UNITED NATIONS BES IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1* Intergovernmental Science-Policy Distr.: General Platform on Biodiversity and 22 June 2018 Ecosystem Services English only Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Sixth session Medellin, Colombia, 18–24 March 2018 Agenda item 6 (b) Regional and subregional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services: regional and subregional assessment for the Americas Chapters of the regional and subregional assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas Note by the secretariat 1. In paragraph 2 of section III of decision IPBES-3/1, the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) approved the undertaking of four regional and subregional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services for Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe and Central Asia (hereinafter referred to as regional assessments) in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of the Platform’s deliverables set out in annex I to decision IPBES-3/3, the generic scoping report for the regional assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services set out in annex III to decision IPBES-3/1, and the scoping reports for each of the four regional assessments (decision IPBES-3/1, annexes IV–VII). 2. In response to decision IPBES-3/1, a set of six chapters (IPBES/6/INF/3–6), together with a summary for policymakers (IPBES/6/4–7), were produced for each of the regional assessments by an expert group, in accordance with the procedures for the preparation of the Platform’s deliverables, for consideration by the Plenary at its sixth session. 3. In paragraph 5 of section IV of decision IPBES-6/1, the Plenary approved the summary for policymakers of the regional assessment for the Americas (IPBES/6/15/Add.2) and accepted the chapters of the assessment, on the understanding that the chapters would be revised following the sixth session as document IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 to correct factual errors and to ensure consistency with the summary for policymakers as approved. The annex to the present note, which is presented without formal editing, sets out the final set of chapters of the assessment for the Americas including their executive summaries. 4. A laid-out version of the final regional assessment report of biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas (including a foreword, statements from key partners, acknowledgements, a preface, the summary for policymakers, the revised chapters and annexes setting out a glossary and lists of acronyms, authors, review editors and expert reviewers) will be made available on the website of the Platform prior to the seventh session of the Plenary. * Reissued for technical reasons on 24 September 2018. K1802537 240918 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Annex Chapters of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Disclaimer on maps The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps used in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. These maps have been prepared for the sole purpose of facilitating the assessment of the broad biogeographical areas represented therein. 2 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table of contents Chapter 1: Setting the scene ................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life ............................................................6 2 Chapter 3: Status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions underpinning nature’s benefit to people ............................................................................................................................................. 207 Chapter 4: Direct and indirect drivers of change in biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people . 363 Chapter 5: Current and future interactions between nature and society ............................................ 538 Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors ............................. 644 Annex I - Glossary ............................................................................................................................. 722 Annex II – Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... 744 3 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene Coordinating Lead Authors: Jake Rice (Canada), Vanesa Rodríguez Osuna (Bolivia/USA), Maria Elena Zaccagnini (Argentina) Lead Authors: Elena Bennett (Canada), Dayne Buddo (Jamaica), Natalia Estrada-Carmona (Colombia/France), Kelly Garbach (USA), Nathan Vogt (Brasil/USA) Fellow María Paula Barral (Argentina) Contributing Authors Judith Weis (USA), Cristiana Simão Seixas (Brazil), Rosely Sanches (Brazil), Mary Kalin Arroyo (Chile) Review Editors Patricia Balvanera (Mexico), Rodolfo Dirzo (Mexico) To be cited as: Rice, J., Rodríguez Osuna., V., Zaccagnini, M. E., Bennet, E. Buddo, D., Estrada-Carmona, N., Garbach, K., Vogt, N., and Barral, M. P. Chapter 1: Setting the scene. In IPBES (2018): The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Americas. Rice, J., Seixas, C. S., Zaccagnini, M. E., Bedoya-Gaitán, M., and Valderrama, N. (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany, pp. xx-xx 4 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table of contents Chapter 1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene ................................................................................................................ 4 1 Executive summary ..................................................................................................................... 6 Overview of the region ............................................................................................................ 9 The core policy-relevant questions for the Americas Assessment .............................................1 1 How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in the region, and what are their interlinkages? .................................................. 12 What are the status, trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions underpinning nature’s benefit to people that ultimately affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-being in the region?.......... 13 What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and good quality of life in the region? ....................................................................................... 14 What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food security and good quality of life in the region? ......................................................................................................... 14 Background to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Regional Assessments ......................................................................................................................................1 5 What are nature contributions to people? ................................................................................................. 16 Why are nature contributions to people relevant to human quality of life (well-being and livelihoods) in the Americas? ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 Why are people relevant to nature’s ability to provide nature contributions to people? ......................... 20 Why do we need a Regional Assessment? .................................................................................................. 20 What is an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Regional Assessment? . 21 Who are the target audiences of this document? ...................................................................................... 21 Roadmap to core questions and chapters in this Regional Assessment ..................................... 23 What gaps in knowledge need to be addressed to better understand and assess drivers, impacts and responses of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services at the regional level? ................................................ 25 Relationship of the key questions to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its Aichi biodiversity targets and to the Sustainable Development Goals .............................................................................. 25 The conceptual approach for this Assessment .........................................................................2 6 The analytical Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Conceptual Framework 27 How this Regional Assessment deals with different knowledge systems ................................................... 29 How this Regional Assessment deals with “value” ..................................................................................... 30 How can models and scenarios serve as tools for decision-making? ......................................................... 30 Impact of policies on nature’s contribution to people ............................................................................... 32 Nature and economies of the Americas ...................................................................................3 3 Biophysical aspects ..................................................................................................................................... 33 The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services unit of analysis and subregions of the Americas .................................................................................................................. 33 North America ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Mesoamerica ........................................................................................................................................ 35 Caribbean .............................................................................................................................................. 36 South America ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Historical note and biomes transformation in the Americas ............................................................... 37 Cultural aspects: Presence of indigenous groups, population, and land holdings ..................................... 38 Socio-economic features............................................................................................................................. 41 Governance in the Americas ....................................................................................................................... 43 Technical details: Methods and approaches in the Assessment ................................................4 5 How this Regional Assessment deals with incomplete or absent information ........................................... 45 How this Regional Assessment handles uncertainty .................................................................................. 45 Data and indicators ..................................................................................................................................... 46 Process for the production of the Americas assessment report ................................................................ 49 References .............................................................................................................................5 0 5 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 1 Executive summary 1. The Americas region is highly biologically diverse, hosting seven of the 17 most biodiverse countries of the world and encompassing 14 units of analysis across 140 degrees of latitude {1.1}. The Americas include 55 of the 195 terrestrial and freshwater world ecoregions with highly distinctive or irreplaceable species composition. The region is home to 20 per cent of globally identified key biodiversity areas, 26 per cent of global terrestrial biodiversity hotspots, and the Gulf of California and Western Caribbean are included in the top 18 marine biodiversity conservation hotspots. The region also has some of the most extensive wilderness areas in the planet, such as the Pacific Northwest, the Amazon, and Patagonia, and contains three of the six longest coral reefs in the world. 2. The Americas is also culturally and socio-economically diverse, home to some of the most industrialized urban areas on the planet and to indigenous and other local people striving to maintain and protect their cultures. The region is populated by a uniquely large proportion of immigrants (and their descendants) from all parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, in addition to the more than 66 million indigenous peoples who have persisted despite centuries of land expropriation and, in some cases, active persecution and even genocide. Human population density in the Americas ranges from 2 per100 km2 in Greenland to over 9,000 per km2 in several urban centers. The Americas region contains two of the ten countries with the highest Human Development Index in the world as well as one with the lowest human development level {1.6.1-1.6.3}. 3. Ecosystems in the Americas provide essential contributions to the economy, livelihoods, food, water, and energy security, and to the eradication of poverty in the region. Increases in the use of nature has resulted in the region being the largest global exporter of food. People’s quality of life in the Americas is highly dependent on nature’s material contributions (including food and feed, medicine, energy, fibers, and construction materials) to achieve food, water and energy security, and to generate income and support livelihoods and health. The Americas is an important commodity producer: countries of the Americas are amongst the top 10 producers (in terms of volume in 2014 and 2015) of wheat, rice, sugar, coarse grains, tea, coffee, cocoa, and orange juice. Several countries are important producers of aquaculture and fisheries in terms of volume of fish, crustaceans and molluscs harvested in 2014. The United States of America and Brazil are the second and third largest meat producers (in terms of volume in 2013 or 2014). These two countries in addition to Argentina are the world’s top three major oil seed (soybeans, rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower seed and groundnuts) producers (in terms of volume in 2014 to 2015) {1.3.2}. The region has a mosaic of indigenous, small- scale, and large-scale agriculture production, which builds on a foundation of the biodiverse American tropics and montane regions. These regions are major centers of origin for domesticated plants, some of which have subsequently become important globally-traded crops {1.1}. 4. Forests and wetlands are the ecosystems mostly recognized for their role in the regulation of freshwater supplies, which is abundant (compared to the global average) but unevenly available across geographies and time. Some cities in South America face severe water scarcity episodes during specific times of the year (Bogotá, Quito, La Paz, Lima) as well as in states of the United States of America such as California, Texas and Florida. Areas with high scarcity occur where densely populated areas compete with intensely irrigated agriculture, or areas with reduced water storage. Climate change impacts and unsustainable rates of extraction of freshwater result in reduced river flows as in the Colorado River. Groundwater depletion also occurs in the Americas (Mexico and United States of America), affecting water users, business operations, and biodiversity {1.2.1,1.3.2}. 5. Trends in livelihoods and good quality of life depend not only on material nature contributions to people (e.g. fish, food, fiber) with high economic value, but also on non-material nature’s contributions to people (e.g. learning and experiences, supporting identities) and regulating (e.g. regulation of extreme events, disease, pollination) that often are not accounted for in traditional 6 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 economic measures {1.3.2}. The perception of nature’s contributions to people depends on a person’s worldview. Nature’s non-material contributions help societies achieve a compassionate and equitable life by providing opportunities for learning and inspiration for culture, as well as helping form identity, social cohesion, and symbolic bonds with nature. 6. There is considerable evidence of the harmful effects of nature’s degradation on public health, livelihoods and both regional and national economies in the Americas {1.2.1}. The harmful effects of nature degradation (e.g. air and water pollution, deforestation) disproportionately affect the poorest populations and therefore pose a threat to inclusive development {1.3.1}. The degradation of nature frequently involves the loss of (natural) assets, which are typically not taken into account in traditional economic measures. Thus, a country may deplete a natural resource base (e.g. forests) to provide positive economic gains even as that resource depletion has other, unaccounted-for consequences, such as degrading regulating contributions (e.g. water supply) and non-material contributions to good quality of life, including recreation, spirituality, religion, and identity. 7. Agricultural production has increased its footprint through the extensification (spreading to new areas), and intensification (greater use of technologies), producing elevated nutrient loading, and introducing pesticides and other agrichemicals into ecosystems. These elevated levels of nutrients and pollutants have negative consequences for ecosystem function, and air, soil and water quality, including major contributions to coastal and freshwater oxygen depletion creating “dead zones” with impacts on biodiversity, human health, and commercial fisheries {1.2.1}. 8. The plurality of values in the Americas shapes use, management and conservation of nature and nature’s contributions to people {1.1}. In particular, trade-offs are experienced in different ways by people holding different worldviews and cultures, depending on their values {1.1}. Regional differences can also influence the way policies affect value given to ecosystems {1.2.4}. Policies addressing ecotourism could emphasize the substantial economic benefits from recreational use associated with ecotourism in conserved areas or give more weight to protective approaches to biodiversity conservation and restrict ecotourism stringently {1.5.5}. 9. All policies can affect nature’s health, and thus its contributions to people, by altering positively and negatively how governments, institutions, and individuals interact with people and nature through regulation, incentive mechanisms, and rights-based approaches {1.5.5}. Benefits from policies providing incentives for increasing or protecting some elements of nature, if not designed and implemented carefully, bring costs of in the loss or reduction of other aspects of nature or nature’s contributions to people. For example, the creation of protected areas may come at the cost of displacement of local community uses of the areas, such as when marine protected areas attract significant ecotourism revenues, but displace community-based fisher families with few alternative options for livelihoods. Policies can also provide purposeful or incidental disincentives to using nature and nature’s contributions to people responsibly provide disincentives to use nature and nature’s contributions to people responsibly. For example, in the energy sector, domestic subsidies of fuel prices promote overutilization of these resources, increase greenhouse gas emissions, which have a negative contribution to climate change accelerating its impacts on biodiversity and people. Alternative policies such as carbon tax or eliminating subsidies for producing or consuming fossil fuels may have different consequences, including improving energy efficiency, development of renewable energy sources and generating health benefits for people. However, such alternatives must be considered fully, as hydroelectric power may require substantial modifications to natural watersheds, and mining the raw materials needed for solar panels can have a large environmental footprint. 10. These trade-offs highlight the complexities that exist in developing responsible policies for conservation and sustainable use of nature and nature’s contributions to people and the importance of the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Regional Assessments to consider the multiple knowledge systems and the values of diverse worldviews, 7 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 including the use of scenarios and models effectively {1.5.5}.The effectiveness and impact of policies and interventions related to nature’s components depend on the way societies perceive the world, negotiate interests, prioritize problems, and find feasible solutions that respect social, institutional, and environmental settings. Such enabling conditions are essential to foster a successful implementation of policies that include environmental and other societal issues (e.g. poverty reduction, including local knowledges and minorities). 11. The objectives of this Assessment are to: a) evaluate the contribution of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in the Americas; b) identify major trends of biodiversity and ecosystems (nature) and ecosystem functions and services, as nature’s contributions to people; c) assess the implications of these trends for human well-being (quality of life) experienced by various societies and cultures; d) identify future potential threats to biodiversity and ecosystems (nature) as well as the nature’s contributions to people that they provide) and the implications of the threats for a good quality of life; and e) identify opportunities for avoiding or mitigating threats to biodiversity, ecosystems (nature) and nature’s contributions to people and when appropriate for restoring nature. The Assessment is structured around the different subregions (North America, Mesoamerica, the Caribbean, and South America), taking into account the distinct biophysical features of major biomes (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services units of analysis) in each subregion and the multiple types of social and economic distributions of wealth and access to nature’s contributions to people. 12. In this Assessment, we synthesize existing knowledge to quantify, to the extent possible, the magnitude and trends in nature’s contributions to people enjoyed by the people of the Americas and assess how these contributions add to quality of life of various cultures in the region. We also assess the impact of several ongoing pressures on nature and nature’s contributions to people including urbanization and depopulation of rural areas, natural resource exploitation, pollution, climate change, loss and degradation of natural habitats (terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine). Within subregions, these syntheses and assessments are done by major biomes with attention to socio- economic and cultural differences. 13. Our purpose is to make policy-relevant knowledge accessible and useful, working towards improved governance of and the sustainable use of nature and nature’s contributions to people. To do this, we take a multidisciplinary and multi-knowledge systems approach. We identify the specific needs of each of the main American subregions regarding access to decision-support tools at different scales, knowledge gaps and capacity-building needs, including the development of capacity for future sustainable uses of nature and nature’s contributions to people. 14. This chapter also introduces key concepts such as nature’s contributions to people, units of analysis and the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services conceptual framework used in this Regional Assessment. Furthermore, this chapter introduces the key core questions posed by policymakers during the scoping phase prior to this Assessment and how several chapters in this Assessment address them. The target audience of this Assessment is primarily policymakers whose work may affect or be affected by nature or nature’s contributions at all levels and the United Nations programmes and multilateral environmental agreements that are key clients for Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services reports. A broader audience includes intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, business and industry, practitioners, indigenous and local knowledge holders, community-based organizations, the scientific community, and the general public. 8 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Overview of the region The Americas covers the widest range of latitude of any of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Regional Assessments. It includes wide expanses of deserts, grasslands, savannas and forests in different climatic conditions (polar, temperate, mediterranean, arid, sub-tropical, tropical) and topographic settings (plains, plateau, mountains). This region has the largest proportion of freshwater resources (Great Lakes and Amazon basin) and extent of rainforest, and the longest terrestrial mountain range (Andes). The Americas include 55 of the 195 terrestrial and freshwater world ecoregions with highly distinctive or irreplaceable species composition (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002). The region hosts 20% of globally identified key biodiversity areas, 26% of globally-identified terrestrial biodiversity hotspots, and the Gulf of California and Western Caribbean are included in the top 18 marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs (Olson et al., 2001; Roberts et al., 2002; Marchese, 2015; UN, 2016a; World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas, n.d.). The region has some of the most extensive wilderness areas in the planet, such as the Pacific Northwest, the Amazon and Patagonia. It also contains the Mesoamerican reef, which is the largest barrier reef in the western hemisphere, and three of the six longest coral reefs in the world (World Atlas, 2017; WWF, 2017). The region is also a main center of origin and domestication for important crops such as potato, quinoa, maize, beans, cacao, tomatoes, squash, chili (Clement et al., 2010; Galluzzi et al., 2010; Parra & Casas, 2016). The Americas are home to globally outstanding terrestrial, freshwater and marine biodiversity, many of the richest biomes, and some of the world’s most important biodiversity hotspots (e.g. Tropical Andes, Brazilian Cerrado and South American Atlantic Forest, California Floristic Province, Mesoamerica, Central Chile, western Ecuador, coral reefs of the Caribbean) (Myers et al., 2000; UN, 2016a). Well-functioning terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems in the Americas underpin regulating functions highly relevant to environmental processes. These include functions such as the regulation of freshwater quantity, flow, and quality (Russi et al., 2013; Grizzetti et al., 2016), carbon and nutrient cycling (Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012), moderation of extreme natural hazards (e.g. vegetation and wetlands help prevent floods), and coastal protection (coastal wetlands and coral reefs provide buffer against waves, storms, and sea level rise) (Ferrario et al., 2014; Van Zanten et al., 2014). People’s quality of life in the Americas is highly dependent on nature’s material contributions (including food and feed, medicine, energy, fibers, and construction materials) to achieve food, water and energy security, and to generate income and support livelihoods and health. The region has the top producers of many agricultural commodities, such as sugar, coffee, and orange juice (Brazil) and coarse grains (USA) (The Economist, 2017). While the region has only 15% of the world’s population, it accounts for 34% of the global Gross Domestic Product at purchasing power parity (GDPPPP) in 2016 (UNDP, 2016; section 4.3.2), contributes around 41% of global ecosystems’ biocapacity1, and 23% of the world’s ecological footprint (with 171% higher per capita ecological footprint than the global average) (Global Footprint Network, 2016). The region is a mosaic of peoples living in diverse socio-economic and political settings with different values, world visions, and interests in nature and its benefits to them. The region still has large local populations producing cash and various subsistence products on small holdings or through small-scale fishing, with a considerable contribution to their local communities and nearby cities. A good quality of life in the Americas is also based on non-material nature’s contributions to people (NCP). Nature can help societies achieve a compassionate and equitable life and provide learning and inspiration for culture, identity, and social cohesion. The beauty of nature reflected in art and architecture has inspired communities and individuals for centuries. Some worldviews, especially from indigenous communities in the Americas (accounting for 5% of the population in the continent), show remarkable symbolic links with nature, some perceiving it as an entity with its own rights. For example, Bolivia and Ecuador explicitly recognize the importance of “Mother Earth and living in harmony with nature” in their legal frameworks 1 In this assessment "biocapacity" is defined by the Global Footprint Network as "the ecosystem’s capacity to produce biological materials used by people and to absorb waste material generated by humans, under current management schemes and extraction technologies". The "biocapacity" indicator used in the present report is based on the Global Footprint Network, unless otherwise specified. 9 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 (Gregor Barié, 2014; Guardiola & García-Quero, 2014; Pacheco, 2014). Several national parks and areas of biological significance have been created at sites of former sacred areas, for example the Alto Fragua Indiwasi National Park, the first Colombian national park, created at the request of indigenous communities, and the biodiversity reserve of the Wemindji Cree of James Bay in Canada (Pilgrim & Pretty, 2010). In addition to the importance of nature´s contributions for social cohesion, bonds and culture, several studies show positive linkages between healthy environments and healthy people. One example is the positive psychological benefits of green space and natural elements to people’s satisfaction and well-being (Fuller et al., 2007). Despite the importance of non-material contributions of nature to indigenous and local populations, decisions of land ownership and other rights to use and access resources have not been inclusive and evenly distributed among the diversity of inhabitants. However, there are institutional arrangements emerging across the region that are attempting to accommodate the plurality of values and interests. Some new arrangements include decentralization of rights to local communities to govern their natural resources, co- management between the state and private or local communities, and other mixes of arrangements among social actors. Given the nature of environmental problems that have no geographic boundaries, multi-boundary policies and cooperation are needed. Some examples include the subregional management of flying fish among eastern Caribbean countries (CRFM, 2014). An example of increasing regional cooperation between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay to manage multi-boundary water resources is showcased in the Río de la Plata basin (Leb, 2015; Siegel, 2017). Another transboundary agreement, governance model, and cooperative initiative to manage water quality is found in the Great Lakes basin between the USA and Canada (Clamen & Macfarlane, 2015; Jetoo et al., 2015; Johns, 2017). The diversity of the region, and nature’s contributions to people are affected by policies, incentives, disincentives, and other decisions at all scales by altering positively and negatively how governments, institutions, and individuals interact with nature. Moreover, socio-environmental challenges are often shared between countries, which suggest that regional and subregional cooperation may be essential to find and enhance solutions (Gander, 2014). Because of these complexities, an integrated assessment of biodiversity and NCP is necessary to untangle the many interlinkages, at regional and subregional scales (Figure 1.1). 10 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 The core policy-relevant questions for the Americas Assessment Given the complexity of environmental problems and processes, decision makers in civil society, governments and the private sector have expressed their need for IPBES experts to answer key core questions specific for the American continent. These requests and suggestions put forward by governments, stakeholders and multilateral environmental agreements were submitted to IPBES. Experts, selected by the IPBES Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP), assessed the scope of Regional Assessments and reached consensus on the contents to be included in each chapter of the Assessment. The resulting scoping assessment was approved by the IPBES Plenary in 2015 and was the foundation for developing this Regional Assessment for the Americas (IPBES, 2015a). Consequently, the Americas Regional Assessment is expected to address the following policy-relevant questions: (a) How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in the region, and what are their interlinkages? (b) What are the status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions underpinning NCP that ultimately affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-being in the region? (c) What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and good quality of life in the region? 11 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 (d) What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food security and quality of life in the region? (e) What gaps in knowledge need to be addressed in order to better understand the distribution of biodiversity and assess drivers, impacts and responses of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services at the regional and biome levels? The Americas Regional and Subregional Assessment on biodiversity, ecosystem function and ecosystem services is designed to provide a credible, legitimate, holistic, and comprehensive analysis of the current state of scientific and other types of knowledge. It will analyze options and policy support tools for sustainable management of biodiversity, ecosystem function and ecosystem services under alternative scenarios and present success stories, best practices, and lessons learned, including progress made in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi biodiversity targets, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This Assessment will also identify current gaps in capacity and knowledge and options for addressing them at relevant levels. How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in the region, and what are their interlinkages? Nature (biodiversity and ecosystems) and the contributions it makes available to people (ecosystem functions and services) referred as NCP are essential to achieve a good quality of life in the Americas. Economies and societies depend –to different extents– on NCP to achieve food, water and energy security, generate income and support livelihoods and health. This includes food and feed, medicine, energy, fibers, and construction materials. Nature´s regulating contributions are critical for environmental functions such as the regulation of freshwater quantity, flow and quality (Kimbell & Brown, 2009; Mueller et al., 2013; Russi et al., 2013; Grizzetti et al., 2016). These contributions are essential to foster water security2 in the Americas (see Chapter 2). They can be threatened by climate change and by excessive extractive uses affecting mainly water users, business operations, and biodiversity (Postel, 2000; Ramsar, 2008; Gleeson et al., 2012). A good quality of life, shaped by one’s worldview, can be interpreted as how non-material nature’s contributions help societies achieve a compassionate and equitable life, and provide learning and inspiration for culture, identity, social cohesion and symbolic bonds with nature. It can also encompass the relationships between humans, land, plants, animals, mountains and other sacred elements (Chapter 3). There is considerable evidence of the harmful effects of nature’s degradation on public health, livelihoods and both regional and national economies in the Americas (see Chapters 2-4). Pollution is considered the number one cause of death and disease, contributing to an estimated nine million premature deaths (Das & Horton, 2017). Harmful effects of environmental degradation (e.g. air pollution, land degradation, natural disasters) disproportionately affect the poorest populations and therefore pose a threat to inclusive development (WB & IHME, 2016). Often, the poorest segments of societies live and work in polluted environments and are most vulnerable to natural disasters and the impacts of extreme weather events, which leads to increasing inequality (Scarano & Ceotto, 2015; Young et al., 2015). Industrial facilities and other sources of air pollution have often been sited close to poor minority communities, which lead to inequitable exposure to poor quality environments (Morello-Frosch et al., 2011). In poor urban neighborhoods, asthma rates are far greater than the national average (Claudio et al., 2006). Recent decades have seen the development of research at the interface of ecology, economics (e.g. TEEB, 2010; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012) and human demographics (Aide & Grau, 2004) that describe the 2 In this assessment “water security” is used to mean the ability to access sufficient quantities of clean water to maintain adequate standards of food and goods production, sanitation and health care and for preserving ecosystems 12 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 complex interdependence of NCP, economies and well-being. These studies focus on drivers of change in land use and patterns of biodiversity and potential outcomes for NCP and human well-being. For example, agricultural lands are the world’s largest managed ecosystem, now covering 40% of global terrestrial surface (Foley et al., 2005). The changes of vegetation were made to enhance a single provisioning service – food for people (Wood & DeClerck, 2015), but this has come at the cost of significant degradation of water quality and quantity, increased greenhouse gas emissions, disruption of natural pest control, pollination and nutrient cycling processes (Matson et al., 1997; Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Klein et al., 2009) and has impacted the livelihoods of local and Indigenous Peoples tied to their natural environments (Altieri & Toledo, 2011; DESA, 2014). However, current research indicates that agricultural lands can become significant providers of many ecosystem services, depending on their design and management (Kremen & Miles, 2012; Zhang et al., 2014; Wood & DeClerck, 2015) as well as on function and the diversity within and the surrounding landscape (Kremen & Ostfeld, 2005; MEA, 2005; Tscharntke et al., 2005; TEEB, 2010). Exploring this issue contributes to understanding relationships among economy, livelihoods and well-being in the region. Finding solutions will require integration across social and ecological systems and investigation of questions about how ecosystem services are co-produced by social systems of management and ecosystem design; how costs and benefits from alternative approaches of NCP use are distributed among sectors of societies and cultures, and consequences of alternative practices for governance of nature and its uses (Bennett et al., 2015). The Assessment will also explore how today’s answers to the questions may shift in response to major drivers, including climate change (e.g. FAO, 2013), cultural preferences, and shifting patterns of land use. The Americas is the most urbanized region worldwide (UN, 2013). In the last five decades, the proportion of the population of Latin America and Caribbean living in rural areas has dropped significantly, as populations become concentrated in urban centers (DESA, 2014). Perhaps most importantly the Assessment will review situations traditionally presented as requiring direct trade-offs among pairs of alternative uses of specific NCP in broader conceptual terms, considering the full range of NCP collectively, the distribution of benefits and costs among the full range of people affected by the trade- offs, and the multiplicity of worldviews about the values attached to the different NCP. What are the status, trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions underpinning nature’s benefit to people that ultimately affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-being in the region? The status and trends of biodiversity and NCP cannot be interpreted independent of the policy framework in which the Assessment is conducted. To illustrate, increases in food production and exports may be seen by policy makers as progress towards their specific goal to increase quality of life of the poor by intensifying use of nature’s contributions (e.g. the 10 year projections of agriculture output of the Brazilian agricultural research centre and Argentina’s, Colombia’s and others in the Amazon basin). However, although intensification of agriculture can increase GDP or Human Development Index (HDI), if not done sustainably, it can lead to loss of ecosystems and their services (FAO, 2013; Venter et al., 2016) that can have downstream affects. The loss of feeding and reproduction habitats in floodplains of the Amazon due to conversion to agriculture could dramatically affect fisheries in the Amazon Delta, which is one of the pillars of traditional and industrial economies there. Consequently, in this Regional Assessment, the status and trends in terms of impacts on biodiversity, extinction rates, and ecosystem health are assessed. Any documented trends, and status relative to descriptive benchmarks (like average for the past decade) may then be interpreted relative to a various goals governments and sectors of society may have for the area. Throughout this Assessment we refer in some places to nature, and in other places to biodiversity. When reference is made to “nature” the intent is to refer to nature in a holistic and unified way – all its structural components, its functional relationships and processes, and the place of humanity within it. When the Assessment is considering specific pieces of nature – populations species, communities or ecosystems, the component functions and processes, or human uses of or impacts on specific aspects of nature, the term biodiversity will be used. The associated text will often include adjectives or phrases to make clear what scale and aspect of “biodiversity” is being discussed. 13 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and good quality of life in the region? In the IPBES conceptual framework guiding this Assessment (Diaz et al., 2015), drivers of change refer to all those external factors that affect nature, anthropogenic assets, nature´s contribution to people and a good quality of life. Drivers of change include institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers, and direct drivers both natural and anthropogenic. Quantifying to the extent possible the magnitudes and trajectories of the drivers in the IPBES framework is an important step in the Regional Assessments, but using that information requires taking into account how drivers interact with nature, NCP, economies, societies and cultures, and with each other. Consideration of these interactions is at the heart of the IPBES Assessment. In any landscape or region, there is a diversity of social actors who utilize the same landscapes and resource base. To illustrate, there is diversity in livelihood strategies across the Amazon. If economic drivers provide incentive to create infrastructure needed extract the specific goods desired by the markets, there will be diverse responses. Greater wealth from the enhanced trade may increase in price and demand of goods locally as well, to which local populations/smallholders and large-holders may respond differently. The differential responses then affect the ability of the land and coastline to provide other NCP (fish habitat, water regulation), with potential additional conflicts between groups and encroachment on indigenous lands and smallholder areas, and the infrastructure may change the many non-material NCP. The Assessment gives importance to tracking such linkages and interdependencies among drivers. What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food security and good quality of life in the region? Different policies and interventions related to biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services are contributing to a good quality of life for peoples in the Americas, which include achieving food security, and supporting livelihoods and public health as well as the sustainable development of local and regional economies. Policies affecting nature and NCP include a wide array of tools and practices that address on one side, the conservation and restoration of nature and on the other side, the management of impacts of development on nature. In the Americas, policy tools that are designed to conserve nature include protected areas, ecological or biological corridors, indigenous and community conserved areas, and conservation incentives such as payment for ecosystem services, eco-certification and sustainable investments. Other policy tools seek to reduce the impact of development on nature by regulating the extent and ways that development can alter nature, used enablers such as environmental impact assessments, which are intended to evaluate the environmental consequences of a development activity or project before implementation. Around the Americas many combinations of these policy strategies and tools are used, according to the capacities, legislation, traditions and values of the specific area. The Americas region has had many successful experiences in biodiversity conservation, restoration and sustainable use at regional and local levels and in terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine systems, as well as failures to keep uses sustainable (UNEP, 2012; Bennett et al., 2017). The resulting lessons learned need to be assessed and understood to inform the development of appropriate policies that ensure sustainability (Foley et al., 2011). However, future policies will function in a context of climate change, teleconnections to other regions, population growth, industrialization and development, and the consequent changes in demand for food, water, biomass, and energy. Consequently, past policies to 14 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 address these types of pressures and demands need to be periodically re-evaluated in the context of these changes in pressures (Foley et al., 2005). In some cases, the magnitude of these impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems are thought to threaten economies, livelihoods and quality of life (IPBES, 2014). However, even the nature of an individual threat can vary among sectors of society, depending both on culturally based views of the value of biodiversity and specific ecosystem services and how the benefits and impacts associated with the uses of the NCP are distributed. A vast array of such policies have been assessed in the Americas, including conservation incentives (e.g. watershed protection initiatives), protected areas, indigenous and community conserved areas, ecosystem restoration, eco-certification and investments that account for environmental, social and governance factors in portfolio selection and management. In most cases, there were some unexpected or undesired results, indicating that the breadth and depth of planning for use of these instruments has scope to improve (Wuenscher et al., 2008; Engel et al., 2008; Joppa & Pfaff, 2009; Arriagada et al., 2012; Miteva et al., 2012; Watson et al., 2014; Barral et al., 2015; Ferraro et al., 2015; Baylis et al., 2016; Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2016; Rodríguez Osuna et al., 2017; Vörösmarty et al., 2018). The impact of different interventions and policies vary widely across the Americas and are often a result of a combination of more than one intervention. For example, a decline in deforestation in Brazil in the past decade was the result of the combined effect of: (a) public and private partnership (b) the banning of soybeans and beef produced in deforested lands (c) improved monitoring and enforcement to combat deforestation, and (d) the 2008 global financial crisis on commodity demand (Nepstad et al., 2014; Cisneros et al., 2015). Separating the effect of single components is complex and case specific (Nepstad et al., 2014). The effectiveness and impact of policies and interventions related to nature’s components depend on the way societies perceive the world, negotiate interests, prioritize problems, and find feasible solutions that respect social, institutional, and environmental settings. Such enabling conditions are essential to foster a successful implementation of policies that include environmental and other societal issues (e.g. poverty reduction, including local knowledges and minorities). Current international policy strategies, goals and high level commitments for the protection of nature and sustainable development are driving changes in the same direction and thus creating synergies (UN, 2015; Dicks et al., 2016; UN, 2016b). Background to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Regional Assessments Assessments that examine the relationships between policy goals and ecosystem services can inform decision makers whose goals and actions are focused on people, society, and economies (Ash et al., 2010). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) concluded that the provision of the majority of ecosystem services is declining and their availability into the future cannot be taken for granted. It also concluded that the failure to consistently give adequate weight to the dependence of human well-being on biodiversity and ecosystems in public and private decision making has allowed those services to be degraded, increasingly compromising our ability to achieve long-term development goals (MEA, 2005). The concept of ecosystem services gained prominence in the MEA (2005). In the years since the MEA, the term ecosystem services has been taken up by many disciplines and user groups, including Environmental Economics, Integrated Ecosystem Assessments, and Spatial Planning (both terrestrial and marine). As the interest in and uses of ecosystem services has increased, interpretation of the term has evolved and diversified (Chan et al., 2016; Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2016). Some uses, particularly in environmental economics, have been interpreted as de-emphasising the ecosystem services that are not readily monetized for use in commerce and optimization or trade-off analyses (e.g. TEEB, 2009). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services3 was established to strengthen the science–policy interface for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, ecosystem services, long-term human well-being, and sustainable development. It has similarities to the 3 www.ipbes.net 15 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in that both carry out assessments using existing knowledge to addresses questions where the knowledge bases are complex, incomplete and uncertain, making straightforward answers not possible (Perrings et al., 2011). In addition, although the biodiversity crisis is global, biodiversity distribution and its conservation status are heterogeneous across the planet. Consequently, governments and other stakeholders require information for solutions that are scalable to multiple levels (Diaz et al., 2015). In this context, the IPBES agreed to conduct four Regional Assessments for the Americas (including the Caribbean islands); Africa; Europe and Central Asia; and Asia and the Pacific. The Americas region comprises a land area of 39 million square km, extending from Arctic to sub Antarctic latitudes. The Americas include some of the most biodiverse biomes in the world (Olson et al., 2001). The Americas region is also culturally diverse with some of the most industrialized urban areas on the planet. This poses a challenge to find ways for different cultures to co-exist and share these ecosystems (Kipuri, 2009). However, it also presents opportunities such as the chance to draw upon the traditional knowledge of indigenous people and local communities when conducting IPBES Assessments. The tensions between these challenges and opportunities from cultural diversity and the different knowledge systems pervade the IPBES Assessments. What are nature contributions to people? The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services considers NCP as an inclusive set of categories across knowledge systems, which comprise all nature’s contributions, both positive and negative, to human quality of life. People obtain these contributions entirely from nature or, more often, apply knowledge and work to co-produce benefits with nature (Pascual et al., 2017). Concerns over the potential for misinterpretation of the categories of ecosystem services led IPBES to use NCP instead of ecosystem services, to ensure cultural and aesthetic relationships between people and nature are considered on an equal plane with other ways that people relate to and use nature. Additionally, some feel the new term may aid with the integration of multiple disciplines and answering of policy-relevant questions that are central to the IPBES mission. IPBES utilizes the term “good quality of life” instead of “well-being”, which is conceived to comprise aspects such as access to food, water, energy and livelihood security but also human health, equitable social relationships, cultural identity, and freedom of choice and action (Pascual et al., 2017). There are many categorizations of NCP, which evolved from the concept of ecosystem services (MEA, 2005). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has decided to use a set of 18 NCP, distinguishing three broad groups - regulating, material, and non-material contributions. Regulating contributions are functional and structural aspects of organisms and ecosystems that may modify environmental conditions experienced by people, or sustain or regulate the generation of material and non-material benefits. In many cases, these regulating NCP are not perceived directly, but nevertheless may be essential to life. Material contributions are substances, objects or other material elements taken from nature that help to sustain people’s physical existence and infrastructure. They are typically consumed and consciously perceived as food, energy, or materials for shelter or ornamental purposes. Non-material contributions affect people’s subjective or psychological quality of life, individually and collectively. The entities may be physically consumed or altered in the process (e.g. animals in recreational or ritual fishing or hunting) or not (individual biodiversity components or ecosystems as source of inspiration). The 18 categories of NCP are listed in Table 1.1. Collectively, these categories include all potential ways that nature contributes to human quality of life. As developed in Chapter 2, many of these NCP are essential to achieve a good quality of life in all cultures, whereas the values attached to others, especially some material and non-material contributions, can be influenced strongly by one’s culture, economic status, and worldview (IPBES, 2015b). The use of these standardized categories of NCP brings a common structure to all the Regional Assessments, but presents challenges when referring to literature that uses other classifications and terms. This is particularly challenging for using the more recently adopted term NCP rather than ecosystem services. 16 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table 1.1. The NCP used by IPBES for linking human well-being and nature Regulating Contributions ● Habitat creation and maintenance – maintaining the ecosystem structures and processes that allow the other NCP to be provided ● Pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules – the ways that nature contributes to productivity of plants through fertilizing seeds and dispersing seeds and other vegetative propagules (IPBES, 2016a). ● Regulation of air quality – regulation of CO2/O2 balance, Ozone for ultraviolet-B absorption, polluting gases ● Regulation of climate – including regulating albedo, some aspects of greenhouse gas emissions, and carbon sequestration ● Regulation of ocean acidification – maintaining the pH of the ocean through buffering the increases and decreases of carbonic acid (caused mainly by uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans) ● Regulation of freshwater quantity, location and timing – for both direct uses by people and indirectly for use by biodiversity and natural habitats ● Regulation of freshwater and coastal water quality – capacity of healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to regulate water supply delivery and/or filter, retain nutrients, sediments and pathogens affecting water quality ● Formation, protection and decontamination of soils and sediments – sediment retention and erosion control, soil formation and maintenance of soil structure, decomposition and nutrient cycling ● Regulation of natural hazards and extreme events – preserved ecosystems’ role in moderating the impact of floods, storms, landslides, droughts, heat waves, and fire ● Regulation of organisms detrimental to humans – pests, pathogens, predators, competitors Material contributions ● Energy – biomass-based fuels ● Food and feed – wild and domesticated sources, feed for livestock and cultured fish ● Materials and assistance – production of materials derived from organisms in crops or wild ecosystems, for construction, clothing, printing, ornamental purposes and decoration ● Medicinal, biochemical and genetic resources – plants, animals and microorganisms that can be used to maintain or protect human health directly or through process of the organisms or their parts Non-material contributions ● Learning and inspiration – opportunities from nature for the development of the capabilities that allow humans to prosper through education, acquisition of knowledge and development of skills ● Physical and psychological experiences – opportunities for physically and psychologically beneficial activities, healing, relaxation, recreation, leisure, tourism and aesthetic enjoyment ● Supporting identities - basis for religious, spiritual, and social-cohesion experiences, for narrative and story-telling and for sense of place, purpose, belonging, rootedness or connectedness ● Maintenance of options – continued existence of a wide variety of species, populations and genotypes, to allow yet unknown discoveries and unanticipated uses of nature, and on-going evolution Source: IPBES (2017a) Nature Contributions to People will be the term used in all Chapter summaries and in the Summary for Policy Makers, to make sure this broad meaning is communicated unambiguously. However, when summarizing the information used sources taken from publications, particularly the information from scientific sources, those sources frequently use “ecosystem services” in ways specific to the discipline of the author. To substitute NCP in those cases would sometimes misrepresent the meaning intended by the sources. Consequently, in the body of the Chapters of this Assessment, “ecosystem services” will be used and the context explained, as necessary, to present the information from the source accurately. 17 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Why are nature contributions to people relevant to human quality of life (well-being and livelihoods) in the Americas? Human’s quality of life in the Americas is highly dependent on Nature’s material contributions to achieve food and energy security, generate income and support livelihoods and health. This includes food and feed, medicine, energy, fibers, and construction materials (Chapter 2). In terms of food, the Americas is an important commodity producer, where Brazil, USA, Mexico, Canada, Honduras, Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Colombia and Guatemala are amongst the top 10 producers of commodities, including wheat, rice, sugar, coarse grains, tea, coffee, cocoa, and orange juice. Brazil is the top producer of sugar, coffee and orange juice. The USA is the most important producer of coarse grains, which include corn, barley, sorghum, oats, rye, millet, triticale and others. Six countries in the Americas have the largest agricultural output in terms of agriculture and fisheries: USA with $226 billion in 2013 and Brazil with $111billion in 2014 (The Economist, 2017). This region has also some of the biggest producers of cereals, meat, fruit, vegetables, roots and tubers, as well as fisheries and aquaculture products (USA, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina). In terms of biomass-based fuels, the USA, Brazil and Argentina are the world top three major oil seed (soybeans, rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower seed and groundnuts) producers (The Economist, 2017). Food production (including commodities) contributes positively to some aspects of human well- being (short and medium-term GDP) but it can also generate a series of environmental externalities (in the short, medium and long-term) that have negative effects on nature and people. Some examples include pollution derived from fertilizer application (nutrient runoff) from agricultural sites into freshwater systems, which result in harmful impacts on freshwater resources, biodiversity, air quality, and coastal systems (Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2015; Chapter 4). Medicines provided from nature have been used for several thousands of years to treat disease and injuries, and relieve pain. Despite rapid progress in drug development, most prescribed medicines used in developed countries are still based on or patterned after natural compounds found in animals, plants and microbes (Chivian & Bernstein, 2010). This is especially relevant for drugs designed to treat infections and cancer. Other examples include aspirin from the White Willow Tree (Salix alba vulgaris), morphine from the Opium poppy (Papaver somniferum); azidothymidine used to treat HIV/AIDS (Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection / Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) patterned after marine sponge compounds Cryptotethya crypta (Chivian & Bernstein, 2010). Diets based on natural products and active livelihoods of indigenous groups (Tsimane) in the Bolivian Amazon is an example of significantly positive health outcomes (lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population to date) (Kaplan et al., 2017). A good quality of life in the Americas is also based on nature’s non-material contributions, which help societies achieve a compassionate and equitable life and provide opportunities for learning and inspiration for culture, identity, social cohesion and symbolic bonds with nature (IPBES, 2017a). The beauty of nature reflected in art and architecture has inspired communities and individuals for centuries. Some worldviews especially from indigenous communities in the Americas show remarkable symbolic links with nature, perceiving it as an entity with own rights. For example, some South American countries (Bolivia and Ecuador) explicitly recognize the importance of “Mother Earth and living in harmony with nature” in their legal frameworks as means to provide a good quality of life (Gregor Barié, 2014; Guardiola & García-Quero, 2014; Pacheco, 2014; Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, 2015). It is no coincidence that several national parks have been created at sites of former sacred natural areas, for example the Alto Fragua Indiwasi National Park, the first Colombian national park, created at the request of indigenous communities (Pilgrim & Pretty, 2010). Sacred natural areas recognized by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) in the Americas include the Gran Ruta Inca, the ancient route across the Andean highlands, American indian sacred springs and waters of New Mexico, Sacred sites and gathering grounds initiative in Arizona, Sacred lakes and springs, Huascarán world heritage site and Biosphere Reserve in Peru (Schaaf & Lee, 2006). Similarly, in Canada, a biodiversity reserve was established at the request of an indigenous group, the Wemindji Cree of James Bay (Pilgrim & Pretty, 2010). Non-material contributions have served functions cross-culturally as well as within cultures. For example, aquatic ecosystems have historically been 18 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 a means for promoting cooperation and resolving conflict, and thus serve an important societal role, mainly for international, transboundary watersheds (UNEP-DHI & UNEP, 2016). In addition to the importance of nature´s contributions for social cohesion, bonds and culture, studies show positive linkages between healthy environments and healthy people (Maller et al., 2006). One example is the positive psychological benefits of greenspace and natural elements to people’s satisfaction and well- being (Fuller et al., 2007; Kaplan et al. 2017). Nature in the Americas also underpins regulating functions (regulating contributions) highly relevant to environmental processes that are essential to people’s good quality of life such as the regulation of freshwater quantity, flow and quality. Forests and wetlands are the ecosystems mostly recognized for their role in the regulation of freshwater supplies, which is abundant in the region (compared to the global average) but unevenly available across geographies and time (Green et al., 2015). Some cities in South America face severe water scarcity episodes during specific times of the year (Bogotá, Quito, La Paz, Lima) as well as in USA states such as California, Texas and Florida. Areas with high scarcity occur where densely populated areas compete for water with intensely irrigated agriculture, or areas with reduced water storage (Buytaert & De Bièvre, 2012; Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2016). The importance of such regulating contributions is showcased by the now-classic example of the city of New York paying for upstream watershed protection rather than investing in constructing more expensive additional filtration plants (Hanson et al., 2011; McDonald et al., 2016). These types of contributions are essential to foster water security as well as other benefits in the Americas (Ramsar, 2008; WWAP, 2015). Conserved areas are key to providing with drinking water for several important cities of the Americas including in the USA, Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela (WB & WWF, 2003; Pabon-Zamora et al., 2008; Dudley et al., 2016; Harrison et al., 2016; Hermoso et al., 2016). However, choices of this type also illustrate the complexity of such policies; upstream watershed protection measures require residents and traditional users associated with the protected forests to accept financial payments in exchange for constrains on development opportunities and possibly some traditional forest uses, far from the urban area where the water is used. Other contributions of nature to regulate freshwater quality are related to wetlands that deliver well-documented benefits in waste treatment (e.g. wetlands and other aquatic ecosystems remove waste, recycle nutrients and dilute pollutants) and thereby act as natural water purification plants (De Groot et al., 2002; Russi et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2014; McDonald et al., 2016). The flows of freshwater ecosystems are also important for energy production (for example, most of electricity generation in the USA comes from power plants that rely on water resources for cooling), which can affect power output and reliability (Feeley et al., 2008; Macknick et al., 2011; EIA, 2017). Other important regulation functions that nature provides include the regulation of climate hazards and extreme events. Vegetation reduces the impact and likelihood of snow avalanches and landslides and coastal wetlands can moderate floods (Hawley et al., 2012). For example, social and economic losses as a result of extreme weather events in Brazil (i.e. flooding, flash-floods and landslides) between 2002-2012 have caused significant damage valued between $57.21 to 113.1 billion or 0.4 to 0.9% of Brazil’s accumulated GDP in that period (Young et al., 2015). The state of Rio de Janeiro reported that 45% of all national deaths were associated with such hazards (Young et al., 2015). In the USA, six climate-related hazards resulted in health and social costs in the order of $14 billion between 2000 and 2009 (Knowlton et al., 2011). Box 1.1 Nature´s contributions to people in the Amazon The Amazon region presents a high diversity of peoples’ values and interests in how to use, interact and experience nature to guarantee a good quality of life. Nature in the Amazon has a wealth of ecosystems and biodiversity that are indispensable to delivering contributions to people NCP across scales (e.g. the Amazon river basin is one of the most mega-biodiverse and the largest source of freshwater in the world) (Marengo, 2006; Tundisi et al., 2015; Winemiller et al., 2016). At local scales, these benefits include those enjoyed as spiritual, social cohesion and cultural continuity as well as those managed as agricultural, mining, forestry, pharmaceutical and fishery commodities. For example, Amazon rivers and its seasonally 19 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 flooded forests provide habitats for fish that support livelihoods of thousands of people (Tundisi et al., 2015). At landscape to regional scales, Amazon’s forests regulate hydrological cycles (Veiga et al., 2004), water quality, and nutrient cycling that supports freshwater biodiversity and people (Menton et al., 2009). At continental to global scales, the importance of the Amazon in the regulation of the global carbon cycle is well recognized (Anderson-Teixeira et al., 2012; Pinho et al., 2014; Phillips & Brienen, 2017). This includes the forest’s role in carbon sequestration (approx. 120 billion metric tons of C biomass), climate patterns (Pires & Costa, 2013; Tundisi et al., 2015) and extreme events such as floods and droughts (Nazareno & Laurance, 2015). Why are people relevant to nature’s ability to provide nature contributions to people? The interaction between people and nature can affect nature’s ability to provide regulating, material and non-material contributions; as illustrated in section 1.3.2. Policy decisions can enhance nature’s ability to provide NCP, such as the upstream watershed protection example above. However, people’s decisions can also contribute to nature’s degradation, leading to negative impacts on health, livelihoods, regional and national economies, as well as other dimensions of good quality of life (MEA, 2005). The degradation of nature frequently involves the loss of natural assets (MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2009). Typically, these losses are not taken into account by traditional economic measures (TEEB, 2009; Costanza et al., 2014). The use of many traditional economic indicators often has resulted in a country depleting a natural resource base such as forests to provide positive gains measured by a specific valuation method such as GDP gain. Resource depletion has many other consequences that may affect people’s quality of life, including the degradation of non-material contributions (recreation, spirituality, religion, and identity). This shortcoming has prompted interest in a broader range of more inclusive economic measures under way in international finance and development agencies (see Chapter 2). This Regional Assessment confronts the complex links between nature’s contributions to people and a good quality of life for the diverse cultures and worldviews in the Americas. Within Chapter 2, the Assessment first describes key nature’s contributions to people for the subregions and major biomes in the Americas. In most of the Americas, multiple cultures share NCP, and the chapter also discusses the different values these cultures may associate with specific NCP. Based on key indicators, the status of those contributions is assessed. Subsequent chapters then develop the reciprocal interactions of people and nature, in the contact of how NCP contribute to and are affected by those interactions. Why do we need a Regional Assessment? Biodiversity, ecosystem functions and NCP make essential contributions to the economy, livelihoods and good quality of life of people throughout the world (CBD, 2010; UN, 2015; CBD/FAO/WB /UNEP/UNDP, 2016). The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity targets seek to provide an overarching framework for effective and urgent action to manage biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential functions and services, thereby contributing to peoples’ quality of life and poverty eradication. These considerations are also included in the ongoing development of the Post-2015 UN (United Nations) Development Agenda and the associated SDG. Regional and national biodiversity strategies and action plans are important vehicles for implementing the Aichi biodiversity targets and adapting them to regional and national conditions. Implementation strategies and plans are also being developed at multiple scales for the SDG. These strategies and action plans need to be informed about the linkages between NCP and good quality of life of diverse cultures and societies, in part because these linkages make the Aichi targets and SDG themselves interdependent. These interdependencies among these goals and targets provide opportunities to build on synergies, such as actions to protect upstream forests (for their role in regulating freshwater quality and their provision to 20 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 downstream users) that directly contribute to achieve several goals: SDG 15 related to the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems, SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities, SDG 13 on climate action and SDG 3 on good health and well-being. However, planning must also take account of potential tensions among the SDG, such as efforts to promote SDG 14 on a healthy ocean must still find ways to allow harvesting of seafood to increase, as an essential contribution to SDG 2 on food security. Without the types of integrated assessments represented by IPBES, the development of policies and action plans for goals like the Aichi targets or SDG would not be informed of how to take these interactions into account. Moreover, assessments at regional and subregional scales are important, since these scales are ones where the synergies and tensions are often expressed and must be taken into account in policies. Efforts to meet these targets thus require a strong knowledge base and strengthened interplay between scientists and policymakers, and between different knowledge systems to which the regional and subregional assessments are well placed to contribute (Griggs et al., 2013; Bhaduri et al., 2016). What is an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Regional Assessment? An IPBES assessment is a critical evaluation of the state of knowledge in biodiversity and NCP. It is based on existing peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and other available knowledge such as indigenous and local knowledge. It does not involve the undertaking of original primary research. The Assessment involves a literature review (scientific articles, government reports, indigenous and local knowledge and other sources), but is not limited to such a review. The process of evaluating the state of knowledge involves the analysis, synthesis and critical judgement of information by more than 100 international experts from 23 countries over three years, and then aided by the assignment of clear confidence terms, the presentation of such findings to governments and relevant stakeholders on their request. IPBES Assessments focus on what is known, but also on what is currently uncertain. Assessments play an important role in guiding policy through identifying areas of broad scientific agreement as well as areas of scientific uncertainty that may need further knowledge generation such as through scientific research. Regional Assessments are also a vehicle for the implementation of IPBES’s functions, such as capacity building, the identification of knowledge gaps, knowledge generation, and the development of policy support tools. Furthermore, the Assessment is critical to furthering IPBES’s operational principle of ensuring the full use of national, subregional and regional knowledge, as appropriate, including by ensuring a bottom-up approach (Schmeller & Bridgewater, 2016). The Regional Assessments inform a range of stakeholders in the public and private sectors and civil society, including indigenous people and local communities, who will all benefit from sharing information and data that allows progress to be made towards the Aichi Biodiversity targets and the SDG. The Americas Assessment provides users with a credible, legitimate, authoritative, holistic and comprehensive analysis of the current state of biomes within regional and subregional biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions, based on scientific and other knowledge systems, and with options and policy support tools for the sustainable management of biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions under alternative scenarios; it also present success stories, best practices and lessons learned, identifying current gaps in capacity and knowledge and options for addressing them at relevant levels. Who are the target audiences of this document? Some primary and broader target audiences for IPBES’s outputs are listed below although the list is not exhaustive, and many other categories of users may find the assessments useful in pursuing their mandates or goals: 1) Primary target audiences: 21 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 a) Policymakers whose work may affect or be affected by biodiversity, ecosystem services or NCP at all levels: IPBES member States, ministries of environment, energy, industry, planning, finance and agriculture, local authorities and the scientific advisers of policymakers need to be informed about IPBES so that they can use it as a source of independent expert knowledge; b) b)UN programmes and multilateral environmental agreements: such as the CBD, and the Convention on Migratory Species, but also UN programmes with broad mandates for development and uses of planetary resources, such as the Global Environmental Fund and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). IPBES works with them, including during outreach and dissemination activities; 2) Broader audiences: a) Scientific community: IPBES depends on the scientific community for the production of its reports and should therefore target this community to increase its engagement. International associations of scientists could be targeted as part of outreach activities; b) Indigenous and local knowledge holders and experts: The IPBES commitment to use multiple knowledge systems makes both communities important target audiences; c) Business and industry: it is anticipated that IPBES’s reports will be considered by businesses and industries to help find sustainable ways of avoiding, minimizing, mitigating and offsetting impacts on ecosystems; d) Practitioners or implementers: a multitude of organizations and individuals involved in the implementation of programs depending on or affecting biodiversity and ecosystem services working on the ground will be interested in learning about the products of IPBES, such as policy support tools, and how they can use them; e) Community-based organizations: certain communities, including environmental non- governmental organizations. will be greatly affected by biodiversity loss and/or committed to its rehabilitation, and will therefore need to be aware of the findings of IPBES’s assessments and policy support tools. The IPBES Secretariat could work with relevant networks to disseminate communications materials to these communities; f) Intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations: these may be able to support IPBES’s objectives by providing outreach to their constituencies, including policymakers or the private sector, and by using the networks connected to their respective National Focal Points; g) Funding agencies that support national, regional and international activities and may play crucial roles in enabling the actions of other target audiences on the list; h) The media: the IPBES Secretariat would not be in a position to reach all audiences directly and would therefore rely on good media relations to reach broader audiences; i) Communities and the public at large. All these categories of target audiences may act as both contributors to and end users of IPBES outputs. All of them may: i. Contribute to the activities of the work programme through their experience, expertise, knowledge, data, information and capacity-building experience; ii. Use or benefit from the outcomes of the work programme; iii. Encourage and support the participation of scientists and knowledge holders in the work of the Platform. 22 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Roadmap to core questions and chapters in this Regional Assessment Chapter 1 sets the scene, and presents the policy-relevant questions identified for the region, subregions, units of analysis, and the IPBES conceptual framework used in the Americas Regional Assessment. The analysis in the remaining chapters is conducted to address those policy-relevant questions posed by governments and other decision makers (Figure 1.2) within the IPBES framework, which was designed to help address the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services topics (Diaz et al., 2015). Chapter 2 is the primary place where the key following policy-relevant question is addressed: (1) How do biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services contribute to the economy, livelihoods, food security, and good quality of life in the regions, and their interlinkages? It assesses the values of nature’s contributions to people, the dependence or interrelationship of human well-being on biodiversity and NCP, information on the trends in human-wellbeing, and links those to trends in NCP. This chapter most explicitly draws on the diversity of knowledge systems, including Indigenous and local knowledge in addition to “western science”. Also, in this Assessment, the concept of good quality of life is central to this Chapter, and continues as a thread through the subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 focuses on the status and trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions underpinning nature’s benefit to people considering both structural and functional features of the biotic communities and their abiotic environments. It is the central place where the following policy-relevant question is addressed: (2) What are the status, and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions that ultimately affect their contribution to the economy, livelihoods and well-being in the region? Chapter 3 assesses the amount of biodiversity found in the Americas, considering native and non-native biodiversity, how it is distributed across the Americas, the present state of ecosystems and biomes, recent changes in ecosystems and their biodiversity, the conservation status of species, and trends in levels of 23 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 protection. It also provides an overview of the relative important of the units of analysis by subregion with regard to NCP. Additionally, the state of key ecosystem functions is assessed where information is available. Chapter 4 focuses on drivers of changes in biodiversity and addresses the policy question: (3) What are the pressures driving the change in the status and trends of biodiversity, ecosystem functions, ecosystem services and good quality of life in the region? This chapter presents information on status and trends of the factors that have potential to drive changes in biodiversity components, and consequently in the NCP. Chapter 4 reaches back to Chapter 3 for linkages of the drivers to biodiversity trends, and forwards to Chapters 5 and 6 for evaluation of alterative options for the intensity of the drivers. Where possible, it reaches toward finding evidence of possible indirect links between specific drivers and the trends in NCP described in Chapter 2. Chapter 5 provides a synthesis of the information contained primarily in chapters 2-4 and makes use of scenarios and modelling developed for the Americas Region. In this synthesis, the Chapter examines how the core questions 1-3 interact to affect human well-being (5.4). In particular, it examines the future trends of biodiversity and drivers and what those trends might mean in terms of the archetype scenarios of “business as usual” and “great transitions” (5.4, 5.5.1). Additionally, the Chapter examines the role and significance of telecoupling (5.6.1) and presents key findings on both telecoupling and data gaps (5.8), especially with respect to time series data on status of biodiversity and drivers. To the extent possible, the chapter explores changes in the trajectories of multiple drivers and the role played by synergies, trade-offs and adaptive behaviour. Chapter 6 takes note of how the linkages and scenarios in earlier chapters may be facilitated or impeded by various policies options. It is where key question 4 is addressed: (4) What are the actual and potential impacts of various policies and interventions on the contribution of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services to the sustainability of the economy, livelihoods, food security and good quality of life in the region? 24 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 This chapter provides information to identify policies that may respond effectively to trends in biodiversity, NCP or human well-being. All chapters strive to present information in ways that are relevant to policy- making but not prescriptive regarding choices among policies and options for decision makers at the regional and subregional levels in response to the scenario set out in previous chapter. Chapter 6 also explores the policy framework available and their track record in the Americas. To the extent possible many of the social, economic, cultural and governance factors that affect their performance are considered. What gaps in knowledge need to be addressed to better understand and assess drivers, impacts and responses of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services at the regional level? Much biodiversity remains to be scientifically under sampled for all types of ecosystems in the Americas, particularly in South America and in the deep oceans. The potential areas with gaps in knowledge in this Regional Assessment include: i. the contributions of NCP to quality of life, considering the mismatch of social and quality of life (well-being) data produced at the political scale and ecological data produced at a biome scale; ii. the assessment of non-material NCP that contribute to quality of life, iii. the linkages from indirect to direct drivers and from the drivers to specific changes in biodiversity and NCP, iv. the factors that affect the ability to generalize and scale up or down the results of individual studies, and v. the evaluation of the impacts of short-term and long-term policy and programmes. vi. Investments in generating new knowledge on these matters, which are discussed across chapters, may better elucidate how human quality of life is highly dependent on a healthy natural environment as well as how threats to natural environments affect quality of life in the short, median and long-term. Relationship of the key questions to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and its Aichi biodiversity targets and to the Sustainable Development Goals The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessments consider the synergies and trade-offs associated with meeting multiple goals and the interactions among the social (including cultural), economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. This Regional Assessment is highly relevant in the context of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and Aichi biodiversity targets, as well as national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. The CBD strategic plan and targets are products of this convention’s negotiations while the SDG resulted from the entire UN level negotiations agreed upon 193 countries. In this Regional Assessment, the time frame of analyses covers the current status, trends up to 2020 (going back as far as 50 years) and plausible future projections, with a focus on various periods between 2020 and 2050 that cover key target dates related to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the SDG. The analyses include an evaluation of the likelihood of achieving the targets and goals (Chapters 2-6) if present trends continue, and identify the types of changes in trends of biodiversity, and the drivers of those trends that would increase the likelihood of achieving targets and goals that at present may appear elusive. The degree of government’s commitment to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are captured partly in the endorsement of many global agreements and conventions about biodiversity and its uses, 25 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 presented in Table 1.2. For most countries, global commitments are often uncoupled from national policies (6.3). Table 1.2. Countries participating in international environmental commitments by subregion North Convention name America- Mesoamerica- South bbean- 2* 8 America- Cari 12 13* Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1 8 12 13 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1 8 9 13 Paris Accord (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 2 7 10 13 CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) 2 8 12 11 United Nations Conventions to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 2 8 12 13 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 0 3 12 2 Ramsar Convention 2 8 11 8 Percentage of Area Terrestrial 14.40 28.20 25 14.60 Protected Marine 6.90 2.10 3.90 1.20 *Greenland and the 13 Caribbean Island Protectorates still have aspects of foreign policy such as becoming Parties to international agreements and conventions, influenced by other soverign States, and are not included in this table. Source: Own representation and percentage of area protected from Juffe-Bignoli et al. (2014). In the Americas, all countries, with the exception of the USA, are signatory to the CBD. Results from the 24 countries of the Latin America and Caribbean regions have reported mixed levels of progress towards the biodiversity 2020 Aichi targets. Most progress has been reported in targets 11 and 17 (Protected areas and the adoption and implementation of policy instruments). There is evidence of advanced progress in target 1 (People being aware of the value of biodiversity and the steps to conserve and use it sustainably); target 16 (Nagoya Protocol) and target 19 (Improved biodiversity information sharing). The targets reporting less progress were targets 6 (Anthropogenic pressures/direct drivers of change minimized) and 10 (Management of fish and aquatic invertebrate stocks) (Chapter 6). Even at these early stages of the sustainable development agenda, SDG are already providing essential policy entry points to address a broad array of drivers that affect biodiversity and ecosystem services (Chapter 6). Given the negative impacts of policy choices and trade-offs on some aspects of biodiversity and NCP and quality of life, few of the Aichi biodiversity targets will be met by 2020 for most countries in the Americas. In a longer term perspective, few SDG or targets set under the Paris Agreement are likely to be met under current business as usual scenarios (Chapters 2-3). The conceptual approach for this Assessment For an assessment to address the many types of issues encompassed in the IPBES core questions in section 1.4 and be of use to the broad range of target audiences described in 1.3.6, it must have as well structured foundation. Integrative but explicit conceptual frameworks are particularly useful tools in fields requiring interdisciplinary collaboration, where the frameworks are used to make sense of complexity by clarifying and focusing thinking about relationships, supporting communication across disciplines and knowledge systems and between knowledge and policy. This foundation is provided by the IPBES Conceptual Framework. 26 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 The analytical Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Conceptual Framework The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has developed a conceptual framework (CF, Figure 1.4) as a concise summary of the relationships between people and nature in words and pictures. The framework provides a common terminology and structure for the components that are the focus of a system analysis, and proposes assumptions about key relationships in the system. The main elements of the IPBES Conceptual Framework • Nature here refers to the natural world, with an emphasis on biodiversity and ecosystems. Nature gains values based on the provision of various benefits to people, but within IPBES Assessments, nature is also recognized as having intrinsic value, independent of human experience. • Anthropogenic assets refer to knowledge, technology, financial assets, built infrastructure, etc. • Nature’s contributions to people is, for IPBES, an inclusive category across knowledge systems. It is defined as “all the benefits (and when they occur, losses or detriments) that humanity obtains from nature” (Pascual et al., 2017; sections 1.3.1-1.3.2) • Institutions and governance systems and at least some other indirect drivers are fundamentally linked to the direct anthropogenic drivers that affect nature. They include systems of access to land, legislative arrangements, international regimes such as agreements for the protection of endangered species, and economic policies. • Direct drivers, both natural and anthropogenic, affect nature directly. The direct anthropogenic drivers are those that flow from human institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers. They include positive and negative effects, e.g. habitat conversion (e.g. degradation or restoration of land and aquatic habitats), climate change, and species introductions. Direct natural drivers (e.g. volcanic eruptions) can directly affect nature, anthropogenic assets, and quality of life, but their impacts are not the main focus of IPBES. • Indirect drivers, are the ways in which societies organize themselves, and the resulting influences on other components. They are the underlying causes of environmental change that are exogenous to the ecosystem in question. Because of their central role, influencing all aspects of human relationships with nature, these are key levers for decision-making. • Good quality of life is the achievement of a fulfilled human life. It is a highly value-based and context- dependent element comprising multiple factors such as access to food, water, health, education, security, cultural identity, material prosperity, spiritual satisfaction, and freedom of choice. A society’s achievement of good quality of life and the vision of what this entails directly influences institutions and governance systems and other indirect drivers and, through them, all other elements. Good quality of life, also indirectly shapes, via institutions, the ways in which individuals and groups relate to nature. Likewise, the institutions and governance systems can be used by people to influence a society’s value system and perception of what constitutes good quality of life”. IPBES does not address this aspect of the conceptual framework in the Assessments, but actions governments and societies may choose to take based on the findings of the IPBES Assessments often require addressing this pathway wisely. Within these broad and cross-cultural categories, the Assessment identifies more specific subcategories, associated with knowledge systems and disciplines in the Americas. For example, different worldviews may have large gaps between the ways in which ecosystem goods and services (“green” category) and contributions of nature (“blue” category) in Figure 1.4 are conceptualized, valued and used accordingly. However, both categories are concerned with the things that societies obtain from the natural world, which are collectively represented by the inclusive category nature’s contributions to people (“bold and black” category). For consistency across Assessments, and to follow the spirit of the conceptual framework, the 27 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Assessments will use the inclusive “bold and black” categories as the starting point, and then refer back to them in the conclusions, although more specific categories, strongly dependent on discipline, knowledge system and purpose are likely to be used in the analytical work during the Assessment. The use of this conceptual framework is presented in an example in the Amazon region in Figure 1.5. In the main panel, delimited in grey, boxes and arrows denote the elements of nature and society that are the main focus of the Platform. In each of the boxes, the headlines in black are inclusive categories that should be intelligible and relevant to all stakeholders involved in IPBES and embrace the categories of western science (in green) and equivalent or similar categories according to other knowledge systems (in blue). The blue and green categories mentioned here are illustrative, not exhaustive, and are further explained in the main text. Solid arrows in the main panel denote influence between elements; the dotted arrows denote links that are acknowledged as important, but are not the main focus of IPBES. The thick coloured arrows below and to the right of the central panel indicate that the interactions between the elements change over time (horizontal bottom arrow) and occur at various scales in space (vertical arrow). The vertical lines to the right of the time arrow indicate the geographical scale (scope), build on properties and relationships acting at finer (national and subnational) scales (resolution). The resolution line does not extend all the way up to the global level because, for the types of relationships explored by IPBES the spatially heterogeneous nature of biodiversity is important, so IPBES Assessments will be most useful if they retain finer resolution. 28 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 How this Regional Assessment deals with different knowledge systems Scientific knowledge, indigenous knowledge, and local knowledge systems all play a central role in IPBES Assessments. In IPBES, indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) systems are defined as dynamic bodies of integrated, often holistic, social-ecological knowledge, practices and beliefs about the relationship of living beings, including humans, with one another and with their environment. Indigenous and local knowledge is highly diverse, produced in a collective manner and reproduced at the interface between the diversity of ecosystems and human cultural systems. It is continuously evolving through the interaction of experiences and different types of knowledge (written, oral, tacit, practical, and scientific) among indigenous peoples and local communities. Governance, institutions and policies vary in the extent and ways that they take into account indigenous and local knowledge and practices (Pascual et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Vogt et al., 2016). Indigenous and local knowledge can take a particularly prominent role when addressing “values” and valuation in 29 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Assessments. Valuation tools that use multiple knowledge systems to fully capture the multiplicity of culturally different worldviews, visions and approaches to achieving a good quality of life are needed and often not available (Tengö et al., 2014). To this end, IPBES has developed a preliminary guide on the diverse values of nature and its contributions to people. This guide complements guidance IPBES has developed for the integration of ILK into its Assessments that respects not only the diversity and value of ILK, but also the rights of indigenous and local communities to share in the benefits of knowledge gained from the Assessmentss (Pascual et al., 2014; Berbes-Blazquez, 2016). IPBES integrates ILK into its Assessmentss through the appointment of experts to conduct and review Assessmentss represent, who can or have expertise, in ILK. How this Regional Assessment deals with “value” Understanding values, how they are conceptualized and formed and how they change across contexts and scales, is critical to inform decision making and policy design at local, national and global levels (IPBES, 2015b). The ways in which nature and its contributions to people for a good quality of life are perceived and valued may be starkly different and even conflicting (IPBES, 2015b; Pascual et al., 2017). Multiple values can be associated with multiple cultural and institutional contexts and may be often difficult to compare by the same measure. Therefore, IPBES recognizes that the word ‘value’ can refer to a given worldview or cultural context, a preference someone has for a particular state of the world, the importance of something for itself or for others (IPBES, 2015b; Pascual et al., 2017). At present, governance, institutions and policies are challenged to take adequately into account the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its contributions to people embodied in the IPBES conceptual framework (Pascual et al., 2017). Any single valuation methodology applied to NCP cannot avoid reflecting the values attached to the specific uses to be made by the NCP, and those uses vary widely among cultures, societies and economic strata. Therefore, if valuation is intended to encompass diverse perspectives, a multiplicity of valuation methodologies will be needed, as well as methods for combining the results in ways that do not selectively favour one worldview over other. Such methodologies and strategies for combining results are not yet fully developed. Nevertheless, assessments striving to move in that direction can be a significant resource for a range of decision makers, including governments, civil society organizations, indigenous peoples and local communities. Therefore, IPBES Assessmentss will be based on the recognition of culturally different worldviews, visions and approaches to achieving a good quality of life in the context of the conceptual framework (section 1.5.1 presenting results of using multiple approaches to valuation, and interpreting the results in inclusive contexts). How can models and scenarios serve as tools for decision-making? Scenarios are plausible, challenging, and relevant stories about how the future might unfold, while a scenario archetype is a group of futures which are deemed ‘similar’ according to the purpose of a specific analysis (Boschetti et al., 2016). The different scenarios in a set can reflect different plausible future trajectories of indirect and direct drivers of nature and NCP; responses to potential policy and management interventions; or the results of a combination of these (IPBES, 2016b). Models refer to qualitative, or when possible quantitative, descriptions of the links between any two elements of the framework that provide the means to relate changes in one element to estimates, or projections, of changes in the other. Scenarios and models can provide an effective means of gaining insight into relationships among nature, nature’s contributions to people, and good quality of life according to different worldviews. For example, we can analyze different scenarios of access to land impact well-being of indigenous communities (given the dependence of these actors on certain components of biodiversity such as food and medicinal plants, see chapter 2), show how those same scenarios affect differently other actors such as agricultural producers, or inform discussions of both perspectives. 30 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 One of the key objectives in using scenarios and models is to move away from a reactive mode of decision- making, in which society responds to the degradation of biodiversity and nature’s benefits to people in an uncoordinated, piecemeal fashion, to a proactive mode, in which society anticipates change and takes actions that avoid, reduce or mitigate adverse impacts, capitalizes on important opportunities, and ensure adaptation and mitigation strategies are integrative and holistic (Carpenter et al., 2006). Scenarios and models used in IPBES are typically explicitly or implicitly built on four main components: ● Scenarios of socioeconomic development (e.g. population growth, economic growth, per capita food consumption, greenhouse gas emissions) and policy options (e.g. reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, subsidies for bioenergy); ● Projections of changes in direct drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem function (e.g. land use change, fishing pressure, climate change, invasive alien species, nitrogen deposition); ● Projections of the impacts of drivers on biodiversity (e.g. species extinctions, changes in species abundance and shifts in ranges of species, species groups or biomes); ● Projections of the impacts of drivers and changes in biodiversity on NCP (e.g. ecosystem productivity, control of water flow and quality, ecosystem carbon storage, cultural values). These elements generally correspond to the structure of the IPBES conceptual framework, and Figure 1.6 below illustrates how scenarios and models are typically coupled to provide projections of future trajectories of biodiversity, NCP and human well-being. Elements can range from highly quantitative (e.g. econometric models of socioeconomic development) to qualitative (e.g. prospective scenarios of development based on expert-stakeholder dialogues (Coreau et al., 2009). The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to match its scenarios carefully to the needs of particular policy or decision contexts, paying particular attention to (i) the choice of drivers or policy options that determine the appropriate types of scenarios (e.g. exploratory, target-seeking or policy screening); (ii) the impacts on nature and nature's benefits that are of interest and that determine the types of models of impacts that should be mobilized; (iii) the diverse values that need to be addressed and that determine the appropriate methods for assessing those impacts; and (iv) the type of policy or decision-making processes that are being supported and that determine the suitability of different assessment or decision-support tools (e.g. multi-criteria analysis and management strategy evaluation). 31 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Impact of policies on nature’s contribution to people Policies can affect ecosystem structure, functions and ecosystem services (NCP) by altering how governments, institutions, and individuals interact with nature. Policies are designed to address particular challenges such as the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services using different types of tools or instruments. Some policy tools provide incentives for behaviors that are consistent with restoring or maintaining ecosystems or disincentives to behaviors that can lead to harmful impacts on ecosystem structure or function or availability of NCP (e.g. fines and taxes). Policies can indirectly affect the value decision-makers or citizens give to ecosystems by providing incentives, disincentives or enabling conditions directed at the actions of civil society, the corporate community, and government institutions. For example, policy instruments such as legally protected lands can affect positively the value of these areas for their supply with drinking water and associated NCP by protecting its quality and quantity, Reciprocally, if people place a high value on experiencing natural areas (also an NCP), they can provide incentives for decision-makers to support policies that protect such areas (WB & WWF, 2003). In Venezuela, the economic value of the reduced sedimentation from a national protected area system is estimated at approximately $3.5 million annually (in terms of reduced farmer income) (Pabon-Zamora et al., 2008). However, if not designed and implemented carefully, such benefits may come at the cost of displacement of local community uses of protected areas, such as when marine protected areas attract significant ecotourism revenues, but displace community-based fisher families with few alternative options for livelihoods (FAO, 2015). On the other hand, policies may result in incentives to use biodiversity and ecosystem services (nature and NCP) irresponsibly. For example in the energy sector, domestic subsidies of fuel prices promote overutilization of these resources, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and a negative contribution to climate change (IEA, 2015) accelerating climate change impacts on biodiversity and people (Bruckner et al., 2014). Alternative policies such as decarbonizing electric generation, applying carbon standards to power plants or eliminating subsidies for producing or consuming fossil fuels may have different consequences, including reducing air pollution (Schwanitz et al., 2014) and their associated benefits to human health (Buonocore et al., 2015; Driscoll et al., 2015); improving energy efficiency (IEA, 2015) and developing renewable energy sources (Bruckner et al., 2014). However, such alternatives must be considered fully, as hydroelectric power may require substantial modifications to natural watersheds, and mining the raw materials needed for solar panels can have a large environmental footprint (Bruckner et al., 2014; Nugent & Sovacool, 2014). These complexities in developing responsible policies for conservation and sustainable use of nature and NCP highlight the importance of the efforts of the IPBES Regional Assessments to consider the multiple knowledge systems and the values of diverse worldviews, and to use scenarios and models effectively. Regional differences also influence in the way some policies affect value given to ecosystems, for example to protected areas and their relation to ecotourism. Policies addressing ecotourism could emphasise the substantial economic benefits from recreational use associated with ecotourism in conserved areas or give more weight to protective approaches to biodiversity conservation and restrict ecotourism stringently. Similarly, policies and values for food production systems can either promote genetically modified crops grown with highly industrialized production systems, or favour production systems using traditional varieties of plants involving rich local and indigenous knowledge applied to the cultivation of such plants under particular environmental settings (Jacobsen et al., 2013; Bazile et al., 2016; CIP, 2017). Current dialogue on NCP emphasizes the importance of their relationships with livelihoods and human well- being (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010; Haines-Young & Potschin, 2012), interactions among multiple services (Kremen, 2005; Bennett et al., 2009; Rodríguez Osuna et al., 2018), how bundles of NCP can help us understand co-benefits and trade-offs (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010), and that some contributions accrue to private beneficiaries in contrasted with broader public goods (Garbach et al., 2014, 2016). Policies and programmes that are able to adopt bundling approaches to NCP, where multiple benefits and trade-offs 32 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 are measured and assured (e.g. water and food security, climate change adaptation as well as social and cultural benefits) provide opportunities towards the achievement of sustainable development and biodiversity goals. Nature and economies of the Americas Biophysical aspects The Americas encompass a large diversity of ecosystems, including wide extensions of deserts, grasslands, savannas and forests, in different climatic conditions (polar, temperate, mediterranean, arid, subtropical, tropical) and topographic situations (plains, plateau, mountains). The combination of all those settings along the Neotropic and Neartic biogeographical realms covers all the 14 terrestrial biomes defined by Olson et al., (2001), as well as all the freshwater and marine biomes defined in the Marine Ecosystems of the World and Global Open Ocean Deep Sea classifications (Spalding et al., 2007; Rice et al., 2011). The region includes also 55 of the 195 terrestrial and freshwater ecoregions considered globally as having exceptional biodiversity, i.e. with highly distinctive or irreplaceable species composition (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002), including the largest rainforest and largest river in the world situated in the Amazonian region. Similarly, the Caribbean is considered a hotspot for marine biodiversity, as are reefs and bays of Mesoamerica (WOA, 2016). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services unit of analysis and subregions of the Americas The subdivision of the Earth’s surface into units for the purposes of analysis is notoriously controversial and there is no single agreed-upon system that IPBES can adopt as its standard. The Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has consulted widely to arrive at the classification below. This system serves as a framework for comparisons within and among assessments and represents a pragmatic solution, which may be adapted and evolve as the work of IPBES develops. These units are called “IPBES terrestrial and aquatic units of analysis” (Figure 1.7), rather than alternatives such as “biomes” or “ecoregions”, both because they do not map exactly onto such ecological classifications, and among different disciplines there is rarely consensus on the geographic boundaries when applying such classification systems. These units of analysis serve the purposes of IPBES, and are not intended to be prescriptive for other purposes; nor are the labels of individual units to be taken as synonymous with “biomes” from any single classification system. Note also that the word “aquatic” is here used to include both marine and freshwater systems. Ecological units of analysis are represented in different socio-economic and governance contexts with different administrative boundaries. For this reason, IPBES has also decided to use a classification of the Americas in four subregions considering their focus on science-policy interface (Figure 1.8). 33 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 34 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 North America North America is the largest subregion of the Americas, at just over 23.5 million km2. At the time of European settlement starting in the 1500’s, all major temperate and polar units of analysis were extensive and intact. The eastern third of North America was dominated by temperate, primarily deciduous, forests covering all the coastal lowlands, the Appalachian mountains (only of few of which extend above the treeline) and the eastern portion of the Mississippi River basin. Across the northern portion of treed lands, boreal forests constituted a band often nearly 1,000 km wide, extending from the Atlantic to the Rocky Mountains and Alaska. The central portion of North America comprised the Great Plains and related grasslands, covering nearly 1.3 million km2 of unbroken grassland. The western Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coastal Range along the Pacific seacoast, both extending from Mexico to Alaska, together covered over 1.5 million km2. In the USA southwest more than 0.75 million km2 were drylands and desert, whereas the world’s largest expanse of tundra was found across the entire northerly continental land mass and Arctic Archipelago of Canada and Greenland (including the ice sheet and glaciers), at nearly 3.5 million km2. Several major river systems, and many smaller ones, drain North America, emptying into the three bordering oceans. The largest is the Mississippi-Missouri drainage flowing southward through the center of North America to the Gulf of Mexico. With a drainage area of over 3 million km2 it is the fourth largest drainage basin in the world. Also flowing southward but into the Gulf of California and draining much of the desert southwest is the Colorado River basin. The Great Lakes, the largest freshwater lacustrine system in the world, are part of the easterly flowing St Lawrence River drainage, emptying through the Gulf of St Lawrence into the Atlantic. The major rivers flowing northward into the Arctic Ocean are the Mackenzie and the Yukon, whereas the largest river drainage emptying directly into Pacific Ocean is the Columbia. Aside from the Mackenzie and Yukon, all these river systems have been extensively altered for navigation, hydropower generation, flood control, municipal water supply, and irrigation. With the expansion of settlement by non-indigenous immigrants and their descendants, most of these biomes were extensively altered through land transformation and development of urban areas and linking infrastructure. With the changes in landforms, many iconic species, such as the American Bison and Pacific salmon have declined or, in the case of the once abundant Passenger Pigeon, become extinct. The Indigenous Peoples inhabiting these biomes were also decimated by conquest, disease, and intentional displacement from traditional lands, although the precise numbers are contested among experts, and their traditional livelihoods, closely attuned to nature and sustainable use of NCP, typically rendered impossible to pursue. Mesoamerica The Mesoamerican subregion is considered a priority ecoregion due to the high concentration of small- ranged vertebrates (Jenkins et al., 2013) and a biodiversity hotspot due to the high concentration of endemics species and large loss of habitat (Myers et al., 2000). This region connects species movement among south and north land masses resulting in high species diversity (DeClerck et al., 2010). Its particular long and narrow shaped area is divided by a mountain range creating diverse environmental conditions (Olson et al., 2001; DeClerck et al., 2010) with montane biomes extending along the entire south-north axis of Mesoamerica. Mangroves and coral reefs occur in patches along both Atlantic and Pacific coasts, although more extensively on the Atlantic. Reflecting the narrow width and central mountains of Mesoamerica, rivers are generally a most a few hundred km (Grijalva river), aside from the larger Rio Grande drainage on the northern boundary of the subregion (Lehner et al., 2006). Ten per cent of the territory is under some form of protection (WDPA, 2017) where the 1) mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub, 2) tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests and tropical and 3) subtropical moist broadleaf forests are the least protected biomes. The Mesoamerican subregion holds a very high level of endemism of 44.4%. Of these, over 40% are threatened. In total, 84.7% of all the subregion’s threatened species are endemic. Particularly well-known subregional endemics include the Old Man Cactus (Cephalocereus senilis) and the Axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum). 35 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Caribbean The Caribbean Region comprises twenty-eight island nations which themselves are composed of over seven thousand islands and cays. As Small Island Developing States, these predominantly coastal areas are under risks from extreme geophysical events by virtue of their geographic locations within the tropics. They are susceptible to the hazards of hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis (Granger, 1997). The islands are characterized into five (geophysical) categories: volcanic islands of recent formation; old complex volcanic islands; volcanic islands with lagoons and barrier reefs; atolls and raised atolls; and successive sedimentary deposit islands. The steep topography seen on these islands supports a variety forest types in small areas (Lugo et al., 1981). These forests range from mangrove forests dominated by 1-4 mangrove species, to tropical rain forests comprising two thousand species of flowering plants (Beard et al., 1944). The Dry Forests in Puerto Rico, USA Virgin Islands and The Bahamas present a diverse and unique biome for the Caribbean Islands (Franklin et al., 2015). The Guanica forest in Puerto Rico comprises approximately four thousand hectares of dry forest (Lugo et al., 1995). As most of these dry forests are coastal, they are under increased risk of damage from hurricanes, storm surge and sea level rise. The coral reef ecosystems that surround most of the islands of the Caribbean support the major sectors of tourism and fishing. However, these reef areas are under significant threat from overfishing and direct results of human activities causing excess nutrients and sediments via pollution, deforestation, reef mining and dredging (Hughes, 1994; Perry et al., 2013). The architectural complexity has declined over the past forty years (Alvarez-Filip et al., 2009). South America South America is the second largest subregion of the Americas, comprised of 12 States, covering 17.7 million km2. South America exhibits a diverse pattern of weather and climate due to its considerable north-south extension and prominent topography, including tropical, subtropical and extratropical features. The large scale phenomena like the El Niño Southern Oscillation, contribute to the high variability of the South American climate (i.e. interannual and interdecadal changes), and the sea surface temperature north-south gradient has a profound impact on the climate and weather of eastern South America (Garreaud et al., 2009). South America is characterized by the presence of the Andes, the longest continental mountain range in the world (Campetella & Vera, 2002). The Andes cover more than 2,500,000 km² hosting a population of about 85 million (45% of total continental population), with the northern Andes as one of the most densely populated mountain regions in the world. At least a further 20 million people are also dependent on mountain resources and ecosystem services in the large cities along the Pacific coast of South America. The Andes is highly diverse in terms of landscape, biodiversity including agro-biodiversity, languages, peoples and cultures (FAO, 2012a). Another particularity of the region is the extensive watershed of big rivers, like Amazon, Orinoco, Paraná, among de various long rivers of South America (Nilsson et al., 2005). The largest is the Amazon Basin, containing forests that not only sustain the greatest biological diversity (Amazon is home to one out of every five mammal, fish, bird and tree species in the world); but the homes to indigenous peoples. At regional and global scales, tropical forests also have a major influence on carbon storage and climate, so they are also vital for regional climates (Laurence, 1999). The trees of the Amazon contain 90–140 billion tons of carbon, equivalent to approximately 9–14 decades of current global, annual, human-induced carbon emissions. Approximately, eight trillion tons of water evaporate from Amazon forests each year, with important influences on global atmospheric circulation (Nepstad et al., 2008). Savannas are the most extensive biome in the tropics, and important spatial extensions in the subtropic, that has been shaped by a long history of interaction with humans, fire, climate and wildlife. The impacts on savanna composition, distribution and function based on increasing human population growth, climate change, atmospheric change and resource use impact, bring multidimentional challenges, within the 36 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 political realms, land tenures and economic shifts, what in fact requires effective long-term management strategies and thus ensure a sustainable future for savanna ecosystems (Marchant, 2010). The neotropical Atlantic Forest supports one of the highest degrees of species richness and rates of endemism on the planet, but has also undergone a huge forest loss, for example the Brazilian Atlantic Forest is highly fragmented and with just 12–16% of the original forest cover left (Ribeiro et al., 2009). There are differences in state of knowledge of the marine biodiversity among the subregions, and even though incomplete in some areas, there are differences in total biodiversity among Atlantic and Pacific oceans at the same latitude. At north of the continent, the Tropical East Pacific is richer in species than the Tropical West Atlantic. In the south, the Humboldt Current system is much richer than the Patagonian Shelf. An analysis of endemism shows that 75% of the species are reported within only one of the South America regions, while about 22% of the species of South America are not reported elsewhere in the world (Miloslavich et al., 2011). Historical note and biomes transformation in the Americas The region is populated by a uniquely large proportion of new or descendants of immigrants from all parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, in addition to over 66.2 million indigenous peoples who have persisted culturally despite centuries of land expropriation and in some cases active persecution and genocide (Chapter 2). All subregions have had the representation of units of analysis extensively altered post 1500, when immigration from the Old World and subsequent expansion of European style “settlement” brought new cultures and more advanced technologies and to the Americas. These contrasts may be particularly informative for development of effective policies, by shedding light on how socio-economic factors affect conservation policies and measures, and how economic and social policies perform in different biotic settings. The Americas have experienced extensive change in biomes, with notable expansion of croplands in the last three centuries (Figure 1.9). The origin of crops, and their precursors, and current growing location of crops go hand in hand. The ‘centers of origin’ of crops are a theme of considerable debate (Beddow et al., 2010). However, there is little doubt that the process of domestication and geographical dispersal are part of the broader history of human-induced spatial movement of plants and animals. Candolle (1884) observed that ancient plant propagation in the Mediterranean by the Egyptians and Phoenicians enabled subsequent migrants to carry West Asian genetic material to Europe at least 4,000 years ago; there is well-established Chinese cultivation of rice, sweet potatoes, wheat and millets as early as 2,700 BC. The rate at which human action has driven development, improvement and movement of plants and animals has accelerated significantly in the past 500 years (Beddow et al., 2010). The “Colombian Exchange” was an important historical events initiated when Columbus made contact with Native Americans in the New World (Crosby, 1987; Diamond, 1999). Beddow et al. (2010) emphasize that “most of the commercial agriculture in the USAtoday is based on crop and livestock species introduced from Eurasia (e.g. wheat, barley, rice, soybeans, grapes, apples, citrus, cattle, sheep, hogs, and chickens), though with significant involvement of American species (e.g. corn, peppers, potatoes, tobacco, tomatoes, and turkeys) that are also distributed throughout the rest of the world.” The global movement of agriculturally important plants and animals, and their accompanying pests and diseases, has been a pivotal element in both the history of agriculture and transformation of biomes in the Americas. 37 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Cultural aspects: Presence of indigenous groups, population, and land holdings There are at least 66 million indigenous people in the four subregions of the Americas, ranging from 89.29% of indigenous people in Greenland to 0.04% in Cuba (Tables 1.3). However, the percentage of the indigenous population in each country, sourced from either official censuses or other surveys, could be higher than values presented in the tables below. There are some countries, for example, where more than half of the indigenous population live in urban areas - such as Mexico, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela - and are not captured in these statistics. Self-declaration is also another cause of under-representation in census data of the Americas. For example, the Amazon region alone has outstanding cultural diversity with 420 indigenous and tribal peoples, 86 languages and 650 dialects (www.otca.info) and wealth of ILK (Berkes, 2012; Tengö et al., 2014), but faces poverty and social inequality (PNUD, 2013; Ioris, 2016). The results in the tables below show the information gap, especially among the Caribbean countries, where there are almost no records or quantitative data. This does not imply the absence of indigenous groups or land in a given country. In the broader Caribbean region the indigenous populations were almost totally decimated by colonization in the post-Columbus era. To find evidence of indigenous groups' population and territorial holdings in these countries required the use of other sources of information. A considerable amount of information for this subsection was found in magazines of local and other international organizations, such as “Cultural Survival”. 38 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table 1.3. Indigenous population (IP) in the Americas *1000 (thousands) Region Country % Population Country (PC) Indigenous population (IP) IP/PC Year North America 357,327 8,051 2,3 Greenland 56a 50b 89,3 2017 Canada 35,852 a 1,401 b 3,9 2017 USA 321,419 a 6,600 b 2,1 2017 Mesoamerica 172,740 33,778 19,6 Mexico 127,017 a 21,497j 13,3 2015 Guatemala 16,343 a 9,805 b 60,0 2017 Nicaragua 6,082 a 567 b 9,3 2017 Costa Rica 4,808 a 104 c 2,2 2010 Panama 3,929 a 418 c 10,6 2010 Honduras 8,075 a 922d 11,4 2006 Belize 359 a 44 d 12,3 2006 El Salvador 6,127 a 422 d 6,9 2006 South America 418,420 24,277 5,8 Argentina 43,416 a 955 b 2,2 2017 Bolivia 10,725 a 5,652 d 52,7 2006 Brazil 207,848 a 897e 0,4 2010 Chile 17,948 a 1,566 f 8,7 2013 Colombia 48,229 a 1,500 b 3,1 2016 Ecuador 16,144 a 1,018 c 6,3 2010 Guyana 767 a 51 d 6,6 2006 French Guyana 244 b 10 b 4,1 2017 Paraguay 6,639 a 113 b 1,7 2017 Peru 31,377 a 11,655 d 37,1 2006 Surinam 543 a 20 b 3,7 2017 Uruguay 3,432 a 115g 3,4 2004 Venezuela 31,108 a 725 c 2,3 2010 Caribbean 38,009 Antigua and Barbuda 92 a The Bahamas 388 a 3 d 0,8 2006 Barbados 284 a Cuba 11,390 a 5 h 0,0 2011 Dominica 73 a 3 i 4,1 2017 Grenada 107 a Haiti 10,711 a Jamaica 2,726 a 51 d 1,9 2006 Dominican Republic 10,528 a St. Lucia 185 a St. Kitts and Nevis 56 a St. Vincent and the Grenadines 109 a Trinidad and Tobago 1,360 a 26 d 1,9 2006 f. Ministerio de Desarrollo Social de Chile (2013) a. World Bank (2015) g. Lopez (2009) b. Hansen et al. (2017) h. Poole (2011) c. CEPAL (2010) i. Kalinago (2017) d. Montenegro & Stephens (2006) j. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografia México e. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) (2010) (2015) There is an area of around 272 million hectares of indigenous lands in different countries of the Americas (Table 1.4). One initial criteria include the presence or extension of indigenous people lands legally 39 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 recognized in constitutional country-based legislations and/or international agreements such as Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. However, although countries like Chile are signatories of this international convention, laws in this country do not recognize “land property” owned by indigenous communities. In other cases, there is no legal land recognised at the community level as in Trinidad and Tobago and Suriname. Table 1.4. Indigenous land in the Americas *1000 (ha) % Region Country Country Areaa Indigenous land Indigenous land/Country Area North America 2198,227 25,500 1,2 Greenland 216,609b Canada 998,467 2,800c 0,3 USA 983,151 22,700d 2,3 Mesoamerica 248,676 48,495 19,5 Mexico 196,438 45,700e 23,3 Guatemala 10,899 1,531 e 14,0 Nicaragua 13,037 Costa Rica 5,110 334f 6,5 Panama 7,542 753 e 10,0 Honduras 11,249 160 e 1,4 Belize 2,297 17g 0,7 El Salvador 2,104 South America 1780,326 197,813 11,1 Argentina 279,181 Nd Bolivia 109,858 20,000f 18,2 Brazil 851,577 117,310 h 13,8 Chile 75,610 328i 0,4 Colombia 114,175 36,337J 31,8 Ecuador 25,637 6,830e 26,6 Guyana 21,497 3,108k 14,5 French Guyana 8,385 Nd Paraguay 40,675 Peru 128,522 13,200 e 10,3 Surinam 16,382 0 0 Uruguay 17,622 Venezuela 91,205 700 e 0,8 Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda 44 44 The Bahamas 1,388 1,388 Barbados 43 43 Cuba 10,989 10,989 Dominica 75 2l 75 Grenada 35 35 Haiti 2,775 2,775 Jamaica 1,099 1,099 Dominican Republic 4,867 4,867 St. Lucia 62 62 St. Kitts and Nevis 26 26 40 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 39 0,1m 39 Trinidad and Tobago 513 0n 513 a. IBGE (2017) h. Instituto Socioambiental (ISA) (2017) b. Central Intelligence Agency (2015) i. FAO (2012b) c. Statistics Canada (201) j. Van Dam (2011) d. USA Department of the Interior Indians Affair k. Amerindian Peoples Association (2017) (2017) l. Kalinago Territory (2017) e. Blaser et al. (2011) m. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine f. Hansen et al. (2017) (2017) g. Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine 82013) n. Santa Rosa First Peoples Community (2015) Nd: No data Socio-economic features The population in the Americas represent 15% of the total global human population (UNDP, 2016) with a population density in the Americas ranges from 2 per 100 km2 of land in Greenland to over 9,000 per km2 in several core urban centers. It includes the most urbanized regions in the world (North America and Latin America and the Caribbean with 82% and 80% of inhabitants living in urban areas respectively) (UN-DESA, 2016). Five cities in the Americas (Sao Paulo, Mexico DF, New York-Newark, Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro) are in the top 20 world’s megacities (more than 10 million inhabitants) in 2016 (UN-DESA, 2016). Patterns of economic growth differ both, among and within the subregions. Some key socio-economic indicators such as the GDP4, the Globalization index5 or the HDI6 show marked differences between subregions (Figure 1.10). There is a clear contrast between North American countries and the rest of the region. South America presents a high heterogeneity in the three indicators. The Americas contains two of the top 10 countries with the highest HDI as well as one of the countries with lowest human development (UNDP, 2016). Economic growth and international trade have improved the quality of life of many people, but often at the cost of increasing demand for natural resources, which affect other group’s quality of life. Overall, poverty levels have decreased in the last two decades but groups in Mesoamerica, the Caribbean and South America are yet facing poverty (Chapter 2). Such heterogeneity hampers developing general conclusions that apply equally across all subregions. 4 GDP at purchaser's prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. Data are in current USA dollars. Dollar figures for GDP are converted from domestic currencies using single year official exchange rates. For a few countries where the official exchange rate does not reflect the rate effectively applied to actual foreign exchange transactions, an alternative conversion factor is used (World Bank, 2017). 5 The index of globalization covers three main dimensions: economic integration, social integration, and political integration. Using panel data for 123 countries in 1970-2000 it is analyzed empirically whether the overall index of globalization as well as sub-indexes constructed to measure the single dimensions affect economic growth. As the results show, globalization indeed promotes growth. The dimensions most robustly related with growth refer to actual economic flows and restrictions in developed countries. Although less robustly, information flows also promote growth whereas political integration has no effect (Gygli et al., 2018). 6 Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index constructed by combining a range of indicators that aim at capturing human achievement in three dimensions: per capita income, education, and life expectancy (UNDP, 2016). 41 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table 1.5 presents several subregional socio-economic indicators with their average values by indicator, along with the lowest and highest value across the states. Because the countries differ in size as well as development, indicators that are national totals rather than per capita values should be compared with caution. Even within countries some socio-economic factors like personal income have such skewed distributions that an average value may represent status of the citizenry very poorly. 42 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table 1.5. Socio-economic indicators by subregion Descriptors North America Mesoamerica South America Caribbean Source Countries Canada, Belize, Costa Argentina, Antigua and IPBES (2015a) included in the USA, Rica, El Bolivia Barbuda, The assessment Greenland Salvador, (Plurinational Bahamas, Guatemala, State of), Barbados, Cuba, Honduras, Brazil, Chile, Dominica, Mexico, Colombia, Dominican Nicaragua Ecuador, Republican7, and Panama Guyana, Grenada, Haiti, Paraguay, Jamaica, Saint Peru, Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Saint Lucia, Saint Uruguay and Vincent and the Venezuela Grenadines and (Bolivarian Trinidad and Republic of) Tobago Total area (km2): 21,415,862 2,477,901 17,730,93 233,839 41,858,533 Social and demographic indicators Population (million ~360 ~ 175 ~ 418 ~ 38 World Bank inhabitants, 2015) (2015) Adult literacy rate 15+ years (%), 84% (USA) – 88 World Bank 99% 88.5 95 (61-100) (2015) 2015 Mean (min-max) (Canada) (79-98) (88 – 98) Data available (National for 5 countries statistics) Industry, value 20.7 21.6 added (% of GDP), Data only 26.3 32.2 (11.3-48.8) World Bank 2014 available for (18-32) (21-42) Data not (2015) Mean (min-max) USA available for Haiti Gross National Income per capita (US dollars, 2013 51,615 for South America (47,250- 8,954 10,219 and 2015 for the 55,980) 6,028 (2,620 – (810-20,740) rest of Data not (1940-11880) 15,580) Data not World Bank (2015) available for available for subregions) Mean (min-max) Greenland Cuba Governance in the Americas For this Assessment “governance” will be discussed in several chapters, referring to structures and processes that are designed to ensure accountability, transparency, responsiveness, rule of law, stability, equity and inclusiveness, empowerment, and broad-based participation. Governance is more than the institutions of the government, but encompasses all the ways that social units of people are structured and 7 On socioeconomic, cultural and historical grounds, the Dominican Republic could be considered part of Mesoamerica, and Guyana part of the Caribbean. 43 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals (UNESCO, 2017). In the Americas many different types of governance arrangements have developed. These occur in different social, economic and environmental contexts, associated with a diverse range of institutional arrangements and mechanisms that operate at multiple scales of intervention. The IPBES Assessment does not analyse governance structures and mechanisms. However, since governance reflects the norms, values and rules through which public affairs are managed and includes the culture and institutional environment in which citizens and stakeholders interact among themselves and participate in public affairs, it is relevant to explaining many of the patterns and trends discussed throughout the Assessment. It is also a relevant consideration in contemplating potential pathways and policy options for the future. Consequently, some higher level features of governance in the subregions are summarized below (Table 1.6). In terms of governance, the single greatest difference among subregions may be simply in the size and number of independent States, with North America, the geographically largest subregion, comprised of only Canada, the USA, and Greenland (under Danish rule). The geographically smallest region, the Caribbean, on the other hand, includes 13 independent States and 13 Protectorates. The indicators of Governance are taken from the Worldwide Governance Indicators (Kaufmann et al., 2010) and The Economist Group (http://www.economistgroup.com/) to provide some insight into the degree to which governance processes can support efforts to conserve and sustain biodiversity and maintain deliver of NCP. Table 1.6. Governance indicators by subregion Descriptors8 North America* Mesoamerica South America Caribbean* Source 4.05 (2.8-5.3) 6.06 (4.2-7.8) The Political Instability Index, Data not 5.9 6.6 Data available Economist 2009-2010 available for (3.5 -7.1) (5.1-7.7) for 5 countries Group9 Greenland Political Stability and 88 68.76 Kaufmann Absence of Violence or (70-100) (22-97) et al. (2010) Terrorism (Percentile 42.12 41.2 Rank 0-100), 2015 (18-64) (12 – 83) Rule of law (0-100 rank), 92 2015 (90-95) 34.1 41 56 Kaufmann (15-69) (11-87) (10-82) et al. (2010) Control of corruption (0- 89 40 39 59 Kaufmann 100 rank), 2015 (84-94) (19-75) (6-89) (9-93) et al. (2010) * Greenland and the 13 Caribbean Protectorates are still colonies of European States, so their governance aspects are not included in this table 8 The Political Instability Index shows the level of threat posed to governments by social protest. The index scores are derived by combining measures of economic distress and underlying vulnerability to unrest. The Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism index captures perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including politically‐motivated violence and terrorism. The Rule of Law index captures perceptions of the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of contract enforcement, property rights, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence. The Control of Corruption index captures perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests. The Worldwide Governance Indicators are available at: www.govindicators.org 9 http://viewswire.eiu.com 44 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Technical details: Methods and approaches in the Assessment How this Regional Assessment deals with incomplete or absent information An assessment on a continental scale is built on the basis of numerous sources of information. Although there is immense value in an assessment that can incorporate many sources of information, there are also many challenges to overcome, including incomplete or absent information, low quality information, limits in representativeness of information sources. To address these issues consistently, this Assessment follows the guidelines provided by the IPBES Task Force on Knowledge and Data. The identification and classification of gaps in knowledge are necessary contributions to support decisions, conservation and for ongoing and future assessment processes. The collection, processing and use of data, information and knowledge followed certain key principles and practices to meet quality standards to ensure that the target audiences have sufficient confidence in the Assessment conclusions to use them in policy and decision-making. Among these principles and practices are: i) inclusion of all relevant and available or readily mobilizable data, information and knowledge from different knowledge systems and sources; ii) transparency at all steps of collection, selection, analysis and archiving, in order to enable informed feedback on Assessments and replicability of results, and to enable comparability across scales and time; and iii) systematic and well-documented methodology in all steps of the assessment process, including documentation of the representativeness of the available evidence, the remaining gaps and uncertainty, and iv) clear rationales in cases where a “weight of evidence” conclusion was drawn from the broad range of relevant information presented in i). How this Regional Assessment handles uncertainty Uncertainty in assessments arises from several sources, including the incompleteness or unrepresentativeness of information available; having information available that is of low accuracy, precision or both (whether accuracy and precision have been estimated or not); and having multiple studies that individually may report finding of moderate accuracy and precision, but are inconsistent with each other across studies. In the case of uncertainty, each chapter of this report establishes the level of confidence in relation to the key findings (data and information from the ensemble of knowledge systems) presented in Executive summaries. Each key finding in an IPBES Assessment comes with a confidence language statement. In Assessments, when we talk about confidence in relation to knowledge, we are referring to how assured the experts are about the findings presented within their chapters. Low confidence describes a situation where we have incomplete knowledge and therefore cannot fully explain an outcome or reliably predict a future outcome, whereas high confidence conveys that we have extensive knowledge and are able to explain an outcome or predict a future outcome with much greater certainty. The communication of confidence in IPBES Assessments is important because interactions between humans and the natural world are complex, as are the interactions among people relative to nature. To allow decision makers to make informed decisions, author teams need to communicate not only the findings in which they have high confidence but also those in which their confidence is weaker, in cases when the finding is the best inference that can be drawn from the knowledge available. Furthermore, by following a common approach to applying confidence terminology within an Assessment, authors are able to increase consistency and transparency. IPBES Assessments uses four specific phrases known as “confidence terms” in order to categorize the experts’ level of confidence in their findings consistently (Figure 1.11). The categories depend on the author team’s expert judgment on the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence and the level of scientific agreement about what that evidence shows. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Assessments use a four-box model of confidence (below) based on evidence and agreement that gives four main confidence terms: “well established” (much evidence and high agreement), 45 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 “unresolved” (much evidence but low agreement), “established but incomplete” (limited evidence but good agreement) and “inconclusive” (limited or no evidence and little agreement). Depending on the nature of the evidence supporting the key message or finding, quantitative assessments of confidence may also be possible. Quantitative assessments of confidence are estimates of the likelihood (probability) that a well-defined outcome will occur in the future. Probabilistic estimates are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, combined with expert judgment. However, it may be that quantitative assessments of confidence are not possible in all assessments, due to limitations in the evidence available. Data and indicators The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services uses indicators in conducting its Assessments. Indicators are defined here as data aggregated in a quantitative or qualitative manner that reflect the status, cause or outcome of an object or process, especially towards targets such as the Aichi targets or those set by the SDG. Indicators can help simplify the enormous complexity of datasets, variables, frameworks and approaches available to us. They are also useful tools for communicating the results of assessments. It is, however, important to recognize the limitations of a given set of indicators in capturing the complexities of the ‘real world’, since indicators are restricted to what can be measured in a standardized way and for which appropriate data are widely available with good global coverage. Notably, these limitations are especially significant when it comes to assessing non-material benefits of nature to people and in quality of life. Moreover, the meanings of indicators are related to diverse cultural perspectives. Hence, in IPBES Assessments, indicators are subjected to critical analysis and review from a diversity of experts. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services has consulted widely in arriving at a list of 30 indicators for its Assessments, of which nine are intended to assess socio- ecological status and trends. Indicators have been selected to cover the Conceptual Framework comprehensively as well as being interpretable in what relates to drivers, pressure, status, impact, response´s approach to assessments. Table 1.7 lists the indicators with their role related to drivers, pressure, status, impact, response and IPBES conceptual framework, and their sources in other agencies or more thematically focused assessments. 46 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Table 1.7. Core and socio-economic indicators used in IPBES assessments Specific Indicator Aichi target DPSIR* CF** Source Core indicators Ecological Footprint 4 P DD Global Footprint Network Water Footprint 4 P DD Water Footprint Network Percentage of Category 1 4 R IGID Convention on International Trade in nations in CITES Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Biodiversity Habitat Index 5 S DD, BEF GEO BON – CSIRO Species Habitat Index 5, 12 P,S DD, BEF GEO BON - Map of Life Forest area as a percentage of 5 S DD, BEF FAO total land area Trends in forest extent (tree 5 S DD, BEF Hansen et al., 2013 cover) Protected area coverage of Key 5, 11, 12 R IGID, BirdLife International, the International Biodiversity Areas (including DD Union for Conservation of Nature Important Bird and Biodiversity (IUCN), UNEP-WCMC Areas, Alliance for Zero Extinction sites) Total wood removals 5, 7, 14 S,I DD, FAO NBP Estimated fisheries catch and 6 P DD, BEF Sea Around Us fishing effort Proportion of fish stocks within 6 S BEF FAO biologically sustainable levels Inland fishery production 6, 14 S, I BEF, FAO NBP Marine Trophic Index 6 S DD, BEF Sea Around Us Trends in fisheries certified by 6 R IGID Marine Stewardship Council the Marine Stewardship Council Proportion of area of forest 7 R IGID, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), production under FSC and PEFC DD Programme for the Endorsement of certification Forest Certification (PEFC) Nitrogen Use Efficiency 7 P DD Lassaletta et al., 2014 from Environmental Performance Index (EPI) Nitrogen + Phosphate Fertilizers 7 P DD FAO (N+P205 total nutrients) Trends in pesticide use 8 P DD FAO Trends in nitrogen deposition 8 P DD International Nitrogen Initiative Protected Area Connectedness 11 R DD, GEO BON – CSIRO Index IGID Percentage of areas covered by 11 R IGID UNEP-WCMC, IUCN protected areas - marine, coastal, terrestrial, inland water Species Protection Index 11 P,R IGID, GEO BON - Map of Life DD Protected area management 11 R IGID, UNEP-WCMC effectiveness DD, BEF Biodiversity Intactness Index 12, 14 P,S DD, BEF GEO BON – PREDICTS 47 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Red List Index 12 S BEF IUCN, BirdLife International and other Red List Partners Proportion of local breeds, 13 S BEF, FAO classified as being at risk, not- NBP at-risk or unknown level of risk of extinction Percentage of undernourished 14 I GQL FAO people Number of countries with 17 R IGID Secretariat of the Convention on developed or revised NBSAPs Biological Diversity (CBD) Proportion of known species 19 R IGID IUCN assessed through the IUCN Red List Species Status Information 19 R IGID, GEO BON - Map of Life Index BEF Specific Indicator DPSIR* CF** Source Socio-economic indicators GDP S IGID World Bank Food security: Countries requiring external assistance for food S GQL FAO (famine relief) Food security: Calorie supply per capita (kcal/capita.day) S GQL FAO Water security: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services (SDG S GQL UNICEF/WHO 6.1.1) Water security: Freshwater consumption as % of total S GQL FAO renewable water resources Equity: GINI index S GQL World Bank Food: World grain production by type/capita.year S NCP FAO Non-material NCP: Index of Linguistic Diversity (ILD) S,P NCP, IGID UNESCO * DPSIR – D: Drivers, P: Pressure, S: Status, I: Impact, R: Response ** CF (Conceptual Framework) – DD: direct driver, NCP: nature’s contributions to people/ ecosystem goods and services, /biodiversity and ecosystem functions, IGID: institutions, governance and other indirect drivers, GQL: good quality of life/human well-being Source: IPBES (2017b) and https://www.ipbes.net/indicators/socioeconomic 48 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Process for the production of the Americas assessment report This Assessment Report is the result of a four-year process containing five phases (Figure 1.12) and involving more than one hundred experts. At the beginning of 2015 - during the IPBES-3 Plenary - the scope, geographic area, rationale, utility and assumptions of this Assessment were agreed and approved. Then the process of call and selection of experts (until April 2015) resulted in 92 experts from 20 countries. In addition, through the Technical Support Unit Capacity Building, a pilot program for young researchers was carried out and 6 fellows were selected throughout the continent (one fellow for each chapter). During March 2015 to March 2018 the experts worked on the elaboration of this Report, which encompassed the preparation of two drafts (which were submitted for external review by experts and governments). After the second draft, a selection of experts working on the Regional Assessment also worked in the construction of the summaries for policymakers. The process will conclude with the presentation of the Americas Assessment and Summary for Policy Makers for approval by the sixth session of the IPBES Plenary (IPBES-6) held in Medellin, Colombia in March 2018. 49 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 References Aide, T. M., & Grau, H. R. 2004). Globalization, migration, and Latin American ecosystems. Science, 305(5692), 1915-1916. Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 587-612. Alvarez-Filip, L., Dulvy, N. K., Gill, J. A., Côté, I. M., & Watkinson, A. R. (2009). Flattening of Caribbean coral reefs: region-wide declines in architectural complexity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1669), 3019-3025. Amerindian Peoples Association (2017). Land and Territorial Rights. Retrieved from http://apaguyana.weebly.com/land-and-territorial-rights.html. Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Snyder, P. K., Twine, T. E., Cuadra, S. V., Costa, M. H., & DeLucia, E. H. (2012). Climate-regulation services of natural and agricultural ecoregions of the Americas. Nature Climate Change, 2(3), 177–181. Arriagada, R. A., Ferraro, P. J., Sills, E. O., Pattanayak, S. K., & Cordero-Sancho, S. (2012). Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics, 88(2), 382–399. Ash, N., Blanco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., Henrichs, T., Lucas, N., Ruadsepp-Heane, C., Simpson, R. D., Scholes, R., Tomich, T., Vira, B., & Zurek, M. (2010). Ecosystems and human well-being : a manual for assessment practitioners. Washington DC: Island Press. Retrieved from http://www.ecosystemassessments.net/resources/ecosystems-and-human-well-being-a-manual- for-assessment-practitioners.pdf Barral, M. P., Rey Benayas, J. M., Meli, P., & Maceira, N. O. (2015). Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 202, 223–231. Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., Lapeyre, R., Persson, U. M., Pfaff, A., & Wunder, S. (2016). Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 58–64. Bazile, D., Jacobsen, S.-E., & Verniau, A. (2016). The Global Expansion of Quinoa: Trends and Limits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 622. Beard, J. S. (1944). Climax Vegetation in Tropical America. Ecology, 25(2), 127–158. Beddow, J. M., Pardey, P. G., Koo, J., & Wood, S. (2010). The changing landscape of global agriculture. In J. M. Alston, B. A. Babcock, & P. G. Pardey (Eds.), The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. Bennett, E. M., Lazos, E., Woodward, G., Bennett, E. M., Cramer, W., Begossi, A., Egoh, B. N., Cundill, G., Dı, S., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Krug, C. B., Lavorel, S., Meyfroidt, P., Mooney, H. A., Nel, J. L., Pascual, U., & Payet, K. (2015). Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services , and human well-being : three challenges for designing research for sustainability ScienceDirect Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human Anne-He, (JUNE), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007 Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394-1404. Bennett, G., Gallant, M., & Ten Kate, K. (2017). State of Biodiversity Mitigation 2017: Markets and Compensation for Global Infrastructure Development. Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.18235/0000675 Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J. A., & Pascual, U. (2016). Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 134-143. Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred ecology (Third). New York and London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Bhaduri, A., Bogardi, J., Siddiqi, A., Voigt, H., Vörösmarty, C., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bunn, S. E., Shrivastava, P., Lawford, R., Foster, S., Kremer, H., Renaud, F. G., Bruns, A., & Rodríguez Osuna, V. (2016). Achieving Sustainable Development Goals from a Water Perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 4 (64), 1–13. Blaser, J., Sarre, A., Poore, D., & Johnson, S. (2011). Status of Tropical Forest Management report released | The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Yokohama. Retrieved from 50 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 http://www.itto.int/news_releases/id=2663 Boschetti, F., Walker, I., & Price, J. (2016). Modelling and attitudes towards the future. Ecological Modelling, 322, 71–81. Bruckner T., I.A. Bashmakov, Y. Mulugetta, H. Chum, A. de la Vega Navarro, J. Edmonds, A. Faaij, B. Fungtammasan, A. Garg, E. Hertwich, D. Honnery, D. Infield, M. Kainuma, S. Khennas, S. Kim, H.B. Nimir, K. Riahi, N. Strachan, R. Wiser, and X. Zhang. (2014). Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Buonocore, J. J., Luckow, P., Norris, G., Spengler, J. D., Biewald, B., Fisher, J., & Levy, J. I. (2015). Health and climate benefits of different energy-efficiency and renewable energy choices. Nature Climate Change, 6(1), 100–105. Buytaert, W., & De Bièvre, B. (2012). Water for cities: The impact of climate change and demographic growth in the tropical Andes. Water Resources Research, 48(8), 1–13. Campetella, C. M., & Vera, C. S. (2002). The influence of the Andes mountains on the South American low‐ level flow. Geophysical Research Letters, 29(17). Candolle, A. (1884). Origin of cultivated plants (The International scientific series) (49th ed.). London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Origin-cultivated-plants- International-scientific/dp/B00088N86M Carpenter, S., Bennett, E., & Peterson, G. (2006). Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 29. CBD. (2010). Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Poverty Aleviation: A State of Knowledge Review. Montreal, Quebec. CBD/FAO/WB/UNEP/UNDP. (2016). Biodiversity and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Montreal, Quebec: Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment- energy/ecosystems_and_biodiversity/biodiversity-and-the-2030-agenda-for-sustainable- development---p.html Central Intelligence Agency. (2015). World Bank Open Data. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html CEPAL. (2010). Los pueblos indigenas em América Latina. Sistemas de Indicadores Sociodemográficos de Poblaciones Y Pueblos Indígenas. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. Retrieved from http://celade.cepal.org/redatam/PRYESP/SISPPI/. Chan, K. M. A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016b). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. PNAS, 113(6), 1462–1465. Chivian E. and A. Bernstein. (2010). How our Health depends on Biodiversity. Center for Health and the Global Environment. Boston. CIP. (2017). Potato Facts and Figures. A CGIAR Research Center. International Potato Center. Retrieved from http://cipotato.org/ Cisneros, E., Zhou, S. L., & Börner, J. (2015). Naming and Shaming for Conservation: Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon. PLOS ONE, 10(9), e0136402. Clamen, M., & Macfarlane, D. (2015). The International Joint Commission, Water Levels, and Transboundary Governance in the Great Lakes. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 40–59. Claudio, L., Stingone, J., & Godbold, J. (2006). Prevalence of Childhood Asthma in Urban Communities: The Impact of Ethnicity and Income. Annals of Epidemiology, 16(5), 332–340. Clement, C. R., de Cristo-Araújo, M., d’Eeckenbrugge, G. C., Alves Pereira, A., & Picanço-Rodrigues, D. (2010). Origin and Domestication of Native Amazonian Crops. Diversity, 2(1), 72–106. Coreau, A., Pinay, G., Thompson, J. D., Cheptou, P.-O., & Mermet, L. (2009). The rise of research on futures in ecology: rebalancing scenarios and predictions. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1277–1286. 51 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158. CRFM. (2014). Sub-Regional Fisheries Management Plan for Flyingfish in the Eastern Caribbean. CRFM Special Publication No. 2. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fi/static- media/MeetingDocuments/WECAFC16/Ref19e.pdf Crosby, A. W. (1987). The Columbian voyages, the Columbian exchange, and their historians. Washington DC: American Historical Association. Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text- idx?c=acls;cc=acls;view=toc;idno=heb03124.0001.001;rgn=full text Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine (2013). Belize: our life, our lands-respect Maya land rights (2013). Retrieved from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/take-action/belize-our-life-our-lands-respect- maya-land-rights/belize-our-life-our-lands-respect Cultural Survival Quarterly Magazine (2017). YURUMEIN (Our Homeland): A Film About Garifuna Cultural Renaissance on St. Vincent. Retrieved from https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/yurumein-our- homeland-film-about-garifuna-cultural-renaissance-st-vincent Das, P., & Horton, R. (2017). Pollution, health, and the planet: time for decisive action. The Lancet, Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/commissions/pollution-and-health. De Groot, R. S., Wilson, M. A., & Boumans, R. M. (2002). A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 393–408. DeClerck, F. A. J., Chazdon, R., Holl, K. D., Milder, J. C., Finegan, B., Martinez-Salinas, A., Imbach, P., Canet, L., & Ramos, Z. (2010). Biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes of Mesoamerica: Past, present and future. Biological Conservation, 143, 2301–2313. Diamond, J. M. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel : the fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Retrieved from http://books.wwnorton.com/books/Guns-Germs-and-Steel/ Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, 321(5891), 926-929. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., & Larigauderie, A. (2015). A Rosetta Stone for Nature ’ s Benefits to People. Plos Biology, 1–8. Dicks, L. V., Viana, B., Bommarco, R., Brosi, B., Arizmendi, M. del C., Cunningham, S. A., Galetto, L., Hill, R., Lopes, A. V., Pires, C., Taki, H., & Potts, S. G. (2016). Ten policies for pollinators. Science, 354(6315), 975–976. Driscoll, C. T., Buonocore, J. J., Levy, J. I., Lambert, K. F., Burtraw, D., Reid, S. B., Fakhraei, H., & Schwartz, J. (2015). US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 535–540. Dudley, N., Harrison, I. J., Kettunen, M., Madgwick, J., & Mauerhofer, V. (2016). Natural solutions for water management of the future: freshwater protected areas at the 6th World Parks Congress. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1), 121–132. EIA. (2017). Energy Information Administration Electricity Generation Dataset. EIA-906/920/923 Data File. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/ Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 663–674. Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2015). Vivir Bien en armonía con la Madre Tierra. V Informe Nacional. Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Biodiversidad Biológica (CBD). FAO. (2012a). Why the Andes Matter. Sustainable Mountain Development RIO 2012 and beyond. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/mountain_partnership/docs/Print_E_Brief_Andes- low.pdf FAO. (2012b). Forest tenure in Latin America. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/forestry/54368/es/guy/. FAO. (2013). The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/daba72ad-6b98-5a13-88d8-83e796e6c4fa/ 52 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 FAO. (2015). Fishers’ knowledge and the ecosystem approach to fisheries. Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/9b643e50-fc20-4565-9962-bdf6d072dd32/ Feeley, T. J., Skone, T. J., Stiegel, G. J., McNemar, A., Nemeth, M., Schimmoller, B., Murphy, J. T., & Manfredo, L. (2008). Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry. Energy, 33(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.08.007 Ferrario, F., Beck, M. W., Storlazzi, C. D., Micheli, F., Shepard, C. C., & Airoldi, L. (2014). The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction and adaptation. Nature Communications, 5, 4794. Ferraro, P. J., Hanauer, M. M., Miteva, D. A., Nelson, J. L., Pattanayak, S. K., Nolte, C., & Sims, K. R. E. (2015). Estimating the impacts of conservation on ecosystem services and poverty by integrating modeling and evaluation. PNAS, 112(24), 7420–5. Foley, J. a, Defries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. a, Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. a, Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570–574. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., Tilman, D., & Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. Franklin, J., Ripplinger, J., Freid, E. H., Marcano-Vega, H., & Steadman, D. W. (2015). Regional variation in Caribbean dry forest tree species composition. Plant Ecology, 216(6), 873–886. Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–4. Galluzzi, G., Eyzaguirre, P., & Negri, V. (2010). Home gardens: neglected hotspots of agro-biodiversity and cultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(13), 3635–3654. Gander, M. J. (2014). International water law and supporting water management principles in the development of a model transboundary agreement between riparians in international river basins. Water International, 39(3), 315–332. Garbach, K., Milder, J. C., DeClerck, F. A., Montenegro de Wit, M., Driscoll, L., & Gemmill-Herren, B. (2016). Examining multi-functionality for crop yield and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(1), 11-28. Garbach, K., Milder, J., Montenegro, M., Karp, D., & DeClerck, F. (2014). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Agroecosystems. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, 2, 21–40. Garreaud, R. D., Vuille, M., Compagnucci, R., & Marengo, J. (2009). Present-day South American climate. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 281(3–4), 180–195. Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. F. (2015). Environment and development. Brazil’s Soy Moratorium. Science, 347(6220), 377–378. Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P., & van Beek, L. P. H. (2012). Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature, 488(7410), 197–200. Global Footprint Network. (2016). National Footprint Accounts, 2016 Edition. Gomez-Baggethun, E., Barton, D., Berry, P., Dunford, R., & Harrison, P. (2014). Concepts and Methods in Ecosystem Services Valuation. In M. Potschin, R. Haines-Young, R. Fish, & R. K. Turner (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ecosystem Services (pp. 99–111). London and New York: Routledge. Granger, O. E. (1997). Caribbean Island States: Perils and Prospects in a Changing Global Environment. Journal of Coastal Research, (24), 71–93. Green, P., C.J. Vörösmarty, I. Harrison, T. Farrell, L. Sáenz, B.M. Fekete. (2015). Freshwater ecosystem services supporting humans: Pivoting from water crisis to water solutions. Global Environmental Change, 34, 108-118. Gregor Barié, C. (2014). Nuevas narrativas constitucionales en Bolivia y Ecuador: el buen vivir y los derechos de la naturaleza. Latinoamérica. Revista de Estudios Latinoamericanos, 59, 9–40. 53 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., Steffen, W., Glaser, G., Kanie, N., & Noble, I. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/495305a Grizzetti, B., Lanzanova, D., Liquete, C., Reynaud, A., & Cardoso, A. C. (2016). Assessing water ecosystem services for water resource management. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 194–203. Guardiola, J., & García-Quero, F. (2014). Buen Vivir (living well) in Ecuador: Community and environmental satisfaction without household material prosperity? Ecological Economics, 107, 177–184. Guedes, G. R., Brondízio, E. S., Barbieri, A. F., Anne, R., Penna-Firme, R., & D’Antona, Á. O. (2012). Poverty and Inequality in the Rural Brazilian Amazon: A Multidimensional Approach. Human Ecology, 40(1), 41–57. Gygli, S., Haelg, F., & Sturm, J.-E. (2018). The KOF Globalisation Index – Revisited. KOF Working Papers. Zurich: KOF Swiss Economic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/dual/kof- dam/documents/Globalization/2018/KOF_Globalisation_Index_Revisited.pdf Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2012). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). European Environment Agency, 33. Hansen, K.B., Jepsen, Käthe; Jacquelin, Pamela L. (2017). The Indigenous World Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). Retrieved from http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=760 Hanson, C., Talberth, J., & Yonavjak, L. (2011). Forests for water: Exploring Payments for Watershed Services in the U.S. South. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/forests_for_water.pdf Harrison, I. J., Green, P. A., Farrell, T. A., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Sáenz, L., & Vörösmarty, C. J. (2016). Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1), 103–120. Hawley, K., Moench, M., & Sabbag, L. (2012). Understanding the Economics of Flood Risk Reduction: A Preliminary Analysis. Boulder: Institute for Social and Environmental Transition. Hermoso, V., Abell, R., Linke, S., & Boon, P. (2016). The role of protected areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation: challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1), 3–11. Hughes, T. P. (1994). Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science, 265(5178), 1547–51. IBGE. (2017). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Países@. Retrieved from http://paises.ibge.gov.br/#/pt/pais IEA (2015). Energy Climate and Change. World Energy Outlook Special Report. (International Energy Agency). Paris. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografia México (2015). La Encuesta Intercensal 2015. Retrieved from http://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/proyectos/enchogares/especiales/intercensal/ Instituto Socioambiental (ISA). (2010). Populações indígenas no Brasil. Retrieved from https://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/c/0/1/2/populacao-indigena-no-brasil Ioris, A. A. R. (2016). The paradox of poverty in rich ecosystems: impoverishment and development in the Amazon of Brazil and Bolivia. The Geographical Journal, 182(2), 178–189. IPBES (2016a). Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production. S.G. Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H. T. Ngo, J. C. Biesmeijer, T. D. Breeze, L. V. Dicks, L. A. Garibaldi, R. Hill, J. Settele, A. J. Vanbergen, M. A. Aizen, S. A. Cunningham, C. Eardley, B. M. Freitas, N. Gallai, P. G. Kevan, A. Kovács-Hostyánszki, P. K. Kwapong, J. Li, X. Li, D. J. Martins, G. Nates-Parra, J. S. Pettis, R. Rader, and B. F. Viana (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 36 pages. Retieved from www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/spm_deliverable_3a_pollination_20170222.pd f IPBES. (2014). Guide on the production and integration of assessments from and across all scales 54 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 (deliverable 2 (a)). Bonn: IPBES/3/INF/4. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. (2015a). Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the work of its third session. Annex V Scoping for a regional assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions for the Americas. Bonn: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. (2015b). Preliminary guide regarding diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (deliverable 3 (d)). Kuala Lumpur: IPBES/4/INF/13. Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Fourth session. IPBES. (2016b). The methodological assessment report on Scenarios and Models of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In S. Ferrier, K. N. Ninan, P. Leadley, R. Alkemade, L. A. Acosta, H. R. Akçakaya, L. Brotons, W. W. L. Cheung, V. Christensen, K. A. Harhash, J. Kabubo-Mariara, C. Lundquist, M. Obersteiner, H. M. Pereira, G. Peterson, R. Pichs-Madruga, N. Ravindranath, C. Rondinini, & B. A. Wintle (Eds.) (p. 348). Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved from https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/pdf/2016.methodological_assessment_rep ort_scenarios_models.pdf IPBES. (2017a). Update on the classification of nature’s contributions to people by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Germany: IPBES/5/INF/24. Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Fifth session. Available from: https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/downloads/pdf/ipbes-5-inf- 24.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=534 IPBES. (2017b). Update on the work on knowledge and data (deliverables 1 (d) and 4 (b)). Germany: IPBES/5/INF/5. Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Fifth session. Available from: https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/downloads/pdf/ipbes-5-inf-5.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=540 Jacobsen, S.-E., Sørensen, M., Pedersen, S. M., & Weiner, J. (2013). Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural biodiversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 651–662. Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L., & Joppa, L. N. (2013). Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. PNAS, 110(28), E2602-10. Jetoo, S., Thorn, A., Friedman, K., Gosman, S., & Krantzberg, G. (2015). Governance and geopolitics as drivers of change in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 41(S1), 108–118. Johns, C. M. (2017). The Great Lakes, Water Quality and Water Policy in Canada. In S. Renzetti & D. P. Dupont (Eds.) (pp. 159–178). Springer. Joppa, L. N., & Pfaff, A. (2009). High and Far: Biases in the Location of Protected Areas. PloS ONE, 4(12), e8273. Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N.D., Bingham, H., Belle, E.M.S., de Lima, M.G., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A.N., Martinez-Lopez, J., Lewis, E., Eassom, A., Wicander, S., Geldmann, J., van Soesbergen, A., Arnell, A.P., O’Connor, B., Park, S., Shi, Y.N., Danks, F.S., MacSharry, B., Kingston, N. (2014). Protected Planet Report 2014. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Retrieved from http://wdpa.s3.amazonaws.com/WPC2014/protected_planet_report.pdf. Juffe-Bignoli, D., Harrison, I., Butchart, S. H., Flitcroft, R., Hermoso, V., Jonas, H., Lukasiewicz, A., Thieme, M., Turak, E., Bingham, H., Dalton, J., Darwall, W., Deguignet, M., Dudley, N., Gardner, R., Higgins, J., Kumar, R., Linke, S., Milton, G. R., Pittock, J., Smith, K. G., & van Soesbergen, A. (2016). Achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to improve the performance of protected areas and conserve freshwater biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2638 Kalinago Territory (2017). Home to the indigenous people of Dominica. Dominica’s First Early Inhabitants. Retrieved from http://kalinagoterritory.com/about-us/ 55 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Kaplan, H., Randall, C., Thompson, M. D., Benjamin, C., Trumble, & Al., E. (2017). Coronary atherosclerosis in indigenous South American Tsimane: a cross-sectional cohort study. The Lancet, 389(10080), 1730–1739. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010, September 1). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. World Bank Policy Research Woking Paper No. 5430. Kimbell, A. R., & Brown, H. (2009). Using Forestry to Secure America’s Water Supply. Journal of Forestry, 107(3), 146–149. Kipuri, N. (2009). Culture. In State of the World‘s Indigenous Peoples. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. Klein, A. M., Müller, C., Hoehn, P., & Kremen, C. (2009). Understanding the role of species richness for crop pollination services. In S. Naeem, D. Bunker, A. Hector, M. Loreau, & C. Perrings (Eds.), Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective (pp. 195– 208). Oxford University Press. Knowlton, K., Rotkin-Ellman, M., Geballe L., Max, W., and G. M. Solomon. (2011). Six Climate Change– Related Events In The United States Accounted For About $14 Billion In Lost Lives And Health Costs. Health Affairs, (30)11, 2167-2176. Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 40. Kremen, C., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2005). A call to ecologists: measuring, analysing, and managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(10), 540–548. Laurance, W. F. (1999). Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biological Conservation, 91(2–3), 109–117. Leb, C. (2015). One step at a time: international law and the duty to cooperate in the management of shared water resources. Water International, 40(1), 21–32. Lehner, B., Verdin, K., Jarvis, A. (2006). HydroSHEDS Technical Documentation. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://hydrosheds.cr.usgs.gov. Lopez, L. H. (2009). Reaching the unreached: indigenous intercultural bilingual education in Latin America. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001866/186620e.pdf Lugo, A. E. (1995). Management of Tropical Biodiversity. Ecological Applications, 5(4), 956–961. Lugo, A. E., Schmidt, R., & Brown, S. (1981). Tropical forests in the Caribbean. Ambio, 10(6), 318–324. Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G., & Hallett, K. (2011). A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45-54. Marchant, R. (2010). Understanding complexity in savannas: climate, biodiversity and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 101–108. Marchese, C. (2015). Biodiversity hotspots: A shortcut for a more complicated concept. Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 297–309. Marengo, J. A. (2006). On the hydrological cycle of the Amazon Basin: A Historical Review and Current State- of-the-Art. Revista Brasileira de Metereologia, 21(3), 1–19. Martin, A., Coolsaet, B., Corbera, E., Dawson, N. M., Fraser, J. A., Lehmann, I., & Rodriguez, I. (2016). Justice and conservation: The need to incorporate recognition. Biological Conservation, 197, 254–261. Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science, 277(5325), 504-509. McDonald, R. I., Weber, K. F., Padowski, J., Boucher, T., & Shemie, D. (2016). Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. PNAS, 113(32), 9117–22. MEA. (2005). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. 56 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Mekonnen M.M. and A.Y. Hoekstra. (2015). Global Gray Water Footprint and Water Pollution Levels Related to Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loads to Fresh Water. Environmental Science and Technology, 49 (21), 12860–12868 Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2(2), e1500323–e1500323. Menton, M. C. S., Merry, F. D., Lawrence, A., & Brown, N. (2009). Company–Community Logging Contracts in Amazonian Settlements: Impacts on Livelihoods and NTFP Harvests. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 39. Miloslavich, P., Klein, E., Díaz, J. M., Hernández, C. E., Bigatti, G., Campos, L., Artigas, F., Castillo, J., Penchaszadeh, P. E., Neill, P. E., Carranza, A., Retana, M. V., Díaz de Astarloa, J. M., Lewis, M., Yorio, P., Piriz, M. L., Rodríguez, D., Yoneshigue-Valentin, Y., Gamboa, L., & Martín, A. (2011). Marine Biodiversity in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America: Knowledge and Gaps. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e14631. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014631 Ministerio de Desarrollo Social de Chile (2013). Pueblos Indigenas. Retrieved from http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/documentos/Casen2013_Pueblos_Indigena s_13mar15_publicacion.pdf. Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K., & Ferraro, P. J. (2012). Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1), 69–92. Montenegro, R. A., & Stephens, C. (2006). Indigenous health in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Lancet, 367(9525), 1859–1869. Morello-Frosch, R., Zuk, M., Jerrett, M., Shamasunder, B., & Kyle, A. D. (2011). Understanding The Cumulative Impacts Of Inequalities In Environmental Health: Implications For Policy. Health Affairs, 30(5), 879–887. Mueller, J. M., Swaffar, W., Nielsen, E. A., Springer, A. E., & Lopez, S. M. (2013). Estimating the value of watershed services following forest restoration. Water Resources Research, 49(4), 1773–1781. Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853–858. Nazareno, A. G., & Laurance, W. F. (2015). Brazil’s drought: Beware deforestation. Science, 347(6229), 1427. Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Filho, B. S.-, & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1498), 1737–46. Nepstad, D., McGrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., DiGiano, M., Shimada, J., Seroa da Motta, R., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P., Hansen, M. C., McGrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., & Hess, L. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344(6188), 1118–1123. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248525 Nilsson, C., Reidy, C. A., Dynesius, M., & Revenga, C. (2005). Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science, 308(5720), 405–8. Nugent, D., & Sovacool, B. K. (2014). Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: A critical meta-survey. Energy Policy, 65, 229–244. Oliveira, P. J. C., Asner, G. P., Knapp, D. E., Almeyda, A., Galvan-Gildemeister, R., Keene, S., Raybin, R. F., & Smith, R. C. (2007). Land-Use Allocation Protects the Peruvian Amazon. Science, 317(5842), 1233– 1236. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146324 Olson, D. M., & Dinerstein, E. (2002). The Global 200: Priority Ecoregions for Global Conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 89(2), 199. Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. a., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth. BioScience, 51(11), 933. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2 Pabon-Zamora, L., A. Fauzi, A. Halim, J. Bezaury-Creel, E. Vega-Lopez, F. Leon, L. Gil & V. Cartaya (2008): Protected areas and human well-being: Experiences from Indonesia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. CBD Technical Series No. 36, Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada 57 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Pacheco, D. (2014). Hacia la descolonización de las políticcas ambientales y de los bosques: el mecanismo conjunto de mitigación y adaptación para el manejo integral y sustentable de los bosques y la Madre Tierra. La Paz: Fundación de la Cordillera, Universidad de la Cordillera. Parra, F., & Casas, A. (2016). Origen y difusión de la domesticación y la agricultura en el Nuevo Mundo. In A. Casas, J. T.-G. Y, & F. Parra (Eds.), Domesticación en el Continente Americano. Volumen 1. Manejo de biodiveridad y evolución dirigida por las culturas del Nuevo Mundo (pp. 159–184). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México /Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Başak Dessane, E., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al- Hafedh, Y. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S. T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C. D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis- Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B. B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F., & Yagi, N. (2017). Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2016.12.006 Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin, A., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Muradian, R. (2014). Social Equity Matters in Payments for Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 64(11), 1027– 1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu146 Perrings, C., Duraiappah, A., Larigauderie, A., & Mooney, H. (2011). The Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science-Policy Interface. Science, 331(6021). Perry, C. T., Murphy, G. N., Kench, P. S., Smithers, S. G., Edinger, E. N., Steneck, R. S., & Mumby, P. J. (2013). Caribbean-wide decline in carbonate production threatens coral reef growth. Nature Communications, 4, 1402. Perz, S., Leite, F., Griffin, L., Hoelle, J., Rosero, M., Carvalho, L., Castillo, J., & Rojas, D. (2015). Trans- Boundary Infrastructure and Changes in Rural Livelihood Diversity in the Southwestern Amazon: Resilience and Inequality. Sustainability, 7(9), 12807–12836. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912807 Phillips, O. L., & Brienen, R. J. W. (2017). Carbon uptake by mature Amazon forests has mitigated Amazon nations’ carbon emissions. Carbon Balance and Management, 12(1), 1–9. Pilgrim, S., & Pretty, J. N. (2010). Nature and Culture: Rebuilding Lost Connections. London, Washington DC.: Earthscan. Pinho, P. F., Patenaude, G., Ometto, J. P., Meir, P., Toledo, P. M., Coelho, A., & Young, C. E. F. (2014). Ecosystem protection and poverty alleviation in the tropics: Perspective from a historical evolution of policy-making in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecosystem Services, 8, 97–109. Pires, G. F., & Costa, M. H. (2013). Deforestation causes different subregional effects on the Amazon bioclimatic equilibrium. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(14), 3618–3623. PNUD (2013). Atlas Desenvolvimento Humano no Brazil 2013. Programa das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento/ Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada/ Fundação João Pinheiro. Retrieved from http://atlasbrasil.org.br/2013/ Poole, R. (2011). What became of the Taíno. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/what-became-of-the-taino- 73824867/#2zoQt67hghZcgmpZ.99 Postel, S. L. (2000). Entering an Era of Water Scarcity: The Challenges Ahead. Ecological Applications, 10(4), 941–948. Ramsar. (2008). The Changwon Declaration on human well-being and wetlands. Retrieved from http://ramsar.rgis.ch/pdf/cop10/cop10_changwon_english.pdf Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., Tengö, M., Bennett, E. M., Holland, T., Benessaiah, K., Macdonald, G. K., & Pfeifer, L. (2010). Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox: Why is Human Well-Being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? Source: BioScience Articles BioScience, 60(8), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.4 Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Camargo Martensen, A., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 1141–1153. 58 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Rice, J., Gjerde, K. M., Ardron, J., Arico, S., Cresswell, I., Escobar, E., Grant, S., & Vierros, M. (2011). Policy relevance of biogeographic classification for conservation and management of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, and the GOODS biogeographic classification. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54, 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.010 Roberts, C. M., McClean, C. J., Veron, J. E. N., Hawkins, J. P., Allen, G. R., McAllister, D. E., Mittermeier, C. G., Schueler, F. W., Spalding, M., Wells, F., Vynne, C., & Werner, T. B. (2002). Marine Biodiversity Hotspots and Conservation Priorities for Tropical Reefs. Science, 295(5558), 1280–1284. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067728 Rodríguez Osuna, V., Navarro Sánchez, G., Sommer, J. H., & Biber-Freudenberger, L. (2017). Towards the Integration of Biodiversity in Environmental Impact Assessments of Bolivia. Cochabamba: Editoria INIA. Center for Development Research (ZEF)-Universidad Católica Boliviana (UCB). Rodríguez Osuna, V., P. May, J. Monteiro, R. Wollenweber, H. Hissa, & Costa, M. (2018). Promoting Sustainable Agriculture, Boosting Productivity and Enhancing Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Through the Rio Rural Program, Brazil. Chapter 28. In: Nehren, U., S. Schlueter, C. Raedig, D. Sattler, and H. Hissa (eds.), Strategies and tools for a sustainable Rio de Janeiro. Springer International Publishing. Russi, D., Ten Brink, P., Farmer, A., & Badura, T. (2013). TEEB for Water and Wetlands. London, Brussels. Retrieved from http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/teeb_waterwetlands_report_2013 .pdf Santa Rosa First Peoples Community (2015). The establishment of an amerindian heritage village and living museum for the Santa Rosa First Peoples’ community of Arima at Blanchisseuse Road, Arima: excerpts of a preliminary master plan. Retrieved from http://santarosafirstpeoples.org/resource- center/an-amerindian-heritage-complex/ Scarano, F. R., & Ceotto, P. (2015). Brazilian Atlantic forest: impact, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24, 2319–2331. Schaaf T. & Lee, C. (2006). Conserving cultural and biological diversity: The role of sacred natural sites and cultural landscapes. International symposium held in Tokyo, Japan, 30 May-2June 2005. Paris: United Nations Schmeller, D. S., & Bridgewater, P. (2016). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): progress and next steps. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25(5), 801–805. Schwanitz, V. J., Piontek, F., Bertram, C., & Luderer, G. (2014). Long-term climate policy implications of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Energy Policy, 67, 882–894. Siegel, K. M. (2017). Regional Environmental Cooperation in the La Plata River Basin. In Regional Environmental Cooperation in South America (pp. 91–121). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Spalding, M. D., Fox, H. E., Allen, G. R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. A., Finlayson, M., Halpern, B. S., Jorge, M. A., Lombana, A., Lourie, S. A., Martin, K. D., Mcmanus, E., Molnar, J., Recchia, C. A., & Robertson, J. (2007). Marine Ecoregions of the World: A Bioregionalization of Coastal and Shelf Areas. Source: BioScience, 57(7), 573–583. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570707 Statistics Canada (2017). Aboriginal peoples Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/start TEEB. (2009). TEEB for National and International Policy Makers. Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature 2009. the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Wesseling TEEB. (2010). Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Malta Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. AMBIO, 43(5), 579–591. The Economist (2017). Pocket World in Figures. The Economist Newspaper Ltd. Profile Books Ltd. United States Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecology letters, 8(8), 857-874. 59 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 Tundisi, J. G., Goldemberg, J., Matsumura-Tundisi, T., & Saraiva, A. C. F. (2014). How many more dams in the Amazon? Energy Policy, 74, 703–708. UN (2016a). Summary of the First Global Integrated Marine Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/Summary.pdf UN. (2013). World Population Prospects. The 2012 Revision. Highlights and Advance Tables. United Nations New York. Retrieved from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Paris: UN General Assembly. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld UN. (2016b). Paris Agreement. Paris: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreeme nt.pdf UN-DESA. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/352). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Retrieved from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.pdf UN-DESA. (2016). The World’s Cities in 2016 (Statistical Papers - United Nations (Ser. A), Population and Vital Statistics Report). New York: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/8519891f-en UNDP. (2016). Human Development Report 2016. Human Development for Everyone. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2016-report UNEP. (2012). Global Environment Outlook. GEO-5: Environment for the future we want. United Nations Environment Programme, Malta. Retrieved from http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/global- assessments/global-environment-outlook-5 UNEP-DHI and UNEP (2016). Transboundary River Basins: Status and Trends. Volume 3: River Basins. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. Retrieved from http://www.geftwap.org/publications/river-basins-spm UNESCO. (2017). Concept of Governance. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education- systems/quality-framework/technical-notes/concept-of-governance US Department of the Interior Indians Affair (2017). Retrieved from https://www.bia.gov/FAQs/index.htm. Van Dam, C. (2011). Indigenous territories and REDD in Latin America: Opportunity or threat? Forests, 2(1), 394-414. Van Zanten, B. T., Van Beukering, P. J. H., & Wagtendonk, A. J. (2014). Coastal protection by coral reefs: A framework for spatial assessment and economic valuation. Ocean and Coastal Management, 96, 94–103. Veiga, J. B., Tourrand, J. F., Piketty, M. G., Poccard-Chapuis, R., Alves, A. M., & Thales, M. C. (2004). Expansão e Trajetórias da Pecuária na Amazônica: Pará, Brasil. Brasillia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia. Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., Levy, M. A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications, 7, 12558. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12558 Vogt, N., Pinedo-Vasquez, M., Brondízio, E. S., Rabelo, F. G., Fernandes, K., Almeida, O., Riveiro, S., Deadman, P. J., & Dou, Y. (2016). Local ecological knowledge and incremental adaptation to changing flood patterns in the Amazon delta. Sustainability Science, 11(4), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0352-2 Vörösmarty, C. J., Osuna, V. R., Koehler, D. A., Klop, P., Spengler, J. D., Buonocore, J. J., Cak, A. D., Tessler, Z. D., Corsi, F., Green, P. A., & Sánchez, R. (2018). Scientifically assess impacts of sustainable investments. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6375), 523–525. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3895 Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67–73. 60 IPBES/6/INF/4/Rev.1 WB &WWF (2003). The importance of forest protected areas to drinking water. Running Pure. Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. Gland/ Washington DC.: The World Bank/WWF Alliance. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTBIODIVERSITY/Resources/RunningPure2003+.pdf WB (World Bank) & IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation) (2016). The Cost of Air Pollution: Strengthening the Economic Case for Action. Washington DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/25013/108141.pdf?sequence=4 &isAllowed=y WDPA. (2017). World Database on Protected Areas. ProtectedPlanet. Retrieved from https://www.protectedplanet.net/c/world-database-on-protected-areas Winemiller, K. O., McIntyre, P. B., Castello, L., Fluet-Chouinard, E., Giarrizzo, T., Nam, S., Baird, I. G., Darwall, W., Lujan, N. K., Harrison, I., Stiassny, M. L. J., Silvano, R. A. M., Fitzgerald, D. B., Pelicice, F. M., Agostinho, A. A., Gomes, L. C., Albert, J. S., Baran, E., Petrere, M., Zarfl, C., Mulligan, M., Sullivan, J. P., Arantes, C. C., Sousa, L. M., Koning, A. A., Hoeinghaus, D. J., Sabaj, M., Lundberg, J. G., Armbruster, J., Thieme, M. L., Petry, P., Zuanon, J., Torrente Vilara, G., Snoeks, J., Ou, C., Rainboth, W., Pavanelli, C. S., Akama, A., van Soesbergen, A., & Sáenz, L. (2016). DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT. Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science (New York, N.Y.), 351(6269), 128–129. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7082 WOA. (2016). A Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socio-economic Aspects. World Ocean Assessment. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RegProcess.htm Wood, S. L. R., & DeClerck, F. A. J. (2015). Ecosystems and human well-being in the Sustainable Development Goals. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 13(3), 123. World Atlas (2017). The longest coral reefs in the world. Retrieved from http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-longest-coral-reefs-in-the-world.html World Bank. (2015). World Bank Open Data 2015. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL World Bank. (2017). Data retrieved from World Development Indicators Online (WDI) database. World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.keybiodiversityareas.org Wuenscher, T., Engel, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 822–833. WWAP. (2015). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a Sustainable World. Paris: United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2015-water- for-a-sustainable-world/ WWF. (2017). Mesoamerican Reef. Washington DC: World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from https://www.worldwildlife.org/places/mesoamerican-reef# Young, C. E. F., Aguiar, C., & Neto de Souza, E. (2015). Valorando Tempestades: Custo econômico dos eventos climáticos extremos no Brasil nos anos de 2002 – 2012. São Paulo: Observatório do Clima. Zhang, D. Q., Jinadasa, K. B. S. N., Gersberg, R. M., Liu, Y., Ng, W. J., & Tan, S. K. (2014). Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in developing countries – A review of recent developments (2000–2013). Journal of Environmental Management, 141, 116–131. 61