Taking into account all of nature’s benefits to humans and redefining what it means to have a “good quality of life” is key to living sustainably on Earth, a four-year assessment of 82 leading scientists has found.
A market-driven focus on short-term profits and economic growth means the broader benefits of nature are ignored, leading to bad decisions that reduce human well-being and contribute to climate and nature crises, according to a UN report. In order to achieve sustainable development, quality approaches must be included in decision-making.
A report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform says that this means appreciating the spiritual, cultural and emotional values that nature bestows on people. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes). The assessment includes more than 13,000 references, including scholarly articles, local and local information sources. It was carried out together with experts in social sciences, economics and humanities.
The report is based on Dasgupta’s study, which revealed the location of the planet “Excessive risk” with economics not taking into account the true value of nature. Bringing together different worldviews and knowledge systems will be key to a more sustainable future, the report says.
Professor Unai Pascual of the Basque Center for Climate Change, who co-chaired the assessment on the different values and valuation of nature, said: “There was a prevailing way of making decisions based on simpler, super visible things. it’s quantitative and more scientific, and we say, ‘No, that’s not good science.’ There are many social sciences and humanities and other systems of knowledge that can tell us how to do things.
The review highlights four general perspectives to consider; “Living off nature” refers to its ability to provide us with our needs, such as food and material goods; “Living with nature” is the right of non-human life to thrive; “Living in nature” refers to people’s right to a sense of place and identity, and ultimately to “living as nature,” which views the world as a moral part of being human.
Prof Mike Christie of Aberystwyth Business School says: “The type and quality of information that evaluation research can generate depends largely on how, why and by whom the evaluation is designed and applied.” “This affects who and what nature values will be recognized in decisions, and how fairly the benefits and burdens of those decisions will be shared.”
There are 50 different ways and approaches to make the value of nature visible in decisions, but the researchers found that the way stakeholders value nature was considered in only 2% of studies. Moving forward, the authors say, there are many ways to make nature’s values visible and they need to be implemented. One way of doing this is to use citizen assemblies that reflect the sociology of a particular people and allow them to discuss their values, interests and understandings. These are happening at the national level in a number of countries.
How about one successful example Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Authority integrated local perspectives into planning involving decision-makers participating in ceremonies and “living” the land together. Another was the Indian government’s decision not to lay mines nearby Mount Niyamgiri Dongaria is sacred to the people of Kondh. The intrinsic value of the area for rare species and the cultural and spiritual value for the local population were considered more valuable than the financial gain from mining it.
Patricia Balvanera, a professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico who co-chaired the assessment, says that ignoring other values has consequences, such as environmental leaders being killed because their land claims are ignored. “Evidence shows that if local values are taken into account from the outset, people will feel part of the project and will be more engaged in whatever is agreed… This requires a redefinition of ‘development’ and ‘good quality of life’.” and we recognize the different ways people relate to each other and to the natural world,” he says.
Sign up to Issue One, our free daily newsletter – every day at 7am BST
The assessment was approved by representatives of 139 countries in Bonn, Germany. “Representatives confirming this report say it’s a game changer,” Pascual said. “They understand that we have gone down a path of understanding nature in a very narrow sense, which has led us to live on a planet of interconnected crises. . . . [report] it is one of many components needed to convince very powerful stakeholders and decision makers to change their attitude towards nature.
Ipbes, the equivalent of the IPCC for biodiversity, was created to provide scientific advice to the world’s governments on how to protect nature. He released another one last week report that discovered wild species support half of the world’s population, but their future use is threatened by overexploitation.
It predates the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Police 15 In December, it will set nature goals for the next decade in Montreal, and the authors say the findings should provide a valuable contribution to the process. CBD Executive Secretary Elizabeth Maruma Mrema said: “I welcome the work of all Ipbes experts for this and look forward to the active use of the convention by all parties and stakeholders.”
