Suchergebnisse

In 2014, the International Union for Conservation of Nature adopted the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) criteria as the global standard for assessing risks to terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Five years on, it is timely to ask what impact this new initiative has had on ecosystem management and conservation. In this policy perspective, we use an impact evaluation framework to distinguish the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the RLE since its inception. To date, 2,821 ecosystems in 100 countries have been assessed following the RLE protocol. Systematic assessments are complete or underway in 21 countries and two continental regions (the Americas and Europe). Countries with established ecosystem policy infrastructure have already used the RLE to inform legislation, land-use planning, protected area management, monitoring and reporting, and ecosystem management. Impacts are still emerging due to varying pace and commitment to implementation across different countries. In the future, RLE indices based on systematic assessments have high potential to inform global biodiversity reporting. Expanding the coverage of RLE assessments, building capacity and political will to undertake them, and establishing stronger policy instruments to manage red-listed ecosystems will be key to maximizing conservation impacts over the coming decades.

This document contains the draft Chapter 4 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters.IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copyediting.

Despiteincreasingscientificunderstandingoftheglobalenvironmentalcrisis,westruggletoadoptthepolicies sciencesuggestswouldbeeffective.Oneofthereasonsforthatisthelackofinclusiveengagementanddialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interfacecanbe strengthenedby beingmindfulofthebreadthanddepthofthediversehuman-naturerelations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of "nature" in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusiveconceptualizationswhere humansareseparate fromnature; anddeifyingconceptualizationswherenatureisunderstoodandexperiencedwithinaspiritualdimension. Consideringandrespectingthisrichrepertoireofwaysofdescribing,thinkingaboutandrelatingtonature canhelpuscommunicateinwaysthatresonateacrossculturesandworldviews.Thisrepertoirealsoprovidesa resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunitiesforfindingsolutionstoglobalenvironmentalchallenges. ; Peer reviewed