• Energy Research
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• CH close
• Aurora Universities Network close

Ambitious international targets are being developed to protect and restore biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the European Union's Green Deal. Yet, the land system consequences of meeting such targets are unclear, as multiple pathways may be able to deliver on the set targets. This paper introduces a novel scenario approach assessing the plural implementations of these targets. The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to illustrate the different, positive ways in which society can value nature. It therefore offers a lens through which the spatial implementation of sustainability targets may be envisioned. We used CLUMondo, a spatially explicit model, to simulate plural land system scenarios for Europe for 2050. The model builds on current land system representations of Europe and explores how and where sustainability targets can be implemented under projected population trends and commodity demands. We created three different scenarios in which the sustainability targets are met, each representing an alternative, normative view on nature as represented by the NFF, favoring land systems providing strong climate regulation (Nature for Society), species conservation (Nature for Nature), or agricultural heritage features (Nature as Culture). Our results show that, irrespective of the NFF view, meeting sustainability targets will require European land systems to drastically change, as natural grasslands and forests are forecast to expand while productive areas are projected to undergo a dual intensification and diversification trajectory. Despite each NFF perspective showcasing a similar direction of change, 20% of Europe's land area will differ based on the adopted NFF perspective, with hotspots of disagreement identified in eastern and western Europe. These simulations go beyond existing scenario approaches by not only depicting broad societal developments for Europe, but also by quantifying the land system synergies and trade-offs associated with alternative, archetypal, interpretations and values of how nature may be managed for sustainability. This quantification exemplifies a means towards constructive dialogue, on the one hand by acknowledging areas of contention, and bringing such issues to the fore, and on the other by highlighting points of convergence in a vision for a sustainable Europe.

A continuous growth of international trade, especially between developing countries, has greatly increased carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with energy consumption over the past two decades. Given the more intensified intraregional cooperation and trade within the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), this study aims to trace the imbalance of CO2 embodied in trade between nations in BRI and the rest of the world, providing new insights into the drivers of emissions growth by contrasting consumption, production and technological differences-based perspectives. Results indicate that the BRI contributed to over 50% of global carbon footprint and 92% of its increase in 1995–2015. The BRI was a net exporter of trade-embodied emissions, whose technological-adjusted carbon footprint remained remarkably large due to comparatively high carbon intensity. Geographically, carbon leakage has gradually moved from China and India to other BRI countries, especially to Southeast Asia, West Asia and Africa. Technological change was the key driver of emissions reduction, followed by the change in industrial structure. The growth in final demand per capita was the most important driver for the growth of CO2 emissions in BRI. Improving carbon efficiency remains a critical step for BRI nations to slow down not only emissions growth but also carbon leakage. The paper managed to provide novel insights into the carbon leakage in BRI by contrasting the consumption, production and technological differences-based perspectives, thus being able to better inform policymakers on region-specific low-carbon transition and global climate governance.

Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement stand as milestone diplomatic achievements. However, immense discrepancies between political commitments and governmental action remain. Combined national climate commitments fall far short of the Paris Agreement's 1.5/2°C targets. Similar political ambition gaps persist across various areas of sustainable development. Many therefore argue that actions by nonstate actors, such as businesses and investors, cities and regions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are crucial. These voices have resonated across the United Nations (UN) system, leading to growing recognition, promotion, and mobilization of such actions in ever greater numbers. This article investigates optimistic arguments about nonstate engagement, namely: (a) “the more the better”; (b) “everybody wins”; (c) “everyone does their part”; and (d) “more brings more.” However, these optimistic arguments may not be matched in practice due to governance risks. The current emphasis on quantifiable impacts may lead to the under‐appreciation of variegated social, economic, and environmental impacts. Claims that everybody stands to benefit may easily be contradicted by outcomes that are not in line with priorities and needs in developing countries. Despite the seeming depoliticization of the role of nonstate actors in implementation, actions may still lead to politically contentious outcomes. Finally, nonstate climate and sustainability actions may not be self‐reinforcing but may heavily depend on supporting mechanisms. The article concludes with governance risk‐reduction strategies that can be combined to maximize nonstate potential in sustainable and climate‐resilient transformations.This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance

Land use is central to addressing sustainability issues, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable energy. In this paper, we synthesize knowledge accumulated in land system science, the integrated study of terrestrial social-ecological systems, into 10 hard truths that have strong, general, empirical support. These facts help to explain the challenges of achieving sustainability in land use and thus also point toward solutions. The 10 facts are as follows: 1) Meanings and values of land are socially constructed and contested; 2) land systems exhibit complex behaviors with abrupt, hard-to-predict changes; 3) irreversible changes and path dependence are common features of land systems; 4) some land uses have a small footprint but very large impacts; 5) drivers and impacts of land-use change are globally interconnected and spill over to distant locations; 6) humanity lives on a used planet where all land provides benefits to societies; 7) land-use change usually entails trade-offs between different benefits—"win–wins" are thus rare; 8) land tenure and land-use claims are often unclear, overlapping, and contested; 9) the benefits and burdens from land are unequally distributed; and 10) land users have multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas of what social and environmental justice entails. The facts have implications for governance, but do not provide fixed answers. Instead they constitute a set of core principles which can guide scientists, policy makers, and practitioners toward meeting sustainability challenges in land use.

The so-called “Traffic Light Index” (TLI) is a meta-sustainability label aimed at condensing the information provided by existing sustainability labels into an overarching message on food products’ environmental footprints. Such an overarching message is critical to reduce the confusion caused by existing labels and to foster more sustainable dietary habits among consumers. While research shows that the TLI is a viable and effective choice, its actual development and implementation are impeded by debates between relevant stakeholders in the European food system. This study examines those debates and adopts a multi-stakeholder perspective to address the following question: How do different stakeholder groups involved in the discussion towards a meta-sustainability label inhibit the adoption of the TLI label? Exploratory interviews with representatives from non-governmental organizations, social enterprises, academia, multi-national corporations, and governmental organizations show that each stakeholder group (1) adopts either optimistic or skeptical attitudes towards the TLI label, (2) perceives different types and magnitudes of barriers to its adoption (i.e., cognitive, methodological, and processual), and (3) proposes solutions to overcome those barriers that are either of an entrepreneurial or risk-averse nature. Findings further reveal that multi-stakeholder interactions influence attitudes and thereby inhibit or favor TLI adoption. Hence, entrepreneurial (vs. risk-averse) solutions proposed by optimistic (vs. skeptical) stakeholders may alter the attitudes of skeptical (vs. optimistic) stakeholders and the barriers they perceive to TLI adoption. By responding to calls for holistic approaches towards food labelling, our study shows how the diversity of stakeholders’ perceptions towards the TLI inhibits its adoption. We propose a theoretical framework and a set of propositions that can serve as springboards for policy ideas to propel progress in food labelling for environmental sustainability.

Recently, the integrated landscape approach has gained increasing interest of the scientific community, as well as of organizations active in the field of sustainable development. However, the enthusiastic welcome is challenged by little consensus on theory, terminology and definitions. Moreover, the operationalization of the approach into practice is a major challenge. In this paper, we present a framework to operationalize the integrated landscape approach in practice by putting a long-term collaboration between scientists and various stakeholder at center stage. Based on encompassing understanding of landscape-level processes and interactions, four pillars addressing different steps of a joint-learning circle are described and illustrated with examples. We consider the integrated landscape approach to be a prime way of targeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but novel forms of collaboration between scientists and other stakeholders based on long-term commitments will be needed for operationalization in practice.