention to reduce negative or unsustainable uses of
biodiversity and ecosystems.
Models Qualitative or quantitative representations of key components of a system and of
relationships between these components. Benchmarking (of models) is the process of systematically
comparing sets of model predictions against measured data in order to evaluate model performance.
Validation (of models) typically refers to checking model outputs for consistency with observations.
However, since models cannot be validated in the formal sense of the term (i.e. proven to be true),
some scientists prefer to use the words "benchmarking" or “evaluation". A dynamic model is a model
that describes changes through time of a specific process. A process-based model (also known as
“mechanistic model”) is a model in which relationships are described in terms of explicitly stated
processes or mechanisms based on established scientific understanding, and model parameters
therefore have clear ecological interpretation, defined beforehand. Hybrid models are models that
combine correlative and process-based modelling approaches. A correlative model (also known as
“statistical model”) is a model in which available empirical data are used to estimate values for
parameters that do not have predefined ecological meaning, and for which processes are implicit
rather than explicit. Integrated assessment models are interdisciplinary models that aim to describe
the complex relationships between environmental, social, and economic drivers that determine
current and future state of the ecosystem and the effects of global change, in order to derive policy-
relevant insights. One of the essential characteristics of integrated assessments is the simultaneous
consideration of the multiple dimensions of environmental problems.
Monitoring The repeated observation of a system in order to detect signs of change.
Monoculture The agricultural practice of producing or growing a single crop, plant, or livestock
species, variety, or breed in a field or farming system at a time.
Mosaic landscape A pattern of landscapes with multiple patches and corridors.

1141
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Mother Earth An expression used in a number of countries and regions to refer to the planet Earth
and the entity that sustains all living things found in nature with which humans have an indivisible,
interdependent physical and spiritual relationship (see "nature").
Multidisciplinary expert panel The IPBES multidisciplinary expert panel is a subsidiary body
established by the IPBES Plenary which oversees the scientific and technical functions of the Platform,
a key role being to select experts to carry out assessments.
Native species Indigenous species of animals or plants that naturally occur in a given region or
ecosystem.
Natural capital An economic metaphor for the limited stocks of physical and biological resources
found on Earth.
Nature In the context of IPBES, nature refers to the natural world with an emphasis on its living
components. Within the context of Western science, it includes categories such as biodiversity,
ecosystems (both structure and functioning), evolution, the biosphere, humankind’s shared
evolutionary heritage, and biocultural diversity. Within the context of other knowledge systems, it
includes categories such as Mother Earth and systems of life, and it is often viewed as inextricably
linked to humans, not as a separate entity (see "Mother Earth").
Nature’s contributions to people (NCP) Nature's contributions to people (NCP) 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 NCP may be perceived as benefits or detriments
depending on the cultural, temporal or spatial context.
Non-anthropocentric A non-anthropocentric value is a value centred on something other than
human beings. These values can be non-instrumental (e.g. a value ascribed to the existence of specific
species for their own sake) or instrumental to non-human ends (e.g. the instrumental value a habitat
has for the existence of a specific species).
Non-indigenous or non-native or alien species See “invasive alien species”.
Ocean acidification See "acidification".
Organic agriculture Any system that emphasises the use of techniques such as crop rotation,
compost or manure application, and biological pest control in preference to synthetic inputs. Most
certified organic farming schemes prohibit all genetically modified organisms and almost all synthetic
inputs. Its origins are in a holistic management system that avoids off-farm inputs, but some organic
agriculture now uses relatively high levels of off-farm inputs.
Overexploitation Harvesting species from the wild at rates faster than natural populations can
recover. Includes overfishing, and overgrazing.
Participatory mapping A key method that many indigenous communities apply in order to collect
data, information and monitoring and to use it in science- policy- society interface processes.
Participatory scenario development (and planning) Approaches characterized by more interactive,
and inclusive, involvement of stakeholders in the formulation and evaluation of scenarios. Aimed at
improving the transparency and relevance of decision-making, by incorporating demands and
information of each stakeholder, and negotiating outcomes between stakeholders.
Particulate and gaseous pollutants Air pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen oxides and ammonia.

1142
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Particulate matter A mixture of solid particles (dust, dirt, soot, or smoke) and liquid droplets.
Pastoralism Extensive livestock production in rangelands.
Peatlands Wetlands which accumulate organic plant matter in situ because waterlogging prevents
aerobic decomposition and the much slower rate of the resulting anaerobic decay is exceeded by the
rate of accumulation.
Pelagic Organisms that live in the water column.
Perennial See "annual".
Permafrost Perennially frozen ground that occurs wherever the temperature remains below 0°C for
several years.
Phytophilia The positive effect of green vegetation in landscapes on human beings.
Plankton Typically microscopic aquatic organisms that drift or swim weakly. Phytoplankton are the
plant forms of plankton (e.g., diatoms), and are the dominant plants in the sea. Zooplankton are the
animal forms of plankton.
Plenary Within the context of IPBES – the decision-making body comprising all of the members of
IPBES.
Policy instrument Set of means or mechanisms to achieve a policy goal.
Policy mix A combination of policy instruments which has evolved to influence the quantity and
quality of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision in public and private sectors.
Policy support tools Approaches and techniques based on science and other knowledge systems
that can inform, assist and enhance relevant decisions, policymaking and implementation at local,
national, regional and global levels to protect nature, thereby promoting nature’s benefits to people
and a good quality of life.
Policy/policy tools Instruments used by governance bodies at all scales to implement their policies.
Environmental policies, for example, could be implemented through tools such as legislation,
economic incentives or dis-incentives, including taxes and tax exemptions, or tradable permits and
fees.
Polycentric governance An organizational structure where multiple independent actors mutually
order their relationships with one another under a general system of rules.
Poverty A state of economic deprivation. Its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited
access to education and other basic services. Other corollaries of poverty are social discrimination
and exclusion as well as the lack of participation in decision-making.
Precautionary principle Pertains to risk management and states that if an action or policy has a
suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific
consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on
those taking an action. The principle is used to justify discretionary decisions when the possibility of
harm from making a certain decision (e.g., taking a particular course of action) is not, or has not been,
established through extensive scientific knowledge. The principle implies that there is a social
responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a
plausible risk or if a potential plausible risk has been identified.
Process-based model See "models".

1143
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Protected area A protected area is a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and
managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature
with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.
Ramsar site(s) A Ramsar site is a wetland site designated of international importance especially as
Waterfowl Habitat under the Ramsar Convention, an intergovernmental environment treaty
established in 1975 by UNESCO, coming into force in 1975. Ramsar site refers to wetland of
international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology, limnology or hydrology. Such a site
meets at least one of the criteria of identifying wetlands of international importance set by Ramsar
Convention and is designated by appropriate national authority to be added to Ramsar list.
Rangeland Natural grasslands used for livestock grazing.
REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is a mechanism
developed by Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It
creates a financial value for the carbon stored in forests by offering incentives for developing
countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable
development. Developing countries would receive results-based payments for results-based actions.
REDD+ goes beyond simply deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of
conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Regime shift(s) Substantial reorganization in system structure, functions and feedbacks that often
occurs abruptly and persists over time.
Rehabilitation Restoration activities that move a site towards a natural state baseline in a limited
number of components (i.e. soil, water, and/or biodiversity), including natural regeneration,
conservation agriculture, and emergent ecosystems.
Relational value See "values".
Remediation Any action taken to rehabilitate ecosystems.
Resilience The level of disturbance that an ecosystem or society can undergo without crossing a
threshold to a situation with different structure or outputs. Resilience depends on factors such as
ecological dynamics as well as the organizational and institutional capacity to understand, manage,
and respond to these dynamics.
Resolution (spatial or temporal) See “scale”.
Restoration Any intentional activities that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem from
a degraded state.
Richness The number of biological entities (species, genotypes, etc.) within a given sample.
Sometimes used as synonym of species diversity.
Rights-based instruments and customary norms Synergizing rights and norms for the conservation
and protection of systems of Mother Earth can foster complementarity with human well-being.
International and national human rights instruments whether binding or non-binding can be
creatively interpreted to fit socio-ecological systems and foster resilience. Strengthening of collective
rights, customary norms and institutions of indigenous peoples and local communities, can promote
adaptive governance including the equitable and fair management of natural resources.
Salinization The process of increasing the salt content in soil is known as salinization. Salinization
can be caused by natural processes such as mineral weathering or by the gradual withdrawal of an
ocean. It can also come about through artificial processes such as irrigation.

1144
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Savanna Ecosystem characterized by a continuous layer of herbaceous plants, mostly grasses, and a
discontinuous upper layer of trees that may vary in density.
Scale The spatial, temporal, quantitative and analytical dimensions used to measure and study any
phenomenon. The temporal scale is comprised of two properties: 1) temporal extent – the total
length of the time period of interest for a particular study (e.g. 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years); and
2) temporal grain (or resolution) – the temporal frequency with which data are observed or projected
within this total period (e.g. at 1-year, 5-year or 10-year intervals). The spatial scale is comprised of
two properties: 1) spatial extent – the size of the total area of interest for a particular study (e.g. a
watershed, a country, the entire planet); and 2) spatial grain (or resolution) – the size of the spatial
units within this total area for which data are observed or predicted (e.g. fine-grained or coarse-
grained grid cells).
Scenarios Representations of possible futures for one or more components of a system, particularly
for drivers of change in nature and nature’s contributions, including alternative policy or
management options.
Seascape(s) Seascape can be defined as a spatially heterogeneous area of coastal environment (i.e.
intertidal, brackish) that can be perceived as a mosaic of patches, a spatial gradient, or some other
geometric patterning. The tropical coastal “seascape” often includes a patchwork of mangroves,
seagrass beds, and coral reefs that produces a variety of natural resources and ecosystem services.
Sector A distinct part of society, or of a nation's economy.
Semi-natural habitat(s) An ecosystem with most of its processes and biodiversity intact, though
altered by human activity in strength or abundance relative to the natural state.
Socioecological system An ecosystem, the management of this ecosystem by actors and
organizations, and the rules, social norms, and conventions underlying this management.
Soil compaction Defined as an increase in density and a decline of porosity in a soil that impedes
root penetration and movements of water and gases.
Soil degradation The diminishing capacity of the soil to provide ecosystem goods and services as
desired by its stakeholders.
Soil organic matter Matter consisting of plant and/or animal organic materials, and the conversion
products of those materials in soils.
Soil quality Soil quality is a measure of the soil's ability to provide ecosystem and social services
through its capacities to perform its functions under changing conditions. Soil quality reflects how
well a soil performs the functions of maintaining biodiversity and productivity, partitioning water and
solute flow, filtering and buffering, nutrient cycling, and providing support for plants and other
structures.
Species An interbreeding group of organisms that is reproductively isolated from all other organisms,
although there are many partial exceptions to this rule in particular taxa. Operationally, the term
species is a generally agreed fundamental taxonomic unit, based on morphological or genetic
similarity, that once described and accepted is associated with a unique scientific name.
Species composition The array of species in a specific sample, community, or area.
Species distribution mode Species distribution models relate field observations of the
presence/absence of a species to environmental predictor variables, based on statistically or
theoretically derived response surfaces, for prediction and inference. The predictor variables are
often climatic but can include other environmental variables.

1145
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Species richness The number of species within a given sample, community, or area.
Stakeholders Any individuals, groups or organizations who affect, or could be affected (whether
positively or negatively) by a particular issue and its associated policies, decisions and action.
Storylines (or scenario storylines) Qualitative narratives which provide the descriptive framework
from which quantitative exploratory scenarios can be formulated.
Summary for policymakers Is a component of any report, providing a policy-relevant but not policy
prescriptive summary of that report.
Sustainability A characteristic or state whereby the needs of the present and local population can
be met without compromising the ability of future generations or populations in other locations to
meet their needs.
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) A set of goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 to end
poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all, as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
Sustainable use (of biodiversity and its components) The use of components of biological diversity
in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby
maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations.
Synergies See "trade-off".
Taxon A category applied to a group in a formal system of nomenclature, e.g., species, genus, family
etc. (plural: taxa).
Telecoupling Refers to socioeconomic and environmental interactions over distances. It involves
distant exchanges of information, energy and matter (e.g., people, goods, products, capital) at
multiple spatial, temporal and organizational scales.
Threatened species In the IUCN Red List terminology, a threatened species is any species listed in
the Red List categories, critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.
Tipping point A set of conditions of an ecological or social system where further perturbation will
cause rapid change and prevent the system from returning to its former state.
Trade-off A trade-off is a situation where an improvement in the status of one aspect of the
environment or of human well-being is necessarily associated with a decline in or loss of a different
aspect. Trade-offs characterize most complex systems, and are important to consider when making
decisions that aim to improve environmental and/or socio-economic outcomes. Trade-offs are
distinct from synergies (the latter are also referred to as “win-win” scenarios): synergies arise when
the enhancement of one desirable outcome leads to enhancement of another.
Transformation A change in the fundamental attributes of natural and human systems that reflect
strengthened, altered, or aligned paradigms, goals, or values towards promoting adaptation that
supports sustainable development, including poverty reduction.
Transhumance Form of pastoralism or nomadism organized around the migration of livestock
between mountain pastures in warm seasons and lower altitudes the rest of the year. The seasonal
migration may also occur between lower and upper latitudes. A traditional farming practice based on
indigenous and local knowledge.
Transitional pathways A course of actions and strategies that aim to achieve the vision. They are
closely related to “policy or target-seeking scenarios".

1146
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Trophic cascades The chain of knock - on extinctions observed or predicted to occur following the
loss of one or a few species that play a critical role (e.g. as a pollinator) in ecosystem functioning.
Trophic level The level in the food chain in which one group of organisms serves as a source of
nutrition for another group of organisms (e.g. primary producers, primary or secondary consumers,
decomposers).
Units of analysis Units of analysis result from subdividing the Earth’s surface into units solely for the
purposes of analysis. The terrestrial and aquatic units of analysis serve as a framework for comparison
within and across IPBES assessments and represent a pragmatic solution. The terrestrial and aquatic
units of analysis used by IPBES are not intended to be prescriptive for purposes other than those of
IPBES assessments. They are likely to evolve as the work of IPBES develops.
Values
• Value systems: Set of values according to which people, societies and organizations regulate
their behaviour. Value systems can be identified in both individuals and social groups.
• Value (as principle): A value can be a principle or core belief underpinning rules and moral
judgments. Values as principles vary from one culture to another and also between
individuals and groups.
• Value (as preference): A value can be the preference someone has for something or for a
particular state of the world. Preference involves the act of making comparisons, either
explicitly or implicitly. Preference refers to the importance attributed to one entity relative
to another one.
• Value (as importance): A value can be the importance of something for itself or for others,
now or in the future, close by or at a distance. This importance can be considered in three
broad classes. 1. The importance that something has subjectively, and may be based on
experience. 2. The importance that something has in meeting objective needs. 3. The intrinsic
value of something.
• Value (as measure): A value can be a measure. In the biophysical sciences, any quantified
measure can be seen as a value.
• Non-anthropocentric value: A non-anthropocentric value is a value centred on something
other than human beings. These values can be non-instrumental or instrumental to non-
human ends.
• Intrinsic value: The value inherent to nature, independent of human experience and
evaluation, and therefore beyond the scope of anthropocentric valuation approaches.
• Anthropocentric value: Human-centred, the value that something has for human beings and
human purposes.
• Instrumental value: The direct and indirect contribution of nature’s benefits to the
achievement of a good quality of life. Within the specific framework of the total economic
value, instrumental values can be classified into use (direct and indirect use values) on the
one hand, and non-use values (option, bequest and existence values) on the other.
Sometimes option values are considered as use values as well.
• Non-instrumental value: The value attributed to something as an end in itself, regardless of
its utility for other ends.
• Relational value: The values that contribute to desirable relationships, such as those among
people and between people and nature, as in “living in harmony with nature”.
• Integrated valuation: The process of collecting, synthesizing, and communicating knowledge
about the ways in which people ascribe importance and meaning of nature’s contributions,
to facilitate deliberation and agreement for decision-making and planning.

1147
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Vision A desirable future (an endpoint in time) which we want to achieve. Visions usually consist of
statements depicting the explicit desires, assumptions, beliefs and paradigms that underlie the
desired future.
Water security The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities
of and acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic
development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and
for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.
Water stress Water stress occurs in an organism when the demand for water exceeds the available
amount during a certain period or when poor quality restricts its use.
Well-being A perspective on a good life that comprises access to basic resources, freedom and
choice, health and physical well-being, good social relationships, security, peace of mind and spiritual
experience. Well-being is achieved when individuals and communities can act meaningfully to pursue
their goals and can enjoy a good quality of life. The concept of human well-being is used in many
Western societies and its variants, together with living in harmony with nature, and living well in
balance and harmony with Mother Earth. All these are different perspectives on a good quality of life.
Western science Also called modern science, Western scientific knowledge or international science,
and used in the context of the IPBES conceptual framework as a broad term to refer to knowledge
typically generated in universities, research institutions and private firms following paradigms and
methods typically associated with the “scientific method” consolidated in Post-Renaissance Europe
on the basis of wider and more ancient roots. It is typically transmitted through scientific journals and
scholarly books. Some of its central tenets are observer independence, replicable findings, systematic
scepticism, and transparent research methodologies with standard units and categories.
Wetlands Areas that are subject to inundation or soil saturation at a frequency and duration, such
that the plant communities present are dominated by species adapted to growing in saturated soil
conditions, and/or that the soils of the area are chemically and physically modified due to saturation
and indicate a lack of oxygen; such areas are frequently termed peatlands, marshes, swamps, sloughs,
fens, bogs, wet meadows, etc.
Worldviews Defined by the connections between networks of concepts and systems of knowledge,
values, norms and beliefs. Individual person’s worldviews are moulded by the community the person
belongs to. Practices are embedded in worldviews and are intrinsically part of them (e.g. through
rituals, institutional regimes, social organization, but also in environmental policies, in development
choices, etc.).

1148
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

Annex II: Acronyms

Acronym Term
ABTs Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Assessment Report (specifically in the context of the Intergovernmental Panel on
AR
Climate Change)
BPA Bisphenol A; Biodiversity Promotion Areas
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
COP Conference of the Parties / Conference of the Contracting Parties
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
ECA Europe and Central Asia
A partnership of three organizations compiling environmental, (ECO), law (LEX)
ECOLEX
related information
EEA European Environment Agency
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHG Greenhouse Gas
Ha Hectare(s)
HELCOM Helsinki Commission
HWSD Harmonized World Soil Database
IGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
IHDP International Human Dimensions Programme
ILK Indigenous and Local Knowledge
IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

1149
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

LRTAP Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (Convention)

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MPA Marine Protected Area
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NCP Nature's Contributions to People
NEC Directive National Emissions Ceiling Directive
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OPERAs OPerationalising Ecosystem Research Applications
Oslo/Paris convention (for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-
OSPAR
East Atlantic)
PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PBT Polybutylene Terephthalate
PCB Polychrorinated Byphenil
POP Persistent Organic Pollutant
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
RED Renewable Energy Directive
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SRES Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
SSP Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TgC Teragrams of Carbon
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme (now also known as UN Environment)
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WFD Water Framework Directive
WG Working Group
WHO World Health Organization

1150
IPBES/6/INF/6/Rev.1

WTO World Trade Organization

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

1151