Increasing evidence-synthesized in this paper-shows that economic growth contributes to biodiversity loss via greater resource consumption and higher emissions.Nonetheless, a review of international biodiversity and sustainability policies shows that the majority advocate economic growth. Since improvements in resource use efficiency have so far not allowed for absolute global reductions in resource use and pollution, we question the support for economic growth in these policies, where inadequate attention is paid to the question of how growth can be decoupled from biodiversity loss. Drawing on the literature about alternatives to economic growth, we explore this contradiction and suggest ways forward to halt global biodiversity decline. These include policy proposals to move beyond the growth paradigm while enhancing overall prosperity, which can be implemented by combining top-down and bottom-up governance across scales. Finally, we call the attention of researchers and policy makers to two immediate steps: acknowledge the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation in future policies; and explore socioeconomic trajectories beyond economic growth in the next generation of biodiversity scenarios.

In their own battles and strategy meetings since the early 1980s, EJOs (environmental justice organizations) and their networks have introduced several concepts to political ecology that have also been taken up by academics and policy makers. In this paper, we explain the contexts in which such notions have arisen, providing definitions of a wide array of concepts and slogans related to environmental inequities and sustainability, and explore the connections and relations between them. These concepts include: environmental justice, ecological debt, popular epidemiology, environmental racism, climate justice, environmentalism of the poor, water justice, biopiracy, food sovereignty, "green deserts", "peasant agriculture cools downs the Earth", land grabbing, Ogonization and Yasunization, resource caps, corporate accountability, ecocide, and indigenous territorial rights, among others. We examine how activists have coined these notions and built demands around them, and how academic research has in turn further applied them and supplied other related concepts, working in a mutually reinforcing way with EJOs. We argue that these processes and dynamics build an activist-led and co-produced social sustainability science, furthering both academic scholarship and activism on environmental justice. Keywords: Political ecology, environmental justice organizations, environmentalism of the poor, ecological debt, activist knowledge RésuméDepuis le début des années 80, à travers leurs propres luttes et réunions stratégiques, les EJOS (Organisations de Justice Environnementale) et leurs réseaux ont introduit quelques concepts différents d'écologie politique qui ont été repris par le monde académique et par les décideurs politiques. Dans cet article, nous expliquons les contextes qui ont promu l'émergence de ces concepts, et offrons des définitions pour un large ensemble de concepts et de slogans lies aux inégalités environnementales et à la protection durable de l'environnement, et nous explorons les connections entre eux. Ces concepts incluent: La justice environnementale, la dette écologique, l'épidémiologie populaire, le racisme environnemental, la justice climatique, l'environnementalisme des pauvres, la justice hydrique, la bio-piraterie, la souveraineté alimentaire, «les déserts verts», «l'agriculture paysanne rafraichit la terre», la prise des terres (land grabbing), l'Ogonisation et la Yasunisation, les plafonds de ressources, la responsabilité des entreprises, l'écocide, les droits indigènes territoriaux, et quelques autres. Nous examinons comment les activistes ont inventé ces termes, construit des demandes autour d'eux, et comment la recherche académique les a appliqués, et ensuite comment elle a offert de nouveaux concepts, travaillant de manière symbiotique avec les EJOS. Nous argumentons que ces processus et dynamiques construisent une science du développement durable conduite et co-produite par les activistes, ce qui renforce ainsi la littérature académique et l'activisme sur la justice environnementale....

No abstract

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims at identifying implementable solutions to difficult sustainability problems and at fostering social learning. It requires a well-managed collaboration among multidisciplinary scientists and multisectoral stakeholders. Performing TDR is challenging, particularly for foreign researchers working in countries with different institutional and socio-cultural conditions. There is a need to synthesize and share experience among researchers as well as practitioners regarding how TDR can be conducted under specific contexts. In this paper, we aim to evaluate and synthesize our unique experience in conducting TDR projects in Asia. We applied guiding principles of TDR to conduct a formative evaluation of four consortium projects on sustainable land and water management in China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. In all projects, local political conditions restricted the set of stakeholders that could be involved in the research processes. The set of involved stakeholders was also affected by the fact that stakeholders in most cases only participate if they belong to the personal network of the project leaders. Language barriers hampered effective communication between foreign researchers and stakeholders in all projects and thus knowledge integration. The TDR approach and its specific methods were adapted to respond to the specific cultural, social, and political conditions in the research areas, also with the aim to promote trust and interest of the stakeholders throughout the project. Additionally, various measures were implemented to promote collaboration among disciplinary scientists. Based on lessons learned, we provide specific recommendations for the design and implementation of TDR projects in particular in Asia.

This article reviews methodologies, types, and political implications of water conflicts from a political ecology perspective. The political ecology of water studies the conflicts on water use, whether as an input or as a vehicle for waste disposal. Both the quantity and the quality of water are relevant for conflicts on water as a commodity and also indirectly in conflicts on water from oil and gas extraction, mining, or biomass production. This study provides an overview and classification of water conflicts, showing how social movements born from such conflicts are creatively generating new modalities of water management and governance in the process. To this end, this article first examines methodological approaches for the analysis of water conflicts and water justice. Then, a taxonomy of water conflicts based on the stages of the commodity chain is presented and discussed. Afterward, empirical evidence is collected showing how social mobilizations in water conflicts become effective providers of management alternatives and governance modalities. Water justice movements and organizations have formed networks, have proposed new principles of water management, and have not only been active in the promotion of the human right to water but also in the recognition of water, along with other elements of nature, as a subject of rights. WIREs Water 2015, 2:537–558. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1092 This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Rights to Water Human Water > Water Governance

No abstract

Biological invasions have been object of ecological research for years. As one objective, natural scientists investigate the effects of invasive species on ecosystems and their functioning (Levine et al. 2003). However, impacts on ecosystems are also of relevance for society. Changes in ecosystems affect humans insofar as ecosystems provide goods and services, such as fresh water, food and fibres or recreation, which might be altered due to invasive species. Therefore, impacts of biological invasions should be an object of socio-economic interest, which is also demanded by the Convention on Biological Diversity (2002).This chapter aims at providing elements for the analysis of impacts of invasive species from the socio-economic point of view. Such an analysis is politically relevant, since impacts are the focal point of every decision to establish an appropriate management regime. For an all-encompassing analysis, an integrative framework is needed to structure the information on impacts. For that purpose, the concept of ecosystem services (Chap. 13) is introduced (Sect. 19.2). Alternative decisions on the appropriate management of invasive species face trade-offs between outcomes and impacts. For handling such trade-offs, evaluation is needed.As discussed in Sect. 19.3, perception presents the prerequisite of an explicit evaluation. Finally, different evaluation methods are introduced so as to value the information about impacts during the decision-making process (Sect. 19.4).

No abstract