Natural Capital and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
Recent recognition of the reliance of human economies on natural resources has been a crucial achievement for policymaking. However, there remains a gap in the knowledge of the full extent of the connection between human economies and natural resources. This is relevant for policymaking as understanding who affects the generation of ecosystem services (called ‘providers’ or ‘suppliers’) and who benefits from ecosystem services (‘beneficiaries’ or ‘consumers’) allows assessments of the costs and benefits from any given policy, including the distributional consequences across affected parties. In this chapter, we explore progress towards furthering this particular gap in knowledge, reflecting on a number of conceptual ecosystem service assessment frameworks developed in the last decade, including the one deployed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a recently established intergovernmental body; and its efforts to inform policy formulation.
- 2.Guerry, A., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G.C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I.J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, T. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P. Kareiva, L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers, T. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira. 2015. Natural capital informing decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (24): 7348–7355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Biggs, R., M. Schlüter, D. Biggs, E.L. Bohensky, S. BurnSilver, G. Cundill, V. Dakos, T.M. Daw, L.S. Evans, K. Kotschy, A.M. Leitch, C. Meek, A. Quinlan, C. Raudsepp-Hearne, M.D. Robards, M.L. Schoon, L. Schultz, and C. Paul. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. West Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. 2010. Available at www.teebweb.org/publication/. Accessed 10 Apr 2018.
- 6.Diaz, S., U. Pascual, M. Stenseke, B. Martin-Lopez, R. Watson, Zs Molnar, R. Hill, K.M.A. Chan, I. Baste, K. Brauman, S. Polasky, A. Church, M. Lonsdale, A. Lariguardie, P. Leadley, P.E. Van Oudenhoven, F. Van der Plaat, M. Schroter, S. Lavorel, Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, E. Bukvareva, K. Davies, S. Demissew, G. Erpul, P. Failler, C. Guerra, C. Hewitt, H. Keune, S. Lindley, and Y. Shirayama. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359: 270–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Scheffer, M., S. Barrett, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, A.J. Green, M. Holmgren, T.P. Hughes, S. Kosten, I.A. van de Leemput, D.C. Nepstad, E.H. van Nes, E.T.H.M. Peeters, and B. Walker. 2015. Climate and conservation. Creating a safe operating space for iconic ecosystems. Science 347 (6228): 1317–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.The UK National Ecosystem Assessment. 2011. The UK National ecosystem assessment: Synthesis of the key findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.Google Scholar
- 12.Dymond, J. 2013. Ecosystem services in New Zealand. Lincoln: Landcare Research New Zealand, Manaaki Whenua Press.Google Scholar
- 13.Biodiversity Information System for Europe. 2018. https://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes. Accessed 10 Apr 2018.
- 15.Bennett, E., W. Cramer, A. Begossi, G. Cundill, S. Diaz, B. Egoh, I.R. Geijzendorffer, C. Krug, S. Lavorel, E. Lazos, L. Lebel, B. Martín-López, P. Meyfroidt, A. Mooney, Unai Pascual, K. Payet, P. Harguindeguy, G. Peterson, and G. Woodward. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: Three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Josephsen, L. 2017. Approaches to the implementation of the sustainable development goals – Some considerations on the theoretical underpinnings of the 2030 Agenda. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2017–60, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2017-60.
- 18.Rode, J., H. Wittmer, and G. Watfe. 2012. Implementation guide for Aichi Target 2 – A TEEB perspective. German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).Google Scholar
- 19.Hill, R., G.A. Dyer, L.M. Lozada-Ellison, A. Gimona, J. Martin-Ortega, J. Munoz-Rojas, and I.J. Gordon. 2015. A social–ecological systems analysis of impediments to delivery of the Aichi 2020 Targets and potentially more effective pathways to the conservation of biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 34: 22–34 ISSN: 0959–3780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.IPBES Plenary 5 Decision IPBES-5/1. 2015. Implementation of the first work programme of the platform, p. 23. www.ipbes.net/event/ipbes-5-plenary.
- 21.Diaz, S., S. Demmisew, J. Carabias, J. Carlos, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Lariguade, J.R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Baldi, A. Bartuska, I.A. Baste, A. Bilgin, E. Brondizio, K.M.A. Chan, E. Figureroa, A. Duraiappah, M. Fischer, and D. Zlanatova. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Panel. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis, Millenium ecosystem assessment series. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar