Knowledge gaps

In addition, internationally comparable data on indirect drivers are not always available for all countries and regions of the Americas being particularly limited for small economies - lack of a capacity to collect, handle, and process repeated, frequent observations of aquatic and nearby wetland resources

Improved management for overharvested species requires inventories, baselines, and monitoring knowledge of targeted species. Managers need to know population densities, sizes and trends, breeding and migration patterns, and ecological conditions they require. Understanding the threats that are causing their decline (e.g. trade markets) as well as traditional values and knowledge will assist both management and enforcement.

Relevant information on indirect drivers is extremely limited at environmental scales (e.g. habitats, ecosystems, biomes), which in many cases may be more relevant than institutional scales (e.g. administrative, municipalities, provinces, countries) for IPBES assessments.

Information about oil contamination effects on sediment microbial communities and the effects of bioremediation techniques on microbial diversity in mangroves are also needed

In the case of the Americas, for some regions, there is still substantial uncertainty associated to spatial and temporal magnitude of the drivers

Networks of regional observation systems that collaborate and share information, and that work jointly to understand biodiversity and ecosystems could provide support to existing national programs and contribute to address United Nations SDG

It is not possible to make a generalized statement of impacts of global changes in physical ocean dynamics and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on coastal ecology

Understanding how sensitive areas change in relation to regional- to global-scale processes, a mechanism to communicate the needs of people making decisions about local resources to scientists, and pathways to deliver scientific knowledge to decision makers remain prioritary needs for the region.

Social and cultural values of nature and NCP have been rarely incorporated in models and scenarios.

There is a significant research gap in the development of models and scenarios that integrate drivers, nature, nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life

It could also benefit from improved analytical tools that integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services variables and human and socioeconomic development variables.

Information on policy effectiveness is often derived through case studies and anecdotal accounts. Evaluation could benefit from improved monitoring systems, involving both new technologies and community-based monitoring at local level

There is an overall gap of policy evaluation in the Americas, which is more pronounced in Latin America and the Caribbean than it is in North America.

Cases where environmentally damaging activities are relocated elsewhere after being stopped locally are found from protected area level to biome level (established but incomplete). Such issues are often unforeseen either due to lack of systemic planning or adequate mapping of potential stakeholders.

For most countries, global goals, targets and aspirations (Sustainable Development Goals, Aichi targets, national determined contributions) are neither aligned with nor integrated into national policies (inconclusive).

There is use or interest in a broad array of policy instruments by a range of actors to support biodiversity and ecosystem services management, but their implementation, even when effective locally, often do not add up to overall effectiveness at national or regional scales

There are some significant valuation data gaps so caution needs to be applied during interpretation

it is important to note the large discrepancy in the availability and quality of data, both regionally and subregionally. When it comes to marine biodiversity, there are still significant gaps about the status of several important species and ecosystems 1.4.4, page 38 - First and foremost there are considerable gaps in relevant knowledge, information and data in several Asia-Pacific countries.

It has not been always possible to access reliable data from (and thus provide complete estimates for) all subregions. Some areas are particularly under-researched and data-deficient such as Western Asia, Hindu-Kush Himalayas and small Pacific Islands. Furthermore while we aimed to synthesize recent information (post-2010), this was not always feasible, as some key datasets are not compiled at regular intervals

The Asia-Pacific Assessment Report has adopted a social-ecological systems approach and a multi-stakeholder perspective in order to reflect the intricate linkages between biological and cultural diversity but due to time, funding and space constraints this was not entirely feasible. For example, practitioners from the private sector and civil society were under-represented

As not all chapters had representatives conversant in all major regional languages, we do acknowledge that this might have led to the underrepresentation of regional knowledge

Due to the lack of appropriate case studies, the assessment has also faced some limitations in stratifying and customizing policy options, policy mixes and institutional and governance frameworks for all subregional.

Despite noteworthy efforts in some developing and highly biodiverse countries in the region to establish biodiversity baselines, there are significant constraints due to knowledge, capacity, expertise, finance, and technology

There is an urgent need to support the development of a young generation of experts in relevant fields (e.g. taxonomy, physiology, climate science, system ecology) to fill in existing knowledge gaps and maintain monitoring in existing sites

First and foremost there are considerable gaps in relevant knowledge, information and data in several Asia-Pacific countries. These gaps pose significant challenges for fully implementing NBSAPs, and achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the SDGs (Section 1.1.2, 1.3.7) (UNEP-WCMC, 2016; Amano & Sutherland, 2013)

There is a lack of expertise to fully gauge and analyse the interrelated effects of the direct and indirect drivers of ecosystem change and biodiversity loss especially as new drivers such as climate change become more prevalent

Significant knowledge gaps exist for properly assessing and analysing the status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem services in a spatially explicit manner

Significant challenges emerge due to the loss of ILK primarily due to socioeconomic transformation and migration

There are also substantial financial constraints, political challenges and capacity gaps to design and implement effectively transboundary and regional initiatives to halt biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, climate change, and unsustainable development

However, aquatic insects are not assessed herein in detail, due to vast data gaps within the region, except for north-east Asia and Australia

There are still large gaps in the knowledge on drivers of freshwater biodiversity declines

However, there are scientific data gaps on the current status of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in most of the river basins, inland wetlands and peatlands of the region

Invasive alien species huge knowledge gaps in this field and recommended coordinated studies on impacts of invasive species on key faunal species and ecosystems

Due to a lack of suitable monitoring equipment and extensive knowledge gaps, ascertaining the ecotoxicity, or more generally the environmental impacts, of nanomaterials and their distribution in are still remain as an urgent and highly significant challenge to researchers and policymakers alike (Senjen et al., 2013).

No studies could be retrieved which either provide ‘target-seeking’ or ‘back-casting’ scenarios - marking an outstanding research gap in development of normative scenarios in the region that would assist governments with policy development.

In general, however, regional scenario exercises generally lacked assessments of cultural or nonmaterial ecosystem services, probably due to lack of well established models and methods, highlighting a significant research gap.

The comparison across the models in the region has been difficult due to different set of temporal, spatial and units of analysis as well as socio-economic and cultural differences.

Most studies significantly focus on social and economic drivers, but lack incorporation of ecological drivers, such as possible introduction of invasive species or new crop or animal breeds, which underpin existing research gaps

Although there is background knowledge of the role of many taxa in ecosystem functioning, there is far less known about their individual roles in systems; about what would happen if they were removed from food webs; and about the services they provide as individual species.

[...]knowledge gaps exist in terms of demonstrating the actual effect of kelp forest abundance and density on associated fisheries

There is a proven gap in documentation of indigenous and local knowledge in Central Asia

There is currently a knowledge gap on how iconic and emblematic species that are native to Europe and Central Asia are perceived across the region.

An important conclusion of this chapter’s assessment of the status and trends of nature’s contributions to people and their influence on quality of life is that [...], a much smaller set of documents actually assess the status and trends of contributions[...] This conclusion, however, should be considered with caution as this chapter mostly reviewed English-language literature.

Even when data are available, a further knowledge gap is that data and indicators focus on certain points in time, and evidence on long-term historical and future trends is missing for many of nature’s contributions to people.

Existing analyses of monitoring and indicator development for nature’s contributions to people identify that this should also take place at the local scale, but local indicators must be consistent with those at the regional and international scale in a manner that is integrated with efforts at higher levels (Balvanera et al., 2017).

Knowledge gaps regarding the influence of nature’s contributions to people on quality of life. In particular, despite a large number of studies on the health aspects of nature’s contributions to people in Western Europe, there are still knowledge gaps on nature-human health linkages in Europe and Central Asia and other regions

The analysis of the relationships between nature’s contributions to people and environmental equity and justice across Europe and Central Asia has to address the different understandings in countries and communities as to what constitutes equity and justice.

The limited availability of indicators for certain of nature’s contributions to people in Europe and Central Asia is also a significant knowledge gap

There are more accurate data on status and trends for material contributions, especially food and feed, than some regulating and non-material contributions.

This chapter has also identified specific knowledge gaps in terms of the availability of indicator data for status and trends for the following aspects of nature’s contributions to people: - Indicators of the trends in habitat creation and maintenance, [...]The relationship between water use and water availability, [...] Soil quality, [...] Carcass removal by vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers and marine organisms, [...] The use of medicinal resources and plants, [...] Wildlife-based tourism, [...] Supporting identities, Interregional flows of nature’s regulating and nonmaterial contributions to people