Deliverable 3(c): Policy support tools and methodologies for scenario analysis and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services based on a fast track assessment and a guide
For sustainable development to succeed, we must move away from piecemeal decision-making about biodiversity and the benefits of nature to people. Science should be used to anticipate change – such as the loss of habitats, invasive alien species and climate shifts – to reduce the negative impacts on people and to help us make use of important opportunities.
This Assessment is already guiding the use of methodologies in all IPBES work and has also made a significant global impact – for instance at the 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP13) in Mexico, where a COP decision recognized its relevance for the planned fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook and listed it among the best available scientific information. The COP also encouraged Parties, other Governments, relevant organizations, the scientific community, stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples and local communities to develop and use these tools and to contribute to their further development. The CBD decision may be accessed here: https://goo.gl/1nfvQR
The Assessment presents a best-practice ‘toolkit’ of the approaches that can be used to decide on policies and actions by Governments, the private sector and civil society. Different valuation methodologies are evaluated according to different visions, approaches and knowledge systems, as well as their policy-relevance, based on the diverse conceptualization of values of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people, including provisioning, regulating and cultural services.
The Assessment will also catalyze the further development and use of tools and methodologies on these issues. The aim is that such policy support tools will help guide decision-making, by taking into account the multiple values of nature and its benefits.
IPBES would like to acknowledge and thank all of the experts who contributed to the Assessment. To view the list of experts who contributed please see the “Expert Group” tab below.
Further work during Phase II of this Deliverable will build on the Assessment, aiming to catalyze the further development and use of tools and methodologies on these issues. The aim is that such policy support tools will help guide decision-making, by taking into account the multiple values of nature and its benefits.
As requested by the IPBES Plenary (section V of decision IPBES-4/1), the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel endorsed a detailed work plan for the second phase of the work on scenarios and models and appointed an expert group to perform that work (See bottom of the tab list of experts). The work plan for the second phase of Deliverable 3c includes two main activities, namely, providing expert advice to relevant expert groups of the Platform, in particular those undertaking assessments, on the use of existing scenarios and models to address the current needs of the Platform (activity 1), and catalysing the development of scenarios and models by the broader scientific community for the future work of the Platform (activity 2).
These activities have been organized into a set of tasks which are being carried out by the expert group:
- Task 1: Mobilizing research groups to apply the existing IPCC SSP scenarios to a range of biodiversity and ecosystem services models, the results of which will serve as input for the IPBES Global Assessment.
- Task 2: Mobilizing global institutional stakeholders to identify policy options to enrich the IPCC SSP scenarios using biodiversity and ecosystem services models.
- Task 3: Organization of a session on scenarios and models during the IPBES-5 Stakeholder Day on 6 March 2017.
- Task 4: Full "IPBES scenario way forward" information document for the 5th Plenary of IPBES
- Task 5: A scientific paper on ‘Multi-scale scenarios for nature and nature’s benefits to people’ addressing the scientific community and stakeholders has been submitted for review.
- Task 6: Development of an online evolving guide on the use of scenarios and models
- Task 7: Organization of a workshop on visioning futures for biodiversity and ecosystem services (Auckland, New Zealand, 4-8 September 2017)
- Task 8: Long-term research agenda for the development of new IPBES scenarios.
Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services
The methodological assessment report on scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini and B. A. Wintle (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 348 pages.
The scope for the methodological assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services was agreed by the Plenary, at its second session in December 2013, together with its decision to launch the undertaking of the assessment.
The assessment scope, entailed also in Annex VI to decision IPBES/2/5, is outlined as follows:
Initial scoping for the methodological assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services
- Recognizing that it would be necessary to move forward with the programme of work for 2014‒2018 following its approval by the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services at its second session, the Bureau and the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel agreed to prepare, for consideration by the Plenary at that session, a number of initial scoping documents based on the prioritization of requests, suggestions and inputs put to the Platform and the deliverables set out in the draft programme of work (IPBES/2/2). The present note sets out the initial scoping for the agreed methodological assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and ecosystem services. It was developed in accordance with the draft procedures for the preparation of the Platform’s deliverables (IPBES/2/9, annex), which were subsequently adopted, as amended by the Plenary (see decision IPBES-2/3).
II. Scope, rationale and assumptions
- The objective of the proposed assessment of scenarios and modelling of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people, including ecosystem services, is to establish the foundations for the use of scenarios and models in activities under the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in order to provide insights into the impacts of plausible future socioeconomic development pathways and policy options on biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people, including ecosystem services, and to help evaluate actions that can be taken to protect them in terrestrial, inland water and marine ecosystems. These foundations will be used to provide guidance on evaluating alternative policy options using scenarios and models, including multiple drivers in assessments of future impacts, identifying criteria by which the quality of scenarios and models can be evaluated, ensuring comparability of regional and global policies, including input from stakeholders at various levels, implementing capacity-building mechanisms to promote the development, use and interpretation of scenarios and models by a wide range of policymakers and stakeholders, and communicating outcomes of scenario and model analyses to policymakers and other stakeholders. The first phase of the assessment, to be completed by the end of 2015, will focus on assessing various approaches to the development and use of scenarios and models.
- The rationale for this deliverable is outlined in detail in the report of an international science workshop on assessments for an intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services that was held in Tokyo from 25 to 29 July 2011 (UNEP/IPBES.MI/1/INF/12). In brief, the goals of using scenarios and models in assessments of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people, including ecosystem services, are to better understand and synthesize a broad range of observations, to alert decision makers to undesirable future impacts of global changes such as habitat loss and degradation, invasive alien species, overexploitation, climate change and pollution, to provide decision support for developing adaptive management strategies and to explore the implications of alternative social-ecological development pathways and policy options. One of the key objectives in using scenarios and models is to move away from the current reactive mode of decision-making in which society responds to the degradation of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people in an uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion to a proactive mode in which society anticipates change and thereby minimizes adverse impacts and capitalizes on important opportunities through thoughtful adaptation and mitigation strategies.
- Recent and forthcoming global environmental assessments (see references) have examined past trends in and the current status and future trajectories of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Assessments of status and trends are typically well understood by policymakers and stakeholders because they rely heavily on the analysis of observations. Looking into the future is more complex because it relies on coupling scenarios of future socioeconomic development with models of the impacts of global change on biodiversity and ecosystem function. Scenarios and models are typically explicitly or implicitly built on four main components:
- Scenarios of socioeconomic development (e.g., population growth, economic growth, per capita food consumption, greenhouse gas emissions) and policy options (e.g., reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, subsidies for bioenergy, et cetera);
- Models projecting changes in direct drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem function (e.g., land use change, fishing pressure, climate change, invasive alien species, nitrogen deposition);
- Models assessing the impacts of drivers on biodiversity (e.g., species extinctions, changes in species abundance and shifts in ranges of species, species groups or biomes);
- Models assessing the impacts of drivers and changes in biodiversity on ecosystem services (e.g., ecosystem productivity, control of water flow and quality, ecosystem carbon storage, cultural values).
These elements generally correspond to the structure of the conceptual framework developed for the Platform, and the figure below illustrates how scenarios and models are typically coupled to provide projections of future trajectories of biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Elements can range from highly quantitative (e.g., econometric models of socioeconomic development) to qualitative (e.g., prospective scenarios of development based on expert-stakeholder dialogues (Coreau and others, 2009)).
Integration of socioeconomic scenarios (indirect drivers), models of direct drivers and models of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, as currently used in most assessments at global and regional scales
Source: Pereira and others, 2010.
Note: Dotted lines indicate important interactions and feedbacks that have been infrequently treated in assessments.
- Considerable preparation and thought is required to structure scenarios and modelling activities for the Platform to ensure that comparisons can be made across assessments, especially important when comparing regional and global projections, and that a standard of high quality is maintained in all assessment activities. In addition, a number of significant knowledge gaps remain that must be filled to enable better quantification of uncertainty, to incorporate institutions and governance in scenarios, to account for the plurality of conceptualizations across knowledge systems, including feedbacks between the multiple interactions between the natural world and human societies (see figure) and to increase the policy relevance of scenarios and modelling assessments (Leadley and others, 2010, De Groot and others, 2010). The assessment, guidance, promotion and catalysing activities in this deliverable are intended to provide a basis for such preparation at the very start of the Platform’s operation so that all activities relying on scenarios and models are built on a solid foundation.
- This deliverable responds to requests, inputs and suggestions from France, Mexico, the International Council for Science and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
- All phases of this deliverable will build on scenarios and modelling experiences under other global, regional and national environmental assessments. Particular attention will be paid to the most recent developments in socioeconomic scenarios and models used in global assessments, for example the “shared socioeconomic pathway” and “shared policy assumption” scenarios used by working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in preparing its contribution (due out in 2014) to the Panel’s fifth assessment report and the Convention on Biological Diversity Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (due out in 2014), as well as regional and national assessments such as the national ecosystem assessments.
- To improve the involvement of decision makers and a variety of knowledge holders in the process, there will be a focus on participatory methods (Coreau and others, 2009), “backcasting” methods that work backwards from agreed-upon future goals and other methods that reinforce the science-policy and science-stakeholders dialogue.
- Particular attention will be paid to collaborating with observation networks and data holders as data is critical for developing, parameterizing and validating scenarios and models. The availability of adequate data is often a limiting factor in model development and use.
- Particular attention will also be paid to the integration of biodiversity scenarios across spatial scales of relevance to multiple types of decisions, including closer involvement of stakeholders in the definition, development and use of scenarios, and stronger consideration and integration of the multiple dimensions of biodiversity and ecosystem services in scenarios and models. This is particularly important for the Panel because assessment activities will start with regional and subregional scale assessments, which must be both pertinent at national levels and sufficiently coherent across regions to provide the building blocks for a global assessment.
- The scenarios and modelling assessment and follow-up activities will provide an unprecedented opportunity to capitalize on the synergies between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. The Platform will also work closely with other bodies involved in global environmental assessment such as UNEP, including its programme on the economics of ecosystem services and biodiversity, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. In addition, there is a broad scientific community that can be mobilized and involved in the development of these methodologies. This deliverable will therefore require substantial mobilization of resources outside of the Platform’s remit and close collaboration with such international research programmes as Future Earth, funders of international research such as the Belmont Forum and the scientific communities involved in assessments undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and UNEP.
III. Chapter outline
- It is contemplated that the results of the assessment will be presented in a 10-chapter report, as set out below:
Chapter 1. Overview of socioeconomic scenarios and models and critical review of their use in previous biodiversity and ecosystem assessments
Chapter 2. Scenarios of the indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services
Chapter 3. Models of direct drivers of change in biodiversity, ecosystem function and nature’s benefits to people, including ecosystem services
Chapter 4: Models of the impacts of drivers on biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people, including ecosystem services
Chapter 5. Examining the feedbacks between biodiversity, nature’s benefits to people, good quality of life, institutions and governance, and using scenarios and models
Chapter 6. Compatibility and comparison of scenarios and models, including a discussion of how the use of a core set of socioeconomic scenarios and models can be combined with the use of multiple scenarios and models. This chapter would also include a discussion on how to address the issue of multiple spatial and temporal scales with scenarios and models
Chapter 7. Building capacity for the development, use and interpretation of scenarios and models, including through the use of participatory and “backcasting” methods
Chapter 8. Scenarios and models as currently used in decision-making and communication
Chapter 9. Guidelines for improving the broader use of scenarios and models for decision support
Chapter 10. Guide for the use of scenarios and models in assessments and other activities of the Panel
Members of the Scenarios and Modelling Assessment Expert Group
|Chair||Karachepone Ninan||Centre for Economics, Environment and Society||International Human Dimensions Programme IHDP|
|Chair||Simon Ferrier||Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)||Australia|
|Lead Author||Essam Yassin Mohammed||IIED||Eritrea|
|Lead Author||Paul Leadley||Ecology, Systematics evolution Labaratory, University of Paris Sud-France|
|Lead Author||Grygorii Kolomytsev||I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine||DIVERSITAS|
|Lead Author||Rob Alkemade||IPBES Secretariat - Technical Support Unit on Scenarios and modelling||Netherlands|
|Lead Author||Yongyut Trisurat||Kasetsart University|
|Lead Author||Monica Moraes||Universidad Mayor de San AndrŽs||Bolivia (Plurinational State of)|
|Review editor||Carlos Alfredo Joly||Biology Institute of the State University of CAMPINAS Brazil|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Lilibeth Acosta Michlik||German Development Institute||International Human Dimensions Programme IHDP|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Brendan Wintle||University of Melbourne||Australia|
|Lead Author||Rosario Lilian Painter||Wildlife Conservation Society||Bolivia (Plurinational State of)|
|Lead Author||Andriamandimbisoa Razafimpahanana||Wildlife Conservation Society||Madagascar|
|Lead Author||Aliye Ceren Onur||Istanbul Technical University||Turkey|
|Lead Author||Kikuko Shoyama||NIES Japan||Japan|
|Lead Author||Zsofia Benedek||Institute of Economics, CERS, Hungarian Academy of Sciences||Hungary|
|Lead Author||Purna Chhetri||Department of Forest and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture||Bhutan|
|Lead Author||Sheila Johanna Jacomina Heymans||Scottish Association for Marine Science||United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|
|Review editor||Bojie Fu||Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences||China|
|Review editor||Jennifer Hauck||Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH ? UFZ||Germany|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Ramon De La Concepcion Pichs Madruga||Centre for World Economy Studies (CIEM)||Cuba|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Michael Obersteiner||International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis||International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis|
|Lead Author||Philippe Cury||Euromarine - Consortium of Marine Research Organizations||France|
|Lead Author||Peter Verburg||VU University Amsterdam||Netherlands|
|Lead Author||Xuefeng Cui||Beijing Normal University||International Human Dimensions Programme IHDP|
|Lead Author||Mohamed Tawfic Ahmed||Suez Canal University, Egypt|
|Lead Author||Samba Fall||ENDA TN||Energie-Environnement-Développement|
|Lead Author||Klaus Kellner||North West University|
|Review editor||Sathyapalan Jyothis||Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) Hyderabad||DIVERSITAS|
|Online reviewer||Matthew Cantele||International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis||International Institute For Applied Systems Analysis|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Nijavalli H. Ravindranath||Center for Sustainable Technologies, Indian Institute of Science||India|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Lluis Brotons||Centre for Ecological Research And Forestry Applications||Spain|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Villy Christensen||The University of British Columbia||Canada|
|Lead Author||Mingchang Cao||Jixi Gao||China|
|Lead Author||Jung Hwa Chun||National Institute of Forest Science, Division of Forest Ecology||Republic of Korea|
|Lead Author||Vania Andrea Malheiro Proenca||Instituto Superior Tecnico - UNIU Lisboa||Portugal|
|Lead Author||Olivier Maury||Institut de Recherche pour le DŽveloppement (IRD)||France|
|Lead Author||Pablo Luis Peri||National Universty of Southern Patagonia (UNPA)-INTA-CONICET||Argentina|
|Lead Author||Baris Salihoglu||Institute of Marine Sciences, Middle East Technical University||DIVERSITAS|
|Review editor||Michael Huston||Texas State University||United States of America|
|Review editor||Deborah Hemming||Met Office||United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Jane Kabubo Mariara||Univesity of Nairobi||Kenya|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Garry Peterson||Stockholm Resilience Centre||Sweden|
|Lead Author||Ainars Aunins||University of Latvia||Latvia|
|Lead Author||Neville Crossman||Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)||Australia|
|Lead Author||Jonathan Anticamara||Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines - Diliman||University of the Philippines|
|Lead Author||Makarius Victor Mdemu||ARDHI University||United Republic of Tanzania|
|Lead Author||Brenda Rashleigh||US EPA||United States of America|
|Lead Author||Pablo Munoz||United Nations University||International Human Dimensions Programme IHDP|
|Review editor||Anders Skonhoft||Dragvoll University||Norway|
|Review editor||David Vackar||Global Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic||Czech Republic|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Carlo Rondinini||Sapienza University of Rome||IUCN|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Wai Lung (william) Cheung||Duke University/Nereus Program||DIVERSITAS|
|Lead Author||Tianxiang Yue||Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences||China|
|Lead Author||Jean Paul Metzger||University of S‹o Paulo||Brazil|
|Lead Author||Marjan Van Den Belt||Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand||New Zealand|
|Lead Author||Maria Ximena Velez Liendo||Centre of Biodiversity and Genetics||Bolivia (Plurinational State of)|
|Lead Author||Thomas Hickler||Goethe University, Frankfurt/Main, Germany||Germany|
|Lead Author||Joern Scharlemann||University of Sussex||United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland|
|Lead Author||Ram Avtar||United Nations University (UNU-IAS)||United Nations University|
|Review editor||Stoyan Nedkov||Sofia University||Bulgaria|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Khaled Allam Harhash||Nature Conservation Sector, Ministry of Environment||Egypt|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Carolyn Lundquist||NIWA, University of Auckland||New Zealand|
|Lead Author||Nakul Chettri||International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)|
|Lead Author||Vasyl Prydatko||Ukrainian Land and Resource Management Center (ULRMC)||DIVERSITAS|
|Lead Author||Sandra Veronica Acebey Quiroga||YPFB Petroandina S.A.M.||Bolivia (Plurinational State of)|
|Lead Author||Dolors Armenteras Pascual||Universidad Nacional de Colombia||Colombia|
|Lead Author||James Mwang'ombe Mwamodenyi||Kenya Forest Service||Kenya|
|Lead Author||Andriambolantsoa Rasolohery||Conservation International||Madagascar|
|Review editor||Nicholas King||Independent researcher/consultant||South Africa|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Henrique Pereira||Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO-BON)||Germany|
|Coordinating Lead Author||Resit Akcakaya||Stony Brook University||Turkey|
|Lead Author||Graciela Canziani||Universidad Nacional del Centro||Arizona State University|
|Lead Author||Cheikh Mbow||ICRAF||DIVERSITAS|
|Lead Author||Maria Gabriela Palomo||National History Museum||Argentina|
|Lead Author||Wilfried Thuiller||CNRS||France|
|Lead Author||Akira Mori||Yokohama National University||Japan|
|Lead Author||Jorge Soberon||University of Kansas||Mexico|
|Lead Author||Shigeo Yachi||Kyoto University||Japan|
|Review editor||Elizabeth Fulton||Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)||Australia|
|Review editor||Neil David Burgess||University of Copenhagen||Denmark|
|Chair||Henrique Pereira||Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO-BON)|
|Chair||Carolyn Lundquist||NIWA, University of Auckland|
|Expert||Lilibeth Acosta Michlik||German Development Institute|
|Expert||Grygorii Kolomytsev||I.I. Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine|
|Expert||Stoyan Nedkov||Sofia University|
|Expert||Sylvia Karlson Vinkhuyzen||Wageningen University|
|Expert||Nicholas King||Independent researcher/consultant|
|Expert||Sathyapalan Jyothis||Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) Hyderabad|
|Expert||Simon Ferrier||Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)|
|Expert||Federica Ravera||University of Evora|
|Expert||Jennifer Hauck||Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH ? UFZ|
|Expert||Carlo Rondinini||Sapienza University of Rome|
|Expert||Wai Lung (william) Cheung||Duke University/Nereus Program|
|Expert||Ramon De La Concepcion Pichs Madruga||Centre for World Economy Studies (CIEM)|
|Expert||Khaled Allam Harhash||Nature Conservation Sector, Ministry of Environment|
|Expert||Laura Maureen Bosch Pereira||University of Cape Town|
|Expert||Nakul Chettri||International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD)|
|Expert||Karachepone Ninan||Centre for Economics, Environment and Society|
|Expert||Resit Akcakaya||Stony Brook University|
|Expert||Maria Gabriela Palomo||National History Museum|
|Expert||Sandra Veronica Acebey Quiroga||YPFB Petroandina S.A.M.|
|Expert||Jean Paul Metzger||University of S‹o Paulo|
|Bureau expert group member||Robert Watson||Tyndall Center Department of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia|
|Bureau expert group member||Asghar Mohammadi Fazel||ECO-IEST|
|MEP expert group member||Paul Leadley||Ecology, Systematics evolution Labaratory, University of Paris Sud-France|
|MEP expert group member||Carlos Alfredo Joly||Biology Institute of the State University of CAMPINAS Brazil|
|IPBES Secretariat (TSU)||Thelma Van Den Brink||IPBES Secretariat - Technical Support Unit on Scenarios and modelling|
|IPBES Secretariat (TSU)||Tanya Lazarova||IPBES Secretariat - Technical Support Unit on Scenarios and modelling|
|IPBES Secretariat (TSU)||Eefje Den Belder||IPBES Secretariat - Technical Support Unit on Scenarios and modelling|
|IPBES Secretariat (TSU)||Rob Alkemade||IPBES Secretariat - Technical Support Unit on Scenarios and modelling|