Search

Future dynamics of biological invasions are highly uncertain because they depend on multiple social–ecological drivers. We used a scenario-based approach to explore potential management options for invasive species in Europe. During two workshops involving a multidisciplinary team of experts, we developed a management strategy arranged into 19 goals relating to policy, research, public awareness, and biosecurity. We conceived solutions for achieving these goals under different plausible future scenarios, and identified four interrelated recommendations around which any long-term strategy for managing invasive species can be structured: (1) a European biosecurity regime, (2) a dedicated communication strategy, (3) data standardization and management tools, and (4) a monitoring and assessment system. Finally, we assessed the feasibility of the management strategy and found substantial differences among scenarios. Collectively, our results indicate that it is time for a new strategy for managing biological invasions in Europe, one that is based on a more integrative approach across socioeconomic sectors and countries.

Observations are key to understanding the state of nature, the drivers of biodiversity loss and the impacts on ecosystem services and ultimately on people. Many EU policies and initiatives call for unbiased, integrated and regularly updated data on biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, biodiversity monitoring efforts are spatially and temporally fragmented, taxonomically biased and not integrated across Europe. EuropaBON has addressed this gap by developing an EU-wide framework for biodiversity monitoring. With this deliverable, EuropaBON proposes the terms of reference for an EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC), a permanent infrastructure that could coordinate and foster the generation and use of high quality data to underpin the biodiversity knowledge-base used across EU policies, providing guidance and trainings when necessary. Such a centre represents one of the key solutions to overcome the critical challenges of biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Having this integrated and continuous monitoring capacity would allow more timely and efficient interventions that would optimise our capacity to revert biodiversity loss and prevent environmental degradation. It would also increase the value-added to the data flows, reaching high-value outputs with some existing low-value inputs. This deliverable offers a critical analysis of the existing monitoring landscape in Europe, extracting key messages about the main challenges, lessons learned and possible solutions. Based on a comprehensive analysis of needs and, most importantly, on an inclusive consultation process, the deliverable designs an EBOCC that tackles the key biodiversity monitoring challenges. The proposal specifies the mission, the tasks, the most urgent topics, the main policies and the key stakeholders that the EBOCC should serve and focus on during the first stage of its implementation. It also includes detailed analyses about governance models and potential costs. With this prop

Observations are key to understanding the state of nature, the drivers of biodiversity loss and the impacts on ecosystem services and ultimately on people. Many EU policies and initiatives call for unbiased, integrated and regularly updated data on biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, biodiversity monitoring efforts are spatially and temporally fragmented, taxonomically biased and not integrated across Europe. EuropaBON has addressed this gap by developing an EU-wide framework for biodiversity monitoring. With this deliverable, EuropaBON proposes the terms of reference for an EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC), a permanent infrastructure that could coordinate and foster the generation and use of high quality data to underpin the biodiversity knowledge-base used across EU policies, providing guidance and trainings when necessary. Such a centre represents one of the key solutions to overcome the critical challenges of biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Having this integrated and continuous monitoring capacity would allow more timely and efficient interventions that would optimise our capacity to revert biodiversity loss and prevent environmental degradation. It would also increase the value-added to the data flows, reaching high-value outputs with some existing low-value inputs. This deliverable offers a critical analysis of the existing monitoring landscape in Europe, extracting key messages about the main challenges, lessons learned and possible solutions. Based on a comprehensive analysis of needs and, most importantly, on an inclusive consultation process, the deliverable designs an EBOCC that tackles the key biodiversity monitoring challenges. The proposal specifies the mission, the tasks, the most urgent topics, the main policies and the key stakeholders that the EBOCC should serve and focus on during the first stage of its implementation. It also includes detailed analyses about governance models and potential costs. With this prop

Observations are key to understanding the state of nature, the drivers of biodiversity loss and the impacts on ecosystem services and ultimately on people. Many EU policies and initiatives call for unbiased, integrated and regularly updated data on biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, biodiversity monitoring efforts are spatially and temporally fragmented, taxonomically biased and not integrated across Europe. EuropaBON has addressed this gap by developing an EU-wide framework for biodiversity monitoring. With this deliverable, EuropaBON proposes the terms of reference for an EU Biodiversity Observation Coordination Centre (EBOCC), a permanent infrastructure that could coordinate and foster the generation and use of high quality data to underpin the biodiversity knowledge-base used across EU policies, providing guidance and trainings when necessary. Such a centre represents one of the key solutions to overcome the critical challenges of biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Having this integrated and continuous monitoring capacity would allow more timely and efficient interventions that would optimise our capacity to revert biodiversity loss and prevent environmental degradation. It would also increase the value-added to the data flows, reaching high-value outputs with some existing low-value inputs. This deliverable offers a critical analysis of the existing monitoring landscape in Europe, extracting key messages about the main challenges, lessons learned and possible solutions. Based on a comprehensive analysis of needs and, most importantly, on an inclusive consultation process, the deliverable designs an EBOCC that tackles the key biodiversity monitoring challenges. The proposal specifies the mission, the tasks, the most urgent topics, the main policies and the key stakeholders that the EBOCC should serve and focus on during the first stage of its implementation. It also includes detailed analyses about governance models and potential costs. With this prop

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

The goal of this task was to identify and characterise novel methods for biodiversity monitoring, and to assess their suitability for large scale deployment across Europe. To address this goal we combined extensive literature searches with expert consultation, namely using a survey and through an online workshop. The outcome of our searches is summarised in a metadatabase, which includes 282 methods or method components, which have been classified according to EBV classes addressed, target taxa, and broad method type the method relates to. We then consulted experts within the EuropaBON network and beyond, on the advantages and challenges associated with each of these novel methods, as well as their technology readiness level. In combination, our approaches revealed a wealth of novel methods and a highly active research field, with extensive emerging innovation on several fronts. However, it also revealed high variability in technology readiness, with lack of validation being a prevalent hurdle yet to be overcome for many applications of these methods (i.e. for some taxa and in some environments). Moreover, the opportunities for expansion in observations created by these novel approaches open new challenges associated to the standardisation, integration and storage of biodiversity monitoring data. Finally, the expansion of observations should take a designed approach, in order to deliver on its potential to improve representation and resolution of biodiversity monitoring, and should aim to complement rather than replace human observations.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

EuropaBON harnesses the power of modelling Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) to integrate different reporting streams, data sources, and monitoring schemes, and measure biodiversity change across multiple dimensions in space and time. Therefore, EBVs are at the core of the project and form the basis for several of the tasks feeding into the co-design of a biodiversity monitoring system for Europe. In this document, we describe the stepwise process of identifying and specifying the EBVs in the EBV list presented in this deliverable. We further provide a summary of the characteristics of the EBVs identified for EuropaBON, in terms of their desired spatial- and temporal resolutions, as well as the taxonomic/ ecosystem scope to be measured.

The goal of this task was to identify and characterise novel methods for biodiversity monitoring, and to assess their suitability for large scale deployment across Europe. To address this goal we combined extensive literature searches with expert consultation, namely using a survey and through an online workshop. The outcome of our searches is summarised in a metadatabase, which includes 282 methods or method components, which have been classified according to EBV classes addressed, target taxa, and broad method type the method relates to. We then consulted experts within the EuropaBON network and beyond, on the advantages and challenges associated with each of these novel methods, as well as their technology readiness level. In combination, our approaches revealed a wealth of novel methods and a highly active research field, with extensive emerging innovation on several fronts. However, it also revealed high variability in technology readiness, with lack of validation being a prevalent hurdle yet to be overcome for many applications of these methods (i.e. for some taxa and in some environments). Moreover, the opportunities for expansion in observations created by these novel approaches open new challenges associated to the standardisation, integration and storage of biodiversity monitoring data. Finally, the expansion of observations should take a designed approach, in order to deliver on its potential to improve representation and resolution of biodiversity monitoring, and should aim to complement rather than replace human observations.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

EuropaBON harnesses the power of modelling Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) to integrate different reporting streams, data sources, and monitoring schemes, and measure biodiversity change across multiple dimensions in space and time. Therefore, EBVs are at the core of the project and form the basis for several of the tasks feeding into the co-design of a biodiversity monitoring system for Europe. In this document, we describe the stepwise process of identifying and specifying the EBVs in the EBV list presented in this deliverable. We further provide a summary of the characteristics of the EBVs identified for EuropaBON, in terms of their desired spatial- and temporal resolutions, as well as the taxonomic/ ecosystem scope to be measured.

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of 'natural climate solution' (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020-2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

Invasive alien species are one of the major threats to global biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, nature's contributions to people and human health. While scenarios about potential future developments have been available for other global change drivers for quite some time, we largely lack an understanding of how biological invasions might unfold in the future across spatial scales.Based on previous work on global invasion scenarios, we developed a workflow to downscale global scenarios to a regional and policy-relevant context. We applied this workflow at the European scale to create four European scenarios of biological invasions until 2050 that consider different environmental, socio-economic and socio-cultural trajectories, namely the European Alien Species Narratives (Eur-ASNs).We compared the Eur-ASNs with their previously published global counterparts (Global-ASNs), assessing changes in 26 scenario variables. This assessment showed a high consistency between global and European scenarios in the logic and assumptions of the scenario variables. However, several discrepancies in scenario variable trends were detected that could be attributed to scale differences. This suggests that the workflow is able to capture scale-dependent differences across scenarios.We also compared the Global- and Eur-ASNs with the widely used Global and European Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), a set of scenarios developed in the context of climate change to capture different future socio-economic trends. Our comparison showed considerable divergences in the scenario space occupied by the different scenarios, with overall larger differences between the ASNs and SSPs than across scales (global vs. European) within the scenario initiatives.Given the differences between the ASNs and SSPs, it seems that the SSPs do not adequately capture the scenario space relevant to understanding the complex future of biological invasions. This underlines the importance of developing independent but c

At large scales, the mechanisms underpinning stability in natural communities may vary in importance due to changes in species composition, mean abundance, and species richness. Here we link species characteristics (niche positions) and community characteristics (richness and abundance) to evaluate the importance of stability mechanisms in 156 butterfly communities monitored across three European countries and spanning five bioclimatic regions. We construct niche-based hierarchical structural Bayesian models to explain first differences in abundance, population stability, and species richness between the countries, and then explore how these factors impact community stability both directly and indirectly (via synchrony and population stability). Species richness was partially explained by the position of a site relative to the niches of the species pool, and species near the centre of their niche had higher average population stability. The differences in mean abundance, population stability, and species richness then influenced how much variation in community stability they explained across the countries. We found, using variance partitioning, that community stability in Finnish communities was most influenced by community abundance, whereas this aspect was unimportant in Spain with species synchrony explaining most variation; the UK was somewhat intermediate with both factors explaining variation. Across all countries, the diversity–stability relationship was indirect with species richness reducing synchrony which increased community stability, with no direct effects of species richness. Our results suggest that in natural communities, biogeographical variation observed in key drivers of stability, such as population abundance and species richness, leads to community stability being limited by different factors and that this can partially be explained due to the niche characteristics of the European butterfly assemblage.

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries.

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries.

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries.

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries.

Current biodiversity monitoring in Europe is fragmented and often inconsistent across countries. Monitoring efforts face multiple challenges including insufficient technical and human capacity, limited funding, data unavailability, and lack of long-term policy support. To address these challenges, the Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) proposes five clusters of solutions to improve the collection and uptake of policy-relevant biodiversity data: - Enhance coordination and collaboration of monitoring efforts by identifying priorities, using standardized protocols, and aligning reporting requirements with specific indicators. - Increase data standardization through the combination of Essential Biodiversity and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EBVs and EESVs) with dedicated data sharing and exchange mechanisms that adhere to open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) principles. - Leverage modeling efforts and new technologies to integrate with traditional monitoring methods. - Enable additional, consistent, and long-term financial resources for monitoring efforts, including more and better coordination across countries, institutions, and sectors, along with privatesector investments. - Expand, adapt, and deliver capacity building, such as expert training, creating new exchange knowledge platforms, and embracing citizen science initiatives. We propose the creation of a European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Centre in the near future to implement lasting improvements in the collection, analysis, reporting, and political uptake of biodiversity data in all European countries.

Wetland bird species have been declining in population size worldwide as climate warming and land-use change affect their suitable habitats. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict changes in range dynamics for 64 non-passerine wetland birds breeding in Europe, including range size, position of centroid, and margins. We fitted the SDMs with data collected for the first European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA1) and climate and land-use data to predict distributional changes over a century (the 1970s–2070s). The predicted annual changes were then compared to observed annual changes in range size and range centroid over a time period of 30 years using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2). Our models successfully predicted ca. 75% of the 64 bird species to contract their breeding range in the future, while the remaining species (mostly southerly breeding species) were predicted to expand their breeding ranges northward. The northern margins of southerly species and southern margins of northerly species, both, predicted to shift northward. Predicted changes in range size and shifts in range centroids were broadly positively associated with the observed changes, although some species deviated markedly from the predictions. The predicted average shift in core distributions was ca. 5 km/year towards the north (5% Northeast, 45% North, and 40% Northwest), compared to a slower observed average shift of ca. 3.9 km/year. Predicted changes in range centroids were generally larger than observed changes, which suggests that bird distribution changes may lag behind environmental changes leading to "climate debt. We suggest that predictions of SDMs should be viewed as qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes, indicating that care should be taken concerning single species. Still, our results highlight the urgent need for management actions such as wetland creation and restoration to improve wetland birds' resilience to the expected environmental cha

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of “natural climate solution” (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020–2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

Contains fulltext : 252548.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

17 juni 2022, Contains fulltext : 251782.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 252548.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 285045.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 252548.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 285045.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

17 juni 2022, Contains fulltext : 251782.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Observations are key to understand the drivers of biodiversity loss, and the impacts on ecosystem services and ultimately on people. Many EU policies and initiatives demand unbiased, integrated and regularly updated biodiversity and ecosystem service data. However, efforts to monitor biodiversity are spatially and temporally fragmented, taxonomically biased, and lack integration in Europe. EuropaBON aims to bridge this gap by designing an EU-wide framework for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem services. EuropaBON harnesses the power of modelling essential variables to integrate different reporting streams, data sources, and monitoring schemes. These essential variables provide consistent knowledge about multiple dimensions of biodiversity change across space and time. They can then be analyzed and synthesized to support decision-making at different spatial scales, from the sub-national to the European scale, through the production of indicators and scenarios. To develop essential biodiversity and ecosystem variables workflows that are policy relevant, EuropaBON is built around stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange (WP2). EuropaBON will work with stakeholders to identify user and policy needs for biodiversity monitoring and investigate the feasibility of setting up a center to coordinate monitoring activities across Europe (WP2). Together with stakeholders, EuropaBON will assess current monitoring efforts to identify gaps, data and workflow bottlenecks, and analyse cost-effectiveness of different schemes (WP3). This will be used to co-design improved monitoring schemes using novel technologies to become more representative temporally, spatially and taxonomically, delivering multiple benefits to users and society (WP4). Finally, EuropaBON will demonstrate in a set of showcases how workflows tailored to the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Climate and Restoration Policy, and the Bioeconomy Strategy, can be implemented (WP5).

Aim It is important to understand the factors affecting community stability because ecosystem function is increasingly at risk from biodiversity loss. Here, we evaluate how a key factor, the position of local environmental conditions within the thermal range of the species, influences the stability of butterfly communities at a continental scale. Location Spain, UK and Finland. Time period 1999–2017. Major taxa studied Butterflies. Methods We tested the following hypotheses about how species responses to temperature anomalies aggregate to influence stability: Hypothesis 1, species have contrasting responses to local temperature anomalies at opposing edges of their thermal range; hypothesis 2, communities with central thermal range positions have higher community stability; and the impacts of thermal range position on community stability are driven by hypothesis 3, population asynchrony, or hypothesis 4, additive population stability. Data were analysed at 876 sites for 157 species. Results We found some support for hypothesis 1, because there were interactions between thermal range and response to temperature anomalies such that species at different range edges could provide weak compensatory dynamics. However, responses were nonlinear, suggesting strong declines with extreme anomalies, particularly at the hot range edge. Hypothesis 2 was supported in part, because community stability increased with central thermal range positions and declined at the edges, after accounting for species richness and community abundance. Thermal range position was weakly correlated with asynchrony (hypothesis 3) and population stability (hypothesis 4), although species richness and population abundance had larger impacts. Main conclusions Future extreme heat events will be likely to impact species negatively across their thermal range, but might be particularly impactful on populations at the hottest end of the thermal range. Thermal range position influenced community stability becau

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

Observations are key to understand the drivers of biodiversity loss, and the impacts on ecosystem services and ultimately on people. Many EU policies and initiatives demand unbiased, integrated and regularly updated biodiversity and ecosystem service data. However, efforts to monitor biodiversity are spatially and temporally fragmented, taxonomically biased, and lack integration in Europe. EuropaBON aims to bridge this gap by designing an EU-wide framework for monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem services. EuropaBON harnesses the power of modelling essential variables to integrate different reporting streams, data sources, and monitoring schemes. These essential variables provide consistent knowledge about multiple dimensions of biodiversity change across space and time. They can then be analyzed and synthesized to support decision-making at different spatial scales, from the sub-national to the European scale, through the production of indicators and scenarios. To develop essential biodiversity and ecosystem variables workflows that are policy relevant, EuropaBON is built around stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange (WP2). EuropaBON will work with stakeholders to identify user and policy needs for biodiversity monitoring and investigate the feasibility of setting up a center to coordinate monitoring activities across Europe (WP2). Together with stakeholders, EuropaBON will assess current monitoring efforts to identify gaps, data and workflow bottlenecks, and analyse cost-effectiveness of different schemes (WP3). This will be used to co-design improved monitoring schemes using novel technologies to become more representative temporally, spatially and taxonomically, delivering multiple benefits to users and society (WP4). Finally, EuropaBON will demonstrate in a set of showcases how workflows tailored to the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Water Framework Directive, Climate and Restoration Policy, and the Bioeconomy Strategy, can be implemented (WP5).

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

Aim It is important to understand the factors affecting community stability because ecosystem function is increasingly at risk from biodiversity loss. Here, we evaluate how a key factor, the position of local environmental conditions within the thermal range of the species, influences the stability of butterfly communities at a continental scale. Location Spain, UK and Finland. Time period 1999–2017. Major taxa studied Butterflies. Methods We tested the following hypotheses about how species responses to temperature anomalies aggregate to influence stability: Hypothesis 1, species have contrasting responses to local temperature anomalies at opposing edges of their thermal range; hypothesis 2, communities with central thermal range positions have higher community stability; and the impacts of thermal range position on community stability are driven by hypothesis 3, population asynchrony, or hypothesis 4, additive population stability. Data were analysed at 876 sites for 157 species. Results We found some support for hypothesis 1, because there were interactions between thermal range and response to temperature anomalies such that species at different range edges could provide weak compensatory dynamics. However, responses were nonlinear, suggesting strong declines with extreme anomalies, particularly at the hot range edge. Hypothesis 2 was supported in part, because community stability increased with central thermal range positions and declined at the edges, after accounting for species richness and community abundance. Thermal range position was weakly correlated with asynchrony (hypothesis 3) and population stability (hypothesis 4), although species richness and population abundance had larger impacts. Main conclusions Future extreme heat events will be likely to impact species negatively across their thermal range, but might be particularly impactful on populations at the hottest end of the thermal range. Thermal range position influenced community stability becau

Comparing the impacts of future scenarios is essential for developing and guiding the political sustainability agenda. This review-based analysis compares six IPBES scenarios for their impacts on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 20 biodiversity targets (Aichi targets) for the Europe and Central Asia regions. The comparison is based on a review of 143 modeled scenarios synthesized in a plural cost–benefit approach which provides the distances to multiple policy goals. We confirm and substantiate the claim that transformative change is vital but also point out which directions for political transformation are to be preferred. The hopeful message is that large societal losses might still be avoided, and multiple benefits can be generated over the coming decades and centuries. Yet, policies will need to strongly steer away from scenarios based on regional competition, inequality, and economic optimism.

Aim It is important to understand the factors affecting community stability because ecosystem function is increasingly at risk from biodiversity loss. Here, we evaluate how a key factor, the position of local environmental conditions within the thermal range of the species, influences the stability of butterfly communities at a continental scale. Location Spain, UK and Finland. Time period 1999–2017. Major taxa studied Butterflies. Methods We tested the following hypotheses about how species responses to temperature anomalies aggregate to influence stability: Hypothesis 1, species have contrasting responses to local temperature anomalies at opposing edges of their thermal range; hypothesis 2, communities with central thermal range positions have higher community stability; and the impacts of thermal range position on community stability are driven by hypothesis 3, population asynchrony, or hypothesis 4, additive population stability. Data were analysed at 876 sites for 157 species. Results We found some support for hypothesis 1, because there were interactions between thermal range and response to temperature anomalies such that species at different range edges could provide weak compensatory dynamics. However, responses were nonlinear, suggesting strong declines with extreme anomalies, particularly at the hot range edge. Hypothesis 2 was supported in part, because community stability increased with central thermal range positions and declined at the edges, after accounting for species richness and community abundance. Thermal range position was weakly correlated with asynchrony (hypothesis 3) and population stability (hypothesis 4), although species richness and population abundance had larger impacts. Main conclusions Future extreme heat events will be likely to impact species negatively across their thermal range, but might be particularly impactful on populations at the hottest end of the thermal range. Thermal range position influenced community stability becau

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of “natural climate solution” (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020–2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of “natural climate solution” (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020–2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

To reach the Paris Agreement, societies need to increase the global terrestrial carbon sink. There are many climate change mitigation solutions (CCMS) for forests, including increasing bioenergy, bioeconomy, and protection. Bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions use climate-smart, intensive management to generate high quantities of bioenergy and bioproducts. Protection of (semi-)natural forests is a major component of “natural climate solution” (NCS) since forests store carbon in standing biomass and soil. Furthermore, protected forests provide more habitat for biodiversity and non-wood ecosystem services (ES). We investigated the impacts of different CCMS and climate scenarios, jointly or in isolation, on future wood ES, non-wood ES, and regulating ES for a major wood provider for the international market. Specifically, we projected future ES given by three CCMS scenarios for Sweden 2020–2100. In the long term, fulfilling the increasing wood demand through bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will decrease ES multifunctionality, but the increased stand age and wood stocks induced by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations will partially offset these negative effects. Adopting bioenergy and bioeconomy solutions will have a greater negative impact on ES supply than adopting NCS. Bioenergy or bioeconomy solutions, as well as increasing GHG emissions, will reduce synergies and increase trade-offs in ES. NCS, by contrast, increases the supply of multiple ES in synergy, even transforming current ES trade-offs into future synergies. Moreover, NCS can be considered an adaptation measure to offset negative climate change effects on the future supplies of non-wood ES. In boreal countries around the world, forestry strategies that integrate NCS more deeply are crucial to ensure a synergistic supply of multiple ES.

Wetland bird species have been declining in population size worldwide as climate warming and land-use change affect their suitable habitats. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict changes in range dynamics for 64 non-passerine wetland birds breeding in Europe, including range size, position of centroid, and margins. We fitted the SDMs with data collected for the first European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA1) and climate and land-use data to predict distributional changes over a century (the 1970s–2070s). The predicted annual changes were then compared to observed annual changes in range size and range centroid over a time period of 30 years using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2). Our models successfully predicted ca. 75% of the 64 bird species to contract their breeding range in the future, while the remaining species (mostly southerly breeding species) were predicted to expand their breeding ranges northward. The northern margins of southerly species and southern margins of northerly species, both, predicted to shift northward. Predicted changes in range size and shifts in range centroids were broadly positively associated with the observed changes, although some species deviated markedly from the predictions. The predicted average shift in core distributions was ca. 5 km/year towards the north (5% Northeast, 45% North, and 40% Northwest), compared to a slower observed average shift of ca. 3.9 km/year. Predicted changes in range centroids were generally larger than observed changes, which suggests that bird distribution changes may lag behind environmental changes leading to "climate debt. We suggest that predictions of SDMs should be viewed as qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes, indicating that care should be taken concerning single species. Still, our results highlight the urgent need for management actions such as wetland creation and restoration to improve wetland birds' resilience to the expected environmental cha

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

In this report, we present the analysis of the different available biodiversity data streams at the EU and national level, both baseline biodiversity data and monitoring data. We assess how these biodiversity data inform and trigger policy action and identify the related challenges the different European countries and relevant EU agencies face and the solutions to overcome them. To do this, we consulted with more than 350 expert stakeholders from policy, research and practice. The assessment identified a fragmented biodiversity data landscape that cannot currently easily answer all relevant policy questions. Quantity and quality of biodiversity baseline datasets differ for the different countries, ranging from non-existent biodiversity monitoring due to capacity issues, to regular monitoring of ecosystem processes and state. By engaging stakeholders and experts in both member states and non-member states and from several EU bodies, we identified key challenges and ways to address these with targeted solutions towards building a joint European Biodiversity Monitoring Network. Solutions include focussing on cooperation and coordination, enhanced data standardisation and sharing, as well as the use of models and new technologies. These solutions can however only be realised with dedicated funding and capacity building, in coordination with all stakeholders in partnership.

Wetland bird species have been declining in population size worldwide as climate warming and land-use change affect their suitable habitats. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict changes in range dynamics for 64 non-passerine wetland birds breeding in Europe, including range size, position of centroid, and margins. We fitted the SDMs with data collected for the first European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA1) and climate and land-use data to predict distributional changes over a century (the 1970s–2070s). The predicted annual changes were then compared to observed annual changes in range size and range centroid over a time period of 30 years using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2). Our models successfully predicted ca. 75% of the 64 bird species to contract their breeding range in the future, while the remaining species (mostly southerly breeding species) were predicted to expand their breeding ranges northward. The northern margins of southerly species and southern margins of northerly species, both, predicted to shift northward. Predicted changes in range size and shifts in range centroids were broadly positively associated with the observed changes, although some species deviated markedly from the predictions. The predicted average shift in core distributions was ca. 5 km/year towards the north (5% Northeast, 45% North, and 40% Northwest), compared to a slower observed average shift of ca. 3.9 km/year. Predicted changes in range centroids were generally larger than observed changes, which suggests that bird distribution changes may lag behind environmental changes leading to "climate debt. We suggest that predictions of SDMs should be viewed as qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes, indicating that care should be taken concerning single species. Still, our results highlight the urgent need for management actions such as wetland creation and restoration to improve wetland birds' resilience to the expected environmental cha

Wetland bird species have been declining in population size worldwide as climate warming and land-use change affect their suitable habitats. We used species distribution models (SDMs) to predict changes in range dynamics for 64 non-passerine wetland birds breeding in Europe, including range size, position of centroid, and margins. We fitted the SDMs with data collected for the first European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA1) and climate and land-use data to predict distributional changes over a century (the 1970s–2070s). The predicted annual changes were then compared to observed annual changes in range size and range centroid over a time period of 30 years using data from the second European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA2). Our models successfully predicted ca. 75% of the 64 bird species to contract their breeding range in the future, while the remaining species (mostly southerly breeding species) were predicted to expand their breeding ranges northward. The northern margins of southerly species and southern margins of northerly species, both, predicted to shift northward. Predicted changes in range size and shifts in range centroids were broadly positively associated with the observed changes, although some species deviated markedly from the predictions. The predicted average shift in core distributions was ca. 5 km/year towards the north (5% Northeast, 45% North, and 40% Northwest), compared to a slower observed average shift of ca. 3.9 km/year. Predicted changes in range centroids were generally larger than observed changes, which suggests that bird distribution changes may lag behind environmental changes leading to "climate debt. We suggest that predictions of SDMs should be viewed as qualitative rather than quantitative outcomes, indicating that care should be taken concerning single species. Still, our results highlight the urgent need for management actions such as wetland creation and restoration to improve wetland birds' resilience to the expected environmental cha