2a. Biodiversity, ecosystem and ecosystem service challenges
Track Chairs:
Joachim Spangenberg, Sustainable Europe Research Institute SERI Germany. joachim.spangenberg@seri.de; joachim.spangenberg@gmail.com
Rob Wallis. Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research), Federation University, Australia, r.wallis@federation.edu.au
Andrés Link, Universidad de los Andes School of Management, Colombia. a.link74@uniandes.edu.co
Goals and objectives of the track
Every problem in the area of sustainability at any level is multi-faceted, at the source as well as at the impacts. A solution suitable exclusively for one facet may harm another. Thus it needs to be treated with a holistic perspective. A sharp investigation of each facet independently is also important to find a better solution.
Healthy, resilient ecosystems and their services are usually considered essential but often neglected requirements for successful sustainable development. Conservation of biodiversity will help provide essential ecosystem services, as well as resources for societal development, but in the urgent rush to promote economic development, the accompanying threats to biodiversity, ecological integrity and ESS are often ignored - "development" undermining the longer term prospects for sustainable development. How then to ensure societies can develop sustainably at the same time as ecosystems are conserved and ESS saved? This track thus aims to investigate how threats to ecological integrity and healthy ecosystems can be managed to simultaneously support sustainable development in a variety of contexts.
Contributions from the followings areas are sought-after:
Having in mind the IUCN definition of ecosystems which includes human livelihoods, papers would be particularly (but not exclusively) welcome dealing questions such as:
- How successful have different strategic approaches to biodiversity conservation been? What are the main ecological and social downsides of exclusion/land sparing strategies? Have they been able to safeguard biodiversity, and if so, which aspect of biodiversity? What are the main ecological and social benefits of land sharing strategies? Have there been downsides, or has traditional use been beneficial to biodiversity, and if so, how can a positive relation be maintained? Are there thresholds (e.g. population density, consumption patterns) beyond which traditional use is no longer sustainable? What to do in that case? If there are mixed results, which kinds of compensation to local communities are possible and have been endorsed by them? What is the role of traditional knowledge and institutions when setting up regulations for sustainable use systems? Is benefit sharing possible, effective and positive? Which kind of sharing fits to local communities, and do the communities have the right to decide who gets what? Who decides about the allocation of services and disservices, benefits and disbenefits?
Regarding the dichotomy of protection and use:
- What are effective measures to deal with it? Is green infrastructure sufficient to safeguard biodiversity alongside intensive agriculture and plantations, in particular in times of climate change? Is connectivity well-defined and sufficient to allow for climate adaptation and overcome spatial impacts on populations? Or is it necessary to modify the agricultural areas in between, from a "chemical desert" to parts of a living landscape? Are they "chemical deserts" at all? Which role do herbicide resistant GMO plants play? Who benefits? Are they affecting other ESS than yield? How are ecosystem services co-produced by species contributing to pollination or biocontrol, where are their reproduction and foraging habitats? Which kind of landscape planning permits the best provision of public and private ecosystem services, and how are cost and benefits distributed?
While assessment and monitoring of ESS and biodiversity are a necessary condition for conservation and demanded under the Convention on Biological Diversity CBD, economic valuation is disputed. Open questions include e.g.
- What are the benefits and the risks associated with economic valuation of such ecosystem services? In which cases could economic arguments improve decision making? In which cases would they be irrelevant, and in which ones counterproductive? How should scientists deal with economic arguments if they can be supportive but also counterproductive for the case at stake?
Joachim H. Spangenberg is research coordinator at the Sustainable Europe Research Institute SERI Germany in Cologne. With a PhD in economics, but an academic background biology and ecology, he is an inter- and transdisciplinary researcher by education and dedication. He works on biodiversity conservation by pressure reduction, ecosystem services and their valuation, and sustainable development strategies incl. limits of economic growth, environmental conflicts, and sustainable consumption. Joachim serves on the Scientific Board of FoE Germany, the executive committees of INES and ISDRS, and on the Steering Committee of ESP.
Rob Wallis is currently Professor, Research Development at Federation University Australia. He has previously held senior academic positions at Deakin University where he was Head of the School of Ecology and Environment and also Pro Vice-Chancellor (Rural and Regional) and at the University of Ballarat where he was Interim Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research). Professor Wallis' research interests span vertebrate ecology and wildlife management but also environmental education and sustainable development. In terms of the latter he is especially interested in how biodiversity and healthy ecosystems can be managed to successfully support sustainable development.
