• Energy Research

AbstractIn this commentary we critically discuss the suitability of payments for ecosystem services and the most important challenges they face. While such instruments can play a role in improving environmental governance, we argue that over‐reliance on payments as win‐win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes, similar to earlier experience with integrated conservation and development projects. Our objective is to raise awareness, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, about the limitations of such instruments and to encourage a dialogue about the policy contexts in which they might be appropriate.

Abstract The present paper sets out to aid in the development of ‘environmental load displacement’ indicators. Developing the notion of the ‘environmental memory’ of physical flows, we estimated embodied pollution in trade of 18 industrialized countries with (a) the rest of the world and (b) developing countries, from 1976 to 1994. We found that in the last years of analysis, total imports of Japan, USA and Western Europe have entailed, in general, larger air pollutant emissions than local exports. The balance of embodied emissions in trade (BEET) seems to follow an inverted-U shape across time in Japan and Western Europe, and an N-shape in the US. In the period of analysis, Japanese and European environmental terms of trade with developing countries ‘improved’ (from the Japanese and European point of view), whereas American environmental terms of trade with developing countries ‘deteriorated’ over time. Although there is no statistical trend between income and embodied emissions in imports in a cross-section analysis, there does seem to be a positive relationship between both variables at a national level. The results suggest that, despite many shortcomings, this type of assessment may shed useful insights on the international aspects of sustainable development.

ABSTRACT: 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: [Image: see text]

Measurements of CO2 production of whole termite colonies showed that respiration intensity varies slightly during the daily cycle, that the relation between standard metabolism and colony size is best described with a negative exponential, taking into account the proportion of the various castes. Larger colonies were more efficient in their energy use, suggesting that energetic considerations may contribute in explaining the maintenance in evolution of complex societies.

AbstractTwenty-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.