Ecosystem Services of Russia: Introduction to TEEB Russia & Extended Summary of TEEB Russia Volume 2

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 step

Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

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\u27s 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\u27s capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation

Development of the integrated information complexes for studying the biological systems (biovariance)

The work is aimed at developing the information system intended for studying the variance of the biosystems, different hierarchical level on the basis of the up-to-date theoretical presentations about biovariance and information technologies. A conceptual model of the data base has been developed for studying the biovariance on the different hierarchical levels. The models of the variance in the systems of the population and biocenotic levels as well as the method for their joining up have been developed. Shown has been the existence of the optimal levels of variance in them. The conceptual and organization-functional models of the information system have been developed for the parks of the Russia forest zoneAvailable from VNTIC / VNTIC - Scientific & Technical Information Centre of RussiaSIGLERURussian Federatio

Ecosystem Services of Russia: Introduction to TEEB Russia & Extended Summary of TEEB Russia Volume 2

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 step

Water Regulating in Kenozero Taiga: Excess or Lack of Water and Where Does It Go?

Water-regulating ecosystem services (ESs) are a key factor in water supply for the population and the economy. In recent years, these ESs have been intensively included in regional and global assessments. However, the degree of knowledge of various water-regulating ESs and the availability of models for their estimation and mapping vary greatly. For example, most regional assessments currently do not take into account the ESs of moisture and precipitation recycling by forests which can lead to erroneous decisions on land use and forest management. To what extent is it possible to make adequate decisions on the basis of a partial assessment of the ESs? In this article, we discuss this problem using the example of boreal forests in the catchment of the Lake Kenozero in the north of the European part of Russia. Using the InVEST model, two ESs were quantified and mapped: water yield regulation due to evapotranspiration and water quality assurance due to prevention of soil erosion. The reduction in water yield due to evapotranspiration was estimated at 125 mm/year, and the prevention of soil erosion was estimated at 9.56 t/ha/year. Forest felling in the study area from 2007 to 2021 led to an increase in runoff and soil erosion by 6 mm/year and 0.03 t/ha/year, respectively. The hypothetical total instantaneous forest loss could lead to an increase in runoff and soil erosion by 71 mm/year and 2.44 t/ha/year, respectively. A tradeoff between these ESs was predictably identified as deforestation led to an increase in water yield and a deterioration in water quality due to soil erosion. The significance of a number of other water-regulating ESs for making regional decisions was expertly assessed. In particular, the importance of the ESs of precipitation recycling of sludge under climate change was discussed. Expanding the range of ESs under consideration increases the likelihood of choosing a protection strategy instead of a harvesting one in forest management

Green Infrastructure, Urbanization, and Ecosystem Services: The Main Challenges for Russia’s Largest Cities

Globally, the process of urbanization is transforming land use and, as a consequence, reducing the efficiency of ecosystem services (ESs), which ensure a healthy and comfortable urban environment. In cities, green infrastructure (GI) is a key source of urban ESs. Russia is a highly urbanized country: 70% of its population live in towns or cities. As cities continue to expand, they are swallowing unsealed lands that support ESs. In this paper, we present the results of an analysis of the current state and recent changes in urban GI in Russia’s 16 largest cities, including a biophysical evaluation of key urban ESs, using remote sensing data and freely available statistics. Our analysis identifies a weak correlation between GI area, ES volume, and favorable climate conditions as well as a stronger correlation between ESs and the increasing rate of urbanization. Considering Russia’s high level of urbanization, the key importance of ESs for the well-being of citizens, and ongoing reductions of urban GI, major revisions to urban planning policy are required. Indicators of urban biodiversity, GI, and ESs should be incorporated into decision-making processes. In particular, it is vital that the accounting and monitoring of GI and ESs are established in all of Russia’s larger cities

Green Infrastructure, Urbanization, and Ecosystem Services: The Main Challenges for Russia’s Largest Cities

Globally, the process of urbanization is transforming land use and, as a consequence, reducing the efficiency of ecosystem services (ESs), which ensure a healthy and comfortable urban environment. In cities, green infrastructure (GI) is a key source of urban ESs. Russia is a highly urbanized country: 70% of its population live in towns or cities. As cities continue to expand, they are swallowing unsealed lands that support ESs. In this paper, we present the results of an analysis of the current state and recent changes in urban GI in Russia’s 16 largest cities, including a biophysical evaluation of key urban ESs, using remote sensing data and freely available statistics. Our analysis identifies a weak correlation between GI area, ES volume, and favorable climate conditions as well as a stronger correlation between ESs and the increasing rate of urbanization. Considering Russia’s high level of urbanization, the key importance of ESs for the well-being of citizens, and ongoing reductions of urban GI, major revisions to urban planning policy are required. Indicators of urban biodiversity, GI, and ESs should be incorporated into decision-making processes. In particular, it is vital that the accounting and monitoring of GI and ESs are established in all of Russia’s larger cities

Bibliography of the Systematic Literature Review of the IPBES Global Assessment, Chapter 4

ibliographies from the systematic literature review in Chapter 4 of the IPBES Global Assessmen

Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

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