Search

This chapter provides a context for discussing the relevance of socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) to the nexus between biodiversity, health, and sustainable development. It begins with an introduction to the idea of a nexus approach to landscape and seascape management, which can help minimise trade-offs and create synergies among different sectors and various global goals for sustainability. With a view to the multiple benefits derived from SEPLS, which extend beyond biodiversity conservation to human and ecosystem health, the chapter then explores how SEPLS management on the ground can contribute to more sustainable management of natural resources, achievement of global targets for biodiversity and sustainable development, and good health for all. Finally, it describes the scope, objectives, and structure of the book, including an overview of the case studies compiled in the subsequent chapters.

This chapter synthesises major findings from the eleven case studies presented in the previous chapters, offering policy recommendations arising from the synthesis. It distills key messages to address questions on the following issues: (1) how to conceptualise the nexus between biodiversity, health, and sustainable development in the context of SEPLS management; (2) how to measure, evaluate, and monitor the effectiveness of SEPLS management in regard to securing and improving both ecosystem and human health; and (3) how to address the challenges and seize the opportunities of SEPLS management in minimising trade-offs and maximising synergies between different efforts augmenting both ecosystem and human health, as well as well-being, so as to move towards more sustainable futures. The chapter identifies several policy recommendations to better manage the biodiversity-health-sustainability nexus in SEPLS and facilitate transformative change for sustainable development. It also revisits the concept of the biodiversity-health-sustainability nexus to offer perspectives on the complex interlinkages in the context of managing SEPLS on the ground.

Mountain social–ecological systems (SES) are often rich in biological and cultural diversity with sustained human–nature interactions. Many mountain SES are experiencing rapid environmental and socio-economic change, demanding viable action for conservation to sustain ecosystem services for the benefit of their communities. This paper is a synthesis of 71 case studies of mountain-specific SES, submitted to the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI) that identifies major drivers of change, associated impacts, and response strategies. We find that overexploitation, land use change, demographic change, and the regional economy are the most prevalent drivers of change in the IPSI mountain SES, leading to negative consequences for biodiversity, livelihoods, indigenous knowledge, and culture. To counter these challenges in the study SES, stakeholders from the public, private, and civil society sectors have been implementing diverse legal, behavioral, cognitive, technological, and economic response strategies, often with strong community participation. We outline the lessons learned from the IPSI case studies to show how community-based approaches can contribute meaningfully to the sustainable management of mountain landscapes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01651-6.

This open access book is a compilation of case studies that provide useful knowledge and lessons that derive from on-the-ground activities and contribute to policy recommendations, focusing on the relevance of social-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS) to “transformative change.” The concept of “transformative change” has been gaining more attention to deal with today’s environmental and development problems, whereas both policy and scientific communities have been increasingly calling for transformative change toward sustainable society. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has planned to start the so-called “assessment on transformative change” if approved by the IPBES plenary to be held in 2021. At present, the idea of transformative change, including its scope, methodologies, approaches and strategies, are yet to be clarified. By bringing together all of the different concerns and interests in the land/seascape, SEPLS approaches could provide practical and experience-based insights for understanding and gauging transformative change and identifying determinants of such change. This book explores how SEPLS management relates to the idea of transformative change to further the discussion of sustainable transitions in advancing sustainability science. The introductory chapter is followed by case study chapters offering real-world examples of transformative change as well as a synthesis chapter clarifying the relevance of the case study findings to policy and academic discussions.

Almost all countries are experiencing disasters whose frequency and intensity have increased over the last decades due to many natural and anthropogenic factors, including climate change. These disasters are increasingly deadly, costly, uncertain, complex, and occurring over a range of temporal and spatial scales. They are the outcomes of inevitable hazards that affect highly vulnerable areas and populations with low coping capacities and resilience. The capacity to anticipate, mitigate and adapt to disaster risk is currently making a significant difference as to whether or not a natural hazard turns into a disaster. Presently, there is no region immune to the impacts of hazards and a country’s vulnerability to disaster risk is the outcome of several factors, mainly the failure of its related governance system. Therefore, countries imperatively need to invest in disaster-resilience building, especially through the development of appropriate governance arrangements according to international frameworks while considering local context dynamics. Disaster resilience is understood here as the ability to adapt to and recover from hazards, shocks or stresses without compromising long-term prospects for development. This process, in order to be effective, requires the consideration of many issues, which will be investigated throughout this chapter, such as: the governance implications of the linkages between disaster risk reduction, climate change and sustainable development goals; the impacts of knowledge gap, uncertainty and science-decision divide; the dynamics through which stakeholder perceptions, awareness and involvement are shaped; the different relevant approaches to be mainstreamed; and the role of laws, policies, and regulations as critical tools in reducing and preventing disaster risk, thus fostering human security.

Ecosystems provide a variety of provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services which are key to climate change adaptation and environmental sustainability. Current trends of biodiversity loss and overburdened natural ecosystems further challenge climate adaptation in the developing world. Scientists are trying to develop their understanding of the relationships among different ecosystem services provided by diverse ecosystems given its vital importance for landscape management, decision-making and policy development. The mechanisms in complex socio-ecological systems and their mutual impact have still not been studied, especially from the climate perspective. However, Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) and Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are increasingly gaining importance in climate debates, but methods to bring them into the Paris Agreement’s market and non-market mechanisms are still unclear. Evaluating the ecosystem services in nature-based solutions would instill confidence into the climate strategists, investors, financers and buyers for market and non-market approaches. Such evaluation could include socio-economic parameters so as to also benefit the livelihoods of the local communities. Monitoring of carbon regulating services and provisioning services will help in establishing robust market mechanisms. On the other hand, evaluating social and cultural benefits of the ecosystems are more beneficial for SDGs and non-market mechanism of the Paris Agreement. UNFCCC COP-26 will be instrumental in deciding the guidelines for the much-awaited Paris Mechanisms. In light of the rising concerns regarding the NbS, this chapter discusses the emergence of such a mechanism and assesses the need for the development of appropriate indicators and evaluation of ecosystem services to better monitor NbS projects. Such monitoring and evaluation could be helpful in drawing the benefits of the Paris Mechanisms and climate finance through avenues such as the green climate fund in the post-2020 period.

Climate change is adversely affecting food production systems while increasing the vulnerability of human societies—especially resource-poor small producers—and diminishing their resilience to food and nutrition insecurity. Even with a 1.5 °C scenario, climate change is believed to leave disadvantaged populations weakly resilient to food, health, and livelihood insecurity. Additionally, the scale of change required to limit warming to 1.5 °C is historically unprecedented and can only be achieved through strategically important societal transformation and ambitious mitigation measures, a requirement still not efficiently met by the majority of countries, especially key carbon emitters. This chapter accordingly aims at analyzing the dynamics through which climate change affects food and nutrition insecurity and drawing the pathways towards resilience building in this area. The analysis starts with investigating the predominant impacts of climate change on food security and resilience; then assesses these dynamics from international and regional perspectives; and finally explores some best pathways and approaches toward building resilience for food and nutrition security in a changing climate.

This chapter synthesises major findings from the eleven case studies from different countries across the world (i.e. Kenya and Madagascar from Africa; Chinese Taipei, India, Nepal and the Philippines from Asia; Italy, Spain and UK from Europe; Antigua and Barbuda and Colombia from Latin America) concerning SEPLS management in relation to transformative change. It distils key messages in regard to how to understand, assess and take action on transformative change. Implications for science, policy and practice, as well as interfaces between them, are drawn out to address the following questions: (1) what is transformative change? (2) how do we know if we are moving towards a sustainable society? and (3) what are challenges, opportunities and “seeds of change” in the SEPLS context to bring about transformative change? The chapter concludes with five common principles identified across the case studies, while revising the notion of transformative change to reconceptualise it as a radical change that is built on niche innovations of local initiatives and can be fostered through adaptive co-management in the SEPLS context.

This chapter introduces the idea of transformative change for sustainability and its relevance to the concept and practices of socio-ecological production landscapes and seascapes (SEPLS). First, it lays out the context where transformative change has been described as a way of fundamental, system-wide reorganisation of technological, economic and social factors to achieve the global goals of sustainability and nature conservation. Following a literature review, which offers the current state of knowledge concerning transformative change, the chapter discusses how SEPLS management relates to the idea of transformative change. In particular, it highlights the potentials of integrated approaches to managing SEPLS that can result in multiple benefits beyond biodiversity conservation and facilitate transformative change while addressing well-being needs and challenges specific to the local contexts. With this background and conceptual underpinning, the chapter provides the scope and objectives of the book as well as the key questions followed by the case study chapters. Finally, it introduces the organisation of the book and presents an overview of the case studies.

Until the Paris Agreement on Climate Change accorded equal importance to adaptation and mitigation, the market instruments framed under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) focused mainly on mitigation. However, realizing the importance of existing forests in storing and sequestering carbon, the UNFCCC introduced the concept of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD+) at Bali in 2007, promising to benefit multiple sectors linking climate change, biodiversity, sustainable livelihoods, and water resource conservation. Due to its widespread acceptance among the forest rich countries, it became increasingly relevant to study the impacts of its implementation in developing countries. This work is a case study of a USAID-funded pilot project in the northern Indian hill state of Himachal Pradesh designed to draw lessons for forest conservation and generate data for future REDD+ projects. Focused group discussions with the local people to solicit their views on the promises and potential of the initiative bring out the loss of trust in such projects. They fear loss of livelihoods and homes as they are largely dependent on the ecosystem services provided by the forests, including non-timber forest produce (NTFP), medicinal plants, and honey. They expressed concern over the ruthless destruction of forests in the nearby regions and felt that the Government has been supporting destructive projects at the cost of their livelihoods. Feeling left out of monetary benefits resulting out of projects, they compared the REDD+ initiative with the ‘industry-oriented’ motives. In addition, the study also integrates expert views of scientists on implementing REDD+ as an effective adaptation mechanism. Effective governance, increased stakeholder participation and synergizing the program with watershed management initiatives can help yield full potential of REDD+.

Food availability and access is a necessary condition for food security. This chapter aims to analyze the state of declining foodgrain availability in India despite record agricultural production and rising food subsidy. In terms of methodology, the data have been procured from the Economic Survey of India and the Annual Reports of the Food Corporation of India. Maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients have been calculated for the pairs of net availability vs. carrying cost, net availability vs. total food subsidy, and food subsidy vs. Public Distribution System (PDS) offtake for analysis. The findings show that the availability of foodgrain ranges from 186.19 to 146.51 kg per person per year and the average 167.14 kg per person per year with a standard deviation of 10.10. Availability declined consistently from its peak of 186.19 kg per person in 1991 to the bottom of 146.51 in 2013. This difference becomes starker when one considers that an average family of five had 198 kg of foodgrain less to eat in 2013 than in 1991. The study found that the correlation coefficient of per capita net availability with subsidy was low at 0.19 but the correlation of subsidy with agricultural production was high at 0.91. The originality and value of this study are derived from its focus on the present government policies and resolutions for food management and the reasons as to why the present policies have not been able to address the problem of food availability in the country.

The problem of environmental security in the Indian context can be linked to the deficit of democracy in recent times. On the face of it, India is the largest democracy in the world, but the issues directly affecting the lives and livelihoods of poor people in the resource-rich regions are often pushed to the background. With the climate change agenda moving into the hands of corporate interests, what was earlier done in the name of development is now done in the name of environment. Although India is among the countries most vulnerable to climate change and loss of biodiversity, citizens have little say in environmental policy-making. India has a strong tradition of living in harmony with nature since the Vedic times beginning 1700 BC. The 1970’s and 80’s saw the emergence of major successful grassroots resistance movements such as Chipko, Silent Valley, and Save Narmada movements. More such spontaneous movements are failing now in the absence of political support. There is no ‘green’ party in India which can highlight the issues facing the poor and vulnerable people. Even the mainstream media controlled by the corporate sector does not reach the darkness in which the poor people live. Only once did the Indian Parliament take notice of climate change negotiations when the country decided to take voluntary emission reduction commitments at the Copenhagen Summit in 2009. Biodiversity has never been discussed in Parliament though India stands to lose its natural treasure due to the policies pursued by the Government. This chapter traces the history of popular and successful environment movements and discusses the reasons behind the failure of such movements in present times.

The 18th Conference of Parties (COP-18) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at Doha in 2012 decided to enhance the participation of women in climate negotiations. The decision was immediately dubbed the ‘Doha Miracle’, although it was not the first of its kind. The decision to recognise gender equality was first taken 11 years earlier at Marrakesh in 2001, but progress has been very slow. However, giving women representation in international negotiations will make little difference in the real world where women, who as a group are the most vulnerable to climate change, have no say in decision-making, even at the community level, although they are the ones who bear the brunt of climate change and the burden of adaptation. Discussing their strengths and vulnerabilities, this article suggests ways for their inclusion in order to benefit from their perspective and expertise by making the best use of existing institutions in India.

India’s position on climate change negotiations is likely to have far reaching implications for the success of global climate cooperation. Since the beginning of negotiations, the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) remained the centerpiece of India’s stand. The stand started to evolve at the 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen in 2009, when India accepted voluntary commitments to reduce emission intensity. Though India still swears by CBDR, status of the principle in the negotiations has become doubtful after the Durban Climate Conference in 2011 committed all parties to take emission targets. This paper traces major transition points in India’s negotiating position over the years and provides a descriptive context of its climate-related concerns. It analyzes the interview responses of 15 top scientists, experts, and negotiators to build upon core areas of climate change issues in India, its future role, and position in negotiations. Interviewees, in general, were in favor of protecting the carbon space for the poor who had very low emissions.

Steel dominates the global metal production accounting for 5 % of increase in Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Today, India is the 4th largest producer of crude steel in the world. The sector contributes around 3 % to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) but adds 6.2 % to the national greenhouse gas (GHG) load. It accounts for 28.4% of the entire industry sector emissions, which are 23.9% of the country’s total emissions. Being a developing country, India is not obliged to cut its emissions under the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), but gave voluntary commitment to reduce the emission intensity of its GDP by 20–25 % from the 2005 level by 2020. This paper attempts to find out if the Indian steel sector can help the country in fulfilling this commitment. The sector reduced its CO2 emissions per ton of steel produced by 58% from 1994 to 2007. The study generates six scenarios for future projections which show that the sector can reduce its emission intensity by 12.5 % to 63 %. But going by the conservative estimates, the sector can reduce emission intensity by 30 % to 53 %. However, actual emissions will go up significantly in every case.