Knowledge gaps

The assessment of how findings from the different reviews related to policy goals or targets similar to the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Biodiversity Targets was mostly based on the expert judgement of the author team, as most documents reviewed did not explicitly include links to these goals or targets

Knowledge gaps and resulting uncertainties in exploring future interactions between nature and society are substantial because integrated assessments of future impacts on nature, nature’s contributions to people and a good quality of life that take account of the complex interdependencies in human and environmental systems are rare (well established).
- "Very few studies were available for Central Asia and to a lesser extent for Eastern Europe (well established)" (5.6.2).
- Less information was also available for marine systems than for terrestrial and freshwater systems (well established) (5.6.2).
- Few integrated scenario and modelling studies include indicators of nature’s nonmaterial contributions to people and good quality of life (5.3.2, 5.5.1, 5.6.2)
- and therefore existing assessments of synergies and trade-offs are limited in the interactions and feedbacks they represent (well established) (5.3.2).
- No studies were found that assessed future flows of nature’s contributions to people across countries, which would have been important to assess the impacts of the scenarios and pathways for Europe and Central Asia on other parts of the world (well established) (5.6.2).
- There is also a significant gap in the current literature in recognizing the diversity of values, with the focus being mainly on instrumental values (well established) (5.6.2).
- Finally, scenario and modelling studies include many uncertainties in their projections of the future resulting from input data, scenario assumptions, model structure and propagation of uncertainties across the integrated components of the systems, which should be borne in mind when interpreting their results (well established). »

Few integrated scenario and modelling studies include indicators of nature’s nonmaterial contributions to people and good quality of life

And therefore existing assessments of synergies and trade-offs are limited in the interactions and feedbacks they represent (well established)

Finally, scenario and modelling studies include many uncertainties in their projections of the future resulting from input data, scenario assumptions, model structure and propagation of uncertainties across the integrated components of the systems, which should be borne in mind when interpreting their results (well established).

Inequality scenarios, which assume increasing economic, political and social inequalities, where power becomes concentrated in a relatively small political and business elite who invest in green technology, result in negative impacts on nature’s regulating contributions to people (established but incomplete), but mixed or unclear impacts on other indicators (inconclusive)

There is a knowledge gap with respect to what types of institutions work best to improve the well-being of Arctic residents, including what roles formal and informal institutions will play in meeting future needs

[...]there remains a considerable gap in addressing issues of public involvement, in particular concerning gender equality and women’s empowerment, as well as the participation of indigenous peoples. Indigenous and local knowledge of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people in conservation policy and management is not sufficiently taken into consideration despite the recognition of the importance of, for instance, traditional farming (European Commission, 2014a; Rou. & Moln.r, 2017).

While assessing the relevant bodies of literature on environmental governance, the diversity of existing governance arrangements and opportunities for the future in Europe and Central Asia, a number of knowledge gaps became apparent. First, there seem to be limited studies that take a multidisciplinary systemic perspective on environmental governance in the region, and that combine an analysis of policy instruments with an analysis of the behaviour of (economic) actors (e.g., households, companies) and the overarching economic and social system in which these behaviours are embedded [...]Second,[...] few publications assess their implications for equity and environmental justice. [...]Third, analyses that trace the impacts of governance arrangements on biodiversity and ecosystem services (or nature’s contributions to people) in some depth, and that report on synergies and trade-offs or conflicts between their impacts, are very scarce.[...] For the environmental sector, much less research and analysis is available on informal and hybrid governance mechanisms such as co-management and public-private partnerships. [...]few analyses of governance as a process (rather than an assemblage of institutions) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia[...] our overview suggests that overall, the governance literature focuses predominantly on hierarchical governance modes as opportunities for improvements, rather than on public-private partnerships or private and civil society governance

Further knowledge is needed on how particular planning modes and planning instruments affect biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people and how respective information could best be integrated and communicated in planning processes so that it is understood and appropriately considered in decision-making

Knowledge gaps exist concerning a comparative overview of spatial planning throughout Europe and Central Asia

Impacts of increasing CO2 upon the total Net Primary Production of marine systems, and consequences for ecosystem function and nature’s contributions to people

Data from monitoring of ecosystem condition (generally less well represented than ecosystem extent

Inventories on under-studied ecosystems: freshwater, Arctic, marine/ocean, seabed, and wetlands

Data on ecosystem processes (including rates of change) that underpin nature’s contributions to people and ecosystem health

Data on the status of species and nature’s contributions to people linked to specific ecosystem functions

Data on changing interactions among organisms and taxa

Indicators on the global extent and consequences of biotic homogenization, including genetic homogenization

Data on the genetic diversity and conservation status of breeds of farmed and domestic plants and animals

Monitoring of the long-term effects of dumped waste, especially radioactive material and plastics

Agreed-upon methods to enable systematic processes of knowledge generation, collection and synthesis regarding indigenous and local knowledge (for assessments and elsewhere) and participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in this process

Better quantitative data to assess the Sustainable Development Goals and Aichi Targets where qualitative indicators have been dominant (9 out of 44 targets under the Sustainable Development Goals reviewed)

Data and information on NCP 10: regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes (populations of vectors and vector-borne diseases) and overlaps with vulnerable human populations and ecosystem interactions

Data on the impacts and extent of nature’s contributions to people on quality of life, by major user group (also lacking an agreed typology on major user groups)

Disaggregated data on the impacts that nature has on good quality of life, particularly across regions, societies, governance systems, and ecosystems

Systematic indicators to report the status and trends for categories of nature’s contributions to people

Data to assess how progress in achieving goals and targets affects indigenous peoples and local communities, either in positive or in negative ways

Indicators that reflect the heterogeneity of indigenous peoples and local communities

d) Better data on the global extent and forms of wildlife trafficking and its impacts on nature and nature’s contributions to people

Monitoring of many listed species in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

Data and information on NCP 9: the role of nature and nature’s contributions to people in mitigating or reducing vulnerability to disasters

Data on the benefits to human mental health from exposure to natural environments

Data on the interrelationships between gender equality, nature and nature’s contributions to people

Data gaps in key inventories: World Database on Protected Areas, the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas™, red lists of threatened species and ecosystems, and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility

a) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different area-based conservation mechanisms (e.g., protected areas, other effective area-based conservation measures) in conserving nature and nature’s contributions to people and contributing to good quality of life

b) Indicators of the effectiveness of different restoration methodologies and to assess restoration progress over time (including values)

Data on the impacts of resource mobilization, using robust program evaluation methods (e.g., examples of successful use of funding including impacts of donor funding for conservation and impacts of specific biodiversity financing projects)

Data on the monitoring of policy effectiveness to adapt and adjust policies and to share lessons

Global spatial datasets on key threats, e.g., data on patterns in the intensity of unsustainable exploitation of species and ecosystems

Trends in relation to the socioeconomic status of indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., noting the lack of data differentiation in aggregate statistics)

Understanding on how nature contributes to achieving targets (the positive and negative relationships between nature and targets/goals like the Sustainable Development Goals)

Integrated scenarios for areas projected to experience significant impacts and possible regime shifts (e.g., Arctic, semi-arid regions, and small islands)

Regional and global socioeconomic scenarios developed for, by and in collaboration with indigenous peoples and local communities and their associated institutions

Scenarios of the future of biodiversity which quantify the possible co-benefits related to nature’s contributions to people

Regional and global socioeconomic scenarios explicitly considering the knowledge, views and perspectives of indigenous peoples and local communities

Assessment of nature's contributions to people across scenario archetypes with robust knowledge and quantitative estimates

Basic data on many taxa (86 per cent of existing species on Earth and 91 per cent of species in the ocean still await description)

Knowledge about the interaction, feedback and spill-overs among regions within future global scenarios

e) Data on the comparative effectiveness of different models for reconciling bioenergy and biodiversity conservation

f) Data on the effectiveness of different schemes and models for payment for ecosystem services (PES), particularly the trade-offs that arise between policy goals, the integration of multiple values in PES, data on the profiles of PES participants and long-term monitoring of relational and behavioural implications of participation