Towards a co‐crediting system for carbon and biodiversity

This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: Data sharing is not applicable to this article because no new data were generated or analysed in this studySocietal Impact Statement: Humankind is facing both climate and biodiversity crises. This article proposes the foundations of a scheme that offers tradable credits for combined aboveground and soil carbon and biodiversity. Multidiversity—as estimated based on high-throughput molecular identification of soil meiofauna, fungi, bacteria, protists, plants and other organisms shedding DNA into soil, complemented by acoustic and video analyses of aboveground macrobiota—offers a cost-effective method that captures much of the terrestrial biodiversity. Such a voluntary crediting system would increase the quality of carbon projects and contribute funding for delivering the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Summary: Carbon crediting and land offsets for biodiversity protection have been developed to tackle the challenges of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of global biodiversity. Unfortunately, these two mechanisms are not optimal when considered separately. Focusing solely on carbon capture—the primary goal of most carbon-focused crediting and offsetting commitments—often results in the establishment of non-native, fast-growing monocultures that negatively affect biodiversity and soil-related ecosystem services. Soil contributes a vast proportion of global biodiversity and contains traces of aboveground organisms. Here, we outline a carbon and biodiversity co-crediting scheme based on the multi-kingdom molecular and carbon analyses of soil samples, along with remote sensing estimation of aboveground carbon as well as video and acoustic analyses-based monitoring of aboveground macroorganisms. Combined, such a co-crediting scheme could help halt biodiversity loss by incentivising industry and governments to account for biodiversity in carbon sequestration projects more rigorously, explicitly and equitably than they currently do. In most cases, this would help prioritise protection before restoration and help promote more socially and environmentally sustainable land stewardship towards a ‘nature positive’ future.Estonian Science FoundationEEA Financial Mechanism Baltic Research ProgrammeNovo Nordisk FondenSwedish Research CouncilNWO-VICISwedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (MISTRA)Royal Botanic Gardens, KewSPUNNWO Gravit

Married women’s decision making power on family planning use and associated factors in Mizan-Aman, South Ethiopia: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Women’s use of family planning service is influenced by many factors, especially by their decision making power. A woman’s decision-making power, be it individual or decision made in collaboration with a partner, is the most important factor in the use of family planning in a household. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of women’s decision making power on family planning use and its associated factors. METHODS: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted on married women in the child bearing age. The women who were living in Mizan city were selected using the simple random sampling method. Trained nurses collected the data by interview, using a structured and pre-tested questioner. Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify the associated factors, and the odds ratio with a 95 % CI was computed to assess the strength of the association. Collinearity was also assessed by looking at standard errors in the final fitted model. RESULT: Overall, more than two-thirds [67.2 %: 95 % CI (63–71 %)] of the married women were found to be more autonomous to decide family planning use. Secondary education [AOR: 9.04, 95 % CI: (4.50, 18.16)], government employment [AOR: 4.84, 95 % CI: (2.03, 11.52)], being wives of government employed spouses [AOR 2.71, 95 % CI: (1.24, 7.97)], having husbands with college or university education [AOR: 11.29, 95 % CI: (4.66, 27.35)], and being in the younger age [AOR: 0.27, 95 % CI :(0.09, 0.75)] were significantly associated with women’s decision-making power on family planning. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, women had a high decision making power in family planning use. Age category (34–44-years), formal education, and occupational status had effects on women’s decision making power. Promoting parental adult education and engaging women in out of house employment is essential to improve their decision making power in using family planning