Biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and livelihoods in tropical landscapes: towards a common agenda.

Trade-offs between ecosystem conservation and agricultural production can more easily be addressed by shifting the view from the plot scale to the scale of the landscape and integrating biodiversity friendly land use systems into development strategies. The provision of ecosystem services such as watershed protection and carbon sequestration by natural and complex agro-ecosystems can play an important role in making such integrated landscape approaches viable. This special issue brings together papers that were presented at a symposium on agroforestry and landscape scale conservation at the Second World Agroforestry Congress in Nairobi in August 2009. It is divided into two sections focusing on: (1) the biological mechanisms and implications of landscape scale conservation strategies as influenced by land use, especially agroforestry; and (2) the economic drivers and public policies that determine to a large extent the success of agroforestry-based landscape conservation strategies. The contributions provide evidence both for the potential and limitations of agroforestry in landscape scale conservation and development strategies and highlight the importance of economic incentives and policies to promote integrated landscape solutions. This introductory paper summarizes and discusses the contributions and concludes with policy recommendations and research needs.

Nature and COVID-19: The pandemic, the environment, and the way ahead.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought profound social, political, economic, and environmental challenges to the world. The virus may have emerged from wildlife reservoirs linked to environmental disruption, was transmitted to humans via the wildlife trade, and its spread was facilitated by economic globalization. The pandemic arrived at a time when wildfires, high temperatures, floods, and storms amplified human suffering. These challenges call for a powerful response to COVID-19 that addresses social and economic development, climate change, and biodiversity together, offering an opportunity to bring transformational change to the structure and functioning of the global economy. This biodefense can include a "One Health" approach in all relevant sectors; a greener approach to agriculture that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions and leads to healthier diets; sustainable forms of energy; more effective international environmental agreements; post-COVID development that is equitable and sustainable; and nature-compatible international trade. Restoring and enhancing protected areas as part of devoting 50% of the planet's land to environmentally sound management that conserves biodiversity would also support adaptation to climate change and limit human contact with zoonotic pathogens. The essential links between human health and well-being, biodiversity, and climate change could inspire a new generation of innovators to provide green solutions to enable humans to live in a healthy balance with nature leading to a long-term resilient future.

People and biodiversity in the 21st century : This article belongs to Ambio's 50th Anniversary Collection. Theme: Biodiversity conservation.

Fifty years have elapsed since the first publication of Ambio. Throughout this period, fundamental changes have occurred in societal attitudes to biodiversity conservation. Ambio has published numerous papers that have aligned with these new approaches. High citations numbers suggest that Ambio papers have had a significant impact on conservation strategies. We review these publications and find that they align well with changed societal perspectives on biodiversity. Ambio papers have called for greater contributions of local and indigenous peoples and for conservation in multi-functional landscapes. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity built on these principles. Negotiations are now underway for a post-2020 framework for biodiversity. Ambio papers have argued for a stronger scientific basis for conservation and for the need to adapt to changing conditions and to the rich diversity of societal preferences for conservation. International processes favor simple, generalizable approaches to conservation but we call for recognition of the diversity of ecological and human conditions in which conservation occurs. There is a need to build capacity to support a diversity of conservation approaches that are adapted to changing local conditions and to the priorities of diverse human societies.

Today's protected areas: supporting a more sustainable future for humanity.

Nature provides significant benefits to people, especially those living in and around protected areas. Ecosystem services from protected areas include producing wild food, supporting biodiversity and water cycles, regulating climate, and providing cultural services like better health, tourism, and legacy for future generations. In economic terms, the flows of ecosystem services provided by protected areas are worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year, well justifying the costs of managing these sites, but protected areas are suffering from environmental problems such as impacts from human population growth, rural poverty, growing demands for natural resources, land use change that degrades ecosystem productivity, invasive non-native species that harm natural ecosystems, and climate change that is affecting all ecosystems. Addressing these linked challenges will require mobilizing all parts of the economy, including the protected area estate. For example, protected areas can take a leadership role in rural development, expand the conservation estate to half of the planet through connectivity and improved management of more of the non-agricultural land, enhance the prominent role of protected areas in contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation, encourage productive research on applying modern technology to protected areas management, seek broader private sector participation in conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services, and include protected areas as relevant parties in relevant trade and other international negotiations. When protected area managers embrace this broader role, they will find enthusiastic public support for this contribution to a sustainable human society.

COVID-19 Highlights the Need for More Effective Wildlife Trade Legislation.

Zoonosis-based epidemics are inevitable unless we revisit our relationship with the natural world, protect habitats, and regulate wildlife trade, including live animals and non-sustenance products. To prevent future zoonoses, governments must establish effective legislation addressing wildlife trade, protection of habitats, and reduction of the wildlife-livestock-human interface.

Conservation biology in Asia: the major policy challenges.

With about half the world's human population and booming economies, Asia faces numerous challenges to its biodiversity. The Asia Section of the Society for Conservation Biology has identified some key policy issues in which significant progress can be made. These include developing new sources of funding for forest conservation; identifying potential impacts of energy alternatives on the conservation of biodiversity; curbing the trade in endangered species of plants and animals; a special focus on the conservation of mountain biodiversity; enhancing relevant research; ensuring that conservation biology contributes to major international conventions and funding mechanisms; using conservation biology to build a better understanding of zoonotic diseases; more effectively addressing human-animal conflicts; enhancing community-based conservation; and using conservation biology to help address the pervasive water-deficit problems in much of Asia. These challenges can be met through improved regional cooperation among the relevant stakeholders.

What more can plant scientists do to help save the green stuff?

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) was the first such effort under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and had gone through a 3-year process to reach the level of maturity that enabled it to be approved by consensus by all Governments present at the key session in The Hague in April 2002. It provided a model for subsequent CBD workplans, with targets, and undoubtedly contributed to the 2010 target of reducing the rate of biodiversity loss. In the event, few of the targets were achieved, because of numerous constraints at both policy and implementation levels. Even so, the GSPC stands as an important milestone in the global effort to conserve biodiversity. However, few plant scientists can be satisfied that the essential steps are being taken to ensure the conservation of plants, although, of course, plant scientists are only one part of the complex effort that will be required. This paper offers some suggestions that might be worth consideration, building on the basic principle in politics that a strong constituency is necessary to victory. In other words, although plant scientists play a crucial role, plant conservation is too important to leave in their hands alone; far broader support is required, including from the private sector, agriculture, forestry, trade, economics, tourism and even the military. Although botanical science provides a solid foundation, other branches of science are also important, ranging from anthropology to zoology. The legal profession also has important contributions to make (as well as the ability to hamper progress ­ for example through using issues such as access and benefit sharing to limit the exchange of genetic materials for even noncommercial use). 2010 was the United Nations Year of Biodiversity, and the GSPC targets reached their due date. It therefore seems timely to add some additional perspectives to the effort to update the GSPC. This paper suggests ways to reach a far broader constituency, provides tools to those who are expected to achieve the targets, and suggests ways to build a strong international constituency to conserve the world's botanical wealth.

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes.

The dominant late twentieth century model of land use segregated agricultural production from areas managed for biodiversity conservation. This module is no longer adequate in much of the world. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that agriculture has dramatically increased its ecological footprint. Rural communities depend on key components of biodiversity and ecosystem services that are found in non-domestic habitats. Fortunately, agricultural landscapes can be designed and managed to host wild biodiversity of many types, with neutral or even positive effects on agricultural production and livelihoods. Innovative practitioners, scientists and indigenous land managers are adapting, designing and managing diverse types of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes to generate positive co-benefits for production, biodiversity and local people. We assess the potentials and limitations for successful conservation of biodiversity in productive agricultural landscapes, the feasibility of making such approaches financially viable, and the organizational, governance and policy frameworks needed to enable ecoagriculture planning and implementation at a globally significant scale. We conclude that effectively conserving wild biodiversity in agricultural landscapes will require increased research, policy coordination and strategic support to agricultural communities and conservationists.

A zoological perspective on payments for ecosystem services.

The concept of payments for ecosystem services is being developed as an important means of providing a more diverse flow of benefits to people living in and around habitats valuable for conservation. The Kyoto Protocol, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, includes a Clean Development Mechanism to provide for payments for certain forms of carbon sequestration that may benefit animal species (at least as an incidental benefit). Other market-based approaches for paying for carbon sequestration services outside the Kyoto framework are being promoted in various parts of the world. Another common form of payment for ecosystem services is compensating upstream landowners for managing their land in ways that maintain downstream water quality; this can include habitat management that benefits wild animal species. While biodiversity itself is difficult to value, it can be linked to other markets, such as certification in the case of sustainably-produced forest products. This paper expands on some of the markets for ecosystem services that also benefit wildlife, identifies relevant sources of information, and highlights some of the initiatives linking such markets to poverty alleviation. Making markets work for ecosystem services requires an appropriate policy framework, government support, operational institutional support, and innovation at scales from the site level to the national level. Zoologists have much to contribute to all of these steps.

Using economic instruments to overcome obstacles to in situ conservation of biodiversity.

The leading direct cause of the loss of biodiversity is habitat alteration and disruption. If we are to address this cause directly, we need to find ways of changing the behavior of rural people. Experience has shown that this is done most effectively through the use of economic instruments, ranging from taxes that discourage over-exploitation, to direct payments for conservation activities carried out by rural land-owners or those occupying the land. In many parts of the world, governments provide incentives such as tax breaks to private land-owners. Other countries recognize specific use rights on particular parts of the land, enabling the land-owners to earn appropriate benefits. Since many protected areas have resident human populations, it is especially important that they be encouraged to contribute to the objectives of the protected area, and economic incentives offer an important way of doing so; they might, for example, be given employment in the protected area or in associated tourism activities. Direct payments to farmers for conserving watersheds is becoming increasingly popular, in both developed and developing countries. Improved conservation will require both removing perverse subsidies and developing a wide range of approaches for rewarding land-owners for biodiversity conservation activities.

Systems or species? Approaches to conservation for the 21st century.

One of the hot debates in the conservation community is whether to focus on individual species (for example, through species recovery plans, or lists of threatened species) or on systems approaches (such as the ecosystem approach advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity). This paper will discuss some of the various options, before reaching a conclusion that both approaches are valid and mutually reinforcing, and that the dichotomy is a false one. Perhaps more importantly, no conservation investment is likely to be effective if economic, social, and political factors are driving in the opposite direction. Instead, we need multiple approaches that build a stronger political constituency, new ways of providing knowledge for decisions, better ways of mobilizing information and dynamic approaches that enable us to adapt to changing conditions, and new ways to generate funding for conservation.