| 1. |
- Droste, Nils, et al.
(författare)
-
Designing a global mechanism for intergovernmental biodiversity financing
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Conservation Letters. - : Wiley. - 1755-263X. ; 12:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol display a broad international consensus for biodiversity conservation and equitable benefit sharing. Yet, the Aichi biodiversity targets show a lack of progress and thus indicate a need for additional action such as enhanced and better targeted financial resource mobilization. To date, no global financial burden-sharing instrument has been proposed. Developing a global-scale financial mechanism to support biodiversity conservation through intergovernmental transfers, we simulate three allocation designs: ecocentric, socioecological, and anthropocentric. We analyze the corresponding incentives needed to reach the Aichi target of terrestrial protected area coverage by 2020. Here we show that the socioecological design would provide the strongest median incentive for states which are farthest from achieving the target. Our proposal provides a novel concept for global biodiversity financing, which can serve as a starting point for more specific policy dialogues on intergovernmental burden and benefit-sharing mechanisms to halt biodiversity loss.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kadykalo, A. N., et al.
(författare)
-
Disentangling ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘nature’s contributions to people’
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Ecosystems and People. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2639-5908 .- 2639-5916. ; 15:1, s. 269-287
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- People depend on functioning ecosystems, which provide benefits that support human existence and wellbeing. The relationship between people and nature has been experienced and conceptualized in multiple ways. Recently, ecosystem services (ES) concepts have permeated science, government policies, multi-national environmental agreements, and science–policy interfaces. In 2017, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) introduced a new and closely related concept–Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). The introduction of NCP has sparked some lively discussion and confusion about the distinguishing characteristics between ES and NCP. In order to clarify their conceptual relation, we identify eleven specific claims about novel elements from the latest NCP literature and analyze how far ES research has already contributed to these corresponding conceptual claims in the existing ES literature. We find a mixed-picture, where on six specific conceptual claims (culture, social sciences and humanities, indigenous and local knowledge, negative contributions of nature, generalizing perspective, non-instrumental values and valuation) NCP does not differ greatly from past ES research, but we also find five conceptual claims (diverse worldviews, context-specific perspective, relational values, fuzzy and fluid reporting categories and groups, inclusive language and framing) where NCP provides novel conceptualizations of people and nature relations.
|
|
