ECA_2.5.2_155

This chapter has indicated that if status and trends in nature’s contributions to people and their impact on quality of life are to be better understood across Europe and Central Asia, four key changes are required in approaches to knowledge generation on these contributions. First, there is a need for agreed methods that allow comparison of results and syntheses. Each of nature’s contributions to people is often studied and described in different ways and for different units of analysis, which makes it challenging to summarize status and trends for a region. For example, for the regulation of water quality, the large uncertainty in measurements and the absence of consensus on the most appropriate methods for its quantification make its assessment difficult (Clec’h et al., 2016; Grizzetti et al., 2012). Second, there is a need for integrative approaches that assess the multiple benefits derived from a particular contribution from nature to people. For example, it is widely recognized that pollinators and animal-pollinated plants provide benefits not only as food and feed, but also through medicinal and symbolic plants, fibres (e.g. cotton), construction materials (e.g. some timbers), aesthetically significant landscapes (e.g. flower meadows), musical instruments (e.g. bees wax used for violins), and as sources of inspiration for art, music, literature, traditions, education and technology throughout Europe and Central Asia (IPBES, 2016). This information on pollinators was compiled for a specific IPBES assessment on the topic, and such evidence is not available for many other contributions from nature to people. Third, there is limited empirical evidence on how individual contribution from nature s to people can contribute to the different dimensions of quality of life. For example, there is only empirical evidence in Western Europe about how nature-based tourism can contribute to physical and mental health, but comprehensive information about its contributions to food security, cultural heritage and identity is missing for the whole of Europe and Central Asia. Finally, there is a need for more integrated approaches to the development of knowledge regarding nature’s contributions to people that involve multiple social actors, including indigenous and local knowledge holders. For example, in the case of medicinal resources, there is a need for a much more rigorous multidisciplinary science-driven approach to local and traditional medicines, which also empowers the local keepers of this knowledge and their users (Leonti & Casu, 2013). More integrated research approaches would be beneficial to better explore the knowledge and health potential of medicinal plants. It is essential to ensure that bioprospecting preserves traditional knowledge systems, and works with local communities in a manner that protects those values and protects habitats and species. Involving communities in the sustainable use of biodiversity may also provide important opportunities for local enterprise, and support the continuance of local cultural traditions. This requires direct engagement and collaboration between community organizations, biotech and pharmaceutical industries, national institutes of health and medicine, conservationists, and research funding agencies.