Suchergebnisse

The financial resources needed for globally implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been estimated at US$ 150-440 billion per year (CBD COP11, 2012) - of which only a fraction is currently available. Significant efforts have been undertaken in many countries to increase funding for biodiversity conservation. Nonetheless, this funding shortage remains immense, acute and chronic. However, we do not lose biodiversity and ecosystems primarily for lack of conservation funding but also due to poor governance, wrong policies, perverse incentives and other factors. This begs the question: How should limited conservation resources be used? For directly tackling biodiversity threats, for addressing the underlying drivers, or rather for strengthening the financial management and fundraising capacity of implementing organisations? As country contexts differ, so do the answers. This report synthesizes experiences of German development cooperation working towards improved biodiversity finance in eight countries: Viet Nam, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Ecuador and Peru. Our findings suggest a shift in perspective in the international biodiversity financing debate: We need to move from a focus on innovative financing mechanisms towards thinking "innovation" more broadly. Financial resource mobilisation needs to go hand in hand with efforts to slow the drivers of conservation costs and to improve effective spending capacity. For this, the constraints to financial sustainability of biodiversity conservation need to be better understood at country level. Innovative financing mechanisms can be part of the solution and deliver multiple benefits only if their design is carefully fitted to context. Beyond that, landscape approaches to conservation make clear that investing in healthy ecosystems is critical for livelihoods and development.

Knowledge brokerage on biodiversity and ecosystem services can apply communication tools such as policy briefs to facilitate the dialogue between scientists and policymakers. There is currently considerable debate on how to go beyond the linear communication model, outdated in theoretical debate but still often implicitly leading interaction with policy. In this paper, we provide recommendations to scientists in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services for developing policy briefs with increased impact and that are adapted to the needs of the audience. We also highlight the challenges of addressing the key criteria of credibility, relevance, legitimacy and iterativity that often lead to trade-offs.

Die vorliegende Studie erfasst und beschreibt die gesellschaftliche Wertigkeit des Tempelhofer Feldes in seiner gegenwärtigen Nutzung. Sie legt einen Ansatz dar, wie unterschiedliche Werte fokussiert werden können, um ein Gesamtbild der gesellschaftlichen Werte entstehen zu lassen. Hierfür wird ein konzeptioneller Rahmen mit fünf Betrachtungsebenen vorgestellt und angewandt.

The financial resources needed for globally implementing the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have been estimated at US$ 150-440 billion per year (CBD COP11, 2012) - of which only a fraction is currently available. Significant efforts have been undertaken in many countries to increase funding for biodiversity conservation. Nonetheless, this funding shortage remains immense, acute and chronic. However, we do not lose biodiversity and ecosystems primarily for lack of conservation funding but also due to poor governance, wrong policies, perverse incentives and other factors. This begs the question: How should limited conservation resources be used? For directly tackling biodiversity threats, for addressing the underlying drivers, or rather for strengthening the financial management and fundraising capacity of implementing organisations? As country contexts differ, so do the answers. This report synthesizes experiences of German development cooperation working towards improved biodiversity finance in eight countries: Viet Nam, Namibia, Tanzania, Cameroon, Madagascar, Mauritania, Ecuador and Peru.

Die vorliegende Publikation ist die Kurzfassung der englischsprachigen Studie 'Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience' (veröffentlicht als UFZ-Bericht 3/2021) und wurde im Rahmen des Projekts 'Transformativer Wandel zum Schutz von globalen Gemeingütern' erstellt. Im ersten Teil werden die Folgen unserer Lebensweise für die globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wald und Meere beleuchtet und die Dringlichkeit des Handels betont. Warum eine Trendwende hin zu einem nachhaltigen Umgang mit unseren Lebensgrundlagen im Sinne der Agenda 2030 der Vereinten Nationen bisher nicht erreicht wurde und welche zentralen Herausforderungen in den Bereichen Biodiversität, Wald und Meere gelöst werden müssten, fasst der zweite Teil zusammen. Der letzte Teil wirbt für einen 'radikalen Inkrementalismus' der von einer übergeordneten, transformativen Vision für einen nachhaltigen Wandel geleitet ist und in dem zahlreiche unterschiedliche Maßnahmen gesamtgesellschaftlich verhandelt und neu ausgerichtet werden. Damit einher geht eine kluge Auswahl vieler Schritte, um schnell radikale Veränderungen in einzelnen Sektoren wie Energie, Wohnen, Landwirtschaft oder Finanzen, und in verschiedenen sozialen, ökonomischen und politischen Systemen einzuleiten. Der Kurzbericht schließt mit Handlungsoptionen für die drei zentralen Transformationshebel 1) strukturelle Verankerung des sozial-ökologischen Wandels und Gemeinwohlorientierung, 2) Ökologisierung der Landwirtschaft und 3) Globale Governance zum Schutz der globalen Gemeingüter Biodiversität, Wälder und Meere.

We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding ; We present options for a National Ecosystem Assessment in Germany (NEA-DE) that could inform decision-makers on the state and trends of ecosystems and ecosystem services. Characterizing a NEA-DE, we argue that its cross-sectoral, integrative approach would have the advantages of increased scientific understanding, addressing specific policy questions and creating science-policy dialogues. Challenges include objections against a utilitarian perspective, reservations concerning power relations, and responsibilities concerning the funding.

The aim of EKLIPSE is to develop a mechanism to inform European-scale policy on biodiversity and related environmental challenges. This paper considers two fundamental aspects of the decision-support mechanism being developed by EKLIPSE: 1) the engagement of relevant actors from science, policy and society to jointly identify evidence for decision making; and 2) the networking of scientists and other holders of knowledge on biodiversity and other relevant evidence. The mechanism being developed has the potential not only to build communities of knowledge holders but to build informal networks among those with similar interests in evidence, be they those that seek to use evidence or those who are building evidence, or both. EKLIPSE has been successful in linking these people and in contributing to building informal networks of requesters of evidence, and experts of evidence and its synthesis. We have yet to see, however, significant engagement of formal networks of knowledge holders. Future success, however, relies on the continued involvement with and engagement of networks, a high degree of transparency within the processes and a high flexibility of structures to adapt to different requirements that arise with the broad range of requests to and activities of EKLIPSE.

The aim of EKLIPSE is to develop a mechanism to inform European-scale policy on biodiversity and related environmental challenges. This paper considers two fundamental aspects of the decision-support mechanism being developed by EKLIPSE: 1) the engagement of relevant actors from science, policy and society to jointly identify evidence for decision making; and 2) the networking of scientists and other holders of knowledge on biodiversity and other relevant evidence. The mechanism being developed has the potential not only to build communities of knowledge holders but to build informal networks among those with similar interests in evidence, be they those that seek to use evidence or those who are building evidence, or both. EKLIPSE has been successful in linking these people and in contributing to building informal networks of requesters of evidence, and experts of evidence and its synthesis. We have yet to see, however, significant engagement of formal networks of knowledge holders. Future success, however, relies on the continued involvement with and engagement of networks, a high degree of transparency within the processes and a high flexibility of structures to adapt to different requirements that arise with the broad range of requests to and activities of EKLIPSE.