No abstract

The European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 Coordination and Support Action ESMERALDA aimed at developing guidance and a flexible methodology for Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) to support the EU member states in the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy’s Target 2 Action 5. ESMERALDA’s key tasks included network creation, stakeholder engagement, enhancing ecosystem services mapping and assessment methods across various spatial scales and value domains, work in case studies and support of EU member states in MAES implementation. Thus ESMERALDA aimed at integrating various project outcomes around four major strands: i) Networking, ii) Policy, iii) Research and iv) Application. The objective was to provide guidance for integrated ecosystem service mapping and assessment that can be used for sustainable decision-making in policy, business, society, practice and science at EU, national and regional levels. This article presents the overall ESMERALDA approach of integrating the above-mentioned project components and outcomes and provides an overview of how the enhanced methods were applied and how they can be used to support MAES implementation in the EU member states. Experiences with implementing such a large pan-European Coordination and Support Action in the context of EU policy are discussed and recommendations for future actions are given.

Biodiversity indicators are widely used tools to help determine rates of biodiversity change and the success or failure of efforts to conserve it. However, their sufficiency and suitability in providing information for decision-makers is unclear. Here, we review the indicators brought together under the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership to monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets to determine where there are gaps. Of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets, Targets 2, 3, and 15 are missing indicators entirely. Scoring the indicators in relation to their alignment, temporal relevance and spatial scale shows additional gaps under Targets 1, 13, and 16-20. Predominately, gaps were found to be socioeconomic in nature (i.e., benefits, pressures, and responses) rather than statusrelated (i.e., states), principally due to a poor alignment between the indicator and the text of the Aichi Target. Hence, it is critical that existing indicators are properly resourced and maintained and new indicators developed to be able to effectively monitor biodiversity and its influencing factors to 2020 and beyond.

No abstract