Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: An Essential Biodiversity Variables perspective

Abstract

Summary1. Political commitment and policy instruments to halt biodiversity loss require robust data and a diverse indicator set to monitor and report on biodiversity trends. Gaps in data availability and narrow-based indicator sets are significant information barriers to fulfilling these needs. 2. In this paper, the reporting requirements of seven global or European biodiversity policy instruments were reviewed using the list of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) as an analytical framework. The reporting requirements for the most comprehensive policy instrument, the United Nation's Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, were compared with the indicator set actually used for its reporting, to identify current information gaps. To explore the extent to which identified gaps could be bridged, the potential contribution of data mobilization, modelling and further processing of existing data was assessed. 3. The information gaps identified demonstrate that decision-makers are currently constrained by the lack of data and indicators on changes in the EBV classes Genetic Composition and, to a lesser extent, Species Populations for which data is most often available. Furthermore, the results show that even when there is a requirement for specific information for reporting, the indicators used may not be able to provide all the information, for example current Convention of Biological Diversity indicators provide relatively little information on changes in the Ecosystem Function and Ecosystem Structure classes. This gap could be partly

Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Functions

“…Therefore, The development of indicators for ecosystem functions is hampered by a lack of primary data and there is strong reliance on proxy measures such as habitat extent [94,95]. These proxy measures are currently used to inform on spatial and temporal trends in ecosystem function for the reporting and management of biodiversity change [4][5][6]. Such models use abiotic variables such as land cover, topography and climate data as explanatory variables in spatially-explicit statistical correlative models [96,97] or process models [98,99] in order to predict the provision of ecosystem functions and services.…”

“…The development of robust, yet cost-effective, indicators is likely to be dependent on proxy measures that can be both derived from existing monitoring [4] and shown to covary with resilience. For example, an attempt to assess importance and feasibility of resilience indicators based on expert opinion for coral reef systems is provided by McClanahan et al [100].…”

Erratum: Monitoring plant functional diversity from space

“…Ecosystem processes [10][11][12] are often directly linked to the functional biodiversity of plants, that is, to a wide range of plant chemical, physiological and structural properties, connected to the uptake, use and allocation of resources. The functional biodiversity of plants varies in space and time and across scales of biological organization.…”

“…Humans are rapidly impacting biodiversity around the globe 1,2 , leading to the loss of ecosystem function 3 , and the goods and services they provide 4,5 . Recognizing the gravity of this threat, the international community has committed to urgent action to halt biodiversity loss [6][7][8][9] .Ecosystem processes [10][11][12] are often directly linked to the functional biodiversity of plants, that is, to a wide range of plant chemical, physiological and structural properties, connected to the uptake, use and allocation of resources. The functional biodiversity of plants varies in space and time and across scales of biological organization.…”

Challenges and solutions for networking knowledge holders and better informing decision-making on biodiversity and ecosystem services

“…In particular this is the case for knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services in times of accelerating losses (Tittensor et al 2014). While there are still major gaps and needs in terms of data coverage and accessibility (Wetzel et al 2015), monitoring and indicator development (Geijzendorffer et al 2015) and understanding of the linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being (Balvanera et al 2014), major initiatives have been established at the global level. They include the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) as a new global science-policy interface (SPI) (Díaz et al 2015).…”