参考資料２

The global
assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY
AND ECOSYSTEMSERVICES
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE IPBES GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY ANDECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Copyright © 2019, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)ISBN No: 978-3-947851-13-3

Reproduction

For further information, please contact:

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and inany form for educational or non-profit services without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgementof the source is made. The IPBES secretariat would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as asource. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any
other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission inwriting from the IPBES secretariat. Applications for such permission,
with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction,
should be addressed to the IPBES secretariat. The use of
information from this publication concerning proprietary products for
publicity or advertising is not permitted.

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services (IPBES)IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 228 815 0570
Email: secretariat@ipbes.net
Website: www.ipbes.net

Traceable accounts
The chapter references enclosed in curly brackets (e.g. {2.3.1,
2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3}) are traceable accounts and refer to sectionsof the chapters of the IPBES Global Assessment. A traceableaccount is a description within the corresponding texts of thesechapters, reflecting the evaluation of the type, amount, quality,
and consistency of evidence and the degree of agreement for thatparticular statement or key finding.

Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material on
the maps used in the present report do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area orof its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. These maps have been prepared for the sole purposeof facilitating the assessment of the broad biogeographical areas
represented therein.

Photo credits
Cover: Nasa-USGS Landsat_N. Kuring / A. Hendry / Shutterstock_
Photocreo / C. Mittermeier_SeaLegacy: Kayapo Beauty –Kubenkrajke, Brazil, 2010 – A young Kayapó girl bathing in the warm
waters of the Xingú River in the Brazilian Amazon. The Kayapó
people are tied to the river for their entire lives through ceremony andnecessity and with this, comes in-depth knowledge on how to live inbalance with nature / Shutterstock_M. Bednarek
P. 3: IISD/D. Noguera
P.4-5: UNEP (J Masuya) / UNESCO (A Azoulay) / FAO (J Graziano
da Silva) / UNDP (Achim Steiner) / CBD (Cristiana Paşca Palmer)
P. 6: D. M. Cáceres (Sandra Díaz) / UFZ_S. Wiedling (Josef Settele) /IISD/ENB_M. Muzurakis (Eduardo S. Brondízio)P. 8-9: Shutterstock_Mazur Travel
P. 11: C. Mittermeier /Shutterstock_A. Fortuner / Shutterstock_D.
Mikhail / Shutterstock_Bonga 1965 / B. ViláP. 13: Shutterstock_Trybex / S. Díaz / Shutterstock_Nimit Virdi
P. 20-21: Shutterstock_R. Whitcombe
P. 48-49: I. Palomo

Technical Support
Hien T. Ngo (Head)
Maximilien Guèze

Graphic Design
Maro Haas, Art direction and layout
Yuka Estrada, SPM figures

SUGGESTED CITATION:IPBES (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio E.S., H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J.
Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian,
G. F. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, A. Pfaff, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, R. Roy Chowdhury, Y. J. Shin,
I. J. Visseren-Hamakers, K. J. Willis, and C. N. Zayas (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.
MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WHO PROVIDED GUIDANCE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THIS ASSESSMENT:
Robert T. Watson, Ivar A. Baste, Anne Larigauderie, Paul Leadley, Unai Pascual, Brigitte Baptiste, Sebsebe Demissew, Luthando Dziba,
Gunay Erpul, Asghar M. Fazel, Markus Fischer, Ana Maria Hernández, Madhav Karki, Vinod Mathur, Tamar Pataridze, Isabel Sousa Pinto,
Marie Stenseke, Katalin Török and Bibiana Vilá.
OVERALL REVIEW EDITORS
Manuela Carneiro da Cunha, Georgina M. Mace, Harold Mooney.
This report in the form of a PDF can be viewed and downloaded at www.ipbes.net
The IPBES global assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions including non-earmarked contributions to the
IPBES trust fund from Governments (Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France,
Germany, India, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, South Africa,
Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America); earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund toward the global
assessment (Germany, Canada, France (Agence Française pour la Biodiversité), Norway, United Kingdom and United States of America); andin-kind contributions targeted at the global assessment. All donors are listed on the IPBES web site: www.ipbes.net/donors

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

The global assessment report on

BIODIVERSITY ANDECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERSAUTHORS:1
Sandra Díaz (Co-Chair, Argentina), Josef Settele (Co-Chair, Germany), Eduardo Brondízio (Co-Chair, Brazil/UnitedStates of America), Hien T. Ngo (IPBES), Maximilien Guèze (IPBES); John Agard (Trinidad and Tobago), Almut Arneth(Germany), Patricia Balvanera (Mexico), Kate Brauman (United States of America), Stuart Butchart (United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland/BirdLife International), Kai Chan (Canada), Lucas A. Garibaldi (Argentina), Kazuhito
Ichii (Japan), Jianguo Liu (United States of America), Suneetha Mazhenchery Subramanian (India/United Nations
University), Guy F. Midgley (South Africa), Patricia Miloslavich (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela/Australia), Zsolt Molnár(Hungary), David Obura (Kenya), Alexander Pfaff (United States of America), Stephen Polasky (United States of America),
Andy Purvis (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Jona Razzaque (Bangladesh/United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland), Belinda Reyers (South Africa), Rinku Roy Chowdhury (United States of America),
Yunne-Jai Shin (France), Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers (Netherlands/United States of America), Katherine Willis (United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Cynthia Zayas (Philippines).
1. Authors are listed with, in parenthesis, their country of citizenship, or countries of citizenship separated by a comma when they
have several; and, following a slash, their country of affiliation, if different from citizenship, or their organization if they belong to aninternational organization; name of expert (nationality 1, nationality 2/affiliation). The countries or organizations having nominatedthese experts are listed on the IPBES website.

FOREWORDA

key objective of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is toprovide Governments, the private sector
and civil society with scientifically credible
and independent up-to-date assessmentsof available knowledge for better evidence-informed policy
decisions and action at the local, national, regional andglobal levels.
This Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services has been carried out by about 150 selected experts
from all regions of the world, including 16 early career fellows,
assisted by 350 contributing authors. More than 15,000
scientific publications were analyzed as well as a substantive
body of indigenous and local knowledge. Its chapters were
accepted, and its summary for policymakers was approved,by the more than 130 Governments that constitute theMembers of IPBES, at the seventh session of the IPBESPlenary (29th April to 4th May, 2019), hosted by France at
UNESCO in Paris.

FOREWORD

2

IPBES is an independent intergovernmental bodycomprising over 130 member Governments.
Established by Governments in 2012, IPBES
provides policymakers with objective scientificassessments about the state of knowledge
regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems andthe contributions they make to people, as well as
options and actions to protect and sustainably use
these vital natural assets.
The IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services represents the landmark
product of the first work programme of IPBES(2014-2018). The Global Assessment was initiatedfollowing a decision from the IPBES Plenary at its
fourth session (IPBES 4, Kuala Lumpur, 2016), andconsidered by the IPBES Plenary at its seventhsession (IPBES 7, Paris, 2019). It is composed of asummary for policymakers, which was approved at
IPBES 7, and six chapters, which were accepted at
IPBES 7.

This report represents a critical assessment, the first in almost
15 years (since the release of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment in 2005) and the first ever carried out by anintergovernmental body, of the status and trends of thenatural world, the social implications of these trends, theirdirect and indirect causes, and, importantly, the actions
that can still be taken to ensure a better future for all. These
complex links have been assessed using a simple, yet very
inclusive framework that should resonate with a wide range ofstakeholders, since it recognizes diverse world views, values
and knowledge systems.
The concept of nature’s contributions to people, which is
discussed in detail in chapter 1, embraces a wide range ofdescriptions of human-nature interactions, including throughthe concept of ecosystem services and other descriptions,which range from strongly utilitarian to strongly relational. The
concept of nature’s contribution to people was developed toembrace a fuller and more symmetric consideration of diverse
stakeholders and world views, and a richer evidence basefor action, i.e., the knowledge base offered by the naturaland social sciences, the humanities, and the knowledge ofpractitioners and indigenous and local communities. The
reporting system for nature’s contributions to people has a
gradient of complementary and overlapping approaches,ranging from a generalizing to a context-specific perspective.
The generalizing perspective is analytical in purpose and isorganized into eighteen categories of material, non-material
and regulating contributions. The context-specific perspective

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

is typical of indigenous and local knowledge
systems, where knowledge production does
not typically seek to explicitly extend or validate
itself beyond specific geographic and culturalcontexts. In this way, the nature’s contributions
to people approach (or the IPBES approach)builds on the existing approaches, descriptors
and metrics used by different communities
of practice in the search for understanding
and solutions.

The Assessment is critical today because evidence has
accumulated that the multiple threats to biodiversity haveintensified since previous reports, and that the sustainable useof nature will be vital for adapting to and mitigating dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system, as well as
for achieving many of our most important development goals.
The findings of this Assessment focus on the global scale,spanning the period from the 1970s to 2050. They are basedon an unprecedented collection of evidence, integrating
natural and social science perspectives, a range of knowledge
systems and multiple dimensions of value. This is the firstglobal-level assessment to systematically consider evidence
about the contributions of indigenous and local knowledge
and practices, and issues concerning Indigenous Peoples andLocal Communities. All these features result in a more holistic
assessment of indirect drivers as root causes of changes
in nature and the associated risks to the quality of life of
all people.
As the Chair and the Executive Secretary of IPBES, we wish torecognize the excellent and dedicated work of the co-chairs,
Professors Sandra Díaz (Argentina), Eduardo S. Brondízio(Brazil and USA), and Josef Settele (Germany) and of all
the coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
fellows, contributing authors and reviewers, and to warmly
thank them for their commitment, and for contributing theirtime freely to this important report. We would also like to thankHien Ngo and Maximilien Guèze from the technical support
unit located at the IPBES secretariat in Bonn, Germany,
because this report would not have been possible without
their extraordinary dedication. Our thanks also go the current
and former members of the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel(MEP) and of the Bureau who provided guidance as part ofthe management committee for this report, and to membersof other technical support units within the IPBES secretariat,
who have supported the production of this report. We would
also like to thank all Governments and other institutions thatprovided financial and in-kind support for the preparation ofthis assessment.
The IPBES Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, together with the four IPBES regional assessmentsof Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, and the twothematic Assessments of Pollination, Pollinators and Food
Production, and of Land Degradation and Restoration, form
an impressive corpus of knowledge to make better-informed
decisions regarding the conservation and sustainable useof biodiversity. The IPBES Global Assessment is expected
to be an important evidence base for the assessment ofprogress towards the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets in the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook
and to play a major role in the consideration of the post 2020
biodiversity framework by the 15th Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in October 2020. It
is also expected to inform implementation of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development
Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It is our
sincere hope that the IPBES Global Assessment will continue
to place biodiversity at the top of the global political agenda,
with similar priority to that accorded to climate change. The
process leading to COP 15 offers this opportunity.
Sir Robert T. Watson
Chair of IPBES from 2016 to 2019
Anne Larigauderie
Executive Secretary of IPBES

3FOREWORD

In the last 10-15 years, since the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, there has been a significant increase in our
understanding of biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as theirimportance to the quality of life of every person. There is also
greater understanding now about which policies, practices,
technologies and behaviors can best lead to the conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity and the achievementof many of the Sustainable Development Goals, the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and the Paris Agreement on Climate
Change. However, biodiversity is still being lost, ecosystems
are still being degraded and many of nature’s contributions topeople are being compromised.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSTATEMENTS FROMKEY PARTNERS

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

4

Nature makes humandevelopment possible but
our relentless demand forthe earth’s resources is accelerating
extinction rates and devastating theworld’s ecosystems. UN
Environment is proud to support the
Global Assessment Report
produced by the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services because it highlights thecritical need to integrate biodiversity
considerations in global decisionmaking on any sector or challenge,
whether its water or agriculture,
infrastructure or business.
Joyce Masuya
Acting Executive Director,
United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP)

This essential reportreminds each of us of theobvious truth: the present
generations have the responsibility
to bequeath to future generations aplanet that is not irreversibly
damaged by human activity. Our
local, indigenous and scientificknowledge are proving that we have
solutions and so no more excuses:
we must live on earth differently.
UNESCO is committed topromoting respect of the living andof its diversity, ecological solidarity
with other living species, and toestablish new, equitable and global
links of partnership andintragenerational solidarity, for theperpetuation of humankind.
Audrey Azoulay
Director-General,
United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO)The Global assessment of
biodiversity and ecosystemservices adds a major
element to the body of evidence forthe importance of biodiversity toefforts to achieve the Zero Hunger
objective and meet the Sustainable
Development Goals. Together,assessments undertaken by IPBES,
FAO, CBD and other organizations
point to the urgent need for action
to better conserve and sustainably
use biodiversity and to theimportance of cross-sectoral andmultidisciplinary collaboration
among decision-makers and otherstakeholders at all levels.
José Graziano da Silva
Director-General,
Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO)THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Achim Steiner
Administrator,
United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)The IPBES’ 2019 Global
Assessment Report on
Biodiversity andEcosystem Services comes at a
critical time for the planet and all its
peoples. The report’s findings —and the years of diligent work by the
many scientists who contributed—
will offer a comprehensive view of
the current conditions of global
biodiversity. Healthy biodiversity is
the essential infrastructure that
supports all forms of life on earth,including human life. It also provides
nature-based solutions on many ofthe most critical environmental,
economic, and social challenges
that we face as human society,including climate change,sustainable development, health,and water and food security. We are
currently in the midst of preparing
for the 2020 UN Biodiversity
Conference, in China, which will
mark the close of the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and set thecourse for a post 2020 ecologicallyfocused sustainable development
pathway to deliver multiple benefits
for people, the planet and our global
economy. The IPBES report willserve as a fundamental baseline ofwhere we are and where we needto go as a global community toinspire humanity to reach the 2050
Vision of the UN Biodiversity
Convention “Living in harmony withnature”. I want to extend my thanks
and congratulations to the IPBES
community for their hard work,
immense contributions andcontinued partnership.
Dr. Cristiana Paşca Palmer
Executive Secretary
Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD)

5
STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

Across cultures, humans
inherently value nature.
The magic of seeing
fireflies flickering long into the nightis immense. We draw energy andnutrients from nature. We findsources of food, medicine,
livelihoods and innovation innature. Our well-being
fundamentally depends on nature.
Our efforts to conserve biodiversity
and ecosystems must be
underpinned by the best sciencethat humanity can produce. This is
why the scientific evidencecompiled in this IPBES Global
Assessment is so important. It will
help us build a stronger foundation
for shaping the post 2020 global
biodiversity framework: the ‘New
Deal for Nature and People’; andfor achieving the SDGs.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The co-chairs of the IPBES Global Assessment
Report of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
wish to thank the people and institutions that
helped to make the Report possible.

We are first indebted to the hundreds ofexperts in biophysical and social sciences, policymakers
and practitioners, as well as representatives of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities, who generously
contributed their time and knowledge, as lead authors,
chapter scientists, resource person, and/or review editors(listed below), and to all contributing authors. We are
fortunate to have had the opportunity to work with such an
engaged, collegial and superb group of authors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6

We are grateful to the members of the IPBES secretariat,
particularly Executive Secretary Anne Larigauderie, the
IPBES Chair (Robert Watson), representatives of member
States, the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and Bureau
and other resource persons for their dedication, strategic
vision, constructive comments and continued advice.
The Global Assessment would not have been possible
without the titanic effort of its technical support unit (HienT. Ngo and Maximilien Guèze) during the whole process,including the long and challenging seventh session of the
IPBES Plenary (#IPBES7), which resulted in the approvalof this Summary for Policymakers and the acceptanceof the underlying chapters. In addition, we are thankful
for the support of several IPBES technical support
units, and their host institutions at different stages of theprocess: Knowledge and data technical support unit
(NIE, Republic of Korea), indigenous and local knowledge
technical support unit (UNESCO), scenarios and models
technical support unit (PBL, Netherlands), and the capacity

building technical support unit (NEA, Norway). We also
thank the data visualization specialist and the graphic
designer for their skillful work. We would like to thank the
IPBES communications team, for their outstanding workcommunicating the main messages to the general public.
We are also grateful to all supportive Governments but inparticular the Governments of Germany, South Africa, Norway,
the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands as well as
to the Córdoba Province (Argentina), who generously hosted
our chapter and/or author meetings. The co-chairs would
especially like to acknowledge the support of their homeinstitutions and governments: the Helmholtz Centre forEnvironmental Research – UFZ (Germany), iDiv (the German
Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research), Universidad
Nacional de Córdoba and CONICET (Argentina), and Indiana
University-Bloomington (USA). Finally, our gratitude goesto the Government of France for hosting #IPBES 7 and to
UNESCO for providing the venue and support. The dedicationand contributions of all of the governments, organizations
and people above made the Global Assessment possible andimpactful and for that we are deeply indebted and appreciative.
Sandra Díaz, Josef Settele, Eduardo S. Brondízio
Co-Chairs

We are grateful to the following lead authors, fellows and chapter scientists of the IPBES Global Assessment:
C. Adams, J. Agard, A. P. D. Aguiar, D. Armenteras, A. Arneth, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, X. Bai, P. Balvanera, T. Bekele Gode, E. Bennett, Y. A. Boafo,
A. K. Boedhihartono, P. Brancalion, K. Brauman, E. Bukvareva, S. Butchart, K. Chan, N. Chettri, W. L. Cheung, B. Czúcz, F. DeClerck, E. Dulloo,
B. Gabrielyan, L. Galetto, K. Galvin, E. García Frapolli, L. Garibaldi, A. P. Gautam, L. R. Gerber, A. Geschke, J. Gutt, S. Hashimoto, A. Heinimann,
A. Hendry, G. C. Hernández Pedraza, T. Hickler, A. I. Horcea-Milcu, S. A. Hussain, K. Ichii, M. Islar, U. Jacob, W. Jetz, J. Jetzkowitz, Md S. Karim,
E. Kelemen, E. Keskin, P. Kindlmann, M. Kok, M. Kolb, Z. Krenova, P. Leadley, J. Liu, J. Liu, G. Lui, M. Mastrangelo, P. McElwee, L. Merino, G. F. Midgley,
P. Miloslavich, P. A. Minang, A. Mohammed, Z. Molnár, I. B. Mphangwe Kosamu, E. Mungatana, R. Muradian, M. Murray-Hudson, N. Nagabhatla,
A. Niamir, N. Nkongolo, T. Oberdorff, D. Obura, P. O’Farrell, P. Osano, B. Öztürk, H. Palang, M. G. Palomo, M. Panahi, U. Pascual, A. Pfaff, R. Pichs
Madruga, S. Polasky, A. Purvis, J. Razzaque, B. Reyers, V. Reyes-García, C. Rondinini, R. Roy Chowdhury, G. M. Rusch, O. Saito, J. Sathyapalan,
T. Satterfield, A. K. Saysel, E. R. Selig, R. Seppelt, L. Shannon, Y. J. Shin, A. Simcock, G. S. Singh, B. Strassburg, S. Subramanian, D. Tarkhnishvili,
E. Turnhout, M. Verma, A. Viña, I. Visseren-Hamakers, M. J. Williams, K. Willis, H. Xu, D. Xue, T. Yue, C. Zayas, L. Balint, Z. Basher, I. Chan, A. FernandezLlamazares, P. Jaureguiberry, M. Lim, A. J. Lynch, A. Mohamed, T. H. Mwampamba, I. Palomo, P. Pliscoff, R. Salimov, A. Samakov, O. Selomane,U. B. Shrestha, A. Sidorovich, R. Krug, J.H. Spangenberg, E. Strombom, N. Titeux, M. Wiemers, and D. Zaleski.

Review editors:
M. Carneiro da Cunha, G. Mace, H. Mooney, R. Dirzo, S. Demissew, H. Arceo, S. Asah, E. Lambin, J. Mistry, T. Brooks, F. Berkes, M. Chytry, K. Esler,
J. Carabias Lillo and J. Plesnik.

The IPBES Management Committee for the Global Assessment and resource persons:
R. T. Watson, I. A. Baste, A. Larigauderie, P. Leadley, U. Pascual, D. Cooper, B. Baptiste, S. Demissew, L. Dziba, G. Erpul, A. Fazel, M. Fischer,A. M. Hernández, M. Karki, V. Mathur, T. Pataridze, I. Sousa Pinto, M. Stenseke, K. Török and B. Vilá.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESTABLE OFCONTENTS
page 2FOREWORD
page 4

STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS
page 6ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
KEY MESSAGES
A. Nature and its vital contributions to people
B. Direct and indirect drivers of change
C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability
D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably
page 21

BACKGROUND
A. Nature and its vital contributions to people
B. Direct and indirect drivers of change
C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability
D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably
page 49

APPENDICESAPPENDIX 1
Conceptual framework and definitions
APPENDIX 2
Communication of the degree of confidence
APPENDIX 3
Knowledge gaps
APPENDIX 4
Draft table of knowledge gaps

7
STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS

page 9

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

8

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERSKEY
MESSAGES

9

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESKEYMESSAGES
A. Nature and its vital contributions
to people, which together embody
biodiversity and ecosystem
functions and services, aredeteriorating worldwide.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

10

Nature embodies different concepts fordifferent people, including biodiversity,
ecosystems, Mother Earth, systems of life
and other analogous concepts. Nature’s
contributions to people embody different
concepts, such as ecosystem goods andservices and nature’s gifts. Both nature andnature’s contributions to people are vital forhuman existence and good quality of life
(human well-being, living in harmony withnature, living well in balance and harmony
with Mother Earth, and other analogous
concepts). While more food, energy andmaterials than ever before are now being
supplied to people in most places, this isincreasingly at the expense of nature’s ability
to provide such contributions in the future,and frequently undermines nature’s manyother contributions, which range from water
quality regulation to sense of place. The
biosphere, upon which humanity as a wholedepends, is being altered to an unparalleleddegree across all spatial scales. Biodiversity– the diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems – is declining
faster than at any time in human history.

A1 Nature is essential for human existence andgood quality of life. Most of nature’s contributions
to people are not fully replaceable, and some are
irreplaceable. Nature plays a critical role in providing foodand feed, energy, medicines and genetic resources and avariety of materials fundamental for people’s physicalwell-being and for maintaining culture. For example, morethan 2 billion people rely on wood fuel to meet their primaryenergy needs, an estimated 4 billion people rely primarily on
natural medicines for their health care and some 70 per centof drugs used for cancer are natural or are synthetic
products inspired by nature. Nature, through its ecologicaland evolutionary processes, sustains the quality of the air,fresh water and soils on which humanity depends,
distributes fresh water, regulates the climate, provides
pollination and pest control and reduces the impact ofnatural hazards. For example, more than 75 per cent of
global food crop types, including fruits and vegetables andsome of the most important cash crops, such as coffee,cocoa and almonds, rely on animal pollination. Marine andterrestrial ecosystems are the sole sinks for anthropogenic
carbon emissions, with a gross sequestration of
5.6 gigatons of carbon per year (the equivalent of some
60 per cent of global anthropogenic emissions). Nature
underpins all dimensions of human health and contributes tonon-material aspects of quality of life – inspiration andlearning, physical and psychological experiences, andsupporting identities – that are central to quality of life andcultural integrity, even if their aggregated value is difficult toquantify. Most of nature’s contributions are co-producedwith people, but while anthropogenic assets – knowledge
and institutions, technology infrastructure and financial
capital – can enhance or partially replace some of thosecontributions, some are irreplaceable. The diversity of nature
maintains humanity’s ability to choose alternatives in theface of an uncertain future.

A2 Nature’s contributions to people are often
distributed unequally across space and time andamong different segments of society. There areoften trade-offs in the production and use ofnature’s contributions. Benefits and burdens associatedwith co-production and use of nature’s contributions are
distributed and experienced differently among social groups,
countries and regions. Giving priority to one of nature’s
contributions to people, such as food production, can resultin ecological changes that reduce other contributions. Someof these changes may benefit some people at the expenseof others, particularly the most vulnerable, as may changes
in technological and institutional arrangements. For
example, although food production today is sufficient tosatisfy global needs, approximately 11 per cent of theworld’s population is undernourished, and diet-relateddisease drives 20 per cent of premature mortality, related
both to undernourishment and to obesity. The great
expansion in the production of food, feed, fibre andbioenergy has occurred at the cost of many othercontributions of nature to quality of life, including regulationof air and water quality, climate regulation and habitat
provision. Synergies also exist, such as sustainableagricultural practices that enhance soil quality, thereby
improving productivity and other ecosystem functions andservices, such as carbon sequestration and water
quality regulation.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

A3 Since 1970, trends in agricultural production,
fish harvest, bioenergy production and harvest of
materials have increased, but 14 of the 18
categories of contributions of nature that wereassessed, mostly regulating and non-material
contributions, have declined. The value of agricultural
crop production ($2.6 trillion in 2016) has increased
approximately threefold since 1970 and raw timber harvest
has increased by 45 per cent, reaching some 4 billion cubic
metres in 2017, with the forestry industry providing about
13.2 million jobs. However, indicators of regulating
contributions, such as soil organic carbon and pollinator
diversity, have declined, indicating that gains in material
contributions are often not sustainable. Currently, landdegradation has reduced productivity in 23 per cent of the
global terrestrial area, and between $235 billion and$577 billion2 in annual global crop output is at risk as aresult of pollinator loss. Moreover, loss of coastal habitats
and coral reefs reduces coastal protection, which increases
the risk from floods and hurricanes to life and property forthe 100 million to 300 million people living within coastal
100-year flood zones.

A4 Nature across most of the globe has now beensignificantly altered by multiple human drivers, withthe great majority of indicators of ecosystems andbiodiversity showing rapid decline. Seventy-five percent of the land surface is significantly altered, 66 per cent of
2. Value adjusted to 2015 United States dollars, taking into accountinflation only.

the ocean area is experiencing increasing cumulative
impacts, and over 85 per cent of wetlands (area) has beenlost. While the rate of forest loss has slowed globally since
2000, this is distributed unequally. Across much of the highly
biodiverse tropics, 32 million hectares of primary or
recovering forest were lost between 2010 and 2015. The
extent of tropical and subtropical forests is increasing withinsome countries, and the global extent of temperate andboreal forests is increasing. A range of actions – fromrestoration of natural forest to planting of monocultures– contributes to these increases, but these actions have very
different consequences for biodiversity and its contributions
to people. Approximately half the live coral cover on coral
reefs has been lost since the 1870s, with accelerating losses
in recent decades due to climate change exacerbating otherdrivers. The average abundance of native species in mostmajor terrestrial biomes has fallen by at least 20 per cent,potentially affecting ecosystem processes and hence
nature’s contributions to people; this decline has mostly
taken place since 1900 and may be accelerating. In areas ofhigh endemism, native biodiversity has often been severely
impacted by invasive alien species. Population sizes of wildvertebrate species have tended to decline over the last
50 years on land, in freshwater and in the sea. Global trends
in insect populations are not known but rapid declines havebeen well documented in some places.

A5 Human actions threaten more species with
global extinction now than ever before. An average ofaround 25 per cent of species in assessed animal and plant

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

11

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

groups are threatened (Figure SPM.3), suggesting thataround 1 million species already face extinction, many within
decades, unless action is taken to reduce the intensity ofdrivers of biodiversity loss. Without such action, there will bea further acceleration in the global rate of species extinction,
which is already at least tens to hundreds of times higher
than it has averaged over the past 10 million years(Figure SPM.4).

A6 Globally, local varieties and breeds of

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

12domesticated plants and animals are disappearing.
This loss of diversity, including genetic diversity,
poses a serious risk to global food security byundermining the resilience of many agricultural
systems to threats such as pests, pathogens andclimate change. Fewer and fewer varieties and breeds ofplants and animals are being cultivated, raised, traded andmaintained around the world, despite many local efforts,
which include those by indigenous peoples and local
communities. By 2016, 559 of the 6,190 domesticatedbreeds of mammals used for food and agriculture (over 9 percent) had become extinct and at least 1,000 more arethreatened. In addition, many crop wild relatives that areimportant for long-term food security lack effective
protection, and the conservation status of wild relatives ofdomesticated mammals and birds is worsening. Reductionsin the diversity of cultivated crops, crop wild relatives anddomesticated breeds mean that agroecosystems are lessresilient against future climate change, pests and pathogens.

B. Direct and indirect drivers ofchange have accelerated during
the past 50 years.
The rate of global change in nature during
the past 50 years is unprecedented inhuman history. The direct drivers of change
in nature with the largest global impact
have been (starting with those with mostimpact): changes in land and sea use; direct
exploitation of organisms; climate change;pollution; and invasion of alien species.
Those five direct drivers result from an arrayof underlying causes – the indirect drivers ofchange – which are in turn underpinned bysocietal values and behaviours that include
production and consumption patterns,
human population dynamics and trends,
trade, technological innovations and local
through global governance. The rate ofchange in the direct and indirect drivers
differs among regions and countries.

B1 For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems,
A7 Biological communities are becoming moresimilar to each other in both managed andunmanaged systems within and across regions.
This human-caused process leads to losses of local
biodiversity, including endemic species, ecosystem
functions and nature’s contributions to people.

A8 Human-induced changes are creating
conditions for fast biological evolution – so rapidthat its effects can be seen in only a few years oreven more quickly. The consequences can bepositive or negative for biodiversity andecosystems, but can create uncertainty about thesustainability of species, ecosystem functions andthe delivery of nature’s contributions to people.
Understanding and monitoring these biological evolutionarychanges is as important for informed policy decisions as it isin cases of ecological change. Sustainable management
strategies then can be designed to influence evolutionary
trajectories so as to protect vulnerable species and reducethe impact of unwanted species (such as weeds, pests or
pathogens). The widespread declines in geographic
distribution and population sizes of many species makeclear that, although evolutionary adaptation to humancaused drivers can be rapid, it has often not been sufficient
to mitigate them fully.

land-use change has had the largest relative
negative impact on nature since 1970, followed by
the direct exploitation, in particularoverexploitation, of animals, plants and otherorganisms, mainly via harvesting, logging, hunting
and fishing. In marine ecosystems, direct
exploitation of organisms (mainly fishing) has had
the largest relative impact, followed by land-/sea-use change. Agricultural expansion is the mostwidespread form of land-use change, with over one third of
the terrestrial land surface being used for cropping or animalhusbandry. This expansion, alongside a doubling of urban
area since 1992 and an unprecedented expansion of
infrastructure linked to growing population andconsumption, has come mostly at the expense of forests(largely old-growth tropical forests), wetlands andgrasslands. In freshwater ecosystems, a series of combined
threats that include land-use change, including water
extraction, exploitation, pollution, climate change andinvasive species, are prevalent. Human activities have had alarge and widespread impact on the world’s oceans. These
include direct exploitation, in particular overexploitation, offish, shellfish and other organisms, land- and sea-based
pollution, including from river networks, and land-/sea-use
change, including coastal development for infrastructure
and aquaculture.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

B2 Climate change is a direct driver that isincreasingly exacerbating the impact of otherdrivers on nature and human well-being. Humans are
estimated to have caused an observed warming ofapproximately 1.0°C by 2017 relative to pre-industrial levels,with average temperatures over the past 30 years rising by
0.2°C per decade. The frequency and intensity of extreme
weather events, and the fires, floods and droughts that they
can bring, have increased in the past 50 years, while theglobal average sea level has risen by between 16 and 21 cm
since 1900, and at a rate of more than 3 mm per year overthe past two decades. These changes have contributed towidespread impacts in many aspects of biodiversity,
including species distribution, phenology, population
dynamics, community structure and ecosystem function.
According to observational evidence, the effects areaccelerating in marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
and are already impacting agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries
and nature’s contributions to people. The compounding
effects of drivers such as climate change, land-/sea-use
change, overexploitation of resources, pollution and invasive
alien species are likely to exacerbate the negative impacts
on nature, as seen in different ecosystems including coral
reefs, the Arctic systems and savannas.

B3 Many types of pollution, as well as invasive
alien species, are increasing, with negative
impacts for nature. Although global trends are mixed, air,water and soil pollution have continued to increase in someareas. Marine plastic pollution in particular has increased
tenfold since 1980, affecting at least 267 species, including

86 per cent of marine turtles, 44 per cent of seabirds and43 per cent of marine mammals. This can affect humans
through food chains. Greenhouse gas emissions, untreatedurban and rural waste, pollutants from industrial, mining andagricultural activities, oil spills and toxic dumping have hadstrong negative effects on soil, freshwater and marine water
quality and on the global atmosphere. Cumulative records ofalien species have increased by 40 per cent since 1980,
associated with increased trade and human population
dynamics and trends. Nearly one fifth of the Earth’s surface
is at risk of plant and animal invasions, impacting native
species, ecosystem functions and nature’s contributions topeople, as well as economies and human health. The rate of
introduction of new invasive alien species seems higher thanever before and shows no signs of slowing.

B4 In the past 50 years, the human population has
doubled, the global economy has grown nearly
fourfold and global trade has grown tenfold,together driving up the demand for energy andmaterials. A variety of economic, political and social factors,
including global trade and the spatial decoupling ofproduction from consumption, have shifted the economicand environmental gains and losses of production andconsumption, contributing to new economic opportunities,
but also to impacts on nature and its contributions to people.
Levels of consumption of material goods (food, feed, timberand fibre) vary greatly, and unequal access to material goods
can be associated with inequity and may lead to social
conflict. Economic exchange contributes to aggregate
economic development, yet often is negotiated between

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

13

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

actors and institutions of unequal power, which influences the
distribution of benefits and long-term impacts. Countries atdifferent levels of development have experienced different
levels of deterioration of nature for any given gain in economic
growth. Exclusion, scarcity and/or the unequal distribution ofnature’s contributions to people may fuel social instability andconflict in a complex interaction with other factors. Armed
conflicts have an impact on ecosystems beyond theirdestabilizing effects on societies, and a range of indirect
impacts, including the displacement of people and activities.

B5 Economic incentives have generally favoured

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

14

expanding economic activity, and often
environmental harm, over conservation or
restoration. Incorporating the consideration of themultiple values of ecosystem functions and ofnature’s contributions to people into economic
incentives has, in the economy, been shown topermit better ecological, economic and social
outcomes. Local, national, regional and global governanceinitiatives have improved outcomes in this way by supporting
policies, innovation and the elimination of environmentally
harmful subsidies, introducing incentives in line with the valueof nature’s contribution to people, increasing sustainableland-/sea-use management and enforcing regulations,among other measures. Harmful economic incentives andpolicies associated with unsustainable practices in fisheries,
aquaculture, agriculture (including fertilizer and pesticide use),
livestock management, forestry, mining and energy (including
fossil fuels and biofuels) are often associated with land-/sea-use change and overexploitation of natural resources, aswell as inefficient production and waste management. Vested
interests may oppose the removal of subsidies or the
introduction of other policies. Yet policy reforms to deal withsuch causes of environmental harm offer the potential toboth conserve nature and provide economic benefits,
including when policies are based on more and better
understanding of the multiple values of nature’s contributions.

B6 Nature managed by indigenous peoples andlocal communities is under increasing pressure.
Nature is generally declining less rapidly inindigenous peoples’ land than in other lands, but isnevertheless declining, as is the knowledge of how
to manage it. At least a quarter of the global landarea is traditionally owned, managed3, used or
occupied by indigenous peoples. These areas include
approximately 35 per cent of the area that is formallyprotected, and approximately 35 per cent of all remaining
terrestrial areas with very low human intervention. In
addition, a diverse array of local communities, including
farmers, fishers, herders, hunters, ranchers and forest users,
3. These data sources define land management here as the process ofdetermining the use, development and care of land resources in a mannerthat fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood
activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting, pastoralism
and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

manage significant areas under various property and accessregimes. Among the local indicators developed and used byindigenous peoples and local communities, 72 per centshow negative trends in nature that underpin local
livelihoods and well-being. The areas managed (undervarious types of tenure and access regimes) by indigenous
peoples and local communities are facing growing resource
extraction, commodity production, mining and transport andenergy infrastructure, with various consequences for local
livelihoods and health. Some climate change mitigation
programmes have had negative impacts on indigenous
peoples and local communities. The negative impacts of allthese pressures include continued loss of subsistence andtraditional livelihoods resulting from ongoing deforestation,
loss of wetlands, mining, the spread of unsustainableagriculture, forestry and fishing practices and impacts on
health and well-being from pollution and water insecurity.
These impacts also challenge traditional management, thetransmission of indigenous and local knowledge, thepotential for sharing of benefits arising from the use of, andthe ability of indigenous peoples and local communities toconserve and sustainably manage, wild and domesticatedbiodiversity that are also relevant to broader society.

C. Goals for conserving andsustainably using nature andachieving sustainability cannot
be met by current trajectories,
and goals for 2030 and beyond
may only be achieved throughtransformative changes4 acrosseconomic, social, political andtechnological factors.
Past and ongoing rapid declines inbiodiversity, ecosystem functions and manyof nature’s contributions to people mean thatmost international societal and environmental
goals, such as those embodied in the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development, will not be
achieved based on current trajectories.
These declines will also undermine othergoals, such as those specified in the Paris
Agreement adopted under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.
4. A fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic
and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

C1 The implementation of policy responses andactions to conserve nature and manage it moresustainably has progressed, yielding positive
outcomes relative to scenarios of no intervention,
but progress is not sufficient to stem the direct andindirect drivers of nature deterioration. It istherefore likely that most of the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets for 2020 will be missed. Some of the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets will be partially achieved, for example
those related to policy responses, such as the spatial extent
of terrestrial and marine protected areas, the identificationand prioritization of invasive alien species, national
biodiversity strategies and action plans, and the Nagoya
Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair andEquitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to
the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, while
protected areas now cover 15 per cent of terrestrial andfreshwater environments and 7 per cent of the marine realm,
they only partly cover important sites for biodiversity and are
not yet fully ecologically representative and effectively or
equitably managed. There has been significant growth inofficial development assistance in support of the Convention
on Biological Diversity and in funding provided by the Global
Environment Facility, with biodiversity aid flows reaching$8.7 billion annually. However, current resource mobilizationfrom all sources is not sufficient to achieve the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets. In addition, only one in five of thestrategic objective and goals across six global agreements5
5. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals,
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural andNatural Heritage, International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing
Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa, and Convention
on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

relating to nature and the protection of the global
environment are demonstrably on track to be met. For nearly
one third of the goals of these conventions, there has been
little or no progress towards them or, instead, movementaway from them.

C2 Nature is essential for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals. However, taking
into consideration that the Sustainable
Development Goals are integrated, indivisible, andnationally implemented, current negative trends inbiodiversity and ecosystems will undermine
progress towards 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of theassessed targets of Goals related to poverty,
hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans andland (Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11,
13, 14, and 15). Important positive synergies between
nature and the Goals related to education, gender equality,
reducing inequalities and promoting peace and justice(Sustainable Development Goals 4, 5, 10 and 16) were
found. Land or resource tenure insecurity, as well as
declines in nature, have greater impacts on women andgirls, who are most often negatively impacted. However, thecurrent focus and wording of the targets of these Goals
obscures or omits their relationship to nature, thereby
preventing their assessment here. There is a critical need for
future policy targets, indicators and datasets to more
explicitly account for aspects of nature and their relevanceto human well-being in order to more effectively track theconsequences of trends in nature on the Sustainable
Development Goals. Some pathways chosen to achieve theGoals related to energy, economic growth, industry andinfrastructure, and sustainable consumption and production(Sustainable Development Goals 7, 8, 9 and 12), as well as
the targets related to poverty, food security and cities(Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2 and 11), could havesubstantial positive or negative impacts on nature andtherefore on the achievement of the other Sustainable
Development Goals.

C3 Areas of the world projected to experiencesignificant negative effects from global changes inclimate, biodiversity, ecosystem functions andnature’s contributions to people are also home tolarge concentrations of indigenous peoples andmany of the world’s poorest communities. Becauseof their strong dependency on nature and its contributions
for subsistence, livelihoods and health, those communities
will be disproportionately hard-hit by those negativechanges. Those negative effects also influence the ability ofindigenous peoples and local communities to manage andconserve wild and domesticated biodiversity and nature’s
contributions to people. Indigenous peoples and local
communities have been proactively confronting suchchallenges in partnership with each other and with an arrayof other stakeholders, through co-management systems

15
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

The negative trends in biodiversity andecosystem functions are projected tocontinue or worsen in many future scenarios
in response to indirect drivers such as rapid
human population growth, unsustainableproduction and consumption and associatedtechnological development. In contrast,
scenarios and pathways that explore theeffects of low-to-moderate population
growth, and transformative changes in the
production and consumption of energy,
food, feed, fibre and water, sustainable
use, equitable sharing of the benefits
arising from use and nature-friendly climate
adaptation and mitigation will better support
the achievement of future societal andenvironmental objectives.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

and local and regional monitoring networks and byrevitalizing and adapting local management systems.
Regional and global scenarios lack an explicit considerationof the views, perspectives and rights of indigenous peoples
and local communities, their knowledge and understandingof large regions and ecosystems, and their desired future
development pathways.

C4 Except in scenarios that include transformative

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

16change, negative trends in nature, in ecosystem
functions and in many of nature’s contributions topeople are projected to continue to 2050 andbeyond, due to the projected impacts of increasing
land-/and sea-use change, exploitation oforganisms and climate change. Negative impacts
arising from pollution and invasive alien species will likely
exacerbate these trends. There are large regional differencesin the projected patterns of future biodiversity andecosystem functions and in the losses and changes innature’s contributions to people. These differences arise
from the direct and indirect drivers of change, which areprojected to impact regions in different ways. While regions
worldwide face further declines in biodiversity in future
projections, tropical regions face particular combined risksof declines due to the interactions between climate change,land-use change and fisheries exploitation. Marine andterrestrial biodiversity in boreal, subpolar and polar regions is
projected to decline mostly because of warming, sea ice
retreat and enhanced ocean acidification. The magnitude of
the impacts and the differences between regions are muchgreater in scenarios with rapid increases in consumption or
human population than in scenarios based on sustainability.
Acting immediately and simultaneously on the multiple
indirect and direct drivers has the potential to slow, halt andeven reverse some aspects of biodiversity andecosystem loss.

C5

Climate change is projected to become
increasingly important as a direct driver ofchanges in nature and its contributions to people
in the next decades. Scenarios show that meeting
the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2050
Vision for Biodiversity depends on taking into
account climate change impacts in the definitionof future goals and objectives. The future impacts ofclimate change are projected to become more pronounced
in the next decades, with variable relative effects
depending on scenario and geographic region. Scenarios
project mostly adverse climate change effects on
biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, which worsen, insome cases exponentially, with incremental global
warming. Even for global warming of 1.5°C to 2°C, themajority of terrestrial species ranges are projected to shrink
dramatically. Changes in ranges can adversely affect thecapacity of terrestrial protected areas to conserve species,
greatly increase local species turnover and substantially

increase the risk of global extinctions. For example, asynthesis of many studies estimates that the fraction of
species at risk of climate-related extinction is 5 per cent at
2°C warming and rises to 16 per cent at 4.3°C warming.
Coral reefs are particularly vulnerable to climate change
and are projected to decline to 10 to 30 per cent of former
cover at 1.5°C warming and to less than 1 per cent offormer cover at 2°C warming. Therefore, scenarios showthat limiting global warming to well below 2°C plays acritical role in reducing adverse impacts on nature and its
contributions to people.

D. Nature can be conserved,
restored and used sustainably
while other global societal goals
are simultaneously met throughurgent and concerted efforts
fostering transformative change.
Societal goals, including those related
to food, water, energy, health and theachievement of human well-being for all,mitigating and adapting to climate change
and conserving and sustainably using
nature, can be achieved in sustainable
pathways through the rapid and improved
deployment of existing policy instruments
and new initiatives that more effectively
enlist individual and collective action fortransformative change. Since current
structures often inhibit sustainable
development and actually represent theindirect drivers of biodiversity loss, suchfundamental, structural change is called
for. By its very nature, transformativechange can expect opposition from thosewith interests vested in the status quo,but such opposition can be overcome
for the broader public good. If obstacles
are overcome, a commitment to mutually
supportive international goals and targets,
supporting actions by indigenous peoples
and local communities at the local level, newframeworks for private sector investment
and innovation, inclusive and adaptive
governance approaches and arrangements,
multi-sectoral planning, and strategic policy
mixes can help to transform the public andTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

D1 The global environment can be safeguarded
through enhanced international cooperation andlinked, locally relevant measures. The review andrenewal of internationally agreed environmentrelated goals and targets, based on the best
available scientific knowledge and the widespread
adoption and funding of action on conservation,
ecological restoration and sustainable use by all
actors, including individuals, are key to thissafeguarding. Such widespread adoption implies
advancing and aligning local, national and internationalsustainability efforts and mainstreaming biodiversity andsustainability across all extractive and productive sectors,
including mining, fisheries, forestry and agriculture, so thattogether, individual and collective actions result in a reversalof the deterioration of ecosystem services at the global level.
Yet these bold changes to the direct drivers of thedeterioration of nature cannot be achieved withouttransformative change that simultaneously addresses theindirect drivers.

D2 Five main interventions (“levers”) cangenerate transformative change by tackling theunderlying indirect drivers of the deterioration ofnature: (1) incentives and capacity-building;(2) cross-sectoral cooperation; (3) pre-emptive
action; (4) decision-making in the context ofresilience and uncertainty; and (5) environmental
law and implementation. Using these levers will involvethe following: (1) developing incentives and widespread
capacity for environmental responsibility and eliminating
perverse incentives; (2) reforming sectoral and segmented
decision-making to promote integration across sectors andjurisdictions; (3) taking pre-emptive and precautionary
actions in regulatory and management institutions andbusinesses to avoid, mitigate and remedy the deteriorationof nature, and monitoring their outcomes; (4) managing forresilient social and ecological systems in the face of
uncertainty and complexity, to deliver decisions that arerobust in a wide range of scenarios; and (5) strengthening
environmental laws and policies and their implementation,and the rule of law more generally. All five levers may require
new resources, particularly in low-capacity contexts, suchas in many developing countries.

D3 Transformations towards sustainability are
more likely when efforts are directed at thefollowing key leverage points, where efforts yield
exceptionally large effects (Figure SPM.9):(1) visions of a good life; (2) total consumption andwaste; (3) values and action; (4) inequalities;(5) justice and inclusion in conservation;(6) externalities and telecouplings; (7) technology,
innovation and investment; and (8) education andknowledge generation and sharing. Specifically, thefollowing changes are mutually reinforcing: (1) enabling
visions of a good quality of life that do not entail everincreasing material consumption; (2) lowering total
consumption and waste, including by addressing both
population growth and per capita consumption differently in
different contexts; (3) unleashing existing, widely-held valuesof responsibility to effect new social norms for sustainability,
especially by extending notions of responsibility to include
the impacts associated with consumption; (4) addressing
inequalities, especially regarding income and gender, which
undermine the capacity for sustainability; (5) ensuring
inclusive decision-making and the fair and equitable sharingof benefits arising from the use of and adherence to humanrights in conservation decisions; (6) accounting for nature
deterioration from local economic activities andsocioeconomic and environmental interactions overdistances (telecouplings), including, for example,
international trade; (7) ensuring environmentally friendly
technological and social innovation, taking into accountpotential rebound effects and investment regimes; and(8) promoting education, knowledge generation and themaintenance of different knowledge systems, including inthe sciences and indigenous and local knowledge, regarding
nature, conservation and its sustainable use.

D4 The character and trajectories oftransformation will vary across contexts, withchallenges and needs differing, among others, indeveloping and developed countries. Risks related
to the inevitable uncertainties and complexities intransformations towards sustainability can be
reduced through governance approaches that are
integrative, inclusive, informed and adaptive. Suchapproaches typically take into account the synergies andtrade-offs between societal goals and alternative pathways
and recognize a plurality of values, diverse economic
conditions, inequity, power imbalances and vested interests
in society. Risk-reducing strategies typically include learningfrom experience that is based on a combination of
precautionary measures and existing and emerging
knowledge. These approaches involve stakeholders in thecoordination of policies across sectors and in the creation ofstrategic, locally relevant mixes of successful policy
instruments. The private sector can play a role in partnershipwith other actors, including national and subnational
governments and civil society; for example, public-private
partnerships in the water sector have been an importantvehicle for financing investments to meet the Sustainable
Development Goals. Some effective policy measures include
the expansion and strengthening of ecologically
representative, well-connected protected-area networks andof other effective area-based conservation measures; the17
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

private sectors to achieve sustainability at
the local, national and global levels.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

protection of watersheds; and incentives and sanctions to
reduce pollution (Table SPM.1).

D5 Recognizing the knowledge, innovations,

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

18

practices, institutions and values of indigenous
peoples and local communities, and ensuring their
inclusion and participation in environmental
governance, often enhances their quality of life andthe conservation, restoration and sustainable useof nature, which is relevant to broader society.
Governance, including customary institutions andmanagement systems and co-management regimesthat involve indigenous peoples and local
communities, can be an effective way to safeguard
nature and its contributions to people byincorporating locally attuned management systems
and indigenous and local knowledge. The positive
contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities
to sustainability can be facilitated through nationalrecognition of land tenure, access and resource rights inaccordance with national legislation, the application of free,prior and informed consent, and improved collaboration, fairand equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use, andco-management arrangements with local communities.

D6 Feeding humanity and enhancing theconservation and sustainable use of nature arecomplementary and closely interdependent goals
that can be advanced through sustainableagriculture, aquaculture and livestock systems, thesafeguarding of native species, varieties, breeds
and habitats, and ecological restoration. Specificactions include promoting sustainable agricultural andagroecological practices, such as multifunctional landscapeplanning and cross-sectoral integrated management, that
support the conservation of genetic diversity and theassociated agricultural biodiversity. Further actions tosimultaneously achieve food security, biodiversity protection
and sustainable use are context appropriate climate change
mitigation and adaptation; incorporating knowledge fromvarious systems, including the sciences and sustainable
indigenous and local practices; avoiding food waste;empowering producers and consumers to transform supply
chains; and facilitating sustainable and healthy dietary
choices. As part of integrated landscape planning andmanagement, prompt ecological restoration, emphasizing
the use of native species, can offset the current degradationand save many endangered species, but is less effective
if delayed.

D7 Sustaining and conserving fisheries andmarine species and ecosystems can be achieved
through a coordinated mix of interventions on land,in freshwater and in the oceans, including
multilevel coordination across stakeholders on theuse of open oceans. Specific actions could include, forexample, ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries
management, spatial planning, effective quotas, marine
protected areas, protecting and managing key marine
biodiversity areas, reducing run-off pollution into oceans andworking closely with producers and consumers (Table
SPM.1). It is important to enhance capacity-building for the
adoption of best fisheries management practices; adopt
measures to promote conservation financing and corporatesocial responsibility; develop new legal and binding
instruments; implement and enforce global agreements forresponsible fisheries; and urgently take all steps necessary
to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported andunregulated fishing.

D8 Land-based climate change mitigation
activities can be effective and support
conservation goals (Table SPM.1). However, thelarge-scale deployment of bioenergy plantations
and afforestation of non-forest ecosystems cancome with negative side effects for biodiversity
and ecosystem functions. Nature-based solutions withsafeguards are estimated to provide 37 per cent of climatechange mitigation until 2030 needed to meet the goal of
keeping climate warming below 2°C, with likely co-benefits
for biodiversity. Therefore, land-use actions areindispensable, in addition to strong actions to reducegreenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use and otherindustrial and agricultural activities. However, the largescale deployment of intensive bioenergy plantations,
including monocultures, replacing natural forests andsubsistence farmlands, will likely have negative impacts on
biodiversity and can threaten food and water security as
well as local livelihoods, including by intensifyingsocial conflict.

D9 Nature-based solutions can be cost-effective
for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals incities, which are crucial for global sustainability.
Increased use of green infrastructure and other ecosystembased approaches can help to advance sustainable urban
development while reinforcing climate mitigation andadaptation. Urban key biodiversity areas should besafeguarded. Solutions can include retrofitting green andblue infrastructure, such as creating and maintaining green
spaces and biodiversity-friendly water bodies, urban
agriculture, rooftop gardens and expanded and accessible
vegetation cover in existing urban and peri-urban areas andnew developments. Green infrastructure in urban andsurrounding rural areas can complement large-scale “greyinfrastructure” in areas such as flood protection, temperature
regulation, cleaning of air and water, treating wastewaterand the provision of energy, locally sourced food and thehealth benefits of interaction with nature.

D10 A key component of sustainable pathways is
the evolution of global financial and economic

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

systems to build a global sustainable economy,
steering away from the current, limited paradigm ofeconomic growth. That implies incorporating the
reduction of inequalities into development pathways,
reducing overconsumption and waste and addressing
environmental impacts, such as externalities of economic
activities, from the local to the global scales. Such an
evolution could be enabled through a mix of policies andtools (such as incentive programmes, certification andperformance standards) and through more internationallyconsistent taxation, supported by multilateral agreements
and enhanced environmental monitoring and evaluation. It
would also entail a shift beyond standard economic
indicators such as gross domestic product to include thoseable to capture more holistic, long-term views of economics
and quality of life.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

19

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

20

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERSBACKGROUND

21

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESBACKGROUND
A. Nature and its vital contributions to people, which
together embody biodiversity and ecosystem functions andservices, are deteriorating worldwide.
1

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

22

Nature underpins quality of life by providing
basic life support for humanity (regulating), as wellas material goods (material) and spiritual inspiration(non-material) (well established) {2.3.1, 2.3.2}. Mostof nature’s contributions to people (NCP) are
co-produced by biophysical processes andecological interactions with anthropogenic assets
such as knowledge, infrastructure, financial capital,technology and the institutions that mediate them(well established) {2.3.2} (Appendix I). For example,
marine and freshwater-based food is co-produced by the
combination of fish populations, fishing gear, and access tofishing grounds {2.3.3} There is unequal access to nature’s
contributions and unequal impact of nature’s contributions
on different social groups (established but incomplete){2.3.5}. Furthermore, increases in the production of some ofnature’s contributions cause declines in others (Figure
SPM.1) {2.3.2, 2.3.5}, which also affects people differently(well established). For example, clearing of forest for
agriculture has increased the supply of food, feed, (NCP 12)
and other materials important for people (such as natural
fibres and ornamental flowers: NCP 13), but has reduced
contributions as diverse as pollination (NCP 2), climate
regulation (NCP 4), water quality regulation (NCP 7),
opportunities for learning and inspiration (NCP 15) and themaintenance of options for the future (NCP 18). However,very few large-scale systematic studies exist on thoserelationships {2.3.2}. Land degradation has reduced
productivity in 23 per cent of the global terrestrial area, andbetween $235 billion and $577 billion in annual global crop
output is at risk as a result of pollinator loss {2.3.5.3}(established but incomplete).

2

Many of nature’s contributions to people are
essential for human health (well established) and theirdecline thus threatens a good quality of life
(established but incomplete) {2.3.4}. Nature provides abroad diversity of nutritious foods, medicines and cleanwater (well established) {2.3.5.2, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2(Sustainable Development Goal 3)}; can help to regulatedisease and the immune system {2.3.4.2}; can reduce levelsof certain air pollutants (established but incomplete) {2.3.4.2,
3.3.2.2}; and can improve mental and physical healththrough exposure to natural areas (inconclusive), among
other contributions {2.3.2.2, 2.3.4.2, 3.3.2.2 (Sustainable

Development Goal 3)}. Nature is the origin of most infectious
diseases (negative impact), but also the source of medicines
and antibiotics for treatment (positive contribution) (wellestablished). Zoonotic diseases are significant threats tohuman health, with vector-borne diseases accounting for
approximately 17 per cent of all infectious diseases andcausing an estimated 700,000 deaths globally per annum(established but incomplete) {3.3.2.2}. Emerging infectious
diseases in wildlife, domestic animals, plants or people can beexacerbated by human activities such as land clearing andhabitat fragmentation (established but incomplete) or theoveruse of antibiotics driving rapid evolution of antibiotic
resistance in many bacterial pathogens (well established){3.3.2.2}. The deterioration of nature and consequentdisruption of benefits to people has both direct and indirect
implications for public health (well established) {2.3.5.2} andcan exacerbate existing inequalities in access to health care or
healthy diets (established but incomplete) {2.3.4.2}. Shifting
diets towards a diversity of foods, including fish, fruit, nuts
and vegetables, significantly reduces the risk of certain
preventable non-communicable diseases, which are
currently responsible for 20 per cent of premature mortality
globally (well established) {2.3.4.2, 2.3.5.2 (NCP 2 and 12)}.

3

Most of nature’s contributions are not fully
replaceable, yet some contributions of nature are
irreplaceable (well established). Loss of diversity, suchas phylogenetic and functional diversity, can permanently
reduce future options, such as wild species that might bedomesticated as new crops and be used for genetic
improvement {2.3.5.3}. People have created substitutes forsome other contributions of nature, but many of them areimperfect or financially prohibitive {2.3.2.2}. For example,
high-quality drinking water can be realized either throughecosystems that filter pollutants or through humanengineered water treatment facilities {2.3.5.3}. Similarly,
coastal flooding from storm surges can be reduced either bycoastal mangroves or by dikes and sea walls {2.3.5.3}. In
both cases, however, built infrastructure can be extremely
expensive, incur high future costs and fail to provide
synergistic benefits such as nursery habitats for edible fishor recreational opportunities {2.3.5.2}. More generally,
human-made replacements often do not provide the fullrange of benefits provided by nature {2.3.2.2}(Figure SPM.1).

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Nature’s contribution to people

Directional trend
across regions

Selected indicator• Extent of suitable habitat

1 Habitat creation andmaintenance• Biodiversity intactness

2 Pollination and dispersalof seeds and otherpropagules• Pollinator diversity• Extent of natural habitat in agriculturalareas

3 Regulation of air quality• Retention and prevented emissions of
air pollutants by ecosystems

4 Regulation of climate• Prevented emissions and uptake ofgreenhouse gases by ecosystems

5 Regulation of ocean
acidification• Capacity to sequester carbon bymarine and terrestrial environments

6 Regulation of freshwater
quantity, location and timing• Ecosystem impact on
air-surface-ground water partitioning

7 Regulation of freshwaterand coastal water quality• Extent of ecosystems that filter or add
constituent components to water

8 Formation, protection anddecontamination of soils
and sediments• Soil organic carbon

9 Regulation of hazards andextreme events• Ability of ecosystems to absorb andbuffer hazards• Extent of natural habitat in agriculturalareas

10 Regulation of detrimentalorganisms and biologicalprocesses• Diversity of competent hosts ofvector-borne diseases• Extent of agricultural land—potential
land for bioenergy production• Extent of forested land

11 Energy• Extent of agricultural land—potential
land for food and feed production

12 Food and feed

• Abundance of marine fish stocks• Extent of agricultural land—potential
land for material production

13 Materials and assistance• Extent of forested land
• Fraction of species locally known andused medicinally

14 Medicinal, biochemicaland genetic resources• Phylogenetic diversity• Number of people in close proximity tonature15 Learning and inspiration!?

• Diversity of life from which to learn

16 Physical and psychologicalexperiences• Area of natural and traditionallandscapes and seascapes

17 Supporting identities• Stability of land use and land cover• Species’ survival probability

18 Maintenance of options• Phylogenetic diversity

Decrease

DIRECTIONAL
TREND

Increase

Global trends:

Across regions:

Well established

LEVELS OF
CERTAINTY
Consistent

Variable

Established but incomplete
Unresolved

Figure SPM 1 G
 lobal trends in the capacity of nature to sustain contributions to good quality oflife from 1970 to the present, which show a decline for 14 of the 18 categories ofnature’s contributions to people analysed.
Data supporting global trends and regional variations come from a systematic review of over 2,000 studies {2.3.5.1}. Indicators wereselected on the basis of availability of global data, prior use in assessments and alignment with 18 categories. For many categories ofnature’s contributions, two indicators are included that show different aspects of nature’s capacity to contribute to human well-being
within that category. Indicators are defined so that an increase in the indicator is associated with an improvement in nature’s contributions.

23
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERSREGULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSESN O N - M A T E R I A L MAT E RIAL S AN D AS S IS T AN C E

50-year global trend

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

4

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

24

Humanity is a dominant global influence on lifeon earth, and has caused natural terrestrial,
freshwater and marine ecosystems to decline (wellestablished) {2.2.5.2} (Figure SPM.2). Global indicators of
ecosystem extent and condition have shown a decrease by
an average of 47 per cent of their estimated naturalbaselines, with many continuing to decline by at least 4 percent per decade (established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.1}.
On land, particularly sensitive ecosystems include oldgrowth forests, insular ecosystems, and wetlands; and onlyaround 25 per cent of land is sufficiently unimpacted that
ecological and evolutionary processes still operate withminimal human intervention (established but incomplete){2.2.3.4.1, 2.2.5.2.1}. In terrestrial “hotspots” of endemic
species, natural habitats have generally undergone greater
reductions to date in extent and condition, and tend to beexperiencing more rapid ongoing decline, on average thanother terrestrial regions {2.2.5.2.1}. Globally, the net rate offorest loss has halved since the 1990s, largely because of
net increases in temperate and high latitude forests;
high-biodiversity tropical forests continue to dwindle, andglobal forest area is now approximately 68 per cent of theestimated pre-industrial level (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.1}. Forests and natural mosaics sufficiently
undamaged to be classed as “intact” (defined as being
larger than 500 km2 where satellites can detect no humanpressure) were reduced by 7 per cent (919, 000 km2)
between 2000 and 2013, shrinking in both developed anddeveloping countries {2.2.5.2.1}. Inland waters andfreshwater ecosystems show among the highest rates ofdecline. Only 13 per cent of the wetland present in 1700
remained by 2000; recent losses have been even more
rapid (0.8 per cent per year from 1970 to 2008) (established
but incomplete) {2.2.7.9}.

5

Marine ecosystems, from coastal to deep sea,
now show the influence of human actions, withcoastal marine ecosystems showing both large
historical losses of extent and condition as well as
rapid ongoing declines (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.1, 2.2.7.15} (Figure SPM.2). Over 40 per cent ofocean area was strongly affected by multiple drivers in 2008,
and 66 per cent was experiencing increasing cumulative
impacts in 2014. Only 3 per cent of the ocean was
described as free from human pressure in 2014 (established
but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.1, 3.2.1}. Seagrass meadows
decreased in extent by over 10 per cent per decade from1970 to 2000 (established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.1}. Livecoral cover on reefs has nearly halved in the past 150 years,
the decline dramatically accelerating over the past two or
three decades due to increased water temperature andocean acidification interacting with and further exacerbatingother drivers of loss (well established) {2.2.5.2.1}. These
coastal marine ecosystems are among the most productive
systems globally, and their loss and deterioration reduce
their ability to protect shorelines, and the people andspecies that live there, from storms, as well as their ability toprovide sustainable livelihoods (well established) {2.2.5.2.1,
2.3.5.2}. Severe impacts to ocean ecosystems areillustrated by 33 per cent of fish stocks being classified as
overexploited and greater than 55 per cent of ocean area
being subject to industrial fishing (established but
incomplete) {2.1.11.1, 2.2.5.2.4, 2.2.7.16}.

6

The global rate of species extinction is already atleast tens to hundreds of times higher than the
average rate over the past 10 million years and isaccelerating (established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}(Figure SPM.3). Human actions have already driven at least
680 vertebrate species to extinction since 1500, including
the Pinta Giant Tortoise in the Galapagos in 2012, eventhough successful conservation efforts have saved fromextinction at least 26 bird species and 6 ungulate species,
including the Arabian Oryx and Przewalski’s Horse {3.2.1}.
The threat of extinction is also accelerating: in the beststudied taxonomic groups, most of the total extinction risk
to species is estimated to have arisen in the past 40 years(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}. The proportion of
species currently threatened with extinction according to theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List
criteria averages around 25 per cent across the manyterrestrial, freshwater and marine vertebrate, invertebrate
and plant groups that have been studied in sufficient detailto support a robust overall estimate (established but
incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4, 3.2}. More than 40 per cent ofamphibian species, almost a third of reef-forming corals,
sharks and shark relatives and over a third of marine
mammals are currently threatened {2.2.5.2.4, 3}. The
proportion of insect species threatened with extinction is a
key uncertainty, but available evidence supports a tentative
estimate of 10 per cent (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.4}. Those proportions suggest that, of an estimated
8 million animal and plant species (75 per cent of which are
insects), around 1 million are threatened with extinction(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}. A similar picture
also emerges from an entirely separate line of evidence.
Habitat loss and deterioration, largely caused by humanactions, have reduced global terrestrial habitat integrity by
30 per cent relative to an unimpacted baseline; combiningthat with the longstanding relationship between habitat areaand species numbers suggests that around 9 per cent of
the world’s estimated 5.9 million terrestrial species – morethan 500,000 species – have insufficient habitat for
long-term survival, and are committed to extinction, many
within decades, unless their habitats are restored(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}. Population declines
often give warning that a species’ risk of extinction isincreasing. The Living Planet Index, which synthesises
trends in vertebrate populations, shows that species havedeclined rapidly since 1970, with reductions of 40 per centfor terrestrial species, 84 per cent for freshwater species
and 35 per cent for marine species (established but

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

EXAMPLES OF DECLINES IN NATURE

DRIVERSECOSYSTEM EXTENT AND CONDITION47%

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

INDIRECT DRIVERS

DIRECT DRIVERS

Demographicandsociocultural

25%

SPECIES EXTINCTION RISKApproximately 25 per cent of species are
already threatened with extinction inmost animal and plant groups studied.

23%

ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Biotic integrity—the abundance of naturallypresent species—has declined by 23 percent on average in terrestrial communities.*

82%

BIOMASS AND SPECIES ABUNDANCE
The global biomass of wild mammals has
fallen by 82 per cent.* Indicators ofvertebrate abundance have declined
rapidly since 1970

72%

NATURE FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
72 per cent of indicators developed byindigenous peoples and local communities
show ongoing deterioration of elementsof nature important to them

Terrestrial
EconomicandtechnologicalFreshwater

Institutions
andgovernance
Conflicts
andepidemics

Marine
0

20

40

60

80

100%

Land/sea use change
Direct exploitation
Climate change
Pollution
Invasive alien species
OthersNatural ecosystems have declined by
47 per cent on average, relative to theirearliest estimated states.

* Since prehistory

have been and are being caused by direct and indirect drivers of change.
The direct drivers (land-/sea-use change; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasive alien species)6 result
from an array of underlying societal causes7. These causes can be demographic (e.g., human population dynamics), sociocultural(e.g., consumption patterns), economic (e.g., trade), technological, or relating to institutions, governance, conflicts and epidemics.
They are called indirect drivers8 and are underpinned by societal values and behaviours. The colour bands represent the relative
global impact of direct drivers, from top to bottom, on terrestrial, freshwater and marine nature, as estimated from a global systematic
review of studies published since 2005. Land- and sea-use change and direct exploitation account for more than 50 per cent of the
global impact on land, in fresh water and in the sea, but each driver is dominant in certain contexts {2.2.6}. The circles illustrate themagnitude of the negative human impacts on a diverse selection of aspects of nature over a range of different time scales based on a
global synthesis of indicators {2.2.5, 2.2.7}.

incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}. Local declines of insect populations
such as wild bees and butterflies have often been reported,and insect abundance has declined very rapidly in someplaces even without large-scale land-use change, but the
global extent of such declines is not known (established but
incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4}. On land, wild species that areendemic (narrowly distributed) have typically seen largerthan-average changes to their habitats and shown fasterthan-average declines (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.3, 2.2.5.2.4}.6 7 8

7The number of local varieties and breeds ofdomesticated plants and animals and their wild
relatives has been reduced sharply as a result of land
6. The classification of direct drivers used throughout this assessment is in{2.1.12 - 2.1.17}.
7. The interactions among indirect and direct drivers are addressed in {2.1.11,
2.1.18}.
8. The classification of indirect drivers used throughout this assessment is in{2.1.3 - 2.1.10}.

use change, knowledge loss, market preferences andlarge-scale trade (well established) {2.2.5.2.6,
2.2.5.3.1}. Domestic varieties of plants and animals are theresult of natural and human-managed selection,
sometimes over centuries or millennia, and tend to show ahigh degree of adaptation (genotypic and phenotypic) tolocal conditions (well established) {2.2.4.4}. As a result, thepool of genetic variation which underpins food security has
declined (well established) {2.2.5.2.6}. Ten per cent ofdomesticated breeds of mammals were recorded as
extinct, as well as some 3.5 per cent of domesticatedbreeds of birds (well established) {2.2.5.2.6}. Many
hotspots of agrobiodiversity and crop wild relatives are also
under threat or not formally protected. The conservation
status of wild relatives of domesticated livestock has also
deteriorated. These wild relatives represent criticalreservoirs of genes and traits that may provide resilienceagainst future climate change, pests and pathogens andmay improve current heavily depleted gene pools of many
crops and domestic animals {2.2.3.4.3}. The lands of

25
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Figure SPM 2 E
 xamples of global declines in nature, emphasizing declines in biodiversity, thatTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESACurrent global extinction risk in different species groups
Estimate of percentage threatened

Total number of extant
assessed species

Bony fishes***

2,390

Gastropods***

633

Birds*

10,966

Dragonflies**

1,520

Reptiles**

1,500

Near Threatened

Mammals*

5,593

Crustaceans***

2,872

Sharks and rays*

1,091

Corals (reef-forming)*

845

Conifers*

607

Dicots***1,781

Amphibians*

6,576

Extinct in the Wild

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PERCENTAGE OF SPECIES IN EACH CATEGORYC

Cumulative % of species based on
on background rate of 0.1-2
extinctions per million species per year

Declines in species survival since 1980
(Red List Index)
1.0

Amphibians

2.0
Mammals
1.5

Birds

1.0

ReptilesFishes0.5
BetterRed list index of species survival

Worse

BetterCorals
Birds

0.9
Mammals
0.8

0.7

Amphibians

0.6
Cycads
Worse

0
1500

Endangered
Critically Endangered

307

0Extinctions since 1500
2.5

Threatened
Vulnerable

Greater extinction risk

Monocots**

Least Concern

26

Cumulative % of species driven extinct

Non-threatened

972
1,026

Cycads*SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Data Deficient

Ferns and relatives*** Comprehensive** Sampled*** Selected

B

IUCN Red List categories

1600

1700

1800

1900

2018

YEAR

0.5
1980 1985

1990 1995

2000 2005 2010 2015

YEAR

Figure SPM 3 A
 substantial proportion of assessed species are threatened with extinction andoverall trends are deteriorating, with extinction rates increasing sharply in thepast century.
A Percentage of species threatened with extinction in taxonomic groups that have been assessed comprehensively, or through a‘sampled’ approach, or for which selected subsets have been assessed, by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)Red List of Threatened Species. Groups are ordered according to the best estimate for the percentage of extant species consideredthreatened (shown by the vertical blue lines), assuming that data deficient species are as threatened as non-data deficient species.
B Extinctions since 1500 for vertebrate groups. Rates for reptiles and fishes have not been assessed for all species. C Red List
Index of species survival for taxonomic groups that have been assessed for the IUCN Red List at least twice. A value of 1 is equivalent
to all species being categorized as Least Concern; a value of zero is equivalent to all species being classified as Extinct. Data for all
panels derive from www.iucnredlist.org (see Chapter 3 Figure 3.4 and Chapter 2 Figure 2.7).

indigenous peoples and local communities, including
farmers, pastoralists and herders, are often important
areas for in situ conservation of the remaining varieties andbreeds (well established) {2.2.5.3.1}. Available datasuggest that genetic diversity within wild species globallyhas been declining by about 1 per cent per decade since
the mid-19th century; and genetic diversity within wild
mammals and amphibians tends to be lower in areas

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

8

Human-driven changes in species diversity
within local ecological communities vary widely,depending on the net balance between species
loss and the influx of alien species, disturbancetolerant species, other human-adapted species or
climate migrant species (well established) {2.2.5.2.3}.
Even though human-dominated landscapes are sometimes
species-rich, their species composition is markedly alteredfrom that in natural landscapes (well established) {2.2.5.2.3,
2.2.7.10, 2.2.7.11}. As a result of human-caused changes
in community composition, naturally occurring species inlocal terrestrial ecosystems worldwide are estimated tohave lost at least 20 per cent of their original abundance on
average, with hotspots of endemic species tending to havelost even more (established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.3}. The
traits of species influence whether they persist or eventhrive in human-modified ecosystems (well established){2.2.3.6, 2.2.5.2.5}. For example, species that are large,
grow slowly, are habitat specialists or are carnivores – suchas great apes, tropical hardwood trees, sharks and big cats
– are disappearing from many areas. Many other species,
including those with opposite characteristics, are becoming
more abundant locally and are spreading quickly around theworld; across a set of 21 countries with detailed records,
the numbers of invasive alien species per country haverisen by some 70 per cent since 1970 {2.2.5.2.3}. The
effects of invasive alien species are often particularly severe
for the native species and assemblages on islands and inother settings with high proportions of endemic species(well established) {2.2.3.4.1, 2.2.5.2.3}. Invasive alien
species can have devastating effects on mainland
assemblages as well: for example, a single invasive
pathogen species, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, is athreat to nearly 400 amphibian species worldwide and has
already caused a number of extinctions (well established){2.2.5.2.3}. Many drivers add already widespread species
to ecological communities in many places; and many
drivers cause endemic species to decline in many places.
These two processes have contributed to the widespread
erosion of differences between ecological communities indifferent places, a phenomenon known as biotic
homogenization or the “anthropogenic blender” (wellestablished) {2.2.5.2.3}. The consequences of all thesechanges for ecosystem processes and hence nature’s
contributions to people can be very significant. For
example, the decline and disappearance of large herbivores
and predators has dramatically affected the structure, fire
regimes, seed dispersal, land surface albedo and nutrient
availability within many ecosystems (well established){2.2.5.2.1}. However, the consequences of changes often
depend on details of the ecosystem, remain hard to predict
and are still understudied (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.3}.

9

Many organisms show ongoing biologicalevolution so rapid that it is detectable within only a
few years or even more quickly – in response toanthropogenic drivers (well established) {2.2.5.2.5,
2.2.5.2.6}. Management decisions that take thoseevolutionary changes into account will be noticeably
more effective (established but incomplete) {Box 2.5}.
This human-driven contemporary evolution, which has long
been recognized in microbes, viruses, agricultural insect
pests and weeds (well established), is now being observedin some species within all major taxonomic groups(animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms). Such changes
are known to occur in response to human activities ordrivers, such as hunting, fishing, harvesting, climatechange, ocean acidification, soil and water pollution,
invasive species, pathogens, pesticides and urbanization(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.5}. However,management strategies typically assume that evolutionarychanges occur only over much longer time periods andthus ignore rapid evolution. These policy considerations
span many spheres in which management actions
designed to slow or speed evolution can dramaticallychange outcomes, as the following examples indicate.
Insects, weeds and pathogens evolve resistance toinsecticides, herbicides and other control agents, yet
management strategies such as refuges, crop rotation, andcrop diversity can dramatically slow that undesirable
evolution (well established) {Box 2.5}. Commercial fish
populations have evolved to mature earlier under intensive
harvesting, which sometimes can be minimized bymandating changes in fishing gear or fish size limits(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.5}. Climate change
favours the evolution of seasonally earlier reproduction in
many organisms, which can in principle be facilitatedthrough the introduction of individuals from populations
already adapted to such conditions (established but
incomplete) {2.2.5.2.5}. Mosquitoes rapidly evolve
resistance to efforts to control them, but evolutionarily
informed management actions can dramatically slow that
undesirable evolution (established but incomplete){2.2.5.2.5}. Contemporary evolution is thus relevant tomany policy concerns. Understanding and working with
contemporary evolution can address important concerns
surrounding pollination and dispersal, coral persistence inthe face of ocean acidification, water quality, pest
regulation, food production and options for the future(established but incomplete). The specific actions taken will
typically be case-specific and therefore will require carefulassessment of evolutionary potential and consequences. In
many cases, the best strategy could be to simply maintainthe ability of natural populations to respond evolutionarilyon their own ­– rather than through direct humanmanipulation of evolution.

27
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

where human influence is greater (established but
incomplete) {2.2.5.2.6}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

B. Direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated
during the past 50 years.
10

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

28

Today, humans extract more from the Earth andproduce more waste than ever before (wellestablished). Globally, land-use change is the directdriver with the largest relative impact on terrestrial
and freshwater ecosystems, while direct exploitationof fish and seafood has the largest relative impact inthe oceans (well established) (Figure SPM.2) {2.2.6.2}.
Climate change, pollution and invasive alien species
have had a lower relative impact to date but are
accelerating (established but incomplete) {2.2.6.2, 3.2,4.2}. Although the pace of agricultural expansion into intact
ecosystems {2.1.13} has varied from country to country,
losses of intact ecosystems have occurred primarily in thetropics, home to the highest levels of biodiversity on theplanet (for example, 100 million hectares of tropical forestfrom 1980 to 2000), due to cattle ranching in Latin America(~42 million ha) and plantations in South-East Asia(~7.5 million hectares, 80 per cent in oil palm) among others{2.1.13}, noting that plantations can also increase total
forest area. Within land-use change, urban areas have morethan doubled since 1992. In terms of direct exploitation,
approximately 60 billion tons9 of renewable and nonrenewable resources {2.1.2} are being extracted each year.
That total has nearly doubled since 1980, as population has
grown considerably while the average per capita
consumption of materials (e.g., plants, animals, fossil fuels,
ores, construction material) has risen by 15 per cent since1980 (established but incomplete) {2.1.6, 2.1.11, 2.1.14}.
This activity has generated unprecedented impacts: since1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled {2.1.11,
2.1.12}, raising average global temperatures by at least
0.7 °C {2.1.12}, while plastic pollution in oceans has
increased tenfold {2.1.15}. Over 80 per cent of global
wastewater is being discharged back into the environment
without treatment, while 300–400 million tons of heavy
metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes fromindustrial facilities are dumped into the world’s waters eachyear {2.1.15}. Excessive or inappropriate application offertilizer can lead to run-off from fields and enter freshwaterand coastal ecosystems, producing more than 400 hypoxic
zones that affected a total area of more than 245,000 km2
as early as 2008 {2.1.15}. In some island countries, invasive
alien species have a significant impact on biodiversity, withintroduced species being a key driver of extinctions.

11

Land-use change is driven primarily byagriculture, forestry and urbanization, all of which areassociated with air, water and soil pollution. Over one
third of the world’s land surface and nearly three-quarters of
9. All references to “tons” are to metric tons.

available freshwater resources are devoted to crop or
livestock production {2.1.11}. Crop production occurs onsome 12 per cent of total ice-free land. Grazing occurs on
about 25 per cent of total ice-free lands and approximately
70 per cent of drylands {2.1.11}. Approximately 25 per centof the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions come from land
clearing, crop production and fertilization, with animal-based
food contributing 75 per cent of that. Intensive agriculture
has increased food production at the cost of regulating andnon-material contributions from nature, thoughenvironmentally beneficial practices are increasing. Small
landholdings (less than 2 hectares) contribute approximately
30 per cent of global crop production and 30 per cent of the
global food caloric supply, using around a quarter ofagricultural land and usually maintaining rich agrobiodiversity{2.1.11}. Moving to logging, between 1990 and 2015,
clearing and wood harvest contributed to a total reductionof 290 million hectares in native forest cover, while the areaof planted forests grew by 110 million hectares {2.1.11}.
Industrial roundwood harvest is falling within somedeveloped countries but rising on average in developing
countries {2.1.11}. Illegal timber harvests and related tradesupply 10–15 per cent of global timber, and up to 50 per
cent in certain areas, hurting revenues for state owners andlivelihoods for the rural poor. All mining on land has
increased dramatically and, while still using less than 1 percent of the Earth’s land, has had significant negative impacts
on biodiversity, emissions of highly toxic pollutants, water
quality and water distribution, and human health {2.1.11}.
Mined products contribute more than 60 per cent of the
GDP of 81 countries. There are approximately 17,000 largescale mining sites in 171 countries, with the legal sites
mostly managed by international corporations, but there isalso extensive illegal and small-scale mining that is harder totrace, and both types of sites are often in locations relevant
for biodiversity {2.1.11}.

12

In marine systems, fishing has had the mostimpact on biodiversity (target species, non-target
species and habitats) in the past 50 years alongsideother significant drivers (well established) {2.1.11,
2.2.6.2} (Figure SPM.2). Global fish catches have beensustained by expanding fishing geographically andpenetrating into deeper waters (well established) {3.2.1}. An
increasing proportion of marine fish stocks are overfished(33 per cent in 2015), including stocks of economicallyimportant species, while 60 per cent are maximallysustainably fished and only 7 per cent are underfished (wellestablished) {Box 3.1}. Industrial fishing, concentrated in a
few countries and corporations {2.1.11}, covers at least
55 per cent of the oceans, largely concentrated in theTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

13

The direct driver with the second highest relative
impact on the oceans is the many changes in the usesof the sea and coastal land (well established) (Figure
SPM.2) {2.2.6.2}. Coastal habitats, including estuaries anddeltas critical for marine biota and regional economies, havebeen severely affected by sea-use changes (coastal
development, offshore aquaculture, mariculture and bottom
trawling) and land-use changes (onshore land clearance andurban sprawl along coastlines, plus pollution of rivers).
Pollution from land sources is already a major driver ofnegative environmental change. Ocean mining, while
relatively small, has expanded since 1981 to ~ 6,500 offshore
oil and gas installations worldwide in 53 countries (60 per
cent in the Gulf of Mexico by 2003) and likely will expand into
the Arctic and Antarctic regions as the ice melts {2.1.11}.
Ocean acidification from increased carbon dioxide levels
largely affects shallow waters, with the ecosystems of thesubarctic Pacific and western Arctic Ocean particularly
affected. Plastic microparticles and nanoparticles areentering food webs in poorly understood ways {2.1.15.3}.
Coastal waters hold the highest levels of metals andpersistent organic pollutants from industrial discharge andagricultural run-off, poisoning coastal fish harvests. Severe
effects from excess nutrient concentrations in certain
locations include damage to fish and seabed biota. The
dynamics of ocean and airborne transport of pollutants meanthat the harm from inputs of plastics, persistent organic
pollutants, heavy metals and ocean acidification is felt
worldwide, including with consequences for human health.

14

Climate change is already having an impact onnature, from genes to ecosystems. It poses a growing
risk owing to the accelerated pace of change andinteractions with other direct drivers (well established){2.1.12, 2.1.18, 2.2.6.2}. Shifts in species distribution,changes in phenology, altered population dynamics andchanges in the composition of species assemblage or the
structure and function of ecosystems, are evident {2.2.5.3.2,
2.2.5.2.3, 2.2.6.2} and accelerating in marine, terrestrial andfreshwater systems (well established) {2.2.3.2}. Almost half
(47 per cent) of threatened terrestrial mammals, excluding
bats, and one quarter (23 per cent) of threatened birds may
have already been negatively affected by climate change inat least part of their distribution (birds in North America andEurope suggest effects of climate change in their population
trends since the 1980s) (established but incomplete){2.2.6.2}. Ecosystems such as tundra and taiga and regions
such as Greenland, previously little affected by people
directly, are increasingly experiencing the impacts of climatechange (well established) {2.2.7.5}. Large reductions andlocal extinctions of populations are widespread (wellestablished) {2.2.6.2}. This indicates that many species areunable to cope locally with the rapid pace of climatechange, through either evolutionary or behaviouralprocesses, and that their continued existence will also
depend on the extent to which they are able to disperse, totrack suitable climatic conditions, and to preserve theircapacity to evolve (well established) {2.2.5.2.5}. Many ofthese changes can have significant impacts on a number ofimportant economic sectors, and cascading effects for othercomponents of biodiversity. Island nations, in particular
those in East Asia and the Pacific region, will be mostvulnerable to sea-level rise (1m) as projected by all climatechange scenarios, {2.1.1.7.1} which will displace close to
40 million people {2.1.1.7.1, 2.2.7.1.8}.

15

Unsustainable use of the Earth’s resources isunderpinned by a set of demographic and economic
indirect drivers that have increased, and thatfurthermore interact in complex ways, including
through trade (well established) {2.1.6}. The global
human population has increased from 3.7 to 7.6 billion since1970 unevenly across countries and regions, which hasstrong implications for the degradation of nature. Per capita
consumption also has grown, and also is unequal, with wide
variations in lifestyles and access to resources across andwithin regions, plus consequences for nature that are
distributed globally through trade. Total gross domestic
product is four times higher and is rising faster in developed
than in least developed countries. Approximately 821 million
people face food insecurity in Asia and Africa, while 40 per
cent of the global population lacks access to clean, safe
drinking water. Generally, environmentally-based healthburdens, such as air and water pollution, are more prevalent
in least developed countries {2.1.2, 2.1.15}.

16

Due to expansions of infrastructure, extensive
areas of the planet are being opened up to new
threats (well established) {2.1.11}. Globally, paved road
lengths are projected to increase by 25 million kilometres by

29
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

northeast Atlantic, the northwest Pacific and upwelling
regions off South America and West Africa (established but
incomplete) {2.1.11}. Small-scale fisheries account for morethan 90 per cent of commercial fishers (over 30 million
people), and nearly half of global fish catch (established but
incomplete). In 2011, illegal, unreported or unregulated
fishing represented up to one third of the world’s reported
catch (established but incomplete) {2.1.11}. Since 1992,
regional fisheries bodies have been adopting sustainable
development principles. For instance, more than
170 members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) adopted the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries in 1995, and as of 1 April 2018,52 countries and one member organization had become
Parties to the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent,
Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing, in order to address the depletion of marine fisheries(established but incomplete) {2.1.11}, reduce by-catch {3,box 3.3} and lower damage to seabeds and reefs. In
addition, the set of established marine protected areas has
been growing (well established) {2.1.11.1, 2.2.7.16}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

2050, with nine tenths of all road construction occurring
within least developed and developing countries. The
number of dams has increased rapidly in the past 50 years.
Worldwide, there are now about 50,000 large dams (higher
than 15 metres) and approximately 17 million reservoirs(larger than 0.01 hectares or 100m2) {2.1.11}. The
expansions of roads, cities, hydroelectric dams and oil andgas pipelines can come with high environmental and social
costs, including deforestation, habitat fragmentation,
biodiversity loss, land grabbing, population displacement
and social disruption, including for indigenous peoples andlocal communities (established but incomplete). Yet
infrastructure can generate positive economic effects andeven environmental gains, based on efficiency, innovation,
migration, and urbanization, depending on where and how
investment is implemented and governed (well established){2.1.11}. Understanding this variation in impacts is critical.

17

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

30

Long-distance transportation of goods andpeople, including for tourism, have grown dramaticallyin the past 20 years, with negative consequences fornature overall (established but incomplete). The rise inairborne and seaborne transportation of both goods andpeople, including a threefold increase in travel fromdeveloped and developing countries in particular, has
increased pollution and significantly increased the presenceof invasive alien species (well established) {2.1.15}. Between
2009 and 2013, the carbon footprint from tourism rose
40 per cent to 4.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide, and overall,
8 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions are fromtourism-related transportation and food consumption{2.1.11, 2.1.15}. The demand for nature-based tourism or
ecotourism has also risen, with mixed effects on nature andlocal communities, including some potential for contributions
to local conservation, in particular when carried out at asmaller scale {2.1.11}.

18

Distant areas of the world are increasinglyconnected, as consumption, production, andgovernance decisions increasingly influencematerials, waste, energy, and information flows inother countries, generating aggregate economic gains
while shifting economic and environmental costs,
which can link to conflicts (established but
incomplete) (Figure SPM.4). As per capita consumption
has risen, developed countries and rapidly growing
developing countries {2.1.2, 2.1.6}, while at times
supporting efficient production for exports, often reducewater consumption and forest degradation nationally {2.1.6,
2.1.11} by importing crops and other resources, mainly fromdeveloping countries {2.1.6}. The latter, as a result, seedeclines in nature and its contributions to people (habitat,climate, air and water quality) different from the exported
food, fibre and timber products (Figures SPM.1 and 5).
Reduced, declining and unequal access to nature’s
contributions to people may, in a complex interaction withother factors, be a source of conflict within and among
countries (established but incomplete). Least developed
countries, often rich in and more dependent upon natural
resources, have suffered the greatest land degradation,
have also experienced more conflict and lower economic
growth, and have contributed to environmental outmigration
by several million people {2.1.2, 2.1.4}. When indigenous
peoples or local communities are expelled from orthreatened on their lands, including by mining or industrial
logging for export, this too can spark conflict – often
between actors with different levels of power, as today a few
actors can control large shares of any market or capital
asset rivalling those of most countries {2.1.6}, while funds
channelled through tax havens support most vessels
implicated in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
More than 2,500 conflicts over fossil fuels, water, food andland are currently occurring across the planet, and at least
1,000 environmental activists and journalists were killed
between 2002 and 2013 {2.1.11, 2.1.18}.

19

Governance has at many levels moved slowly tofurther and better incorporate into policies andincentives the values of nature’s contributions topeople. However, around the globe, subsidies withharmful effects on nature have persisted (wellestablished) {2.1, 3, 5, 6.4}. The incorporation by society ofthe value of nature’s contributions to people will entail shifts
in governance even within private supply chains, for instancewhen civil society certifies and helps to reward desired
practices, or when States block access to markets becauseof undesirable practices {2.1.7}. Successful local governancesupported by recognition of local rights has often
incorporated knowledge of how nature contributes to humanwellbeing to motivate such behaviours {2.1.8}. National
agencies have also promoted land management strategies
that are more sustainable and introduced regulations, among
other policy measures {2.1.9.2}, and have coordinated withother nations on global agreements to maintain nature’s
contributions to people {2.1.10}. Economic instruments that
may be harmful to nature include subsidies, financialtransfers, subsidized credit, tax abatements, and prices forcommodities and industrial goods that hide environmental
and social costs. Such instruments favour unsustainableproduction and, as a consequence, can promote
deforestation, overfishing, urban sprawl, and wasteful uses ofwater. In 2015, agricultural support potentially harmful tonature amounted to $100 billion in countries belonging to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
although some subsidy reforms to reduce unsustainablepesticide uses and adjust several other consequential
development practices have been introduced {2.1.9.1,
6.4.5}. Fossil fuel subsidies valued at $345 billion result in
global costs of $5 trillion when including the reduction ofnature’s contributions (coal accounts for about half of thesecosts, petroleum for about one third and natural gas forabout one tenth {2.1.9.1.2}). In fisheries, subsidies to80

DProtection of Key Biodiversity
Areas (KBAs)

B

Domestic material consumption

C

40
20
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

E
Average mean annual exposure
to fine particles (μg / m3)*

60

8
4
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

01970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

80

12

Air pollution

40

30

20

0

15
10
5
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

F

Fertilizer use

Mean Kg / ha of arable land20

Total million tons / year

Average tons / capita

40(domestic consumption and exports)
20

16

60

Extraction of living biomass

800

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

600
400
200
31
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

*Fine particles: < 2.5 micrograms

Developed

Developing

Least developed

World

Figure SPM 4 D evelopment pathways since 1970 for selected key indicators of human-

environment interactions, which show a large increase in the scale of global
economic growth and its impacts on nature, with strong contrasts acrossdeveloped, developing, and least developed countries.
Countries are classified according to the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects (https://www.un.org/development/
desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-2019/). Global gross domestic product has risen fourfold in realterms, with the vast majority of growth occurring in developed and developing countries A . Extraction of living biomass (e.g., crops,fish) to meet the demand for domestic consumption and for export is highest in developing countries and rising rapidly B . However,material consumption per capita within each country (from imports and domestic production) is highest in developed countries. Overall
protection of Key Biodiversity Areas is rising, being highest within developed countries D . Air pollution is highest in least developed
countries E , while the challenges of non-point-source pollution from the use of fertilizers are highest in developing countries.
Data sources: A , E , F : www.data.worldbank.org; B , C : www.materialflows.net; D : www.keybiodiversityareas.org, www.
protectedplanet.net.

increase and maintain capacity, which in turn often lead tothe degradation of nature, constitute perhaps a majority ofthe tens of US$ billions spent on supports {5.3.2.5}.

20

Much of the world’s terrestrial wild anddomesticated biodiversity lies in areas traditionallymanaged, owned, used or occupied by indigenous
peoples and local communities (well established)(Figure SPM.5) {2.2.4}. In spite of efforts at all levels,
although nature on indigenous lands is declining lessrapidly than elsewhere, biodiversity and theknowledge associated with its management are still

deteriorating (established but incomplete) {2.2.4,
2.2.5.3}. Despite a long history of resource use,conservation conflicts related to colonial expansion andland appropriation for parks and other uses {3.2} (wellestablished), indigenous peoples and local communities
have often managed their landscapes and seascapes inways that were adjusted to local conditions overgenerations. These management methods often remaincompatible with, or actively support, biodiversity
conservation by “accompanying” natural processes withanthropogenic assets (established but incomplete) {2.2.4,
2.2.5.3.1} (Figure SPM.5).

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Gross domestic product (GDP)

Average % of KBAs
covered by protected areas

A
Trillion US$ (2010 constant $)THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Domesticating andmaintaining crops…

ab… and animal breedsc Creating cultural landscapeswith enhanced habitat
heterogeneity

d Developing production

systems with a multitude ofdomestic and wild species

2) Formally designatedprotected areas

PROTECTION

CONCEPTS

Approx. 35% of area 2)
Approx. 35%
of area 3)3) Remaining terrestrial
areas with very low
human intervention(areas with <4
Footprint Index)

1) Land areas
traditionally owned,
managed, used, or
occupied byindigenous peoples

h Preventing forest loss

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

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

32

ie Habitat managementfWild species management

Alternative values andworldviewsg Restoration

Figure SPM 5 C
 ontributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the enhancement

and maintenance of wild and domesticated biodiversity and landscapes.
Indigenous and local knowledge systems are locally based, but regionally
manifested and thus globally relevant.
A wide diversity of practices actively and positively contributes to wild and domestic biodiversity through “accompanying” naturalprocesses with anthropogenic assets (knowledge, practices and technology). Indigenous peoples often manage the land and coastal
areas based on culturally specific world views, applying principles and indicators such as the health of the land, caring for the country
and reciprocal responsibility. As lifestyles, values and external pressures change with globalization, however, unsustainable practices
are becoming increasingly common in certain regions10. The image in the centre of the above figure shows the global overlap between
1) land areas traditionally owned, managed11, used, or occupied by indigenous peoples; 2) formally designated protected areas;and 3) remaining terrestrial areas with very low human intervention (areas that score <4 on the Human Footprint Index12). Circles andoverlapping sections are proportional in area. Land areas traditionally owned, managed11, used, or occupied by indigenous peoples
overlap with approximately 35 per cent of the area that is formally protected, and approximately 35 per cent of all remaining terrestrial
areas with very low human intervention. The topics and pictures in the figure aim to illustrate, not represent, the types and diversity of
the following contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to biodiversity: a domestication and maintenance of locally
adapted crop and fruit varieties (potatoes, Peru) and b animal breeds (rider and sheep, Kyrgyzstan) {2.2.4.4}; c creation of speciesrich habitats and high ecosystem diversity in cultural landscapes (hay meadows, Central Europe) {2.2.4.1-2}; d identification of usefulplants and their cultivation in high-diversity ecosystems (multi-species forest garden, Indonesia) {2.2.4.3}; e and f management
and monitoring of wild species, habitats and landscapes for wildlife and for increased resilience ( e - Australia, f - Alaska) {2.2.4.56}; g restoration of degraded lands (Niger) {3.2.4}; h prevention of deforestation in recognized indigenous territories (Amazon basin,
Brazil) {2.2.4.7}; i offering alternative concepts of relations between humanity and nature (Northern Australia).
10 11

12

10. In Stephen Garnett et al., “A spatial overview of the global importance ofIndigenous lands for conservation”, Nature Sustainability, Vol. 1 (July 2018)
pp. 369–374.

that fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood
activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting,pastoralism, and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

11. These data sources define land management here as the process ofdetermining the use, development and care of land resources in a manner

12. Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009.
Sci. Data 3, sdata201667 (2016).

Photos credits: (a) ©FAO/Sandro Cespoli, (b) ©FAO/Vyacheslav Oseledko, (c) ©Daniel Babai, (d) G. Michon et al. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art1/,(e) ©Rebecca Bliege Bird, (f) Vadeve, (g) ©Rodrigo Ordonez/GLF, (h) Google Maps (i) ©Daniel Rockman Jupurrurla.

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

D O M E S T I C AT I O NTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

13. These data sources define land management here as the process ofdetermining the use, development and care of land resources in a mannerthat fulfils material and non-material cultural needs, including livelihood
activities such as hunting, fishing, gathering, resource harvesting,pastoralism, and small-scale agriculture and horticulture.

indigenous peoples are becoming islands of biologicaland cultural diversity surrounded by areas in which nature
has further deteriorated (established but incomplete){2.2.5.3}. Among the local indicators developed and usedby indigenous peoples and local communities, 72 per centshow negative trends in nature that underpinned local
livelihoods (established but incomplete) {2.2.5.3.2}. Major
trends include declining availability of resources – duein part to legal and illegal territory reductions, despite
expanding indigenous populations – as well as declining
health and populations of culturally important species;
new pests and invasive alien species as climate changes;
losses in both natural forest habitats and grazing lands;
and declining productivity in remnant ecosystems. A moredetailed global synthesis of trends in nature observed byindigenous peoples and local communities is hindered by
the lack of institutions that gather data for these locations
and then synthesize them within regional and global
summaries {2.2.2}.

C. Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature
and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current
trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only
be achieved through transformative changes acrosseconomic, social, political and technological factors.
14

21

There has been good progress towards thecomponents of 4 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets
under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.
Moderate progress has been achieved towards somecomponents of 7 more targets, but for 6 others, poor
progress has been made towards all components.
There is insufficient information to assess progress
towards some or all components of the remaining
3 targets (established but incomplete) {3.2}. Overall,
the state of nature continues to decline (12 of 16
indicators show significantly worsening trends) (wellestablished) {3.2} (Figure SPM.6). 14
By 2015, greater progress had been made in implementing
policy responses and actions to conserve biodiversity for
drivers with an impact on coral reefs and other ecosystems
vulnerable to climate change (established but incomplete){3.2}. Anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity loss, including
habitat loss as a result of land-use and sea use change(addressed by Aichi Target 5), unsustainable agriculture,
aquaculture and forestry (Aichi Target 7), unsustainablefishing (Aichi Target 6), pollution (Aichi Target 8), and invasive
alien species (Aichi Target 9) are increasing globally, despite
14. A fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic
and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.

national efforts to meet the Aichi Targets (established but
incomplete) {3.2}.

22Conservation actions, including protectedareas, efforts to manage unsustainable use andaddress the illegal capture and trade of species, andthe translocation and eradication of invasive species,
have been successful in preventing the extinction ofsome species (established but incomplete). For
example, conservation investment during the period
between 1996 and 2008 reduced the extinction risk for
mammals and birds in 109 countries by a median value of
29 per cent per country, while the rate of decrease in
extinction risk for birds, mammals and amphibians would
have been at least 20 per cent higher without conservation
action in recent decades. Similarly, it is likely that at least
6 species of ungulate (e.g., the Arabian Oryx andPrzewalski’s Horse) would now be extinct or surviving only
in captivity without conservation measures. At least 107
highly threatened birds, mammals and reptiles (e.g., theIsland Fox and the Seychelles Magpie-Robin) are estimatedto have benefited from invasive mammal eradication on
islands {3.2.2}. Although still few and spatially localized,
such cases show that with prompt and appropriate action, it
is possible to reduce human-induced extinction rates

33
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

At least one quarter of the global land area is traditionallymanaged13, owned, used or occupied by indigenous
peoples. These areas include approximately 35 per centof the area that is formally protected, and approximately
35 per cent of all remaining terrestrial areas with very
low human intervention (established but incomplete){2.2.5.3.1}. Community-based conservation institutions
and local governance regimes have often been effective,
at times even more effective than formally establishedprotected areas, in preventing habitat loss (established but
incomplete). Several studies have highlighted contributions
by indigenous peoples and local communities in limiting
deforestation, as well as initiatives showing synergies
between these different mechanisms (well established){6.3.2, 2.2.5.3}. In many regions, however, the lands of

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Goal

TargetTarget element (abbreviated)

Progress towards the Aichi Targets
Poor

Moderate

A. Address the underlying drivers

1.1 Awareness of biodiversity
1.2 Awareness of steps to conserve
2.1 Biodiversity integrated into poverty reduction
2.2 Biodiversity integrated into planning
2.3 Biodiversity integrated into accounting
2.4 Biodiversity integrated into reporting
3.1 Harmful subsidies eliminated and reformed
3.2 Positive incentives developed and implemented
4.1 Sustainable production and consumption
4.2 Use within safe ecological limits
5.1 Habitat loss at least halved
5.2 Degradation and fragmentation reduced
6.1 Fish stocks harvested sustainably
6.2 Recovery plans for depleted species

B. Reduce direct pressures

34

Unknown

6.3 Fisheries have no adverse impact
7.1 Agriculture is sustainable
7.2 Aquaculture is sustainable
7.3 Forestry is sustainable
8.1 Pollution not detrimental
8.2 Excess nutrients not detrimental
9.1 Invasive alien species prioritized
9.2 Invasive alien pathways prioritized

Unknown

9.4 Invasive introduction pathways managed
10.1 Pressures on coral reefs minimized
10.2 Pressures on vulnerable ecosystems minimized
11.1 10 per cent of marine areas conserved
11.2 17 per cent of terrestrial areas conserved
C. Improve biodiversity status

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

9.3 Invasive species controlled or eradicated11.3 Areas of importance conserved
11.4 Protected areas, ecologically representative
11.5 Protected areas, effectively and equitably managed
11.6 Protected areas, well-connected and integrated
12.1 Extinctions prevented
12.2 Conservation status of threatened species improved
13.1 Genetic diversity of cultivated plants maintained
13.2 Genetic diversity of farmed animals maintained
13.3 Genetic diversity of wild relatives maintained
13.4 Genetic diversity of valuable species maintained

Unknown

13.5 Genetic erosion minimized
14.1 Ecosystems providing services restored and safeguarded
D. Enhancebenefits to all

14.2 Taking account of women, IPLCs, and other groups

Unknown

15.1 Ecosystem resilience enhanced

Unknown

15.2 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems restored

Unknown

16.1 Nagoya Protocol in force
16.2 Nagoya Protocol operational
17.1 NBSAPs developed and updated

E. Enhance implementation

17.2 NBSAPs adopted as policy instruments
17.3 NBSAPs implemented
18.1 ILK and customary use respected18.2 ILK and customary use integrated

Unknown

18.3 IPLCs participate effectively

Unknown

19.1 Biodiversity science improved and shared19.2 Biodiversity science applied
20.1 Financial resources for Strategic Plana increased

UnknownGoodTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Abbreviations: ILK: indigenous and local knowledge; IPLCs: indigenous peoples and local communities;
NBSAPs: national biodiversity strategies and action plans.
aStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020.
Figure SPM 6 Summary of progress towards the Aichi Targets.
Scores are based on a quantitative analysis of indicators, a systematic review of the literature, the fifth National Reports to theConvention on Biological Diversity and the information available on countries’ stated intentions to implement additional actions by
2020. Progress towards target elements is scored as “Good” (substantial positive trends at a global scale relating to most aspectsof the element); “Moderate” (the overall global trend is positive, but insubstantial or insufficient, or there may be substantial positive
trends for some aspects of the element, but little or no progress for others; or the trends are positive in some geographic regions, but
not in others); “Poor” (little or no progress towards the element or movement away from it; or, despite local, national or case-specificsuccesses and positive trends for some aspects, the overall global trend shows little or negative progress); or “Unknown” (insufficient
information to score progress).

23

Biodiversity and ecosystem functions andservices directly underpin the achievement of severalof the Sustainable Development Goals, including
those on water and sanitation, climate action, life
below water and life on land (Sustainable
Development Goals 6, 13, 14 and 15), (wellestablished) {3.3.2.1}. Nature also plays an importantand complex role in the achievement of the
Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty,
hunger, health and well-being and sustainable cities(Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 3 and 11)(established but incomplete) {3.3.2.2} (Figure SPM.7).
Several examples illustrate the interdependencies between
nature and the Sustainable Development Goals. For
example, nature and its contributions may play an importantrole in reducing vulnerability to climate-related extreme
events and other economic, social and environmental
shocks and disasters, although anthropogenic assets arealso involved (established but incomplete). Nature’s
underpinning of specific health targets varies across regions
and ecosystems, is influenced by anthropogenic assets andremains understudied. The relationship can be positive or
negative, as in the case of certain aspects of biodiversity
and infectious diseases (see paragraph 2 of the present
document). Nature directly underpins the livelihoods ofindigenous peoples and local communities and the rural andurban poor, largely through direct consumption or throughthe income generated by trade in material contributions
such as food (see paragraphs 2 and 36 of the present
document) and energy (well established). Such contributions
are generally underrepresented in poverty analyses(established but incomplete). Nature and its contributions
are also relevant to the Goals for education, gender equality,
reducing inequalities and promoting peace, justice andstrong institutions (Sustainable Development Goals 4, 5, 10

and 16), but the current focus and wording of the related
targets obscures or omits their relationship to nature(established but incomplete).

24

To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity, future targets arelikely to be more effective if they take into account the
impacts of climate change (well established) {3.2, 3.3}.
For example, climate change is projected to greatly increase
the number of species under threat, with fewer species
expanding their ranges or experiencing more suitableclimatic conditions than the number of species experiencing
range contraction or less suitable conditions (established
but incomplete) {4.2, 3.2}. The impact of climate change on
the effectiveness of protected areas calls for a re-evaluationof conservation objectives; meanwhile, there are currently
few protected areas whose objectives and managementtake climate change into account (established but
incomplete). The Sustainable Development Goals forpoverty, health, water and food security, and sustainability
targets are closely linked through the impacts of multiple
direct drivers, including climate change, on biodiversity andecosystem functions and services, nature and nature’s
contributions to people and good quality of life. In a
post-2020 global biodiversity framework, placing greater
emphasis on the interactions between the targets of the
Sustainable Development Goals {4.6, 3.7} may provide away forward for achieving multiple targets, as synergies (andtrade-offs) can be considered. Future targets are expected
to be more effective if they take into account the impacts ofclimate change, including on biodiversity, and action to
mitigate and adapt to climate change {4.6, 3.7}.

25 The adverse impacts of climate change on
biodiversity are projected to increase with increasing
warming, so limiting global warming to well below 2°C
would have multiple co-benefits for nature and nature’s
contributions to people and quality of life; however, it isprojected that some large-scale land-based mitigation
measures to achieve that objective will havesignificant impacts on biodiversity (established but

35
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS(established but incomplete) {2.2.5.2.4, 4}. There are,however, few other counterfactual studies assessing how
trends in the state of nature or pressures upon nature would
have been different in the absence of conservation efforts(well established) {3.2}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Selected Sustainable
Development Goals

Recent status and trends inaspects of nature and nature’s
contributions to people that
Uncertain
support progress towards target * relationship

Selected targets (abbreviated)

Poor/Declining Partial support
supportNo poverty

1.1 Eradicate extreme povertyU

1.2 Halve the proportion of people in povertyU

1.4 Ensure that all have equal rights to economic resources
1.5 Build the resilience of the poor
2.1 End hunger and ensure access to food all year round
2.3 Double productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers

Zero hunger

2.4 Ensure sustainable food production systems
2.5 Maintain genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed
animalsGood
health andwell-being

Cleanwater andsanitationU

3.2 End preventable deaths of newborns and children

U

3.3 End AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases
3.4 Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases

Unknown

3.9 Reduce deaths and illnesses from pollution

Unknown

6.3 Improve water quality
6.4 Increase water use and ensure sustainable withdrawals
6.5 Implement integrated water resource management
6.6 Protect and restore water-related ecosystems
11.3 Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization

Sustainable 11.4 Protect and safeguard cultural and natural heritage
cities and11.5 Reduce deaths and the number of people affected by disasters
communities 11.6 Reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities
11.7 Provide universal access to green and public spaces

36
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

13.1 Strengthen resilience to climate-related hazards
13.2 Integrate climate change into policies, strategies and planning
Climateaction13.3 Improve education and capacity on mitigation and adaptation

Unknown

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

Unknown

13b Raise capacity for climate change planning and management

Unknown

14.1 Prevent and reduce marine pollution
14.2 Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal
ecosystems
Life below
water

14.3 Minimize and address ocean acidification
14.4 Regulate harvesting and end overfishing
14.5 Conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas
14.6 Prohibit subsidies contributing to overfishing
14.7 Increase economic benefits from sustainable use of marine
resources15.1 Ensure conservation of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems
15.2 Sustainably manage and restore degraded forests and halt
deforestation
15.3 Combat desertification and restore degraded land
15.4 Conserve mountain ecosystems
15.5 Reduce degradation of natural habitats and prevent extinctions

Life on land 15.6 Promote fair sharing of benefits from use of genetic resources
15.7 End poaching and trafficking
15.8 Prevent introduction and reduce impact of invasive alien species
15.9 Integrate biodiversity values into planning and poverty reduction
15a Increase financial resources to conserve and sustainably use
biodiversity
15b Mobilize resources for sustainable forest management* There were no targets that were scored as good/positive status and trends

Figure SPM 7 S
 ummary of recent status and trends in aspects of nature and nature’s

contributions to people that support progress towards achieving selected targetsof the Sustainable Development Goals.
The targets selected are those where the current evidence and wording of the target make it possible to assess the consequences of
the trends in nature and nature’s contribution to people as they relate to the achievement of the target. Chapter 3, Section 3.3 provides

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

an assessment of the evidence of the links between nature and the Sustainable Development Goals. The scores for the targets are
based on a systematic assessment of the literature and a quantitative analysis of the indicators, where possible. None of the targets
scored “Full support” (that is, having a good status or substantial positive trends on a global scale). Consequently, the score of “Fullsupport” was not included in the table. “Partial support” means that the overall global status and trends are positive, but still insubstantial
or insufficient; or there may be substantial positive trends for some relevant aspects, but negative trends for others; or the trends are
positive in some geographic regions, but negative in others. “Poor/Declining support” indicates poor status or substantial negative trends
at a global scale. “Uncertain relationship” means that the relationship between nature and/or nature’s contributions to people and theachievement of the target is uncertain. “Unknown” indicates that there is insufficient information to score the status and trends.

26 Biodiversity and nature’s regulating contributions
to people are projected to decline further in mostscenarios of global change over the coming decades,
while the supply and demand for nature’s material
contributions to people that have current market value(food, feed, timber and bioenergy) are projected toincrease (well established) {4.2, 4.3} (for example, see
Figure SPM.8). These changes arise from continued humanpopulation growth, increasing purchasing power, andincreasing per capita consumption. The projected effects ofclimate change and land use change on terrestrial andfreshwater biodiversity are mostly negative, increase with thedegree of global warming and land use change, and have an
impact on marine biodiversity through increased
eutrophication and deoxygenation of coastal waters (wellestablished) {4.2.2.3.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4}. For instance, asynthesis of many studies estimates that the fraction of
species at risk of extinction due to climate change is 5 percent at 2°C warming, rising to 16 per cent at 4.3°C warming{4.2.1.1}. Climate change and business-as-usual fishing
scenarios are expected to worsen the status of marine

biodiversity (well established) {4.2.2.2, 4.2.2.3.1}. Climatechange alone is projected to decrease ocean net primary
production by between 3 and 10 per cent, and fish biomass
by between 3 and 25 per cent (in low and high warming
scenarios, respectively) by the end of the century (established
but incomplete) {4.2.2.2.1}. Whether or not the current
removal of nearly 30 per cent of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions by terrestrial ecosystems continues into the
future varies greatly from one scenario to the next anddepends heavily on how climate change, atmospheric carbon
dioxide and land-use change interact. Important regulating
contributions of nature, such as coastal and soil protection,
crop pollination and carbon storage, are projected to decline(established but incomplete) {4.2.4, 4.3.2.1}. In contrast,
substantial increases in food, feed, timber and bioenergy
production are predicted in most scenarios (well established){4.2.4, 4.3.2.2}. Scenarios that include substantial shifts
towards sustainable management of resource exploitationand land use, market reform, globally equitable and moderate
animal protein consumption, and reduction of food waste andlosses result in low loss or even recovery of biodiversity (wellestablished) {4.2.2.3.1, 4.2.4.2, 4.3.2.2, 4.5.3}.

27 The magnitude of the impacts on biodiversity andecosystem functions and services and the differences
between regions are smaller in scenarios that focus on
global or regional sustainability (well established)(Figure SPM.8). Sustainability scenarios that explore
moderate and equitable consumption result in substantiallylower negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems due
to food, feed and timber production (well established) {4.1.3,
4.2.4.2, 4.3.2, 4.5.3}. The general patterns at the global level– namely, declines in biodiversity and regulating contributions
versus increases in the production of food, bioenergy andmaterials – are evident in nearly all subregions {4.2.2, 4.2.3,
4.2.4, 4.3.3}. For terrestrial systems, most studies indicatethat South America, Africa and parts of Asia will be much
more significantly affected than other regions, especially in
scenarios that are not based on sustainability objectives (seeFigure SPM.8 as an example). That is due in part to regional
climate change differences and in part to the fact that
scenarios generally foresee the largest land use conversions
to crops or bioenergy in those regions {4.1.5, 4.2.4.2}.
Regions such as North America and Europe are expected tohave low conversion to crops and continued reforestation{4.1.5, 4.2.4.2}.

37
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

incomplete) {4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5}. All climate model
trajectories show that limiting human-induced climatechange to well below 2°C requires immediate, rapid
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions or a reliance on
substantial carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere.
However, the land areas required for bioenergy crops (withor without carbon capture and storage), afforestation andreforestation to achieve the targeted carbon uptake rates
are projected to be very large {4.2.4.3., 4.5.3}. The
biodiversity and environmental impact of large-scaleafforestation and reforestation depends to a large degree on
where these occur (prior vegetation cover, state ofdegradation), and the tree species planted (established but
incomplete). Likewise, large bioenergy crop or afforested
areas are expected to compete with areas set aside forconservation, including restoration, or agriculture(established but incomplete). Consequently, large-scaleland-based mitigation measures may jeopardize theachievement of other Sustainable Development Goals that
depend on land resources (well established) {4.5.3}. In
contrast, the benefits of avoiding and reducing deforestationand promoting restoration can be significant for biodiversity(well established) and are expected to have co-benefits for
local communities (established but incomplete) {4.2.4.3}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Scenarios

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
Central andEastern Europe
Central Asia
Western Europe

OCEANIA

ASIA
Western Asia

South Asia

South-East Asia

Oceania

North-East Asia

Globalsustainability

Regional
competition

Economic
optimism

Indicator
Species richness
Material NCP
Regulating NCP

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

38

CENTRAL AND
WESTERN EUROPENORTH AMERICA

EASTERN EUROPE
CENTRAL ASIANORTH EAST ASIA
SOUTH ASIANORTH AFRICA
WESTERN ASIAMESOAMERICA CARIBBEAN
WEST AFRICA
SOUTHEAST ASIA
EAST AFRICA
CENTRALAND
AFRICA
ADJACENT
SOUTH AMERICAISLANDS

Change between
2015 and 2050

0

SOUTHERNAFRICAAMERICAS

Scenarios North America

Mesoamerica

South America

OCEANIA
AFRICA

Caribbean

North Africa

West Africa

Central Africa Southern Africa

East Africa andadjacent islands

Globalsustainability

Regional
competition

Economic
optimism

Figure SPM 8 P
 rojections of the impacts of land use and climate change on biodiversity andnature’s material and regulating contributions to people between 2015 and 2050.
This figure illustrates three main messages: i) the impacts on biodiversity and on nature’s contributions to people (NCP) are the lowest
in the “global sustainability” scenario in nearly all sub-regions, ii) regional differences in impacts are high in the regional competitionand economic optimism scenario, and iii) material NCP increase the most in the regional competition and economic optimism
scenarios, but this comes at the expense of biodiversity and regulating NCP. Projected impacts are based on a subset of the Shared
Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories (RCP) developed in support of Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change assessments. This figure does not cover the scenarios that include transformative change that are
discussed in Chapter 5.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES• The “Global sustainability” scenario combines proactive environmental policy and sustainable production and consumption withlow greenhouse gas emissions (SSP1, RCP2.6; top rows in each panel);• The “Regional competition” scenario combines strong trade and other barriers and a growing gap between rich and poor withhigh emissions (SSP3, RCP6.0; middle rows); and• The “Economic optimism” scenario combines rapid economic growth and low environmental regulation with very highgreenhouse emissions (SSP5, RCP8.5; bottom rows).
Multiple models were used with each of the scenarios to generate the first rigorous global-scale model comparison estimating theimpact on biodiversity (change in species richness across a wide range of terrestrial plant and animal species at regional scales;orange bars), material NCP (food, feed, timber and bioenergy: purple bars) and regulating NCP (nitrogen retention, soil protection,
crop pollination, crop pest control and ecosystem carbon storage and sequestration: white bars). The bars represent the normalizedmeans of multiple models and the whiskers indicate the standard errors. The global means of percentage changes in individual
indicators can be found in Figure 4.2.14.

Climate change impacts also play a major role inregionally-differentiated projections of biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning in both marine andterrestrial systems. Novel communities, where
species will co-occur in historically unknown
combinations, are expected to emerge (established
but incomplete) {4.2.1.2, 4.2.4.1} Substantial climatechange-driven shifts of terrestrial biome boundaries, inparticular in boreal, subpolar and polar regions and in (semi-)
arid environments, are projected for the coming decades; awarmer, drier climate will reduce productivity in many places(well established) {4.2.4.1}. In contrast, rising atmosphericcarbon dioxide concentrations can be beneficial for net
primary productivity and can enhance woody vegetation
cover, especially in semi-arid regions (established but
incomplete) {4.2.4.1}. For marine systems, impacts are
expected to be geographically variable, with many fish

populations projected to move poleward due to ocean
warming, meaning that local species extinctions are
expected in the tropics (well established) {4.2.2.2.1}.
However, that does not necessarily imply an increase inbiodiversity in the polar seas, because of the rapid rate ofsea ice retreat and the enhanced ocean acidification of cold
waters (established but incomplete) {4.2.2.2.4}. Alongcoastlines, the upsurge in extreme climatic events, sea level
rise and coastal development are expected to cause
increased fragmentation and loss of habitats. Coral reefs areprojected to undergo more frequent extreme warming
events, with less recovery time in between, declining by afurther 70–90 per cent at global warming of 1.5°C, and by
more than 99 per cent at warming of 2°C, causing massive
bleaching episodes with high coral mortality rates (wellestablished) {4.2.2.2.2}.

D. Nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably
while simultaneously meeting other global societal
goals through urgent and concerted efforts fosteringtransformative change.
29

The Sustainable Development Goals and the2050 Vision for Biodiversity cannot be achieved
without transformative change, the conditions forwhich can be put in place now (well established) {2, 3,
5, 6.2} (Figure SPM.9). Increasing awareness ofinterconnectedness in the context of the environmental crisisand new norms regarding interactions between humans andnature would support that change (well established) {5.3,
5.4.3}. In the short term (before 2030), all decision makers
could contribute to sustainability transformations, including
through enhanced and improved implementation andenforcement of effective existing policy instruments andregulations, and the reform and removal of harmful existing
policies and subsidies (well established). Additional

measures are necessary to enable transformative changeover the long term (up to 2050) to address the indirectdrivers that are the root causes of the deterioration of nature(well established), including changes in social, economic
and technological structures within and across nations {6.2,
6.3, 6.4} (SPM Table.1).

30

Sustainability transformations call for crosssectoral thinking and approaches (Figure SPM.9).
Sectoral policies and measures can be effective inparticular contexts, but often fail to account forindirect, distant and cumulative impacts, which canhave adverse effects, including the exacerbation of
inequalities (well established). Cross-sectoral

39
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

28

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

approaches, including landscape approaches, integrated
watershed and coastal zone management, marine spatialplanning, bioregional scale planning for energy, and new
urban planning paradigms offer opportunities to reconcile
multiple interests, values and forms of resource use, provided
that these cross-sectoral approaches recognize trade-offs
and uneven power relations between stakeholders(established but incomplete) {5.4.2, 5.4.3, 6.3, 6.4}.

31

Transformative change is facilitated byinnovative governance approaches that incorporate
existing approaches, such as integrative, inclusive,
informed and adaptive governance. While suchapproaches have been extensively practised andstudied separately, it is increasingly recognized thattogether, they can contribute to transformativechange (established but incomplete) {6.2}. They help toaddress governance challenges that are common to many
sectors and policy domains and create the conditions for
implementing transformative change. Integrative32

A summary of the evidence related to thecomponents of pathways to sustainability suggeststhat there are five overarching types of management

IN D IREC T
D RIVERS
Va l u e s a n d b e h a v i o u r s

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

40

approaches, such as mainstreaming across government
sectors, are focused on the relationships between sectors
and policies and help to ensure policy coherence andeffectiveness (well established). Inclusive approaches help toreflect a plurality of values and ensure equity (established
but incomplete), including through equitable sharing of
benefits arising from their use and rights-based approaches(established but incomplete). Informed governance entails
novel strategies for knowledge production and coproduction that are inclusive of diverse values andknowledge systems (established but incomplete). Adaptive
approaches, including learning from experience, monitoring
and feedback loops, contribute to preparing for andmanaging the inevitable uncertainties and complexities
associated with social and environmental changes(established but incomplete) {6.2, 5.4.2}.

Integrative, adaptive, informed and inclusive
governance approaches including smart policy
mixes, applied especially at leverage points

MULTI ACTOR
GOVERNANCE INTERVENTIONS(LEVERS)• Incentives and capacity building

D IREC T
D RIVERS

EXAMPLES:

Demographicandsociocultural
Economic andtechnological
Institutions andgovernance
Conflicts andepidemics

Fisheries
Agriculture
EnergyForestry
MiningLand/sea-use
changeDirectexploitation
Climate change

Tourism
Infrastructure

Pollution

Conservation Invasive species
Othersetc.

LEVERAGE POINTS• Cross-sectoral cooperation• Embrace diverse visionsof a good life

• Pre-emptive action• Decision-making in the context ofresilience and uncertainty• Environmental law andimplementation

HUMAN
ACTIVITIES• Reduce total consumption and waste• Unleash values and action

Iterative
learning loop

• Reduce inequalities• Practice justice and inclusion in conservation• Internalize externalities and telecouplings• Ensure environmentally friendly technology, innovation and investment• Promote education and knowledge generation and sharing

Figure SPM 9 T ransformative change in global sustainability pathways.
Collaborative implementation of priority governance interventions (levers) targeting key points of intervention (leverage points) could
enable transformative change from current trends towards more sustainable ones. Most levers can be applied at multiple leverage
points by a range of actors, such as intergovernmental organizations, governments, non-governmental organizations, citizen andcommunity groups, indigenous peoples and local communities, donor agencies, science and educational organizations, and theprivate sector, depending on the context. Implementing existing and new instruments through place-based governance interventions
that are integrative, informed, inclusive and adaptive, using strategic policy mixes and learning from feedback, could enable global
transformation.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

33

Changes towards sustainable production andconsumption and towards reducing and transforming
residues and waste, particularly changes in
consumption among the affluent, is recognized bysome individuals and communities worldwide as
central to sustainable development and reducing
inequalities. While actual reductions have been
limited, actions already being taken at different levels
can be improved, coordinated and scaled up (wellestablished). Those include introducing and improving
standards, systems and relevant regulations aimed atinternalizing the external costs of production, extraction andconsumption (such as pricing wasteful or polluting practices,
including through penalties); promoting resource efficiency
and circular and other economic models; voluntary
environmental and social certification of market chains; andincentives that promote sustainable practices andinnovation. Importantly, they also involve a change in thedefinition of what a good quality of life entails – decoupling
the idea of a good and meaningful life from ever-increasingmaterial consumption. All those approaches are more
effective when they are mutually reinforcing. Actions that
help to voluntarily unleash existing social values of
responsibility in the form of individual, collective andorganizational actions towards sustainability can have apowerful and lasting effect in shifting behaviour andcultivating stewardship as a normal social practice(established but incomplete) {5.4.1.2, 5.4.1.3, 6.4.2, 6.4.3}.

34

Expanding and effectively managing the current
network of protected areas, including terrestrial,
freshwater and marine areas, is important forsafeguarding biodiversity (well established),
particularly in the context of climate change.
Conservation outcomes also depend on adaptive
governance, strong societal engagement, effective
and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms, sustained
funding, and monitoring and enforcement of rules(well established) {6.2, 5.4.2}. National Governments playa central role in supporting primary research, effective
conservation and the sustainable use of multi-functionallandscapes and seascapes. This entails planning

ecologically representative networks of interconnected
protected areas to cover key biodiversity areas andmanaging trade-offs between societal objectives that
represent diverse worldviews and multiple values of nature(established but incomplete) {6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.3}. Safeguarding
protected areas into the future also entails enhancing
monitoring and enforcement systems, managing
biodiversity-rich land and sea beyond protected areas,addressing property rights conflicts and protecting
environmental legal frameworks against the pressure of
powerful interest groups. In many areas, conservation
depends on building capacity and enhancing stakeholder
collaboration, involving non-profit groups as well as
indigenous peoples and local communities to establish andmanage marine protected areas and marine protected area
networks, and proactively using instruments such as
landscape-scale and seascape-scale participatory scenariosand spatial planning, including transboundary conservation
planning (well established) {5.3.2.3, 6.3.2.3, 6.3.3.3}.
Implementation beyond protected areas includes combating
wildlife and timber trafficking through effective enforcement
and ensuring the legality and sustainability of trade in wildlife.
Such actions include prioritizing the prosecution of wildlife
trafficking in criminal justice systems, using communitybased social marketing to reduce demand andimplementing strong measures to combat corruption at alllevels (established but incomplete) {6.3.2.3}.

35Integrated landscape governance entails a mix ofpolicies and instruments that together ensure nature
conservation, ecological restoration and sustainable
use, sustainable production (including of food,materials and energy), and sustainable forest
management and infrastructure planning, and that
address the major drivers of biodiversity loss andnature deterioration (well established) {6.3.2, 6.3.6}.
Policy mixes that are harmonized across sectors, levels ofgovernance and jurisdictions can account for ecological andsocial differences across and beyond the landscape, build
on existing forms of knowledge and governance andaddress trade-offs between tangible and non-tangible
benefits in a transparent and equitable manner (established
but incomplete). Sustainable landscape management canbe better achieved through multifunctional, multi-use,
multi-stakeholder and community-based approaches (wellestablished), using a combination of measures andpractices, including: (a) well-managed and connected
protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures; (b) reduced impact logging, forest certification,
payment for ecosystem services, among other instruments,
and reduced emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation; (c) support for ecological restoration;(d) effective monitoring, including public access andparticipation as appropriate; (e) addressing illegal activities;(f) the effective implementation of multilateral environmental
agreements and other relevant international agreements by

41
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

interventions, or levers, and eight leverage points thatare key for achieving transformative change (Figure
SPM.9; D3 and D4 above) {5.4.1, 5.4.2}. The notion oflevers and leverage points recognizes that complex global
systems cannot be managed simply, but that in certain
cases, specific interventions can be mutually reinforcing andcan generate larger-scale changes towards achieving
shared goals (well established) (Table SPM.1). For
example, changes in laws and policies can enable andunderpin changes in resource management andconsumption, and in turn, changes in individual andcollective behaviour and habits can facilitate theimplementation of policies and laws {5.4.3}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

their parties; and (g) promoting sustainable, biodiversitybased food systems (well established) {6.3.2.1, 6.3.2.3,
6.3.2, 6.3.2.4}.

36

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

42

Feeding the world in a sustainable manner,
especially in the context of climate change andpopulation growth, entails food systems that ensure
adaptive capacity, minimize environmental impacts,
eliminate hunger, and contribute to human health andanimal welfare (established but incomplete) {5.3.2.1,
6.3.2.1}. Pathways to sustainable food systems entail
land-use planning and sustainable management ofboth the supply/producer and the demand/consumer
sides of food systems (well established) {5.3.2.1,
6.3.2.1, 6.4}. Options for sustainable agricultural production
are available and continue to be developed, with somehaving more impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem
functions than others {6.3.2.1}. These options include
integrated pest and nutrient management, organic
agriculture, agroecological practices, soil and water
conservation practices, conservation agriculture,
agroforestry, silvopastoral systems, irrigation management,
small or patch systems and practices to improve animal
welfare. These practices could be enhanced throughwell-structured regulations, incentives and subsidies, theremoval of distorting subsidies {2.3.5.2, 5.3.2.1, 5.4.2.1,
6.3.2}, and – at landscape scales – by integrated landscapeplanning and watershed management. Ensuring theadaptive capacity of food production entails the use ofmeasures that conserve the diversity of genes, varieties,
cultivars, breeds, landraces and species, which also
contributes to diversified, healthy and culturally-relevant
nutrition. Some incentives and regulations may contribute topositive changes at both the production and consumption
ends of supply chains, such as the creation, improvement
and implementation of voluntary standards, certification andsupply-chain agreements (e.g., the Soy Moratorium) and the
reduction of harmful subsidies. Regulatory mechanisms
could also address the risks of co-option and lobbying,
where commercial or sectoral interests may work tomaintain high levels of demand, monopolies and continued
use of pesticides and chemical inputs {5.3.2.1}. Nonregulatory alternatives are also important, and potentially
include technical assistance – especially for small-holders –and appropriate economic incentive programs, for example,
some payment for ecosystem services programmes andother non-monetary instruments {5.4.2.1}. Options that
address and engage other actors in food systems (including
the public sector, civil society, consumers and grassroots
movements) include participatory on-farm research, thepromotion of low-impact and healthy diets and the
localization of food systems. Such options could help
reduce food waste, overconsumption, and the demand foranimal products that are produced unsustainably, which
could have synergistic benefits for human health(established but incomplete) {5.3.2.1, 6.3.2.1}.

37

Ensuring sustainable food production from theoceans while protecting biodiversity entails policy
action to apply sustainable ecosystem approaches tofisheries management; spatial planning (including theimplementation and expansion of marine protectedareas); and more broadly, policy action to address
drivers such as climate change and pollution (wellestablished) {5.3.2.5, 6.3.3}. Scenarios show that thepathways to sustainable fisheries entail conserving, restoringand sustainably using marine ecosystems, rebuilding
overfished stocks (including through targeted limits oncatches or fishing efforts and moratoria), reducing pollution(including plastics), managing destructive extractive
activities, eliminating harmful subsidies and illegal,
unreported and unregulated fishing, adapting fisheries
management to climate change impacts and reducing theenvironmental impact of aquaculture (well established) {4,5.3.2.5, 6.3.3.3.2}. Marine protected areas havedemonstrated success in both biodiversity conservation andimproved local quality of life when managed effectively andcan be further expanded through larger or moreinterconnected protected areas or new protected areas incurrently underrepresented regions and key biodiversity
areas (established but incomplete) {5.3.2.5; 6.3.3.3.1}. Due
to major pressures on coasts (including from development,
land reclamation and water pollution), implementing marine
conservation initiatives, such as integrated coastal planning,outside of protected areas is important for biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use (well established){6.3.3.3}. Other measures to expand multi-sectoral
cooperation on coastal management include corporatesocial responsibility measures, standards for building andconstruction, and eco-labelling (well established) {6.3.3.3.2,
6.3.3.3.4}. Additional tools could include both non-market
and market-based economic instruments for financing
conservation, including for example payment for ecosystemservices, biodiversity offset schemes, blue-carbon
sequestration, cap-and-trade programmes, green bonds
and trust funds and new legal instruments, such as the
proposed international, legally binding instrument on theconservation and sustainable use of marine biologicaldiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction under theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(established but incomplete) {6.3.3.2, 6.3.3.1.3,
5.4.2.1, 5.4.1.7}.

38

Sustaining freshwater in the context of climatechange, rising demand for water extraction andincreased levels of pollution involves both crosssectoral and sector-specific interventions that
improve water-use efficiency, increase storage,
reduce sources of pollution, improve water quality,
minimize disruption and foster the restoration ofnatural habitats and flow regimes (well established){6.3.4}. Promising interventions include practising integrated
water resource management and landscape planning acrossTHE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

39

Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals incities and making cities resilient to climate change
entails solutions that are sensitive to social, economicand ecological contexts. Integrated city-specific andlandscape-level planning, nature-based solutions andbuilt infrastructure, and responsible production andconsumption can all contribute to sustainable andequitable cities and make a significant contribution tothe overall climate change adaptation and mitigation
effort. Urban planning approaches to promote sustainability
include encouraging compact communities, designing
nature-sensitive road networks and creating low-impact
infrastructure and transportation systems (from an emissions
and land-use perspective), including active, public andshared transport {5.3.2.6, 6.3.5}. However, given that mosturban growth between now and 2030 will take place in the
Global South, major sustainability challenges include
creatively and inclusively addressing the lack of basic
infrastructure (water, sanitation and mobility), the absence of
spatial planning, and the limited governance capacity andfinancing mechanisms. Those challenges also offer
opportunities for locally-developed innovation andexperimentation, which will create new economic
opportunities. A combination of bottom-up and city-level
efforts through public, private, community and Government
partnerships, can be effective in promoting low-cost andlocally-adapted solutions to maintaining and restoring
biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services.
Nature-based options include combining grey and green
infrastructure (such as wetland and watershed restorationand green roofs), enhancing green spaces throughrestoration and expansion, promoting urban gardens,
maintaining and designing for ecological connectivity, andpromoting accessibility for all (with benefits for humanhealth). Additional solutions include disseminating new,low-cost technologies for decentralized wastewater
treatment and energy production and creating incentives toreduce over-consumption {6.3.5}. Integrating cross-sectoralplanning at the local, landscape and regional levels is
important, as is involving diverse stakeholders (wellestablished). Particularly important at the regional scale arepolicies and programmes that promote sustainabilityminded collective action {5.4.1.3}, protect watersheds
beyond city jurisdictions and ensure the connectivity of
ecosystems and habitats (e.g., through green belts). At theregional scale, cross-sectoral approaches to mitigating theimpact of infrastructure and energy projects entail support
for comprehensive environmental impact assessments andstrategic environmental assessments of local and regional
cumulative impacts {6.3.6.4, 6.3.6.6}.

40

Decision makers have a range of options andtools for improving the sustainability of economic andfinancial systems (well established) {6.4}. Achieving asustainable economy involves making fundamental
reforms to economic and financial systems andtackling poverty and inequality as vital parts ofsustainability (well established) {6.4}. Governments
could reform subsidies and taxes to support nature and its
contributions to people, removing perverse incentives andinstead promoting diverse instruments such as payments
linked to social and environmental metrics, as appropriate(established but incomplete) {6.4.1}. At the international
level, options for reacting to the challenges generated by thedisplacement of the impacts of unsustainable consumption
and production on nature include both rethinking
established instruments and developing new instruments toaccount for long-distance impacts. Trade agreements andderivatives markets could be reformed to promote equity
and prevent the deterioration of nature, although there areuncertainties associated with implementation (established
but incomplete) {6.4.4}. Alternative models and measures of
economic welfare (such as inclusive wealth accounting,natural capital accounting and degrowth models) are
increasingly considered as possible approaches tobalancing economic growth and the conservation of natureand its contributions and to recognizing trade-offs, thepluralism of values, and long-term goals (established but
incomplete) {6.4.5}. Structural changes to economies arealso key to shifting action over long timescales. Suchchanges include technological and social innovation regimes
and investment frameworks that internalize environmental
impacts, such as the externalities of economic activities,
including by addressing environmental impacts in sociallyjust and appropriate ways (well established) {5.4.1.7}.
Although such market-based policy instruments aspayments for ecosystem services, voluntary certification and

43
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

scales; protecting wetland biodiversity areas; guiding andlimiting the expansion of unsustainable agriculture andmining; slowing and reversing the de-vegetation ofcatchments; and mainstreaming practices that reduce
erosion, sedimentation, and pollution run-off and minimize
the negative impact of dams (well established) {6.3.4.6}.
Sector-specific interventions include improved water-use
efficiency techniques (including in agriculture, mining andenergy), decentralized rainwater collection (for example,
household-based), integrated management of surface andgroundwater (e.g., “conjunctive use”), locally-developed
water conservation techniques, and water pricing andincentive programmes (such as water accounts andpayment for ecosystem services programmes) {6.3.4.2,
6.3.4.4}. With regard to watershed payment for ecosystemservices programmes, their effectiveness and efficiency canbe enhanced by acknowledging multiple values in theirdesign, implementation and evaluation and setting up
impact evaluation systems (established but incomplete){6.3.4.4}. Investment in infrastructure, including in green
infrastructure, is important, especially in developing
countries, but it can be undertaken in a way that takes into
account ecological functions and the careful blending of built
and natural infrastructure {5.3.2.4, 6.3.4.5}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

biodiversity offsetting have increased in use, theireffectiveness is mixed, and they are often contested; thus,
they should be carefully designed and applied to avoid
perverse effects in context (established but incomplete){5.4.2.1, 6.3.2.2, 6.3.2.5, 6.3.6.3}. The widespread

Table SPM 1

internalization of environmental impacts, including
externalities associated with long-distance trade, isconsidered both an outcome and a component of nationaland global sustainable economies (well established){5.4.1.6, 6.4}.

Approaches for sustainability and possible actions and pathways for achievingthem.

The appropriateness and relevance of different approaches varies according to place, system, decision-making process andscale. The list of actions and pathways in the following table is illustrative rather than exhaustive and uses examples from theassessment report.

Approaches forsustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Enabling integrative
governance to ensure
policy coherence andeffectiveness• Implementing cross-sectoral approaches that consider linkages and interconnections between sectoral
policies and actions (e.g., IG, G, D, IPLC) {6.2} {D1}.
• Mainstreaming biodiversity within and across different sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining,
tourism) (e.g., IG, G, NGO, IPLC, CG, P, D) {6.2, 6.3.5.2} {D5}.
• Encouraging integrated planning and management for sustainability at the landscape and seascapelevels (e.g., IG, G, D) {6.3.2} {D5}.

44
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,
CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=
science and educational organizations, P=private sector)• Incorporating environmental and socioeconomic impacts, including externalities, into public and private
decision-making (e.g., IG, G, P) {5.4.1.6} {B5}.
• Improving existing policy instruments and using them strategically and synergistically in smart policy
mixes (e.g., IG, G) {6.2, 6.3.2, 6.3.3.3.1, 6.3.4.6, 6.3.5.1, 6.3.6.1} {D4}.
Promoting inclusive
governanceapproaches
through stakeholder
engagement andthe inclusion ofindigenous peoples
and local communities
to ensure equity andparticipation• Recognizing and enabling the expression of different value systems and diverse interests while
formulating and implementing policies and actions (e.g., IG, G, IPLCs, CG, NGO, SO, D) {6.2} {B5, D5}.

Practicing informed
governance fornature and nature’s
contributions to people• Improving the documentation of nature (e.g., biodiversity inventory and other inventories) and theassessment of the multiple values of nature, including the valuation of natural capital by both private andpublic entities (e.g., SO, D, G, IG, P) {6.2} {D2}.

• Enabling the inclusion and participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and women and girls
in environmental governance and recognizing and respecting the knowledge, innovations, and practices,institutions and values of indigenous peoples and local communities, in accordance with national legislation(e.g., G, IPLC, P) {6.2, 6.2.4.4} {D5}.
• Facilitating national recognition for land tenure, access and resource rights in accordance with national
legislation, and the application of free, prior and informed consent and fair and equitable benefit-sharing
arising from their use (e.g., G, IPLC, P) {D5}.
• Improving collaboration and participation among indigenous peoples and local communities, otherrelevant stakeholders, policymakers and scientists to generate novel ways of conceptualizing and achievingtransformative change towards sustainability (e.g., G, IG, D, IPLC, CG, SO) {D5}.

• Improving the monitoring and enforcement of existing laws and policies through better documentation andinformation-sharing and regular, informed and adaptive readjustments to ensure transparent and enhanced
results as appropriate (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, P) {D2}.
• Advancing knowledge co-production and including and recognizing different types of knowledge,
including indigenous and local knowledge and education, that enhances the legitimacy and effectiveness ofenvironmental policies (e.g., SO, IG, G, D) {B6, D3}.

Promoting adaptive
governance andmanagement• Enabling locally tailored choices about conservation, restoration, sustainable use and development
connectivity that account for uncertainty in environmental conditions and scenarios of climate change (e.g., G,
IPLC, CG, P) {D3}.
• Promoting public access to relevant information as appropriate in decision-making and responsivenessto assessments by improving monitoring, including setting goals and objectives with multiple relevant
stakeholders, who often have competing interests (e.g., IG, G).
• Promoting awareness-raising activities around the principles of adaptive management, including throughusing short, medium and long-term goals that are regularly reassessed towards international targets (e.g., IG, G,
SO, CG, D) {D4}.
• Piloting and testing well-designed policy innovations that experiment with scales and models (e.g., G, D, SO,
CG, IPLC) {D4}.
• Increasing the effectiveness of current and future international biodiversity targets and goals (such as
those of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and of the Sustainable Development Goals), (e.g., IG, G,
D) {6.2, 6.4}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Approaches forsustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change
Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,
CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=
science and educational organizations, P=private sector)

Managing sustainable and multifunctional landscapes and seascapes and some of the actions they may entail
Producing andconsuming foodsustainably• Promoting sustainable agricultural practices, including good agricultural practices, agroecology, among
others, multifunctional landscape planning and cross-sectoral integrated management {6.3.2}.
• Sustainable use of genetic resources in agriculture, including by conserving gene diversity, varieties,
cultivars, breeds, landraces and species (e.g., SO, IPLC, CG) {6.3.2.1} {A6}.
• Promoting the use of biodiversity-friendly management practices in crop and livestock production, forestry,
fisheries and aquaculture, including, where relevant, the use of traditional management practices associatedwith indigenous peoples and local communities {6.3.2.1} {D6}.
• Promoting areas of natural or semi-natural habitat within and around production systems, including thosethat are intensively managed, and restoring or reconnecting damaged or fragmented habitats where necessary{6.3.2.1} {D6}.
• Improving food market transparency (e.g., traceability of biodiversity impacts, transparency in supply chains)through tools such as labelling and sustainability certification.
• Improving equity in food distribution and in the localization of food systems, where appropriate and where
beneficial to nature or nature’s contributions to people (NCP).
• Reducing food waste from production to consumption.
• Promoting sustainable and healthy diets {6.3.2.1} {D6}.

Integrating multiple
uses for sustainable
forests• Promoting multifunctional, multi-use and multi-stakeholder approaches and improving community-based
approaches to forest governance and management to achieve sustainable forest management (e.g., IG, G, CG,
IPLC, D, SO, P) {6.3.2.2} {A4}.
• Supporting the reforestation and ecological restoration of degraded forest habitats with appropriate species,
giving priority to native species (e.g., G, IPLC, CG, D, SO) {6.3.2.2} {A4}.

• Reducing the negative impact of unsustainable logging by improving and implementing sustainable forest
management, and addressing illegal logging (e.g., IG, G, NGO, P) {6.3.2.2} {D1}.
• Increasing efficiency in forest product use, including incentives for adding value to forest products (suchas sustainability labelling or public procurement policies), as well as promoting intensive production in wellmanaged forests so as to reduce pressures elsewhere (e.g., P, D, NGO) {6.3.2.2} {B1}.
Conserving, effectively
managing andsustainably using
terrestrial landscapes• Supporting, expanding and promoting effectively managed and ecologically representative networks
of well-connected protected areas and other multifunctional conservation areas, such as other effective areabased conservation measures (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, D) {3.2.1, 6.3.2.3} {C1, D7}.
• Using extensive, proactive and participatory landscape-scale spatial planning to prioritize land uses thatbalance and further safeguard nature and to protect and manage key biodiversity areas and other importantsites for present and future biodiversity (e.g., IG, G, D) {B1, D7}.
• Managing and restoring biodiversity beyond protected areas, (e.g., IG, G, CG, IPLC, P, NGO, D) {B1}.
• Developing robust and inclusive decision-making processes that facilitate the positive contributions ofindigenous peoples and local communities to sustainability by incorporating locally-attuned management
systems and indigenous and local knowledge {B6, D5}.
• Improving and expanding the levels of financial support for conservation and sustainable use through avariety of innovative options, including through partnerships with the private sector {6.3.2.5} {D5, D7, D10}.
• Prioritizing land-based adaptation and mitigation measures that do not have negative impacts on
biodiversity (e.g., reducing deforestation, restoring land and ecosystems, improving the management ofagricultural systems such as soil carbon, and preventing the degradation of wetlands and peatlands) {D8}.
• Monitoring the effectiveness and impacts of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation
measures.

Promoting sustainable
governance andmanagement ofseascapes, oceans
and marine systems• Promoting shared and integrated ocean governance, including for biodiversity, beyond national
jurisdictions (e.g., IG, G, NGO, P, SO, D) {6.3.3.2} {D7}.
• Expanding, connecting and effectively managing marine protected area networks (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG{5.3.2.3} {D7}, including protecting and managing priority marine key biodiversity areas and other importantsites for present and future biodiversity, and increasing protection and connectivity.
• Promoting the conservation and/or restoration of marine ecosystems through rebuilding overfished stocks;
preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; encouraging ecosystem-based
fisheries management; and controlling pollution through the removal of derelict gear and through addressing
plastics pollution (e.g., IG, G, P, IPLC, CG, SO, D) {B1, D7}.
• Promoting ecological restoration, remediation and the multifunctionality of coastal structures, including
through marine spatial planning (e.g., IG, G, NGO, P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.
• Integrating ecological functionality concerns into the planning phase of coastal construction (e.g., IG, G,
NGO, P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.
• Expanding multi-sectoral cooperation by increasing and improving corporate social responsibility measuresand regulation in building and construction standards, and eco-labelling and best practices (e.g., IG, G, NGO,
P, CG, IPLC, SO, D) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.

45
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS• Promoting and strengthening community-based management and governance, including customary
institutions and management systems, and co-management regimes involving indigenous peoples andlocal communities (e.g., IG, G, CG, IPLC, D, SO, P) {6.3.2.2} {D5}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Table SPM 1(continued)

Approaches forsustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Promoting sustainable
governance andmanagement ofseascapes, oceans
and marine systems• Encouraging effective fishery reform strategies through incentives with positive impacts on biodiversity andthrough the removal of environmentally harmful subsidies (e.g., IG, G) {6.3.3.2} {D7}.

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,
CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=
science and educational organizations, P=private sector)• Reducing the environmental impacts of aquaculture by voluntary certification and by using best practices infisheries and aquaculture production methods (e.g., G, IPLC, NGO, P) {6.3.3.3.2, 6.3.3.3.5} {B1, D7}.
• Reducing point and nonpoint source pollution, including by managing marine microplastic and macroplastic
pollution through effective waste management, incentives and innovation (e.g., G, P, NGO) {6.3.3.3.1} {B1, D7}.
• Increasing ocean conservation funding (e.g., G, D, P) {6.3.3.1.3} {D7}.

Improving freshwater
management,
protection andconnectivity• Integrating water resource management and landscape planning, including through increased protection
and connectivity of freshwater ecosystems, improving transboundary water cooperation and management,
addressing the impacts of fragmentation caused by dams and diversions, and incorporating regional analysesof the water cycle (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, NGO, D, SO, P) {6.3.4.6, 6.3.4.7} {B1}.
• Supporting inclusive water governance, e.g., through developing and implementing invasive alien species
management with relevant stakeholders (e.g., IG, G, IPLC, CG, NGO, D, SO, P) {6.3.4.3} {D4}.
• Supporting co-management regimes for collaborative water management and to foster equity between
water users (while maintaining a minimum ecological flow for the aquatic ecosystems), and engaging
stakeholders and using transparency to minimize environmental, economic and social conflicts {D4}.
• Mainstreaming practices that reduce soil erosion, sedimentation and pollution run-off (e.g., G, CG, P){6.3.4.1}.
• Reducing the fragmentation of freshwater policies by coordinating international, national and local
regulatory frameworks (e.g., G, SO) {6.3.4.7, 6.3.4.2}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

46• Increasing water storage by facilitating groundwater recharge, wetlands protection and restoration, alternative
storage techniques and restrictions on groundwater abstraction. (e.g., G, CG, IPLC, P, D) {6.3.4.2} {B1, B3}.
• Promoting investment in water projects with clear sustainability criteria (e.g., G, P, D, SO) {6.3.4.5} {B1, B3}.
Building sustainable
cities that addresscritical needs whileconserving nature,
restoring biodiversity,
maintaining andenhancing ecosystemservices• Engaging sustainable urban planning (e.g., G, CG, IPLC, NGO, P) {6.3.5.1} {D9}.
• Encouraging densification for compact communities, including through brownfield development and otherstrategies {6.3.5.3}.
• Including biodiversity protection, biodiversity offsetting, river basin protection, and ecological restorationin regional planning {6.3.5.1}.
• Safeguarding urban key biodiversity areas and ensuring that they do not become isolated throughincompatible uses of surrounding land {6.3.5.2, SM 6.4.2}.
• Promoting biodiversity mainstreaming through stakeholder engagement and integrative planning (e.g., G,
NGO, CG, IPLC) {6.3.5.3}.
• Encouraging alternative business models and incentives for urban conservation {6.3.2.1}.
• Promoting sustainable production and consumption {6.3.6.4}.
• Promoting nature-based solutions (e.g., G, NGO, SO, P) {6.3.5.2} {D8, D9}.
• Promoting, developing, safeguarding or retrofitting green and blue infrastructure (for water management)
while improving grey (hard) infrastructure to address biodiversity outcomes, {6.3.5.2}.
• Promoting ecosystem-based adaptation within communities {3.7, 5.4.2.2}.
• Maintaining and designing for ecological connectivity within urban spaces, particularly with native species{6.3.5.2, SM 6.4.1}.
• Increasing urban green spaces and improving access to them {6.3.2}.
• Increasing access to urban services for low-income communities, with priorities for sustainable water
management, integrated sustainable solid waste management and sewage systems, and safe and secure
shelter and transport (e.g., G, NGO) {6.3.5.4} {D9}.

Promoting sustainableenergy andinfrastructure projects
and production• Developing sustainable strategies, voluntary standards and guidelines for sustainable renewable energy
and bioenergy projects (e.g., G, SO, P) {6.3.6} {D8}.
• Strengthening and promoting biodiversity-inclusive environmental impact assessments, laws and guidelines{6.3.6.2} {B1}.
• Mitigating environmental and social impacts where possible and promoting innovative financing
and restoration when necessary (e.g., G, P, NGO, D) {6.3.6.3} {B1}, including by redesigning incentive
programmes and policies to promote bioenergy systems that optimize trade-offs between biodiversity loss
and benefits (e.g., through life cycle analysis) {D8}.
• Supporting community-based management and decentralized sustainable energy production (e.g., G, CG,
IPLC, D) {6.3.6.4, 6.3.6.5} {D9}.
• Reducing energy demands so as to reduce the demand for biodiversity-impacting infrastructure (e.g., throughenergy efficiency, new clean energy and reducing unsustainable consumption) (e.g., G, P) {B1}.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Approaches forsustainability

Possible actions and pathways to achieve transformative change

Improving thesustainability of
economic and financial
systems• Developing and promoting incentive structures to protect biodiversity (e.g., removing harmful incentives)(e.g., IG, G) {6.4} {D10}.

Key actors: (IG=intergovernmental organizations, G=Governments, NGOs =non-governmental organizations,
CG=citizen and community groups, IPLC = indigenous peoples and local communities, D=donor agencies, SO=
science and educational organizations, P=private sector)• Promoting sustainable production and consumption, such as through: sustainable sourcing, resource
efficiency and reduced production impacts, circular and other economic models, corporate social
responsibility, life-cycle assessments that include biodiversity, trade agreements and public procurement
policies (e.g., G, CA, NGO, SO) {6.4.3, 6.3.2.1} {D10}.
• Exploring alternative methods of economic accounting such as natural capital accounting and Material andEnergy Flow Accounting, among others (e.g., IG, G, SO) {6.4.5} {D10}.
• Encouraging policies that combine poverty reduction with measures to increase the provision of nature’s
contributions and the conservation and sustainable use of nature (e.g., IG, G, D) {3.2.1} {C2}.
• Improving market-based instruments, such as payment for ecosystem services, voluntary certification andbiodiversity offsetting, to address challenges such as equity and effectiveness (e.g., G, P, NGO, IPLC, CG,SO) {B1}.
• Reducing consumption (e.g., encouraging consumer information to reduce overconsumption and waste, using
public policies and regulations and internalizing environmental impacts) (e.g., G, P, NGO) {B4, C2}.
• Creating and improving supply-chain models that reduce the impact on nature {D3}.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

47

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS48

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESSUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

APPENDICES

49

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAPPENDIX 1

Conceptual framework anddefinitions
Figure 1

5

The IPBES conceptual framework. Source: Díaz et al. (2015).
GlobalGood quality of life
Human wellbeing

Nature’s gifts

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

50

Ecosystem goods
and services

Anthropogenic assets

Direct drivers
Natural drivers

Institutions
and governanceand otherindirect drivers

Anthropogenic
drivers

IPBES Scope
National

IPBES level of resolution

Nature’s contributions
to people

Interacting across spatial scales

Living in harmony with nature
Living-well in balanceand harmony with Mother EarthNatureBiodiversity and ecosystems
Mother Earth
Systems of life
Intrinsic values

Local

Changing over time
Baseline-Trends-Scenarios
Figure SPM A  1 The IPBES conceptual framework. Source: Díaz et al. (2015).
Elements of nature and society that are in the focus of IPBES

Influences between the elements of nature and society that are in the focus of IPBES

Figure SPM A1. The IPBES Conceptual Framework is
those of indigenous peoples and local communities. Text in
between theelements of nature andgreen
societydenotesthat are outside
the focus
of IPBESa highly simplified model Infl
ofuencesthe complex
interactions
scientificconcepts,
and text in blue denotes
between the natural world and human societies. The
concepts originating in other knowledge systems. The solid
model identifies the main elements(boxeswithinthe experience)main
arrows in the main panel denote influence between elements,
Intrinsic value(beyondhuman
panel outlined in grey), together with their interactions (arrows
and dotted arrows denote links that are acknowledged asin the main panel), that are most
relevant
to the Platform’s
important, but that are not the main focus of the Platform. The
Changesand interactions
across space and timegoal. “Nature”, “nature’s contributions to people” and “goodthick coloured arrows below and to the right of the central
quality of life” (indicated as blackandin scales panel indicate the scales of time and space, respectively.
Scopeheadlines
and resolutionof defined
IPBES acrosseach corresponding box) are inclusive categories that wereThis conceptual framework was accepted by the Plenary in
identified as meaningful
andInclusive
relevantcategory
to all stakeholders
decision IPBES-2/4, and the Plenary took note of an updatelabels intelligible for all stakeholders
Text
involved in IPBES during a participatory process, including
presented in IPBES/5/INF/24 and in decision IPBES-5/1.
various disciplinesof the naturaland social sciences andFurther details and examples of the concepts defined in theCategory labels of western science
Text
the humanities, and other knowledge systems, such asbox can be found in the glossary and in Chapter 1.
Text

Category labels of other knowledge systems

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Anthropogenic assets refers to built-up infrastructure,
health facilities, knowledge (including indigenous and local
knowledge systems and technical or scientific knowledge,
as well as formal and non-formal education), technology(both physical objects and procedures), and financial assets,
among others. Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted
to emphasize that a good life is achieved by a co-productionof benefits between nature and societies.
Nature’s contributions to people refers to all thecontributions that humanity obtains from nature. Ecosystem
goods and services, considered separately or in bundles,
are included in this category. Within other knowledge
systems, nature’s gifts and similar concepts refer to thebenefits of nature from which people derive good qualityof life. Aspects of nature that can be negative to people(detriments), such as pests, pathogens or predators, arealso included in this broad category.
Nature’s regulating contributions to people refers
to functional and structural aspects of organisms andecosystems that modify the environmental conditions
experienced by people, and/or sustain and/or regulate thegeneration of material and non-material contributions. For
example, these contributions include water purification,
climate regulation and the regulation of soil erosion.
Nature’s material contributions to people refers to
substances, objects or other material elements fromnature that sustain people’s physical existence and theinfrastructure (i.e. the basic physical and organizational
structures and facilities, such as buildings, roads, power
supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.
They are typically physically consumed in the process of
being experienced, such as when plants or animals aretransformed into food, energy, or materials for shelter orornamental purposes.
Nature’s non-material contributions to people refers tonature’s contribution to people’s subjective or psychologicalquality of life, individually and collectively. The entities thatprovide these intangible contributions can be physicallyconsumed in the process (e.g., animals in recreationalor ritual fishing or hunting) or not (e.g., individual trees or
ecosystems as sources of inspiration).
Drivers of change refers to all those external factors that
affect nature, anthropogenic assets, nature’s contributions
to people and good quality of life. They include institutions
and governance systems and other indirect drivers, anddirect drivers (both natural and anthropogenic).
Institutions and governance systems and otherindirect drivers are the ways in which societies
organize themselves and the resulting influences onother components. They are the underlying causes ofenvironmental change that are exogenous to the ecosystem
in question. Because of their central role, influencing all
aspects of human relationships with nature, they are key
levers for decision-making. “Institutions” encompasses
all formal and informal interactions among stakeholders
and the social structures that determine how decisions
are taken and implemented, how power is exercised, andhow responsibilities are distributed. To varying degrees,
institutions determine the access to and control, allocationand distribution of the components of nature and ofanthropogenic assets and their contributions to people.
Examples of institutions are systems of property andaccess rights to land (e.g., public, common-pool or private),
legislative arrangements, treaties, informal social norms
and rules, including those emerging from indigenous andlocal knowledge systems, and international regimes suchas agreements against stratospheric ozone depletion or
for the protection of endangered species of wild fauna andflora. Economic policies, including macroeconomic, fiscal,monetary or agricultural policies, play a significant role in
influencing people’s decisions and behaviour and the way
in which they relate to nature in the pursuit of benefits.
However, many of the drivers of human behaviour andpreferences, which reflect different perspectives on a goodquality of life, work largely outside the market system.
Direct drivers, both natural and anthropogenic, affectnature directly. “Natural drivers” are those that are not
the result of human activities and are beyond humancontrol. These include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions andtsunamis, extreme weather or ocean-related events suchas prolonged drought or cold periods, tropical cyclones
and floods, the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillationand extreme tidal events. The direct anthropogenic
drivers are those that are the result of human decisions,
namely, of institutions and governance systems and otherindirect drivers. Anthropogenic drivers include habitat
conversion, e.g., degradation of land and aquatic habitats,deforestation and afforestation, exploitation of wild
populations, climate change, pollution of soil, water andair and species introductions. Some of these drivers, suchas pollution, can have negative impacts on nature; others,
as in the case of habitat restoration, or the introduction

51
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

Nature, in the context of the Platform, refers to the natural
world, with an emphasis on biodiversity. Within the context
of science, it includes categories such as biodiversity,
ecosystems, ecosystem functioning, evolution, thebiosphere, humankind’s shared evolutionary heritage, andbiocultural diversity. Within the context of other knowledge
systems, it includes categories such as Mother Earthand systems of life. Other components of nature, suchas deep aquifers, mineral and fossil reserves, and wind,solar, geothermal and wave power, are not the focus of
the Platform. Nature contributes to societies through theprovision of contributions to people.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

of a natural enemy to combat invasive species, can havepositive effects.
Good quality of life is the achievement of a fulfilled human
life, a notion which varies strongly across different societies
and groups within societies. It is a context-dependent stateof individuals and human groups, comprising access tofood, water, energy and livelihood security, and also health,good social relationships and equity, security, cultural
identity, and freedom of choice and action. From virtually
all standpoints, a good quality of life is multidimensional,
having material as well as immaterial and spiritual

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

52

components. What a good quality of life entails, however, ishighly dependent on place, time and culture, with different
societies espousing different views of their relationships
with nature and placing different levels of importance oncollective versus individual rights, the material versus thespiritual domain, intrinsic versus instrumental values, andthe present time versus the past or the future. The conceptof human well-being used in many western societies and its
variants, together with those of living in harmony with natureand living well in balance and harmony with Mother Earth,
are examples of different perspectives on a good qualityof life.

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAPPENDIX 2

Communicationof the degree of confidenceHigh

Established
but incomplete

Well established

Inconclusive

Unresolved

CERTAINTY SCALELEVEL OF AGREEMENT

High

Low

RobustLow

QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
Figure SPM A

2

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

Confidence increases towards the top-right corner as suggested by the increasing strength of shading. Source: IPBES (2016).15

In this assessment, the degree of confidence in each main
finding is based on the quantity and quality of evidence
and the level of agreement regarding that evidence (Figure
SPM.A2). The evidence includes data, theory, models
and expert judgement. Further details of the approach
are documented in the note by the secretariat on theinformation on work related to the guide on the productionof assessments (IPBES/6/INF/17).

Well established: there is a comprehensive metaanalysis or other synthesis or multiple independentstudies that agree.
Established but incomplete: there is generalagreement, although only a limited number of studies
exist; there is no comprehensive synthesis, and/or thestudies that exist address the question imprecisely.
Unresolved: multiple independent studies exist but
their conclusions do not agree.

15. IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production.
S.G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H. T. Ngo, J. C. Biesmeijer, T. D.
Breeze, L. V. Dicks, L. A. Garibaldi, R. Hill, J. Settele, A. J. Vanbergen,
M. A. Aizen, S. A. Cunningham, C. Eardley, B. M. Freitas, N. Gallai,
P. G. Kevan, A. Kovács-Hostyánszki, P. K. Kwapong, J. Li, X. Li, D.
J. Martins, G. Nates-Parra, J. S. Pettis, R. Rader, and B. F. Viana(eds.)., secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, 2016. Available
at http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2616458.

Inconclusive: there is limited evidence and arecognition of major knowledge gaps.

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

53

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAPPENDIX 3

Knowledge gaps
In the course of conducting this assessment key information needs were identified. See draft table Appendix IV.
Data, inventories and monitoring on nature and the drivers of change
Gaps on biomes and units of analysis
Taxonomic gaps
NCP-related gaps
Links between nature, nature’s contributions to people and drivers with respect to targets and goals
Integrated scenarios and modelling studies

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

54

Potential policy approaches
Indigenous peoples and local communities

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICESAPPENDIX 4

Draft table of knowledge gaps
Disclaimer: This table of knowledge gaps was prepared by the experts of the Global Assessment and presented to and considered by a working
group established by the Plenary at its seventh session. The Plenary did not approve this table as part of the summary for policymakers. It istherefore included in draft form, which does not imply working group or Plenary approval.

SectorKnowledge gaps (in data, indicators, inventories, scenarios)16

Data, inventories andmonitoring on natureand the drivers ofchange• Data on ecosystem processes (including rates of change) that underpin nature’s contributions to people andecosystem health• Data from monitoring of ecosystem condition (generally less well represented than ecosystem extent)• Data on changing interactions among organisms and taxa
• Impacts of increasing CO2 upon the total Net Primary Production of marine systems, and consequences forecosystem function and nature’s contributions to people• Data on extinction risks and population trends, especially for insects, parasites and fungal and microbial
species55• Indicators on the global extent and consequences of biotic homogenization, including genetic homogenization

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS• Syntheses of how human impacts affect organismal traits and global patterns and trends in genetic composition• Global spatial datasets on key threats, e.g., data on patterns in the intensity of unsustainable exploitation of
species and ecosystems• More comprehensive understanding of how human-caused changes to any Essential Biodiversity Variable class(e.g., ecosystem structure) have impacts on others (e.g., community composition) and on nature’s contributions
to people• Data gaps in key inventories: World Database on Protected Areas, the World Database of Key Biodiversity
Areas™, red lists of threatened species and ecosystems, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility• Monitoring of many listed species in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora.
• Monitoring of the long-term effects of dumped waste, especially radioactive material and plastics• Data on the impacts of war and conflict on nature and nature’s contributions to people
Gaps on biomes andunits of analysis• Inventories on under-studied ecosystems: freshwater, Arctic, marine/ocean, seabed, and wetlands

Taxonomic gaps

• Basic data on many taxa (86 per cent of existing species on Earth and 91 per cent of species in the ocean still
await description)• Inventories in soil, benthic and freshwater environments, and the implications for ecosystem functions• Extinction risks and population trends for the following taxonomic groups: insects, fungal species, microbial
species (microorganisms) and parasites• Data on the genetic diversity and conservation status of breeds of farmed and domestic plants and animals
NCP-related gaps

• Data on the status of species and nature’s contributions to people linked to specific ecosystem functions• Systematic indicators to report the status and trends for categories of nature’s contributions to people• Data on the impacts and extent of nature’s contributions to people on quality of life, by major user group (alsolacking an agreed typology on major user groups)• Data on the interrelationships between gender equality, nature and nature’s contributions to people• Data and information on NCP 10: regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes (populationsof vectors and vector-borne diseases) and overlaps with vulnerable human populations and ecosysteminteractions• Data and information on NCP 9: the role of nature and nature’s contributions to people in mitigating or reducing
vulnerability to disasters

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

THE GLOBAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

SectorKnowledge gaps (in data, indicators, inventories, scenarios)16

Links between nature,
nature’s contributions
to people and drivers
with respect to targets
and goals• Understanding on how nature contributes to achieving targets (the positive and negative relationships between
nature and targets/goals like the Sustainable Development Goals)• Disaggregated data on the impacts that nature has on good quality of life, particularly across regions, societies,
governance systems, and ecosystems• Need for indicators for some Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets (e.g., Aichi
Biodiversity Target 15 on ecosystem resilience and contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks and Target 18
on integration of traditional knowledge and effective participation of indigenous and local communities)• Better quantitative data to assess the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Targets where qualitative
indicators havebeen dominant (9 out of 44 targets under the Sustainable Development Goals reviewed)• Data on the benefits to human mental health from exposure to natural environments• Indicators that reflect the heterogeneity of indigenous peoples and local communities

Integrated scenariosand modelling studies• Regional and global socioeconomic scenarios explicitly considering the knowledge, views and perspectives ofindigenous peoples and local communities• Regional and global ssocioeconomic scenarios developed for, by and in collaboration with indigenous peoples
and local communities and their associated institutions• Quantitative data showing how nature, its contributions to people, and good quality of life interact and change
in time along different pathways• Scenarios of the future of biodiversity which quantify the possible co-benefits related to nature’s contributions
to people• Scenarios about nonmaterial benefits to people compared to material benefits and regulating benefits• Integrated scenarios for areas projected to experience significant impacts and possible regime shifts (e.g.,
Arctic, semi-arid regions, and small islands)

SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS

56• Knowledge about the interaction, feedback and spill-overs among regions within future global scenarios• Assessment of nature’s contributions to people across scenario archetypes with robust knowledge andquantitative estimates
Potential policy
approaches• Data to analyse the effectiveness of many policy options and interventions, including:a) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different area-based conservation mechanisms (e.g., protectedareas, other effective area-based conservation measures) in conserving nature and nature’s contributions topeople and contributing to good quality of lifeb) Indicators of the effectiveness of different restoration methodologies and to assess restoration progress overtime (including values)c) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different processes of access and benefit sharing to ensure
fairness and equityd) Better data on the global extent and forms of wildlife trafficking and its impacts on nature and nature’s
contributions to peoplee) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different models for reconciling bioenergy and biodiversity
conservationf) Data on the effectiveness of different schemes and models for payment for ecosystem services (PES),
particularly the trade-offs that arise between policy goals, the integration of multiple values in PES, dataon the profiles of PES participants and long-term monitoring of relational and behavioural implications ofparticipationg) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different models of marine governance relating to conservation• Data on the extent of the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in environmental
governance• Indicators on the impacts of environmentally harmful subsidies and trends and effectiveness of their removal at
the global level• Data on areas of uncertainty in applying the precautionary principle• Data on the monitoring of policy effectiveness to adapt and adjust policies and to share lessons• Data on the impacts of resource mobilization, using robust program evaluation methods (e.g., examples
of successful use of funding including impacts of donor funding for conservation and impacts of specificbiodiversity financing projects)• Data on the impacts of climate change on marine and coastal governance regimes• Data on the impacts of mainstreaming of biodiversity across sectors• Better data to develop biodiversity and environmental quality standards

Indigenous
Peoples and Local
Communities• Agreed-upon methods to enable systematic processes of knowledge generation, collection and synthesis
regarding indigenous and local knowledge (for assessments and elsewhere) and participation of indigenous
peoples and local communities in this process• Syntheses of indigenous and local knowledge about the status and trends in nature• Data to assess how progress in achieving goals and targets affects indigenous peoples and local communities,
either in positive or in negative ways
• Trends in relation to the socioeconomic status of indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., noting thelack of data differentiation in aggregate statistics)

The Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
is the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity andecosystem services, in response to requests from Governments, the private
sector and civil society.
The mission of IPBES is to strengthen the science-policy interface forbiodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable
development.
IPBES has a collaborative partnership arrangement with UNEP, UNESCO,FAO and UNDP. Its secretariat is hosted by the German government andlocated on the UN campus, in Bonn, Germany.
Scientists from all parts of the world contribute to the work of IPBES on a
voluntary basis. They are nominated by their government or an organisation,and selected by the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) of IPBES. Peerreview forms a key component of the work of IPBES to ensure that a rangeof views is reflected in its work, and that the work is complete to the highest
scientific standards.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM
ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (IPBES)IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 (0) 228 815 0570
secretariat@ipbes.net
www.ipbes.net

9 783947 851133