Value of Nature

Through a reflexive study, we performed a reality check of how Ecosystem Services valuation is performed compared to what could be referred to as a "theoretical ideal" of the BElgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) community of practice, reflecting the salient recent international literature on integrated valuation. By surveying the most recent case studies doing valuation, our results highlight that stakeholders are always included, a variety of values are generally accounted for using a diversity of methods, and increasingly transdisciplinary approaches. However, the main findings that 1) impacts on decision-making remain unclear, 2) real transdisciplinary studies, co-constructed by scientists and stakeholders are yet to be undertaken, and 3) sustainability issues (thresholds & fairness) are largely ignored, call for further research on how to conduct integrated and inclusive ES valuations. We argue that community of practice such as BEES are appropriate arenas to foster such transdisciplinary studies, by facilitating the inclusion of a broad range of values and actors. We call for a broader review of best practices for ES integrated valuation, to identify factors of success, and guide further scientific research that aims at improving ES practice for decision-making. Highlights  Communities of practice on ecosystem services foster science-policy practice collaboration  Impacts of Belgian ecosystem services practice on decision-making remain unclear  Real co-constructed transdisciplinary studies are yet to be undertaken  Sustainability issues in ecosystem services assessments are largely ignored  Further research should review best practice to guide decision-making

In this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) Community of Practice and on some Belgian Ecosystem Services (ES) research projects aimed at policy or practice support. As ES governance is still mainly an aspect of policy or practice oriented research, we will specifically focus on method and methodological decision making. The system or systems we aim to govern are complex. But also the governance processes are inherently complex. How do we take this complexity into account in decision support? Do we acknowledge complexity in our approach or do we drastically simplify and reduce it to relatively simple proportions? The methodological approach of decision support methods is open for debate as neither crystal clear nor undisputed yardsticks for best practices exist. On an ambition level, BEES members generally seem to prefer transdisciplinary as well as inclusive valuation approaches, though not exclusively in all circumstances. In Belgium research projects, similar to the developments within BEES, from a research practice dominated by scientists, gradually research processes are opening up to transdisciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously these processes gradually shift from mainly top down approaches to bottom up approaches or hybrid combinations of both entry points. A closer and more nuanced view shows that real transdisciplinary collaboration in Belgian ES research still is only at the beginning. Partly this can be explained by the fact that inter-and transdisciplinary approaches are perhaps more realistic, but also have to deal with more social complexity. New balances have to be found between sophistication and pragmatics. Also the role of science can become more ambiguous: the closer to stakeholders, the more an independent role can be questioned. Regarding ES valuation methods, in general a trend towards more inclusive valuation is clearly noticeable in Belgian ES research, inclusive in the sense of a diversity of ES valuation aspects to be taken into account, diverse types of expression of value(s), a combination of quantifiable and qualitative information, and a diversity of valuators by way of more bottom-up approaches. Still, there are quite some differences between projects and challenges for integration.

Sustainability sciences and policies are striving to achieve biodiversity conservation and social well-being. Academics and managers have developed concepts like ecosystem services (ES) and nature’s contributions to people (NCP) to bridge disciplines and knowledge systems to more fully account for nature’s multiple values in research and decisions. However, there is consensus on the need to enhance plural valuations of nature and their uptake in theory and practice. Consequently, we assessed the status and trends of ES/NCP research in South America’s Southern Cone. Delimiting our geographic focus allowed better interpretation of findings for the science-society interface (e.g., social actors, public policies, funding, capacities). We found a critical mass of empirical studies since about 2015 with three epistemic communities coexisting. While ‘economic utilitarian’ and ‘value-pluralist’ perspectives have become well represented in the last decade, ‘biodiversity and ecosystem function’ studies continue to predominate. Coverage is heterogeneous; some ecoregions (e.g., Serra do Mar, Valdivian Rainforest) are more studied. Research has predominantly addressed Regulating ES/NCP, been conducted at local and regional scales, and employed field sampling of biophysical indicators. Furthermore, societal engagement is low, mostly based on social actors as study subjects. Likewise, we found weak insertion in governance frameworks, considering both the number of studies with an explicit policy-orientation and those funded or supported by governmental management agencies or public policy structures. Based on these trends, we reflect on existing and needed capacities to promote more plural approaches to conservation and development. There is a general gap in abilities to institutionalize science-society platforms, including enhancing negotiation, social networking, and practical management skills. By mapping these opportunities and challenges, we seek to open pathways forward for science and capacity-building that integrates biodiversity with just and sustainable development.

ABSTRACTDemarcation of conservation priority zones (CPZs) using spatially explicit models is the new challenge in ecosystem services (ESs) research. This study identifies the CPZs of the Indian Sundarbans by integrating 2 different approaches, that is, ESs and ecosystem health (EH). Five successive steps were followed to conduct the analysis: First, the ESs were estimated using biophysical and economic methods and a hybrid method (that combines biophysical and economic methods); second, the vigor–organization–resilience (VOR) model was used for estimating EH; third, the risk characterization value (RCV) of ESs was measured using the function of EH and ESs; fourth, Pearson correlation test was performed to analyze the interaction between ESs and EH components; and fifth, the CPZs were defined by considering 7 relevant components: ecosystem vigor, ecosystem organization, ecosystem resilience, RCV, EH, ESs, and the correlation between EH and ESs. Among the major ecoregions of the Sunda...

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar los circuitos alimentarios alternativos (CAA) en función de la importancia que tienen los valores sobre los cuales estos se sustentan y especialmente el rol que juegan en el diseño de las políticas públicas que buscan su promoción y desarrollo. En la elaboración de este ejercicio, priorizaremos la aplicación de un marco conceptual de valoración de la naturaleza que, originalmente diseñado para entender la forma en que se puede abordar la gestión de esta, permite desde nuestra perspectiva su aplicación al caso de otras temáticas, como en nuestro caso, la de los CAA. La definición de los CAA los identifica como "aquellas modalidades de abastecimiento de alimentos que conectan producción y consumo y que están basadas en valores éticos (precios justos con pequeños productores), el empleo de prácticas amigables con el medio ambiente (agroecología, producción orgánica) y el acortamiento de los eslabones desde el productor al consumidor" (Craviotti, 2023). Comprenden de alguna manera tanto a los denominados "circuitos o cadenas cortas de comercialización" como a las "redes alimentarias alternativas", dos términos que suelen ser presentados como equivalentes (Craviotti, 2020) en la medida en que comparten un perfil opuesto a las redes globales de abastecimiento alimentario y a las modalidades convencionales de producción y distribución y que propician el acercamiento entre el productor y el consumidor.

Chapters of the assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps used in the assessment do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. These maps have been prepared or used for the sole purpose of facilitating the assessment of the broad biogeographical areas represented therein and for purposes of representing scientific data spatially.

I would like to address the question of social and ecological value by bringing two approaches to this question into conversation with one another and show their connections. The two approaches are those of Jonathan Schell and Akeel Bilgrami. The connection between the two approaches is their shared interest in the 'conditions that sustain life' on earth. The answer to the question of what are the conditions that sustain life is, in my opinion, 'life sustains life': that is, living ecological systems sustain themselves and the living systems with which they interact (symbiosis).

Over the last 500 years the West has developed a social system that is socially and ecologically unsustainable and destructive. It overreaches and undermines the social and ecological conditions that sustain life on earth for Homo sapiens and many other species and ecosystems. This social system has been spread around the world by Western imperialism in the colonial and post-colonial periods and is now the dominant social system on the planet. It is a 'vicious' system in the technical sense that the regular feedback loops within the social system and between the social system and the ecosystems in which it is embedded reproduce and intensify the destructive effects of the system on the social sphere and ecosphere. These effects include such things as: global warming, climate change, pollution and the diseases it causes, acidification of the oceans, desertification of once arable land and the re-colonization of Africa, melting of the polar icecap and the release of methane, the depletion of non-renewable recourses and the military conflicts over what's left, the use of renewable resources and aquifers beyond their cyclical rate of renewal, millions of climate change refugees, global inequalities in life chances, petro-states, a planet of slums and gated enclaves, the domination of democracy by concentrations of private, media and military power, the concentration of the means of production in a handful of multinational companies, and counter-violences to the system's overt and structural violence that trigger counter-insurgencies and feed an ever-increasing arms race and arms trade, and so on. 1 This chapter follows from the first chapter on this theme at the 2013 NOMIS Workshop: Life Sustains Life 1. I would like to thank the participants in both the 2103 and 2014 workshops for their helpful comments on my presentations, especially the late Jonathan Schell, Akeel Bilgrami, Charles Taylor, Anthony Laden, David Kahane, and Pablo Ouziel. I would also like to thank Michael Carpenter for assistance with editing both chapters. I have discussed the topics in this chapter further in 'Reconciliation Here on Earth', in

Addressing interlinked societal and ecological challenges requires interdisciplinary approaches, such as those promoted by the IPBES framework. Yet, because of the conceptual and methodological challenges posed by interdisciplinary work, applications of the framework have been mostly qualitative. Here, we propose a net balance of NCP (netNCP) approach, that quantitatively represents multiple components of the IPBES framework. This adapts existing ecosystem service multifunctionality approaches to weight NCP supply by its relative priority by people to measure the overall benefit derived from nature. We expand existing approaches by integrating detrimental NCP, issues of access to NCP, and detailed supply-benefit relationships. We also offer perspectives for better integrating social and anthropogenic drivers, and their impacts on the components of netNCP. Overall, the netNCP approach provides a more robust and complete basis for the integration of ecological and social sciences. Such approaches are needed to quantify socio-ecological systems and to identify sustainable management options. Glossary Nature's contributions to people (NCP). All the contributions both positive and negative of nature to people's quality of life 1. Benefits, i.e. positive contributions, are broadly comparable to ecosystem services; and detriments, i.e. negative contributions, broadly comparable to ecosystem disservices. Potential NCP supply: The NCP supply produced by the ecosystem that could potentially be used if there is no limit to access ("supply potential" in 7) Access: broadly defined as "the ability to derive benefits from things" 8 , here from NCP. Access filter: Biophysical, individual, social or economic factors that limit the accessible NCP supply. This can range from infrastructure (access roads) to legal rights to access an area, or knowledge enabling the use of some resources. Accessible NCP supply: The proportion of potential NCP supply that is accessible to users and can be benefited from. NCP co-production: Joint contribution of nature and other anthropogenic assets resulting in the supply of NCP 9. This includes resource mobilisation and exploitation 7 such as management and maintenance, harvest and post-harvest operations, physical access and cultural appreciation 10,11. Here we focus on Nature-People co-production, rather than people-people coproduction that is often used in socio-ecological or governance research 12. Ecosystem service multifunctionality: Simultaneous supply of multiple prioritised ecosystem services, relative to their human demand 4,13 Net balance of NCP (or netNCP): The overall balance of ecosystem benefits and detriments experienced by a stakeholder (see section 3 for detailed description). The measure is broadly equivalent to ecosystem service multifunctionality 4,13 , but also includes detrimental NCP. Measured as the sum of the benefits and detriments from all considered NCP, weighted by their respective priority by stakeholders. Institutions: rules that structure human interactions, these may take a range of forms including legal regulations and social norms-for a full definition see 14 .

p. 4. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 1998. "How the Genome Readies Itself for Evolution," Science 281 (21 August):ll31-1134. Rokeach, Milton. 1968. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rolston, Holmes, III. 1999. Genes, Genesis, and God. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schull, Jonathan. 1990. "Are Species Intelligent?" Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13:63-75. Singer, Peter. 1990. Animal Liberation, 2nd ed. New York: New York Review Book. Tamarin, Robert H. 1996. Principles of Genetics, 5th ed. Dubuque, lA: William C. Brown. Teriau, Heinrich, et al. 1998. "Strategy for Rapid Immobilization of Prey by a Fish-hunting Marine Snail," Nature 381 (9 May):148-151. Thaler, DavidS. 1994. "The Evolution of Genetic Intelligence," Science 264 (8 April):224-225. Tizard, Ian R. 1992. Immunology: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Saunders College Publishing. Vogel, Gretchen. 1998. "Insect Wings Point to Early Sophistication,"...

Non-technical abstract Decisions on the use of nature reflect the values and rights of individuals, communities and society at large. The values of nature are expressed through cultural norms, rules and legislation, and they can be elicited using a wide range of tools, including those of economics. None of the approaches to elicit peoples’ values are neutral. Unequal power relations influence valuation and decision-making and are at the core of most environmental conflicts. As actors in sustainability thinking, environmental scientists and practitioners are becoming more aware of their own posture, normative stance, responsibility and relative power in society. Based on a transdisciplinary workshop, our perspective paper provides a normative basis for this new community of scientists and practitioners engaged in the plural valuation of nature.

Wie können wir uns in den Schweizer Landschaften wieder heimisch fühlen? Wieso können wir unsere Landschaften nicht mehr mitgestalten? Wie können wir die Schweiz des 19. Jahrhunderts für das 21. Jahrhundert neu erfinden? Das Anthropozän zwingt uns, gemeinsam neu zu denken, was Freiheit, Heimat, naturbasierte Wertschöpfung, Landschaftsästhetik und Natur- und Landschaftsschutz bedeuten.
https://fls-fsp.ch/bulletin

Pourrons-nous grâce aux paysages suisses à nouveau avoir le sentiment d’être chez nous? Comment réinventer la Suisse du XIXe siècle pour y vivre au XXIe siècle? L’anthropocène nous contraint ainsi à repenser ensemble la signification de la liberté, la patrie, la création de valeur à partir de res- sources naturelles, l’esthétique du paysage ainsi que la protection de la nature et du paysage.
https://fls-fsp.ch/bulletin

Come possiamo sentirci di nuovo a casa nei paesaggi svizzeri? Come possiamo reinventare la Svizzera del XIX secolo per il XXI secolo? L’Antropocene ci obbliga pertanto a ripensare collettivamente il significato di libertà, casa, valore aggiunto basato sulla natura, estetica del paesaggio e protezione della natura e del paesaggio.
https://fls-fsp.ch/bulletin