BESS Resource Paper / Glossary

BESS Resource Paper / Glossary Clarifying general biodiversity & ecosystem services-related terminologies & those relevant to agriculture & pesticides This is a working paper coordinated by the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) Biodiversity Expert Group (BEG) with expert contributions from individuals and organisations active in the fields of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BESS) As a working paper, this document is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20

BESS Resource Paper / Glossary Clarifying biodiversity & ecosystem services-related terminologies & those relevant to pesticides & agriculture ____________________________________________________________________________ This glossary was developed by ECPA’s Biodiversity Expert Group (BEG) with a range of experts and organizations in biodiversity conservation, seeking a common language for exchange on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BESS). It intends to support mutual understanding and facilitation of communication around the increasingly prominent topic, for example in interdisciplinary projects or working groups.

We highly appreciate the valuable input from members of Bioversity International, The Global Nature Fund, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge, along with comments from the ECPA BEG and cited resources.

This resource paper is structured by terms referring to i) BESS, ii) agriculture and BESS with a focus on crop production, and iii) pesticides and BESS. It focuses on terms that may hold a different meaning among different stakeholders, across sciences, policies, and the public or because terminologies evolved over time through knowledge increase. Cited resources may not be the first to have introduced a term. Further related glossaries on the subject are listed in the appendix.

This paper is a working document and feedback and contributions is welcomed.

Coordination

Written contribution

Annik Dollacker, Bayer Crop Science Division annik.dollacker@bayer.com; Chair ECPA BEG Gavin Whitmore, ECPA

Anne Alix, Dow AgroSciences Aldos Barefoot, FMC Romano DeVivo, Syngenta Franziska Fischer, University of Cambridge Ian Hodge, University of Cambridge Stefan Hörmann, Global Nature Fund Tobias Ludes, Global Nature Fund Georg von Merey, Monsanto Alan Raybould, Syngenta Ann Tutwiler, Bioversity International Eva Zabey, WBCSD

For comments & inquiries: ecpa@ecpa.eu

Contents General BESS terms ................................................................................................................... 2 Agriculture and BESS terms ...................................................................................................... 11 Pesticide regulation related BESS terms ................................................................................... 15 Related glossaries ..................................................................................................................... 19 Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach ........................................................................... 20 References ................................................................................................................................ 23

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

General BESS terms Biodiversity Alternatively: Biological diversity Refer to: Biodiversity hotspots, Biodiversity mitigation hierarchy, Biodiversity offsets, Convention on Biological Diversity, Invasive Alien Species (IAS), Mainstreaming biodiversity, Natural capital, Agricultural Biodiversity, Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation.

The most commonly used definition of biodiversity, accepted by 196 parties (status July 2017) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) reads [1]: "Biological diversity means the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems�.

This definition is used to refer to species only, as opposed to the definition of Natural Capital (see there), which includes abiotic natural resources, like minerals, light, or water.

The multilayered relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem services is described in various papers, for example by Mace, et al. 2012 [2].

Biodiversity hotspots By one definition, a biodiversity hotspot is a large region containing exceptional concentrations of endemic biodiversity and experiencing high rates of habitat loss; related areas shown in Figure 1 [3].

Biodiversity hierarchy

mitigation

The biodiversity mitigation hierarchy for biodiversity is a tool that provides a sequenced Figure 1 Biodiversity hotspots. Hotspot area (dark green) and outer limit light green. approach to addressing foreseeable impacts on biodiversity: As shown in Figure 2, it consists of various elements that mitigate biodiversity loss, including avoidance, minimization, and restoration, if a residual adverse biodiversity impact arises from a project [4].

Balancing negative impacts on biodiversity against a baseline is called a no-net-loss approach; outweighing negative impacts by conservation gains is called a net positive impact approach. For commercial agriculture, the no net loss and net positive impact approaches for biodiversity seek to overcompensate for residual impacts and explore the feasibility of these goals at international level [5].

2

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

Figure 2 Sequential steps of the mitigation hierarchy. Source: Adapted from ICMM and IUCN, 2012 [6]

Biodiversity offsets Refer to: Biodiversity, Biodiversity mitigation hierarchy, Resilience-building in agriculture, Ecosystem value Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes, resulting from additional actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts, after applying appropriate prevention and mitigation measures. Biodiversity offsetting aims for a net positive impact effect or a net gain, in species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function, societal use, and cultural values associated with biodiversity [7].

In practice, offsetting like for urban sprawl or climate change is rarely covered by legislation.

Mostly, the focus is on ‘no net loss’ and should not be misunderstood to address losses from all biodiversity change drivers or to improve biodiversity that underpins the flow of ecosystem services: “the ‘net’ in [no-net-loss and net positive impact approaches] is indicative of the fact that some losses at the development site are inevitable, and that compensation measures may not be perfectly balanced.” Practitioners may find it challenging to compare losses and gains and to identify an equivalent gain to offset a loss [5]. Practitioners may also be aware of the interaction between offsetting and resilience-building [8].

Biotope See: Habitat

Cancun Declaration See: Mainstreaming biodiversity

Cartagena Protocol See: Convention on Biological Diversity 3

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Also covers: Cartagena Protocol, Nagoya Protocol Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem approach (EA), Multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) The CBD is a multi-lateral environmental agreement (MEA) signed in 1992 [1]. Its objectives are: “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of utilization of genetic resources” [1].

The Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD are international agreements: The ‘Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety “aims at ensuring the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms” [1] that are more commonly known as genetically modified organisms, GMOs. The ‘Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity’ “aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way.” [1]

Ecosystem Refer to: Ecosystem approach (EA), Ecosystem services, Ecosystem services approach (ESSA), Ecosystem services: ecosystem disservice, Ecosystem value, Millennium ecosystem assessment (MA). Landscape connectivity, Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation, Ecosystem value An ecosystem is “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and microorganism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” [7].

Ecosystem approach (EA) Disambiguation: Ecosystem Services Approach (ESSA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Refer to: Ecosystem, Ecosystem value The ecosystem approach (EA) is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It is based on twelve principles (see Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach) defined in the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 [1]. Application of the EA helps balance the three objectives of the CBD (see there). The EA encourages the application of scientific methodologies that focus on levels of biological organisation; these levels encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. The EA recognises that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.

Ecosystem services Refer to: Ecosystem, Ecosystem Services Approach (ESSA), Ecosystem services: ecosystem disservice, Ecosystem value, Invasive Alien Species (IAS), Mainstreaming biodiversity, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Natural capital, Agricultural biodiversity, Farmland ecosystem services, Pesticides and natural pest/disease regulation The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) defines ecosystem services as the benefits human beings derive from nature (ecosystems). Both benefits in terms of goods, such as food, and services, and primary production (= food production), are hereafter referred to as services.

Ecosystem services can be described in four broad categories: provisioning, such as the production of food and water; regulating, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting, 4

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural, such as spiritual and recreational benefits (see Figure 3) [9].

Alternatively, ecosystem services can be defined as nature’s contributions for people, which recognises both beneficial and negative effects (e.g., Malaria, plant pests) of nature for people [10].

Provisioning Food (an ecosystem’s good) Fresh water Fiber Genetic resources Biochemicals, natural remedies, pharmaceuticals Supporting Soil fertility Photosynthesis Primary production Nutrient cycling Water cycling

Regulating Air quality regulation Climate regulation Water regulation Erosion regulation Water purification & waste treatment Cultural Cultural diversity Spiritual/ religious values Knowledge systems Educational values Inspiration

Figure 3 The four categories of ecosystem services as defined by the MA

Pest regulation Pollination Natural hazard regulation Disease regulation

Aesthetic values Social relations Cultural heritage values Recreation & ecotourism

Ecosystem services approach (ESSA) Disambiguation: Ecosystem approach (EA), Ecosystem services concept Refer to: Ecosystem, Ecosystem services, Trade-off No formal definition of the ecosystem services approach (ESSA) and a profusion of different applications exist, which can lead to confusion. The ESSA builds on the EA and its twelve principles (see Annex). Compared to the EA, the ESSA focuses on ecosystem services that determine human well-being; they were specifically introduced to complement the EAs’ ecological objectives to include socio-economic considerations [11]. Thus the EA must be differentiated from application of the ESSA. ESSA and their triple considerations – ecological, social, economic – were intended as an integrated, science-based tool for sustainable development. Importantly, application of ESSA should emphasise ecological along with social or economic considerations. This ensures the holistic application of ESSA in agreement with its original intent.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) refers to the conceptual framework of ecosystem service, often refered to as ecosystem services concept, or ESSA.

Ecosystem services: ecosystem disservice Alternatively: Ecosystem service antagonist 5

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

Refer to: Ecosystem, Ecosystem services The focus on benefits of ecosystem services often overlooks the importance of harmful effects, or ‘ecosystem disservices’, for example diseases such as malaria. In agriculture, disservices include negative effects of pests and diseases on crop quality and productivity, or the increase they cause in production costs when e.g., weeds compete for water and nutrients, which requires additional time and resources for weeding [12].

Often the term disservice is omitted from glossaries: nevertheless, disservices must be considered when assessing overall service provision. One definition refers to the alternative term ecosystem service antagoniser [13]: “an organism, species, functional group, population, community, or trait attributes thereof, which disrupts the provision of ecosystem services and the functional relationships between them and ecosystem services providers”.

Ecosystem value Also covers: Total economic value Refer to: Biodiversity offsets, Ecosystem, Ecosystem Approach (EA), Ecosystem services, Natural capital Ecosystem valuation assigns an economic value to an ecosystem, i.e. “a value for a particular good or service in a certain context (e.g., of decision-making) in monetary terms” [14]. It is important to distinguish between the economic value, i.e. a measure of benefit that may be expressed in monetary terms, and the financial value that relates solely to the financial effects.

Ecosystems can be valued ‘at the margin’, i.e. “determining the differences that relatively small changes in these [ecosystem] services make to human welfare. Changes in quality or quantity of ecosystem services have value insofar as they either change the benefits associated with human activities or change the costs of those activities” [15]. Measuring these changes often involves estimating the willingness to pay (abbreviated WTP in literature) for them or alternatively the compensation accepted for their loss (abbreviated WTA in literature) [16].

The total economic value (TEV) of such changes “provides and all-encompassing measure of the economic value of any environmental asset.” The TEV is the sum of use and non-use value. The use value is the sum of actual use value and the value of the option to use an environmental asset.

The non-use value is the sum of the existence value placed on the environmental asset, altruism value, i.e. retaining it for current use by others, and the bequest value, i.e. retaining it for future use by others.

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) Also covers: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Disambiguation: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the critical appraisal of likely environmental effects of a proposed project, activity or policy, both positive and negative. EIA is a generic term that may cover strategic- or project-level assessment, i.e. strategic environmental assessment (SEA). EIA may also encompass a range of specialist disciplines including social impact assessment, health impact assessment, and noise impact assessment.

Green infrastructure (GI) 6

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

See: Natural infrastructure

Habitat Also covers: Biotope Refer to: Habitat: natural and semi-natural habitat, Landscape connectivity A habitat is an area occupied by and supporting living organisms. The term is also used for the environmental attributes required by a particular species or its ecological niche [17]. By extension, it may refer to the circumstances in which populations of many species tend to co-occur; in this case, the scientific term is biotope. However, habitat is the more widely used generic term in publications and policies.

Habitat: Natural and semi-natural habitat Also covers: Cultural landscape, High nature value farmland Refer to: Habitat, Landscape connectivity According to the International Finance Corporation (IFC, World Bank Group) Performance Standard 6: “natural habitats are areas composed of viable assemblages of plant and/or animal species of largely native origin, and/or where human activity has not essentially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition” [18].

There are limited areas of habitat that are completely in their original state, more usually, habitats are modified in some form or another by human activities. For example, in the EU agricultural landscapes make up about 40% of the land area [19]. Therefore ‘semi-natural habitats’ is the preferred term used in publications.

Cultural landscape and high nature value farmland are closely related terms to semi-natural habitat: A cultural landscape is “a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values” [20]. High nature value farmland are “those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European conservation concern, or both,” [21].

Invasive alien species (IAS) Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem services The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) describes invasive alien species (IAS) as species whose introduction and/or spread outside their natural past or present distribution threatens biological diversity [1]. They are a major threat to native plants and animals they supplant. IAS have been estimated to cause US$ 1.4 trillion a year in damage, a substantial proportion of which occurs in agriculture [22].

EU Regulation 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species seeks to address the problem of IAS in a comprehensive manner so as to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as to minimize and mitigate the human health or economic impacts that these species can have [23].

Land degradation neutrality (LDN) 7

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

Refer to: Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) “Land degradation refers to any reduction or loss in the biological or economic productive capacity of the land resource base. It is generally caused by human activities, exacerbated by natural processes, and often magnified by and closely intertwined with climate change and biodiversity loss” [24].

The Sustainable Development Goal [25] (SDG) target 15.3 strives to achieve land degradation neutrality (LDN) [26]. “The focus and aim of LDN is to maintain and improve the productivity of land resources by sustainably managing and restoring soil, water and biodiversity assets while at the same time contributing to poverty reduction, food and water security, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Mainstreaming biodiversity Also includes: Cancun Declaration Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem services “Mainstreaming biodiversity means the integration of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in both cross-sectoral and in sector-specific plans such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining, energy, tourism, transport and others. It implies changes in development models, strategies and paradigms.

Mainstreaming biodiversity is not about creating parallel and artificial processes and systems, but about integrating biodiversity into existing and/or new sectoral and cross-sectoral structures, processes and systems” [27].

To substantiate this key policy direction of the CBD (Article 6 and 10, subsection a) governments signed in 2016 the “Cancun Declaration on mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for well-being” [28]. Mainstreaming biodiversity is supported by many countries, and addressed more commonly today [29].

Millennium ecosystem assessment (MA) Disambiguation: Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Ecosystem services, Ecosystem services approach In 2005 the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) report [9] was published, whereby over 1350 scientists had evaluated the state of the earth’s biodiversity. The MA revealed an estimated 60% degradation or unsustainable use of ecosystem services [30]. It recommended the inclusion of the conceptual framework of ecosystem services within policies and management, to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their contribution to human well-being.

Multilateral environmental agreements (MEA) Disambiguation: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Refer to: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) MEAs in UN language refer to legally binding agreements. There are about 850 UN MEAs, which all deal with environmental matters. Examples include the Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, 8

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, known as UNFCCC).

Nagoya Protocol See: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

Natural capital Refer to: Ecosystem services: Ecosystem disservice, Ecosystem value, Natural Infrastructure (NI) The Natural Capital Coalition [31] defines natural capital as the “stock of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources (e.g. plants, animals, air, water, soils, and minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to people.” The benefits provided by natural capital, like ecosystem services, include clean air, food, water, energy, shelter, medicine, and the raw materials we use to create products. Natural capital also provides less obvious benefits such as natural hazard (e.g., flood) regulation, climate regulation, pollination and recreation.

Natural capital is one of several commonly recognized forms of capital, such as financial, manufactured, social, human, and intellectual capital. [32] “In a national accounting perspective, natural capital accounts are a series of interconnected accounts that provide a structured set of information relating to the stocks of natural capital and flows of services supplied by them.” There are two types of accounts, “physical accounts classify and record measures of extent, condition and annual service flow“ and “monetary accounts assign a monetary valuation to selected services on an annual basis and record an overall valuation of the natural asset’s ability to generate future flows of services. “ [33] The Natural Capital term emphasises the use value of biodiversity, in addition to its non-use value, which varies by societal context (see Ecosystem value). This is similar to the term ecosystem services, which includes socio-economic valuation with an ecological valuation.

Natural infrastructure (NI) Alternatively: Green Infrastructure (GI) “Natural infrastructure (NI) is a planned or managed (often engineered), natural or semi-natural system designed to fill a specific need. In addition to providing the required function, NI can provide more categories of co-benefits, when compared to traditional gray infrastructure”. [34] For further information, Natural Infrastructure for Business provides case studies [35]. In the EU, NI is referred to as green infrastructure [36].

Net positive impact (NPI) approaches for biodiversity See: Biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and Biodiversity offsets

No net loss (NNL) approaches for biodiversity See: Biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and Biodiversity offsets

9

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 General BESS terms

Public / private good Refer to: Ecosystem Services Approach (ESSA), Natural capital In economics, a private good or service yields positive benefits to people. It is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous in that individuals cannot be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others. Public goods come in three types: (1) A pure public good has both, e.g. the ozone layer; (2) there may be rivalry over some public goods while everyone still has access, potentially leading to congestion or depletion; (3) there may be an opportunity to exclude people from using the good in question, although there is still no rivalry among the people with access to it, which makes it a club good.

Problems commonly arise over externalities, i.e. “an individual or a firm takes an action but does not bear all the costs (negative externality) or all the benefits (positive externality) of the action.”

Public goods may be a case of externalities, resulting in two dilemmas: (A) the free-rider problem, whereby users lack incentive to take responsibility for a public good; this is illustrated by the classic example of shepherds overgrazing a shared pasture; (B) the prisoner’s dilemma, whereby one party does not know whether the other will cooperate [37].

Ecosystem services and biodiversity resources frequently qualify as public goods. The ecosystem services approach and natural capital accounting are approaches towards quantifying these public goods, giving them a visible value and providing an option to take them into account financially.

Resilience Refer to: Resilience-building in agriculture Resilience is the capacity of a system to withstand unpredictable events resulting from natural or human-driven causes. At the heart of managing for resilience is the idea that human beings are an integral part of ecological systems. General resilience, is usually demonstrated when a suite of functioning ecosystem services are maintained over time and scale in response to various pressures at the same time. Specified resilience means coping with and tolerating a single change occurring in a system [38].

Since the 1990s, resilience has been commonly used in the context of agriculture and climate change. It refers to the need of agriculture to adapt to climate change, e.g. resulting in extreme weather events like droughts to floods, and to maintain its productivity over time.

The close link between humans and nature has been recognized in the concept of socialecological system, which is considered central to resilience-thinking [39].

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Refer to: Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) The SDGs have replaced the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) [25]: In 2012 at the Rio+20 Conference, the international community decided to establish a High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were to build upon the Millennium Development Goals and converge with the post 2015 development agenda. The process of arriving at the post 2015 development agenda was Member State-led with broad participation from Major Groups and other 10

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Agriculture and BESS terms

civil society stakeholders. On 25 September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the universal, integrated and transformative 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, along with a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 associated targets.

Total economic value See: Ecosystem value

Trade-off Refer to Ecosystem, Ecosystem services approach (ESSA), Non-target organisms, Assessment endpoints, Environmental risk assessment (ERA, In-field area, Recovery, Risk assessment and risk management.

A trade-off in general is “a giving or taking of one thing of value in return for another [40].” More specifically, “ecosystem service trade-offs arise from management choices made by humans, which can change the type, magnitude, and relative mix of services provided by ecosystems,” [41] as a side-effect and characteristic rather than an active goal.

Value See: Ecosystem value

Agriculture and BESS terms Agricultural biodiversity Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Pesticides and natural pest/disease regulation, in-field area “Agricultural biodiversity is a broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture, and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agro-ecosystem: the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agroecosystem, its structure and processes” [42] (see Figure 4).

11

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Agriculture and BESS terms

Figure 4 Different levels, sources and outputs of agricultural biodiversity (Figure courtesy: Bioversity International).

Agroecology Disambiguation: Organic agriculture There is no single definition of agroecology and its meaning varies. Depending on stakeholders and geography, agroecology can refer to scientific disciplines (agronomy and ecology), agricultural practices, or a political or social movement [43]. This variety may cause confusion; clarification of definition is useful in discussions. Occasionally, the term may be used instead of organic agriculture. Others consider all agricultural technologies to be compatible with an agroecological approach.

Areas of connectivity conservation See: Landscape connectivity

Conservation corridor See: Landscape connectivity

Cultural landscape See: Habitat: natural and semi-natural habitat

Ecological greenway See: Landscape connectivity

Ecological intensification See: Agro-ecosystem services 12

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Agriculture and BESS terms

Ecological network See: Landscape connectivity

Land sharing / land sparing Land sharing and land sparing refer to the treatment of (semi-natural) habitats for wildlife on farms.

Land sparing focuses on increasing yields on existing high productive, cultivated land, and preserving other areas such as field margins, strips or patches, woodlands, or water courses for wildlife habitats. Land sharing seeks to support biodiversity across the landscape, including cultivated areas and usually refers to extensively uses farmland. In practice the approaches are compatible and practices usually lie between both endpoints; the choice will depend on local circumstances [44] [45].

Agro-ecosystem services Also includes: Ecological intensification Refer to: Ecosystem services Priority ecosystem services (hereafter agro-ecosystem services) for agriculture include soil fertility, erosion regulation, primary production, water regulation, pest and disease regulations or pollination (services underlined in Figure 5). They interact and often depend on each other.

Provisioning Food (an ecosystem’s good) Fresh water Fiber Genetic resources Biochemicals, natural remedies, pharmaceuticals

Supporting Soil fertility Photosynthesis Primary production Nutrient cycling Water cycling

Regulating Air quality regulation Climate regulation Water regulation Erosion regulation Water purification & waste treatment Cultural Cultural diversity Spiritual/ religious values Knowledge systems Educational values Inspiration

Figure 5 The four categories of ecosystem services as defined by the MA. The priority agro-ecosystem services that farming depends upon are underlined.

Pest regulation Pollination Natural hazard regulation Disease regulation

Aesthetic values Social relations Cultural heritage values Recreation & ecotourism

High nature value farmland See: Habitat: Natural and semi-natural habitat

Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) 13

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Agriculture and BESS terms

See: Landscape management

Landscape connectivity Alternatively: Areas of connectivity conservation, conservation corridors Refer to: Ecosystem, Habitat, Natural and semi-natural, Landscape management Landscape connectivity is the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes the mobility of species and the ecosystem processes and services they provide between various areas and landscape elements to maintain environmental health. The landscape elements may include protected and unprotected areas, Figure 6 Illustration of different landscape as well as natural and semi-natural habitats. elements (e.g., a river lined by a connected semiFigure 6 visualizes different landscape elements natural habitat) that contribute to connectivity. that contribute to connectivity. Terminologies for [46] landscape connectivity have evolved over time [47] and are often used interchangeably, e.g. conservation corridors, [48] areas of connectivity conservation [49], ecological greenways [50], or ecological networks [51]. Connectivity either comes naturally or may be achieved by landscape planning in different systems, e.g. terrestrial, aquatic or urban/peri-urban, and at different levels, e.g. field, farm, landscape or region. For further information, see Waage et al. 2005 [52] and WBCSD 2017. [53]

Landscape management Alternatively: Integrated landscape management (ILM) Refer to: Landscape connectivity Landscape management traditionally included care and maintenance of landscape or ornamental plantings. The term has evolved and increasingly refers to development, climate change, food security and several other global issues within a policy context [54].

Natural pest / disease regulation See: Pesticides and natural pest/disease regulation

Resilience-building by enhancing agro-ecosystem services (arable field crops) Refer to: Resilience, Landscape connectivity, In-field area Depending on the farmland and its context, crop management applies a range of practices, technologies and tools that may contribute to enhancing the flow of agro-ecosystem services within arable field crops such as cereals, oilseed-rape/sunflowers and maize [55] [56] [57]. For instance, crop rotation, including planting of cover crops, and crop diversification can benefit soil fertility through the provision of organic matter. Similarly low tillage (reduced ploughing) or retention of stubble on fields after harvesting benefits organic matter provision and water regulation [9] [58].

14

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Pesticide regulation related BESS terms

To additionally and intentionally enhance agro-ecosystem services for the benefits of farming and biodiversity, managing different areas or applying different measures within fields is supportive.

These are often referred to as field margins, strips or patches, for instance applicable on less productive or water logged areas, where machine operations are difficult or around environmental structures (e.g., trees, hedges). They comprise extensively cropped areas and strips to regulate water and soil erosion, specific types of flower areas to support pollination in insect pollinated crops (e.g., sunflowers, oilseed rape), or uncropped areas, such as fallow land to regulate water, build-up of organic matter and contribute to soil erosion prevention [59] [60] [61]. All the above mentioned measures applied within fields in addition to agricultural land in general can contribute to habitat connectivity needed to enhance total biodiversity at broader landscape level scale and to provide semi-natural habitats in fields [62] [63] [64].

Pesticide regulation related BESS terms Assessment endpoints Alternatively: Specific protection goal Refer to: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), Non-target organisms, Risk assessment and risk management, Trade-off Policies and regulations, including pesticide regulations, have broad objectives, such as protecting human health or the environment. To be useful for decision-making, these ‘general protection goals’ must be converted into specific, measurable criteria, commonly referred to as assessment endpoints. They intend to ever better protect for example the environment from pesticide use.

Assessment endpoints used in environmental risk assessment (ERA) within pesticide regulations are a combination of non-pest organisms, populations and communities, commonly called nontarget organisms (NTOs), and important properties, e.g. their abundance or diversity. Predicting the effects of product use on these assessment endpoints constitutes a large proportion of ERA. Commonly used NTO groups have been identified for environmental compartments, including soil, water, sediment, land, and air. Current NTOs are bees, birds, small mammals, terrestrial and aquatic plants, soil biota, aquatic algae, invertebrates and fish.

Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation Also covers: Ecosystems: EU pesticide regulation Refer to: Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Non-target organisms, Risk assessment and risk management The general policy goal of the EU pesticide Regulation 1107/2009 refers to “no unacceptable impact on the environment” (Article 4, 2b) and “no unacceptable impact on biodiversity and ecosystems” (Article 4, 3 e) (iii)). The latter article is an amendment to the previous EU pesticide Directive 91/414/EEC. The term ‘unacceptable’ is not formally defined. It takes into account that effects on pests and diseases are intended, while effects on non-target organisms (NTOs) should be temporary (see Recovery). This term also implicitly acknowledges benefits of pesticide use for food production.

The term “biodiversity” used in the EU pesticide regulation refers to the definition of the CBD, see Biodiversity.

15

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Pesticide regulation related BESS terms

Ecosystems: EU pesticide regulation See: Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) Disambiguation: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Refer to: Assessment endpoints, Risk assessment and risk management levels in pesticide regulation, Trade-off In the context of pesticides, Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) evaluates the probability and seriousness of harmful or adverse effects on the environment, whether direct or indirect, immediate or delayed, following exposure to a pesticide. ERA of pesticides is a sophisticated scientific process that involves tests on non pest organisms. The process further assesses the spread of products in different environmental compartments, like water or soil.

In-field area Also covers: Off-field area Refer to: Agricultural biodiversity, Pesticides and natural pest/disease regulation, Trade-off In Environmental Risk Assessment of pesticides the in-field area includes the crop area and its boundaries that are managed by farmers in the context of crop management, also referred as offcrop. The off-field area refers to areas outside the managed ‘in-field area’. ERA differentiates between these areas as only the in-field area is intentionally treated with pesticides.

Integrated pest management (IPM) According to the European Commission and FAO “Integrated pest management (IPM) means careful consideration of all available plant protection methods and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of populations of harmful organisms and keep the use of plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that are economically and ecologically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment. IPM emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to agro-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms [65] [66] [67]. IPM includes cultural, physical, biological and chemical pest control methods. In the EU, professional users of pesticides have been obliged to follow IPM since 1st January 2014 [68].

Landscape level pesticide risk assessment Refer to: Risk assessment and risk management Landscape level risk assessment of pesticides is under discussion for developing current risk assessments and relates to addressing the biodiversity protection goal. The concept of landscape scale risk assessment has been introduced to account for differences in the application of pesticides between areas, and that a single landscape may contain cropped (treated) and noncropped, i.e. non-treated areas. Hence at landscape level, according to the concept, such variations should be accounted for.

Successful risk assessments at landscape scale remains limited, because it attempts to integrate multiple causes of biodiversity pressures for a more realistic and holistic model. The diversity in 16

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Pesticide regulation related BESS terms

landscapes presents an additional challenge, as it makes models more complex, to achieve the required specificity for risk assessment.

By one definition, a landscape area in terms of mitigation policies is: “an area encompassing an interacting mosaic of ecosystems and human systems characterized by a set of common management concerns. The landscape is not defined by the size of the area, but rather by the interacting elements that are relevant and meaningful in a management context” [69].

Non-target organisms Refer to: Assessment endpoints, Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation, Trade-off Non-target organisms (NTO), including populations and communities, are non-pest organisms, which in a given area (farmland) are not a pesticide’s intended target and should not be affected.

Off-field area See: In-field area

Pesticides and natural pest / disease regulation Refer to: Ecosystem services, Agricultural biodiversity, In-field area Pesticides are intended to manage species when their population has exceeded a specific threshold, by which they become pests or diseases. They replace an ecosystem service, natural pest regulation, which often does not function due to: (a) the complex relationship of organisms providing the service, i.e. natural enemies or predators of pests, with a specific pest or disease.14 (b) the landscape context in which pesticides are used, i.e. simple landscapes are poorer in biodiversity, including diversity of beneficial organisms; (c) in monocultures [70], rather than interspecific diversity [71].

Recovery Refer to: Biodiversity, EU pesticide regulation Ecological recovery in pesticide regulation is: “the return of the perturbed ecological endpoint (e.g. species composition, population density) to its normal operating range” [72].

Hence ecological recovery is also the acceptance of some effects of a pesticide, if they take place within a tolerable time period. This recovery is not to be confused with resilience, a much broader concept.

Risk assessment and risk management levels in pesticide regulation Also covers: Risk assessor, Risk manager, Regulator Refer to: Assessment endpoint, Biodiversity and EU pesticide regulation, Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA), Landscape level pesticide risk assessment, Risk mitigation/risk management, Trade-off 17

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Pesticide regulation related BESS terms

Pesticide regulations differentiate between two levels: risk assessment (performed by risk assessors) evaluates the probability and severity of harmful or adverse effects on human health and the environment, both direct and indirect, immediate or delayed, following exposure to a pesticide [73]. It is a specialised field of applied science that involves review of existing scientific data and dedicated studies, to evaluate risks associated with certain hazards in four steps: hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation.

Risk management (performed by risk managers) aims to reduce and manage risks [74], identified by risk assessment. It includes planning, implementing and evaluating of any resulting actions to protect consumers, animals and the environment. Pesticide regulation also understands risk managers to hold responsibility, whether a product goes to the market, following a risk assessment and consideration of other relevant aspects (see Risk mitigation / risk management). Hence the risk management level is also known as the decision-making level.

Risk mitigation / risk management Refer to: Risk assessment and risk management levels in pesticide regulations These terms are used in regulations concerning pesticides (e.g., EU labelling Regulation [75]), and relate to specific measures. Risk managers define integrated risk mitigation measures, which are included with a pesticide’s mandatory use pattern. The use pattern specifies for example the crop, the application rate and timing, for instance before or after flowering, i.e. the conditions under which it may be used. Where necessary, the use pattern will further specify risk mitigation measures that are expressed through specific safety phrases on product labels. For example, standard phrases for special risks to human or animal health or to the environment according to the EU labelling Regulation may read: “Toxic by eye contact” or “To protect aquatic organisms/non-target plants/non-target arthropods/insects respect an unsprayed buffer zone of (distance to be specified) to non-agricultural land/surface water bodies”.

In addition to these mandatory risk mitigation measures by product, general risk mitigation measures are for instance recommended in the EU according to national action plans of member states under the EU Sustainable Use Directive [75]. Farmers apply these measures for all pesticides. They may include for example drift-reducing nozzles, which can reduce drift by up to 90%.

18

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Related glossaries

Related glossaries EFSA Scientific Committee 2016: Glossary, in: Guidance to develop specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services, pp. 36-39, EFSA Journal, Vol. 14 (6), e04499, available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499/full.

European Food Safety Agency, EFSA n. y.: Glossary, Parma, available online at https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/glossary-taxonomy-terms Mitchell, Paul and Kate, Kerry ten (Eds.) 2012: Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). Glossary, 2nd Ed., Washington, D.C., available online at http://www.foresttrends.org/documents/files/doc_3100.pdf Munns Jr, Wayne R., Rea, Anne W., Mazzotta, Marisa J., Wainger, Lisa A., Saterson, Kathryn 2015: Toward a standard lexicon for ecosystem services, Environmental Management, Vol. 11 (4), pp. 666-673, available online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.1631/full N. a.: Appendix 4. Glossary, in: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003: Ecosystems and human well-being. A framework for assessment, pp. 208-216, Washington, D.C., available online at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.59.aspx.pdf. Information available at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Framework.html TEEB n.y.: Glossary of terms, Geneva, available online at http://www.teebweb.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/ Wild, Kate and McCarthy, Diana 2010: A corpus linguistics analysis of ecosystems vocabulary in the public sector (CLAEVIPS), East Sussex, available online at http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xVtddAx5SbM%3D&tabid=82

19

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach

Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach From: Convention on Biological Diversity n. y.: Principles, Montreal, available online at https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml The following 12 principles are complementary and interlinked.

Principle 1: The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices.

Different sectors of society view ecosystems in terms of their own economic, cultural and society needs. Indigenous peoples and other local communities living on the land are important stakeholders and their rights and interests should be recognized. Both cultural and biological diversity are central components of the ecosystem approach, and management should take this into account. Societal choices should be expressed as clearly as possible. Ecosystems should be managed for their intrinsic values and for the tangible or intangible benefits for humans, in a fair and equitable way.

Principle 2: Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

Decentralized systems may lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and equity. Management should involve all stakeholders and balance local interests with the wider public interest. The closer management is to the ecosystem, the greater the responsibility, ownership, accountability, participation, and use of local knowledge.

Principle 3: Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems.

Management interventions in ecosystems often have unknown or unpredictable effects on other ecosystems; therefore, possible impacts need careful consideration and analysis. This may require new arrangements or ways of organization for institutions involved in decision-making to make, if necessary, appropriate compromises.

Principle 4: Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage the ecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystemmanagement programme should: Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity; Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

The greatest threat to biological diversity lies in its replacement by alternative systems of land use.

This often arises through market distortions, which undervalue natural systems and populations and provide perverse incentives and subsidies to favor the conversion of land to less diverse systems.

Often those who benefit from conservation do not pay the costs associated with conservation and, similarly, those who generate environmental costs (e.g. pollution) escape responsibility. Alignment of incentives allows those who control the resource to benefit and ensures that those who generate environmental costs will pay.

Principle 5: Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a priority target of the ecosystem approach.

Ecosystem functioning and resilience depends on a dynamic relationship within species, among species and between species and their abiotic environment, as well as the physical and chemical 20

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach

interactions within the environment. The conservation and, where appropriate, restoration of these interactions and processes is of greater significance for the long-term maintenance of biological diversity than simply protection of species.

Principle 6: Ecosystem must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

In considering the likelihood or ease of attaining the management objectives, attention should be given to the environmental conditions that limit natural productivity, ecosystem structure, functioning and diversity. The limits to ecosystem functioning may be affected to different degrees by temporary, unpredictable of artificially maintained conditions and, accordingly, management should be appropriately cautious.

Principle 7: The ecosystem approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

The approach should be bounded by spatial and temporal scales that are appropriate to the objectives. Boundaries for management will be defined operationally by users, managers, scientists and indigenous and local peoples. Connectivity between areas should be promoted where necessary. The ecosystem approach is based upon the hierarchical nature of biological diversity characterized by the interaction and integration of genes, species and ecosystems.

Principle 8: Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

Ecosystem processes are characterized by varying temporal scales and lag-effects. This inherently conflicts with the tendency of humans to favour short-term gains and immediate benefits over future ones.

Principle 9: Management must recognize the change is inevitable.

Ecosystems change, including species composition and population abundance. Hence, management should adapt to the changes. Apart from their inherent dynamics of change, ecosystems are beset by a complex of uncertainties and potential "surprises" in the human, biological and environmental realms. Traditional disturbance regimes may be important for ecosystem structure and functioning, and may need to be maintained or restored. The ecosystem approach must utilize adaptive management in order to anticipate and cater for such changes and events and should be cautious in making any decision that may foreclose options, but, at the same time, consider mitigating actions to cope with long-term changes such as climate change.

Principle 10: The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity.

Biological diversity is critical both for its intrinsic value and because of the key role it plays in providing the ecosystem and other services upon which we all ultimately depend. There has been a tendency in the past to manage components of biological diversity either as protected or nonprotected. There is a need for a shift to more flexible situations, where conservation and use are seen in context and the full range of measures is applied in a continuum from strictly protected to human-made ecosystems Principle 11: The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

Information from all sources is critical to arriving at effective ecosystem management strategies.

A much better knowledge of ecosystem functions and the impact of human use is desirable. All relevant information from any concerned area should be shared with all stakeholders and actors, taking into account, inter alia, any decision to be taken under Article 8(j) of the Convention on 21

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 Annex: Principles of the ecosystem approach

Biological Diversity. Assumptions behind proposed management decisions should be made explicit and checked against available knowledge and views of stakeholders.

Principle 12: The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

Most problems of biological-diversity management are complex, with many interactions, sideeffects and implications, and therefore should involve the necessary expertise and stakeholders at the local, national, regional and international level, as appropriate.

22

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 References

References [1] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, United Nations , New York, 1992.

[2] G. Mace, K. Norris and A. Fitter, “Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 27, pp. 19-26, 2012.

[3] United Nations Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), “Biodiversity Hotspots,” UNEP-WCMC, 2014.

[4] United States Department of the Interior, “Implementing Mitigation at the Landscape-scale,” in Public Land Policy, 2016, pp. 1-10.

[5] International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), “No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact Approaches for Biodiversity,” IUCN, 2014.

[6] ICMM and IUCN, “Independent report on biodiversity offsets,” The Biodiversity Consultancy, London UK, and Gland Switzerland, 2012.

[7] Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP), “Glossary,” BBOP, Washington, D.C. , 2012.

[8] L. Little and R. Grafton, “Environmental offsets, resilience and cost-effective conservation,” Royal Society Open Science, vol. 2, 2015.

[9] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), “Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis,” Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.

[10] U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, S. Diaz and e. al., “Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vols. 26-27, pp. 7-16, 2017.

[11] D. Raffaelli and C. Frid, Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 174.

[12] W. Zhang, R. T.H., C. K. K. Kremen and S. Swinton, “Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture,” Ecological Economics, vol. 64, pp. 253-260, 2007.

[13] R. Harrington, C. Anton and T. e. a. Dawson, “Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 19, p. 2773– 2790 , 2010.

[14] (TEEB) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, “Glossary of Terms,” TEEB, 2010.

[15] R. Costanza, R. D'Arge and R. e. a. De Groot, “The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital,” Nature, vol. 387, pp. 253-260, 1997.

[16] D. Pearce, G. Atkinson and S. Mourato, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2006, p. 315.

[17] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment, Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003, p. 245.

[18] International Finance Corporation (IFC), “Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources,” IFC, 2012.

[19] Eurostat, “Farm structure statistics,” 2017.

[20] US Department of the Interior National Park Service, “Defining Landscape Terminology,” No date.

[21] E. Andersen, D. Baldock and H. e. a. Bennet, “Developing a High Nature Value Farming area indicator,” European Environment Agency, 2007.

[22] D. Pimentel, S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. O'Connell, E. Wong, L. Russel, J. Zern, T. Aquino and T. Tsomondo, “Economic and environmental threats of alien 23

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 References

plant, animal, and microbe invasions,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 84, pp.

1-20, 2001.

[23] European Commission, “Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species,” [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.317.01.0035.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2014:317:TOC. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[24] J. P. Clement et al., “A strategy for improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior,” A report to the Secretary of the Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force, Washington, DC, 2014.

[25] United Nations General Assembly, “ A/Res/70/1 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” United Nations, October 21, 2015.

[26] United Nations General Assembly, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” vol. A/Res/70/1, p. 24, October 2015.

[27] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, “Mainstreaming biodiversity into national sectoral and cross-sectoral,” NBSAP training modules version 2.1 – Module 3, Montreal, 2011.

[28] United Nations Biodiversity Conference, “CANCUN DECLARATION ON MAINSTREAMING THE CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY FOR WELL-BEING,” in Thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cancun, Mexico, 2016.

[29] R. Noe, B. Keeler, M. Kilgore, S. Taff and S. Polasky, “Mainstreaming ecosystem services in state-level conservation planning: progress and future needs,” Ecology and Society, 2017.

[30] M. E. A. (MA), “Ecosystems and human well-being : current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group,” Island Press, Washington, DC, 2005.

[31] Natural Capital Coalition, “Natural Capital,” [Online].

Available: http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital/. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[32] International Integrated Reporting Council, “The International Framework,” International Reporting Council, London, 2013.

[33] Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Principles of Natural Capital Accounting,” Defra, Newport, South Wales, 2017.

[34] World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “Natural Intrastructure for Business,” [Online]. Available: http://www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org/resources/. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[35] World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “Natural Infrastructure for Business, Case Studies,” [Online]. Available: http://www.naturalinfrastructureforbusiness.org/casestudies/. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[36] European Commission, “Green Infrastructure,” Environment Directorate General, [Online].

Available: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[37] I. Kaul, I. Grunberg and M. A. Stern, “Global Public Goods. Cooperation in the 21st Century,” New York, 1999.

[38] C. Folke et al., “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability,” Ecology and Society, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 20, 2010.

[39] F. Moberg and S. H. Simonsen, “What is Resilience? An introduction to social-ecological research,” Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm.

[40] Merriam Webster, Thesaurus.

24

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 References

[41] J. P. Rodriquez, T. D. Beard Jr, E. M. Bennett, G. S. Cumming, S. Cork, J. Agard, A. P. Dobson and G. D. Peterson, “Trade-offs across Space, Time, and Ecosystem Services,” Ecology and Society, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 28, 2006.

[42] Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), “COP 5 Decisions,” in Fifth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, Kenya, 2000.

[43] A. Wezel, S. Bellon, T. Dore, C. Francis, D. Vallod and C. David, “Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review,” Agron. Sustain. Dev., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 503-515, 2009.

[44] D. Gabriel, S. M. Sait, S. E. Kunin and T. G. Benton, “Food production vs. biodiversity: comparing organic and conventional agriculture,” Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 50, no. 2, p. 355–364, 2013.

[45] R. E. Green, S. J. Cornell, J. P. W. Scharlemann and A. Balmford, “Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature,” Nature, vol. 307, no. 5709, pp. 550-555, 2005.

[46] Audubon, “Uncovering How Wildlife Corridors Work,” Audubon, 11 December 2018. [Online].

Available: http://www.audubon.org/news/uncovering-how-wildlife-corridors-work. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[47] K. Meiklejohn, R. Ament and G. Tabor, Habitat Corridors & Landscape Connectivity: Clarifying the Terminology, Centre for Large Landscape Conservation, No date.

[48] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Biology Handbook - Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat Resources, Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004.

[49] A. F. Bennett, “Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation,” IUCN, Gland, 2003.

[50] M. M. Bryant, “Urban landscape conservation and the role of ecological greenways at local and metropolitan scales,” Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 76, no. 1-4, pp. 23--44, 2006.

[51] J. Linehan, M. Gross and J. Finn, “Greenway planning: developing a landscape ecological network approach,” Landscap and Urban Planning, vol. 33, no. 1-3, pp. 179-193, 1995.

[52] S. A.Waage, K. Geiser, F. Irwin, A. B. Weissmand, M. D. Bertoluccie, P. Fisk, G. Basile, S. Cowan, H. Cauley and A. McPherson, “Fitting together the building blocks for sustainability: a revised model for integrating ecological, social, and financial factors into business decisionmaking,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 13, no. 12, pp. 1145-1163, 2005.

[53] World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “Landscape Connectivity, A Call to Action,” WCBSD, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.

[54] Ecoagriculture Partners, “Defining Integrated Landscape Management for Policy Makers,” Ecoagriculture Policy Focus, pp. 1-6, October 2013.

[55] R. Bommarco, D. Kleijn and S. G. Potts, “Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 230-238, 2013.

[56] B. Cardinale, E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. Hooper, C. Perrings, P. Venail, A. Narwani, G. Mace, D. Tilman, D. Wardle, A. Kinzig, G. Daily, M. Loreau, J. Grace, A. Larigaudierie, D. Srivastava and S. Naeem, “Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity,” Nature, vol. 486, pp. 59-67, 2012.

[57] CGIAR - Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE), “Ecosystem services and resilience framework,” International Water Management Institute, Colombo, 2014.

[58] B. Lin, “Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change,” BioScience, vol. 61, pp. 183-193, 2011.

25

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 References

[59] F. Bianchi, B. C.J. and T. Tscharntke, “Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control,” Proc. R. Soc. B, vol. 273, pp. 1715-1727, 2006.

[60] L. Dicks, J. Ashpole, D. J., K. James, A. Jonsson, N. Randall, D. Showler, R. Smith, S. Turpie, D. Williams and W. Sutherland, “Farmland conservation: Evidence for the effects of interventions in northern and western Europe,” Synopses of Conservation Evidence, vol. 3, 2013.

[61] Schulte, “Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn-soybean croplands,” 2016.

[62] F. Bianchi, V. Mikos, L. Brussard, B. Delbaere and M. Pulleman, “Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context,” Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 27, pp. 223-231, 2013.

[63] DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “Biodiversity Offsetting Pilots Technical Paper: The metric for the biodiversity offsetting pilot in England,” DEFRA, 2012.

[64] WBCSD - World Business Council for Sustainable Development, “Landscape connectivity, a call to action,” WBCSD, Geneva, 2017.

[65] European Commission, “Sustainable Use of Pesticides: Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides,” European Commission, 13 October 2017.

[Online].

Available: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides_en. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[66] WHO and FAO, “International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management,” WHO, FAO, Rome, 2014.

[67] FAO, “AGP Integrated Pest Management,” [Online].

Available: http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/ipm/en/. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[68] European Commission, “Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC,” 2009. [Online].

Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107.

[Accessed 15 March 2018].

[69] US Department of the Interior, Public Land Policy - Landscape-Sale Mitigation Policy, US Department of the Interior, 2015.

[70] T. Tscharntke, A. M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan-Dewenter and C. Thies, “Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management,” Ecology Letters, vol. 8, no. 8, p. 857–874, 2005.

[71] Bioversity International, “Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Sustainable Food Systems: Scientific Foundations for an Agrobiodiversity Index – Summary,” Bioversity International, 2016.

[72] EFSA, “Scientific opinion on recovery in environmental risk assessments at EFSA,” 2016.

[73] EFSA, “Environmental Risk Assessment,” [Online].

Available: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/environmental-risk-assessment. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

[74] European Commission, “Procedure to apply for authorisation of a PPP,” [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/authorisation_of_ppp/application_procedure_en.

[Accessed 15 March 2018].

26

This is a working paper and is subject to period review and amendment – this is VS 2018-03-20 References

[75] European Commission, “Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products Text with EEA relevance,” [Online].

Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011R0547. [Accessed 15 March 2018].

27