Using ecosystem-services assessments to determine trade-offs in ecosystem-based management of marine mammals

The goal of ecosystem-based management (EBM) is to support a sustainable and holistic multisectored management approach, and is recognized in a number of international policy frameworks. However, it remains unknown how these goals should be linked to assessments and management plans for marine fauna, such as mammals and fish stocks. It appears particularly challenging to carry out trade-off analyses of various ocean uses without a framework that integrates knowledge of environmental, social, and economic benefits derived from nonstationary marine fauna. We argue this gap can be filled by applying a version of the ecosystem-service approach at the population level of marine fauna. To advance this idea, we used marine mammals as a case study to demonstrate what indicators could operationalize relevant assessments and deliver an evidence base for the presence of ecosystem services and disservices derived from marine mammals. We found indicators covering common ecosystem service categories feasible to apply; examples of indicator data are already available in the literature for several populations. We encourage further exploration of this approach for application to marina fauna and biodiversity management, with the caveat that conceptual tensions related to the use of the ecosystem service concept itself needs to be addressed to ensure acceptance by relevant stakeholders.     

The need for ecocentrism in biodiversity conservation

Over the past 5 decades, scientists have been documenting negative anthropogenic environmental change, expressing increasing alarm, and urging dramatic socioecological transformation in response. A host of international meetings have been held, but the erosion of biological diversity continues to accelerate. Why, then, has no effective political action been taken? We contend that part of the answer may lie in the anthropocentric ethical premises and moral rhetoric typically deployed in the cause of conservation. We further argue that it is essential to advance moral arguments for biodiversity conservation that are not just based on perceived human interests but on ecocentric values, namely, convictions that species and ecosystems have value and interests that should be respected regardless of whether they serve human needs and aspirations. A broader array of moral rationales for biodiversity conservation, we conclude, would be more likely to lead to effective plans, adopted and enforced by governments, designed to conserve biological diversity. A good place to start in this regard would be to explicitly incorporate ecocentric values into the recommendations that will be made at the conclusion of the 15th meeting of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, scheduled to be held in October 2020.     

Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: Achieving closure through typologies in IPBES

How can a diversity of perspectives be accommodated in scientific and political consensus on environmental issues? This paper adopts a science and technology studies (STS) approach to examine how the pursuit of consensus-based knowledge and diverse participation, as seemingly contradictory commitments, have been converted into practice in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Through a series of negotiations, these commitments have been translated into a set of situated practices that now dominate this expert panel. Consensus has been achieved through the pursuit of closure, in which meetings of expert and administrator groups produce texts, tables and images that stabilise ostensibly collective decisions. Within this framework, diverse perspectives have been accommodated through the production of typologies, such as lists of comparable options, which allow for the coexistence and commensurability of a range of knowledges and experts. However there is a politics to typologies, which requires specific attention to how decisions are made (deliberation), who participates in them (participation), and the extent to which these participants are representative of broader knowledge and policy communities (representation). While the potential of typologies to accommodate consensus and diversity offers the hope of realising ‘unity in diversity’ for both environmental knowledge and policy, recognising the politics of their production is important for more equitable processes of environmental governance.     

The participation of experts and knowledges in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)

This paper examines the participation opportunities and role of nominated experts from the Eastern European region in the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The governance of international knowledge-making spaces and events occurs through standardised institutional rules and expectations that affect experts as well as define accepted forms of knowledge. Within IPBES, experts may participate through United Nations Regional Groupings, which are regions that have complex geopolitical legacies and features. Between regions, experts have variable financial, networking and institutional capacities that in turn affect the operations and outputs of their contributions to science-policy interfaces. For IPBES, regional and localised environmental assessments and ecosystem services valuations require existing place-specific knowledge that may not be ‘available’, as well as understandings that are frequently in conflict with the standardised, homogenising practices of international environmental knowledge-making.     

Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28–29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752–2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597–1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.     

Importance of greater interdisciplinarity and geographic scope when tackling the driving forces behind biological invasions

Invasive non-native species are important drivers of ecosystem change, yet the driving forces of biological invasions themselves are poorly understood. Such information is essential to ensure policies focus on the most relevant drivers, and that future scenarios capture the full range of potential outcomes for invasive non-native species. I carried out a bibliometric analysis of articles published from 2000 to 2020 that address either invasive non-native species or biodiversity and ecosystem services and that also mention 1 or more drivers of ecosystem change. I examined 5 indirect drivers (demographic, economic, governance, sociocultural, and technological) and 6 direct drivers (climate change, invasive non-native species, land-use or sea-use change, natural hazards, pollution, and resource extraction). Using the Web of Science core collection of citation indexes, I undertook searches of article titles and keywords and retrieved 27,462 articles addressing invasive non-native species and 110,087 articles dealing with biodiversity or ecosystem services. Most research to date on biological invasions as well as on biodiversity and ecosystem services has focused on anthropogenic direct drivers of ecosystem change rather than indirect drivers. Yet currently, less than 18% of articles addressing biological invasions examined drivers of ecosystem change, a similar level to that found over 20 years ago for biodiversity or ecosystem services. Knowledge of the drivers of biological invasions is limited, emphasizes tractable drivers over those that require an interdisciplinary approach, and is biased toward developed economies. Drivers generally deemed important for biological invasions, such as governance and resource extraction, accounted for less than 2% of research effort. The absence of a systematic understanding of the forces that drive invasive non-native species and how they interact means that attempts to mitigate or forecast biological invasions are likely to fail. To address biological invasions requires a much better orientation of national and international research on drivers in relation to both their actual importance as well as their policy relevance.