Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America

Laterra, Pedro; Nahuelhual, Laura; Vallejos, María; Berrouet, Lina; Pérez, Erika Arroyo; Enrico, Lucas; Jiménez-Sierra, Cecilia; Mejía, Kathya; Meli, Paula; Rincón-Ruíz, Alexander; Salas, Danilo; Špirić, Jovanka; Villegas, Juan; Villegas-Palacio, Clara

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.12.001

Cited by 48 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From the perspective of distributive environmental justice, the affected communities in the landscape have been disadvantaged [147]. Distributive justice captures the sharing of benefits (resources and services) and burdens (harm and risks) the populace endures [147][148][149][150]. Allen et al [151] find that environmental justice is one of the prerequisites of achieving resilience of SESs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience

Meng

Pittock

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building landscape resilience inspires the cultivation of the landscape’s capacity to recover from disruption and live with changes and uncertainties. However, integrating ecosystem and society within such a unified lens—that is, socio–ecological system (SES) resilience—clashes with many cornerstone concepts in social science, such as power, democracy, rights, and culture. In short, a landscape cannot provide the same values to everyone. However, can building landscape resilience be an effective and just environmental management strategy? Research on this question is limited. A scoping literature review was conducted first to synthesise and map landscape management change based on 111,653 records. Then, we used the Nuozhadu (NZD) catchment as a case study to validate our findings from the literature. We summarised current critiques and created a framework including seven normative categories, or common difficulties, namely resilience for “whom”, “what”, “when”, “where”, “why”, as well as “can” and “how” we apply resilience normatively. We found that these difficulties are overlooked and avoided despite their instructive roles to achieve just landscape management more transparently. Without clear targets and boundaries in building resilience, we found that some groups consume resources and services at the expense of others. The NZD case demonstrates that a strategy of building the NZD’s resilience has improved the conservation of the NZD’s forest ecosystems but overlooked trade-offs between sustaining people and the environment, and between sustainable development for people at different scales. Future researchers, managers, and decision-makers are thereby needed to think resilience more normatively and address the questions in the “seven difficulties” framework before intervening to build landscape resilience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience

Meng

Pittock

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These social actors are characterized by their low power of influence and high level of dependence on natural resources for their survival and cultural roots. In addition, they are affected by land ownership insecurity [48] and are harmed by an unequal distribution in the use and access of natural resources [49,50], which exacerbates social conflicts. In the Argentine Dry Chaco, while capitalized producers acquire the more suitable land for agricultural use, indigenous peoples are being progressively relegated to more unproductive areas of the region.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How are Indigenous Communities Being Affected by Deforestation and Degradation in Northern Argentina?

Vallejos¹,

Alvarez²,

Paruelo³

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural expansion is altering the provision of ecosystem services and seriously affecting the well-being of the indigenous communities still living in forests. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of forest loss and degradation on the indigenous forest dependent communities of Eastern Salta, Argentina, between 2001 and 2015. First, we identified the demand area of ten final ecosystem services for 202 indigenous communities using participatory mapping data. Second, we calculated the remaining usage area using a deforestation geodatabase based on Landsat images. Third, we analyzed the significance of trends in forest productivity processing vegetation spectral indices from MODIS products. By last, we detected changes in the growing season length by evaluating monthly trends in spectral indices. Our results show a reduction of 21% in the area used by indigenous communities for capturing final ecosystem services, and significant negative trends in forest productivity for the demand area of 64% of the communities, indicating that the area of use is not only being reduced, but also remnant forest area is being degraded and the growing season is being shortened. These aspects indicate an important loss in the provision of ecosystem services that deeply affects the wellbeing of indigenous communities.

show abstract

“…The Neotropical region includes several of these areas, hosting an outstanding diversity and richness of native pollinators 9 . This area of the planet produces a considerable portion of food crops by IA and it has been regarded as the zone has suffered one of the greatest declines in biodiversity and ecosystem services 4,80 . Chile includes in its territory almost an entire hotspot, named the "Chilean Winter rainfall-Valdivian Forests".…”

Section: Ia and Ae In Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile A Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been estimated the number of native bee species in the Neotropical Region would be above 15,100, stressing that current knowledge on actual species richness would represent roughly one third of this total 9 . This is worrisome considering the high rates of biodiversity and ecosystem services losses reported for this region of the world 80 , largely composed of WBHs focused on agriculture exports 4 . This may imply the potential extinction of many pollinators before even their description, "Centinelan Extintion" 282 , and its neglect represents a threat to both local and global food security 283 .…”

Section: Localized Research and Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study

Henríquez-Piskulich¹,

Schapheer²,

Vereecken³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrial agriculture (IA) is the predominant model of food production since the Green Revolution in the 1950s. IA has been recognized among the main drivers of biodiversity loss, climate change and native pollinator decline. This is controversial, given that native agricultural pollinators are an important resource biota already contributing to crop yield, especially in areas defined as "world biodiversity hotspots” (WBH). These areas often overlap with agricultural zones hosting a significant proportion of cultivated land, mainly through intensive agricultural practices. Pollinator biodiversity and pollination services in these places are currently under threat due to the negative consequences of IA. The dual role of insects as key players allowing the maintenance of the natural ecosystem, as well as main crop pollinators, is particularly exacerbated and urgently requires conservation actions in WBH and food-producing zones. Here we summarize the known negative effects of IA on pollinator biodiversity and illustrate these problems by considering the case of Chile. Food exports represent a considerable part of the economy in this OECD “developing country” in the “Global South”, and a large part of its surface has been highlighted as a unique WBH. This area is currently being replaced by IA businesses at a fast pace, threatening local biodiversity. We present agroecological strategies for sustainable food production and pollinator conservation in food-producing WBHs like Chile. These alternatives recognize native pollinators as internal inputs that cannot be replaced by IA technological packages or external inputs and support the development of agroecological and biodiversity restoration practices to protect their existing biodiversity. We suggest a strategy that integrates four fundamental pillars for producing food in a sustainable way, recognizing biodiversity and local cultural heritage: 1) Share the land, restore and protect; 2) Ecological intensification; 3) Localized knowledge, research and technological development; and 4) Territorial planning and implementation of socio-agroecological policies. We suggest that this approach does not need greater modification of native pollination services that sustain the world with food and basic subsistence goods, but a paradigm change where the interdependency of nature and human wellbeing are recognized for ensuring the present and future of the world’s food security and sovereignty as well as considering the reduction of consumerism and food waste.

show abstract

Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America

Cited by 48 publications

References 71 publications

Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience

Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience

How are Indigenous Communities Being Affected by Deforestation and Degradation in Northern Argentina?

Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About