Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3

2021

3

Report of Comprehensive Assessment of
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan［Summary for Policymakers］

Working Group for Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Ministry of the Environment

Foreword
I am very happy to publish the third Japan Biodiversity Outlook (JBO3). The first JBO (JBO1)
was published to meet the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD COP10) held in Nagoya, in line with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
adopted there. The second assessment (JBO2) contained an interim assessment of the Aichi
Targets and was published in 2016 to coincide with COP12. Now, JBO3 is being published togive latest information to the final assessment of the Aichi Targets and the development of new
targets and frameworks.
We have made some technical progresses with the content through the three reports. The JBO1
started with collecting existing data and barely managed to show the true state of Japan’s
biodiversity and its changes. Then the JBO2 made it into the mapping of various biodiversity
information and the assessment of ecosystem services. Now, this JBO3 mentions trend prediction
by scenario analysis, thanks to the progress of academic research.
On a global level, three editions of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO) have been publishedduring this decade: the third report (GBO3) in 2010, with a focus on the Aichi Targets; the GBO4
in 2014, containing an interim assessment of the Aichi Targets; and the GBO5 in 2020, containing
the final assessment of the Aichi Targets. In addition, the IPBES (Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) was established in 2012 and has worked
on global assessment, publishing its first assessment report (Global assessment report of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) in 2019. In
particular, the GBO5 and the IPBES global report reflect discussions surrounding the SDGs,
pointing out the importance of giving consideration not only to direct drivers but also to indirect
social and economic drivers in resolving biodiversity issues, as well as the importance of leverage
points that trigger transformative change. This JBO3 has put together these latest trends to thegreatest extent possible.
The past decade has been declared the decade of biodiversity. However, the same decade has
experienced major events that shook our society, such as the Great East Japan Earthquake in theyear following the COP10 held in Nagoya, and the COVID-19 pandemic which we are living
through now. All this has actually put us under pressure to extensively rethink ecosystem andbiodiversity issues during this decade. I hope these experiences have helped us to develop a
deeper understanding of the meaning of “Nature-based Solution concept.” It is my wish that thisJBO3 will be reflected in the new National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans will be ofsome help towards transformative change.

Tohru Nakashizuka
Forestry and Forest Products Research InstituteCONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 1
Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services in Japan… ………………………… 3

Key Messages……………………………………………………………………… 4
Grounds… …………………………………………………………………………… 11
Annex… ………………………………………………………………………………… 43
Glossary… …………………………………………………………………………… 46

CONTENTS

Preface
Background to Compiling the Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3 (JBO3)

At the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity
held in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan in 2010, twenty specific targets (the Aichi Biodiversity Targets)were set for the purpose of taking effective, urgent actions by no later than 2020 to halt the loss of biodiversity, with the aim of realizing a world “living in harmony with nature” by 2050. Each country has
continued to make efforts based on these targets. In Japan, the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan
2012-2020 (hereinafter, the “NBSAP”), which was decided by the Japanese Cabinet in 2012, set targets(national targets) for achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, based on which measures have been implemented.
In addition, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 as integrated economic, social, and environmental international goals for all developed and developing countries, set four goals (Goals 6, 13, 14, and 15) for ecosystem services provided
by biodiversity. These 4 goals support all human activities covered by the economic and social goals, andecosystem services are also related to many goals. Similarly, the 5th Basic Environment Plan, which was
decided by the Japanese Cabinet in 2018, aims for integrated improvement of environment, economy, andsociety by aspiring to realize a “Regional Circular and Ecological Sphere.” It is a sustainable society thatshould be aimed at, where each region forms a self-reliant, decentralized society by efficiently utilizing
local resources with mutual partnership with other areas.
In Japan, JBO (Japan Biodiversity Outlook) and JBO2 (The Second Report of JBO) were published in2010 and 2016, respectively, as comprehensive assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services. These
assessments have shown that the status of biodiversity in Japan is on a long-term deteriorating trend, andthat many ecosystem services have declined while some have remained at the same level compared to thepast decades.
The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2019 (hereinafter, the“IPBES Global Assessment Report”) points out that biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate inhuman history, nature’s contributions to people (NCP) including ecosystem services are deteriorating
globally, and that the drivers of change of these trends have increased during the past five decades. In
addition, the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (GBO5), published in 2020 by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, assesses that while considerable progress has been seen in most of the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets, none of the twenty targets has been completely achieved.
These two important documents, assessing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, commonly state that transformative changes across economic, social, political, and technological factors underlying drivers (i.e., impacts of social and economic activities, or indirect drivers) of biodiversity loss are strongly required to
improve the situation.
In 2020, the final year of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the NBSAP, threats to human health and welfare brought by the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic deepened our awareness of the relationship between

1JapanBiodiversity

Outlook3
Prefacehuman activities and changes in the global environment even more than before. Based on the backgrounddescribed above, Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3 (JBO3) was edited by the Working Group for Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services established by the Ministry of the Environment(chaired by Tohru Nakashizuka, President of the Forest Research and Management Organization), withcooperation from 114 experts, in order to assess the current state of biodiversity and ecosystem services inJapan and to organize challenges to be worked on under the Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework and thenext NBSAP.
Table1 Members of the Working Group for Comprehensive Assessment of
Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Name

Affiliation and title (as of March 2021)

Hashimoto, Shizuka

Associate Professor, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The
University of Tokyo

Morita, Kanako

Senior Researcher, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization

Nakamura, Futoshi

Professor, Graduate School of Agriculture, Hokkaido University

Nakashizuka, Tohru

President, Forest Research and Management Organization

Onuma, Ayumi

Professor, Faculty of Economics, Keio University

Saito, Osamu

Principal Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Shirayama, Yoshihisa

Specially Appointed Advisor, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)

Yamamoto, Shori

Director, Department of Planning and General Administration, National Agri-culture and Food Research Organization

Yamano, Hiroya

Director, Center for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem Studies, National
Institute for Environmental Studies

Yoshida, Takehito

Associate Professor, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, National Institutes for the Humanities
Associate Professor, Department of General Systems Studies, Graduate Schoolof Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo

2

JBO 3Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity andEcosystem Services in JapanO

ur lives are supported by the blessings of “ecosystem services” derived from biodiversity, such as
food and water supply and climate stability, and ecosystem services are indispensable for the survivaland good quality of life (well-being) of human beings. The drivers of change in biodiversity consist of“direct drivers,” which are natural or anthropogenic drivers that directly affect nature, and “indirectdrivers,” which include: changes in society and economics that lead to those direct drivers, includingchanges in human activities and decision-making; and changes in human values and behaviors, which
underlie those socioeconomic changes. These drivers are intricately intertwined, causing the loss of
biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystem services. In addition, changes in human well-being also
affect these indirect drivers through changes in life consciousness and behavior.
The 2019 IPBES Global Assessment Report strongly pointed out that, in order to halt the loss of biodiversity
and the deterioration of ecosystem services, it is important to deal not only with the direct drivers, such aschanges in land and sea, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasion of alien
species, but also with the indirect drivers, such as human population dynamics and trends, economy andinstitutions, as well as values and behaviors underlying them.
In light of these global discussions, this report assesses the trend during the past approximately fifty years(from the 1970s to the present) in the status of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Japan, referring to
the conceptual framework of the IPBES (see Annex Appended Figure 1). The previous comprehensive
assessments (JBO2) assessed the statusof biodiversity [1-A], the status ofecosystem services [1-B], and the statusof four biodiversity crises (direct drivers)[1-C]. In addition to these, this report(JBO3) has newly set indicators forsocioeconomic conditions (indirectdrivers) to grasp the situation, as wellas performing analyses of theseindirect drivers’ connections with thedirect drivers and of effective leverage
points and interventions (levers) [2-A].

In light of the results of these assessments
and analyses, as well as the future trends
in biodiversity and ecosystem services[1-E], the status of implementation of
biodiversity-related measures [1-D], andthat of measures intended to contributeto transformative change [2-B], thisreport has also summarized challenges
to be addressed in the next NBSAP inorder to halt the loss of biodiversity
and to realize transformative changes
towards living in harmony with nature[1-F] [2- C].

3

Note: Dotted arrows indicate relationships whose importance is recognized but which are notassessed in this report.

Figure 1 Biodiversity and ecosystem services
in Japan and their drivers

Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity andEcosystem Services in JapanKey Messages

Key Messages
Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3

JapanBiodiversity

Key Messages

Outlook1

3

The status of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Japan has been on a long-term losing or deteriorating trend over the past
five decades, with the impacts of direct drivers (the four biodiversity crises) having remained substantial.

An ecosystem supported by abundant biodiversity brings blessings (i.e., ecosystem services), which
contribute to securing safe water and food that are indispensable for human survival, support thesafety and security of living, and furthermore, provide a basis for nurturing the unique culture of eachregion, thereby contributing to human well-being. While our lives have been materially enriched by theenjoyment of various blessings of nature, the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystemservices are advancing due to changes in land and sea use, direct exploitation of living organisms, andclimate change, among other things.

1-A.

Status of Biodiversity

Japan’s biodiversity has been lost continuously for the past five decades. While the rate of loss is
slowing down in some ecosystems, the trend of loss is still continuing on the whole.

The results of assessments of six (forest,
agricultural, urban, freshwater, marine andcoastal, and island) ecosystems indicate an
ongoing reduction in size and quality of theecosystems, such as decreases in the components(farmlands, forests, tidal flats, etc.) of eachecosystem and qualitative changes in habitats.
Those results also indicate an ongoing declining
trend in the number of species and populationthat inhabit those habitats. Reduction in the useof farmlands, waterways/reservoirs, forests for
agricultural use, etc. has resulted in a reduction in
the natural environment constituting SatochiSatoyama. In coastal shallow waters, a total areaof approximately 40 km2 was reclaimed every

year from the high economic growth period until
around 1980, resulting in reduced numbers ofshorebirds that use tidal flats and sandy beaches.
The risk of extinction of species has increased
particularly in freshwater ecosystems, with morethan 50% of the vertebrates listed on the 4th
Version of the Japanese Red List (5th revised
edition) being freshwater species that spend all orpart of their lives in freshwater. On the other
hand, some urban, coastal, and other ecosystems
have shown improvements: an increase of urban
parks nationwide from 1971 to 2018 by 5.4 times
and a decrease of red tide events observed in the
Seto Inland Sea from 172 times in 1979 to 58
times in 2019.

1-B. Status of Ecosystem Services
The ecosystem services we enjoy from nature have been on a deteriorating trend over the past five
decades.

Our lives have been materially enriched by theenjoyment of various blessings of nature. On theother hand, although we must take into accountthe impact of the socioeconomic conditions
including that of changes in diet, mostprovisioning services, such as food and timber
supply, have declined compared to the past. The
production of agricultural, fishery, and forestry
products has decreased after the peak-time. In
particular, the recent marine fisheries catch isaround 50% of the peak-time level. The diversityof timber-producing tree species has decreased5

by about 40% over the past five decades.
Furthermore, not only provisioning services but
also regulation services that are relevant to ourhealth, such as air and water purification, haveshown a deteriorating trend. Some disaster risk
reduction services provided by ecosystems, suchas surface failure prevention services provided
by forests, have been improving as a result of thegrowth of planted trees. On the other hand, theflood control service provided by wetlands
appears to be on a declining trend over the years
due to the significant decrease in the area ofwetlands, although this depends on to what land
use wetlands are converted. In addition, cultures
and traditional knowledge associated with thesustainable use of local resources are being lost.
Furthermore, the past two decades have seen an
increase in damage to agriculture, forestry andfisheries caused by wildlife, as well as more
visible health risks caused by zoonotic diseases,
such as tick-borne infection, showing more
prominent negative impacts (disservices) of
ecosystems.

1-C. Status of Direct Drivers
Of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss, impacts caused by human activity (the First Crisis), decline
in human intervention (the Second Crisis), and things newly brought by humans (the Third Crisis) are
not as pressing as before, but their impacts are still large. In addition, recent years have seen more
visible impacts of the Fourth Crisis associated with changes in the global environment, such as
global warming.

while eutrophication of lakes and closed waters
has been on a lessening trend over the past two
decades, the crisis facing ecosystems caused byinvasive alien species has worsened. Regarding
the status of the Fourth Crisis (crisis caused by
the global environmental changes), the averagetemperature in Japan has increased at a rate of
1.26°C per century. The climate change over the
past three decades typically caused the northward
extension of the distribution of certain species ofbamboo (Moso bamboo: Phyllostachys edulis
and Japanese timber bamboo: Phyllostachys
bambusoides) that grow in warm climates, andthe distributional enlargement of southernbutterflies to the northern areas, as well as coralbleaching apparently caused by the rise in
seawater temperature.

Key Messages

Regarding the First Crisis (crisis caused byhuman activities, such as development and overharvesting), less than 20% of Japan’s total landarea remains covered by undisturbed vegetation.
Currently, while the pressure of development on
ecosystems has lessened compared to the periodsof high economic growth and the bubble
economy, the effects of past conversions toecosystems may continue, with relatively smallscale conversions continuing. As for the status of
the Second Crisis (crisis caused by decline inhuman intervention in nature), there is concernthat the mosaic pattern of Satochi-Satoyama may
disappear as a result of the approximate triplingof the area of abandoned farmland during 19752015. As for the status of the Third Crisis (crisis
caused by things newly brought by humans),

1-D. Countermeasures against the Loss of Biodiversity and the Deterioration of Ecosystem Servicess
Japan has thus promoted establishing and/or enhancing laws, institutions, etc. as countermeasuresagainst the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystem services. In particular, recent
years have seen various countermeasures being taken against the four crises under the NBSAP,with regional level efforts also being promoted under local BSAPs (LBSAPs).

Through the efforts over the past five decades,
designated protected areas have expanded. As ameasure to conserve individual species, thedesignation of domestic rare wild plant andanimal species has been promoted under the Act
on Conservation of Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora. In addition, several
countermeasures have been improved, such as byfundamentally reinforcing the control of wildlife
by amendment of the Wildlife Protection andHunting Management Law, selecting important
Satochi-Satoyama, controlling alien species by
the designation of invasive alien species, andregulating the production and use of chemical
substances. With respect to climate change,
countermeasures have tended to be improved,
such as by pursuing mitigation measures and byassessing and monitoring impacts on ecosystems
and considering adaptation measures from theviewpoint of biodiversity.

6

1-E.

Future Trends in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

With the recent progress of scenario-based research, it is gradually becoming clear how Japan’s
biodiversity and ecosystem services will change in the future. It has been pointed out that while
climate change may bring major changes in the status of biodiversity, changes in socioeconomic
conditions will also affect future biodiversity and ecosystem services in Japan.

It is expected that if climate change continues
as it is, biodiversity will be seriously damaged.
Furthermore, in the depopulating Japanesesociety, the future status of biodiversity andecosystem services may change greatly
depending on scenarios considering population
distribution(concentrated
vs.
dispersed
population) and the choice of valued capital

1-F.

(produced capital vs. natural capital). Thissuggests that the conservation of biodiversity andthe continuous enjoyment of ecosystem services
require not only the existing measures aimed atconserving the natural environment but alsomeasures considering human behavior and socialtransformation.

Outcomes and Challenges of Past Efforts

Although the rate of biodiversity loss in Japan has been slowed down in recent decades, the loss inthe past has not yet been recovered. It is necessary to further strengthen existing efforts whilestarting additional efforts. For that purpose, it is important not only to take countermeasures against
the direct drivers of biodiversity loss but also to take comprehensive countermeasures to change
the way society is.

In Japan, successful results of past efforts havebeen seen in some specific species and regions,such as recovery in the wild populations of theJapanese crested ibis (Nipponia nippon) andoriental storks (Ciconia boyciana), reduction in
the extinction risk for some rare species by
expanding protected areas, and decrease in the
habitat area of some alien species. Some
indicators, such as the scale and quality of theforest and freshwater ecosystems, and the
populations and distributions of species living incities, have now transitioned from decreasing toa flat trend. However, none of the indicators havetransitioned to a recovery trend yet. While theeffectiveness of some efforts may become visible
in later years, it is also important in the future not7

only to enhance the measures that have proveneffective (conservation of rare species, the control
of alien species, and the conservation andmanagement of protected areas etc.), but also tostrengthen other measures to restore the integrityofecosystems(increasing
connectivity,
developing networks between protected areas
and their surrounding areas with a well-conservedrich natural environment, etc.), to introduce anadaptive perspective on climate change, and toutilize various regulating services of ecosystems,
such as disaster risk reduction. In order to restore
Japan’s biodiversity, it is important to aim fortransformative change by taking a wide range ofmeasures, including indirect drivers, considering
the change of socioeconomic conditions.

JapanBiodiversity

Key Messages

Outlook2

3

To halt the loss of biodiversity and to reverse the trend to a recovering one, it is important to generate transformative change
through intervening against the indirect drivers, as well as taking measures against the direct drivers.

J

apan’s biodiversity crisis is caused by changes in the underlying socioeconomic conditions (i.e.,
indirect drivers). While Japan has had much more material comfort over the past five decades, thesocioeconomic conditions have had indirect negative impacts on biodiversity. To maximize the effectsof measures in the future, it is important to promote transformative change by remedying the indirectdrivers through efforts that focus on the “leverage points” at which interventions (i.e., measures) shouldbe implemented.

2-A. Socioeconomic Conditions (Indirect Drivers) and Approaches to Countermeasures

In order to halt the loss of biodiversity and thedeterioration of ecosystem services in Japan, it isessential to generate “transformative change,”
which fundamentally changes the socioeconomic
conditions (i.e., indirect drivers) underlying thefour crises (i.e., direct drivers) through measureswith respect to leverage points. The direct drivers,
indirect drivers, and leverage points have
intricately intertwined relationships with eachother, without any leverage point that would
provide a universal solution. A questionnaire
survey of experts indicated that in Japan, suchindirect drivers as “changes in industrial
structure,” “people’s interest in nature,” and“production and consumption” show strong
impacts on the direct drivers in general, whilesome indirect drivers, such as “global trading ofgoods” and “energy use,” have strong
relationships with certain direct drivers. Changes
in these major indirect drivers are seen, forexample, in Japan’s industrial structure. A
comparison of the working population between
1970 and 2015 indicates a decrease in the primaryindustry from around 19% to around 4%, in
contrast to an increase in the tertiary industry
from around 47% to around 71%, having a strong
impact on the decrease in the number of people
managing Satochi-Satoyama. As for production

Key Messages

In Japan, the past five decades have seen significant changes in the socioeconomic conditions (i.e.,
indirect drivers) and economic development, while these changes had great impacts on biodiversity
through the direct drivers. The relationships between the direct drivers, indirect drivers, and leverage
points are complicated. Countermeasures against such indirect drivers as “changes in industrial
structure” and “production and consumption” are expected to produce a wide range of effects,
while countermeasures against such indirect drivers as “global trading of goods” and “energy use”
may be significantly effective in remedying some specific direct drivers. In order to generatetransformative change, it is important to implement combining measures which act on more than
one leverage point.

and consumption, while consumption expenditure
per household has been on a decline since 2000,
real final consumption expenditure of households
increased by approximately 20% in 2019 ascompared to 1994, even though it has remainedat the same level over the past several years. The
increase in consumption is associated not onlywith an increase in the domestic environmentalload caused by waste but also with an increase inglobal movements of goods. The amount of cargo
imports at ports nearly doubled from 1970 to
2018. These movements of goods have become
one of the causes of the introduction of alien
species. An analysis of the relationships between
these indirect drivers and the eight leverage
points shown in the IPBES Global Assessment
Report indicated that “changes in industrial
structure” are broadly related to the eight leverage
points, while “production and consumption” isstrongly related to “reduce total consumption andwaste” and “global movements of goods” isstrongly related to “internalize externalities andtelecouplings” in addition to “reduce total
consumption and waste”. It is important toimplement a combination of measures that act on
multiple leverage points, taking into accountthese relationships between the indirect drivers
and leverage points.
8

2-B. Status of Implementation of Measures Contributing to Transformative Change

Previous efforts for biodiversity have not fully focused on appropriate leverage points towards
transformative change. In order to realize a society living in harmony with nature, it is essential topromote transformative change by implementing appropriate measures through leverage points
that are considered to be particularly effective on indirect drivers.

To work on indirect drivers that can be deemed
to be the root causes amid the international
emphasis on the need for transformative change
to conserve biodiversity, finding effective
leverage points for each indirect driver will leadto the effective implementation of measures.
Under the NBSAP developed in 2012, while
many measures were implemented that
corresponded to such leverage points as “promote
education and knowledge generation andsharing” and “practice justice and inclusion inconservation,” such as consensus building withstakeholders, measures implemented for otherleverage points were not sufficient. On the other
hand, in the context of regional revitalization and
the SDGs, there are already measures that cancontribute to transformative change. It is needed
to enhance synergy effects by linking thesemeasures with measures to be taken under the
next NBSAP or under LBSAP to be establishedby local governments, besides implementing newnecessary measures.

2-C. Challenges to Be Addressed to Achieve Transformative Change
In terms of the direction of transformative change, it is of great significance to reevaluate biodiversity
and ecosystem services as a foundation for social and economic activities and to introduce elementsof a self -reliant and decentralized society towards realizing a rich and resilient society living inharmony with nature by utilizing local resources. In order for our efforts to be effective, it is essential
to involve diverse sectors and to bring all parties together to take actions to restore biodiversity.

From a policy perspective, it is important totake measures against indirect drivers that areconsidered to affect a number of direct drivers, inorder to raise the overall level of dealing with thedirect drivers towards transformative change.
Specifically, effective measures could include:
forming virtuous cycles of business andbiodiversity as measures taken through effective
leverage points against indirect drivers, such as“changes in industrial structure,” “people’sinterest in nature,” and “production andconsumption”; and promoting education and thefostering of values that will support these virtuous
cycles. In addition, identifying indirect drivers
that are particularly affecting each of the fourcrises will lead to effective efforts. In making
these efforts, it is also important not only to deal
with issues that have arisen in Japan but also totake into account the issue of telecouplings, inwhich domestic consumption increases the riskof extinction of animal and plant species overseas.
Furthermore, in terms of strategy to reevaluate
biodiversity and ecosystem services as afoundation for human social and economic
activities, important points include: taking into

9

account the concept of nature-based solutions(NbS) when dealing with social issues in general,
including SDGs; and clarifying the synergies andtrade-offs between efforts to resolve social issues
and the sustainable use of natural capital. In
particular, in the era of population decline, andduring and post-COVID-19 era, it is becoming
more important to shift to a self-reliant anddecentralized society living in harmony withnature and utilizing natural capital. It is also ofgreat significance to determine the roles of
biodiversity and ecosystem services from various
perspectives, such as sustainability, resilience,
and affluence, with a view to redesigning the
economy and the society.
In order to realize these, it is important not only
to continuously observe, and promote thepreparation of basic data on the status ofbiodiversity and ecosystem services and the
direct and indirect drivers but also to further
develop research and studies to quantitatively
clarify the relationships between the directdrivers, indirect drivers, leverage points, andmeasures, as well as the outcomes of efforts,
towards formulating more effective policy.

Furthermore, it is essential to maximize the effectof efforts for transformative change, throughplanning measures based on scientific knowledge,
constructing an adaptive cycle that reflects in themeasures the knowledge obtained throughimplementing them, and having various sectors
cooperate with each other in a cross-sectoral,organic manner.

Key Messages

Source: IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. (altered by the Ministry of Environment)

Figure 2 Transformative change in global sustainability pathways

10Grounds

Grounds
Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3

Grounds 1

Japan Biodiversit y Outlook 3

The status of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Japan have been on a long-term losing or
deteriorating trend over the past five decades, with the impacts of direct drivers (the four
biodiversity crises) having remained substantial.

1-A. Status of Biodiversity
Japan's biodiversity has been lost continuously for the past five decades. While the rate ofloss is slowing down in some ecosystems, the trend of loss is still continuing on the whole.

a.

In various ecosystems, their scale and quality have continued to decline over a long-term period[based on sufficient data] 1. {Chapter II, Sections 1-6}2.
Regarding the scale of ecosystems, agricultural, freshwater, and marine and coastal ecosystems haveshown reduction in scale over the past five decades mainly due to the development, conversion, andreduced use of farmlands, grasslands, etc., the reclamation of wetlands and natural lakes, and thereclamation of natural river banks and coasts {Chapter II, Sections 2, 4, and 5}. For example, coastal
shallow waters were reclaimed at an annual rate of around 40km2 from the period of high economic
growth until around 1980, followed by a slower but long-term increase in cumulative reclaimed area
{Chapter II, Section 5}. As for the quality of ecosystems, remarkable changes have been seen particularly
in forest and agricultural ecosystems over the past five decades. Forest ecosystems have experienced
changes in the quality of the habitat environment for living organisms, such as the conversion from naturalforests to planted forests and changes in species composition and diversity due to abandonment of managed
secondary forests, although the rate of these changes has slowed down in recent years {Chapter II, Section1}. Changes related to agricultural ecosystems include a reduction in the amount of pesticides shipped
domestically, which suggests a long-term reduction of the effects of pesticides on the environment. On theother hand, there has been ongoing loss and deterioration of ecosystem elements that make up the SatochiSatoyama environment, resulting from the reduced use of elements of these ecosystems, such as farmlands,
waterways and reservoirs, forests including those for agricultural use, and meadows, grazing lands, andother grasslands, generating a concern that Satochi-Satoyama landscapes with mosaic patterns may
disappear. Those mosaic patterns have decreased particularly in plains where there are many large-scale
farmlands. It has also been pointed out that the number of living organisms has decreased due to theconversion of paddy fields to well-drained fields and the concreting of waterways resulting from landconsolidation {Chapter II, Section 2}. Changes indicating reduction in the rate of loss include the longterm trend in urban ecosystems after the period of high economic growth, with a reduced rate of loss offorest lands, farmlands, etc. in urban areas. At the same time, the total area of urban parks nationwide
increased significantly by the 2000s, with a 5.4-fold increase from 1971 to 2018 {Chapter II, Section 3}.
In addition, the quality of water in rivers, lakes, closed waters, etc. has been on an improving trend. In
some areas, marine waters have shown changes resulting from improved water quality, such as the
reduction in the number of red tides observed in the closed waters of the Seto Inland Sea from 172 times
in 1979 to 58 times in 2019 {Chapter II, Section 5}.

b.

Changes in the populations and distribution areas of living organisms inhabiting various
ecosystems indicate a trend of loss in biodiversity [insufficient amount of data] {Chapter II,
Sections 1-6}.
In forest ecosystems, due to increase in the distribution and population of Japanese sika deer (Cervus
nippon), the foraging pressure, treading pressure, etc. on understory vegetation have increased. This has
had a significant impact on the avifauna, as seen in reports that on the Odaigahara Plateau spanning acrossMie and Nara prefectures, there has been a decrease in species utilizing understory vegetation, such as
Japanese bush warblers (Horornis diphone), Siberian blue robins (Larvivora cyane), and Japanese robins(Luscinia akahige), while there has been an increase in red-bellied thrushes (Turdus chrysolaus), olivebacked pipits (Anthus hodgsoni), and other birds that prefer open spaces {Chapter II, Section 1}. There
have been suggestions that changes in agricultural ecosystems may also have had an impact on the13

1 In this assessment, the grounds (i.e., the amount of information) for the assessment are described for each of the messages under 1-A to 1-C that provide trend assessments.
The method of expressing the grounds (i.e., the amount of information) for assessment is shown in the Annex (p.40).
2 Chapters and sections between curly brackets indicate the chapters and sections in which the relevant information is provided in the detailed version of "2021 Report ofComprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan (JBO3)."

population of butterflies whose main habitat is Satochi-Satoyama, as well as on the population of inland
shorebirds that migrate through Japan {Chapter II, Section 2}. Furthermore, marine and coastal ecosystems
and island ecosystems have experienced not only a reduction of tidal flats and seagrass beds but also,
particularly over the past two decades, an ongoing reduction in scale and quality of coral caused bybleaching. The large-scale bleaching that occurred in 2016 resulted in a dramatic decrease in coral coveragein the Sekisei Lagoon, Okinawa. In terms of fishery resources used in fisheries, 44% of the fisheryresources in the waters around Japan have been rated at a low level {Chapter II, Section 5}. Urban
ecosystems have experienced an expansion of the distribution of white-eyes (Zosterops japonicus),starlings (Sturnus cineraceus), and other birds adapted to the urban environment, generating a concern
over simplification of biota caused by the remarkable expansion of the distribution of specific species{Chapter II, Section 3}.

c.

There are many endangered plant and animal species, with a long-term increase in extinction
risk particularly in freshwater ecosystems [based on a sufficient amount of data] {Chapter II,
Section 4 and Chapter IV, Section 1}
According to the 4th Version of the Japanese Red List (5th revised edition), 39% of mammals, 22% ofbirds, 57% of reptiles, 88% of amphibians, 61% of brackish and freshwater fish, and 31% of vascularplants assessed are either extinct or endangered. More than 50% of the listed vertebrates are species offreshwater ecosystems that spend all or part of their lives in freshwater. As for marine and coastal
ecosystems and island ecosystems, more than 200 endangered and near-threatened species are listed in the
Ministry of the Environment’s Red List of Marine Species published in 2017, which include an additionof more than 100 species to those listed in the Fisheries Agency’s Red Data Book published in 1998.

Grounds

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the numbers of species assessed in each class.
Source: Ministry of the Environment, 2020: Press release document titled "Publication of the Ministry of the Environment Red List 2020"(in Japanese), table of numbers of species listed in the Red List 2020.

Figure 3 Percentage of listed species and other assessed species in each taxonomic groupassessed in the Ministry of the Environment Red Listd.

Ecological connectivity is on a long-term declining trend in forest, farmland, and freshwater
ecosystems [insufficient amount of data] {Chapter II, Section 7}.
Forest ecosystems have experienced a decline in connectivity, particularly in plains, due to forest
fragmentation and isolation. In Shikoku, the population of Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus), which
need large forest areas to live in, has become isolated and their survival is under threat. As for agricultural
ecosystems, nationwide surveys suggest the possibility that the population of Japanese hares (Lepus
brachyurus) and martens (Martes melampus) has decreased, as these mammals are vulnerable to habitat
loss and fragmentation. With respect to freshwater ecosystems, it has been pointed out that living organisms
migrating upstream rivers may be prevented from traveling due to the ongoing fragmentation of rivers
caused by the construction of dams and weirs for flood control and irrigation purposes. There is also a
concern about a reduction in the connectivity of rivers in the transverse direction, because of the ongoing
lowering of the riverbed caused by the fixation of the water route (i.e., the deep line on the riverbed
through which water flows at all times), and because of the ongoing tree growth due to the developmentof sand banks {Chapter II, Section 7}.
14

Table 2 Indicators and assessment of biodiversity status

Note: Graphic symbols may not represent all of the multiple factors related to the indicators in question.
Note: Arrows surrounded by dotted lines indicate that data is insufficient to make quantitative assessment.

15

1-B. Status of Ecosystem Services
The ecosystem services we enjoy from nature have been on a deteriorating trend over the
past five decades.

a.

While our lives have been materially enriched, many of the provisioning services have decreased
over the past five decades, including particularly aquatic products which have shown aremarkable declining trend over the past two decades [based on a sufficient amount of data] {seeChapter III}.
Assessment of such provisioning services as food and timber needs to take into account the effects ofsocioeconomic conditions, such as changes in eating habits, and needs both supply and demand perspectives.
Japan’s self-sufficiency rates in food and other items are on a declining trend compared to 1970 in mostitems particularly due to an increase in imports from abroad which has been recognized as a drive from thedemand side, while timber and some other items have recovered to the level of the 1970s. On the other
hand, seen from the supply side, marine fisheries catch (excluding spotline sardine: Sardinops melanostictus)
decreased to around 50% of the peak-time level and that of inland water fisheries fell to around 20%,
showing significant reductions particularly over the past two decades. Agricultural and forestry production
has also decreased from peak times, whereas timber production has transitioned to an increasing trend in
the last two decades. Changes have occurred not only in production but also in product variety. The varietyof tree species produced in forestry has decreased by 40% over the past five decades. In addition, theregulating services related to water and soil, which play important roles in the production of food and otherresources, have also shown a deteriorating trend. While different regions have different trends, a comparisonof the amount of the national groundwater recharge between 1976 and 2009 reveals an 8% decrease. The
amount of soil erosion prevented has also shown a slightly decreasing trend {Chapter III, Section 1}.

b.

Grounds

While air and water pollution that affects our health has been significantly reduced over the
past five decades as a result of legal regulations and other measures, such regulating services
as cleaning of air and water provided by ecosystems have remained at the same level or decreased
over the past two decades [based on a sufficient amount of data] {Chapter III, Section 2}.
Japan used to face many environmental issues, including air pollution and heavy metal contamination,
but currently the indicators representing air and water pollution have significantly decreased as a result oflegal regulations and other measures in and after the 1970s. As for cleaning of air by ecosystems, on theother hand, the estimated absorption of air pollutants by plants remained at about the same level on anationwide basis when comparing between 2000 and 2010, while the absorption of greenhouse gases byforests, etc. has been decreasing since peaking in 2003. As for water purification, although the number ofanalyses is limited, a study that analyzed the absorption of nitrogen by ecosystems reported an approximately
7% decrease in services when comparing between 1991 and 2009 {Chapter III, Section 2}.

c.

Disaster risk reduction and other regulating services by natural ecosystems that are connectedto the safety and security of our lives have improved in some ecosystems over the past five
decades, but with different trends in different regions [insufficient amount of data] {Chapter III,
Section 3}.
The number of people affected by landslide disasters, which was on a decreasing trend from the 1970s
to the 1990s, has been increasing over the last two decades, due to such causes as an increase in heavy rain
events. Overall, the shallow landslides prevention service has remained at the same level or increased overthe past five decades. The soil erosion prevention service has remained at the same level over the last two
decades on a national basis. However, some geographical areas have seen a decline in the regulating
services, due to the decrease in farmland and forest land caused by such factors as the expansion of urban
areas. The flood control service provided by wetlands appears to be on a declining trend over the years dueto the significant decrease in the area of wetlands, although this also depends on what land use wetlands
are converted to {Chapter III, Section 3}.

16

d.

The cultural services, which are connected to cultures and lifestyles that have been formed in
our lives with nature, have decreased significantly with the changes in industrial structure andwith the depopulation and aging of rural areas caused by population migration to urban areas, thathave occurred over the past five decades [based on a sufficient amount of data] {Chapter III, Section
4}.
Continued urbanization has resulted in smaller areas for outdoor playing and fewer opportunities to haveexperiences in nature for children, as well as in a smaller number of shrines enshrining various gods thathave been built since olden times to express thanks and awe for the blessings of nature, and in fewer
reports of festivals for these gods. The level of diversity of mosaic-like landscapes has also decreased byaround 14% by national average over the past four decades, due to a decline of the number of persons
engaged in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, which has decreased to 16% of the level in 1960. On anationwide basis, Japan’s dietary cultures are becoming homogenized, with a significant decrease in thevolume of production, and in the number of persons engaged in the production, of traditional crafts. This
indicates an ongoing loss of region-based traditional knowledge to draw on the blessings from nature. As
for interaction with nature, the number of visitors to national parks has increased over the long term offifty years with an increase in the number of national parks, but the rate of participation in outdoor leisureactivities has been on a declining trend over the last two decades {Chapter III, Section 4}.

e.

Damage to agriculture, forestry and fisheries caused by wild animals and other negative impacts(disservices) wielded by ecosystems have become visible [based on a sufficient amount of data],
with increasing health risks caused by plants and animals, such as zoonosis [insufficient amount ofdata] {Chapter III, Section 5}.
As described above, ecosystems bring various blessings to our lives, while wielding negative impacts on
us. In Hilly and Mountainous Areas, reduced human activities have resulted in conflicts between humans
and wild animals. Human damage by bears has been on an increase since 2000, with an escalation of
feeding damage and bark damage on trees caused by Japanese sika deer as well as of damage to farm crops
caused by various animals. As for human health risks caused by plants and animals, there have beenreports of increases in pollen allergy caused by cedar and alien plants and in zoonosis deriving from wild
animals, with it having been pointed out that these risks have increased as a result of human disturbanceof the natural environment. On the other hand, we must note that ecosystem services and disservices are
two sides of the same coin, i.e., those damaging plants and animals provide ecosystem services at the sametime. For instance, Japanese sika deer causing feeding damage as mentioned above can also provide meat.

17

Table 3 Indicators and assessment of the status of ecosystem services

Grounds

Note: Overuse and underuse have been determined based also on results of the expert questionnaire survey conducted by JBO2.

Note: Graphic symbols may not represent all of the multiple factors related to the indicators in question.
Note: Arrows surrounded by dotted lines indicate that data is insufficient to make quantitative assessment.

18

1-C. Status of Direct Drivers
Of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss, impacts caused by human activity (the First Crisis),decline in human intervention (the Second Crisis), and things newly brought by humans (theThird Crisis) are not as pressing as before, but their impacts are still large. In addition, recent
years have seen more visible impacts of the Fourth Crisis associated with changes in the
global environment, such as global warming.

a.

The impact of the First Crisis (crisis caused by human activities, such as development) has
been very strong for the past five decades and has remained significant on a long-term basis[based on sufficient amount of data] {Chapter IV, Section 1}.
Since the period of high economic growth, changes in land use and rapid, large-scale development andconversion activities for irrigation, flood control, and other purposes have resulted in marked reduction insize and quality of highly natural forests, grasslands, farmlands, wetlands, tidal flats, etc., particularly
during the period between fifty and twenty years ago, with less than 20% of the total national land area
remaining covered by undisturbed vegetation. In terrestrial and coastal waters, continued revetment andstraightening of river streams and artificial embankment of lakeshores and seashores caused decreases innatural environments. On the other hand, the pressure exerted by development and conversion activities
has decreased over the last two decades as compared to the periods of high economic growth and the
bubble economy. For instance, the extraction of sea gravel decreased after peaking in around 1990 anddecreased to be stable over the latest decade. However, small-scale development and conversion activities
have still continued. Once an ecosystem is altered, its impact on ecosystems continues {Chapter IV,
Section 1}.

b.

The impact of the Second Crisis (crisis caused by decline in human intervention in nature) has
been strong in forest and agricultural ecosystems for the past five decades and has been
increasing on a long-term basis [based on sufficient amount of data] {Chapter IV, Section 2}.
In Satochi-Satoyama, where region-specific semi-natural environments have been formed throughhuman intervention, the use of these environments has decreased particularly due to the population decline
and changes in demand for agriculture and forestry over the past five decades, resulting in the approximate
tripling of the area of abandoned farmland in 2015 as compared to in 1975. There is also a concern about
disappearance of the mosaic patterns of Satochi-Satoyama environments, which consist of farmlands,
waterways/reservoirs, farm forests and other forests, and meadows, grazing lands, and other grasslands.
Reduced use and management of secondary forests have caused changes in species composition anddiversity. Deserted villages have negatively impacted the diversity of vascular plants and butterflies, which
adapted to the semi-natural environment. Reduced direct use of wild animals due to the drop in hunting
wild animals, caused by aging and decrease of hunters, may have been a factor in the increase in the
populations of Japanese sika deer and boars (Sus scrofa) in and after the 1990s. Although the number ofwild animals caught for wildlife damage prevention has increased over the past two decades, the excessive
increase in the number of wild animals has impacted vegetation and caused escalating damage to
agriculture, forestry and fisheries {Chapter IV, Section 2}.

c.

The impact of the Third Crisis (crisis caused by things brought by humans) has been verystrong for the past five decades, particularly as a result of the introduction and establishmentof alien species, and has been increasing on a long-term basis [based on sufficient amount of data]{Chapter IV, Section 3}.
Some alien species have, as a result of marked expansion of their distribution, been significantly affected
native species. Alien species contributed to the loss of all analyzed reptile species by 70%, and of othervertebrates by 30%. Eutrophication of waters has been improving since the mid-1980s. Its effect has also
become smaller, as seen in the reduction in the red tide frequency observed in the Seto Inland Sea. As forchemical substances, while detection levels of major pollutants in fish have been on a long-term decreasing
trend, some reports suggested the reduction of dragonflies and other insects possibly because of systemic
insecticides. Although not supported by sufficient data, recent years have seen a global concern over the19effect of marine plastic waste, including microplastics, on ecosystems. Other concerns include the impact
of infectious diseases on natural ecosystems, as seen in the detection of highly pathogenic avian influenza
virus in hooded cranes (Grus monacha), a rare species, as well as the mass mortality of the wild type carp
(Cyprinus carpio, an endangered regional population) found in Lake Biwa caused by a virus. We must
continue to watch these events closely {Chapter IV, Section 3}.

d.

The impact of the Fourth Crisis (crisis caused by global environment change, such as warming)has become visible as a driver of biodiversity loss in the past five decades [based on sufficientamount of data] {Chapter IV, Section 4}.
While carbon dioxide emissions in Japan have been decreasing continuously since 2013, the averagetemperature in Japan has increased at the rate of 1.26oC per century, with the number of days with heavy
rain having increased. The increases in sea surface temperature along the coasts of Japan and the continuing
acidification of oceans are also observed. Such effects of climate change as reduction in the size andquality of ecosystems have become visible particularly over the last two decades. The effects of theincrease in temperature on ecosystems have been indicated for the reduction of the number of alpine plantcommunities since the 1970s, the northward extension of the distribution of alien bamboo species (Mosobamboo and Japanese timber bamboo) over the last three decades, and the increase in the number ofsouthern butterflies to the northern areas. Furthermore, the coral bleaching occurring in Sekisei Lagoon,
Okinawa and elsewhere has been caused in part by increased water temperature, along with a concern
over the effects of marine acidification and deoxygenation associated with climate change {Chapter IV,
Section 3}.

Grounds

20

The drivers of loss of the populations of endangered species are roughly classified into “development,” “water pollution,” “exploitation,”“succession,” and “alien (or introduced) species.” The above graphs show the proportions of species associated with these drivers of loss
to all endangered species (since two or more drivers may be associated with one species, the total does not come to 100%).
Note 1: Including logging of forests, river, marsh and grassland development, construction of golf courses and ski resorts, land development, road work, dam construction, etc.
Note 2: Including marine pollution, runoff of herbicides, deterioration of water quality, etc.
Note 3: Including extermination, excessive hunting, set net fishery, capture, overexploitation, etc.
Note 4: Including succession, changes in vegetation, changes in the intracavity environment, inbreeding, etc.
Note 5: Including predation by, or competition with, or zoonosis caused by, alien species.
Sources: Based on Ministry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 1, Mammalia, Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese);
Ministry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 2, Aves, Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese);
Ministry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 3, Reptilla/Amphibia, Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese);
Ministry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 4, Pisces -- brackish and fresh water fishes, Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese);
Ministry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 5, Insecta), Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese); andMinistry of the Environment, 2014: Red Data Book 2014: Threatened Wildlife of Japan, Volume 8, Plants I, Gyosei Corporation (in Japanese).

Figure 4: Drivers of loss in the number of endangered species by biological classes

21

Table 4 Indicators and assessment of drivers of biodiversity loss

Grounds

Note: Graphic symbols may not represent all of the multiple factors related to the indicators in question.
Note: Arrows surrounded by dotted lines indicate that data is insufficient to make quantitative assessment.

22

1-D. Countermeasures against the Loss of Biodiversity and the Deterioration of Ecosystem Services
Japan has thus promoted establishing and/or enhancing laws, institutions, etc. as
countermeasures against the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystem services.
In particular, recent years have seen various countermeasures taken against the four crises
under the NBSAP, with regional level efforts also being promoted under LBSAP.

a.

Countermeasures against the First Crisis (crisis caused by human activities, such as
development) include promotion and long-term improvement of such measures as expansionof protected areas, regulations on exploitation under the Act for the Conservation of Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and other laws, and protection and reproduction of endangered
species {Chapter V, Section 1}.
The protected areas designated under the Nature Conservation Act, the Natural Parks Act, and other laws
and regulations have increased on a long-term basis, up to 20.5% of the terrestrial and inland water areasat present. As for coastal and marine areas, 13.3% has been designated as protected areas, creating a new
marine protected area system. Regarding the regulations on capturing and collecting rare species and theimplementation of programs for their protection and reproduction, the exploitation of rare species has been
regulated. The measures through legal regulations have also been improved, enacting the Act for theConservation of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in 1992, with the designation of 395 species
as nationally endangered species by January 2021. From the viewpoint of securing the connectivity ofhabitats of living organisms, the “Green Corridor” project for nationally owned forests and the “Water andGreenery Network” project for cities have been underway. In addition, from around 2010, the concept of
biodiversity offsetting has attracted attention, which is the theory that the impact of development on
biodiversity can be offset by compensatory action to achieve the same or a better level of biodiversity. In
recent years, efforts by local governments and individual businesses have been underway, such as the“Aichi Mitigation” project of the Aichi prefectural government and the development of regional biodiversity
strategies. In addition, the procedures under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act enacted in 1997
have been improved to include the procedure of a “document on preliminary environment impact
consideration,” which is intended to avoid or reduce environmental impact at the planning stage of the
project. This has contributed to give appropriate consideration at an earlier stage of the project {Chapter
V, Section 1}.

Source: Based on Ministry of the Environment, 1960-2019: Various data on natural conservation (in Japanese);and Forestry Agency, 1960-2019: Statistics on national forest projects (In Japanese).

Figure 5 Changes in the areas of major protected areasb.

Countermeasures against the Second Crisis (crisis caused by decline in human intervention innature) include enhancement of wildlife protection and management, and promotion of theconservation and restoration of Satochi-Satoyama and the protection of rare plants and animals{Chapter V, Section 1}.
In order to reduce or resolve the issue of conflicts between people and wildlife, such as damage to
agriculture and forestry caused by wildlife, the Wildlife Protection and Proper Hunting Law was amended
in 2014, by which the “control” of birds and mammals was added to the purpose of the law to ensure
further promotion of the capturing of birds and animals. The title of the law was also changed to the“Protection and Control of Wild Birds and Mammals and Hunting Management Law” (Wildlife Protectionand Hunting Management Law). The control of birds and animals has been enhanced drastically particularly
23

after 2000, by such means as setting up projects for capturing certain species of animals (i.e., Japanese sika
deer and boars) from overgrown populations, mainly under the auspices of prefectural governments.
To promote the activities by various actors for conservation, Important Satochi-Satoyama Areas were
designated. Other measures include the promotion of agricultural activities that are highly effective on
biodiversity conservation, etc. (such as organic farming), as well as support through a direct payment
scheme, etc. to activities to maintain and fulfill the multifaceted functions of agriculture and agriculturalcommunities (which correspond to regulating and cultural services). Recent years have seen efforts forconservation and utilization made by various actors, including ecotourism, green tourism, dual residence(a lifestyle in which a person has a second living base other than their main one), agriculture, forestry andfishery considering regional biodiversity, conservation of regional and traditional vegetables as genetic
resources; and efforts for production and consumption at the local scale. {Chapter V, Section 1}.

c.

Countermeasures against the Third Crisis (crisis caused by things brought by humans) include
enhancement of the import regulations on, and prevention and control of alien species, andenhancement of the regulations on chemical substances {Chapter V, Section 1}.

Grounds

In 2004, the Act on the Prevention of Adverse Ecological Impacts Caused by Designated Invasive Alien
Species (Invasive Alien Species Act) was enacted. This act was later amended in 2013 to enhance themeasures. As of 2020, 156 species and 54 species have been designated as Designated Invasive Alien
Species and Unevaluated Alien Species, respectively. The measures to prevent and control alien species
have been enhanced particularly since 2000, creating the “Invasive Alien Species Control Action Plan” in2015, which contains action guidelines for various entities, and the “The List of Alien Species that May
Pose Risks to Ecosystems in Japan” (containing 429 species), as a tool for calling for appropriate action.
As for regulations on the manufacture, import, and use of chemical substances, the Act on the Evaluationof Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture, etc. (the Chemical Substance Evaluation
Act), which was enacted in 1973 from the viewpoint of the effects of chemical substances on humanhealth, was amended in 2003 to give consideration also to the effects on plants and animals. Further, the2009 amendment extended the scope of risk assessment and management to all general chemical
substances, including existing ones. In 2017, the Ballast Water Management Convention took effect,
which is intended to prevent transport of organisms between different marine areas through ballast water(water taken and discharged in different marine areas in order to keep the balance of ships). Under theconvention, efforts to conserve marine environments have been underway {Chapter V, Section 1}.

d.

Countermeasures against the Fourth Crisis (crisis caused by changes in the global environment) include
assessment and monitoring of the impact of climate change on ecosystems, and consideration of measures
to deal with the impact expected to occur in the future {Chapter V, Section 1}.
In July 2015, the “Basic Concept to Climate Change Adaptation on Biodiversity in Japan” was compiled.
Based on the “National Plan for Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Change,” which was approved by
the Cabinet in November of the same year, improvements have been made in monitoring activities to moreaccurately detect changes in ecosystems, species distributions, etc. caused by climate change, andadaptation measures have been considered. In 2018, the legal mechanism for promoting adaptation
measures was put in place by the enforcement of the Climate Change Adaptation Act. The Climate Change
Adaptation Plan was approved by the Cabinet under this act. In addition, the “Manual for Developing
Local Climate Change Adaptation Plan” was published to promote the development of local climatechange adaptation plans by local governments, which has resulted in the development of these plans by 53
local governments so far. These efforts have been further improved by the preparation of “A Guide toConsideration of Climate Change Adaptation Measures in National Parks and Other Protected Areas” in
2019. In addition, the Climate Change Adaptation Information Platform (A-PLAT), a website operated by
the Center for Climate Change Adaptation of the National Institute for Environmental Studies, publishes
information on climate change adaptation in an easy-to-understand manner, as an information platform tosupport efforts for adaptation activities by various entities {Chapter V, Section 1}.

24

Table 5 Indicators and assessment of countermeasures

Note: Graphic symbols may not represent all of the multiple factors related to the indicators in question.

1-E. Future Trends in Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
With the recent progress of scenario-based research, it is gradually becoming clear how
Japan's biodiversity and ecosystem services will change in the future. It has been pointed
out that while climate change may bring major changes in the status of biodiversity, changes
in the socioeconomic conditions will also affect future biodiversity and ecosystem services
in Japan.

a.

Climate change, if it goes on as is, is anticipated not only to threaten people’s health, safety andsecurity, and economic activities, but also to cause significant damage to biodiversity {Chapter
VI, Section 1}.
It has been suggested that in terrestrial areas, climate change will significantly affect vegetation, as
seen in the northward extension of the distribution of such alien species as Moso bamboo and Japanesetimber bamboo, and in the decrease of dwarf stone pines (Pinus pumila) and Veitch’s fir (Abies veitchii)in alpine and subalpine zones, etc. In
freshwater ecosystems, climate change willcause considerable decrease in the habitatsof mountain stream fish species,
Whitespotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis)
and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma). It has
also been suggested that in marine areas,
global warming will cause about six of theeleven Laminaria species living in Japan todisappear from coastal areas around Japan,
and that there may no longer be any area
available for coral growth around Japan.
Urban compactification: Population will further concentrate in inner urban areas andFurthermore, climate change may also
city centers
Dispersed population: Population will disperse more into suburbs and hilly andaffect regulating services provided by coral
mountainous areas.
Natural capital basis:
Domestic natural capital (such as forests) is actively used.
reefs, such as disaster risk reduction, as well
Produced capital basis: Foreign natural capital and produced capital (such as concrete)
as cultural services such as recreational
are actively used.
Source: PANCES, 2020: Policy Brief No. 1, Future Scenarios and Integrated Model ofactivities related to natural ecosystems
Social-Ecological Systems on National and Regional Scales.
{Chapter VI, Section 1}.
Figure 6 Four national-scale future scenarios

25

b.

It has been pointed out that changes in the socioeconomic conditions will affect future
biodiversity and ecosystem services in Japan {Chapter VI, Section 2}.

A study that evaluated the impact on butterflies’ diversity reveals that the size of the impact depends on
the scenarios of population distributions in the area, suggesting that dispersed human population can
mitigate negative effects. Furthermore, the Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem
Services (PANCES) project, supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund
(S-15), created four future scenarios based on two drivers for scenario axes that may significantly change
Japan’s future up to 2050, namely population distribution (compact vs. dispersed) and actively utilized
capital (natural capital vs. produced capital). The project suggests that depending on our choices from theabove, Japan’s future biodiversity and ecosystem services may change significantly. For instance, paddyrice supply is forecasted to decrease particularly significantly under the produced capital scenario. Spinach(Spinacia oleracea) supply is forecasted to increase on a nationwide basis under the natural capitalscenario, while it is forecasted to decrease under the produced capital scenario due to reduced productivity
if the climate change effects are included. The distribution of Japanese sika deer is estimated to overlap
with farmlands to a greater extent under the dispersed population scenario. Furthermore, if land use,
depopulation, and changes in consumption behavior are taken into accounts, the natural capital-based
dispersed society scenario produces more communities whose supply and demand of rice production, etc.
are balanced than does the produced capital-based compact society scenario {Chapter VI, Section 2}.

c.

It has been pointed out that in each region, changes in the socioeconomic conditions affect thestatus of biodiversity and ecosystem services {Chapter IV, Section 2}.

Grounds

According to a future projection of the status in Sado city, Niigata in 2050 performed using the regional
scale participatory scenario, the agriculture-focused scenario is forecasted to produce high overall
ecosystem services. Another forecast of the status in the Noto Peninsula suggests that future land use andthe future status of ecosystem services and biodiversity may change significantly depending on whether
or not domestic natural capital is actively used. Still another forecast of the status in the Bekanbe-ushi
River basin suggests that while population distribution affects the spatial distribution of abandoned grazing
lands and the connectivity of managed grazing lands, ecosystem services are significantly affected by our
choice between natural capital and produced capital. These research results suggest that the conservationof biodiversity and the continuous enjoyment of ecosystem services require not only the existing measures
aimed at conserving the natural environment but also measures of varying scale involving how people
should act and the way society should be {Chapter VI, Section 2}.

26

1-F. Outcomes and Challenges of Past Efforts
Although the rate of biodiversity loss in Japan has been slowed down over in recent decades,
the loss in the past has not yet been recovered. It is necessary to further strengthen existing
efforts while starting additional efforts. For that purpose, it is important not only to takecountermeasures against the direct drivers of biodiversity loss but also to take comprehensive
countermeasures to change the way society isa.

Japan’s efforts have been steadily producing successful results in some individual species andregions {Chapter II, Section 2, Chapter V, Section 1, and Chapter VII, Sections 1 and 2}.

For instance, the reintroduction programs for Japanese crested ibis and oriental storks have resulted insteady growth of the wild populations of these species, which were once deemed extinct {Chapter II,
Section 2}. The confirmed populations of some other rare species, such as Amami rabbit (Pentalagus
furnessi) and cackling goose (Branta hutchinsii), have also been growing in recent years {Chapter V,
Section 1}. As for alien species, reports have confirmed a decrease in growth area of alien waterweeds in
Lake Biwa, such as large-flower primrose-willow (Ludwigia grandiflora), as well as a decrease in thenumber of small Indian mongooses (Herpestes auropunctatus) living on Amami-Oshima Island {Chapter
V, Section 1}.

b.

In some individual ecosystems, the biodiversity loss may have been mitigated, but it has not yet
become a recovering situation {Chapters II, III and IV, and Chapter VII, Section 2}.

Although changes in the status of biodiversity over the past five decades are assessed as “Losing” or“Losing rapidly” in terms of the scale and quality of forest and freshwater ecosystems and the populationand distribution of species inhabiting urban ecosystems, these deteriorating trends have now been mitigatedin some ecosystems. However, a comparison between the trends in the last decade and those at present
reveals that in none of the ecosystems has the loss transitioned to recovery, with no observed changes inthe direct drivers of loss {Chapters II and IV and Chapter VII, Section 2}.

c.

In order to bring the status of biodiversity from a “Same” or “Losing” trend towards“Recovering,” we must not only enhance the efforts that have proven effective but also develop
measures from fresh perspectives {Chapter VII, Section 2}.
It is an important perspective to restore the integrity of ecosystems in order to allow them to withstandfuture climate change as well as depopulation and other changes in the social conditions. Examples ofefforts from this perspective include: steadily promoting the national and local governments’ conservation
and restoration of important areas and protection and reproduction of rare animals and plants, as well as
these governments’ countermeasures against alien species; and developing ecosystem networks through“other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECM), a newly proposed area-based conservation
scheme. In making these efforts, it is also important to introduce the perspective of adaptation to climatechange, whose impact is considered to further escalate in the future. Other potentially effective efforts
include expanding measures that combine biodiversity conservation and the resolution of social issues in
an integrated manner, such as: ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) and other efforts toutilize various regulating services available from ecosystems; and efforts to promote regional revitalization
through sustainable use of resources while conserving Satoyama {Chapter VII, Section 2}.

d.

Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot be achieved separately from thesocioeconomic conditions (i.e., indirect drivers). It is thus urgent to implement measuresconsidering those conditions {Chapters II and IV, and Chapter VII, Section 2}.
It is likely to be difficult to bring the status of Japan’s biodiversity towards recovery solely bycountermeasures against the four crises (direct drivers), because no significant changes have been seen in
the status of Japan’s biodiversity during the past decade, and because the drivers of loss have not been
remedied as compared to a decade ago. In particular, the underuse of ecosystem services, which is strongly27related to the Second Crisis, has been affected significantly by changes in society, including lifestylechanges. In addition, many of the trends in the status of biodiversity and in the drivers of biodiversity loss
have changed since some time after the bubble collapse around 1990 {Chapters II and IV}. This suggeststhat the bubble collapse, which is a change in society, had a strong impact on the status of biodiversity. It
is therefore considered essential to generate transformative change through comprehensive measures,
including acting on indirect drivers, in order to bring the status of Japan’s biodiversity to recovery {Chapter
VII, Section 2}.

Grounds

28

Table 6 Assessment of the Status of Biodiversity

Note 1: Categorized under forest ecosystems in JBO and JBO2.
Note 2: Categorized under freshwater ecosystems in JBO and JBO2.

29

Table 7 Assessment of Status of Ecosystem Services

Grounds

30

Table 8 Assessment of Drivers of Biodiversity Loss

Note 1: As “direct use of wildlife” was categorized under the First Crisis in JBO, this item is excluded from comparison in this table.
Note 2: Categorized under the First Crisis in JBO and JBO2.
Note 3: A new assessment item added to JBO3.

31

Grounds 2

Japan Biodiversit y Outlook 3

To halt the loss of biodiversity and to reverse the trend to a recovering one, it is important togenerate transformative change intervening against the indirect drivers, as well as taking measuresagainst the direct drivers.

2-A. Socioeconomic Conditions (Indirect Drivers) and Approaches to Countermeasures
In Japan, the past five decades have seen significant changes in socioeconomic conditions(i.e., indirect drivers) and economic development, while these changes had great impacts on
biodiversity through the direct drivers. The relationships between the direct drivers, indirectdrivers, and leverage points are complicated. Countermeasures against such indirect drivers
as “changes in industrial structure” and “production and consumption” are expected to
produce a wide range of effects, while countermeasures against such indirect drivers as“global trading of goods” and “energy use” may be significantly effective in remedying somespecific direct drivers. In order to generate transformative change, it is important to implement
combining measures which act on more.

a.

In order to halt the loss of biodiversity and the deterioration of ecosystem services in Japan, it
is essential to generate transformative change, which fundamentally changes the socioeconomic
conditions (i.e., indirect drivers) underlying the four crises (i.e., direct drivers) affecting biodiversity.
To change the indirect drivers, it is effective to focus on “leverage points” that maximize the effectsof measures {Chapter III, Section 1}.

Grounds

The indirect drivers of biodiversity loss in Japan can be classified roughly into the following four types:“changes related to the population”; “changes related to the economy”; “changes related to institutions andgovernance”; and “changes in values and behavior,” which further underlie these indirect drivers. To
intervene against the indirect drivers, it is considered effective to make efforts through “leverage points,”
through which transformative change is generated. These efforts are important not only to restore
biodiversity but also to resolve a wide range of social issues, such as the achievement of the SDGs. The
IPBES Global Assessment Report lists eight leverage points that are effective to make transformativechanges (Figure 7). However, knowledge accumulated about the interconnections between the directdrivers, or indirect drivers and leverage points are still limited. In this report, a questionnaire survey was
conducted on experts, through over forty relevant academic societies and similar institutions, regarding
the relationship between the direct drivers and indirect drivers, which lead to biodiversity loss, and thatbetween the indirect drivers and leverage points, followed by an analysis of expert judgments3 {Chapter
VIII, Section 1}.

b.

The results of the questionnaire survey on experts suggest that the direct drivers, indirectdrivers, and leverage points have intricately intertwined relationships with each other, without
any leverage point that would provide a universal solution. The survey results also clearly show that,while there are certain indirect drivers each affecting more than one direct driver and certain
leverage points acting on more than one indirect driver, there are certain indirect drivers eachstrongly related to a specific direct driver. In order to bring Japan’s biodiversity towards recovery,
it is important to take comprehensive action by combining measures that act on these effective
leverage points {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.
A flow diagram quantitatively representing the questionnaire survey results (Figure 8) indicates that
there are extremely complicated interconnections between the direct and indirect drivers, with each directdriver being affected by a variety of indirect drivers at varying levels. This is also the case with theleverage points, each of which is shown to have connections with all direct drivers. At the same time, thediagram suggests that there are certain indirect drivers each affecting more than one direct driver andcertain leverage points broadly acting on more than one indirect driver, and that there are certain indirectdrivers strongly affecting a specific direct driver. In other words, transformative change is achieved not32through implementing measures each targeting any one leverage point but through implementing a
combination of measures each acting on more than one leverage point, in order to address indirect drivers
affecting a number of direct drivers or strongly affecting a specific direct driver {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

In orde r to promote transfor mativechange efficiently and effectively, it isnecessar y to find effective leverage
points for each indirect driver (andconnect these leverage points to eachindirect driver).

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

LEVERAGE POINTS

Overview of leverage points

Practical examples of efforts targeting leverage points

1

Embrace diverse visions of agood life

Value not only a sense of well-being rooted in material
consumption or economic wealth but also a wide
variety of good lives, such as good quality of humanrelationships or harmony with nature.

Simple life, LOHAS, use and provision of convenient,
comfortable public transport, etc.

2

Reduce consumption and
waste

Reduce total consumption and waste by changing
consumption patterns.

Reducing meat consumption and food waste, reducing
advertising targeting children and advertising ofenvironmentally burdensome products, local
production for local consumption, sharing economy,etc.

Unleash values and action

Promote a sense of responsibility and action for natureand non-human living things by creating social norms
that contribute to sustainable action.

Choosing seafood products with MSC eco-labels(MSC certification), paper and timber products with
forest certification (FSC, PEFC or SGEC certification)
marks, organic food products, sustainable services,etc.

4Reduce inequalities

Reduce social inequalities, etc. in and acrosscountries, including in terms of income, access toresources, burden arising from climate change, etc.

Providing equal social services to all people,
guaranteeing basic income, developing payment
schemes based on the benefit principle (such as
payment for ecosystem services, water resources tax,
and carbon pricing), etc.

5Practice justice andinclusion in conservation

Allow equal participation of various stakeholders,
including local communities, in decision-making
processes.

Decision-making systems that allow all stakeholders toparticipate (open governance, partnershipdevelopment), etc.

6Internalize externalities andtelecouplings

Include negative effects of commodity production anddistribution on the environment and society as costs.

Developing distribution regulation for materials andproducts with harmful effects on nature, such as illegal
timber, certification systems and traceability ones

7

Ensure environmentallyfriendly technology,
innovation and investment

Developing and funding low-carbon technologies,
Promote innovation of environmentally friendly
green infrastructure and low-pesticide agriculture,technology and its use and the realization of alternativesocial businesses, industry-government-academia
financial mechanisms.
collaboration, ESG investing, etc.

8

Promote education andknowledge generation andsharing3

Promote education and the production and sharing of
knowledge, including social learning.

Providing opportunities and platforms for children’s
participation in nature experience activities andcross-generation interaction activities, handing down
and utilizing traditional knowledge through communingwith local culture, etc. and environmental and civic
education, etc.

Note 1:

Examples include additional information based on expert opinions. One should note that a practical example does not necessarily
correspond to a leverage point on a one-to-one basis but may be related to more than one leverage point.
Note 2: Abbreviations used in the above table are as follows. For ESG investing, see the glossary.
MSC:
Marine Stewardship Council, FSC: Forest Stewardship Council,
PEFC:
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes. SGEC: Sustainable Green Ecosystem Council
Sources: Based on IPBES, 2019: Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Abridged translation by IGES; andChan et al., 2020: Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability.

Figure 7 Transformative change towards a society in harmony with nature
3 One hundred fourteen respondents answered the questionnaire. One must note, among other things: that answers may be biased because each respondent’s interpretation of,and view on the relationship between, the direct drivers, indirect drivers, and leverage points depend heavily on the respondent’s specialty, amount of knowledge, etc.; those
judgments are based on current knowledge; and that the indirect drivers under survey have different natures and include links between different drivers.

33

Grounds

Note: The size of each of the boxes representing the indirect drivers and leverage points indicates the strength of the indirect driver’s or leverage point’s relation to
the direct drivers as a whole. The colors correspond respectively to direct drivers D1-D8. The respective proportions for which the colors account in a box
representing an indirect director or leverage point indicates the strength of the indirect driver’s or leverage point’s relation to the respective direct drivers.

Figure 8 Interconnections between direct drivers, indirect drivers and leverage points

34

c.

Indirect drivers recognized by survey respondents as affecting a number of direct drivers
included “Changes in industrial structure (I16)4,” “People’s interest in nature (I1),” and“Production and consumption (I17).” Leverage points recognized by survey respondents as related
to a relatively large number of direct drivers included “Embrace diverse visions of a good life (L1),”“Reduce total consumption and waste (L2),” “Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment (L7),” and “Promote education and knowledge generation and sharing(L8)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.
Japan’s working population by industry experienced significant “Changes in industrial structure (I16),”
with the primary industry population rate decreasing from approximately 19% in the 1970s to approximately
4% in 2015 while the corresponding rates for the tertiary industry increased from approximately 47% toapproximately 71%. The eight leverage points are broadly involved in these changes, which requires acomplex approach. Public opinion polls conducted by the Cabinet Office have revealed a change in“People’s interest in nature (I1),” namely the proportion of respondents who answered “We should givepriority to/promote conservation of environments inhabitable by ... living organisms” has decreased since2006. For this issue, “Promot[ing] education and knowledge generation and sharing (L8)” will serve as aneffective leverage point. There have also been changes in “Production and consumption (I17)” in Japan,
as seen in the declining trend in consumption expenditure per household since 2000 and in the increasing
trend in real final consumption expenditure of households since 1994 after the bubble collapse, althoughreal final consumption expenditure of households has remained at the same level over the past several
years. For this issue, “Reduc[ing] total consumption and waste (L2)” was considered an effective leverage
point {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

d.

Major indirect drivers of the First Crisis, “Development, conversion of ecosystems (D1),”
recognized by survey respondents were “People’s interest in nature (I1),” “Economic conditions(I13),” and “Changes in industrial structure (I16)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.
Even after the period of high economic growth came to an end in the first half of the 1970s, Japan’s real
GDP growth rate fluctuated between annual rates of 3% and 6% until the bubble collapse in the first halfof the 1990s. While land use changed significantly due to the development of social infrastructure as afoundation for economic growth, resulting in significant improvements in traffic convenience and disasterprevention functions, many ecosystems experienced development/conversion. During the period of higheconomic growth, the expansion of secondary industries, particularly the manufacturing industry, resulted
in the formation of industrial zones in oceanfront and inland areas, with coastal areas undergoing extensive
landfill. People’s interest in nature would be a condition which ensures that appropriate consideration is
given in these infrastructure development projects. Leverage points recognized by survey respondents asstrongly related to economic conditions were “Reduce total consumption and waste (L2)” and “Reduce
inequalities (L4)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

e.

Of the components of the Second Crisis, “Reduced use and management of Satochi-Satoyama(D2)” was recognized as relatively strongly related to changes in social structure, such as“Changes in industrial structure (I16)” and “Human population dynamics (I9), whereas the othercomponent, “Reduced direct use of wildlife,” was recognized as strongly related to “Changes ineating habits (I6)” and “Production and consumption (I17).” The survey also revealed that “Reduced
use and management of Satochi-Satoyama (D2)” is strongly related to indirect drivers involved inlocal socioeconomic conditions, such as “People’s interest in their community (I2)” and “Residential
population (I10)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.
Through the reduced number of primary industry workers resulting from changes in the industrial
structure, reduced use and management of Satochi-Satoyama has resulted in reduced quality of managementof secondary nature, causing deterioration of ecosystems. From the viewpoint of human population
dynamics, the population decrease from the mid-2000s was coupled with the net positive flow of people
from rural areas to the three major metropolitan areas, with the exception of a brief period in the first halfof the 1990s. This has triggered the decline of rural areas, where relatively more people are engaged in the
primary industry. With respect to such indirect drivers as “People’s interest in their community,” “Human
4 Codes D, I, and L in the text are initial letters of the terms “direct driver,” “indirect driver,” and “leverage point,” respectively. The numbers in the text correspond to the numbers
assigned in the table of Figure 7.

35

population dynamics,” and “Residential population,” “Embrace diverse visions of a good life (L1)” wasrecognized as a strongly related leverage point.
“Reduced direct use of wildlife” is related to the indirect driver, “Changes in eating habits.” Although
the long-term trend in Japan’s consumption of wildlife as meat is unknown, as it now stands, most of theanimal protein consumed in Japan comes from beef, pork, and chicken, which are available for mass
production. In addition, approximately 6.1 million to 6.5 million tons of food waste is generated per year
in Japan. These circumstances suggest that under the current mass production systems, food is in excess
supply, which has created a situation where people are less prone to turn their interest toward wildlife as
resources. Although it is said that wildlife has been consumed as game meat more often than before in
recent years, only 110 thousand out of 1.16 million Japanese deer (Cervus nippon) and boars (Sus scrofa)
caught by hunting, harmful wildlife control, etc. were consumed as game meat (in FY2018). In addition,
while the domestic meat production was approximately 3.4 million tons, the game meat consumption was
only 1,887 tons (approximately 0.06%) (FY2018). In this regard, the leverage point of “Reduc[ing] total
consumption and waste (L2)” is recognized as effective on “Changes in eating habits” {Chapter VIII,
Section 2}.

f.

Of the components of the Third Crisis, “introduction and establishment of alien species (D4)” isparticularly strongly related to “Global movements of things (I22)” and “Global movements ofpeople (I23). On the other hand, “Eutrophication (D5)” and “Chemical substances (D6)” arecharacterized by their strong relations to “Primary industry-related technologies (I19)” and “Nonprimary industry-related technologies (I20), as well as to “Changes in industrial structure (I16)”
and “Production and consumption (I17)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

Grounds“Introduction and establishment of alien species” is likely to be very significantly affected by globalization
as a social change. The amount of import cargo handled at Japanese ports roughly doubled from 1970 to
2018. Imported materials and ballast water are one of the introduction pathways of alien species in Japan.
As for relations to leverage points, “Global movements of things” was shown to be relatively strongly
related to “Reduc[ing] total consumption and waste (L2)” and “Internaliz[ing] externalities andtelecouplings (L6),” while “Global movements of people” was shown to be so to “Embrac[ing] diverse
visions of a good life (L1).”
The factors of “Eutrophication” and “Chemical substances” include the increased use of chemicalfertilizers and pesticides in the 1970s in the primary industry, and factory wastewater, etc. in otherindustries. To deal with these issues, the improvement of wastewater treatment technology has played an
important role, in addition to legal regulations and other measures. “Primary industry-related technologies”
and “Non-primary industry-related technologies” were both recognized as strongly related to “Ensur[ing]environmentally friendly technology, innovation and investment (L7)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

g.

The components of the Fourth Crisis, “Changes in the global environment (D7)” and “Global
warming (D8),” were both recognized as particularly strongly related to “Energy use (I21)”
and “National-level institutions and governance (I27),” in addition to “Changes in industrial
structure (I16)” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.
Japan’s domestic production of primary energy increased 1.6-fold in 2018 as compared to that in 1970.
As Japan relies heavily on fossil fuels to supply primary energy, Japan accounted for approximately 3.2%of the global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2018. An analysis of Japan’s energy consumption
by sector reveals that the industrial sector, particularly the manufacturing industry, accounts for a large
proportion of the total consumption, suggesting that the growth of the secondary industry during theperiod of high economic growth is partially responsible for the increase in Japan’s energy consumption.
The leverage point of “Ensur[ing] environmentally friendly technology, innovation and investment (L7)”
was recognized as strongly related to “Energy use,” indicating that national-level investments, technicalinnovation, etc. are required to promote the introduction of renewable energy. To this end, it is important
to make national-level decisions, such as those on the development of legal systems and on budgetarymeasures. This underlies survey respondents’ recognition that these direct drivers are particularly strongly
related to “National-level institutions and governance” {Chapter VIII, Section 2}.

36Sources:
A: Cabinet Office, 2014: 2014 Public opinion poll on environmental issues.
B: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 1970 - 2015: Chronological Data on National Census Results.
C: Cabinet Office, 1994 - 2019: National Economic Accounting.
D: Website of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry: FY2019 Annual Report on Energy (Japan’s Energy White Paper 2020).
E: Website of The Ports & Harbours Association of Japan, “Information on port logistics” Changes in amount of cargo handled at ports across Japan. (in Japanese)

Figure 9 Chronological changes in representative indirect drivers37

2-B. Status of Implementation of Measures Contributing to Transformative Change
Previous efforts for biodiversity have not fully focused on appropriate leverage points
towards transformative change. In order to realize a society living in harmony with nature, itis essential to promote transformative change by implementing appropriate measuresthrough leverage points that are considered to be particularly effective on indirect drivers.

a.

In order to achieve transformative change efficiently and effectively, it is necessary to implement
measures through leverage points that are considered effective on particularly influential
indirect drivers {Chapter IX}.
A review of the NBSAP has suggested that previous measures were insufficient to promote transformativechange (see Table 9). On the other hand, since measures that are able to contribute to transformativechange already exist in the context of regional revitalization and the SDGs, it is advisable to ensure thatthe upcoming version of NBSAP will increase the synergy by linking its measures with those existingmeasures and will implement new necessary measures {Chapter IX}.
Table 9 Interconnections between direct drivers, indirect drivers and leverage points, andstatus of implementation of measures
Effective leverage points

Status of
implementation of
measures under
NBSAP

First

econd

Third

Promote education and knowledge generationand sharing

〇

〇

〇

〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life

×

〇

〇

〇

Reduce total consumption and waste△〇

Promote education and knowledge generationand sharing△〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life

×〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life△〇

Reduce inequalities△〇

Promote education and knowledge generationand sharing△

Reduce total consumption and waste△〇

Reduce inequalities△〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life

×〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life

△

〇

〇

〇

〇

Reduce total consumption and waste

△

〇

〇

〇

〇

Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment

△

〇

〇

〇

〇

Production andconsumption [4th]Reduce total consumption and waste

△

〇

〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life

〇

〇

〇

Primary industry-related
technologies

Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment

Non-primary industryrelated technologies

Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment

Indirect measures targeted fortransformative change

Changes invalues andbehavior

Changes ineating habits

Human population
dynamics

Economic conditions

Changes
in industrial structure[1st]Changes
related toeconomic
activities

Globalmovements ofthings[5th]△

Legend〇△×

National-levelinstitutions andgovernance [3rd]

〇

△

〇

△

〇

Embrace diverse visions of a good life△〇

Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment

△

〇
〇
〇

Unleash values and action
Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment△

Ensure environmentally friendly technology,
innovation and investment
Reduce total consumption and waste
Promote education and knowledge generationand sharing
Practice justice and inclusion in conservation
Reduce inequalities: Adequate measures: Limited measures, or existing measures are not connected to leverage points: Few measures

〇
〇
〇

△

〇
〇

Internalize externalities and telecouplings
Institutions
andgovernance〇Internalize externalities and telecouplings

Promote education and knowledge generationand sharing

Energy use〇

Reduce total consumption and waste

Embrace diverse visions of a good life
Globalmovements ofpeopleFourthGrounds

Changes
related to the
population

People’s interestin nature[2nd]

Target direct driver (crisis)

〇
×

〇
〇

Note: Higher ranks assigned to indirect drivers indicate larger numbersof responses in the questionnaire survey on experts that theseindirect drivers are related to direct drivers.

38

2-C. Challenges to Be Addressed to Achieve Transformative Change
In terms of the direction of transformative change, it is of great significance to reevaluation
biodiversity and ecosystem services as a foundation for social and economic activities andto introduce elements of a self-reliant decentralized society towards realizing a rich andresilient society living in harmony with nature by utilizing local resources. In order for ourefforts to be effective, it is essential to involve diverse sectors and to bring all parties together
to take actions to restore biodiversity.

a.

With respect to “changes in industrial structure,” “people’s interest in nature,” and “production
and consumption,” which are indirect drivers affecting a number of direct drivers and expected
to raise the overall level of dealing with the direct drivers, an important approach should be tocreate virtuous cycles of business and biodiversity towards sustainable production and consumption
and to promote education and the fostering of values that will support these virtuous cycles {Chapter
VIII, Section 2 and Chapter X, Section 1}.
As for “changes in industrial structure,” since activities classified as industrial are varied in field andnature, it is important to mainstream a virtuous cycle of business and biodiversity in each field or businessactivity. To this end, collaborative efforts in each field and changes in values of consumption surrounding
these efforts are necessary. In particular, it is important for businesses to: acknowledge the risks involvedin failing to work on, and opportunities obtained through working on, the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity; quantitatively understand the relationship between their (including their supply chains’)
business fields and biodiversity; and make continuous adaptive efforts with decided goals. Measures topromote these efforts include: developing frameworks for certifications and other incentives by thenational and local governments; introducing and developing guidelines on payments for ecosystemservices (PES); creating information infrastructure for supporting appropriate disclosure to investment
markets; and supporting technical innovation that will contribute to the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity.
As for “people’s interest in nature,” an effective approach would be to promote, through cooperation ofvarious actors, the dissemination of research and study findings and information related to human wellbeing, such as safe and secure daily life, health promotion, and the benefits of identity as community
members (i.e., the benefits available to be involved in a local community), to make people to feelbiodiversity familiar to them and easy to understand. Other efforts for the conservation of biodiversity that
may contribute to the development of people’s interest in nature include: practicing Education for
Sustainable Development (ESD) and environmental education promoting nature experience activities;
fostering the value of affluence which requires people to keep sustainable consumption in mind in their
daily life; and providing support by introducing the concept of “nudge.”
With regard to “production and consumption,” it will be important to make concerted efforts in the fields
related to resource recycling, including reduction of food waste, which has not always been thought to be
in a close relationship with biodiversity. Another important perspective, particularly in efforts to realize
sustainable production and consumption in terms of food production, may be to apply a landscape approachin which primary industry collaborates with local governments to identify and integrate the functions ofvarious ecosystems and social conditions {Chapter VIII, Section 2 and Chapter X, Section 1}.

b.

In order to restore Japan’s biodiversity, it is important to make effective efforts by identifying
major indirect drivers affecting each of the four crises, in addition to efforts that are effective
on direct drivers as a whole {Chapter VIII, Section 2 and Chapter X, Section 1}.
For the First Crisis, potentially effective efforts include: promoting ESG financial services that will
promote more sustainable economic activities and will encourage people to give consideration to thevarious values of biodiversity and ecosystem services; and developing systems to allow the utilization ofnatural capital by taking into account various situations of different regions.
Of the components of the Second Crisis, efforts required with respect to “reduced use and management39

of Satochi-Satoyama” include the following, both fostering values that place value on a good life brought
by involvement with nature and enhancing efforts that focus on people’s movements related to SatochiSatoyama towards developing a self-reliant decentralized society utilizing domestic natural capital. The
latter includes the effort to reduce inequalities in employment and learning opportunities, etc. between
urban and rural areas involving residential, nonresident, and related populations. With regard to wildlife
management, it would be important to further promote the efforts towards increasing the safe, sustainable
use of game meat by the food industry and the general public.
To deal with the “introduction and establishment of alien species” as an important component of theThird Crisis, it is essential to have international cooperation to make concerted efforts with other countries
involved, such as, for instance, appropriate application of the Ballast Water Management Convention.
Much dependence on overseas resources results in underuse of domestic resources. At the same time,
however, it causes the issue of telecouplings that increase the extinction risk of overseas animal and plant
species. Therefore, another important perspective is to promote further efforts by general consumers to
reduce total consumption and waste and to shift the active use of local resources. It is also effective tosupport capacity buildings in developing countries. As for “eutrophication” and “chemical substances,” itis necessary to impose legal regulations on inappropriate use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, etc. and topromote the reduction of the burden on the environment through technical innovation and investments.
With regard to the Fourth Crisis, climate change is a major driver of loss of biodiversity. However, there
could be some possibility of a trade-off issue between biodiversity and renewable energy; the constructionof facilities for solar- or wind-power generation, etc. that are expected to serve as countermeasures against
climate change, while they may have negative impacts on biodiversity. Thus, it is necessary to develop
wise schemes to introduce renewable energy sources while minimizing their impacts on biodiversity. It isalso important to evaluate the climate change mitigation services provided by ecosystems and to strongly
promote institutions and governance of the national level for maximizing the synergy between conservationof the natural environment and realization of a decarbonized society {Chapter VIII, Section 2 and Chapter
X, Section 1}.

c.

Grounds

In terms of the overall direction of transformative change, it is important to reposition
biodiversity and ecosystem services as a foundation for social and economic activities. This will
help us to understand, in an integrated manner, the mutual impacts between biodiversity and/or
ecosystem services and social and economic activities. which will open the door to the realization ofa sustainable society living in harmony with nature {Chapter X, Section 1}.
The concept to resolve social issues based on multiple functions of nature is called “Nature-based
Solutions” (NbS). Typical examples are green infrastructure, Eco-DRR or Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EbA), which are efforts to utilize the natural environment for disaster prevention and mitigation, or
adaptation measure of climate change, together with other ecosystem services. There are growing trends
to apply this concept also in Japan, and it would also be effective to introduce the concept of NbS into
dealing with social issues in general, such as those listed in the SDGs, from both national- or subnationallevel perspectives on this opportunity. It is also necessary to clarify the synergy and trade-off between
efforts to resolve various social issues and the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e.,natural capital). These efforts may also contribute to the realization of a “Regional Circular and Ecological
Sphere,” in which the environment and the economy are integrated by achieving decarbonization, resource
recycling, and living in harmony with nature in the region {Chapter X, Section 1}.

40

d.

In promoting transformative change in Japan, we must deal with the population decline, thefalling birthrate and the aging population, as well as with the era of during and post-COVID-19.
At the same time, it is important to introduce perspectives of a self-reliant decentralized society into
our efforts towards the realization of a quality-rich and resilient society living in harmony withnature by utilizing local resources {Chapter X, Section 1}.
Biodiversity and ecosystem services play an important role in creating a sustainable, quality-rich andresilient society by dealing with significant changes in society, such as the population decline and the spreadof COVID-19. From the viewpoint of sustainability, a further increase in the resource recycling in SatochiSatoyama is expected to promote transition from a society dependent on non-renewable resources to a society
based on renewable resources. From the viewpoint of resilience, it would be effective to follow the idea
understanding the services and risks of nature, such as Eco-DRR. From the viewpoint of richness, it iseffective to promote a transition to a society valuing cultural and spiritual richness, beyond material or
economic richness. In doing so, it will also be a probable option to hand down traditional and local knowledge
about the use of natural capital. Promoting efforts towards realizing this self-reliant decentralized societyliving in harmony with nature, with an eye to redesigning economy and society, is also consistent withtransformative change which is expected to reach SDGs {Chapter X, Section 1}.

e.

In assessing the status of biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as the direct and indirectdrivers affecting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, it is important to promote
continuous observation and the creation of basic data, and to elucidate the relationships between
the direct drivers, indirect drivers, leverage points, and measures, and to quantitatively assessmentof these measures based on their inter-relationships {Chapter VIII, Section 1 and Chapter X,
Section 1}.
Since biodiversity and ecosystem services change over time, the impact of the drivers and the effectivenessof countermeasures are all likely to have a time lag to be recognizable. Therefore, it is important tocontinue assessments made in this report to effective conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity inJapan. Performing assessment requires the long-term, continuous generation of basic data. In conducting
research, we are required to introduce effective technologies, to manage various monitoring informationfrom various actors, and to ensure continuous monitoring and analyses. While this report has analyzed therelationships between the direct drivers, indirect drivers, and leverage points based on expert judgments,
quantitative and empirical research based on an integrated understanding of the whole process will be
required for more effective policies allowing specific measures towards transformative change. In doingso, it is important to apply these policies and measures into actions through setting scenarios with various
perspectives, such as multiple levels of community from global to local and the business sector. As for theissue of telecouplings, it is necessary to promote research that visualizes the pathways of biodiversity loss
with an eye on global supply chains. It will also be important to keep traditional and local knowledge,
which has allowed people to continuously enjoy ecosystem services through interactions between people
and nature.

f.

In order to achieve transformative change, it is important that the national and local governments
adaptively take science-based measures based on enhanced cooperation between science andpolicy, and that various sectors work together on the efforts to restore biodiversity {Chapter X,
Sections 1 and 2}.
Since biodiversity and ecosystem services provide a foundation for a wide variety of social and economic
activities, it is necessary to link measures for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems.
To enable this, it will be required to have joint discussions between NBSAP and LBSAPs and other higherlevel policy plans as the Basic Environment Plan and those in other fields, such as agriculture, forestry andfisheries, and disaster prevention. In doing so, it is necessary to develop measures based on the latest
scientific knowledge, and to make adaptive efforts including the feedback between scientific findings andactual applications. It is also important to set appropriate goals and indicators by logically organizing thewhole process from the implementation of measures to monitor and evaluate the progress and the status of41

outcomes. Not only the national government, but also local governments, companies and other actors are
expected to be effective actors, and they should share knowledge and experience. Furthermore, achievingtransformative change may require development of new measures acting on social and economic
background factors (i.e., indirect drivers). To do so, cross-sectional cooperation is required among diverse
actors, including the national government and local governments, the general public, companies, NGOs,
educational institutions, and academic communities {Chapter X, Sections 1 and 2}.

Grounds42

Annex■Conceptual framework of the IPBES and framework of the present assessment

Note: Chapter numbers in the figure indicate the chapters in which the relevant information is provided in the detailed version of		
the "2021 Report of Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan (JBO3)."
Source: Based on IPBES (2013) Decision IPBES-2/4: Conceptual framework for the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and		Ecosystem Services (altered by the Ministry of Environment)

Appended Figure: 1 Assessment framework in 2021 Report of Comprehensive
Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan■Grounds for assessment (amount of data)

In the present assessment, the amount of data underlying an assessment is expressed as follows, basedon the relevant indicators, existing research findings, and expert judgments.
Expressions:≳ [based on sufficient amount of data]: The assessment result is based on more than one indicator or
the same result has been obtained in more than one study.
≳ [insufficient amount of data]: The amount of data, such as indicators or existing research findings,
used in the assessment is insufficient.
≳ [difficult to assess]: Assessment is difficult because of insufficient grounds. Note: This expression
is not used in this report.

43

■Classification of biodiversity
Classification of
ecosystems

Characteristics

Forest ecosystems

Ecosystems comprising forests (including secondary forests and planted forests) such as subarctic
evergreen coniferous forests, cool-temperate deciduous broadleaf forests, warm-temperate deciduous
broadleaf forests, and warm-temperate laurel forests, as well as the flora and fauna living in thesehabitats.

Agricultural
ecosystems

Ecosystems found on agricultural land (paddy fields and fields) and in surrounding forests, woods andfreshwaters, as well as the flora and fauna (including agricultural products, farm animals, etc.) living inthese habitats.

Urban ecosystems

Ecosystems comprised of forests, agricultural land, urban parks and other green spaces, rivers, andseashores within urban areas, as well as the flora and fauna living in these habitats.

Freshwater
ecosystems

Ecosystems comprised of freshwaters, such as rivers, lakes and marshes, and wetlands (excluding
waterways and reservoirs for irrigation of agricultural land), as well as the flora and fauna living in thesehabitats.

Marine and coastal
ecosystems

The coast is defined as a land area and a marine area with a coastline in-between. The ocean is defined
as any vast marine area offshore from a coast. The marine and coastal ecosystems refer to ecosystems
comprised of the flora and fauna living in these habitats.

Island ecosystems

Such ecosystems as forests on the smaller islands of Japan, excluding the four major islands of
Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu, as well as ecosystems comprised of the flora and faunaliving these habitats.

■Classification of human well-being and ecosystem services
Corresponding ecosystem services[Foundation for a good life]
Food and other resources that provide a foundation for
our life, as well as ecosystem services supporting thefood and other resources.

Services mainly involved in supplying food, water, and raw
materials (i.e., agricultural crops, non-timber forest products,
fishery products, freshwater, timber, and raw materials), as well
as regulating services related to these services (i.e., water andsoil regulation, and biological control).

[Interaction with nature and health]
Positive and negative effects on physical and mental
health arising from water and air purification by theaction of ecosystems or from interaction withecosystems.

Regulating services (i.e., climate, air quality, and water
regulation) and cultural services (i.e., tourism/recreation, suchas leisure activities), each contributing mainly to health.

[Safety and security of life]
Ecosystems’ contributions to the safety aspect of life,
especially to disaster prevention, as well as humandamage caused by wildlife.

Regulating services that contribute mainly to safety andsecurity (i.e., soil erosion prevention, flood regulation, surface
collapse prevention, and tsunami reduction), as well as
disservices.

[Life and culture with nature]
Religions, lifestyles, and other traditional culturesdeveloped from interactions with nature.

Cultural services related mainly to culture, religion, etc. (i.e.,
religion/festivals, education, landscape, traditional arts &crafts, tourism/recreation, such as rural experience).

Annex

Classification of human well-being■Classification of drivers of biodiversity loss (direct drivers)
Classification ofcrisesCharacteristics

First Crisis

The negative impact on biodiversity caused by human activities, including development, habitat
conversion, and direct use.

Second Crisis

The impact caused by decline in human intervention in nature (i.e., use and management of SatochiSatoyama).

Third Crisis

The impact caused by alien species, chemical substances, and other consequences of modern lifestyles
and human activities.

Fourth Crisis

The impact due to climate and other environmental changes, including global warming, increased
occurrence of strong typhoons, change in precipitation patterns, decreased marine primary production,and ocean acidification.

44

■List of academic societies surveyed

45

Category

NamesSocieties with high relevanceto broader research fields
under survey

The Ecological Society of Japan, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Ecology and Civil
Engineering Society, Japan Association for Landscape Ecology, Japanese Institute ofLandscape Architecture, The Japanese Society of Revegetation Technology, Research
Association of Coastal Ecosystem Engineering, Japan Society of Hydrology and Water
Resources, Japan Society on Water Environment, Japan Society of Erosion Control
Engineering, The Society of Eco-Engineering, The Japan Society for International
Development, The Society of Tourism and Community Design, and Association of Wildlifeand Human Society

Societies with high relevancein terms of characteristics of
ecosystems

Japanese Association for Estuarine Science, Japan Wetland Society, The Japanese Coral
Reef Society, The Oceanographic Society of Japan, Association of Japanese Agricultural
Scientific Societies, The Association of Rural Planning, The Japanese Forest Society, The
Society of Applied Forest Science, The Japanese Society of Fisheries Science, JapaneseSociety of Fisheries Engineering, The Japanese Society of Fisheries Oceanography,
Japanese Association for Coastal Zone Studies, Japanese Association of Groundwater
Hydrology, The Japanese Society of LIMNOLOGY, Japanese Association for Water
Resources and Environment, Architectural Institute of Japan, Japanese Association ofBenthology, and The Plankton Society of Japan

Societies focused on humanwell-being, economic
assessment, and othersocioeconomic aspects

Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Japan Association forEnvironmental Law and Policy, The Japanese Association for Environmental Sociology,
Human Ergology Society, The Japanese Society for Environmental Education, The JapaneseSociety of Education for Sustainable Development, and The Japanese Forest Economic
Society

Other

The Union of Japanese Societies for Natural History, Japan Geoscience Union, The Union ofJapanese Societies for Biological Science, researchers of PANCES, participants in activities
of IPBES, and National Institute for Environmental Studies

Glossary
Biodiversity

The variability among living organisms from all sources,
including diversity within species (genetic diversity), between
species, and of ecosystems.

Ecosystem services

The benefits provided to humans from ecosystems in which avariety of organisms interact with each other, including food,water, and a stable climate, which support human living.

Disservices

The negative effects of ecosystems on human life and health.

Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

An intergovernmental body established in April 2012 toscientifically assess the current status of and changes inbiodiversity and ecosystem services and to reflect the results inpolicy. The IPBES consists of the Plenary, Bureau, and theMultidisciplinary Expert Panel, among others. The main activity
areas of the IPBES are “assessments,” “policy support,”“capacity & knowledge-building,” and “communication andoutreach.”

Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 (GBO5)

Published in September 2020, GBO5 is the fifth version of thereport in which the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Biodiversity analyzes Parties’ national reports, national
biodiversity strategies, and existing research results and dataon biodiversity, and analyzes the status of achievement of theStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. The present report is an underlying
document which provide scientific information to the preparation
process for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Direct drivers“Direct drivers” refers to natural drivers and anthropogenic
drivers that affect nature directly. “Natural drivers” include
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and extreme weather events,
among others. “Anthropogenic drivers” refers to those that are
the result of human decisions, such as habitat conversion,
exploitation of wild populations, alien species introductions,pollution, and climate change.
Indirect drivers“Indirect drivers” refers to the ways in which societies organize
themselves and changes in societies that are the underlying
causes of changes in ecosystems. Indirect drivers affectecosystems indirectly by affecting the magnitude, trends, rateof impact, etc. of direct drivers. An indirect driver may also
affect other indirect drivers.

Interventions

Interventions are means to generate transformative change.
The IPBES lists the following five interventions: (1) incentives
and capacity-building; (2) cross-sectoral cooperation; (3) preemptive action; (4) decision-making in the context of resilienceand uncertainty; and (5) environmental law and implementation.

Leverage points

Leverage points are points at which intervention should betargeted. The IPBES lists the following leverage points: (1)embrace diverse visions of a good life; (2) reduce total
consumption and waste; (3) unleash values and action; (4)reduce inequalities; (5) practice justice and inclusion inconservation; (6) internalize externalities and telecouplings; (7)ensure environmentally friendly technology, innovation andinvestment; and (8) promote education and knowledge
generation and sharing. The leverage points are important not
only for the recovery of biodiversity through transformativechange but also for the resolution of a broad range of social
issues, such as achieving the SDGs.

Nature-based Solutions (NbS)

According to WCC-2016-Res-069 of the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN), “Nature-based Solutions” isdefined as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore
natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal
challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing
human well-being and biodiversity benefits.”

Nudge

A policy method based on behavioral economics that helps
people to voluntarily make a choice that is good for themselves.

Landscape approach

A method to provide a solution to a challenge by comprehensively
analyzing a variety of human activities and the naturalenvironment in a certain area or space.

Glossary

A project which has been implemented since FY2016 tocontribute to science and policy in the area of biodiversity,
through: developing an integrated model of a social-ecologicalsystem focusing on ecosystem-level cases; developing policy
options based on predictive assessment and scenario analysisof the natural and socioeconomic values of natural capital andecosystem services; and providing the ideal style of multi-levelgovernance of natural capital to conserve and nurture inclusive
well-being.

“Transformative change” refers to a fundamental, system-widechange, and includes considerations on technical, economic,
and social factors, including perspectives of paradigms, goals
and values.

Annex

Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital andEcosystem Services through an integrated SocialEcological Systems Approach (PANCES) project,supported by the Environment Research andTechnology Development Fund (S-15)

Transformative change

ESG investing

Investments that take into account not only conventional
financial information but also environmental, social, andgovernance factors that are non-financial information.

Telecoupling

The IPBES Global Assessment Report explains “telecouplings”
as “nature deterioration from local economic activities andsocioeconomic and environmental interactions over distances,”and illustrates “international trade” as an example of the causesof the impact on biodiversity.

Regional Circular and Ecological Sphere

A concept advocated in the 5th Basic Environment Plan, whichaims that each region will demonstrate its strengths to thefullest by utilizing its available regional resources to the fullest,
thereby building a self-reliant and decentralized society, withdifferent communities supporting each other by supplementing
each other’s resources in tune with local needs, creating
integrated circulation of environmental, economic, and social
resources.

46

This report is a summary of Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3 (2021 Report of Comprehensive Assessmentof Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan). This report was compiled by the members of theWorking Group and does not represent the official view of the Ministry of the Environment.
Citation:
Working Group for Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Ministry of
the Environment (2021): Summary for Policymakers of Japan Biodiversity Outlook 3 (2021 Report ofComprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Japan), Nature Conservation
Bureau, Ministry of the Environment

Written by:

Working Group for Comprehensive Assessment of Biodiversity andEcosystem Services, Ministry of the Environment

Published by: Biodiversity Strategy Office, Biodiversity Policy Division,
Nature Conservation Bureau, Ministry of the Environment
Address: 1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8975 Email: NBSAP@env.go.jp
Collaborators: IDEA Consultants, Inc., and The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Published in March 2021