• Energy Research

AbstractPlans are currently being drafted for the next decade of action on biodiversity—both the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union (EU). Freshwater biodiversity is disproportionately threatened and underprioritized relative to the marine and terrestrial biota, despite supporting a richness of species and ecosystems with their own intrinsic value and providing multiple essential ecosystem services. Future policies and strategies must have a greater focus on the unique ecology of freshwater life and its multiple threats, and now is a critical time to reflect on how this may be achieved. We identify priority topics including environmental flows, water quality, invasive species, integrated water resources management, strategic conservation planning, and emerging technologies for freshwater ecosystem monitoring. We synthesize these topics with decades of first‐hand experience and recent literature into 14 special recommendations for global freshwater biodiversity conservation based on the successes and setbacks of European policy, management, and research. Applying and following these recommendations will inform and enhance the ability of global and European post‐2020 biodiversity agreements to halt and reverse the rapid global decline of freshwater biodiversity.

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems.

As the integrity and extent of many natural ecosystems continues to decline, the concept of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) is gaining traction as a means to reverse such trends. However, uptake of an NbS approach across society is often piecemeal or partial. This paper argues that a deeper connection with the literature on transformations will help realise the full potential of NbS for enabling sustainable futures. Whilst others have already noted the concept of transformations to be relevant to NbS, many insights from the sustainability transformations literature remain underutilised by those working with NbS.In this paper, we provide a conceptual framework to enable more ambitious and widespread uptake of NbS. We do this by identifying and drawing on key conceptual perspectives and frameworks from the sustainability transformations literature. This framework identifies key components (current system, future visions, process and an iterative approach) to consider when planning strategic actions. The framework strengthens the links between transformations and NbS concepts for a variety of stakeholders: as well as guiding NbS practitioners, it can also support action-orientated research to help steer NbS to achieve transformational change.

A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a ‘linear’ or technocratic model of communication in which scientific “facts” are transmitted directly to policy advisers to “solve problems”. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to present practical recommendations aimed at individuals, teams, organisations and funders. Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter- and trans-disciplinary research and “multi-domain” working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.

AbstractThere is an urgent need to understand and address the risks associated with a warming climate for ecosystems and societies in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. There are major gaps in our understanding of the complex effects of climate change—including extreme events, cascading impacts across ecosystems, and the underlying socioecological dynamics and feedbacks—all of which need collaborative efforts to be resolved. Here, we present results where climate scientists, ecologists, social scientists, and practitioners were asked to identify the most urgent research needs for understanding climate change impacts and to identify the actions for reducing future risks in catchment areas in the Norwegian High North, a region that encompasses both Arctic and sub-Arctic climates in northern Norway. From a list of 77 questions, our panel of 19 scientists and practitioners identified 15 research needs that should be urgently addressed. We particularly urge researchers to investigate cross-ecosystem impacts and the socioecological feedbacks that could amplify or reduce risks for society.

This repository contains datasets used in the production of figures contained in MAGIC Deliverable 5.1 Matthews K.B. (Hutton), Blackstock K.L. (Hutton), Waylen K.A. (Hutton), Juarez-Bourke A. (Hutton) Miller D.G. (Hutton), Wardell-Johnson D.H. (Hutton), Rivington M. (Hutton), Hague A. (Hutton), Fisher D. (Hutton), Renner A. (UAB), Cadillo-Benalzacar J. (UAB), Schyns J. (UT), Giampietro M. (UAB) MAGIC (H2020-GA 689669) Project Deliverable 5.1 - July 2020 MAGIC Deliverable 5.1