Signposts on the road toward transformative governance: how a stronger focus on diverse values can enhance environmental policies

Transformative change toward sustainability is increasingly recognized as inevitable to avoid the collapse of socioecological systems. However, for a deep and system-wide transformation, governance approaches and policymaking need to be changed too. This paper discusses how a diverse value approach in environmental policymaking could be undertaken to foster transformative governance that can further lead to system-wide transitions. Based on the analysis of different policy options’ transformative potential, we argue that the more diverse values addressed by a policy instrument, the bigger its transformative potential. Weaving values into policy decision-making is possible at several junctures of the policy process, but context-specificities should always be considered, and capacities must be enhanced at all levels, both for public and private actors

Lessons learned from application of the “Indicators of Resilience in Socio-ecological Production Landscapes and Seascapes (SEPLS)” under the Satoyama initiative

Socio-ecological resilience is vital for the long-term sustainability of communities in production landscapes and seascapes, but community members often find it difficult to understand and assess their own resilience in the face of changes that affect them over time due to economic and natural drivers, demographic changes, and market forces among others, due to the complexity of the concept of resilience and the many factors influencing the landscape or seascape. This chapter provides an overview of a project and its resilience assessment process using an indicator-based approach, which has been implemented under the International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative (IPSI). In this project, a set of 20 indicators were identified to capture different aspects of resilience in SEPLS, and examples are included from various contexts around the world, with the purpose of identifying lessons learned and good practices for resilience assessment. These indicators have now been used by communities in many countries, often with the guidance of project implementers, with the goal of assessing, considering, and monitoring their landscape or seascape’s circumstances, identifying important issues, and ultimately improving their resilience. While this particular approach is limited in that it cannot be used for comparison of different landscapes and seascapes, as it relies on community members’ individual perceptions, it is found useful to understand multiple aspects of resilience and changes over time within a landscape or seascape

The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policy makers

This report represents a critical assessment, the first in almost 15 years (since the release of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005) and the first ever carried out by an intergovernmental body, of the status and trends of the natural world, the social implications of these trends, their direct and indirect causes, and, importantly, the actions that can still be taken to ensure a better future for all. These complex links have been assessed using a simple, yet very inclusive framework that should resonate with a wide range of stakeholders, since it recognizes diverse world views, values and knowledge systems.Fil: Díaz, 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: Settele, Josef. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Brondízio, Eduardo. Indiana University; Estados UnidosFil: Ngo, Hien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Guèze, Maximilien. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Agard, John. University of The West Indies; Trinidad y TobagoFil: Arneth, Almut. Karlsruher Institut fur Technologie; AlemaniaFil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Brauman, Kate. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Butchart, Stuart. University of Cambridge; Reino UnidoFil: Chan, Kai M. A.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural. - Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones En Recursos Naturales, Agroecologia y Desarrollo Rural.; ArgentinaFil: Ichii, Kazuhito. Chiba University; JapónFil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Subramanian, Suneetha. United Nations University; JapónFil: Midgley, Guy. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Miloslavich, Patricia. Universidad Simon Bolivar.; VenezuelaFil: Molnár, Zsolt. Hungarian Academy of Sciences; HungríaFil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; KeniaFil: Pfaff, Alexander. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Polasky, Stephen. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Razzaque, Jona. University of the West of England; Reino UnidoFil: Reyers, Belinda. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Roy Chowdhury, Rinku. Clark University; Estados UnidosFil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Países BajosFil: Willis, Katherine. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Zayas, Cynthia. University of the Philippines; Filipina

Assessing progress towards meeting major international objectives related to nature and nature's contributions to people

In recognition of the importance of nature, its contributions to people and role in underpinning sustainable development, governments adopted a Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020 through the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) containing 20 "Aichi Biodiversity Targets" and integrated many of these into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted through the United Nations in 2015. Additional multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) target particular aspects of nature (e.g., Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Convention on Migratory Species), drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), or responses (e.g., World Heritage Convention). These various MEAs provide complementary fora in which governments strive to coordinate efforts to reduce the loss and degradation of nature, and to promote sustainable development. In this chapter, we assess, through a systematic review process and quantitative analysis of indicators, progress towards the 20 Aichi Targets under the Strategic Plan (and each of the 54 elements or components of these targets), targets under the SDGs that are relevant to nature and nature's contributions to people (NCP), and the goals and targets of six other MEAs. We consider the relationships between the SDGs, nature and the contributions of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to achieving the various targets and goals, the impact of progress or lack of it on IPLCs, the reasons for variation in progress, implications for a new Strategic Plan for Biodiversity beyond 2020, and key knowledge gaps.For the 44 SDG targets assessed, including targets for poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land (Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15), findings suggest that current negative trends in nature will substantially undermine progress to 22 SDG targets and result in insufficient progress to meet 13 additional targets (i.e. 80 per cent (35 out of 44) of the assessed targets) {3.3.2.1; 3.3.2.2}(established but incomplete). Across terrestrial, aquatic and marine ecosystems, current negative trends in nature and its contributions will hamper SDG progress, with especially poor progress expected towards targets on water security, water quality, ocean pollution and acidification. Trends in nature's contributions relevant to extreme event vulnerability, resource access, small-scale food production, and urban and agricultural sustainability are negative and insufficient for achieving relevant targets under SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 11. This has negative consequences for both the rural and urban poor who are also directly reliant on declining resources for consumption and income generation {3.3.2.2}. For a further 9 targets evaluated in SDGs 1, 3 and 11 a lack of knowledge on how nature contributes to targets (4 targets) or gaps in data with which to assess trends in nature (5 targets) prevented their assessment.Fil: Butchart, Stuart. London Metropolitan University; Reino UnidoFil: Miloslavich, Patricia. University of Western Australia; AustraliaFil: Reyers, Belinda. No especifíca;Fil: Galetto, Leonardo. 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: Subramanian, Suneetha M.. No especifíca;Fil: Adams, Cristina. No especifíca;Fil: Palomo, Maria Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; ArgentinaFil: McElwee, Pamela. No especifíca;Fil: Meretsky, Vicky J.. No especifíca;Fil: Morsello, Carla. No especifíca;Fil: Nel, Jeanne. No especifíca;Fil: Lynn Newberry, Teresa. No especifíca;Fil: Pacheco, Diego. No especifíca;Fil: Pyhala, Aili. No especifíca;Fil: Rossi Heras, Sergio. No especifíca;Fil: Roy, Joyashree. No especifíca;Fil: Ruiz-Mallén, Isabel. No especifíca;Fil: Salpeteur, Matthieu. No especifíca;Fil: Santos-Martin, Fernando. No especifíca;Fil: Saylor. Kirk. No especifíca;Fil: Schaffartzik, Anke. No especifíca;Fil: Sitas, Nadia. No especifíca;Fil: Speranza, Ifejika. No especifíca;Fil: Suich, Helen. No especifíca;Fil: Tittensor, Derek. No especifíca;Fil: Carignano, Patricia. No especifíca;Fil: Tsioumani, Elsa. No especifíca;Fil: Whitmee, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wilson, Sarah. No especifíca;Fil: Wyndham, Felice. No especifíca;Fil: Zorondo-Rodriguez, Francisco. No especifíca

Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach

Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge–policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP

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