Search

This extended summary introduces the TEEB Russia projects and sketches the main outlines of the comprehensive reports TEEB Russia Vols. 1 and 2. Commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), the TEEB Russia projects were funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU). They were supported by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNR) with the active participation of experts from the Biodiversity Conservation Center (Moscow), Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (Dresden), Russian Academy of Sciences (A. N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, the Institute of Geography, Center for Forest Ecology and Productivity, and the Institute for Systems Analysis), Lomonosov Moscow State University (the faculties of Biology, Geography, Economics and Zoological Museum), the Russian State Agrarian University - Moscow Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, and limited liability company «NextGIS».:1 The story of TEEB Russia 2 Ecosystem services of Russia: Why are they important? 3 Key findings of TEEB Russia 1 4 Objectives and key findings of TEEB Russia 2 4.1 Indicators of ecosystem assets 4.2 Refined estimate of ecosystem services for European Russia 5 Basic structure of ecosystem accounting in Russia 6 Main products of TEEB Russia (2013-2020) 7 Outlook – next steps

This document contains the draft Chapter 4 of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters.IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copyediting.

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Pascual, Unai. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Stenseke, Marie. Fil: Martín-López, Berta. Fil: Watson, Robert T.. Fil: Molnár, Zsolt. Fil: Hill, Rosemary. Fil: Chan, Kai M. A.. Fil: Baste, Ivar A.. Fil: Brauman, Kate A.. Fil: Polasky, Stephen. Fil: Church, Andrew. Fil: Lonsdale, Mark. Fil: Larigauderie, Anne. Fil: Leadley, Paul W.. Fil: Van Oudenhoven, Alexander P. E.. Fil: Van Der Plaat, Felice. Fil: Schröter, Matthias. Fil: Lavorel, Sandra. Fil: Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Yildiz. Fil: Bukvareva, Elena. Fil: Davies, Kirsten. Fil: Demissew, Sebsebe. Fil: Erpul, Gunay. Fil: Failler, Pierre. Fil: Guerra, Carlos A.. Fil: Hewitt, Chad L.. Fil: Keune, Hans. Fil: Lindley, Sarah. Fil: Shirayama, Yoshihisa.

Today the main scientific belief on the mechanisms for the formation of community structure is the concept of ecological niches and the “neutral theory”. We consider processes of diversity optimization at the levels of populations and ecological communities as an additional type of the mechanisms. Basing on the principle of optimal diversity a scheme for cooperative effect of different mechanisms of formation of the communities species structure is proposed: 1 ‒ number of species and their niches width is primarily determined by the processes of diversity optimization, according with an available resources levels and the degree of environmental stability; 2 – these parameters are modified by other mechanisms during the formation of the species composition, depending on the ratio of the environmental “richness” and stability: ‒ neutral mechanisms work primarily in very “rich” or very stable environments;‒ niche mechanisms work primarily in the environments with medium values of the “richness” and stability, rather when the number of niches with optimal width, which divide the available range of the resource parameter and the number of species that may exist on the available quantity of the resource, are approximately equal;‒ “abiotic filters” work primarily in poor, severe, or extremely unstable environments.

Recent assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have highlighted the risks to humanity arising from the unsustainable use of natural resources. Thus far, land, freshwater, and ocean exploitation have been the chief causes of biodiversity loss. Climate change is projected to be a rapidly increasing additional driver for biodiversity loss. Since climate change and biodiversity loss impact human societies everywhere, bold solutions are required that integrate environmental and societal objectives. As yet, most existing international biodiversity targets have overlooked climate change impacts. At the same time, climate change mitigation measures themselves may harm biodiversity directly. The Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 framework offers the important opportunity to address the interactions between climate change and biodiversity and revise biodiversity targets accordingly by better aligning these with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. We identify the considerable number of existing and proposed post- 2020 biodiversity targets that risk being severely compromised due to climate change, even if other barriers to their achievement were removed. Our analysis suggests that the next set of biodiversity targets explicitly addresses climate change-related risks since many aspirational goals will not be feasible under even lower-end projections of future warming. Adopting more flexible and dynamic approaches to conservation, rather than static goals, would allow us to respond flexibly to changes in habitats, genetic resources, species composition, and ecosystem functioning and leverage biodiversity's capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.