International audience ; Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet the top two are the climate and biodiversity crises. Neither will be be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet we need to recognise and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize urgent action needed to heal and protect it at the 'Earthscape' level-the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, where we not only see commitments to united action for the ocean but also plans to meet those commitments based on science-led solutions that address the interconnectivity between the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Here we first summarise some of the key ways in which the ocean contributes to and has acted as the major buffer of climate change focussing on temperature although not forgetting its role in storing CO2. Noting in particular with 'high confidence' that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming with land, melting ice and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5%, 3% and 1% respectively (IPCC, 2021). We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015/16 El Niño. We then present six science-based policy actions that form a recovery-stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life.
International audience ; Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet the top two are the climate and biodiversity crises. Neither will be be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet we need to recognise and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize urgent action needed to heal and protect it at the 'Earthscape' level-the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, where we not only see commitments to united action for the ocean but also plans to meet those commitments based on science-led solutions that address the interconnectivity between the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Here we first summarise some of the key ways in which the ocean contributes to and has acted as the major buffer of climate change focussing on temperature although not forgetting its role in storing CO2. Noting in particular with 'high confidence' that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming with land, melting ice and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5%, 3% and 1% respectively (IPCC, 2021). We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015/16 El Niño. We then present six science-based policy actions that form a recovery-stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life.
International audience ; Of all the interconnected threats facing the planet the top two are the climate and biodiversity crises. Neither will be be solved if we ignore the ocean. To turn the tide in favour of humanity and a habitable planet we need to recognise and better value the fundamental role that the ocean plays in the earth system, and prioritize urgent action needed to heal and protect it at the 'Earthscape' level-the planetary scale at which processes to support life operate. The countries gathering at COP26 have unparalleled political capacity and leadership to make this happen. COP26 could be the turning point, where we not only see commitments to united action for the ocean but also plans to meet those commitments based on science-led solutions that address the interconnectivity between the ocean, climate, and biodiversity. Here we first summarise some of the key ways in which the ocean contributes to and has acted as the major buffer of climate change focussing on temperature although not forgetting its role in storing CO2. Noting in particular with 'high confidence' that the ocean has stored 91% of the excess heat from global warming with land, melting ice and the atmosphere only taking up approximately 5%, 3% and 1% respectively (IPCC, 2021). We also highlight the impact of the recent large release of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere during the 2015/16 El Niño. We then present six science-based policy actions that form a recovery-stimulus package for people, climate, nature, and the planet. Our proposals highlight what is needed to view, value, and treat the planet, including the ocean, for the benefit and future of all life.
14 pages, 5 figures, supporting information https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2009 ; In the Anthropocene, marine ecosystems are rapidly shifting to new ecological states. Achieving effective conservation of marine biodiversity has become a fast-moving target because of both global climate change and continuous shifts in marine policies. How prepared are we to deal with this crisis? We examined EU Member States Programs of Measures designed for the implementation of EU marine environmental policies, as well as recent European Marine Spatial Plans, and discovered that climate change is rarely considered operationally. Further, our analysis revealed that monitoring programs in marine protected areas are often insufficient to clearly distinguish between impacts of local and global stressors. Finally, we suggest that while the novel global Blue Growth approach may jeopardize previous marine conservation efforts, it can also provide new conservation opportunities. Adaptive management is the way forward (e.g., preserving ecosystem functions in climate change hotspots, and identifying and targeting climate refugia areas for protection) using Marine Spatial Planning as a framework for action, especially given the push for Blue Growth ; This article is based upon ideas developed in two workshops in Naples in November 2017 and November 2018 organized as part of the COST Action 15121 'Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas (MarCons; www.marcons-cost.eu; Katsanevakis et al. 2017) supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, CA15121). It is also partly supported by an Israel Science Foundation grant to GR (grant no. 1982/16)
In the Anthropocene, marine ecosystems are rapidly shifting to new ecological states. Achieving effective conservation of marine biodiversity has become a fast‐moving target because of both global climate change and continuous shifts in marine policies. How prepared are we to deal with this crisis? We examined EU Member States Programs of Measures designed for the implementation of EU marine environmental policies, as well as recent European Marine Spatial Plans, and discovered that climate change is rarely considered operationally. Further, our analysis revealed that monitoring programs in marine protected areas are often insufficient to clearly distinguish between impacts of local and global stressors. Finally, we suggest that while the novel global Blue Growth approach may jeopardize previous marine conservation efforts, it can also provide new conservation opportunities. Adaptive management is the way forward (e.g., preserving ecosystem functions in climate change hotspots, and identifying and targeting climate refugia areas for protection) using Marine Spatial Planning as a framework for action, especially given the push for Blue Growth.
10 pages, 6 figures, 1 table, supplementary data https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138118 ; Ecosystem-based management requires an assessment of the cumulative effects of human pressures and environmental change. The operationalization and integration of cumulative effects assessments (CEA) into decision-making processes often lacks a comprehensive and transparent framework. A risk-based CEA framework that divides a CEA in risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation, could structure such complex analyses and facilitate the establishment of direct science-policy links. Here, we examine carefully the operationalization of such a risk-based CEA framework with the help of eleven contrasting case studies located in Europe, French Polynesia, and Canada. We show that the CEA framework used at local, sub-regional, and regional scales allowed for a consistent, coherent, and transparent comparison of complex assessments. From our analysis, we pinpoint four emerging issues that, if accurately addressed, can improve the take up of CEA outcomes by management: 1) framing of the CEA context and defining risk criteria; 2) describing the roles of scientists and decision-makers; 3) reducing and structuring complexity; and 4) communicating uncertainty. Moreover, with a set of customized tools we describe and analyze for each case study the nature and location of uncertainty as well as trade-offs regarding available knowledge and data used for the CEA. Ultimately, these tools aid decision-makers to recognize potential caveats and repercussions of management decisions. One key recommendation is to differentiate CEA processes and their context in relation to governance advice, marine spatial planning or regulatory advice. We conclude that future research needs to evaluate how effective management measures are in reducing the risk of cumulative effects. Changing governance structures takes time and is often difficult, but we postulate that well-framed and structured CEA can function as a strategic tool to integrate ecosystem considerations across multiple sectorial policies. ; This article is a product of the working group on cumulative effects assessment under the framework of COST Action 15121 "Advancing marine conservation in the European and contiguous seas" (MarCons; http://www.marcons-cost.eu; (Katsanevakis et al., 2017)—supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, CA15121)
Priorities for future sustainable development within Europe and Central Asia are formulated in visions by governments and societal actors. Integrated scenario and modelling studies enable the assessment of impacts on nature, nature's contributions to people, and a good quality of life resulting from these priorities, and help to co-design and codeliver appropriate pathways to sustainable futures (established but incomplete) (5.1.2, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.5.2). Priorities for future sustainable development are captured in regional visions, which describe a future desired by society or parts of society in Europe and Central Asia. Matching these priorities to the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets revealed that regional priorities include sustainable economic growth in tandem with sustainable industrialization (Goal 8, Goal 9), sustainable agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and management of natural resources (Goal 15, Target 7), all promoted by sustainable consumption and production patterns (Goal 12, Target 4). Climate action and sustainable energy (Goal 13, Goal 7) are also priorities. Reduced inequalities (Goal 10), gender equality (Goal 5) and peace, justice and strong institutions (Goal 16), as well as representation of a diverse range of values, are less emphasized (established but incomplete) (5.1.2, 5.4.2, 5.4.3). Integrated assessments of future interactions between the priorities for sustainable development and nature and its contributions to people, which support proactive decisionmaking that anticipates change, mitigates undesirable trade-offs and fosters societal transformation in pursuit of a good quality of life, are rare due to the complexity of human and environment interdependencies (well established) (5.1.1, 5.3.1, 5.5.3, 5.5.4). Nevertheless, ignoring these complexities is likely to cause undesired trade-offs and to prevent the realization of synergies (5.3.1). Cross-sectoral and cross-scale integration of adaptation, mitigation and transformative actions and policies by multiple actors is key to the co-design and co-delivery of appropriate pathways to realize visions of future sustainable development (established but incomplete) (5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.5, 5.5.6). The choices made by decision-makers and societal actors are expected to lead to large differences in future impacts on nature, nature's contributions to people, and good quality of life within Europe and Central Asia (established but incomplete) (5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.3.4). More positive impacts are projected under futures that assume proactive decision-making on environmental issues and promote a more holistic approach to managing human and environmental systems which supports multifunctionality and multiple contributions from nature to people (established but incomplete) (5.2.3, 5.3.3, 5.3.4). Projecting historical trends into the future under a businessas- usual scenario results in stable trends in nature (e.g. reflected in biodiversity vulnerability indices), negative trends in nature's regulating contributions (e.g. regulation of climate or hazards and extreme events) and mixed trends in nature's material contributions (e.g. food production) (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Different assumptions about future trends in drivers lead to widely varying projected impacts on nature, nature's contributions to people and a good quality of life. Under economic optimism scenarios, where global developments are steered by economic growth and environmental problems are only dealt with when solutions are of economic interest, an increase in the provision of most of nature's material contributions to people (e.g. food and timber) is projected associated with a general decline in nature and its regulating contributions to people (e.g. air and water quality regulation) (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Under regional competition scenarios there is a growing gap between rich and poor, increasing problems with crime, violence and terrorism, and strong trade barriers. Consequently, its impacts are highly mixed with generally large declines in nature (e.g. habitat maintenance and creation) and the most negative impacts of all scenarios on nature's non-material contributions to people (e.g. learning and inspiration) and good quality of life indicators (e.g. health and well-being) (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Inequality scenarios, which assume increasing economic, political and social inequalities, where power becomes concentrated in a relatively small political and business elite who invest in green technology, result in negative impacts on nature's regulating contributions to people (established CHAPTER 5. CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NATURE AND SOCIETY 575 but incomplete), but mixed or unclear impacts on other indicators (inconclusive) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Under global sustainable development scenarios, which are characterized by an increasingly proactive attitude of global policymakers towards environmental issues and a high level of regulation, positive impacts are projected for nature and its regulating contributions to people. Predominantly positive trends are also projected for nature's material contributions to people and good quality of life indicators, with some regional variation (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Under regional sustainability scenarios, which show increased concern for environmental and social sustainability and a shift toward local and regional decision-making, similar impacts are projected as for global sustainable development. Regional sustainability, however, leads to slightly fewer benefits for nature's regulating and material contributions to people (with decreases in food provision) than global sustainable development and more positive impacts on nature's non-material contributions to people and good quality of life, particularly traditional knowledge and supporting identities reflecting the local focus of the regional sustainability scenario (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Trade-offs between nature and different contributions from nature to people are projected under all plausible futures for Europe and Central Asia (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.3.4). How these trade-offs are resolved depends on political and societal value judgements within each plausible future. In general, those futures where environmental issues are mainstreamed across sectors are more successful in mitigating undesirable cross-sector trade-offs, resulting in positive impacts across a broad range of indicators concerning nature, nature's contributions to people and good quality of life indicators (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Trade-offs between nature's material and regulating contributions to people are commonly projected in the economic optimism and regional competition scenarios, which tend to promote a limited number of nature's material contributions to people. For example, increases in food provision (generally associated with the expansion of agricultural land or the intensification of livestock production and fish captures) are often associated with decreases in the provision of nature's regulating contributions to people (e.g. prevention of soil erosion, regulation of water quality and quantity) and nature values. Similar trade-offs were projected between increases in timber provision and decreases in nature's regulating (e.g. carbon sequestration) and non-material (e.g. aesthetic value) contributions to people. Such trade-offs lead to strong positive effects in nature's contributions to people with market values and negative effects in nature's contributions to people without market values (established but incomplete) (5.3.3, 5.6.1). Trade-offs were also apparent under the sustainability scenario archetypes, particularly in relation to the use of land and water (e.g. effects of agricultural extensification – the opposite of agricultural intensification - or increases in bioenergy croplands on other land uses and biodiversity) (established but incomplete) (5.6.1). However, such scenarios proactively deal with such trade-offs through, for example, political choices aiming to maximize synergizes through mainstreaming and multifunctionality (global sustainable development) or through societal choices to live less resource-intensive lifestyles and, hence, reduce demand for nature's material contributions to people (regional sustainability). Impacts of plausible futures differ across the regions of Europe and Central Asia. Hence, regional and national decision-makers face different trade-offs between nature and its various contributions to people. Cooperation between countries opens up possibilities to mitigate undesirable crossscale impacts and to capitalize on opportunities (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). In Central Asia, significant water shortages are projected in the long-term. This affects farmers' choices between intensive crop production and more sustainable production with resulting impacts on nature's regulating contributions to people, such as water quality (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). Similar impacts on water stress are projected under future scenarios for Central Europe, including decreases in multiple contributions from nature to people from wetlands (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). Transboundary and integrated water management strategies that protect minimum water levels for the environment are projected to mitigate these negative impacts. In Eastern Europe, particularly Russia, trade-offs between wood extraction and carbon sequestration are projected. Sustainable forest management and reforestation of areas set aside from agricultural activities are suggested as having the potential to mitigate such trade-offs. Similarly, in mountain systems in Central and Western Europe and in marine systems in all subregions adaptive management strategies are projected to address the vulnerability of the majority of nature's contributions to people (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). In the European Union (EU), significant differences between northern and southern countries are projected. Most scenarios indicate increases in agricultural production for food, feed and bioenergy for northern European Union countries, while decreases in agricultural and timber production, as well as increases in water stress, are projected for southern European Union countries. The latter is projected to have considerable negative impacts on nature's non-material contributions to people, such as national heritage and tourism-related services dependent on local food production. Scenarios which included international coordination of adaptive measures across THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 576 geographical areas were projected to have better capacity to cope with, or mitigate, undesirable cross-scale impacts (established but incomplete) (5.3.3). Future impacts of drivers of change on nature and its contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia are likely to be underestimated because scenario studies are dominated by a few individual drivers (e.g. climate change) and often omit other important drivers (e.g. pollution) that may adversely affect their impacts (well established) (5.2.2, 5.3.2). Scenario studies predominantly focus on single direct drivers and fail to capture interactions between drivers (well established) (5.2.2, 5.3.2). Climate change is the most represented single direct driver in scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem change. By contrast other direct drivers, such as pollution and invasive alien species, which are known to have an adverse impact on nature and its contributions to people, are poorly represented in scenario studies (well established) (5.2.2). Single-driver scenarios fail to capture various dynamics such as feedbacks and synergies between and amongst indirect and direct drivers operating at different scales. Policy approaches that consider single drivers or single sectors are unlikely to successfully address environmental problems as they do not consider trade-offs between different drivers, impacts and responses. Integrated, multi-driver scenario studies offer a more realistic assessment of impacts to inform robust decision-making about future sustainable development pathways that avoid unintended consequences (established but incomplete) (5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.4.4, 5.4.5, 5.5.5). Priorities for future sustainable development expressed by governments and other societal actors for Europe and Central Asia are more widely achieved under plausible futures that consider a diverse range of values (established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, 5.6.1). Recognizing the different time frame of the scenarios of plausible futures (often 2050 or later) to those stated in the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2030 or 2020), continuing current trends under a business-as-usual scenario is estimated to lead to failure in achieving most of the Sustainable Development Goals (13 out of 17), but mixed effects on achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (8 achieved). Economic optimism is estimated to have a mixed level of success in achieving the goals (8 achieved), but would fail to achieve the majority of the targets (16 out of 20), while regional competition fails to reach the majority of all goals and targets (15 and 19, respectively). The focus of these scenarios on instrumental values and individualistic perspectives, with little acknowledgement of relational or intrinsic values, means they are unlikely to offer effective sustainable solutions to environmental and social challenges (established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.6.1). In contrast, the sustainability scenarios (regional sustainability and global sustainable development) are estimated to achieve the majority of the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Such scenarios attempt to support nature and its multiple nature's contributions to people and aspects of a good quality of life. Thus, they represent a greater diversity of values, but often at the acceptance of lower, or more extensive, production of nature's material contributions to people (established but incomplete) (5.3.4, 5.6.1). Multiple alternative pathways exist to achieve the priorities for future sustainable development set by governments and societal actors within Europe and Central Asia and in particular for mitigating tradeoffs between nature and nature's contributions to people (established but incomplete) (5.5.2). The most promising pathways include long-term societal transformation through continuous education, knowledge sharing and participatory decisionmaking. Such pathways emphasize nature's regulating contributions to people and the importance of relational values in facilitating a holistic and systematic consideration of nature and nature´s contribution to people across sectors and scales (established but incomplete) (5.5.3, 5.5.4). Four types of pathways have been developed to address trade-offs between food, water, energy, climate and biodiversity at different scales (5.5.2). Green economy pathways focus on sustainable intensification and diversification of production activities coupled with the protection and restoration of nature. Low carbon transformation pathways focus on biofuel production, reforestation and forest management. Both types of pathways include actions related to technological innovation, land sparing or land sharing. Green economy and low carbon transformation pathways do not fully mitigate trade-offs between nature's material contributions to people, nature conservation, and nature's regulating and non-material contributions to people (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4). Ecotopian solutions pathways focus on radical social innovation to achieve local food and energy self-sufficiency and the production of multiple contributions from nature to people. They include actions on multifunctionality within individual land uses with connecting green infrastructure, urban design and food production (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4). Transition movements pathways emphasize a change towards relational values, promoting resource-sparing lifestyles, continuous education, new urban spatial structures and innovative forms of agriculture where different knowledge systems are combined with technological innovation. Transformation is achieved through local empowerment, participatory decision-making processes, community actions and voluntary agreements. As opposed to other pathways, transition movements CHAPTER 5. CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NATURE AND SOCIETY 577 pathways address all of the Sustainable Development Goals identified as being important in the Europe and Central Asia visions (5.1.2, 5.5.4), except Goal 7 (sustainable energy). The narrative offers the broadest set of actions targeting elements of nature, multiple contributions from nature to people (material, regulating and non-material) and multiple dimensions of a good quality of life (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.6.1). Different sets of actions and combinations of policy instruments are suggested by the different pathways. Joint instruments suggested across pathways give priority to participation, education and awareness raising, and often cross-scale integration and mainstreaming of environmental objectives across sectors (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.6). The green economy and low carbon transformation pathways build towards sustainability without challenging the economic growth paradigm. They are implemented through combinations of top-down legal and regulatory instruments mixed with economic and financial instruments designed at regional (European Union) or national levels (Eastern Europe and Central Asia). Such pathways are often formulated at a sectoral level, and integration across sectoral pathways is critical. However, because green economy and low carbon transformation pathways do not fully mitigate trade-offs, they may not be sufficient alone to achieve sustainability (established but incomplete) (5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.6.1). The trade-offs are better addressed by diverse local bottom-up transition movements or ecotopian solutions pathways (5.5.2). Such pathways reconsider fundamental values and lifestyles through sets of actions focusing on less resource-intensive lifestyles, education, knowledge sharing, good social relations and equity (e.g. food and dietary patterns, transport, energy and consumption patterns). Transition movements pathways also develop bottom-up transformative capabilities by combining rights-based instruments and customary norms (including indigenous and local knowledge) and social and information instruments (established but incomplete) (5.5.3, 5.5.4). The sets of actions proposed in the pathways are not mutually exclusive and can be combined. For example, actions from green economy and low carbon transformation pathways may pave the way towards more transformative transition movements pathways. Moreover, future transitions to sustainability may be fostered through cross-scale integration and mainstreaming of environmental issues into sectoral policies and decisions, along with nurturing diverse social, institutional and technological experiments (established but incomplete) (5.5.5). Participatory scenario, vision and pathway development is a powerful approach for knowledge co-production and has great potential for the explicit inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge (established but incomplete) (5.4.3, 5.5.1, 5.5.2, 5.5.6, 5.6.2). Many scenario, vision and pathways exercises include local stakeholders and their valuable knowledge and practices. However, the use of different knowledge systems, such as indigenous and local knowledge, was rarely explicitly mentioned in studies (5.6.2). Explicit examples that included indigenous and local knowledge (see Boxes 5.2, 5.6 and 5.10), show a clear added value from combining different forms of knowledge with technological innovations, and cultural diversity, norms and customary rights when pursuing goals of sustainable development (5.2.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.3, 5.5.6). Knowledge gaps and resulting uncertainties in exploring future interactions between nature and society are substantial because integrated assessments of future impacts on nature, nature's contributions to people and a good quality of life that take account of the complex interdependencies in human and environmental systems are rare (well established) (5.6.2). Very few studies were available for Central Asia and to a lesser extent for Eastern Europe (well established) (5.6.2). Less information was also available for marine systems than for terrestrial and freshwater systems (well established) (5.6.2). Few integrated scenario and modelling studies include indicators of nature's nonmaterial contributions to people and good quality of life (5.3.2, 5.5.1, 5.6.2) and therefore existing assessments of synergies and trade-offs are limited in the interactions and feedbacks they represent (well established) (5.3.2). No studies were found that assessed future flows of nature's contributions to people across countries, which would have been important to assess the impacts of the scenarios and pathways for Europe and Central Asia on other parts of the world (well established) (5.6.2). There is also a significant gap in the current literature in recognizing the diversity of values, with the focus being mainly on instrumental values (well established) (5.6.2). Finally, scenario and modelling studies include many uncertainties in their projections of the future resulting from input data, scenario assumptions, model structure and propagation of uncertainties across the integrated components of the systems, which should be borne in mind when interpreting their results (well established).
Scenarios are a useful tool to explore possible futures of social-ecological systems. The number of scenarios has increased dramatically over recent decades, with a large diversity in temporal and spatial scales, purposes, themes, development methods, and content. Scenario archetypes generically describe future developments and can be useful in meaningfully classifying scenarios, structuring and summarizing the overwhelming amount of information, and enabling scientific outputs to more effectively interface with decision-making frameworks. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faced this challenge and used scenario archetypes in its assessment of future interactions between nature and society. We describe the use of scenario archetypes in the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Six scenario archetypes for the region are described in terms of their driver assumptions and impacts on nature (including biodiversity) and its contributions to people (including ecosystem services): Business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional competition, regional sustainability, global sustainable development, and inequality. The analysis shows that trade-offs between nature's contributions to people are projected under different scenario archetypes. However, the means of resolving these trade-offs depend on differing political and societal value judgements within each scenario archetype. Scenarios that include proactive decision making on environmental issues, environmental management approaches that support multifunctionality, and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors, are generally more successful in mitigating tradeoffs than isolated environmental policies. Furthermore, those scenario archetypes that focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature's contributions to people and that incorporate a diversity of values are estimated to achieve more policy goals and targets, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi targets. The scenario archetypes approach is shown to be helpful in supporting science-policy dialogue for proactive decision making that anticipates change, mitigates undesirable trade-offs, and fosters societal transformation in pursuit of sustainable development ; The authors are grateful to the IPBES Europe and Central Asia Expert Group and Technical Support Unit for all their input support, and collaboration over the past three years. Paula Harrison and Ian Holman acknowledge financial support from the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the EUfunded IMPRESSIONS project (Grant Agreement 603416). Martin Schlaepfer received support from ENVIROSPACE, University of Geneva. Antoine Guisan acknowledges additional funding from the University of Lausanne to support Anthony Sonrel's contribution to the assessment
Scenarios are a useful tool to explore possible futures of social-ecological systems. The number of scenarios has increased dramatically over recent decades, with a large diversity in temporal and spatial scales, purposes, themes, development methods, and content. Scenario archetypes generically describe future developments and can be useful in meaningfully classifying scenarios, structuring and summarizing the overwhelming amount of information, and enabling scientific outputs to more effectively interface with decision-making frameworks. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faced this challenge and used scenario archetypes in its assessment of future interactions between nature and society. We describe the use of scenario archetypes in the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Six scenario archetypes for the region are described in terms of their driver assumptions and impacts on nature (including biodiversity) and its contributions to people (including ecosystem services): business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional competition, regional sustainability, global sustainable development, and inequality. The analysis shows that trade-offs between nature's contributions to people are projected under different scenario archetypes. However, the means of resolving these trade-offs depend on differing political and societal value judgements within each scenario archetype. Scenarios that include proactive decision making on environmental issues, environmental management approaches that support multifunctionality, and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors, are generally more successful in mitigating tradeoffs than isolated environmental policies. Furthermore, those scenario archetypes that focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature's contributions to people and that incorporate a diversity of values are estimated to achieve more policy goals and targets, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi targets. The scenario archetypes approach is shown to be helpful in supporting science-policy dialogue for proactive decision making that anticipates change, mitigates undesirable trade-offs, and fosters societal transformation in pursuit of sustainable development.
Scenarios are a useful tool to explore possible futures of social-ecological systems. The number of scenarios has increased dramatically over recent decades, with a large diversity in temporal and spatial scales, purposes, themes, development methods, and content. Scenario archetypes generically describe future developments and can be useful in meaningfully classifying scenarios, structuring and summarizing the overwhelming amount of information, and enabling scientific outputs to more effectively interface with decision-making frameworks. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faced this challenge and used scenario archetypes in its assessment of future interactions between nature and society. We describe the use of scenario archetypes in the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Six scenario archetypes for the region are described in terms of their driver assumptions and impacts on nature (including biodiversity) and its contributions to people (including ecosystem services): business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional competition, regional sustainability, global sustainable development, and inequality. The analysis shows that trade-offs between nature's contributions to people are projected under different scenario archetypes. However, the means of resolving these trade-offs depend on differing political and societal value judgements within each scenario archetype. Scenarios that include proactive decision making on environmental issues, environmental management approaches that support multifunctionality, and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors, are generally more successful in mitigating trade-offs than isolated environmental policies. Furthermore, those scenario archetypes that focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature's contributions to people and that incorporate a diversity of values are estimated to achieve more policy goals and targets, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi targets. The scenario archetypes approach is shown to be helpful in supporting science-policy dialogue for proactive decision making that anticipates change, mitigates undesirable trade-offs, and fosters societal transformation in pursuit of sustainable development.
Scenarios are a useful tool to explore possible futures of social-ecological systems. The number of scenarios has increased dramatically over recent decades, with a large diversity in temporal and spatial scales, purposes, themes, development methods, and content. Scenario archetypes generically describe future developments and can be useful in meaningfully classifying scenarios, structuring and summarizing the overwhelming amount of information, and enabling scientific outputs to more effectively interface with decision-making frameworks. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faced this challenge and used scenario archetypes in its assessment of future interactions between nature and society. We describe the use of scenario archetypes in the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Six scenario archetypes for the region are described in terms of their driver assumptions and impacts on nature (including biodiversity) and its contributions to people (including ecosystem services): Business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional competition, regional sustainability, global sustainable development, and inequality. The analysis shows that trade-offs between nature's contributions to people are projected under different scenario archetypes. However, the means of resolving these trade-offs depend on differing political and societal value judgements within each scenario archetype. Scenarios that include proactive decision making on environmental issues, environmental management approaches that support multifunctionality, and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors, are generally more successful in mitigating tradeoffs than isolated environmental policies. Furthermore, those scenario archetypes that focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature's contributions to people and that incorporate a diversity of values are estimated to achieve more policy goals and targets, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity ...
Scenarios are a useful tool to explore possible futures of social-ecological systems. The number of scenarios has increased dramatically over recent decades, with a large diversity in temporal and spatial scales, purposes, themes, development methods, and content. Scenario archetypes generically describe future developments and can be useful in meaningfully classifying scenarios, structuring and summarizing the overwhelming amount of information, and enabling scientific outputs to more effectively interface with decision-making frameworks. The Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) faced this challenge and used scenario archetypes in its assessment of future interactions between nature and society. We describe the use of scenario archetypes in the IPBES Regional Assessment of Europe and Central Asia. Six scenario archetypes for the region are described in terms of their driver assumptions and impacts on nature (including biodiversity) and its contributions to people (including ecosystem services): business-as-usual, economic optimism, regional competition, regional sustainability, global sustainable development, and inequality. The analysis shows that trade-offs between nature's contributions to people are projected under different scenario archetypes. However, the means of resolving these trade-offs depend on differing political and societal value judgements within each scenario archetype. Scenarios that include proactive decision making on environmental issues, environmental management approaches that support multifunctionality, and mainstreaming environmental issues across sectors, are generally more successful in mitigating trade-offs than isolated environmental policies. Furthermore, those scenario archetypes that focus on achieving a balanced supply of nature's contributions to people and that incorporate a diversity of values are estimated to achieve more policy goals and targets, such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Convention on Biological Diversity ...
