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.

scholarly journals Governance and Management of the Nexus: Structures and Institutional Capacities

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Snorek
Keyword(s):  
Science Policy ◽  
International Markets ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Joint Management ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
The Right ◽  
Stakeholder Communication ◽  
Nexus Conference

AbstractSustaining the water-energy-food nexus for the future requires new governance approaches and joint management across sectors. The challenges to the implementation of the nexus are many, but not insurmountable. These include trade-offs between sectors, difficulties of communication across the science-policy interface, the emergence of new vulnerabilities resulting from implementation of policies, and the perception of high social and economic costs. In the context of the Sustainability in the W-E-F Nexus conference May 19-20, 2014, the session on ‘Governance and Management of the Nexus: Structures and Institutional Capacities’ discussed these problems as well as tools and solutions to nexus management. The session demonstrated three key findings: 1. Trade-offs in the Water-Energy-Food Nexus should be expanded to include the varied and shifting social and power relations; 2. Sharing knowledge between users and policy makers promotes collective learning and science-policy-stakeholder communication; and 3. Removing subsidies or seeking the ‘right price’ for domestic resources vis à vis international markets is not always useful; rather the first imperative is to gauge current and future costs at the national scale.

Ecosystem services

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion B. Potschin ◽  
Roy H. Haines-Young
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical Geography ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Puzzle Solving ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Stocks And Flows ◽  
Change Impact

The ‘ecosystem service’ debate has taken on many features of a classic Kuhnian paradigm. It challenges conventional wisdoms about conservation and the value of nature, and is driven as much by political agendas as scientific ones. In this paper we review some current and emerging issues arising in relation to the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services, and in particular emphasize the need for physical geographers to find new ways of characterizing the structure and dynamics of service providing units. If robust and relevant valuations are to be made of the contribution that natural capital makes to human well-being, then we need a deeper understanding of the way in which the drivers of change impact on the marginal outputs of ecosystem services. A better understanding of the trade-offs that need to be considered when dealing with multifunctional ecosystems is also required. Future developments must include methods for describing and tracking the stocks and flows that characterize natural capital. This will support valuation of the benefits estimation of the level of reinvestment that society must make in this natural capital base if it is to be sustained. We argue that if the ecosystem service concept is to be used seriously as a framework for policy and management then the biophysical sciences generally, and physical geography in particular, must go beyond the uncritical ‘puzzle solving’ that characterizes recent work. A geographical perspective can provide important new, critical insights into the place-based approaches to ecosystem assessment that are now emerging.

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.

Synergies and trade-offs between nature conservation and climate policy: Insights from the “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE” study

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 187-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Wüstemann ◽  
Aletta Bonn ◽  
Christian Albert ◽  
Christine Bertram ◽  
Lisa Biber-Freudenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Trade Offs

Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lal
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Retention Capacity ◽  
No Till ◽  
Trade Offs

AbstractEcosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

scholarly journals ASSESSMENT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FOR PLANNING OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
Maija Ušča ◽  
Ivo Vinogradovs ◽  
Agnese Reķe ◽  
Dāvis Valters Immurs ◽  
Anita Zariņa
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Distribution ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Green Infrastructure ◽  
Hot Spots ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Supply Potential

Ecosystem services (ES) are defined as the benefits that human beings derive from ecosystem functions. Assessment and mapping of these benefits are crucial for sustainable environmental planning and future natural capital. Green infrastructure (GI) is natural or semi-natural territories that provide wide range of ES. Human affected ecosystems tend to fail to provide certain sets of ES due to the trade-offs among those services, which could be mitigated through implementation of GI. Mapping of ES, as well as assessing the interactions among various ES and analysing their supply potential’s cold/hot spots considerably enhances and substantiates the planning process of GI, particularly at the regional scale and for the territories with diverse landscape potential. The aim of this paper is to discuss the assessment of ES supply potential and analyse its spatial distribution to reveal cold/hot spots of ecosystem capacity to provide wide range services and functions for GI. The study presents GIS based assessment of ES in a case study of Zemgale Planning Region. ES supply potential was assessed for 27 Corine land use classes (CLC2018) together with 10 regulatory, 12 provisioning and 6 cultural ES. An expert-based ranking approach using a two-dimensional ES matrix and a geospatial analysis was applied to determine total ES supply potential, spatial patterns and relations among multiple ES. Additional statistical analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) was performed on spatial distribution of regulatory ES to disclose statistically significant capacity of ecosystems to function as GI in given surroundings. Preliminary results show uneven distribution of ES, trade-offs between regulatory and provisioning ES and landscape dependent spatial clustering of these trade-offs supported by result of Getis-Ord Gi* analysis, thus laying a foundation for further planning of GI at the regional scale.

scholarly journals Statistical Tools Driven Science Policy Interface for Strengthening Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr. Prachi Ugle
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Statistical Tools ◽  
Statistical Tool ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
Not At Risk

In lieu of ever so evolving landscapes, there is a constant pressure on biodiversity and the myriad of ecosystem services it offers. In order to strengthen science policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for conservation of human well-being, nexus between biodiversity and conservation and sustainable development varied statistical tools are applied. Science policy interface with the Science Based Target Initiative is a evolving landscapes in ecosystem based restoration framework. Aligning it with statistical tools further adds to dynamics for ecosystem management. The statistical tool includes : Good Quality of Life (GQL) = Human Wellbeing and factor is under pressure and indicated as P* - Percentage of undernourished populace ; Nature Contributions to People (NCP) = Ecosystem Goods Services - impacted where in two factors are considered – being at risk, not at risk, unknown level of risk extinction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document