Search

"There are no scientifically justified obstacles to protecting biodiversity in all its beauty and diversity. There are only six years left to achieve the biodiversity targets by 2030. We must work together now to get there in time."In the 10 Must Knows from Biodiversity Science 2024, 64 scientists have further developed their well-founded and diverse findings and recommendations from the 10MustKnows22. The content of the ten selected key areas of the Earth-human system is supplemented by relevant publications from 2022 and 2023 and linked to the 23 global goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted in December 2022. The authors are aware that the next six years until 2030 are essential for achieving an ecologically sustainable and socially just life on our planet in the medium and long term. With the 10MustKnows24, they want to actively contribute to accelerating the socio-ecological transformation by providing scientifically sound recommendations for politics and society.These are the 10MustKnows24: 1: Achieving climate and biodiversity protection together 2: Enabling a healthy life on a healthy planet 3: Considering undiscovered biodiversity 4: Linking linguistic, cultural and biological diversity 5: Harmonising the diverse use of forest ecosystems and biodiversity conservation 6: Transforming agricultural and food systems 7: Protecting land and resources 8: Releasing transformative change through international collaboration and Education for Sustainable Development 9: Ensuring free access and open use of biodiversity-related data 10: Reducing biodiversity impacts from food consumption

"Es gibt wissenschaftlich keine begründeten Hindernisse, die Biodiversität in ihrer Schönheit und Vielfalt zu schützen. Es bleiben nur noch sechs Jahre, um die Biodiversitätsziele bis 2030 zu erreichen. Dafür müssen wir jetzt gemeinsam anpacken."In den 10 Must-Knows aus der Biodiversitätsforschung 2024 haben 64 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler ihre fundierten und vielseitigen Erkenntnisse und Empfehlungen aus den 10MustKnows22 weiterentwickelt. Die zehn ausgewählten Schlüsselbereiche des Erde-Mensch-Systems werden inhaltlich durch relevante Publikationen von 2022 und 2023 ergänzt und mit den im Dezember 2022 verabschiedeten 23 globalen Zielen des Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) verknüpft. Den Autorinnen und Autoren ist bewusst, dass die kommenden sechs Jahre bis 2030 wesentlich sind, um mittel- und langfristig ein ökologisch nachhaltiges und sozial gerechtes Leben auf unserer Erde zu erreichen. Mit den 10MustKnows24 möchten sie durch wissenschaftlich gesicherte Empfehlungen für Politik und Gesellschaft ihren aktiven Beitrag leisten, um die sozial-ökologische Transformation zu beschleunigen.Das sind die 10MustKnows24: 1. Klima- und Biodiversitätsschutz gemeinsam verwirklichen 2. Ein gesundes Leben auf einem gesunden Planeten ermöglichen 3. Unentdeckte Biodiversität beachten 4. Sprachliche, kulturelle und biologische Vielfalt verknüpfen 5. Vielfältige Nutzung von Waldökosystemen und Biodiversitätsschutz in Einklang bringen 6. Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme transformieren 7. Land und Ressourcen schützen 8. Transformativen Wandel durch internationale Zusammenarbeit und Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung bewirken 9. Freien Zugang und offene Nutzung von biodiversitätsbezogenen Daten sicherstellen 10. Auswirkungen des Lebensmittelkonsums auf die Biodiversität verringern

In the 10 Must Knows from Biodiversity Science 45 scientists present facts about biodiversity in a well-founded and generally intelligible way. They analyse the complex systems of the earth by highlighting ten key areas, each of which, in turn, is inextricably linked to all the others. And they show ways to stop the continued loss of species diversity and ecosystems, and to promote biodiversity. The underlying aim is to provide policy-makers and society with scientifically validated assessments of the latest knowledge to facilitate improved policy decisions and action at local, regional, national and global levels, in order to conserve the diversity of life – biodiversity. These are the 10MustKnows 2022: 1. Achieving climate and biodiversity protection together 2. Strengthening planetary health 3. Considering hidden biodiversity 4. Promoting biocultural habitats 5. Using forests sustainably 6. Transforming agriculture 7. Protecting land and resources 8. Expanding transnational infrastructure and education for sustainability 9. Ensuring access and open use of research data 10. Setting biodiversity-friendly incentives

We replicate Bocquého et al. (2014), who used multiple price lists to investigate the risk preferences of 107 French farmers. We collected new data from 1430 participants in 11 European farming systems. In agreement with the original study, farmers' risk preferences are best described by Cumulative Prospect Theory. Structural model estimates show that farmers in the new samples are, on average, less loss averse and more susceptible to probability distortion than in the original study. Explorative analyses indicate differences between estimation approaches, as well as heterogeneity between and within samples. We discuss challenges in replications of economic experiments with farmers across farming contexts.

In the 10 Must Knows from Biodiversity Science 45 scientists present facts about biodiversity in a well-founded and generally intelligible way. They analyse the complex systems of the earth by highlighting ten key areas, each of which, in turn, is inextricably linked to all the others. And they show ways to stop the continued loss of species diversity and ecosystems, and to promote biodiversity. The underlying aim is to provide policy-makers and society with scientifically validated assessments of the latest knowledge to facilitate improved policy decisions and action at local, regional, national and global levels, in order to conserve the diversity of life – biodiversity. These are the 10MustKnows 2022: 1. Achieving climate and biodiversity protection together 2. Strengthening planetary health 3. Considering hidden biodiversity 4. Promoting biocultural habitats 5. Using forests sustainably 6. Transforming agriculture 7. Protecting land and resources 8. Expanding transnational infrastructure and education for sustainability 9. Ensuring access and open use of research data 10. Setting biodiversity-friendly incentives

To preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, company engagement is crucial. However, available data on manager views and perceptions regarding nature conservation in particular is rare. The presented survey data gives insights into current levels and forms of business commitments for nature conservation. The data contributes to understanding business attitudes towards voluntary conservation action and includes information about factors that influence their engagement. Moreover, the data informs about manager perceptions towards the concept of nature conservation credits and, as such, allows for an evaluation of a certified biodiversity and ecosystem services market. Importantly, the dataset contains essential company characteristics to put responses into greater context. The scope of the survey is limited to German companies from secondary and tertiary sectors. Companies were sampled through proportional stratified random sampling based on size and location. The data was collected through a self-administered online-survey, conducted in 2019. The database comprises responses of 747 companies that logged into the online system. The survey data were in part analysed through structural equation modelling for an investigation of factors that drive voluntary conservation commitments [1]. Related to this analysis, a subset of 618 companies is available that provided sufficiently completed questionnaires. Both datasets, i.e. the raw data as well as the first subset used for analysis, are hosted in the public repository Open Research Data of the Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany. The repository also stores all coding information as well as the questionnaire: https://www.doi.org/10.4228/ZALF.DK.149. The dataset can be used, for example, by researchers from the field of environmental business management and strategy.

Aufbauend auf dem Bericht 'Ökosystemleistungen in ländlichen Räumen' aus dem Vorhaben Naturkapital Deutschland - TEEB DE wurde gemeinsam mit Praktikerinnen und Praktikern während eines dreitägigen Workshops diskutiert, welche Erkenntnisse aus dem TEEB-Deutschland-Prozess für die Gestaltung von Politiken im Bereich Agrar-, Stickstoff- und Hochwasserschutzpolitik abgeleitet werden können. Ziel war es, Handlungsempfehlungen an politische Entscheidungsträgerinnen und -träger zur Ausgestaltung von Politiken zu geben. Dafür wurde der aktuelle Erkenntnisstand gemeinsam von politischen Akteuren unterschiedlicher Ebenen sowie Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern reflektiert. Ziel war es, gemeinsam herauszuarbeiten, ob und - wenn ja - wie für anstehende Aufgaben in den drei genannten Politikfeldern der Ökosystemleistungsansatz für die Lösungsfindung genutzt werden kann. Aufbauend hierauf wurden Handlungsempfehlungen entwickelt. Der Workshop zeigte, dass gerade für die Bereiche Agrar- und Hochwasserschutzpolitik der Ökosystemleistungsansatz auf drei verschiedenen Ebenen zur Anwendung gebracht werden kann:1. als unterstützendes Element in der Kommunikation der Umweltpolitiken und Maßnahmen, 2. im Zuge der Abwägung bei konkurrierenden Zielen sowie 3. im Design und der Implementierung der Politiken durch Verbesserungen bei konkreten Managementmaßnahmen.This paper describes the lessons learnt from the German TEEB report 'Natural Capital Germany - TEEB DE: Ecosystem services in rural areas' with respect to the design of agricultural policies as well as policies for flood prevention and nitrogen reduction. To this end, a three-day workshop was conducted with practitioners to discuss and provide recommendations for policymakers concerning the design of rural policies. During the workshop insights from local, regional and national policymakers and from scientists were reflected upon in order to explore whether the ecosystem service approach could generate novel solutions for agri

Nature-based solutions (NBS) in river landscapes, such as restoring floodplains, can not only decrease flood risks for downstream communities but also provide co-benefits in terms of habitat creation for numerous species and enhanced delivery of diverse ecosystem services. This paper aims to explore how landscape planning and governance research can contribute to the identification, design and implementation of NBS, using the example of water-related challenges in the landscape of the Lahn river in Germany. The objectives are (i) to introduce the NBS concept and to provide a concise definition for application in planning research, (ii) to explore how landscape planning and governance research might support a targeted use and implementation of NBS, and (iii) to propose an agenda for further research and practical experimentation. Our methods include a focused literature review and conceptual framework development. We define NBS as actions that alleviate a well-defined societal challenge (challenge-orientation), employ ecosystem processes of spatial, blue and green infrastructure networks (ecosystem processes utilization), and are embedded within viable governance or business models for implementation (practical viability). Our conceptual framework illustrates the functions of NBS in social-ecological landscape systems, and highlights the complementary contributions of landscape planning and governance research in developing and implementing NBS. Finally, a research and experimentation agenda is proposed, focusing on knowledge gaps in the effectiveness of NBS, useful approaches for informed co-design of NBS, and options for implementation. Insights from this paper can guide further studies and support testing of the NBS concept in practice.

While in many cases the benefits of ecosystem services (ES) can be enjoyed on different scales, the provision of ES requires engagement and commitment at the local scale. Therefore, the local level becomes important when thinking about compensation schemes or payments for ecosystem services (PES) as an approach to managing ES. The difficult task of bringing together different actors and institutions at different scales for specific conservation projects at the local level often remains in the hands of intermediaries. In this paper, we investigate the role of a civil society organisation (CSO) as an intermediary organisation in a PES scheme, the Community Blue Carbon Project (CBCP) in Costa Rica. To assess the role of intermediaries in a PES scheme, we rely on social network analysis and examine the position and role of the intermediary organisation. Based on Net-Map interviews, which is an interview-based mapping tool that helps people understand, visualise, discuss and improve situations in which many different actors influence outcomes, we find that the intermediary organisation in the CBCP is composed of several institutional and individual intermediaries who create both formal networks for connecting the international to the local level and informal networks for creating trusting relationships among the actors. Different spatial levels are reflected within the CSO’s organisational structure, and the CSO mitigates the distributional, procedural, recognition and contextual aspects of environmental justice.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are criticized, amongst other reasons, for their basis in ideas suited to the neoliberal political economy and for the unequal distribution of power inherent in such models. However, PES can be a natural resource management approach that combines social and environmental objectives so that they not only serve to protect ecosystems such as tropical forests and wetlands but also to improve social conditions and rural development. Particularly for community-based PES, tools are needed to bring transparency to PES institutional settings and actor constellations by revealing power relations, as well as to empower local actors to engage in social learning through participatory processes. Considering both of these aspects will improve the equity aspects of PES and establish a social context conducive to a payment scheme that considers local behaviors and attitudes towards conservation. Close collaboration – in knowledge co-production processes – between social science and practitioners can address these challenges and support the PES design and implementation process.In this paper, we demonstrate how Net-Map, as a specific tool for Social Network Analysis (SNA), can make actor relations visible for the purpose of group discussion within participation processes. We present how the results of participatory Net-Map Interviews can be used for participatory PES development, implementation and evaluation. In particular, we explain and discuss this for three case studies in Costa Rica.We conclude that this combination – using empirical data from social sciences for participatory planning – facilitates the creation of a common understanding of the PES-governance models, the creation of ownership, and the consolidation of transparency and trust amongst the participants, as well as reflection on the existing social capital necessary for implementation. The results of the Net-Map tool support the design of inclusive and adaptive processes that sh

Agricultural landscapes safeguard ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity upon which human well-being depends. However, only a fraction of these services are generally considered in land management decisions, resulting in trade-offs and societally inefficient solutions. The TEEB Study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) spearheaded the development of assessments of the economic significance of ES and biodiversity. Several national TEEB follow-ups have compiled case studies and derived targeted policy advice. By synthesizing insights from “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE” and focusing on rural areas, the objectives of this study were (i) to explore causes of the continued decline of ES and biodiversity, (ii) to introduce case studies exemplifying the economic significance of ES and biodiversity in land use decisions, and (iii) to synthesize key recommendations for policy, planning and management. Our findings indicate that the continued decrease of ES and biodiversity in Germany can be explained by implementation deficits within a well-established nature conservation system. Three case studies on grassland protection, the establishment of riverbank buffer zones and water-sensitive farming illustrate that an economic perspective can convey recognition of the values of ES and biodiversity. We conclude with suggestions for enhanced consideration, improved conservation and sustainable use of ES and biodiversity.

Die Leistungen der Natur können zur Lösung des Klimaproblems beitragen, indem sie gezielt für den Klimaschutz und die Anpassung an den Klimawandel genutzt werden. Hierdurch lassen sich einerseits kostengünstiger Klimaschutz und andererseits Synergien zwischen Klimapolitik und Naturschutz- und Biodiversitätspolitik erzielen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden zunächst die Wirkungen der deutschen Energie- und Klimapolitik auf die Biodiversität und die Ökosysteme in Deutschland aufgezeigt. Im Anschluss daran erfolgt eine Untersuchung der Ökosystemleistungen naturnaher Landnutzungen für Klimaschutz und Klimaanpassung. Es zeigt sich, dass im Agrarsektor erhebliche Minderungspotenziale für Klimaschutz vor allem durch den verringerten Ausstoß von Lachgas sowie die Erhaltung von Grünland bestehen. Moore und andere kohlenstoffreiche Böden können durch Erhaltung und Wiederherstellung als Kohlenstoffsenken dienen. Auenflächen leisten insbesondere einen Beitrag zum Hochwasserschutz und damit zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel. Die Klimawirkungen in den einzelnen Bereichen werden ökonomisch bewertet und Handlungsempfehlungen für eine ökosystembasierte Klimapolitik formuliert.

Cross Compliance (CC) is a mechanism for encouraging farmers to fulfill certain environmental conditions in return for governmental support payments. Introduced to United States (US) and European Union (EU) agricultural policy from the 80s onwards, upcoming new US (Farm Bill 2012) and EU (Common Agricultural Policy after 2013) policies will include CC. Cross Compliance is seen (i) as a policy for enforcing environmental objectives or (ii) as a way to organize and reward agricultural public good production. In recent years, the instrument's effectiveness and efficiency have been criticized. To validate the deviating understandings, we drew back on an economic institutionalist perspective. We found that regarding EU CC as payment for public goods does not generally align with the existing German property rights distribution. In both the EU and US, CC standards above those contained regulatory law have characteristics of a payment for public goods but create severe problems. We conclude that CC, even if useful for triggering and broadening environmental protection efforts, may cause several long-term problems. Therefore, the rights structure should be clearly communicated, law enforcement function should be temporary, the instrument should be included in an overall concept, and payments should be better linked to the environmental output.

A major strength of the ecosystem services (ESS) concept is that it allows a succinct description of how human well-being depends on nature, showing that the neglect of such dependencies has negative consequences on human well-being and the economy. As ESS refer to human needs and interests, values are to be considered when dealing with the concept in practice. As a result we argue that in using the concept there is a need to be clear about what different dimensions of value are involved, and be aware of ethical issues that might be associated with the concept. A systematic analysis of the ethical implications associated to the ESS concept is still lacking. We address this deficiency by scrutinising value dimensions associated with the concept, and use this to explore the associated ethical implications. We then highlight how improved transparency in the use of the ESS concept can contribute to using its strengths without succumbing to possible drawbacks arising from ethical problems. These problems concern the dangers that some uses of the concept have in obscuring certain types of value, and in masking unevenness in the distribution of costs and benefits that can arise in the management of ESS.