Innovating European Nature Conservation Law by Introducing Ecosystem Services

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederik H. Kistenkas
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Conservation Law

scholarly journals Regional planning of river protection and restoration to promote ecosystem services and nature conservation

2021 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
pp. 104101
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Portela ◽  
Cristiana Vieira ◽  
Cláudia Carvalho-Santos ◽  
João Gonçalves ◽  
Isabelle Durance ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Regional Planning

scholarly journals Taking the Pulse of Environmental and Fisheries Law: The Common Fisheries Policy, the Habitats Directive, and Brexit

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Appleby ◽  
James Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Conservation Law ◽  
Habitats Directive ◽  
Member States ◽  
Progressive Reform ◽  
Fishing Vessels ◽  
Fisheries Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Fisheries Law ◽  
The Eu

Abstract There has long been a tension between environmental regulation and the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which has been addressed over time through progressive reform of the CFP. It is now recognised that Member States may comply with their obligations under EU nature conservation law by taking unilateral non-discriminatory measures within their territorial seas to protect the marine environment from threats posed by fishing. Nevertheless, fundamental uncertainties remain when it comes to the application of these obligations to offshore waters. This article explores the options available to coastal states in this context and the weaknesses of the procedures introduced to the reformed CFP in 2013. It is argued that compliance with nature conservation law in the context of fisheries is not discretionary and that in the absence of measures agreed at the EU level, Member States must comply with their obligations under the Habitats Directive in their capacity as a flag state. Finally, the article addresses the implications of Brexit for the protection of European Marine Sites in UK waters, suggesting that Brexit offers opportunities to strengthen the protection of marine ecosystems by making future access arrangements for foreign fishing vessels conditional upon compliance with nature conservation laws.

scholarly journals Market-Based Conservation for Better Livelihoods? The Promises and Fallacies of REDD+ in Tanzania

Land ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Scheba
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Forest Management ◽  
National Level ◽  
Policy Reforms ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Alternative Livelihood ◽  
Governance Institutions

Governments, multilateral organisations, and international conservation NGOs increasingly frame nature conservation in terms that emphasise the importance of technically managing and economically valuing nature, and introducing markets for ecosystem services. New mechanisms, such as REDD+, have been incorporated in national-level policy reforms, and have been piloted and implemented in rural project settings across the Global South. By reflecting on my research on REDD+ implementation in two case study villages in Tanzania, the paper argues that the emergence and nature of market-based conservation are multi-faceted, complex, and more profoundly shaped by structural challenges than is commonly acknowledged. The paper identifies three particularly important challenges: the politics surrounding the establishment of community-based forest management; the mismatch between formal governance institutions and actual practices on the ground; and the fickleness of income from carbon sales and alternative livelihood opportunities. I argue that these challenges are not merely teething troubles, but they question fundamental assumptions of market-based conservation, more generally. I end with reference to better ideas for achieving sustainable development.

Ecosystem Services

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon C. Braat
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Nature Management ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Policy And Planning

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analyzed in the 18th century, but the term ecosystem services was introduced only in 1981. Since then it has spurred an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. Now a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains, it is also used, developed, and customized in policy arenas and considered, if in a still somewhat skeptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and corporate business. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been felt in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union (which have placed it at the center of their nature conservation and sustainable use strategies). The concept involves the utilitarian framing of those functions of nature that are used by humans and considered beneficial to society as economic and social services. In this light, for example, the disappearance of biodiversity directly affects ecosystem functions that underpin critical services for human well-being. More generally, the concept can be defined in this manner: Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems, in interaction with contributions from human society, to human well-being. The concept underpins four major discussions: (1) Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide; (2) Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?); (3) Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and (4) Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

scholarly journals Domestic cats and their impacts on biodiversity: A blind spot in the application of nature conservation law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arie Trouwborst ◽  
Phillipa C. McCormack ◽  
Elvira Martínez Camacho
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Conservation Law ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Domestic Cats

scholarly journals HERITAGE, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND OTHER ARGUMENTS TO NATURE RESERVES ADVOCACY

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.V. Chernykh ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Climate Changes ◽  
Nature Reserves ◽  
Natural Heritage ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Absolute

Russian zapovedniks are one of the most effective forms of nature conservation. The arguments in defense of the absolute inviolability of the zapovedniks are: their invaluable role in preserving the natural heritage; the ability to monitor the climate changes in various landscapes; a wide range of regulating and supporting ecosystem services.

History and Assessment of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Granjou ◽  
Isabelle Arpin
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
United Nations Environment Programme ◽  
Academic Science ◽  
Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Equal Footing ◽  
International Environmental Governance

The recent implementation of the IPBES is a major cornerstone in the transformation of the international environmental governance in the early 21st century. Often presented as “the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) for biodiversity,” the IPBES aims to produce regular expert assessments of the state and evolution of biodiversity and ecosystems at the local, regional, and global levels. Its creation was promoted in the 1990s by biodiversity scientists and NGOs who increasingly came to view the failure of achieving effective conservation of nature as the consequence of the gap between science and policy, rather than of a lack of knowledge. The new institution embodies an approach to nature and nature conservation that results from the progressive evolution of international environmental governance, marked by the notion of ecosystem services (i.e., the idea that nature provides benefits to people and that nature conservation and human development should be thought of as mutually constitutive). The IPBES creation was entrusted to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Social environmental studies accounted for the genesis and organization of the IPBES and paid special attention to the strong emphasis put by IPBES participants on principles of openness and inclusivity and on the need to consider scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge (e.g. traditional ecological knowledge) on an equal footing. Overall the IPBES can be considered an innovative platform characterized by organizations and practices that foster inclusiveness and openness both to academic science and indigenous knowledge as well as to diverse values and visions of nature and its relationship to society. However, the extent to which it succeeded in putting different biodiversity values and knowledge on an equal footing in practice has varied and remains diversely appreciated by the literature.

scholarly journals Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Leibenath ◽  
Markus Kurth ◽  
Gerd Lintz
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Conceptual Foundation ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Normative Criteria

Responding to the UN programme “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), TEEB-DE (2012–2018) was a science–policy interface (SPI) set up in Germany with the objective of mobilising scientific expertise for a better consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in political and corporate decision-making. The aim of this paper is to contribute to an assessment of TEEB-DE by analysing its objectives, structure, processes and outputs. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that takes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE) as normative criteria for examining SPIs. Methodologically, the paper relies on a fine-grained analysis of published documents and interviews with key figures of TEEB-DE. The results allow for a preliminary assessment of TEEB-DE in regard to CRELE and illuminate how its conceptual foundation—namely the ecosystem services concept—was discussed in the public realm. We also consider a number of trade-offs which the coordinators of TEEB-DE had to negotiate. In conclusion, we identify some proposals for designing future SPIs in the domain of biodiversity and nature conservation in Germany such as paying greater attention to policy windows, broadening the thematic scope beyond economics and providing better opportunities for debate and contestation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document