Figure - available from: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Pictorial depiction of a three‐tier strategy for biodiversity conservation and management. If biodiversity is assumed to be a “living house”, then individuals constitute the “foundation” (Tier 1), national governments and policies form the “pillars” (Tier 2), and international organizations and policies serve as the “roof” (Tier 3). Although the three components of the “house” differ operationally, integration of all three parts is essential for maintaining the structure’s overall stability. Instilling ethics and values for transformative change at all levels is crucial in the successful management of biodiversity, and for the well‐being of both people and nature. Selected abbreviations in Tier 3 are spelled‐out in Table 1 and in the main text.
Source publication
Assessing the impacts of unprecedented biodiversity loss on planetary resilience, The Economics of Biodiversity: the Dasgupta Review (“Dasgupta Review”) asserts that sustainable engagement with nature is crucial for sustaining the livelihoods of present and future generations. It further urges the integration of biodiversity into national accountin...
Citations
... Since many current agricultural practices are becoming eco-friendly, there is still a need to amplify the efficacies of these practices for attaining sustainable agriculture and multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs). Therefore, reviewing these practices at different steps and levels is imperative to achieve optimum yield and promote the best practices for further development (Priydarshini et al. 2021;. The application of fertilizers must be augmented to minimize the costs and protect ecosystems. ...
The global population is expected to reach 9.5 billion people by 2050. It is projected to cross 11 billion by the end of the century. Consequently, there is a need to expand crop production by 1.5 folds to satisfy the projected demand. Therefore, a major emphasis is ironically made on increasing the quantity of agricultural produce through different mismanaged agricultural practices. These practices are intensified in developing and underdeveloped nations facing socio-economic issues to feed their ever-increasing population. Therefore, there is an urgent requirement for smart, semi-sustainable nutrient management to improve soil and plant productivity, focusing on their resilience and endurance. Moreover, plant nutrient management often connects with food and nutrition security, mitigating pollution and climate change, limiting biodiversity loss, and other associated socio-economic issues. This management refers to improving the soil’s overall vital nutrient resources and their transformation for improving plant vigor. However, the fortification of nutrients also does not meet the sustainability scenario standards. Furthermore, this prospective practice also seeks to be overhauled under the appropriate socio-economic framework to offer wider benefits to the end-users. Therefore, there are multiple bottlenecks in various adopted practices under sustainable plant nutrition management at the regional and global levels. Hence, examining the role of plant and soil nutrient management and its plausible limitation in providing agroecosystem services is essentially required to develop a holistic framework. Therefore, the present chapter discusses the diverse efforts in managing the plant and soil nutrients and highlights some tipping challenges at the regional and global levels, providing a window of opportunity for further exploratory research.
... Territorial space as a carrier of human activity consists of the ecosystem, people, and their interactions. A responsible attitude is necessary to effectively harness the potential of territories through sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises, [1]. Every region of the world strives to make every effort to achieve positive results in achieving a high level of sustainable development. ...
The aim of the article was to substantiate the transformations of the conceptual foundations of sustainable development of territories during the period of postwar ecological restoration of states. The main methodological tools were the methods of modelling, experiment, and morphological analysis. The research showed that countries faced a globally important task in the ecological restoration of territories in the postwar period. The destruction of the environment and its pollution caused by military actions sharply reduce the positive indicators of the state of the environment. It was proved that sustainable development goals act as effective vectors for improving the state of the environment in the period of postwar ecological recovery. The implementation of ecologically significant actions during the postwar ecological recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that this process is complex and difficult. The problems of contradictory decisions, corruption, and lack of transparency should be considered. The environmental strategy of BiH ESAP 2030+ of Bosnia and Herzegovina, developed by the SDG, can be an example of the corresponding legislative regulation in Ukraine. The UNDP's project Sustainability of Protected Areas (SPA) implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of popularizing ecotourism is also worth noting. A similar project can be implemented in Ukraine in the context of sustainable development of the country during the period of postwar ecological restoration. The main long-term problem in the territory of Ukraine is the demining of regions, which will also determine the terms of implementation of recovery procedures.
... Territorial space as a carrier of human activity consists of the ecosystem, people, and their interactions. A responsible attitude is necessary to effectively harness the potential of territories through sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises, [1]. Every region of the world strives to make every effort to achieve positive results in achieving a high level of sustainable development. ...
The aim of the article was to substantiate the transformations of the conceptual foundations of sustainable development of territories during the period of post-war ecological restoration of states. The main methodological tools were the methods of modelling, experiment, and morphological analysis. The research showed that countries faced a globally important task in the ecological restoration of territories in the post-war period. The destruction of the environment and its pollution caused by military actions sharply reduce the positive indicators of the state of the environment. It was proved that sustainable development goals act as effective vectors for improving the state of the environment in the period of post-war ecological recovery. The implementation of ecologically significant actions during the post-war ecological recovery in Bosnia and Herzegovina shows that this process is complex and difficult. The problems of contradictory decisions, corruption, and lack of transparency should be considered. The environmental strategy of BiH ESAP 2030+ of Bosnia and Herzegovina, developed by the SDG, can be an example of the corresponding legislative regulation in Ukraine. The UNDP’s project Sustainability of Protected Areas (SPA) implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the context of popularizing ecotourism is also worth noting. A similar project can be implemented in Ukraine in the context of sustainable development of the country during the period of post-war ecological restoration. The main long-term problem in the territory of Ukraine is the demining of regions, which will also determine the terms of implementation of recovery procedures.
... Although NbS frameworks encourage the participation of all stakeholders, in reality, interventions are framed in a context with actors operating at multiple system levels with different interests, perceptions and priorities facing problems of poverty, crime, corruption, marginalization or/and displacement among others (Kanda et al., 2020;Foray et al., 2012;Martin et al., 2021). For NbS to address challenges, interventions must be co-designed and co-implemented by many stakeholders posing important normative and behavioral changes at different institutional levels (Ershad Sarabi et al., 2019;Foray et al., 2012;Nesshöver et al., 2017;Priyadarshini et al., 2021;Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021). Toxopeux et al. (2020) recognized three fundamental types of justice that are necessary to achieve inclusiveness, transparency and accountability in an NbS: ...
This study explores the gap between theoretical frameworks of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and current NbS interventions. Despite the existence of well-established definitions and practical tools, there are still organizations that implement NbS according to their own interpretations, creating gaps in the way practitioners apply these solutions. Four main gaps were identified: Framing of priorities to address an outcome, measurability and effectiveness of interventions, alignment with transformational governance processes, and understanding of trade-offs. By collecting the perception of NbS practitioners mainly focused on Africa, Europe, Latin America through a structured online survey, the results showed that five main ideas can help close these gaps: (1) designing NbS to address local problems that subsequently address societal challenges may be a more effective framing than targeting interventions to societal challenges that may not capture local stakeholder priorities; (2) interventions should consider both qualitative and quantitative impact-oriented indicators to learn from practice, and establish robust interventions and confidence in NbS; (3) transformative NbS processes must incorporate pluralistic assessment in interventions, attending to distributive, recognition, and procedural justice; (4) systemic socioeconomic and institutional barriers are not exclusively within the power of practitioners to fix but they must be addressed to achieve transformative NbS processes; (5) certain types of governance, scale, and cost-benefit trade-offs may not be fully understood and remain elusive, but they are still important to identify, to integrate and negotiate trade-offs in NbS implementation. We urge NbS practitioners and formulators of the concept to consider these ideas when implementing NbS.
... The Dasgupta Review (Dasgupta, 2021) turned out to be an overarching publication that goes well beyond the subfield of biodiversity. The Review has been both welcomed (Groom and Turk, 2021;Priyadarshini et al., 2022) and critically reviewed (Spash and Hache, 2022). 4 There are several recurring punchlines, one of which is what the Review calls (global) impact inequality. ...
... While technology can offer solutions to most of the challenges (Triendl 2000;Dalton 2002; Editorial 2021), technological advancements alone are not enough to solve all of the ecological and environmental crises we are facing today. Positive attitudes and behavioural changes are more important than ever in order to effectively use the power of sustainable technologies to address ongoing planetary crises (Priyadarshini et al. 2022). Hence, repositioning the basic sciences as a better and more effective means of advancing sustainable development is critical for reducing our carbon footprint while resetting a more respectful and sensitive relationship with nature (Seitzinger 2010;Editorial 2021).The present editorial briefly outlines the significance of ecology for facilitating the transitions towards a greener, cleaner, and more resilient planet and its unexplored potential for reconnecting and reinforcing humans' relationship with nature in the Anthropocene. ...
... Considering the traction and acceptability of such concepts in various diverse practitioner and policy-making communities globally (let alone academic fields), their integration within the framework could both forge broader support for the overall framework and enhance indicator-setting exercises. For example, better accounting of natural assets within economic value chains using inclusive wealth as a measure of quantification in place of GDP (Gross Development Product) Priyadarshini et al. 2021) can lead to better accounting of natural capital at the national stratum and in turn benefit biodiversity conservation. Similarly, since unregulated resource extraction is closely linked to habitat destruction and biodiversity loss, development of resource efficiency or circular economy indicators (D'Amato and Korhonen 2021) could positively influence Target 15 of the Post-2020 framework (CBD 2020d; UNEP-WCMC 2020). ...
Reversing ecosystem degradation and halting global biodiversity loss due to climate change and other anthropogenic drivers are essential for socioeconomic development and human wellbeing, as well as for advancing global sustainability. The latest initiative in this direction is the 'Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework', which establishes a blueprint for global coordinated action towards development of national and regional strategies targeting conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity. By supporting the notion of 'ecological civilization', it emphasises the need for transformative strategies to conserve, monitor and sustainably manage ecosystems by 2030. Arguably the articulation of fit-for-purpose goals and targets is a key precondition for achieving this vision by enhancing cooperation and influencing the development of implementation strategies and regulatory instruments at national and local levels. The present Policy Analysis critically reviews the key features of the draft Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and suggests recommendations to further strengthen it. Graphical Abstract Extended author information available on the last page of the article Anthropocene Science 1 3 Article Highlights • Biodiversity conservation is imperative for planetary resilience and human health and wellbeing. • The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity framework aims to guide biodiversity governance towards 'ecological civilization'. • Transformative approaches targeting climate adaptation and mitigation, circularity, biodiversity renewal and nature-based solutions require better inclusion. • Attainable and widely acceptable indicators for the different targets are necessary to ensure the framework's effectiveness. • The interface of climate change mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity conservation should be further strengthened in the framework.
... Although NbS frameworks encourage the participation of all stakeholders, in reality, interventions are framed in a context with actors operating at multiple system levels with different interests, perceptions and priorities facing problems of poverty, crime, corruption, marginalization or/and displacement among others (Kanda et al., 2020;Foray et al., 2012;Martin et al., 2021). For NbS to address challenges, interventions must be co-designed and co-implemented by many stakeholders posing important normative and behavioral changes at different institutional levels (Ershad Sarabi et al., 2019;Foray et al., 2012;Nesshöver et al., 2017;Priyadarshini et al., 2021;Zingraff-Hamed et al., 2021). Toxopeux et al. (2020) recognized three fundamental types of justice that are necessary to achieve inclusiveness, transparency and accountability in an NbS: ...
This study explores the gap between theoretical frameworks of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and current NbS interventions. Despite the existence of well-established definitions and practical tools, there are still organizations that implement NbS according to their own interpretations, creating gaps in the way practitioners apply these solutions. Four main gaps were identified: Framing of priorities to address an outcome, measurability and effectiveness of interventions, alignment with transformational governance processes, and understanding of trade-offs. By collecting the perception of NbS practitioners mainly focused on Africa, Europe, Latin America through a structured online survey, the results showed that five main ideas can help close these gaps: (1) designing NbS to address local problems that subsequently address societal challenges may be a more effective framing than targeting interventions to societal challenges that may not capture local stakeholder priorities; (2) interventions should consider both qualitative and quantitative impact-oriented indicators to learn from practice, and establish robust interventions and confidence in NbS; (3) transformative NbS processes must incorporate pluralistic assessment in interventions, attending to distributive, recognition, and procedural justice; (4) systemic socioeconomic and institutional barriers are not exclusively within the power of practitioners to fix but they must be addressed to achieve transformative NbS processes; (5) certain types of governance, scale, and cost-benefit trade-offs may not be fully understood and remain elusive, but they are still important to identify, to integrate and negotiate trade-offs in NbS implementation. We urge NbS practitioners and formulators of the concept to consider these ideas when implementing NbS.
Natural capital defines planetary boundaries and provides a basis for sustainable development. This study reviews previous theoretical developments and confirms that natural capital accounting within the Inclusive Wealth (IW) framework provides a robust link between current capital assets and intergenerational well-being. This study contributes to the literature by combining theoretical advances with practical applications to address criticisms of empirical practice and improve the reliability and scope of cross-country natural capital accounting. An analysis of natural capital levels and changes in 163 economies over the past 30 years reveals significant regional disparities in the decline of global natural capital. In low-income countries, consumption driven by population growth and primary production patterns is severely depleting renewable natural capital. In middle-income countries, urbanization exacerbates natural capital depletion by substituting other forms of capital for natural capital. The wealth status of major G20 economies points to intensive environmental costs and loss of ecosystem services under technological progress, which ignores public ecosystem externalities. This study demonstrates the urgency of natural capital depletion awareness in the management of all economies and highlights the ability of natural capital accounting within the IW framework to inform policy decisions on sustainable growth.
