A multicriteria assessment of regional sustainability options in the Northern Province, South Africa

Please read the abstract in the section, 00front, of this documentThesis (DPhil (Zoology))--University of Pretoria, 2007.Zoology and Entomologyunrestricte

Insurers could help address climate risks

Working with South Africa's largest short-term insurer, Santam, we investigated how communities should manage the increased risks associated with climate change. The global insurance industry has focused on refining the quantification, differentiation and pricing of the risk exposure of insured assets. Our findings call into question a sole reliance on this strategy (J. Nel et al. CSIR/NRE/ECOS/2011/0063/B; CSIR, 2011)

Identifying Priority Areas for Ecosystem Services Management in South Africa

Studies have highlighted the importance of managing ecosystem services to stop further degradation and transformation, yet very few studies have endeavored to identify priorities. The identification of priority areas for ecosystem services remains the least of objective for all studies that have mapped ecosystem services. Steps for identifying priority areas for management of ecosystem services include identifying features that supply ecosystem services, threats to service provision, potential actions to ensure future supply of service and cost of these actions as well as the availability of alternative means of providing benefits supplied by the service, the capacity to meet human demands and scale and site dependency of service. We present examples of the inclusion of ecosystem services in spatial planning in South Africa including quantifying conservation features and threats, as well as implementation issues. The prioritization of areas for ecosystem services management is still in its infancy. At present, spatial planning for ecosystem services is mostly coupled with biodiversity, but ecosystem services deserve to be conserved on their own right through conservation actions specifically designed for ecosystem services. The identification of priorities for such conservation action faces many challenges

Rethinking resilience and development : a coevolutionary perspective

The interdependence of social and ecological processes is broadly acknowledged in the pursuit to enhance human wellbeing and prosperity for all. Yet, development interventions continue to prioritise economic development and short-term goals with little consideration of social-ecological interdependencies, ultimately undermining resilience and therefore efforts to deliver development outcomes. We propose and advance a coevolutionary perspective for rethinking development and its relationship to resilience. The perspective rests on three propositions: (1) social-ecological relationships coevolve through processes of variation, selection and retention, which are manifest in practices; (2) resilience is the capacity to filter practices (i.e. to influence what is selected and retained); and (3) development is a coevolutionary process shaping pathways of persistence, adaptation or transformation. Development interventions affect and are affected by social–ecological relationships and their coevolutionary dynamics, with consequences for resilience, often with perverse outcomes. A coevolutionary approach enables development interventions to better consider social–ecological interdependencies and dynamics. Adopting a coevolutionary perspective, which we illustrate with a case on agricultural biodiversity, encourages a radical rethinking of how resilience and development are conceptualised and practiced across global to local scales.The GRAID programme funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013)/ERC grant; the Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Open Access funding provided by Stockholm University.http://link.springer.com/journal/13280hj2022Future Afric

Spatial optimization of carbon-stocking projects across Africa integrating stocking potential with co-benefits and feasibility

Carbon offset projects through forestation are employed within the emissions trading framework to store carbon. Yet, information about the potential of landscapes to stock carbon, essential to the design of offset projects, is often lacking. Here, based on data on vegetation carbon, climate and soil, we quantify the potential for carbon storage in woody vegetation across tropical Africa. The ability of offset projects to produce co-benefits for ecosystems and people is then quantified. When co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation are considered, the top-ranked sites are sometimes different to sites selected purely for their carbon-stocking potential, although they still possess up to 92% of the latter carbon-stocking potential. This work provides the first continental-scale assessment of which areas may provide the greatest direct and indirect benefits from carbon storage reforestation projects at the smallest costs and risks, providing crucial information for prioritization of investments in carbon storage projects.http://www.nature.com/naturecommunicationshb201

The contributions of resilience to reshaping sustainable development

We review the past decade’s widespread application of resilience science in sustainable development practice and examine whether and how resilience is reshaping this practice to better engage in complex contexts. We analyse six shifts in practice: from capitals to capacities, from objects to relations, from outcomes to processes, from closed to open systems, from generic interventions to context sensitivity, and from linear to complex causality. Innovative complexity-oriented practices have emerged, but dominant applications diverge substantially from the science, including its theoretical and methodological orientations. We highlight aspects of the six shifts that are proving challenging in practice and what is required from sustainability science.Figure 1: A graphical representation of the social-ecological systems (SES) school of resilience: a complex adaptive systems based perspective on the intertwined, multilevel and dynamic SES processes, interdependencies and relationships that shape resilience (Graphic by Jive Media Africa).Figure 2: Six interconnected and intertwined shifts move sustainable development away from commonly used linear approaches towards innovative approaches able to account for complex SES dynamics. We review the contributions and constraints of SES resilience science and its use in sustainable development to make progress across these shifts. See text and Table 1 for more details on the shifts (Graphic by Jive Media Africa).The Sida-funded GRAID program at Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University; Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet; the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.https://www.nature.com/natsustainhj2023Future Afric

Do ecosystem service maps and models meet stakeholders’ needs? A preliminary survey across sub-Saharan Africa

To achieve sustainability goals, it is important to incorporate ecosystem service (ES) information into decision-making processes. However, little is known about the correspondence between the needs of ES information users and the data provided by the researcher community. We surveyed stakeholders within sub-Saharan Africa, determining their ES data requirements using a targeted sampling strategy. Of those respondents utilising ES information (>90%; n=60), 27% report having sufficient data; with the remainder requiring additional data – particularly at higher spatial resolutions and at multiple points in time. The majority of respondents focus on provisioning and regulating services, particularly food and fresh water supply (both 58%) and climate regulation (49%). Their focus is generally at national scales or below and in accordance with data availability. Among the stakeholders surveyed, we performed a follow-up assessment for a sub-sample of 17 technical experts. The technical experts are unanimous that ES models must be able to incorporate scenarios, and most agree that ES models should be at least 90% accurate. However, relatively coarse-resolution (1–10 km2) models are sufficient for many services. To maximise the impact of future research, dynamic, multi-scale datasets on ES must be delivered alongside capacity-building efforts

A continental-scale validation of ecosystem service models

Faced with environmental degradation, governments worldwide are developing policies to safeguard ecosystem services (ES). Many ES models exist to support these policies, but they are generally poorly validated, especially at large scales, which undermines their credibility. To address this gap, we describe a study of multiple models of five ES, which we validate at an unprecedented scale against 1675 data points across sub-Saharan Africa. We find that potential ES (biophysical supply of carbon and water) are reasonably well predicted by the existing models. These potential ES models can also be used as inputs to new models for realised ES (use of charcoal, firewood, grazing resources and water), by adding information on human population density. We find that increasing model complexity can improve estimates of both potential and realised ES, suggesting that developing more detailed models of ES will be beneficial. Furthermore, in 85% of cases, human population density alone was as good or a better predictor of realised ES than ES models, suggesting that it is demand, rather than supply that is predominantly determining current patterns of ES use. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of ES model validation, even in data-deficient locations such as sub-Saharan Africa. Our work also shows the clear need for more work on the demand side of ES models, and the importance of model validation in providing a stronger base to support policies which seek to achieve sustainable development in support of human well-being

Natural capital informing decisions: from promise to practice

This is the accepted manuscript of a paper that will be published in PNAS. It is currently under an infinite embargo.The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. Here, we explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 years since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being; advancing the fundamental, interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services; and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: 1) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being, 2) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and 3) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.150375111

Developing ecosystem service indicators: experiences and lessons learned from sub-global assessments and other initiatives

People depend upon ecosystems to supply a range of services necessary for their survival and well-being. Ecosystem service indicators are critical for knowing whether or not these essential services are being maintained and used in a sustainable manner, thus enabling policy makers to identify the policies and other interventions needed to better manage them. As a result, ecosystem service indicators are of increasing interest and importance to governmental and inter-governmental processes, including amongst others the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Aichi Targets contained within its strategic plan for 2011-2020, as well as the emerging Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Despite this growing demand, assessing ecosystem service status and trends and developing robust indicators is o!en hindered by a lack of information and data, resulting in few available indicators. In response, the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), together with a wide range of international partners and supported by the Swedish International Biodiversity Programme (SwedBio)*, undertook a project to take stock of the key lessons that have been learnt in developing and using ecosystem service indicators in a range of assessment contexts. The project examined the methodologies, metrics and data sources employed in delivering ecosystem service indicators, so as to inform future indicator development. This report presents the principal results of this project