Incorporating Ecohydrological Processes Into an Analysis of Charcoal-Livestock Production Systems in the Tropics: An Alternative Interpretation of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus

In the tropics, livestock grazing usually occurs simultaneously with charcoal production, yet empirical understanding of the combined activities remains poor, especially in terms of their effects on hydrological functions. Given predicted growth in both charcoal and beef production in Sub-Sahara Africa, South East Asia, and Central and South America, understanding the potential effects of maintaining this dual production system on local and landscape level hydrological dynamics is paramount for ensuring long-term ecosystem sustainability. Based on a synthesis of existing literature, we propose a theoretical and conceptual framework for analyzing the interlinks between charcoal, livestock, and hydrological processes where they co-exist. As a silo approach, we first analyze the isolated effects of charcoal production and livestock on hydrological processes before exploring their combined effects (systemic approach). Given the scarcity of studies that explicitly address the influence of traditional small-scale charcoal production on hydrological processes, we base our findings on existing knowledge about deforestation, forest fire and grazing impacts on hydrology. We find that exclusion of the effects of companion activities and omission of information on the intensity of biomass harvesting (i.e., pruning branches, selective harvest, clear cutting, uprooting tree stumps) can lead to over-attributing changes in hydrological processes to charcoal, thus exaggerating the effects on ecosystems which might lead to inappropriate interventions. We also find that, in the case of livestock keeping, impacts on hydrological processes are highly dependent on grazing intensity, with low intensity grazing possibly having negligible or even positive effects on forest regrowth and thereby restoration of hydrological processes. Thus, the charcoal-livestock-water nexus may have a wide range of outcomes for hydrological processes from negligible to highly profound effects, depending on key decisions in management and practice. To test these findings, however, field studies are needed that explicitly treat the combined effects of different biomass harvesting practices and grazing intensities on hydrological processes across different scales. Albeit conceptual at this stage, we believe that our approach is a necessary first step in the process of diagnosing potential shortcomings of past approaches for studying charcoal production systems and developing new understanding of this three-way nexus

The pitfalls of plural valuation

This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations

Five steps towards transformative valuation of nature

The Values Assessment (VA) of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services shows that while a wide range of valuation methods exist to include nature's values in diverse decision-making contexts, uptake of these methods remains limited. Building on the VA, this paper reviews five critical steps in the evaluation of project or policy proposals that can improve the inclusion of nature's values in decisions. Furthermore, improving valuation practice requires guidelines that utilise quality criteria for valuation of nature and ensure a balance between them. This paper proposes three such quality criteria: relevance, robustness and resource efficiency. The paper argues that the five steps and three Rs can generate a practical checklist to support commissioning, evaluation and performance of more plural valuations. Such guidelines can provide the next steps needed to improve uptake of nature valuation in decision-making

The pitfalls of plural valuation

This paper critically examines the current political context in which valuation studies of nature are undertaken. It challenges the belief that somehow, more and technically better valuation will drive the societal change toward more just and sustainable futures. Instead, we argue that current and proposed valuation practices risk to continue to overrepresent the values of those who hold power and dominate the valuation space, and to perpetuate the discrimination of the views and values of nondominant stakeholders. In tackling this politically sensitive issue, we define a political typology of valuations, making explicit the roles of power and discrimination. This is done to provide valuation professionals and other actors with a simple framework to determine if valuation actions and activities are constructive, inclusive, resolve injustices and enable systemic change, or rather entrench the status quo or aggravate existing injustices. The objective is to buttress actors in their decisions to support, accept, improve, oppose, or reject such valuations

Dealing with locally-driven degradation: A quick start option under REDD+

The paper reviews a number of challenges associated with reducing degradation and its related emissions through national approaches to REDD+ under UNFCCC policy. It proposes that in many countries, it may in the short run be easier to deal with the kinds of degradation that result from locally driven community over-exploitation of forest for livelihoods, than from selective logging or fire control. Such degradation is low-level, but chronic, and is experienced over very large forest areas. Community forest management programmes tend to result not only in reduced degradation, but also in forest enhancement; moreover they are often popular, and do not require major political shifts. In principle these approaches therefore offer a quick start option for REDD+. Developing reference emissions levels for low-level locally driven degradation is difficult however given that stock losses and gains are too small to be identified and measured using remote sensing, and that in most countries there is little or no forest inventory data available. We therefore propose that forest management initiatives at the local level, such as those promoted by community forest management programmes, should monitor, and be credited for, only the net increase in carbon stock over the implementation period, as assessed by ground level surveys at the start and end of the period. This would also resolve the problem of nesting (ensuring that all credits are accounted for against the national reference emission level), since communities and others at the local level would be rewarded only for increased sequestration, while the national reference emission level would deal only with reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation

Forest-linked livelihoods in a globalized world.

Forests have re-taken centre stage in global conversations about sustainability, climate and biodiversity. Here, we use a horizon scanning approach to identify five large-scale trends that are likely to have substantial medium- and long-term effects on forests and forest livelihoods: forest megadisturbances; changing rural demographics; the rise of the middle-class in low- and middle-income countries; increased availability, access and use of digital technologies; and large-scale infrastructure development. These trends represent human and environmental processes that are exceptionally large in geographical extent and magnitude, and difficult to reverse. They are creating new agricultural and urban frontiers, changing existing rural landscapes and practices, opening spaces for novel conservation priorities and facilitating an unprecedented development of monitoring and evaluation platforms that can be used by local communities, civil society organizations, governments and international donors. Understanding these larger-scale dynamics is key to support not only the critical role of forests in meeting livelihood aspirations locally, but also a range of other sustainability challenges more globally. We argue that a better understanding of these trends and the identification of levers for change requires that the research community not only continue to build on case studies that have dominated research efforts so far, but place a greater emphasis on causality and causal mechanisms, and generate a deeper understanding of how local, national and international geographical scales interact.This work was funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (grant number 203516-102) and governed by the University of Michigan’s Institutional Review Board (HUM00092191). JAO acknowledges the 520 support of a European Union FP7 Marie Curie international outgoing fellowship (FORCONEPAL). LVR was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (Grant agreement No. 853222 FORESTDIET). AJB acknowledges the support of an Australian Research Council Australia Laureate Fellowship (grant number 525 FL160100072). LBF acknowledges support from the European Union Marie Curie global fellowship (CONRICONF). PM was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant agreement No 677140 MIDLAND)

Transdisciplinary studies in socio-ecosystems: Theoretical considerations and its application in Latin American contexts

Debido a limitaciones para abordar la complejidad de la relación sociedad-naturaleza, los esfuerzos para solucionar los problemas ambientales han sido en general infructuosos. Aquí proponemos que el enfoque holístico de “socio-ecosistema” por parte de la academia, podría contribuir a disminuir estas limitaciones desde la adopción de cuatro cambios: i) ontológico, que presenta el concepto de “socio-ecosistemas”; ii) epistemológico, que propone a la transdisciplina como la forma de entenderlos, iii) metodológico, que sugiere intervenir en ellos de forma participativa y adaptativa y, iv) cambios institucionales que facilitarían la adopción de esta propuesta. Este planteamiento se complementa con la descripción de una experiencia transdiciplinaria en la cuenca del río San Juan Zitácuaro, México, en el contexto de un curso internacional de manejo de socio-ecosistemas.Given the difficulties to approach the complex relationship bettween society and nature, efforts to solve environmental problems have generally been unsuccessful. Here we suggest that a hollistic “socio-ecosystem” approach by the sciencies could help diminish these difficulties by embracing four kinds of changes: i) ontological, which introduces the concept of “socio-ecosystem”; ii) epistemological, which proposes transdiscipline as the way to understand them, iii) metholodogical, which suggests that in intervention in them must be participatory and adaptive, iv) institutional changes that would facilitate the adoption of this approach. This is then followed by a description of a transdisciplinary work experience in the Zitácuaro river basin, in Mexico, in the context of an international course on socio-ecosystem management.Fil: Ortega Uribe, Tamara. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Mastrangelo, Matias Enrique. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Villarroel Torrez, Daniel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Piaz, Agustín Gabriel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de San Martín. Escuela de Humanidades. Centro de Estudios de Historia de la Ciencia y de la Técnica ; ArgentinaFil: Vallejos, María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Saenz Ceja, Jesús Eduardo. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; MéxicoFil: Gallego, Federico. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias; UruguayFil: Franquesa Soler, Monserrat. Instituto de Ecología; MéxicoFil: Calzada Peña, Leonardo. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Espinosa Mellado, Noelia. Universidad de la Armada; MéxicoFil: Fiestas Flores, Jerico. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos; PerúFil: Gill Mairhofer, Luis R.. Ministerio de la Defensa Pública; ParaguayFil: González Espino, Zarahí. Instituto Superior de Tecnologías y Ciencias Aplicadas. Facultad de Medio Ambiente. Departamento de Meteorología; CubaFil: Luna Salguero, Betsabé Montserrat. Sociedad de Historia Natural Niparajá; MéxicoFil: Martinez Peralta, Claudia María. Comisión de Ecología y Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de Sonora. Dirección General de Conservación; MéxicoFil: Ochoa, Olivia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Pérez Volkow,Lucía. No especifica;Fil: Sala, Juan Emilio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Sánchez Rose, Isabelle. Universidad Central de Venezuela; VenezuelaFil: Weeks, Madeline. University of Cambridge; Reino UnidoFil: Ávila García, Daniela. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: García Reyes, Isabel Bueno. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; MéxicoFil: Carmona, Alejandra. Universidad Austral de Chile. Instituto de Economía Agraria; ChileFil: Castro Videla, Fernando Horacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Mendoza-San Juan; ArgentinaFil: Ferrer Gonzalez, César Sergio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; ArgentinaFil: Frank Buss, María Elisa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: López Carapia, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Núñez Cruz, Martha. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Taboada Hermoza, Rossi. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; PerúFil: Benet, Daniel. Alternare A. C.; MéxicoFil: Venegas, Ysmael. Alternare A. C.; MéxicoFil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; MéxicoFil: Mwampamba, Tuyeni H.. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; MéxicoFil: Lazos Chavero, Elena. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; MéxicoFil: Noellemeyer, Elke Johanna. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Maass, Manuel. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Centro de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas; Méxic

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being(1,2), addressing the global biodiversity crisis(3) 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 ever(4). Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature's values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)(5) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals(6), 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 nature(7). Arguably, a 'values crisis' underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change(8), pandemic emergence(9) and socio-environmental injustices(10). 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 decisions(7,11). 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

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

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

Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being, addressing the global biodiversity crisis 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 ever. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 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 nature. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, pandemic emergence and socio-environmental injustices. 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 decisions. 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