Nature is perceived and valued in starkly different and often conflicting ways. This paper presents the rationale for the inclusive valuation of nature’s contributions to people (NCP) in decision making, as well as broad methodological steps for doing so. While developed within the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this approach is more widely applicable to initiatives at the knowledge–policy interface, which require a pluralistic approach to recognizing the diversity of values. We argue that transformative practices aiming at sustainable futures would benefit from embracing such diversity, which require recognizing and addressing power relationships across stakeholder groups that hold different values on human nature-relations and NCP

KeywordsMarket-based policy tools; payments for ecosystem services; enviromental governace; integrated conservation and development projects; ecosystem services. Correspondence AbstractIn this commentary we critically discuss the suitability of payments for ecosystem services and the most important challenges they face. While such instruments can play a role in improving environmental governance, we argue that over-reliance on payments as win-win solutions might lead to ineffective outcomes, similar to earlier experience with integrated conservation and development projects. Our objective is to raise awareness, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, about the limitations of such instruments and to encourage a dialogue about the policy contexts in which they might be appropriate.

No abstract

There is no doubt that soybean is the most important crop for Argentina, with a planted surface that rose 11,000,000 hectares and a production of around 35,000,000 metric tons. During the 1990s, there was a significant agriculture transformation in the country, motorize by the adoption of transgenic crops (soy-bean, maize, and cotton) under the no-tillage system. The expansion of this model has been spread not only in the Pampas but also in very rich areas with high biodiversity, opening a new agricultural border to important eco-regions like the Yungas, Great Chaco, and the Mesopotamian Forest. Transgenic cropping is a powerful technology. This produced relevant transformations over the environment and society where it is allowed. Migration, concentration of agribusiness, and loss of food sovereignty are some of the social results. Landscape transformation in the rural sector is evident, and the appearance of tolerance weeds to glyphosate is a reality. Nutrient depletion, soil-structure degradation, potential desertification, and loss of species are other consequences on the environmental level.

No abstract

En las últimas dos décadas, la agricultura argentina ha tenido transformaciones que cambiaron definitivamente su perfil agroproductivo. La incorporación de la siembra directa como práctica conservacionista, junto con su paquete asociado del herbicida glifosato, y el cultivo de soja transgénica son los pilares en los que se concentró este modelo, intensificado tanto hacia la agricultura (agriculturización) como hacia la ganadería intensiva (feedlot), todo ello sin considerar prácticamente las externalidades producidas. Estos problemas ambientales se reflejan en una importante pérdida de nutrientes y degradación de suelos, la destrucción de hábitats, el aumento en las exportaciones de agua virtual, la aparición de nuevas plagas, enfermedades y malezas tolerantes y resistentes como el sorgo de alepo, sumados a la deforestación en varias ecorregiones. Áreas con poblaciones importantes como en la cuenca del río luján comienzan a recibir también estos impactos. El estudio se centra en un análisis sobre la evolución y situación de los nutrientes del suelo, como un indicador de pérdida de calidad ambiental, social y económica.

No abstract

Inadequacies of the current agriculture and food systems are recognised globally in the form of damages to environment and human health. In addition, the prevailing economic and policy systems do not reflect these damages in its accounting systems and standards. These shortcomings lead to perverse and pervasive outcomes for society at large. Our proposal is to consider all social and environmental externalities – both negative and positive, in global agriculture and food systems and reflect them in an economic system by evaluating comprehensive costs and benefits. This can be done by adopting an innovative, universal, and inclusive framework (the ‘TEEBAgriFood’ framework) in order to stimulate appropriate policy responses.