Synergies and trade-offs between nature conservation and climate policy: Insights from the “Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE” study

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 187-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Wüstemann ◽  
Aletta Bonn ◽  
Christian Albert ◽  
Christine Bertram ◽  
Lisa Biber-Freudenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Trade Offs

scholarly journals Science–Policy Interfaces Related to Biodiversity and Nature Conservation: The Case of Natural Capital Germany—TEEB-DE

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Leibenath ◽  
Markus Kurth ◽  
Gerd Lintz
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Conceptual Foundation ◽  
Fine Grained ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Science Policy Interface ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Normative Criteria

Responding to the UN programme “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB), TEEB-DE (2012–2018) was a science–policy interface (SPI) set up in Germany with the objective of mobilising scientific expertise for a better consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in political and corporate decision-making. The aim of this paper is to contribute to an assessment of TEEB-DE by analysing its objectives, structure, processes and outputs. The analysis is guided by a theoretical framework that takes credibility, relevance and legitimacy (CRELE) as normative criteria for examining SPIs. Methodologically, the paper relies on a fine-grained analysis of published documents and interviews with key figures of TEEB-DE. The results allow for a preliminary assessment of TEEB-DE in regard to CRELE and illuminate how its conceptual foundation—namely the ecosystem services concept—was discussed in the public realm. We also consider a number of trade-offs which the coordinators of TEEB-DE had to negotiate. In conclusion, we identify some proposals for designing future SPIs in the domain of biodiversity and nature conservation in Germany such as paying greater attention to policy windows, broadening the thematic scope beyond economics and providing better opportunities for debate and contestation.

Trade-offs for equitable climate policy assessed

Nature ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 588 (7837) ◽  
pp. 225-226
Author(s):  
Wei Peng
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Trade Offs

Bioenergy potentials from recently abandoned cropland under the land-energy-water nexus

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Sandstad Næss ◽  
Otavio Cavalett ◽  
Francesco Cherubini
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Soil Characteristics ◽  
Agricultural Management ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Bioenergy Production ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Irrigation Water Use ◽  
Land Availability ◽  
Abandoned Cropland

<p>Bioenergy plays a key role in scenarios limiting global warming below 2°C in 2100 relative to pre-industrial times. Land availability for bioenergy production is constrained due to competition with agriculture, nature conservation and other land uses. Utilizing recently abandoned cropland to produce bioenergy is a promising option for gradual bioenergy deployment with lower risks of potential trade-offs on food security and the environment. Up until now, the global extent of abandoned cropland has been unclear. Furthermore, there is a need to better map bioenergy potentials, taking into account site-specific conditions such as local climate, soil characteristics, agricultural management and water use.</p><p>Our study spatially quantify global bioenergy potentials from recently abandoned cropland under the land-energy-water nexus. We integrate a recently developed high-resolution satellite-derived land cover product (European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative Land Cover) with an agro-ecological crop yield model (Global Agro-Ecological Zones 3.0). Abandoned cropland is mapped as pixels transitioning from cropland to non-urban classes. We further identify candidate areas for nature conservation and areas with increased pressure on water resources. Based on climatic conditions, soil characteristics and agricultural management levels, we spatially model bioenergy yields and irrigation water use on abandoned cropland for three perennial grasses. We compute and analyze bioenergy potentials for 296 different variants of management factors and land and water use constraints. By assessing key energy, water and land indicators, we identify optimal bioenergy production strategies and site-specific trade-offs.</p><p>We found 83 million hectares of abandoned cropland between 1992 and 2015, equivalent of 5% of today’s cropland area. Bioenergy potentials range between 6-39 exajoules per year (EJ yr<sup>-1</sup>) (11-68% of today’s bioenergy demand), depending on agricultural management, land availability and irrigation water use. We further show and extensively discuss site-specific trade-offs between increased bioenergy production, land-use and water-use. Our high-end estimate (39 EJ yr<sup>-1</sup>) relies on complete irrigation and land availability. When acknowledging site-specific trade-offs on water resources and nature conservation, a potential of 20 EJ yr<sup>-1</sup> is achievable without production in biodiversity hotspots or irrigation in water scarce areas. This is equal to 8-23% of median projected bioenergy demand in 2050 for 1.5°C scenarios across different Shared Socio-economic Pathways. The associated land and water requirements are equal to 3% of current global cropland extent and 8% of today’s global agricultural water use, respectively.</p>

Ecosystem services

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 575-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion B. Potschin ◽  
Roy H. Haines-Young
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical Geography ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Puzzle Solving ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Stocks And Flows ◽  
Change Impact

The ‘ecosystem service’ debate has taken on many features of a classic Kuhnian paradigm. It challenges conventional wisdoms about conservation and the value of nature, and is driven as much by political agendas as scientific ones. In this paper we review some current and emerging issues arising in relation to the analysis and assessment of ecosystem services, and in particular emphasize the need for physical geographers to find new ways of characterizing the structure and dynamics of service providing units. If robust and relevant valuations are to be made of the contribution that natural capital makes to human well-being, then we need a deeper understanding of the way in which the drivers of change impact on the marginal outputs of ecosystem services. A better understanding of the trade-offs that need to be considered when dealing with multifunctional ecosystems is also required. Future developments must include methods for describing and tracking the stocks and flows that characterize natural capital. This will support valuation of the benefits estimation of the level of reinvestment that society must make in this natural capital base if it is to be sustained. We argue that if the ecosystem service concept is to be used seriously as a framework for policy and management then the biophysical sciences generally, and physical geography in particular, must go beyond the uncritical ‘puzzle solving’ that characterizes recent work. A geographical perspective can provide important new, critical insights into the place-based approaches to ecosystem assessment that are now emerging.

Exploring integrated reporting in the banking industry: the multiple capitals approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Doni ◽  
Mikkel Larsen ◽  
Silvio Bianchi Martini ◽  
Antonio Corvino
Keyword(s):  
Balanced Scorecard ◽  
Banking Industry ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Balance Sheet ◽  
Innovative Approach ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Integrated Reporting ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Balanced Scorecard ◽  
Trade Offs

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the engagement with integrated reporting (IR) of the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), as one of the banks that pioneered IR. Banking industry members face critical sector-specific issues regarding the use of capitals, especially the disclosure of relational and natural capital-related information, and reporting of the outcomes of capitals. This study examines an innovative approach to accounting for multiple capitals adopted by DBS during its journey toward IR. Design/methodology/approach This empirical research follows the case study method, using semi-structured interviews with DBS’s managers, and analyzing reports and other documentation. Findings The authors find that DBS re-conceptualizes, re-categorizes and measures multiple capitals as a form of non-financial value using the balance sheet approach to make visible the interactions and potential tensions (trade-offs) among capitals. Research limitations/implications Case studies are best used to understand a specific context, so the findings of this study cannot be generalized statistically. However, the study does provide insights into the banking industry that may be applicable to other organizations. Practical implications The categorization and reporting of multiple capitals using the balance sheet approach and the integration of the balanced scorecard are innovative operationalizations of the International <IR> Framework. Originality/value This study provides an innovative approach to the categorization and measurement of multiple capitals. It represents a step toward reducing the gap between research and practice on IR.

Ecosystem Services

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon C. Braat
Keyword(s):  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Nature Management ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Policy And Planning

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analyzed in the 18th century, but the term ecosystem services was introduced only in 1981. Since then it has spurred an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. Now a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains, it is also used, developed, and customized in policy arenas and considered, if in a still somewhat skeptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and corporate business. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been felt in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union (which have placed it at the center of their nature conservation and sustainable use strategies). The concept involves the utilitarian framing of those functions of nature that are used by humans and considered beneficial to society as economic and social services. In this light, for example, the disappearance of biodiversity directly affects ecosystem functions that underpin critical services for human well-being. More generally, the concept can be defined in this manner: Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems, in interaction with contributions from human society, to human well-being. The concept underpins four major discussions: (1) Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide; (2) Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?); (3) Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and (4) Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

Exploring multi-scale trade-offs between nature conservation, agricultural profits and landscape quality—A methodology to support discussions on land-use perspectives

2007 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen C.J. Groot ◽  
Walter A.H. Rossing ◽  
André Jellema ◽  
Derk Jan Stobbelaar ◽  
Henk Renting ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Nature Conservation ◽  
Multi Scale ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Landscape Quality

Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lal
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Ecosystem Functions ◽  
Water Retention Capacity ◽  
No Till ◽  
Trade Offs

AbstractEcosystem functions and services provided by soils depend on land use and management. The objective of this article is to review and synthesize relevant information on the impacts of no-till (NT) management of croplands on ecosystem functions and services. Sustainable management of soil through NT involves: (i) replacing what is removed, (ii) restoring what has been degraded, and (iii) minimizing on-site and off-site effects. Despite its merits, NT is adopted on merely ∼9% of the 1.5 billion ha of global arable land area. Soil's ecosystem services depend on the natural capital (soil organic matter and clay contents, soil depth and water retention capacity) and its management. Soil management in various agro-ecosystems to enhance food production has some trade-offs/disservices (i.e., decline in biodiversity, accelerated erosion and non-point source pollution), which must be minimized by further developing agricultural complexity to mimic natural ecosystems. However, adoption of NT accentuates many ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, biodiversity, elemental cycling, and resilience to natural and anthropogenic perturbations, all of which can affect food security. Links exist among diverse ecosystem services, such that managing one can adversely impact others. For example, increasing agronomic production can reduce biodiversity and deplete soil organic carbon (SOC), harvesting crop residues for cellulosic ethanol can reduce SOC, etc. Undervaluing ecosystem services can jeopardize finite soil resources and aggravate disservices. Adoption of recommended management practices can be promoted through payments for ecosystem services by a market-based approach so that risks of disservices and negative costs can be reduced either through direct economic incentives or as performance payments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document