National targets

The book ‘Biodiversity in Belgium, a country study’ (Peeters et al., 2003) presents a detailed overview of existing knowledge on Belgium’s biodiversity (status, trends and threats). In addition, this country study also emphasises the urgent need to extend and deepen our understanding of all components of our biodiversity.

Further compilations and synthesis of existing data and (meta) information, making full use of electronic tools, will provide an even more solid background for detecting gaps in research needs and policy-relevant priorities, and could serve as an essential catalogue to support the access to genetic resources. The development of a web portal, in accordance with obligations in the framework of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), could serve as a basis for a national register of species.

The dissemination of scientific data and information on biodiversity should not only be aimed at the scientific community, but should reach the widest audience possible in an adapted language, including decision-makers, teachers, students and the general public. The development of databases to access ongoing and past studies and research could be a very useful tool to this end. This will require the primary scientific data and conclusions to be presented in a format and language accessible for a non‑specialist audience. This will be particularly important when biodiversity themes are incorporated in educational and public awareness programmes.

Full and effective implementation of many of the actions identified in the Belgian Biodiversity Strategy requires a considerable improvement in the knowledge and understanding of Belgium’s biodiversity and ecosystem services provided. Methodologies to value biodiversity and ecosystem services, including the ecological aspects related to ecosystem structure and functions, the socio-economic aspects and the monetary aspects, are being developed, notably in support of operational objective 5.11. More research is also needed on biodiversity at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, while the peer-reviewed output of this research must be disseminated rapidly, in order to allow for adaptive management.

Obviously, several issues in the Belgian Biodiversity Strategy need immediate action, for instance to remedy imminent threats for which there is insufficient time to allow for in-depth research to underpin rescue actions. On the other hand, in the absence of extensive research data, such immediate actions risk failure or producing negative, unexpected side effects. It is therefore essential to design research projects in such a way that the expected results can guide and underpin immediate actions, and also generate data that may help to plan and achieve biodiversity conservation and management in the long term.

Major research impulses are required in the areas of taxonomy and ecology, including inventory projects, protocols for rapid biodiversity assessment, and programmes for long-term monitoring, as well as in detailed ad hoc conservation initiatives (for example in nature reserves and other protected areas). The establishment of thematic inventories (agricultural biodiversity, medicinal plants biodiversity) should be promoted as well as the establishment of a precise cartography of plants related to potentially imminent GMO cultures.

Specific research should also focus on the links between, inter alia, biodiversity and health, biodiversity and climate change, in terms of potential and opportunity to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity.

Monitoring of biodiversity and remedying of the causes of threatening processes are inherent to all the objectives of Belgium’s Biodiversity Strategy, and in particular to its Objectives 1 and 2. Hence more research should be carried out on monitoring methodologies and the development of biodiversity indicators. These research efforts should be conducted in agreement and, if possible, in collaboration with similar programmes carried out at a European and international level, and should take the Aichi biodiversity targets and SEBI-initiative into consideration.

The definition of national standards for biodiversity inventories and monitoring using an appropriate set of common indicators (see Objective 1) will enable the evaluation and communication of progress made by Belgium towards the 2020 target, and help fulfil reporting obligations to international bodies. It will also allow for an adaptive management of components of biodiversity (in particular with regard to climate change), and for strengthening policies related to activities and processes that threaten biodiversity.

The EU “Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services” (MAES) initiative aims to improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services (EU Biodiversity Strategy target 2, action 5). This implies that Member States, with the assistance of the European Commission, map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services on their national territory (by 2014) and assess the values of such services and promote the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels (by 2020).

Research will be needed to attain these goals, and to come to a better understanding of ecosystem processes as well as of how humans use biodiversity, how these uses affect biodiversity and ecosystem services, and how this usage can be sustainable. Initiatives under the community of practice on Belgian Ecosystems and Society (BEES community [80]) of the Belgian Biodiversity Platform are being taken in this context. The Belgian MAES working group was initiated in 2012 and includes Belgian biodiversity and ecosystem services experts and stakeholders (see also operational objective 7.5 hereunder).

Biodiversity in Belgium is mainly threatened by anthropogenic activities, often governed by sectoral policies. Specific research should be developed both to increase current knowledge on the impact of sectoral policies on biodiversity, and to assess the level of integration of biodiversity into these sectoral policies.

The integration of biodiversity management into sectoral policies implies that biodiversity-related issues will be mainstreamed into all socio-economic sectors, such as agriculture, biotechnology, energy, fishery, forestry and tourism.

More research is needed to evaluate the level of integration of biodiversity and for example gain an idea of the effects of present day agrotechnology on both agricultural biodiversity and wild flora and fauna (for example pollinators). Research should also include the study of the effects of emerging technologies (for example GMOs and nanotechnologies) on biodiversity (see Operational Objective 2.1).

The integration of socio-economic sciences into the field of biodiversity research is of major importance in order to slow down and halt the continuing human-mediated loss of biodiversity. This should include the analysis of public awareness and perceptions, and consumers’ attitudes and preferences with regard to biodiversity, and then how both of these factors relate to behaviour and public policy.

To influence policy-making and stimulate public awareness, increased knowledge of the values of biodiversity (not limited to pure economic value) is needed, for instance by improving methods for their valuation and by conducting high-profile studies on the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services in ecosystems of topical interest. In the valuation process, the relationships between health (physical and mental well-being) and biodiversity should also be investigated. More research should be dedicated to the link between changes in biodiversity and the rise in incidence of some already existing human and animal diseases or in the emergence of new ones.

The existing interfaces between policy and research, with not enough research being policy-relevant, and insufficient application of existing knowledge in policy‑making, should be strengthened. This will require efforts at different levels: not only from the scientific to the policy level, but also the other way round.

The recent establishment of an Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) creates an appropriate stage for the improvement of the science-policy interface. Belgium plays an active role in the operationalization of the Platform through its membership and through national networks of scientific and policy experts in support of the IPBES, such as the BEES Community of Practice or the Belgian Community of Practice on Biodiversity and Health (COPBH). Belgium also has a platform dedicated to science-policy interfacing (i.e. the Belgian Biodiversity Platform), hosting the national focal points for GBIF, IPBES and IUCN – and coordinating several communities of practice as the ones mentioned above.

Previous and ongoing research and science communication programmes could be valorised as useful models for bringing together different experts, generalists, and other stakeholders driven by the need to deliver a response to a complex problem. They could also contribute to translating research outcomes into policy advice, developing policy support tools, and promoting policy-relevant research.

Innovative solutions and methodologies are required to optimise the links between research and policy and promote actor’s participation in the development and implementation of new policies. The fragmentation of the institutional framework in Belgium often brings many people together in discussions on biodiversity, which does not always lead to an efficient work. Creative solutions should be proposed to install a mechanism and institutional arrangements aiming to simplify procedures and ensure participation (a.o. participation and consultation methods, effective communication models, etc.). The positive and negative impacts of socio-cultural and economic factors (a.o. recreation) must also be assessed.

An important aspect of linking research to policy is effective communication. Training courses and materials could be developed to help researchers communicate more effectively, not only the results of their research but also the process of research, in order to better highlight the way research is planned and executed. Decision-makers could also beneficiate from training in using and requesting scientific advice (e.g. how to ask the right questions) and in the identification of suitable sources of information.

The ability of administrations to make use of scientific information could be enhanced by encouraging secondments from universities and scientific institutions, into government. Secondments the other way – of officials taking a sabbatical in a university or in a scientific institution – might also help develop expertise and networks.

Methods are needed to predict and prevent potential invasive behaviour of GMOs released into the environment, especially for new types of GMOs, and if already relevant, for products ensuing from synthetic biology or other new genetic modification techniques. In order to allow coexistence of different forms of culture and to avoid potential negative effects of transgenes on the wild environment, research is also needed to develop reliable methods to predict and reduce the probability of transfers of genetic material from transgenic organisms.

There is also a need to adapt and, if necessary develop methodologies in order to monitor and coordinate data on potential unforeseen effects of GMOs, not only on individual species but also on community structures of the ecosystem, after their deliberated release and commercialisation. In order to pursue objective 4c.7, case-by-case monitoring of potentially adverse effects on biodiversity as a result of the introduction of GMO cultures in Belgium should be undertaken. If risk evaluation and monitoring methods are already suggested by the guidelines of the strongest world biosafety regulations like those of the EU, the implementation of such guidelines should be seriously and completely pursued in a professional and transparent way.

As such GMO risk evaluations need to consider different ecosystems and agro- ecosystems as well as various species, including non-targets species, and especially those that are of particular relevance such as biological indicator species, or that play a specific role in the ecosystem (earthworms, mycorrhizal fungi associated with roots, etc.). Better risk assessments on GMOs and avoidance of negative impacts on human health and the environment must be ensured to contribute to the Aichi objectives.

Furthermore, as encouraged by Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, extensive socio-economic studies on the impacts of GMO cultures introduction in Belgium and elsewhere in the world should in particular be undertaken (link with Objectives 4c.7, 4d.3, 4f.4, 5.8, and 6). Capacity building on biosecurity can and should be integrated into development plans with partner countries.

Belgium can also draw on the results of existing programmes of Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) that proved to be successful in a similar context. CEPA programmes were developed by the Ramsar Convention and by the EU for Natura 2000.

Many students place environmental issues, and even biodiversity protection, high on their list of concerns. Unfortunately, few are aware either of the threats to their immediate surroundings or of the opportunities for taking concrete steps in their everyday life. The education system has an essential role to play in this regard.

Teaching and training should focus on the development of skills that will enhance understanding and acceptance of the need for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Information should be presented not simply as science, but in a social, economic and political context, so that students can better understand which complex circumstances form the background for the making of decisions on biodiversity conservation. The practical knowledge, such as the recognition of plants and animals should also be promoted. Courses addressing the values attached to biodiversity and ecosystem services, and planning programmes applying the ecosystem approach should be proposed throughout the educational system, from primary and secondary school to technical colleges and universities as well as outside the school system (youth organisations, continuous training). For example, awareness campaigns for youth organisations and particularly scouts would be very useful to explain how they can cause damages to natural areas, directly or indirectly.

There are at present several environmental and sustainable development education programmes in the formal education system in Belgium, particularly at the primary school level. Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services must be systematically included in the executive terms* of all school programmes at the different school and higher education levels. To this end, better educational support must be provided to schools and teachers (for example, development of educative packages and publications on biodiversity aimed at the students).