Why Should Ecosystem Services Be Governed to Support Poverty Alleviation? Philosophical Perspectives on Positions in the Empirical Literature

In light of trade-offs related to the allocation of ecosystem services we investigate the prevalent norms that are drawn upon to justify why ecosystem governance should prioritise poverty alleviation. We are specifically concerned with poverty alleviation because we consider this an urgent problem of justice. We review empirical literature on social trade-offs in ecosystem services governance in order to identify the prevalent conceptions of justice that inform scholarly assessments of current practice. We find that empirical studies do present specific notions of justice as desirable benchmarks for ecosystem services governance but that they rarely attempt to spell out the precise meaning of these notions or what makes them desirable. For those notions of justice that we identify in this literature - sufficientarianism, egalitarianism and participatory approaches - we draw on philosophical justice literature in order to better articulate the normative arguments that could support them and to be more precise about the kind of actions and expectations that they invoke. Moreover, we point to some striking normative silences in the ecosystem services literature. We conclude that the ecosystem services justice discourse would benefit from more conceptual clarity and a broader examination of different aspects of justice

Biodiversity and ecosystem services science for a sustainable planet: the DIVERSITAS vision for 2012–20

DIVERSITAS, the international programme on biodiversity science, is releasing a strategic vision presenting scientific challenges for the next decade of research on biodiversity and ecosystem services: “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science for a Sustainable Planet”. This new vision is a response of the biodiversity and ecosystem services scientific community to the accelerating loss of the components of biodiversity, as well as to changes in the biodiversity science-policy landscape (establishment of a Biodiversity Observing Network — GEO BON, of an Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services — IPBES, of the new Future Earth initiative; and release of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020). This article presents the vision and its core scientific challenges.Fil: Larigauderie, Anne. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Prieur Richard, Anne Helene. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Mace, Georgina. Imperial College London. Center for Population Biology; Reino UnidoFil: Londsdale, Mark. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences; AustraliaFil: Mooney, Harold A.. Stanford University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Brussaard, Lijbert. Wageningen University, Soil Quality Department; Países BajosFil: Cooper, David. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; CanadáFil: Wolfgang, Cramer. Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Ecologie marine et continentale; FranciaFil: Daszak, Peter. EcoHealth Alliance. Wildlife Trust; Estados UnidosFil: Diaz, Sandra Myrna. 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; ArgentinaFil: Duraiappah, Anantha. International Human Dimensions Programme; AlemaniaFil: Elmqvist, Thomas. University of Stockholm. Department of Systems Ecology and Stockholm Resilience Center; SueciaFil: Faith, Daniel. The Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Jackson, Louise. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Krug, Cornelia. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris. Laboratoire Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Ecologie des Populations et Communautés; FranciaFil: Le Prestre, Philippe. Laval University; CanadáFil: Matsuda, Hiroyuki. Yokohama National University; JapónFil: Palmer, Margaret. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Perrings, Charles. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Pulleman, Mirjam. Wageningen University; Países BajosFil: Reyers, Belinda. Natural Resources and Environment; SudáfricaFil: Rosa, Eugene A.. Washington State University; Estados UnidosFil: Scholes, Robert J.. Natural Resources and Environment; SudáfricaFil: Spehn, Eva. Universidad de Basilea; SuizaFil: Turner II, B. L.. Arizona State University; Estados UnidosFil: Yahara, Tetsukazu. Kyushu University; Japó

Integrating human and ecosystem health through ecosystem services frameworks

The pace and scale of environmental change is undermining the conditions for human health. Yet the environment and human health remain poorly integrated within research, policy and practice. The ecosystem services (ES) approach provides a way of promoting integration via the frameworks used to represent relationships between environment and society in simple visual forms. To assess this potential, we undertook a scoping review of ES frameworks and assessed how each represented seven key dimensions, including ecosystem and human health. Of the 84 ES frameworks identified, the majority did not include human health (62%) or include feedback mechanisms between ecosystems and human health (75%). While ecosystem drivers of human health are included in some ES frameworks, more comprehensive frameworks are required to drive forward research and policy on environmental change and human health

The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people

The first public product of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is its Conceptual Framework. This conceptual and analytical tool, presented here in detail, will underpin all IPBES functions and provide structure and comparability to the syntheses that IPBES will produce at different spatial scales, on different themes, and in different regions. Salient innovative aspects of the IPBES Conceptual Framework are its transparent and participatory construction process and its explicit consideration of diverse scientific disciplines, stakeholders, and knowledge systems, including indigenous and local knowledge. Because the focus on co-construction of integrative knowledge is shared by an increasing number of initiatives worldwide, this framework should be useful beyond IPBES, for the wider research and knowledge-policy communities working on the links between nature and people, such as natural, social and engineering scientists, policy-makers at different levels, and decision-makers in different sectors of society

Financing micro-entrepreneurs for poverty alleviation: a performance analysis of microfinance services offered by BRAC, ASA, and Proshika from Bangladesh

Microfinance services have emerged as an effective tool for financing microentrepreneurs to alleviate poverty. Since the 1970s, development theorists have considered non-governmental microfinance institutions (MFIs) as the leading practitioners of sustainable development through financing micro-entrepreneurial activities. This study evaluates the impact of micro-finance services provided by MFIs on poverty alleviation. In this vein, we examine whether microfinance services contribute to poverty alleviation, and also identify bottlenecks in micro-finance programs and operations. The results indicate that the micro-loans have a statistically significant positive impact on the poverty alleviation index and consequently improve the living standard of borrowers by increasing their level of income