Transboundary Collaboration for Sustainable Management of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services International Workshop on Applying Ecosystem Services for Transboundary Nature Management Date: 14 (Wed) June, 2017 Venue: Paju-si, Gyeonggi Province, Republic of Korea Osamu Saito Academic Director/ Academic Programme Officer United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) 1

Overall objective: To provide policy relevant knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform decision making 124 Members Four key functions: 1. Knowledge generation 2. Regular and timely assessments 3. Support policy formulation and implementation 4. Capacity building Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) IPBES-2 (Antalya, 9-15 Dec. 2013) Scientific Background: • Many ecosystem services related assessments • But only one focused solely on ecosystem services and human well-being • Fragmented, multiple frameworks and methodologies • Scientific credibility varies Policy makers, stakeholders Policy support Assessments Scientific communities Gaps 1 Requests for information to the Plenary3 Capacity building 4 Catalysing knowledge generation 2 2

IPBES’s Analytical conceptual framework 3

Platform goal Strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development Platform functions, operational principles and procedures Platform work programme 2014–2018: Objectives and associated deliverables Objective 1: Strengthen the capacity and knowledge foundations of the science-policy interface to implement key functions of the Platform: Objective 2: Strengthen the science- policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services at and across subregional, regional and global levels: Objective 3: Strengthen the science- policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services with regard to thematic and methodological issues: Objective 4: Communicate and evaluate Platform activities, deliverables and findings:: Structure and key elements of the IPBES Work Programme 4

5

What IPBES has achieved since 2014  Secretariat established in Bonn  8 Technical Support Units established  Capacity building task force: Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway  Indigenous & local knowledge task force: UNESCO, Paris, France  Knowledge & data task force: National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon- gun, Republic of Korea  Scenario assessment: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, The Netherlands  Africa assessment: CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa  Americas assessment: Alexander von Humboldt Institute, Bogota, Colombia  Asia-Pacific assessment: IGES, Tokyo, Japan  Europe and Central Asia assessment: U of Bern, Switzerland  19 expert groups established  Over 981experts selected from a total of 2811 nominations received 6

Two full assessments have been completed: • Thematic assessment of Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production • Methodological assessment of scenarios and models of biodiversity and ecosystem services Ongoing assessments: • Thematic & Methodological Assessments  Thematic assessment on land degradation and restoration  Thematic assessment on invasive alien species and their control  Thematic assessment on sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity and strengthening capacities and tools  Policy support tools and methodologies regarding the diverse conceptualization of values of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people including ecosystem services  4 Regional/Subregional assessments  Africa  Americas  Asia-Pacific  Europe and Central Asia  Global Assessment What IPBES has achieved since 2014 7

IPBES regional assessments  The Plenary requested IPBES to perform an assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services (Decision IPBES- 3/1, January 2015) in 4 regions: • Europe and Central Asia • Africa • Americas • Asia-Pacific  Over the next 3 years (2015-2017)  To report in 2018 at IPBES-6 Plenary 8

Generic chapter outline for the 4 regions  Chapter 1: Setting the Scene  Chapter 2: Nature’s benefits to people and quality of life  Chapter 3: Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature’s benefits to people  Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in the context of different perspectives on quality of life  Chapter 5:Integrated and cross-scale analysis of interactions of the natural world and human society  Chapter 6: Options for governance, institutional arrangements and private and public decision-making across scales and sectors NB1: The chapter outline is derived from the Conceptual Framework. NB 2: An annotated chapter outline derived from these 2 documents has been produced by co-chairs and CLAs 9

IPBES Authors’ meeting for Asia-Pacific Regional Assessment at UNU in Aug. 2015 10

United Nations Regional Groups Sub-regions Countries and territories Oceania Australia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Pacific island territories of Cook Islands, New Caledonia, American Samoa, Tokelau, French Polynesia, Niue, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Island and Wallis and Futuna. Oceanic and sub-Antarctic islands in the Pacific region (or Pacific and Indian Ocean regions) South-East Asia Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste and Viet Nam North-East Asia China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Japan, Mongolia and Republic of Korea South Asia Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka Western Asia Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen (Arabian peninsula), Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon State of Palestine and Syrian Arab Republic (Mashriq) Asia-Pacific Region 11

Chapter 6: Options for governance, institutional arrangements  Institutional Setting—regional, sub-regional, national, and sub-nationals: describe institutional gaps, strengths and weaknesses that impede or contribute to biodiversity conservation and maintaining ecosystem services.  Governance Systems—regional and sub-regional agreements; national, sub- national, and local legislations and regulatory frameworks  Possible policy options—examining possible policy instruments at regional, sub-regional and nationals, including exploring possibility of regional and sub-regional biodiversity strategies and action plans, Implications of outlined policy relevant options including different policy instruments,  Potential implications of different policy options and instruments,  Presentation of options at different hierarchical spatial and temporal scales from global to regional to sub regional, national and local levels with specific reference to local and indigenous communities;  Provide options for policy mixes and different property rights and governance systems assessing relevance, effectiveness and efficiency criteria; 12

IPBES Global Assessment The global assessment will address the following questions: (a) What is the status of and trends in nature, nature’s benefits to people and indirect and direct drivers of change? (b) How do nature and its benefits to people contribute to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals? What is the evidence base that can be used for assessing progress towards the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets? (c) What are the plausible futures for nature, nature’s benefits to people and their contribution to a good quality of life between now and 2050? (d) What pathways and policy intervention scenarios relating to nature, nature’s benefit to people and their contributions to good quality of life can lead to sustainable futures? (e) What are the opportunities and challenges, as well as options available to decision makers, at all levels relating to nature, nature’s benefit to people and their contributions to good quality of life? 13

A multi-scale conceptual framework on nature, the productive base of societies and human well-being. Duraiappah et al. (2014) Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well-being: a conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7:94-100 14

Four Major Mis-matches 1. The mis-match of values: cognitive dissonance  An individual’s well-being is multi-dimensional, the multiple constituents of human well- being are context and individual specific, and are largely influenced by individuals’ appraisals of values, beliefs and attitudes within one’s social and multifaceted context.  Ecosystem services, as valued by individuals, are context dependent and may be inconsistent/conflicting depending on whether the individual identifies with the self or with, and as part of, a larger community or another social entity. 2. The mis-match of scales: interdependent nature of ecosystem services and ecosystem scales  Ecosystems are not constrained to any particular size or scale and the term can be applied to both a puddle of water and/or to the entire biosphere.  The biophysical elements and processes associated with ecosystems also operate over a range of scales. 3. The mis-match of institutions and institutional fit  Social institutions may or may not be congruent with boundaries and scales of ecosystems and the suite of physical and ecological processes upon which it depends.  A mismatch between the geographic scale of ecosystem functioning and the spatial extent of the institutional arrangements managing such a system (e.g.,  property systems, jurisdictions). 4. The mis-match between ecosystem services supply and demand Duraiappah et al. (2014) Managing the mismatches to provide ecosystem services for human well-being: a conceptual framework for understanding the New Commons, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7:94-100 15

Option B Natural driven ecosystem services (ES) vs. techno-driven ES High preference for A ← Neither → High preference for B Domestic food products Animals hunted for food Natural fish Well water/ groundwater CO2 absorption by plantation Purify air with forest Cool down with shade of trees/breeze Flood control with forest Natural parks Canoe, hiking, climbing etc. Real experience Species conservation in nature Indigenous/traditional food Imported food products Animals domesticated for food Aquacultured fish Tap water CO2 sequestration technologies Purify air with machine Cool down with air conditioner Flood control with dams City/Urban parks Amusement park Virtual experience Species conservation in zoo/ botanical garden Fast food Option A 16

Stocks and flows of natural and human-derived capital in ecosystem services (Jones et al. 2016) 17

Different forms of human-derived capital and natural capital (subdivided after Robinson et al.(2013)) co-produce potential ecosystem services, which in combination with demand from users/beneficiaries then produce a flow of ‘realised’ ecosystem services. Jones et al. (2016) 18

Multi-level Nested Governance and collaboration for sustainable management of Natural Capital and ES Local collaborations (Bottom-up) Local communities NPOs Multi-level governance of natural capital Stake holder  It is necessary to create mechanisms for collaborative management in order to avoid degradation of natural capital as stock, and to promote sustainable provision of ecosystem services.  It is necessary to explore new governance structures, or “new commons” where various stakeholders engage in horizontal cooperation.  It would be effective to build multi-level and nested governance structures that value bottom-up activities at the local level while connecting with global networks. Global/ Regional/ National Local Multi-level nested collaborative governance Mechanism for cooperative management of natural capital based on nested collaboration among different stakeholders Local gov’t Universities Governments’ initiatives (top-down) UN Regional communities Multinational companies Stake holder Nations Aid agencies Farmers, foresters, fishers Stake holder Urban residents Stake holder Co-ops Stake holderStake holder Small enterprises Stake holder Stake holder Int’l NGOs 19

UNU-IAS Postgradaute Programme Intensive Core Courses The courses are designed to provide a holistic view of contemporary issues. Taught by experts from academia, UN and industry.  UN System and Sustainable Development (UNSSD)  Global Change and Planetary Boundaries (GCPB)  Natural Capital and Biodiversity (NCB)  Intensive in nature, 4-week session  Open to International student body 20https://ias.unu.edu/en/admissions/credited-courses/unu-intensive-core-courses.html#overview

Natural Capital and Biodiversity Provides a multidisciplinary perspective on natural capital, biodiversity, human well-being and their interactions.  Biodiversity in the Context of Global Change  Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)  The SATOYAMA Initiative and GIAHS  The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity  Governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services 21 Course Description: NCB

2016-IC UNU- IAS 47%Other 38% Partner 15% 2016-IC Americas Asia 50%Africa 32% Europe 6% 12% Student Distribution, By Institution and Region (34) 22

Concluding Messages  On-going international efforts to assess ES from national, regional to global scales (IPBES)  Four major mis-matches: The mis-match of values: cognitive dissonance The mis-match of scales: interdependent nature of ecosystem services and ecosystem scales The mis-match of institutions and institutional fit The mis-match between ecosystem services supply and demand  Multi-level Nested Governance and collaboration for sustainable management of Natural Capital and ES  Expand ES training and educational network in Asia and beyond (DB and online training materials of ES) 23

Thank you! For Further Information Osamu Saito: saito@unu.edu 24

Cities and Biodiversity Outlook (CBO) 25

Cities and Biodiversity Outlook A Global Assessment of the Links between Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Ecosystem Services Global urbanization and biodiversity hotspots, 1950– 2025 26

Predicted urban growth from 2010 to 2025 for cities that have a population of greater than 1 million in 2010. 27

Key Messages KEY MESSAGE 1: Urbanization is both a challenge and an opportunity to manage ecosystem services globally. KEY MESSAGE 2: Rich biodiversity can exist in cities. KEY MESSAGE 3: Biodiversity and ecosystem services are critical natural capital. KEY MESSAGE 4: Maintaining functioning urban ecosystems can significantly improve human health and well-being. KEY MESSAGE 5: Urban ecosystem services and biodiversity can help contribute to climate- change mitigation and adaptation. 28