Using the natural capital index framework as a scalable aggregation methodology for regional biodiversity indicators

There is an increasing need for aggregated biodiversity indicators to inform policy decisions at all levels from local to global. Despite their similar policy goals, low-level (e.g. local, regional) and high-level (e.g. continental, global) indicator development is generally performed independently, and the resulting indicators are often incompatible both in their structure and data requirements. In this paper we focus on a particularly flexible aggregation framework originally developed for global assessments, the Natural Capital Index. We show that with the use of appropriate fine-scale data, the NCI framework can be applied in low-level policy contexts as well. To support this statement, we show that several established low-level indicators are essentially conforming to the NCI framework, and can be seen as existing low-level NCI implementations. The concept is illustrated with an implementation for Hungary, and the potential advantages and shortcomings of low level NCI implementations are discussed. NCI-based low level indicators can be implemented in any region, where a local indicator of ecological quality is systematically surveyed. Given the recent surge in monitoring activities worldwide, fuelled by global change and reporting obligations, fine-scale NCI implementations can become important additions to existing ecological state indicators useful in a wide range of local and regional policy contexts.     

A suite of essential biodiversity variables for detecting critical biodiversity change

Key global indicators of biodiversity decline, such as the IUCN Red List Index and the Living Planet Index, have relatively long assessment intervals. This means they, due to their inherent structure, function as late‐warning indicators that are retrospective, rather than prospective. These indicators are unquestionably important in providing information for biodiversity conservation, but the detection of early‐warning signs of critical biodiversity change is also needed so that proactive management responses can be enacted promptly where required. Generally, biodiversity conservation has dealt poorly with the scattered distribution of necessary detailed information, and needs to find a solution to assemble, harmonize and standardize the data. The prospect of monitoring essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) has been suggested in response to this challenge. The concept has generated much attention, but the EBVs themselves are still in development due to the complexity of the task, the limited resources available, and a lack of long‐term commitment to maintain EBV data sets. As a first step, the scientific community and the policy sphere should agree on a set of priority candidate EBVs to be developed within the coming years to advance both large‐scale ecological research as well as global and regional biodiversity conservation. Critical ecological transitions are of high importance from both a scientific as well as from a conservation policy point of view, as they can lead to long‐lasting biodiversity change with a high potential for deleterious effects on whole ecosystems and therefore also on human well‐being. We evaluated candidate EBVs using six criteria: relevance, sensitivity to change, generalizability, scalability, feasibility, and data availability and provide a literature‐based review for eight EBVs with high sensitivity to change. The proposed suite of EBVs comprises abundance, allelic diversity, body mass index, ecosystem heterogeneity, phenology, range dynamics, size at first reproduction, and survival rates. The eight candidate EBVs provide for the early detection of critical and potentially long‐lasting biodiversity change and should be operationalized as a priority. Only with such an approach can science predict the future status of global biodiversity with high certainty and set up the appropriate conservation measures early and efficiently. Importantly, the selected EBVs would address a large range of conservation issues and contribute to a total of 15 of the 20 Aichi targets and are, hence, of high biological relevance.     

Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) lies at the heart of biodiversity conservation initiatives. It offers opportunities to address global issues at the national level through locally grown solutions and measures. This article reviews the national challenges and opportunities in meeting requirements of the CBD by analysing twenty Third National Reports (TNRs), covering five different CBD regional clusters from the three global economic groups. While there is a plethora of challenges, the predominant ones discussed in this study include: institutional and capacity, knowledge and accessible information, economic policy and financial resources, cooperation and stakeholder involvement, and mainstreaming and integration of biodiversity. The underlying problem is that limited capacity in developing countries and transition economies undermines conservation initiatives. Lack of capacity in science, coordination, administration, legislation, and monitoring are barriers to on-ground implementation of biodiversity programmes. Opportunities to overcome these challenges embrace use of knowledge products, information-sharing mechanisms, participatory platforms, educational programmes, multi-level governance, and policy coherence. Innovative market-based instruments are also being trialled in various countries, which seek to offer incentives to local communities. The article concludes that conservation measures should be supported by multiple sectors and secure high level political support. Political, economical, and legislative sectors are more likely to show interest in CBD implementation and use it as a tool for managing biodiversity when they know the Convention processes and perceive it as a benefit. Modest investments in capacity building and training, and engaging different sectors in setting priorities would have a significant pay-off.     

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.     

Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods,applications and perspectives

Since the first Butterfly Monitoring Scheme in the UK started in the mid-1970s, butterfly monitoring in Europe has developed in more than ten European countries. These schemes are aimed to assess regional and national trends in butterfly abundance per species. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of methods used in these schemes and give examples of applications of the data. A new development is to establish supra-national trends per species and multispecies indicators. Such indicators enable to report against the target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Our preliminary European Grassland Butterfly Indicator shows a decline of 50% between 1990 and 2005. We expect to develop a Grassland Butterfly Indicator with an improved coverage across European countries. We see also good perspectives to develop a supra-national indicator for climate change as well as an indicator for woodland butterflies.     

Towards a global terrestrial species monitoring program

The Convention on Biological Diversity's strategic plan lays out five goals: “(A) address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society; (B) reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use; (C) improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity; (D) enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services; (E) enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building.” To meet and inform on the progress towards these goals, a globally coordinated approach is needed for biodiversity monitoring that is linked to environmental data and covers all biogeographic regions. During a series of workshops and expert discussions, we identified nine requirements that we believe are necessary for developing and implementing such a global terrestrial species monitoring program. The program needs to design and implement an integrated information chain from monitoring to policy reporting, to create and implement minimal data standards and common monitoring protocols to be able to inform Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), and to develop and optimize semantics and ontologies for data interoperability and modelling. In order to achieve this, the program needs to coordinate diverse but complementary local nodes and partnerships. In addition, capacities need to be built for technical tasks, and new monitoring technologies need to be integrated. Finally, a global monitoring program needs to facilitate and secure funding for the collection of long-term data and to detect and fill gaps in under-observed regions and taxa. The accomplishment of these nine requirements is essential in order to ensure data is comprehensive, to develop robust models, and to monitor biodiversity trends over large scales. A global terrestrial species monitoring program will enable researchers and policymakers to better understand the status and trends of biodiversity.     

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。     

Global in scope and regionally rich: an IndiSeas workshop helps shape the future of marine ecosystem indicators

This report summarizes the outcomes of an IndiSeas workshop aimed at using ecosystem indicators to evaluate the status of the world??s exploited marine ecosystems in support of an ecosystem approach to fisheries, and global policy drivers such as the 2020 targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key issues covered relate to the selection and integration of multi-disciplinary indicators, including climate, biodiversity and human dimension indicators, and to the development of data- and model-based methods to test the performance of ecosystem indicators in providing support for fisheries management. To enhance the robustness of our cross-system comparison, unprecedented effort was put in gathering regional experts from developed and developing countries, working together on multi-institutional survey datasets, and using the most up-to-date ecosystem models.     

九寨沟世界遗产地旅游可持续发展实践和讨论

近30年来,九寨沟在推进旅游可持续发展方面进行了长期有益的探索和实践,其经验获得国内外的普遍认同。与此同时,日益增长的游客规模对生态环境和生物多样性保护的威胁,逐渐成为旅游可持续发展面临的最大挑战。生物多样性保护是九寨沟的使命之一,在游客容量测算中应予以充分考虑,这在游客规模日益增加的背景下尤显重要。但是目前传统的游客容量测算中却没有涉及生物多样性容量,而且由于生物多样性监测数据和相关知识不充分,生物多样性容量也难以进行测算。因此,需要在下一步有针对性地积累生物多样性监测数据,将其结果纳入游客容量测算中,并在此基础上探索执行以监测为基础的游客容量适应性管理机制。     

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.     

Biodiversity loss and the taxonomic bottleneck: emerging biodiversity science

Human domination of the Earth has resulted in dramatic changes to global and local patterns of biodiversity. Biodiversity is critical to human sustainability because it drives the ecosystem services that provide the core of our life-support system. As we, the human species, are the primary factor leading to the decline in biodiversity, we need detailed information about the biodiversity and species composition of specific locations in order to understand how different species contribute to ecosystem services and how humans can sustainably conserve and manage biodiversity. Taxonomy and ecology, two fundamental sciences that generate the knowledge about biodiversity, are associated with a number of limitations that prevent them from providing the information needed to fully understand the relevance of biodiversity in its entirety for human sustainability: (1) biodiversity conservation strategies that tend to be overly focused on research and policy on a global scale with little impact on local biodiversity; (2) the small knowledge base of extant global biodiversity; (3) a lack of much-needed site-specific data on the species composition of communities in human-dominated landscapes, which hinders ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation; (4) biodiversity studies with a lack of taxonomic precision; (5) a lack of taxonomic expertise and trained taxonomists; (6) a taxonomic bottleneck in biodiversity inventory and assessment; and (7) neglect of taxonomic resources and a lack of taxonomic service infrastructure for biodiversity science. These limitations are directly related to contemporary trends in research, conservation strategies, environmental stewardship, environmental education, sustainable development, and local site-specific conservation. Today’s biological knowledge is built on the known global biodiversity, which represents barely 20% of what is currently extant (commonly accepted estimate of 10 million species) on planet Earth. Much remains unexplored and unknown, particularly in hotspots regions of Africa, South Eastern Asia, and South and Central America, including many developing or underdeveloped countries, where localized biodiversity is scarcely studied or described. "Backyard biodiversity", defined as local biodiversity near human habitation, refers to the natural resources and capital for ecosystem services at the grassroots level, which urgently needs to be explored, documented, and conserved as it is the backbone of sustainable economic development in these countries. Beginning with early identification and documentation of local flora and fauna, taxonomy has documented global biodiversity and natural history based on the collection of "backyard biodiversity" specimens worldwide. However, this branch of science suffered a continuous decline in the latter half of the twentieth century, and has now reached a point of potential demise. At present there are very few professional taxonomists and trained local parataxonomists worldwide, while the need for, and demands on, taxonomic services by conservation and resource management communities are rapidly increasing. Systematic collections, the material basis of biodiversity information, have been neglected and abandoned, particularly at institutions of higher learning. Considering the rapid increase in the human population and urbanization, human sustainability requires new conceptual and practical approaches to refocusing and energizing the study of the biodiversity that is the core of natural resources for sustainable development and biotic capital for sustaining our life-support system. In this paper we aim to document and extrapolate the essence of biodiversity, discuss the state and nature of taxonomic demise, the trends of recent biodiversity studies, and suggest reasonable approaches to a biodiversity science to facilitate the expansion of global biodiversity knowledge and to create useful data on backyard biodiversity worldwide towards human sustainability.     

Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change

Governments have set the ambitious target of reducing biodiversity loss by the year 2010. The scientific community now faces the challenge of assessing the progress made towards this target and beyond. Here, we review current monitoring efforts and propose a global biodiversity monitoring network to complement and enhance these efforts. The network would develop a global sampling programme for indicator taxa (we suggest birds and vascular plants) and would integrate regional sampling programmes for taxa that are locally relevant to the monitoring of biodiversity change. The network would also promote the development of comparable maps of global land cover at regular time intervals. The extent and condition of specific habitat types, such as wetlands and coral reefs, would be monitored based on regional programmes. The data would then be integrated with other environmental and socioeconomic indicators to design responses to reduce biodiversity loss.     

构建我国生物多样性评价的指标体系

生物多样性指标体系的建设过程长期而复杂,需要结合科学研究、监测以及决策制定,并基于合理的结构进行指标设计.构建适宜的生物多样性评价指标体系、监测评估生物多样性状况及变化趋势,已被纳入我国国家生物多样性战略及其行动计划.本文结合国内外经验,从指标的逻辑框架、空间尺度、时间尺度、指标类型、评价方法等5个方面探讨了指标体系构...     

A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing Challenges to Monitoring Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated Global Data

Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world''s governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity''s “Aichi Targets”. These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity “dashboard” – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.     

Building essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) of species distribution and abundance at a global scale

Much biodiversity data is collected worldwide, but it remains challenging to assemble the scattered knowledge for assessing biodiversity status and trends. The concept of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) was introduced to structure biodiversity monitoring globally, and to harmonize and standardize biodiversity data from disparate sources to capture a minimum set of critical variables required to study, report and manage biodiversity change. Here, we assess the challenges of a ‘Big Data’ approach to building global EBV data products across taxa and spatiotemporal scales, focusing on species distribution and abundance. The majority of currently available data on species distributions derives from incidentally reported observations or from surveys where presence‐only or presence–absence data are sampled repeatedly with standardized protocols. Most abundance data come from opportunistic population counts or from population time series using standardized protocols (e.g. repeated surveys of the same population from single or multiple sites). Enormous complexity exists in integrating these heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets across space, time, taxa and different sampling methods. Integration of such data into global EBV data products requires correcting biases introduced by imperfect detection and varying sampling effort, dealing with different spatial resolution and extents, harmonizing measurement units from different data sources or sampling methods, applying statistical tools and models for spatial inter‐ or extrapolation, and quantifying sources of uncertainty and errors in data and models. To support the development of EBVs by the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we identify 11 key workflow steps that will operationalize the process of building EBV data products within and across research infrastructures worldwide. These workflow steps take multiple sequential activities into account, including identification and aggregation of various raw data sources, data quality control, taxonomic name matching and statistical modelling of integrated data. We illustrate these steps with concrete examples from existing citizen science and professional monitoring projects, including eBird, the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring network, the Living Planet Index and the Baltic Sea zooplankton monitoring. The identified workflow steps are applicable to both terrestrial and aquatic systems and a broad range of spatial, temporal and taxonomic scales. They depend on clear, findable and accessible metadata, and we provide an overview of current data and metadata standards. Several challenges remain to be solved for building global EBV data products: (i) developing tools and models for combining heterogeneous, multi‐source data sets and filling data gaps in geographic, temporal and taxonomic coverage, (ii) integrating emerging methods and technologies for data collection such as citizen science, sensor networks, DNA‐based techniques and satellite remote sensing, (iii) solving major technical issues related to data product structure, data storage, execution of workflows and the production process/cycle as well as approaching technical interoperability among research infrastructures, (iv) allowing semantic interoperability by developing and adopting standards and tools for capturing consistent data and metadata, and (v) ensuring legal interoperability by endorsing open data or data that are free from restrictions on use, modification and sharing. Addressing these challenges is critical for biodiversity research and for assessing progress towards conservation policy targets and sustainable development goals.     

Financing and current capacity for REDD+ readiness and monitoring,measurement, reporting and verification in the Congo Basin

This paper provides the first critical analysis of the financing and current capacity for REDD+ readiness in the Congo Basin, with a particular focus on the REDD+ component of national forest monitoring and measurement, reporting and verification (M&MRV). We focus on three areas of analysis: (i) general financing for REDD+ readiness especially M&MRV; (ii) capacity and information for REDD+ implementation and M&MRV; (iii) prospects and challenges for REDD+ and M&MRV readiness in terms of financing and capacity. For the first area of analysis, a REDD+ and M&MRV readiness financing database was created based on the information from the REDD+ voluntary database and Internet searches. For the second area of analysis, a qualitative approach to data collection was adopted (semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, surveys and observations). All 10 countries were visited between 2010 and 2012. We find that: (i) a significant amount of REDD+ financing flows into the Congo Basin (±US$550 million or almost half of the REDD+ financing for the African continent); (ii) across countries, there is an important disequilibrium in terms of REDD+ and M&MRV readiness financing, political engagement, comprehension and capacity, which also appears to be a key barrier to countries receiving equal resources; (iii) most financing appears to go to smaller scale (subnational) REDD+ projects; (iv) four distinct country groups in terms of REDD+ readiness and M&MRV status are identified; and (v) the Congo Basin has a distinct opportunity to have a specific REDD+ financing window for large-scale and more targeted national REDD+ programmes through a specific fund for the region.     

Global and national trends,gaps, and opportunities in documenting and monitoring species distributions

Conserving and managing biodiversity in the face of ongoing global change requires sufficient evidence to assess status and trends of species distributions. Here, we propose novel indicators of biodiversity data coverage and sampling effectiveness and analyze national trajectories in closing spatiotemporal knowledge gaps for terrestrial vertebrates (1950 to 2019). Despite a rapid rise in data coverage, particularly in the last 2 decades, strong geographic and taxonomic biases persist. For some taxa and regions, a tremendous growth in records failed to directly translate into newfound knowledge due to a sharp decline in sampling effectiveness. However, we found that a nation’s coverage was stronger for species for which it holds greater stewardship. As countries under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework renew their commitments to an improved, rigorous biodiversity knowledge base, our findings highlight opportunities for international collaboration to close critical information gaps.

Conserving and managing biodiversity in the face of ongoing global change requires sufficient evidence to assess status and trends of species distributions. This study analyzes national trajectories in closing spatiotemporal knowledge gaps for terrestrial vertebrates (1950-2019) based on novel indicators of data coverage and sampling effectiveness.     

The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights

At the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, 190 countries endorsed a commitment to achieve, by 2010, a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national levels. A wide range of approaches is available to the monitoring of progress towards this objective. The strengths and weaknesses of many of these approaches are considered, with special attention being given to the proposed and existing indicators described in the other papers in this issue. Recommendations are made about the development of indicators. Most existing and proposed indicators use data collected for other purposes, which may be unrepresentative. In the short term, much remains to be done in expanding the databases and improving the statistical techniques that underpin these indicators to minimize potential biases. In the longer term, indicators based on unrepresentative data should be replaced with equivalents based on carefully designed sampling programmes. Many proposed and existing indicators do not connect clearly with human welfare and they are unlikely to engage the interest of governments, businesses and the public until they do so. The extent to which the indicators already proposed by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity are sufficient is explored by reference to the advice an imaginary scientific consultant from another planet might give. This exercise reveals that the range of taxa and biomes covered by existing indicators is incomplete compared with the knowledge we need to protect our interests. More fundamentally, our understanding of the mechanisms linking together the status of biodiversity, Earth system processes, human decisions and actions, and ecosystem services impacting human welfare is still too crude to allow us to infer reliably that actions taken to conserve biodiversity and protect ecosystem services are well chosen and effectively implemented. The involvement of social and Earth system scientists, as well as biologists, in collaborative research programmes to build and parameterize models of the Earth system to elucidate these mechanisms is a high priority.     

Evaluating the impact of rural development measures on nature value indicators at different spatial levels: Application to France and The Netherlands

This paper proposes an approach for assessing the effectiveness of those agri-environmental schemes and rural development measures aimed at enhancing the natural value of farmland and, more generally, aimed at releasing the pressure on the environment due to agriculture. First, based on fine scale data, indicators derived from the High Nature Value farmland concept are tested at different scales, resolutions and situations: LAU2 for The Netherlands and LAU1 for France. The effect of rural development measures on the evolution of these indicators is then explored. Significant cause-effect relationships are found in the French cases, while only relationships of correlations are observed from the Dutch case study, obviously caused by a lack of data. Using fine scale data on rural development measures related to both 2000–2006 and 2007–2013 programming periods of the Common Agricultural Policy, a spatial econometrics methodology is applied to France, at national level on the one hand, and at a selected NUTS2 level on the other. The results indicate that agri-environmental schemes and specific rural development measures affect the changes in the indicators, and that the spatial scale of the analyses matters. In particular, results indicate that trends observed at the national scale do not necessarily apply at the regional scale (e.g. impacts of conversion to organic farming, the grassland premium, payments for water and biodiversity protection) underlining the importance of multi-scale assessments. Interestingly, delayed effects of the measures implemented in the 2000–2006 programming period, such as machinery investment aids and less-favoured area payments, are detectable. As regards the 2007–2013 rural development measures, the most significant positive effects on the farm nature value indicator are found, at the national level, for locally targeted agri-environmental schemes focused on biodiversity and water issues and, at the NUTS2 level, for supporting organic farming schemes. Given that the farm nature value indicator is built from three different indices (addressing crop diversity, grassland share, and wooded and afforested farmland) the effect of rural development measures on each of these individual indices is also explored. This enables the main structure and the magnitude of policy impacts to be captured and helps with the understanding of why certain objectives were not met. Key findings are relevant in the context of policy monitoring and evaluation, while the methodology proposed, that incorporates spatial effects, is an important contribution to the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework by Member States to account for national, regional or local characteristics.