Social-economic drivers in (political) TAC setting decisions

Sustainable use of marine resources, as targeted by Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management (EBFM), is a highly ranked policy goal. However, many marine fish stocks are still overused, challenging sustainability goals. Reasons for this policy failure are disputed and they might be manifold, including economic, institutional, and social drivers. Here, we use Generalised Additive Models (GAMs) to empirically determine and quantify the importance of interacting ecological, economic, and social drivers in a political decision making process, i.e. the setting of annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) limits. GAMs allow non linear relationships between response and explanatory variables and due to their flexibility have successfully been applied to investigate ecosystem dynamics. Here, we use this modeling approach in a novel way to quantify social-economic-ecological feed-backs on policy decisions. European fisheries policy agreed in most cases to TACs higher than scientifically advised. We recorded this deviation for all managed European fish stocks for the time-series 1987-2014. Additionally, we make use of available time-series of socio-economic and ecological variables potentially influencing the decision, including national unemployment rates, stock status, economic growth rates, and employment in fisheries. We show that political decisions on TACs are not only driven by scientific advice on the ecological state of the stock, but that socio-economic variables have a significant effect on TACs – however not related to sound scientific advice. We conclude that scientific advice for a successful implementation of EBMF will have to address socio- economic driving forces more explicitly

Anthromes dispaying evidence of weekly cycles in active fire data cover 70% of the global land surface

Across the globe, human activities have been gaining importance relatively to climate and ecology as the main controls on fire regimes and consequently human activity became an important driver of the frequency, extent and intensity of vegetation burning worldwide. Our objective in the present study is to look for weekly cycles in vegetation fire activity at global scale as evidence of human agency, relying on the original MODIS active fire detections at 1 km spatial resolution (MCD14ML) and using novel statistical methodologies to detect significant periodicities in time series data. We tested the hypotheses that global fire activity displays weekly cycles and that the weekday with the fewest fires is Sunday. We also assessed the effect of land use and land cover on weekly fire cycle significance by testing those hypotheses separately for the Villages, Settlements, Croplands, Rangelands, Seminatural, and Wildlands anthromes. Based on a preliminary data analysis of the daily global active fire counts periodogram, we developed an harmonic regression model for the mean function of daily fire activity and assumed a linear model for the de-seasonalized time series. For inference purposes, we used a Bayesian methodology and constructed a simultaneous 95% credible band for the mean function. The hypothesis of a Sunday weekly minimum was directly investigated by computing the probabilities that the mean functions of every weekday (Monday to Saturday) are inside the credible band corresponding to mean Sunday fire activity. Since these probabilities are small, there is statistical evidence of significantly fewer fires on Sunday than on the other days of the week. Cropland, rangeland, and seminatural anthromes, which cover 70% of the global land area and account for 94% of the active fires analysed, display weekly cycles in fire activity. Due to lower land management intensity and less strict control over fire size and duration, weekly cycles in Rangelands and Seminatural anthromes, which jointly account for 53.46% of all fires, although statistically significant are weaker than those detected in Croplandsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Religious affiliation modulates weekly cycles of cropland burning in Sub-Saharan Africa

Research ArticleVegetation burning is a common land management practice in Africa, where fire is used for hunting, livestock husbandry, pest control, food gathering, cropland fertilization, and wildfire prevention. Given such strong anthropogenic control of fire, we tested the hypotheses that fire activity displays weekly cycles, and that the week day with the fewest fires depends on regionally predominant religious affiliation.We also analyzed the effect of land use (anthrome) on weekly fire cycle significance. Fire density (fire counts.km-2) observed per week day in each region was modeled using a negative binomial regression model, with fire counts as response variable, region area as offset and a structured random effect to account for spatial dependence. Anthrome (settled, cropland, natural, rangeland), religion (Christian, Muslim, mixed) week day, and their 2-way and 3-way interactions were used as independent variables. Models were also built separately for each anthrome, relating regional fire density with week day and religious affiliation. Analysis revealed a significant interaction between religion and week day, i.e. regions with different religious affiliation (Christian, Muslim) display distinct weekly cycles of burning. However, the religion vs. week day interaction only is significant for croplands, i.e. fire activity in African croplands is significantly lower on Sunday in Christian regions and on Friday in Muslim regions. Magnitude of fire activity does not differ significantly among week days in rangelands and in natural areas, where fire use is under less strict control than in croplands. These findings can contribute towards improved specification of ignition patterns in regional/global vegetation fire models, and may lead to more accurate meteorological and chemical weather forecastinginfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Data availability: All the data are freely available online. The supplementary information provides links to Zenodo with specific DOIs where the data are stored for free use.Supplementary information is available online at https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-023-06406-9/MediaObjects/41586_2023_6406_MOESM1_ESM.docx . The Supplementary Information includes three parts. Part A explains how the paper is associated with the IPBES Values Assessment. Part B provides details about each of the 29 review protocols. Part C offers information about the case study of Chilika Lagoon, India, that is used in the main paper.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.We received no specific funding for this work; all authors involved in IPBES do so on a voluntary basis. The IPBES Values Assessment was made possible thanks to many generous contributions, including non-earmarked contributions to the IPBES trust fund from governments. All donors are listed on the IPBES website www.ipbes.net/donors. U.P. acknowledges BC3’s Maria de Maeztu excellence accreditation 2023–2026 (reference no. CEX2021-001201-M) provided by grant no. MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033