IPBES:生物多样性科学评估将成为政策决策的驱动因素

生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(IPBES)的目的,是为了缓解生物多样性持续减退的趋势,推动政策和科学之间的互动。2012年成立至今构建了概念模型,确定了2014—2018年的工作方案。分析IPBES工作方案的4个目的和相应交付成果可以看出,通过推出不同专题评估报告,将为全球提出生物多样性相关的新问题,给生物多样性相关的谈判和履约提出新挑战。一系列区域和全球评估报告的推出,可能通过持续积累效益,引起公众和媒体的关注,使生物多样性问题迅速政治化,形成科学驱动政策决策的趋势。应对IPBES及其生物多样性相关公约的谈判,我国需要制定深入和持续参与其国际过程的策略,需要通过培养和推荐专业水平高且政治敏感的专家,参与IPBES评估报告的具体工作,从科学层面影响评估结果,把握生物多样性领域国际政策决策动向,在保护生物多样性的基础上,维护国家利益。     

A multi-criteria,ecosystem-service value method used to assess catchment suitability for potential wetland reconstruction in Denmark

Wetlands provide a range of ecosystem services such as drought resistance, flood resistance, nutrient deposition, biodiversity, etc. This study presents a new multi-criteria, ecosystems service value-driven method to drive the optimal placement of restored wetlands in terms of maximizing selected ecosystem services which a wetland can provide or affect. We aim to answer two questions: 1) which of the ecosystem services indicators defines the placement of wetlands today? 2) Based on the ecosystem services indicator assessment, what are the recommendations for future selection of catchments for potential wetland reconstruction (i.e. restoration)?Five key ecosystem services indicators produced or affected by wetlands in Denmark were mapped (recreational potential, biodiversity, nitrogen mitigation potential, inverse land rent, and flash-flood risk). These services were compared to current placements of wetlands. Furthermore, scenario testing and hotspot analysis were combined to provide future recommendations for optimal placements of wetlands. The scenarios investigated were Climate Adaptation and Protection of Aquatic Environment, Land-Based Economy, and Rich Nature. Based on these scenarios, the most suitable areas for wetland reconstruction were mapped, taking both the scenarios and attached weightings of ecosystem services indicators into account.According to statistical results current reconstructed wetlands are situated in catchments with lower biodiversity, higher nitrogen mitigation potential, higher land rent (i.e. agricultural intensive areas), and to some extent higher flash flood risk compared to the median of catchments with wetlands. Hence, recreation potential, high biodiversity, and low land rent has not been prioritized. 35 out of the 3023 catchments investigated were identified with an especially high suitability when optimizing all scenarios. This coincides with a high suitability around peri-urban and urban areas and near natural areas, hence capturing both supply and demand services. Of the 35 identified catchments with potentially high suitability, only 2 actually hold a presently reconstructed wetland. This indicates a prior placement with almost no consideration of maximizing ecosystem services benefits.We recommend a systematic approach, such as the ecosystem service value-driven method demonstrated in the present case study, to target more services and improve the overall benefit from wetlands. This approach seeks to inform decision makers of synergies in the landscape, which is likely to transcend future policy implementations.     

Remote sensing of biodiversity: what to measure and monitor from space to species?

Global biodiversity monitoring systems through remote sensing can support consistent assessment, monitoring, modelling and reporting on biodiversity which are key activities intended for sustainable management. This work presents an overview of biodiversity monitoring components, i.e. biodiversity levels, essential biodiversity variables, biodiversity indicators, scale, biodiversity inventory, biodiversity models, habitat, ecosystem services, vegetation health and biogeochemical heterogeneity and discusses what remote sensing through Earth Observations has contributed to the study of biodiversity. The technological advancements in remote sensing have enabled information-rich data on biodiversity. Remote sensing data are making a strong contribution in providing unique information relevant to various biodiversity research and conservation applications. The extensive use of Earth observation data are not yet realized in biodiversity assessment, monitoring and conservation. The development of direct remote sensing approaches and the techniques for quantifying biodiversity at the community to species level is likely to be a great challenge for comprehensive earth observation-based monitoring strategy.

     

Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy

Using a range of different methods including extensive reviews, workshops and an electronic conference, 70 key research recommendations and 12 priority research needs to integrate the ecosystem services approach into biodiversity conservation policy and funding were identified by a cross-disciplinary group of over 100 scientists and 50 stakeholders, including research funders and policy-makers. These recommendations focus on the ecological underpinning of ecosystem services, drivers that affect ecosystems and their services, biological traits and ecosystem services, the valuation of ecosystem services, spatial and temporal scales in ecosystem service assessment, indicators of ecosystem services, and habitat management, conservation policy and ecosystem services. The recommendations in this paper help steer the research agenda on ecosystem services into policy-relevant areas, agreed upon by funders, researchers and policy-makers. This research agenda will only succeed with increased collaboration between researchers across disciplines, thereby providing a challenge to the research community and research funders to work in new, interdisciplinary ways.     

Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem service provisioning using land use data

Land use change has a major impact on goods and services that our environment supplies for society. While detailed ecological or biophysical field studies are needed to quantify the exact amount of ecosystem service supply at local scales, such a monitoring might be unfeasible at the regional scale. Since field scale monitoring schemes for ecosystem services or ecosystem functioning are missing, proxy based indicators can help to assess the historic development of ecosystem services or ecosystem functioning at the regional scale. We show at the example of the historic development (1964–2004) in the district of Leipzig/Germany how land use/land cover data can be used to derive regional scale indicators for ecosystem functions. We focus thereby on two hypotheses: (1) the ecosystem functioning has degraded over time and (2) changes in land use configuration play an important role in this degradation. The study focuses on indicators for ecosystem functions related to (i) water purification by riparian buffer strips, (ii) pollination, (iii) food production and (iv) outdoor recreation. Each indicator builds on the analysis of land use configuration and land use composition information and is tested on sensitivity/robustness with respect to parameters which had to be estimated based on expert knowledge. We show that land use composition is an important aspect in our ecosystem service assessment. Although our study region is faced with a maximum land use change of 11% in the major land use classes between 1964 and 2004, we see a decrease of ecosystem function indicators up to 23%. The regional assessment shows an overall trend for degradation of ecosystem functioning from 1964 to 1984. This trend is reversed between 1984 and 1994 but the process slowed down until 2004 without reaching the level of 1964.     

Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial scales

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer‐reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass‐ and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro‐ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico‐chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem‐specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub‐global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.     

生态系统红色名录——一种新的生物多样性保护工具

生物多样性为人类提供了生存所必需的一系列生态系统服务和功能。然而,由于人为活动的加剧,生物多样性不断丧失。传统的生物多样性保护主要关注物种多样性,存在着对生物多样性的代表性不足,不能及时反应生态系统多样性的变化等缺点。近年来,生态系统层次上的多样性保护成为研究热点,一些国家和组织相继开展了大尺度的生态系统评估工作。文章回顾了已有的生态系统评估方案,发现当前生态系统评估多采用IUCN物种红色名录的分级标准体系,主要评估生态系统的濒危程度,评估标准主要是分布范围和功能的变化,不同评估方案采用的指标和阈值有差异,需要建立统一的生态系统分类体系和评价方案。同时,结合国内生态系统评价的现状,提出了在我国开展生态系统红色名录研究的若干可行建议。     

Developing a forest biodiversity monitoring approach for New Zealand

There is a lack of comprehensive and consistent information to inform policy makers about the status of New Zealand’s forest biodiversity. Three reasons for collecting such information are: assessing the effectiveness of management, reporting on the status of biodiversity under national and international requirements, and improving our knowledge of ecosystem dynamics for designing effective management systems. The challenge is to design monitoring systems that address these multiple needs simultaneously, and at a range of spatial and temporal scales. This article first considers principles for designing enduring monitoring systems based on past experiences, assessing how effectively these principles were implemented in designing New Zealand’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), and finally, suggesting future directions for forest biodiversity monitoring in New Zealand. At a national scale we support an unbiased, systematic sample of forests as implemented in several countries (e.g. Austria and the U.S.A.). We consider it best practice to monitor shifts in the fundamental compositional, structural and functional characteristics of ecosystems and use these to derive indicators. We suggest forest biodiversity indicators should include forest area and spatial arrangement, tree mortality and recruitment, exotic weeds, introduced herbivore impacts, and woody debris. Principles discussed in this paper are relevant to biodiversity monitoring in a wider range of ecosystems than forests. Without spatially extensive, robustly designed, biodiversity monitoring systems, New Zealand will remain in a relatively weak position nationally, and internationally, to report on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation.     

Determination of national conservation responsibilities for species conservation in regions with multiple political jurisdictions

The Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) commits its signatories to the identification and monitoring of biodiversity. The European Union has implemented this commitment into its legislation. Despite the legal requirement resources are scarce, requiring a prioritization of conservation actions, including e.g. monitoring. Red lists are currently the most prominent tool for priority setting in applied conservation, despite the fact that they were not developed for that purpose. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that they do not always reflect actual conservation needs. As a response, the concept of national responsibility as a complementary tool was developed during the last two decades. The existing methods are country specific and mainly incomparable on an international scale. Here, we present a newly developed method, which is applicable to any taxonomic group, adjustable to different geographic scales, with little data requirements and clear categorizations. We apply the new method to over 1,000 species in several countries of different size and report on the applicability of our method and discuss problems that derive from the currently available data. Our method has several major advantages compared to currently available methods. It is applicable to any geographic range, allows automatization, given database availability, and is readily adjustable to future data improvements. It further has comparably low data demands by exploiting one of the most commonly available information on biodiversity, i.e. distribution maps. We believe that our method allows the allocation of the limited resources in nature conservation in the most sensible way, e.g. the sharing of monitoring duties, effectively selecting networks of protected areas, improving knowledge on biodiversity, and closing information gaps in many species groups.     

IPBES土地退化和恢复专题评估报告及其潜在影响

随着国际社会对生物多样性保护和人类福祉关注度的提升, 土地退化作为全球面临的重要问题逐渐成为国际公约和进程关注的热点问题。生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)将“土地退化和恢复”列入2014-2018年工作方案, 开展评估。2018年3月, 该评估报告在IPBES第六次全体会议上获得通过。本文概述了评估报告的主要内容和结论, 探讨了对其他国际进程的可能影响。评估报告在IPBES概念框架的基础上, 厘清了土地退化的概念与内涵, 全面梳理了土地退化对人类生活质量的影响, 阐明了土地退化的现状和进程, 分析了直接和间接驱动因素与土地退化的作用, 揭示了土地退化与人类福祉的关系, 提出了土地退化和恢复的对策建议。该项评估将为各国决策者制定政策工具提供最有效的技术支撑, 为相关国际进程谈判提供重要的科学参考。中国作为生物多样性大国, 应重视IPBES的评估机制并积极参与, 加强促进生物多样性和生态系统服务领域的科学成果转化, 适时针对国内关键问题启动相关评估, 促进我国生态文明建设和山水林田湖草系统治理, 实现美丽中国的建设目标。     

IPBES框架下的生物多样性和生态系统服务区域评估及政策经验

生物多样性和生态系统服务为人类的生计和良好的生活质量奠定了重要基础。然而, 越来越多的研究表明, 生物多样性和生态系统服务在全球范围内的持续下降使自然对人类的贡献大幅降低。多尺度评估能够说明不同尺度下生物多样性的现状, 有利于制定适合区域特点、符合国情的决策建议。2013年12月, 生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)通过第一轮工作方案, 决定开展“区域/次区域生物多样性和生态系统服务评估”(简称“区域评估”), 即评估亚洲-太平洋(简称亚太)、美洲、非洲以及欧洲-中亚四大地理区域的生物多样性和生态系统服务。区域评估报告及其决策者摘要已在IPBES第六次全体会议上(2018年3月, 哥伦比亚麦德林)审议通过。本文概述了四大地理区域的生物多样性的重要性、生物多样性保护领域取得的进展、面临的主要危机和机遇, 探讨了评估对其他国际进程的影响, 综合分析了各区域生物多样性和生态系统服务的特点以及各区域评估结果的差别, 总结了评估的政策经验, 以期为中国的生物多样性保护提供科学参考。     

Exploring spatial indicators for biodiversity accounting

In the context of the System for Environmental-Economic Accounting, biodiversity accounting is being developed as a tool to monitor and increase the understanding of human impacts on biodiversity. Biodiversity accounting aims to structurally measure, monitor and map changes in multiple biodiversity components, as an integral part of a larger system of ecosystem accounts. Both indicators relevant for ecosystem functioning and indicators that reflect the non-use values of biodiversity can be included in biodiversity accounting. In this paper we focus on the latter, and we test the potential applicability of a set of species indicators for developing a biodiversity account in Limburg province, the Netherlands. In particular, we map and analyse a range of indicators reflecting species richness, the presence of rare and threatened species and species diversity. We test spatial correlation to identify the minimum set of indicators that would need to be included in the account. We also evaluate individual indicators using eight different criteria. We show that, in Limburg province, a set of indicators covering at least five species groups is required, and that it would be most meaningful to have indicators reflecting the occurrence of threatened species. However, data availability as well as the most suitable set of indicators are likely to differ between areas, and case studies in other countries are required to support the selection of indicators for biodiversity accounting in an international framework.     

生物多样性与生态系统服务情景模拟研究进展

生物多样性和生态系统服务情景模拟是指对未来生物多样性和生态系统服务变化轨迹的定量估计,二者相互关联并为长期、稳定的保护和恢复生态系统提供了重要科学依据。梳理生物多样性以及生态系统服务预测情景的核心观点,讨论基于生物多样性和生态系统服务情景模拟的保护决策支持途径,以期服务于我国生物多样性与生态系统服务预测研究的发展和深化。研究凝练结果如下：物种分布模型需要进行更规范的评价以明晰其对具体对象的适用性,生态系统预测模型亟待在关系结构的基础上嵌入更多的生态系统过程和社会经济过程,生态系统服务评估模型有必要强化对生物多样性、生态系统服务、人类福祉级联特征的刻画;全球气候变化驱动了未来区域生物多样性的大幅改变;土地利用则是陆地生态系统服务预测中的核心驱动变量。生态区划与区域尺度情景模拟、景观尺度下的生态安全格局构建、基于社会生态网络的社区适应三点重要展望方向将对基于情景模拟的我国生态系统保护决策提供重要的理论和实践支持。     

生物多样性与生态系统服务评估指标与方法

评估、模拟和预测全球生物多样性和生态系统服务的状态、趋势及其对人类福祉的影响,是当前生物多样性和生态系统服务研究领域的重要任务。指标和数据、模型和情景是推动生物多样性与生态系统服务评估研究理论建设和方法集成的重要工具。但是,目前对生物多样性和生态系统服务评估的指标体系和技术方法的综合对比研究相对缺乏。因而,系统评述了生物多样性和生态系统服务评估的概念框架、评估指标以及各类评估模型和方法的最新进展。生物多样性—生态系统功能—生态系统服务—人类福祉的级联框架是极具逻辑性的生物多样性和生态系统服务评估框架。现有的评估指标体系和模型方法还存在很多的问题和挑战,难以充分揭示生态系统服务的形成和影响机制、服务之间的联系和作用机理,有效地指导生态系统服务管理和决策制定。然而,这些评估指标和方法可为构建生物多样性与生态系统服务综合集成模型研究的框架提供重要的切入点。基于此,提出了生物多样性与生态系统服务综合集成模型研究的核心内容:i)目的:基于自然—社会综合特征的情景分析确定所解决的科学问题,输出生态系统服务管理和决策制定方案;ii)内容:尺度、生态系统服务类型、生物多样性的层次结构、组分间相互关系、驱动要素、多源数据的综合分析;iii)方法:对现有的各类模型和模型组合进行比较和不确定性分析,建立符合区域实际需求的生物多样性与生态系统服务综合制图模型库。在此基础上,建议我国应尽快发展适合中国区域特点的标准化指标体系和综合评估模型系统,定期对生物多样性和生态系统服务进行综合评估,掌握生物多样性和生态系统服务的变化趋势,提升我国在生物多样性和生态系统服务研究领域的国际地位和话语权。     

Urban ecosystem services assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of European cities

The main objective of this paper is to present an assessment approach for ecosystem services in an urban context covering the local and the regional scale. It was applied to different European cities. A set of indicators representing important urban ecosystem goods and services – local climate regulation, air cooling and recreation – was tested using spatial data along an urban–rural gradient. The results show that there is neither a typical rural–urban gradient in terms of urban ecosystem service provisioning nor a uniform urban spatial pattern of service provisioning that can serve as a generic model for cities. The results demonstrate that (1) core cities do not necessarily provide fewer ecosystem services compared to their regions and (2) there were no patches found within the four case study cities where all of the indicators report very high performance values. The analysis further shows that a high degree of imperviousness does not necessarily entail low ecosystem service provisioning if an urban structure contains a considerable amount of mature trees which support carbon storage and biodiversity. The results of the present paper provide insights into potentials and trade-offs between different urban ecosystem services that should be considered during urban planning when setting targets and establishing thresholds to protect environmental resources, ecosystem services and biodiversity for residents.     

National ecosystem services mapping at multiple scales ⿿ The German exemplar

The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 requires the Member States of the European Union to map and assess ecosystem services. This paper presents a procedure for developing a national framework of ecosystem service indicators for Germany that is applicable at different scales and is transferable to other countries. The framework was set up to use existing indicators or datasets and to be compatible with international typologies of ecosystem services and their indicators. Starting with an evaluation of the importance of different ecosystem services for Germany and an analysis of existing monitoring systems, we define suitable indicators for mapping ecosystem services nationwide. We demonstrate how both the supply of and demand for ecosystem services can be mapped with different indicators and datasets and how these indicators have to be adapted for use at different scales. Subsequently, we analyze the resulting maps to draw conclusions about the suitability of the different indicators and their complementarity. Furthermore, we show synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Germany and discuss the applicability of the ecosystem services concept for decision making and spatial planning.     

生物多样性监测指标体系构建研究进展

生物多样性监测是为确定与预期标准相一致或相背离的程度,而对生物多样性进行定期或不定期的监视,目前已成为生物多样性研究和保护的热点问题。生物多样性监测指标则是一些简化的生物或环境特征参数,说明生物多样性现状和变化趋势,以及人类活动压力对生物多样性的影响,以促进科学界、政府和公众间的沟通,提高生物多样性管理水平。近10年来,国际组织、政府机构和各国学者对生物多样性指标体系的构建进行了大量的探索工作,取得了很多进展,其中有些指标已经应用于实际监测项目。本文综述了生物多样性监测指标筛选的一般标准和指标体系构建的主要理论,梳理目前已提出或应用的主要生物多样性监测指标,以期为我国构建国家或区域尺度生物多样性监测指标体系提供参考。在此基础上分析提出：生物多样性概念的泛化、指标含义模糊以及知识和数据的缺乏是构建生物多样性监测指标的主要困难。我国未来的生物多样性监测指标体系构建需要关注以下两个方面：（1）紧密联系实际,构建适应性的监测指标体系,加强对典型生态系统区域的监测;（2）发展经济社会发展方面的指标,分析生物多样性变化的驱动力,为生物多样性保护和区域可持续发展提供科学依据。     

Can biodiversity monitoring schemes provide indicators for ecosystem services?

Recently, the science and policy agenda on biodiversity moved to include ecosystem services assessments and it is recognised that for determining the effectiveness and progress of policy frameworks monitoring is crucial.Within European monitoring schemes, data is collected following different sampling protocols for a range of biodiversity or context related aspects; from EU-wide general land cover mapping to red list species within Annex I habitats. In this paper, we analysed field instructions of seven monitoring schemes on the extent to which they can provide data on the provision of ecosystem services and what additional information may be needed for future monitoring of ecosystem services.We compared seven monitoring schemes (i.e. CORINE Land Cover, Land Use Cover Area Survey (LUCAS), European Biodiversity Observation Network (EBONE), biodiversity monitoring on organic and low-input farming systems (BioBio), National Inventory of the Landscape of Sweden (NILS) and Pan-European Common Birds Monitoring (PECBM) and UK Butterfly monitoring (UK-BM)) by scoring the quality of recorded parameters and the adequacy of sampling protocols for ecosystem service monitoring.All the examined schemes were able to provide some parameters on ecosystem services, but the quality of the parameters on average did not exceed the level of qualitative data. Additionally, the divergence between the sampling designs of the schemes and the spatial characteristics of ecosystem services reduced the potential monitoring value of all schemes. Monitoring schemes including a range of sampling methods, scales and included the recording of data on habitats, such as EBONE, BioBio and NILS, provided the best data on the provision of ecosystem services.We conclude that improvement of the monitoring of ecosystem services is hindered by several knowledge gaps: (1) a robust definition and conceptual framework of ecosystem services; (2) the linkage between biodiversity and ecosystem services; and (3) the interpretation of monitoring data.In addition to ecosystem service monitoring, biodiversity monitoring unremittingly remains very important, at least to identify trade-offs between the management for services and the resulting biodiversity status.     

生态系统健康评价的研究进展

生态系统健康评价是环境管理和生态系统监控的基础,生态系统监控可促进生态系统健康评价。首先介绍了生态系统健康概念的产生,发展及其不同的内涵,并着重回顾和讨论了生态系统健康评价指标及其存在的问题,生态系统健康评价指标包括生态指标,物理化学指标,人类健康与社会经济指标3大类,生态指标是反映生态系统特征和状态的生物指标,它分为生态系统,群落和种群与个体等不同层次的指标或指标体系,物理化学指标是检测生态系统的非生物环境的指标。人类健康与社会经济指标着眼于生态系统对人类生存与社会发展的支持作用,采用经济参数和社会发展的环境压力指标等来衡量生态服务的质量与可持续性,根据其敏感程度和功能性,生态系统健康评价指标分为早期预警指标,适宜程度指标和诊断指标3类,一个完整的生态系统评价应包括上述3大类指标或指标体系,但在具体的评价实践中往往因评价目的和对象的不同而有所选择,生态系统健康评价目前有两个亟待解决的问题,如何有效确立评价标准与参照系以及如何正确区分人为压力和自然干扰。