Search results

Intro -- Reconciling agricultural production with biodiversity conservation -- Contents -- Series list -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction -- Part 1 Methods to study biodiversity in agroecosystems -- Chapter 1 The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes at the EU level -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Farmland birds and butterflies -- 3 Grasslands -- 4 Pollinators -- 5 Soil biodiversity -- 6 Monitoring under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC -- 7 European Monitoring of Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes (EMBAL) -- 8 Alien species -- 9 Other monitoring approaches -- 10 New approaches and technologies -- 11 Conclusions -- 12 Where to look for further information -- 13 References -- Chapter 2 Modelling biodiversity in agriculture -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Interaction among individuals for place, space or resource -- 3 Process-based modelling -- 4 Trading biophysical, economic, social and political currencies -- 5 Whole-system multi-attribute decision modelling -- 6 Future trends and conclusion -- 7 Where to look for further information -- 8 References -- Chapter 3 Assessing the economic value of agricultural biodiversity: a critical perspective -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The relationship between definitions and economic approaches -- 3 What does valuing agricultural biodiversity mean? -- 4 The ecosystem services framework (ESF) -- 5 Ecosystem interactions -- 6 Understanding the limitations of ecosystem service valuations -- 7 The investor perspective: the natural environment as a legally structured persona -- 8 Conclusions -- 9 References -- Chapter 4 Functional biodiversity for the provision of agroecosystem services -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The rise of studies on agriculture: biodiversity relationships -- 3 Functional biodiversity and the delivery of agroecosystem services.

The biodiversity loss is one of the biggest environmental problems in the world. The objective of this paper is to present some nature conservation practices on agricultural land. Farmlands play a significant role to preserve biodiversity because some highly protected species can only find their needs on agricultural land. The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union (2010-2020) creates new directives to reduce biodiversity loss, preserve and improve diversity, especially on agricultural land. Furthermore the importance of this subject is that the share of farmland in Hungary is much higher (57%) than in the EU-27 on average (42%). The loss of agricultural land and the increase of land abandonment cause intensification of agricultural production leading to the loss of biodiversity.

Biodiversity informatics (BI) plays an important role in helping us know, protect and use biodiversity sustainably. It encompasses activities from data digitization, standardization, sharing and aggregation, to supporting decision and policy making. In a country like Brazil, with a large continental geographic area containing ca. 15% of the planet's biodiversity, the challenge is even greater: stakeholders are widely distributed over a large country and the amount of data is huge. Brazil has been a part of the international BI community, including Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), for around two decades. Initially represented solely by the Centro de Referência em Informação Ambiental (CRIA), gradually other groups from universities, museums and institutions joined the arena. Despite the broader group of stakeholders now involved, the local community is not strong enough. From a human resources point of view, the country has very good universities that train competent professionals both in information technology (IT) and in biology or related fields. Concerning the IT professionals, not surprisingly, other industries and job opportunities are usually more attractive and few people even know about BI. This is probably not unique to Brazil. Biological sciences professionals, for their part, usually have little literacy in computing and are equally unaware of BI as a field. On the institutional level, museums, universities and other biological data owners often lack IT support for biological data management, including digitization, and systems development/maintenance. This may reflect the lack of appreciation of the importance of data and of BI as a foundation for good biodiversity science and management. The same happens when it comes to funding. Biological collections are not adequately funded and lack more than a few episodic programs to support collection and museum maintenance and digitization. This lack of infrastructural funding highlights the tragedies of the fires at the Butantan Museum in 2010 (80,000 snakes, 180,000 spiders) and the Museu Nacional in 2018, (20 million biological specimens and objects of the Brazilian and world history and art were lost). The exception is the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), which has been supporting projects since 1999 on biodiversity and BI via its successful Biota-FAPESP program, the first to tie biodiversity projects to data digitization and sharing in Brazil. The lack of institutional engagement and support, and funding affects the sustainability of many initiatives and puts at risk the long term data availability. Due to political reasons, Brazil only joined the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in 2012 as an associate (non-contributing financially and non-voting) member with a commitment to become a voting member within five years. Until recently, the Brazilian Biodiversity Information System (SiBBr), Brazil's GBIF node, was also hindered by politics from having a solid, stable national governance and funding to help "consolidate a solid national infrastructure on biodiversity data", and to unite the growing Brazilian BI community around it. In the international scenario, while political, cultural and funding reasons may have hindered more equitable collaborations (e.g., tools development and sharing) with countries in the Global South, competing Global North-centric projects have prevailed. Although most remaining biodiversity is in the Global South, where local engagement is crucial, in many cases southern partners still often only act as data providers. Collaborative work is required with genuine co-creation, empowering all parties. Initiatives like the Living Atlases community must be recognized and welcomed as a positive shift. Despite all of these challenges, it can be surprising how much Brazilian biodiversity science has achieved throughout the years, and it gives us hope that in the future, if some of these issues are addressed, a lot more can be done. Education and training, continued funding and institutional support, governance, and international collaboration are essential.

Conference paper presented at the 1st African Conference on Sustainable Tourism in Strathmore University, Kenya. ; Over the past few decades ecotourism has emerged as one of India's fastest growing industries, thanks to its rich biological and cultural diversity and heritage. Historically, the increase of nature based and ecotourism is largely a result of the increase in awareness of the plight of the planet's diminishing biological diversity and a reaction against mass tourism and its demonstrative lack of care of conservation issues. In India integration of biodiversity conservation and tourism development has emerged as an important national objective, with strong support by government, industry and the community. Ecotourism has a potentially vital role to play in conservation by generating economic incentives for nature conservation, and a stimulus for an environmental ethic that goes beyond ecotourism. However, the central challenge of ecotourism is to develop and manage the tourism in a way which conserves its natural resource and built heritage base, and minimizes any negative environmental, societal, and cultural impacts. The greening of tourism is essential for the ecological and sociological advancement and sustainability of the industry. The applicability of tourism as a tool for biodiversity conservation and improving economic status of indigenous communities in India is discussed here.

The European Union (EU) soil policy is described in general terms in the EU Soil Strategy (EC 2006a) and the legally binding elements of the policy are proposed in the draft Soil Framework Directive (SFD; EC 2006b). In these documents, eight main threats to soil were identified by the EU Commission. The EU FP6 project ENVASSO (Environmental Assessment of Soil for Monitoring) had the aim to design a single, integrated and operational set of EU-wide criteria and indicators to provide the basis for a harmonised comprehensive soil and land information system for monitoring in Europe. Here, a proposal is made for a set of suitable indicators for monitoring the decline in soil biodiversity (Bispo et al. 2007). These indicators were selected both from a literature review and an inventory of national monitoring programmes. Decline in soil biodiversity was defined as the reduction of forms of life living in soils (both in terms of quantity and variety) and of related functions, causing a deterioration of one or more soil functions or ecosystem services. Whereas literature review allows the identification of about 100 possible indicators, the inventory of existing monitoring networks shows that few indicators are actually measured. For monitoring application it was considered in ENVASSO that only three key indicators per soil stress were practical. For indicating biodiversity decline it was difficult to arrive at a small set of indicators due to the complexity of soil biota and functions. Therefore, three stringent criteria were applied: an indicator should 1) have a standardized sampling and/or measuring methodology; 2) be complementary to other indicators; and 3) be easy to interpret at both scientific and policy levels.

Machine generated contents note: PART I FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS OF CONSERVATION POLICY -- 1 Martin L. Weitzman (1998), 'The Noah's Ark Problem', Econometrica, 66, pp. 1279-98. -- 2 Stephen Polasky and Andrew R. Solow (1999), 'Conserving Biological Diversity with Scarce Resources', in J. Klopatek and R. Gardner (eds), Landscape -- Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 154-74. -- PART II THE VALUE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY -- Biodiversity Measures -- 3 Daniel P. Faith (1992), 'Conservation Evaluation and Phylogenetic Diversity', Biological Conservation, 61, pp. 1-10. -- 4 Martin L. Weitzman (1992), 'On Diversity', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, pp. 363-405. -- 5 Andrew R. Solow and Stephen Polasky (1994), 'Measuring Biological Diversity', Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 1, pp. 95-107. -- Bioprospecting -- 6 R. David Simpson, Roger A. Sedjo and Johm W. Reid (1996), 'Valuing Biodiversity for Use in Pharmaceutical Research', Journal of Political Economy, 104, pp. 163-85. -- 7 Gordon C. Rausser and Arthur A. Small (20D00), 'Valuing Research Leads:Bioprospecting and the Conservation of Genetic Resources', Journal of Political Economy, 108, pp. 173-206. -- 8 Douglas GoBin, Melinda Smale and Bent Skovmand (2000), 'Searching an Ex Situ Collection of Wheat Genetic Resources.', American Journal ofAgricuitural Economics, $2, pp. 812-27. -- Ecosystem Services -- 9 David Tilman (1999), 'The Ecological Consaequences of Changes in Biodiv*ersity: -- A Search for General Principles', Ecology, 80, pp. 1455-74. 10 Charles Perrings and Brian Walker (1997), 'Biodiversity, Resilience and the Control of Ecological-Economic Systems: The Case of Fire-Driven Rangelands', Ecological Economics, 22, pp. 73-83. -- 11 Edward B. Barbier (1994), 'Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands', Land Economics, 70, pp. 155-73. -- Existemce Values -- 12 John B. Loomis and Douglas S. White (1996), 'Economic Benefits of Rare and Endangered Species: Summary and Meta-analysis', Ecological Economics, 18, pp- 197-206. -- 13 Thomas H. Stevens, Jaime Echeverria, Ronald J. Glass, Tim Hager and Thomas -- A. More (1991), 'Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM -- Estimates Really Show?', Land Economics, 67, pp. 390-400. -- PART III CONSERVATION STRATEGIES -- Land Use and the Opportunity Cost of Conservation -- 14 Amy Ando, Jeffrey Camm, Stephen Polasky and Andrew Solow (1998), 'Species Distributions, Land Values, and Efficient Conservation', Science, 279, pp- 2126-28. -- 15 Claire A. Montgomery, Robert A. Pollak, Kathryn Freemark and Denis White -- (1999), 'Pricing Biodiversity', Journal of Environmental Economics and -- Management, 38, pp. 1-19. -- 16 Claire A. Montgomery, Gardner M. Brown, Jr. and Darius M. Adams (1994), -- 'The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl', Journal -- of Environmental Economics and Management, 26, pp. 111-28. -- The US Endangered Species Act -- 17 Robert P. Berrens, David S. Brookshire, Michael McKee and Christian Schmidt -- (1998), 'Implementing the Safe Minimum Standard Approach: Two Case Studies -- from the U.S. Endangered Species Act', Land Economics, 74, pp. 147-61. -- 18 Andrew Metrick and Martin L. Weitzman (1996), 'Patterns of Behavior in -- Endangered Species Preservation', Land Economics, 72, pp. 1-16. -- 19 Stephen Polasky and Holly Doremus (1998), 'When the Truth Hurts: Endangered -- Species Policy on Private Land with Imperfect Information', Journal of -- Environmental Economics and Management, 35, pp. 22-47. -- Conservation Strategies in Developing Countries -- 20 Michael Kremer and Charles Morcom (2000), 'Elephants', American Economic -- Review, 90, pp. 212-34. -- 21 Christopher B. Barrett and Peter Arcese (1998), 'Wildlife Harvest in Integrated -- Conservation and Development Projects: Linking Harvest to Household Demand, -- Agricultural Production, and Environmental Shocks in the Serengeti', Land -- Economics, 74, pp. 449-65. -- 22 Edward B. Barbier and Michael Rauscher (1994), 'Trade, Tropical Deforestation -- and Policy Interventions', Environmental and Resource Economics, 4, pp. 75-90. -- 23 Robert T. Deacon and Paul Murphy (1997), 'The Structure of an Environmental -- Transaction: The Debt-for-Nature Swap', Land Economics, 73, pp. 1-24

Biological diversity or biodiversity for short is defined by the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity as the variability among living organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part of. In the Philippines, the country's biodiversity resources continue to be threatened due to the fragmentation of natural forests that are habitats of important flora and fauna species. The main government initiative to protect and conserve biodiversity has been the establishment of a system of protected areas through the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) as provided for under Republic Act 7586. However, the system currently excludes Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and the surrounding production landscapes which are important for connectivity of key biodiversity corridors. There is thus the need for an integrated landscape planning and management approach that can provide the framework for coordinated actions of all stakeholders. This paper presents an approach for landscape-level land suitability assessment that could provide the basis for the spatial structuring and land use policy framework to support the objectives of biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services consistent with the needs and development aspirations of the stakeholders in the planning region.

The importance of biodiversity conservation as a major environmental issue has come to the forefront in recent years. In particular, biodiversity conservation is a critical issue in tropical developing countries, where biodiversity levels are highest and where the threats to this resource are most severe. This paper looks at the policies that European Union countries have undertaken in order to support biodiversity conservation efforts in tropical developing countries, both in terms of official government policies, and in the work of European NGO's and academic institutions. The paper focuses on in situ conservation efforts. There is no common EU policy, and efforts vary widely from country to country. While governments, NGO's and academic institutions often work together, the efforts undertaken by NGO's and academic institutions are more likely to target biodiversity hotspots, and to involve a grass-roots approach to conservation.

The environmental and socioeconomic interactions between distant regions of the world ("telecoupling") are dramatically increasing. Telecoupling brings about new challenges and opportunities to biodiversity conservation that are of a larger magnitude and of a faster pace than ever observed before. Our understanding of the dynamics and leverage points of this telecoupled world is however limited. It is thus important to take stock of what we know and what we still need to know to formulate effective biodiversity conservation policies with telecoupling increasing. We identify the challenges and opportunities for biodiversity conservation brought about by the world's telecoupling in international trade and information by new technologies. Challenges are presented by the high demands for agricultural and wildlife products by high-income and emerging economies, putting pressure on land protection, management and incentive-based conservation interventions. Opportunities are brought about by the strength of telecoupled information flows that can generate strong pressure on multinationals and governments to adopt sustainable practices. Examples of these opportunities are zero-deforestation pledges and the increase in the number of certification schemes in key agricultural commodities. Conservation practitioners need to adopt a global perspective on telecoupling and focus on the new conservation opportunities represented by shaping the social norms of affluent consumers in emerging and high-income economies. ; Peer Review

Maintaining a certain level of biodiversity is essential to preserve ecosystemic functions. Conservation of biodiversity is a matter of great importance for the well-being of ecosystems and humans dependent on them. 130 world leaders committed to significantly reduce biodiversity loss before 2010 during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. This goal is supported and prioritized by a number of significant policy documents among which are Strategy for Sustainable Development endorsed by EU leaders in Gothenburg in 2001, The Sixth Environment Action Programme and Lisbon Strategy. ; Проект № 2016-2592/001-001, 574826-EPP-1-2016-1-RU-EPPJMO-MODULE, при финансовой поддержке Европейской Комиссии

AbstractLand use has a critical role to play in both climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation, and increasingly there have been calls to integrate policies for concurrently meeting Paris Agreement commitments and the UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030. Currently however, investment activities have been dominated by climate change mitigation activities, including through the development of carbon markets (both voluntary and compliance markets). Whilst climate change mitigation is to be welcomed, the prioritization of carbon in avoided deforestation and reforestation can lead to suboptimal or negative outcomes for biodiversity. Restoration of degraded native vegetation may provide an opportunity for concurrent production of both carbon and biodiversity benefits, by harnessing existing carbon markets without the need to trade-off biodiversity outcomes. Here we demonstrate that carbon sequestered by restoring degraded temperate woodland can pay the price of the restored biodiversity. This is shown using conservative carbon prices in an established market (during both a voluntary and compliance market phase), and the restoration price revealed by a 10-year conservation incentive payment scheme. When recovery rates are high, market prices for carbon could pay the full price of restoration, with additional independent investment needed in cases where recovery trajectories are slower. Using carbon markets to fund restoration of degraded native vegetation thereby provides a solution for constrained resources and problematic trade-offs between carbon and biodiversity outcomes. Multi-attribute markets offer the potential to greatly increase the extent of restoration for biodiversity conservation, while providing an affordable source of carbon sequestration and enhancing economic benefits to landowners.

The opening conference to launch the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation (CMBC) at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) was held 25-27 May 2001. The goal of the conference was to identify priorities in the study of marine biodiversity and conservation, announce the establishment of the Center, and solicit ideas for its future development. Invited participants and guests hailed from a diversity of disciplines and institutions from the social, physical and biological sciences, national and local academic institutions, national and international governmental institutions, NGO's, and industry. The agenda featured plenary addresses, which were open to the public, followed by a graduate student poster session and four panel discussions. We asked all participants to be their most challenging and provocative. Several themes emerged from the conference for which there was universal agreement. First, this is the time to tackle problems affecting marine biodiversity, and SIO is an ideal institution to support these activities. Second, the scale and the urgency of the problems require a bold approach in order to truly make a difference. Third, the need for natural and social scientists to work side by side was a recurrent message. Many participants urged CMBC to go beyond classic marine science curricula and incorporate law, policy, socioeconomics, and communication courses. Such a graduate program is not offered in any academic institution worldwide, and CMBC was urged to establish that kind of program as soon as possible. In conclusion, the participants viewed CMBC as a tremendous opportunity to make a difference in the study and conservation of marine biodiversity, by using good, interdisciplinary science as an essential tool to understand and conserve marine biodiversity, and by training the future (first) generation of scientists with broad expertise in marine biodiversity and conservation as well as effective communication skills.

Summarising the state of knowledge about biodiversity in drylands, this text seeks to identify questions and strategies for future research and to lay out guidelines for management of biodiversity in desert and semidesert regions. The continuing sensitivity of drylands to desertification, the fact that they occupy 40% of the world's terrestrial area, and the increasing human populations in these regions, make the understanding of their biodiversity and its changes over time of central importance. Drylands also provide a natural laboratory to address general questions about biodiversity, ecological succession, etc., because the relative spareness of the landscape allows one to isolate all the variables more effectively than can be done in biologically richer terrains.