Search

Increasing the supply of forest ecosystem services in the tropics is on the agenda of most developing countries’ forest policies and most importantly in Kenya which is a low forest cover country. E...

Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies science suggests would be effective. One of the reasons for that is the lack of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of different actors. Furthermore, there is a lack of consideration of differences between languages, worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement across the science-policy interface can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth and depth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. By examining diverse conceptualizations of ?nature? in more than 60 languages, we identify three clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire of ways of describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us communicate in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies and sustainability scenarios for the future, offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges. Fil: Coscieme, Luca. Trinity College Dublin; Irlanda Fil: da Silva Hyldmo, Håkon. Norwegian Environment Agency; Noruega Fil: Fernández-Llamazares, Álvaro. Helsingin Yliopisto; Finlandia Fil: Palomo, Ignacio. Bc3 Basque Centre For Climate Change; España Fil: Mwampamba, Tuyeni H.. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Selomane, Odirilwe. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Sitas, Nadia. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Jaureguiberry, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Takahashi, Yasuo. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies; Japón Fil: Lim, Michelle. University of Adelaide; Australia Fil: Barral, María Paula. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Innovación Para la Producción Agropecuaria y El Desarrollo Sostenible. - Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Buenos Aires Sur. Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce. Instituto de Innovación Para la Producción Agropecuaria y El Desarrollo Sostenible.; Argentina Fil: Farinaci, Juliana S.. National Institute For Space Research; Brasil Fil: Diaz-José, Julio. Tecnológico Nacional de México; México Fil: Ghosh, Sonali. Wild life Institute of India; India Fil: Ojino, Joyce. international Institute of Industrial Environmental Economics; Suecia Fil: Alassaf, Amani. The University of Jordan; Jordania Fil: Baatuuwie, Bernard N.. University for Development Studies; Ghana Fil: Balint, Lenke. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Reino Unido Fil: Basher, Zeenatul. Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability; Estados Unidos Fil: Boeraeve, Fanny. Research unit Biodiversity and Landscape; Bélgica Fil: Budiharta, Sugeng. Indonesian Institute of Sciences; India Fil: Chen, Ruishan. East China Normal University; China Fil: Desrousseaux, Maylis. Envrionmental Law Institute; Francia Fil: Dowo, Gregory. Department of Applied Biosciences and Biotechnolog; Zimbabue Fil: Febria, Catherine. University of Canterbury; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Ghazi, Houda. Cadi Ayyad University; Marruecos Fil: Harmáčková, Zuzana V.. Czech Academy of Sciences; República Checa Fil: Jaffe, Rodolfo. Instituto Tecnológico Vale; Brasil Fil: Kalemba, Mphatso M.. Environmental Affairs Department; Malaui Fil: Lambini, Cosmas K.. Bayreuth University; Alemania Fil: Lasmana, Felicia P.S.. HCV Resource Network; Reino Unido Fil: Mohamed, Assem A. A.. Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate; Egipto Fil: Niamir, Aidin. Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Center; Alemania Fil: Pliscoff Varas, Patricio Andrés. Universidad Católica de Chile; Chile Fil: Sabyrbekov, Rahat. American University of Central Asia; Kirguistán Fil: Shrestha, Uttam B.. University of Southern Queensland; Australia Fil: Samakov, Aibek. Aigine Cultural Research Center; Kirguistán Fil: Sidorovich, Anna A.. ScientificandPracticalCenterforBioresourcesoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesofBelarus; Bielorrusia Fil: Thompson, Laura. U.S. Geological Survey; Estados Unidos Fil: Valle, Mireia. National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis; Estados Unidos

In 2013, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) agreed to carry out a regional assessment for Africa. Since then, roughly 100 authors have been working to deliver, in 2018, a document that not only synthesises existing knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services for the African region but to distil from it knowledge that is relevant, credible, and legitimate for both societal and scientific practise. This requires, firstly, to carefully constituting the group of authors and, secondly, to design an assessment process that allows for deriving at an integrated perspective amongst these experts. Such a joint process of knowledge production that encompasses both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration can be framed as co-creation. In this contribution, we analyse whether the IPBES African assessment accounts for these two prerequisites for an effective assessment process. Our particular interest lays in the question whether scholars from ...

Forest ecosystem service (FES) provisioning and management in Vietnam is a priority in the Vietnamese environmental agenda. The main rationale of private forest management is to maximise profits from timber and non-timber forest product (NTFP) production. From a social point of view an under-supply of positive forest externalities (or non-marketed ecosystem services) exists. This paper therefore contributes to the ecosystem service (ES) literature by assessing the production cost structure, in other words, the cost of marketed production and provision of carbon and biodiversity, based on a survey of private forest owners in Hoa Binh Province in Vietnam. The econometric analysis was carried out using a dual cost function approach to analyse the trade-off between forestry costs and ecological performance. This is, to our knowledge, the first time such an approach has been used to estimate the production relationship between marketed outputs and non-marketed ES in the forest sector. This approach appears to be appropriate for handling the multiple joint outputs of forest production and allows us to estimate marginal costs and other cost measures such as cost complementarities in the production of multiple ES. Our results indicate that there is complementarity in the provision of timber and carbon sequestration and, consequently, policies that enhance carbon sequestration in private forests in Vietnam can be implemented without additional costs for the forest owner. We also found that keeping deadwood (to favour biodiversity) had no significant cost and was complementary with NTFP (also an indicator of biodiversity in our study), but could increase the marginal cost of producing timber. This means that biodiversity can be enhanced at no additional cost, provided that the quantity of deadwood does not significantly increase.

The area of degraded forests in Vietnam is substantial, currently about 3.1 million ha of which about 1.7 million ha (55 %) were granted to individual farms for reforestation. However, the result of farmers’ reforestation efforts is limited. We aimed to examine the financial return, technical efficiency, and factors determining reforestation with a native tree species (Canarium album) by farms. Our results showed that reforestation with C. album is less financially profitable than that with an exotic tree species (Acacia mangium) as the alternative land use option. The subsidy from the government is found insufficient to compensate for the income losses of farmers participating in reforestation with the native tree species. Reforestation with C. album could be more successful if participating farmers were equipped to be more technically efficient. Finally, our findings clearly showed that the security of forest land property rights and the provision of forest extension services are among the determinants of participation in, and the subsequent success of reforestation with C. album.

Effective institutional property rights are increasingly becoming an important part in the allocation of scarce forest resources and to combat the “tragedy of the commons” thesis. Our paper outlines conceptual, analytical and theoretical aspects of forest institutional property rights and an empirical synthesis of main findings from institutional property rights effectiveness in a cross-country comparative context. The paper employs property rights based framework coupled with some New Institutional Economics (NIE) debates as a diagnostic framework for understanding forest property rights. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) provides empirically insights into how “forest institutional property rights” impact on forest communities' livelihoods and management. Our analysis provides support for the argument that forest institutional property rights play important role in the livelihoods of forest dependent communities and in forest management, but that can be context specific as showcased in our findings. Finally, the paper makes some recommendations in institutional analysis of forest property rights, such as strong and clearly defined property rights, integration of formal and informal rights and suggests strong linkage between institutional property rights and sustainable livelihoods as a “panacea” for sustainable forest livelihoods and management in developing countries.

The ecosystem services concept (ES) is becoming a cornerstone of contemporary sustainability thought. Challenges with this concept and its applications are well documented, but have not yet been systematically assessed alongside strengths and external factors that influence uptake. Such an assessment could form the basis for improving ES thinking, further embedding it into environmental decisions and management.The Young Ecosystem Services Specialists (YESS) completed a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis of ES through YESS member surveys. Strengths include the approach being interdisciplinary, and a useful communication tool. Weaknesses include an incomplete scientific basis, frameworks being inconsistently applied, and accounting for nature's intrinsic value. Opportunities include alignment with existing policies and established methodologies, and increasing environmental awareness. Threats include resistance to change, and difficulty with interdisciplinary collaboration. Consideration of SWOT themes suggested five strategic areas for developing and implementing ES.The ES concept could improve decision-making related to natural resource use, and interpretation of the complexities of human-nature interactions. It is contradictory - valued as a simple means of communicating the importance of conservation, whilst also considered an oversimplification characterised by ambiguous language. Nonetheless, given sufficient funding and political will, the ES framework could facilitate interdisciplinary research, ensuring decision-making that supports sustainable development.