IPBES评估报告对全球生物多样性保护的影响——以美国传粉者保护政策为例

作为生物多样性领域首个政府间、多学科、跨领域的综合性科学政策平台, 联合国生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES)将会对全球生物多样性保护及其他领域产生重要影响。本文通过分析美国传粉者保护政策的制定和实施过程, 获得了生物多样性相关保护政策的制定为科学评估-政府关注-出台限制性政策措施的过程和模式。基于IPBES 2016年发布《传粉者、传粉与粮食生产评估报告》(The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production)的事实, 推测IPBES交付品可能促进对新烟碱类农药产业和蜂产品尤其是野生蜂产品交易限制性政策的产生。并进一步分析了IPBES交付品可能在全球以及我国生物多样性保护及其相关领域带来的影响, 比如可能通过促进生物多样性领域的科学评估, 进一步主流化生物多样性保护问题, 促使生物多样性保护成为重要的政治议题。本文旨在为我国建立生物多样性保护的适应性政策提供科学支持。     

IPBES工作进展及我国对策建议

作为生物多样性保护领域的首个政府间机制, 生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)正在对全球生物多样性和生态系统保护政策的制定和实施产生重要影响, 其评估成果大大提升了全球决策者对生物多样性的关注。2019年4月, IPBES在法国巴黎召开第七次全体会议, 会议总结了第一轮工作方案(2014-2019)各目标的实现情况, 通过了第二轮工作方案(2019-2030), 为未来10年重点工作和评估方向提供指导。本文结合两轮工作方案的具体目标, 分析研判了IPBES工作及评估进展, 对各成员国主要观点进行了梳理, 提出了中国的应对策略。IPBES评估发现, 人类面临的生物多样性问题越来越多元化、复杂化, IPBES正通过发布一系列的评估报告, 将生物多样性保护问题进一步主流化、政治化。我们建议, 作为全球生物多样性最为丰富的国家之一, 中国应该充分认识到IPBES的作用, 积极参与有关进程, 加强跨部门跨学科协助, 促进国际合作与交流, 提升我国在生物多样性领域相关谈判中的主动权和话语权。     

IPBES的建立、前景及应对策略

生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(IPBES)是一个类似于气候变化专门委员会(IPCC)的独立的政府间机构,其目标是建立科学界和决策者之间的沟通平台,推动全球生物多样性和生态系统服务的保护.从2008年11月到2010年6月,联合国环境规划署(UNEP)主持召开了三次政府间谈判会议.在最后一次会议上各国同意建立IPBES,并形成了一份《釜山成果》文件,确定其基本职能主要是开展评估,还确定IPBES的决策机构是全体会议,向联合国所有会员国和区域经济一体化组织开放,政府间组织和其他利益相关方可作为观察员.IPBES的建立将会在国际社会产生深刻的影响,但其未来走向也有一定的不确定性:一是如何保持科学独立性的问题,二是评估尺度可能会影响其成功,三是能否促进发展中国家的广泛参与.为使我国能在IPBES中发挥重要作用,建议今后应加强对IPBES运作模式的研究,加强评估工具和方法的开发以及加强生物多样性的监测.     

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。     

IPBES框架下生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法评估及对我国的影响

随着国际社会对生物多样性保护关注度的提升, 生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法逐渐成为国际进程和条约关注的焦点问题。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“生物多样性和生态系统服务情景和模型方法评估”列入2014-2018年工作方案, 作为IPBES首批评估活动之一, 其评估报告及决策者摘要已在IPBES第四次全体会议上获得通过。本文概述了该评估报告的主要内容和结论, 探讨了报告与其他国际进程的关系及其可能对中国的影响。该报告梳理了国际上现有的生物多样性和生态系统服务相关情景和模型方法, 综合分析了它们的优缺点、适用范围和限制条件, 提出了使用过程中应对数据和知识空缺的方法, 为制定、使用及优化情景和模型提供了指导。IPBES的一系列评估报告将引领生物多样性和生态系统服务相关科学领域的发展, 为各国在生物多样性领域进行对话、权衡与博弈, 实现本国利益最大化提供一个高效的平台。中国作为一个发展中的生物多样性大国, 积极参与、发声必然是应对IPBES未来发展的最优方式。     

IPBES工作效率和科学职能的有效性分析

IPBES第一轮工作方案受到国际社会的广泛关注, 奠定了其作为第一个生物多样性领域政府间机制的重要地位。IPBES自成立以来相继发布了系列评估报告和决策者摘要, 引起了国际社会广泛关注, 因此, 其公平性、公正性、科学性和透明性始终为各界关注的焦点, 直接决定着IPBES评估报告的可信度和未来的发展。为有效提升工作效率, 提高其成果的科学性, IPBES通过定期开展内部和外部审查, 发现问题, 优化机构设置, 从而指导未来工作计划。本文以IPBES定期开展的审查以及现有工作机制为基础, 针对IPBES的工作效率和科学职能进行分析, 从根本上认识其地位和性质, 分析其机构设置的优势和存在的问题, 以及工作职能的发挥潜力, 针对存在的问题提出建议。并根据我国情况, 提出相关工作建议。总体来讲, IPBES在完善组织机构和规则程序, 推动产生新知识、财务资源有效管理等方面均取得了显著进展, 但在透明度、科学与政策衔接、学科和地域平衡, 以及政策支持方面存在一定不足, 在发挥成员国积极性和能力方面存在欠缺。为此, 建议IPBES未来能够更进一步发挥其特殊的政府间地位和作用, 促进科学职能的发挥, 特别是加强科学和政策的互动, 推动多利益攸关方参与, 形成稳定的财务制度并提升工作机制的透明度。同时, 建议加强对IPBES评估报告在国内的解读, 加大国内宣传力度, 并加强多学科的专家遴选, 弥补研究领域的国内空缺。     

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。     

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): progress and next steps

Biodiversity and the services ecosystems provide have built the foundation of human civilization and provide for the welfare of people. With the increase of the human population it has become clearer than ever that the human exploitation of our natural resources leads to detrimental interactions between ecological and sociological systems. Only concerted and global actions will be able to reverse ongoing biodiversity loss. In response to these needs, the United Nations agreed the establishment of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2010. Here, we report on the progress IPBES has made since its inception, and suggest how the scientific community can engage with this important science-policy interface.     

Biodiversity Governance: A Tower of Babel of Scales and Cultures

The recently created Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), originally focused on multilateral and global issues, is shifting its focus to address local issues and to include in its assessments local stakeholders and indigenous and traditional systems of knowledge. Acknowledging that full biodiversity governance is unavoidably rooted in participation of local actors and their problems and knowledge, we suggest that to deal successfully with the complexity and diversity of local issues, including indigenous knowledge systems, IPBES must recognize a key role of local institutions.     

Ensuring the success of IPBES: between interface,market place and parliament

After years of protracted negotiations, the Intergovernmental science–policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was finally established in 2012. One year on and we have already witnessed two plenary sessions which have, so far, defined procedures for nominating members for observatory and decision-making panels as well as experts and knowledge holders for the compilation of reports. The sessions also determined the work programme for the next 4 years (2014–2018). According to its internally formulated criteria, the success of IPBES will be determined by how credible, relevant and legitimate its institution and operations are. More specifically, these criteria suggest that success is contingent on the transparency of the processes within IPBES, the autonomy and quality of scientific knowledge, and the early integration of different stakeholders and diverse knowledge and value systems. Currently, we see IPBES encompassing open and integrative approaches as well as providing a convenient trading floor for particulate and opaque agendas formulated elsewhere. In any case, without the backing of large and effective publics the policy–support function of IPBES will be limited. Local capacity building and supporting communities to actively participate in research projects dealing with biodiversity are essential for furthering a practical and emancipatory understanding of the relationship between political and economic decisions, the state and functioning of biodiversity and ecosystems, and current and future human well-being.     

A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to People

After a long incubation period, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is now underway. Underpinning all its activities is the IPBES Conceptual Framework (CF), a simplified model of the interactions between nature and people. Drawing on the legacy of previous large-scale environmental assessments, the CF goes further in explicitly embracing different disciplines and knowledge systems (including indigenous and local knowledge) in the co-construction of assessments of the state of the world’s biodiversity and the benefits it provides to humans. The CF can be thought of as a kind of “Rosetta Stone” that highlights commonalities between diverse value sets and seeks to facilitate crossdisciplinary and crosscultural understanding. We argue that the CF will contribute to the increasing trend towards interdisciplinarity in understanding and managing the environment. Rather than displacing disciplinary science, however, we believe that the CF will provide new contexts of discovery and policy applications for it.     

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-6: the best plenary yet?

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) held its 6th plenary session in Medellin (Colombia) during March 2018. Several assessments were due for acceptance by the plenary. We here give news from the plenary and the platform, sketch out important key messages from the regional assessments as well as of the global thematic assessment on land degradation and restoration. We further give an outlook on the work ahead and potential for contributions from the scientific community to the important work of IPBES.     

What do Israeli high school students understand about biodiversity? An evaluation of the high school biology programme, ‘Nature in a World of Change’

One of the most serious problems facing our planet is the biodiversity crisis. As a solution to this problem, both scientists and educators have emphasised the need for educating people about how to conserve the Earth’s biodiversity. As a small contribution to this effort, we have designed a learning unit about biodiversity, Nature in a world of change, which has recently been implemented with 74 12th-grade Israeli high-school biology students. This unit consists of two components: an introductory module and a collection of three articles adapted from the primary scientific literature. This paper focuses on an in-depth examination with 25 students participating in the programme’s implementation. The evaluation process includes a self-assessment of prior basic ecological knowledge and a post-test focusing on concepts and issues central to the understanding of biodiversity, such as niche and Simpson’s Index. Analysis of perturbations in a food web (by an invasive species) was a special focus of the assessments, reflecting similar concerns prevalent among the scientific community. The results of this evaluation revealed that students with a solid ecological background could successfully deal with the newly acquired concepts presented in the module and the articles.     

“自然对人类的贡献”的实现、发展趋势和启示

生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学政策平台(IPBES)的目标是加强科学政策对生物多样性和生态系统服务的影响。为了更好地理解和展示IPBES目标的基本要素及其相互关系, 在千年生态系统评估(MA)的基础上, IPBES融合多种知识体系, 不断完善、创新, 逐步形成了以“自然对人类的贡献” (NCP)为核心的概念框架。本文首先梳理了NCP的发展历程, 论述了NCP与生态系统服务的关系, 指出两者均关注人类福祉, 但与生态系统服务不同的是, NCP涵盖了自然对人类生活的消极影响, 强调社会文化因素、传统知识和土著居民的地位以及人与自然共同作用的重要性。其次, 本文阐述了人与自然共同实现NCP进而影响人类良好生活质量的机制, 并分析了NCP大幅下降的全球趋势, 提出世界各国应不断推动生物多样性保护主流化, 增加国际交流与合作, 致力实现“人与自然和谐共生”的2050年愿景。最后, 本文讨论了NCP在IPBES评估和《生物多样性公约》磋商谈判中的应用前景, 为今后NCP理论研究和实践提供科学支持。     

Biodiversity knowledge synthesis at the European scale: actors and steps

To respond to the need for a strengthened biodiversity science-policy-society interface at the European level, this paper presents the relevant actors and steps of a knowledge synthesis process relying on a Network of Knowledge. This process aims to maximize active involvement and contribution (including holders of traditional and local knowledge), transparency, credibility, relevance and legitimacy (among other values defined during several workshops held). The presented process allows for the implementation of several synthesis methodologies, depending on the availability of resources, quantity and quality of knowledge and decided according to the expectations of the requesters and users. We put this approach in parallel with other knowledge-based recommendations and negotiation processes such as CBD and IPBES and highlight the need to encompass the diversity of approaches, values, and challenges at the European scale, while the process simultaneously has to be highly flexible, yet simple and robust. Although the presented process still holds several challenges, it offers a step forward in the development and reflections on science-policy–society interfaces, based on consultations with a significant number of the actors from the European policy–science community.     

Ethical challenges at the science-policy interface: an ethical risk assessment and proposition of an ethical infrastructure

Developing an interface between knowledge holders, stakeholders and decision makers on biodiversity issues, just as any science-policy interface, will face many challenges. In the crucial endeavour to tackle all those challenges, determining an ethical course of actions will be essential to the prestige and credibility of such an interface. The paper identifies and assesses potential ethical risks that may arise in interactions between science, society and policy and uses the Network of Knowledge (NoK) process as an example to show how an ethical infrastructure could be developed for minimizing the ethical risks and their potential consequences. Indeed, when various actors from different spheres (politics, academia, lobbyism, media, etc.) are called upon to interact within one process as complex as the NoK, the integrity and credibility of the latter are at high risk of being compromised if the ethical risks are not adequately addressed. In order to limit those risks, which science-policy interfaces such as IPCC and IPBES have already encountered, we propose to set up an ethical governance infrastructure that will guide (and regulate) interactions among internal actors of the NoK (knowledge coordination body, secretariat, expert working groups, etc.) as well as with external actors (requesters, stakeholders, etc.). A thorough evaluation of the interaction between the actors for every step of the process is carried out and potential ethical risks are identified. Suggestions as to how the risks can be handled and prevented are presented and integrated as part of an ethical infrastructure. The main objective of the paper is to address how a science-policy interface and the scientific community as a whole would benefit from implementing ethical measures and instruments to help prevent sensitive issues and undesired consequences undermining credibility and legitimacy.     

中国生物多样性保护的变革性转变及路径

全球正在经历第六次物种大灭绝。为了应对生物多样性丧失速率日益加快的严峻挑战, 《生物多样性公约》第十届缔约方大会通过了《生物多样性战略计划》(2011-2020年)及20项爱知生物多样性目标。然而, 2019年IPBES全球评估报告表明, 大部分爱知目标可能无法在2020年实现, 因此, 自然保护需要变革性转变。中国虽然在生物多样性保护方面取得了巨大成就, 提出了系统完整的生态文明制度及建立“以国家公园为主体的自然保护地体系”的目标, 并通过绿盾行动和环保督察提升了生物多样性保护的重要性, 陆地自然保护地覆盖率也已达到18%, 但仍未有效遏制生物多样性下降的趋势, 物种濒危程度持续加剧。尽管生态文明一系列改革已经做出了变革性转变, 中央层面大力推行生物多样性“主流化”的相关政策, 通过机构改革初步解决了自然保护地“九龙治水”的问题, 在国土空间规划和生态保护红线划定中强调了生物多样性保护的重要性, 但是, 生物多样性保护仍然缺乏系统性的解决策略, 需要在不同层面进一步落实“主流化”, 建立完整的法律体系和统一规范高效的保护机制, 保障保护资金, 明确生物多样性在生产、生活空间中的地位, 打通自然保护成果与经济利益的转化渠道。因此, 中国的生物多样性保护应当借助生态文明建设的历史性机遇, 在保护意识、空间布局和保护行动3个方面充分实现变革性的转变, 借助五位一体总体布局, 采用系统化的解决方法, 进一步整合法律、行政、市场、技术和社会等五方面力量, 提出具体的实现路径, 实现保护意识主流化、保护利用统筹化和保护行动全民化等三方面变革性的转变, 形成高效一体化的机制, 以实现“人与自然和谐相处”的生物多样性保护理想状态。     

中国生物多样性与生态系统服务评估指标体系

生物多样性和生态系统服务评估是生态系统管理与决策制定的重要依据,指标体系是开展评估的主要工具。中国在生物多样性与生态系统服务评估指标体系建设方面,由于没有形成统一的指标体系和技术方法,导致不同区域间的评估结果可比性差,区域和国家尺度上的集成研究难以开展。因此,构建一套适用于中国国家尺度的科学化、系统性和规范化的生物多样性和生态系统服务评估指标体系,便成为当前迫切需要研究解决的问题。本文参考国内外生物多样性与生态系统服务评估的主要研究成果,在充分考虑"生物多样性—生态系统结构—过程与功能—服务"级联关系基础上,建立了生物多样性与生态系统服务评估指标体系构建的主要原则,构建了中国生物多样性与生态系统服务评估指标体系。     

土地退化过程、机制与影响——以土地退化与恢复专题评估报告为基础

土地退化已成为威胁32亿人口福祉的全球性重大环境问题之一,近年来受到UN、IPBES、IPCC等组织的广泛关注。然而,当前的土地退化研究中,还存在概念不清、过程和机理不明、影响认识不彻底等问题,因此,厘清土地退化的概念、过程和机制是防止土地退化和恢复退化土地的关键。以生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台（IPBES）土地退化与恢复专题评估报告为基础,剖析了土地退化的概念、过程、机制及影响：土地退化过程受自然环境和人类活动两大因素驱动,退化过程包括疑似退化、历史退化、敏感退化、弹性退化、持续退化和永久退化6种状态;土地退化类型可根据土地利用类型分为城市土地退化、农田退化、森林与草地退化、湿地退化等;土地退化具有多重影响,包括威胁食物和水安全,影响生物多样性及生态系统服务,引发地区冲突、大规模人口迁徙和疾病传播,加剧贫困及全球气候变化。土地退化过程、机制及影响的审视将为我国沙漠化、石漠化等土地退化的进一步研究提供理论指导,并为我国"山水林田湖草"土地系统的统筹治理和"美丽中国"、"生态文明"建设提供决策支持。