Search Results (15)

Climate change and biodiversity loss are two major threats to the world. Ecosystem conservation is an important issue for humanity, and international intergovernmental science-policy platforms highlight the mutually beneficial relationships among biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and measures to mitigate climate change. Rapid urbanization has brought various deeply interconnected ecological problems to large cities. Therefore, key areas for conservation must be identified in an integrative manner to maximize conservation effectiveness and meet both ecological and human social needs. Spatial conservation prioritization provides a way to consider different functional needs as a whole in light of certain objectives while highlighting their contradictions and overlaps in spatial utilization. The megacity of Beijing continues to experience frequent extreme weather events despite the implementation of a series of ecological restoration measures. We integrated the potential distributions of 64 critically endangered native species to represent biodiversity and used five main ecosystem services required for climate governance to represent ecosystem services in the city. Using the spatial prioritization software Zonation 5, we assessed the spatial distribution of conservation priorities at the municipal scale and changes in conservation effectiveness in four protection scenarios. The results showed that the existing PAs in Beijing could protect 24.99% of the current distribution of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The conservation effectiveness can reach 78.75% when the PAs are increased to 30%. This efficiency rate is 4.46% lower than that of the optimal scenario, which does not consider the existing PAs. An emphasis on urban rewilding spaces may be the key to overcoming conservation bottlenecks to further enhance the efficiency of ecological conservation. To achieve future conservation targets, policy development may start with urban built-up areas. Full article

The recent rates of global change in nature are unprecedented in human history. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has proposed a framework to achieve transformative change. Transformative change with respect to nature will be driven by recognizing the values people have; making inclusive decisions based on these values; restructuring policies, rights, and regulations in accordance with them; and transforming social norms and goals that can drive change. Social media is a new source of information and a modern tool for monitoring public opinion on human–nature interactions. This study identified commonalities among seven language communities (the six official languages of the United Nations and the Japanese language), demonstrating the uniqueness of the Japanese community by comparing hashtags in tweets that include the term biodiversity and determining differences in interest and concern about biodiversity from the past to the present. Tweets accessible at the end of 2021 that focus on biodiversity were collected from the Twitter server and used to form a text dataset. Interest was then qualitatively and quantitatively identified using natural language processing technology. Engagements and diversity indices were found to be on the rise in all language communities. We found that the Japanese language community has a different perspective on the relationship between biodiversity and humans from the scope of the IPBES conceptual framework. Future work should examine the relationship between passion for biodiversity and the Sustainable Development Goals. In addition, collaboration with various people around the world is necessary to understand the concept of biodiversity in different traditions and cultures. Full article

Ecosystems are experiencing significant pressure from human activities, with 1 million species at risk of extinction. This is threatening to undermine the resilience of ecosystems, which provide multiple benefits to support human existence and are essential for the support of life on Earth. A number of conceptual frameworks have been developed as a guide for the assessment of ecosystem services (ESs) and nature’s contributions to people (NCPs), including Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity report, France’s National Ecosystems Assessment, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services, and the Global Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In this paper, we compare the existing conceptual frameworks for the assessment of ESs and NCPs and derive a unified structural framework. Several indicators for characterizing the ESs/NCPs provided are selected and integrated through normalization. On this basis, and enriched by a number of culture-specific indicators, we conduct a mapping exercise illustrating the ES/NCP provision for the whole of France in a spatially explicit form based on a 1 × 1 km scale. Finally, we generate integrated maps depicting distribution patterns of different services and contributions across the landscapes of France focusing on economic, social and ecological dimensions. The results indicate that a non-monetary assessment of the complexity and diversity of NCPs is feasible and presents tangible advantages as compared to monetary frameworks. The paper concludes that provisioning, regulating and cultural services and contributions are geographically unevenly distributed and further analysis is required to assess the degree of complementarity, feedback loops and tipping points among different services. Our pilot research clearly illustrated the feasibility of conducting a highly disaggregated multidimensional assessment of ESs/NCPs at the national scale to inform decision making. Full article

Biodiversity loss has been identified as one of the environmental impacts where humankind has been trespassing over planetary boundaries most significantly. Going beyond the pressures causing damages (calling them ‘direct drivers’) and analysing their underlying driving forces, IPBES, the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, also identified a series of indirect drivers. The Montreal–Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework, GBF, including its suggested monitoring approach, is intended to and claims to be a policy response to such analyses. However, to assess the human impact on ecosystems as a basis for planning conservation and restoration, as foreseen in the GBF, monitoring ecosystem typologies (in the GBF with reference to the UN statistical standard SEEA ES, which, in turn, refers to the IUCN ecosystem classification) is not enough. It needs to be complemented with data on the severity of human impacts and on the history of places, i.e., how and when the current ecosystem status was brought about. In this conceptual paper, we suggest LUI, a deliberately simple ordinal scale index for land use intensity changes, to address these two gaps. It is based on the hemeroby concept, measuring the human impact as deviation from naturalness. This makes it an information collection and presentation tool for those working in landscape planning and management. LUI’s simple and intuitively understandable structure makes it suitable for citizen science applications, and, thus, for participative monitoring when extensive statistical data gathering is not feasible and past data are not available. Of course, it can also be used as a simple tool for communicating when detailed statistical data series are available. While the aggregate index is expected to communicate well, its components are more relevant to motivate and help policy makers to prioritise their decisions according to the severity of recent anthropogenic ecosystem disturbances. Full article

Acquiring access to land is an important issue for new entrants into farming. Traditionally, the succession of farms is within the family; market transactions are geared towards the enlargement of running farms. Policies and institutions have been built to facilitate this process. Current challenges of climate change, resource scarcity, biodiversity and equity, as are analysed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Resource Panel (IRP), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reporting activities, make it so that there is a need to find alternatives for the current developments in farming, which is a process of up (scale enlargement) or out (stop farming). For these alternatives, new types of farmers who face the issue of access to land are needed. Based on FADN data and EUROSTAT data, current developments in the European farming sector were analysed to understand the impact of the process of modernisation on farmland markets and the complexities of access to land for new entrants. Whether these data may point to opportunities for alternative farming methods and the role of the direct payments of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy were analysed. Policies and consequences are discussed. It is concluded that, whereas alternative farming models are promoted at the level of policy aims, this is not performed at the policy guidance level of land markets. Alternatives outside traditional institutions face the issue of scaling up to create impact. The Common Agricultural Policy is, in many ways, more of an obstacle than it is a promoter of providing access to land for new farmers. New policies are needed. Full article

The ever-increasing global health impact of SARS-CoV-2—the etiological agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)—coupled with its socio-economic burden, has not only revealed the vulnerability of humanity to zoonotic pathogens of pandemic potential but also serves as a wake-up call for global health communities to rethink sustainable approaches towards preventing future pandemics. However, since the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) convened experts have declared that future pandemics are likely to be zoonotic in origin, it is imperative that we understand the key drivers of zoonosis such as biodiversity loss, climate change, wildlife consumption, and population mobility, as well as the scientific evidence underpinning them. In this article, we underscore the correlations of these drivers with the emergence and re-emergence of zoonosis. Consequently, we highlighted the need for multidisciplinary collaboration under the planetary health approach between researchers across the fields of environmental and human health to fill the knowledge and research gaps on key drivers of zoonosis. This is to prevent or limit future pandemics by protecting the natural systems of the Earth and its resources and safeguarding human and animal health. Full article

Increased anthropogenic activities including changes in land use and unrelenting ecosystem services related to animal husbandry, wildlife trade, and deforestation are driving the emergence of viral zoonosis. This is primarily due to human–animal interaction which is facilitating the spillover of viral zoonotic pathogens from animals (domestic and wildlife) to humans that could result in epidemics or pandemics. Scientific reports so far have revealed that viral epidemics and pandemics in recent years such as H1N1 Swine Influenza, H5N1 Avian Influenza, Ebola, Zika, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 were all zoonotic, and their emergence has been linked with spillover events arising from human–animal interaction. This increased interaction and the increased spillover event could facilitate future pandemic risk, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, “IPBES”, has declared this “the era of pandemics”. Furthermore, since future pandemics would be triggered by anthropogenic activities, we have called this “anthropopandemicene”, i.e., an era of pandemics driven by anthropogenic activities. To minimize the risk of future pandemics, it is important to prioritize the prevention of viral spillover events. Here, we outline five priority areas for global health researchers and policymakers. These areas include improvement of biosecurity at livestock farms, imposing a moratorium or strictly banning wildlife trade that poses a public health risk, conservation of biodiversity by halting deforestation, investing in community-based research for infectious disease control, and strengthening community healthcare systems in precarious ecosystems and infectious diseases hotspots. Finally, we acknowledge the efforts of other renowned global and legally binding frameworks such as IHR, the Paris Agreement, and CITES with regard to addressing the public health risk of infectious diseases, and we provide recommendations for their improvement. Full article

The term “biodiversity” generally refers to living variation. Biodiversity has recognized anthropocentric values of insurance and investment. Values of “nature” include those of biodiversity and also many other aspects reflecting the scope of human-nature relationships. Systematic conservation planning methods can integrate this range of local to global values. Early case studies in Australia and Papua New Guinea show the potential for such approaches. Recently, there have been calls for a recasting of the concept of biodiversity to capture plurality of values. However, balance among sometimes conflicting values of nature is best-served by a singular biodiversity concept and definition focused on variety, because this enables effective integration with other values of nature. Attempts at pluralistic recastings of biodiversity in fact may promote neglect of global biodiversity values. Further, an extended analysis of the Papua New Guinea case study shows that it cannot be argued that focusing on localized values of nature for conservation will effectively address regional/global scale conservation needs. Full article

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) confirmed that pollinators have declined in abundance and diversity; additionally, there is insufficient data for Latin America. Thus, we performed a review on scientific studies and databases to determine the state of the art of the diversity of three pollinator animals (bees, hummingbirds, and bats) in Mexico as well as an analysis of relevant public policies to conserve these species. We found 2063 bee species reported to be present in Mexico. The biodiversity of hummingbirds (58 species) and pollinator bats (12 species) is well known. We identified 57 scientific studies published in the last 20 years related to the biodiversity of bees (30 studies), hummingbirds (16 studies), and pollinator bats (11 studies). Relatively few, or no current studies on hummingbirds and pollinators bats at risk as well as for more than 1000 bee species is available. Great efforts have been made about policies and programs to improve the knowledge and conservation of pollinators in Mexico the last years such as the Species at Risk Conservation Program (PROCER), the Species Conservation Action Program (PACE), and the Natural Protected Ares System (CONANP). However, information of the status of many species and regions is still scarce. Thus, more studies about biodiversity, density, and trends as well as studies of the impact of policies and programs on pollinator species in Mexico are needed. Full article

Biodiversity knowledge is communicated by scientists to policymakers at the biodiversity “science-policy interface” (SPI). Although the biodiversity SPI is the subject of a growing body of literature, gaps in our understanding include the efficacy of mechanisms to bridge the interface, the quality of information exchanged between science and policy, and the inclusivity of stakeholders involved. To improve this understanding, we surveyed an important but under-studied group—biodiversity policymakers and scientific advisors representing their respective countries in negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We found that a wide variety of SPI mechanisms were being used. Overall, they were considered to be sufficiently effective, improving over time, and supplied with information of adequate quality. Most respondents, however, agreed that key actors were still missing from the biodiversity SPI. Full article

Similar to much of the world, the Australian Government has a vision for society to be engaged in and enriched by science which has, as its prime focus, building skills and capabilities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Simultaneously, the Government’s policies and projects, including in education, ignore intergovernmental environmental initiatives, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). This article critically analyses the Australian Government’s STEM and climate change education policies and programs, including Citizen Science activities, through an ecological education lens and finds many, and growing, gaps and silences in these areas. It compares the Australian situation with STEM and ecological education-related developments in several other countries. In the context of significant global changes such as the COVID-19 pandemic, this article argues that it is time for the Australian education agenda to take the Government’s international responsibilities seriously, include meaningful engagement with climate change and biodiversity related topics through ecological education in the school curriculum, and discusses what a reimagined school science curriculum could look like. Full article

Human well-being and the prerequisite sustainable environmental management are currently at stake, reaching a bottleneck when trying to cope with (i) the ever-growing world population, (ii) the constantly increasing need for natural resources (and the subsequent overexploitation of species, habitats, ecosystems, and landscapes) and (iii) the documented and on-going impacts of climate change. In developed societies, the concern about environmental protection is set high in the public dialogue, as well as to management and policy agendas. The recently constituted Intergovernmental Science—Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) urges transformative changes for technological, economic, and social factors aiming to tackle both direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. By this, the role of conservation and management practices for the environment is characterized as a crucial and top issue and should deal with (a) promoting best practices from the local to the global level, (b) identifying spatial and temporal knowledge gaps, (c) multidisciplinary aspects for sustainable management practices, (d) identifying and interpreting the role of stakeholders and socio-economic parameters in the decision-making process, and (e) methods and practices to integrate the concept of ecosystem services into natural capital assessment and accounting, conservation and management strategies. Modern literature highlights that land-use change and prioritization, restoration of natural areas, cultural landscape identification and maintenance, should be considered to the top of the scientific and policy agenda, as well as to the epicenter of novel awareness-raising strategies for the environment in the near future. Full article

The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) in sustainably using and managing natural resources is becoming broadly recognised within some international platforms (e.g., the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). However, the support for IPLCs to continue managing their land is either completely absent or scanty. This paper presents the value of only four ecosystem services, estimated at USD 1.16 trillion per year, that are delivered from IPLCs managed lands alone (excluding coastal, marine, and other resources). These four ecosystem services (ES), i.e., carbon sequestration, biocontrol, air, and water regulation offer offsite benefits to the wider regional and global populations yet without returns to the IPLCs themselves except for facing more climate and natural disaster-related challenges mainly caused by the actions of mainstream society. It further outlines key challenges and advocates for establishing stewardship mechanisms to promote and support IPLCs land management practices that will effectively help in protecting and preserving biodiversity, water, and other natural resources on Earth to sustain and enhance human well-being. Full article

In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals. In 2019, the release of the global assessment report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services unfortunately demonstrated that our planet may be in more trouble than expected. The main drivers have been identified for many years and relate to human activities such as over-exploitation of natural resources leading to land degradation, deforestation, ocean and atmospheric pollution, and climate change. Despite international agreements and conventions, we are gradually reaching the planet’s boundaries. In this commentary, we present an analysis of the current worldview, discuss the humanist roots of this view, and the barriers to be able to move forward with the transformative changes that are needed for sustainability. We suggest that for these transformative changes to happen, there is a need to reconnect humans with nature, and we propose that some solutions could be devised in areas like education and social media. Changing our mindsets and worldviews are the most urgent courses of action we must undertake to avoid the inevitable. Full article

In its most recent report, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) announced an unprecedented dangerous decline in biodiversity, one of the planetary limits that are currently being surpassed. The results and trends of socio–ecosystemic problems oblige us to attempt to understand and address the global crisis. Socio–ecosystemic problems are not only ethical and moral challenges but also ones of interest and security, since the financial resources available will be insufficient for people immersed in a sick and dysfunctional society. In this sense, science plays a central role in offering alternatives. This work is a theoretical construction, based on complexity and transdiscipline, that aims to offer these alternatives. It is enriched by several areas of knowledge, with the objective of broadening the interpretation of sustainability and overcoming some of the limitations of existing approaches through the recognition of the objective and subjective relationships between humans and ecosystems. Socio–ecosystemic sustainability is an adaptative process, taking the principles of strong sustainability and autopoiesis as an explanation of living and the processes that maintain and reproduce it. It is argued that goals centered on a vision of economic growth are not coherent with the natural processes of the biosphere—as shown by thermodynamics and complex systems—nor, indeed, with a functional society. The health and life on planet is a compelling reason for seeking dialogue between individuals and coherence in the three dimensions of socio–ecosystem sustainability. Full article