Search

Soybean expansion has been a strong driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss in South America. Here we highlight strong similarities in environmental, institutional, and other contextual conditions among South American (SAM) and Southern African (SAFR) dry forest and savanna regions, and compile evidence for an emerging soybean production frontier in Southern Africa. Knowledge transfer, cooperation, and direct investment between South American and Southern African countries constitute crucial elements of soybean expansion in Africa. Comparing maps of soybean suitability, biodiversity, and carbon revealed substantial and spatially diverse trade-offs, suggesting that the emerging soybean frontier in Southern Africa may poses major challenges for conservation. An increased focus of conservation science on agricultural expansion and intensification in Southern African, as well as strong environmental policies for balancing agricultural production and conservation goals, are needed to mitigate potentially large trade-offs. The coupling of production frontiers should be a vehicle for the transfer not only of agricultural technology and production models, but also of experiences in environmental governance on emerging agricultural frontiers.

Biodiversity conservation requires prioritization to be effective. Biodiversity hotspots and conservation planning identify where to focus conservation efforts, but it is unclear when conservation is most successful. Our goals were to: (a) investigate if hot moments for conservation occur, (b) calculate how important and prevalent they are, and (c) discuss what may catalyze hot moments for conservation. We analyzed the worldwide network of protected areas since inception, analyzing both all countries, and those 35 countries that contained at least 1% of either the total count or the total area protected globally. The evidence for hot moments for conservation was very strong. Among all countries, 44% protected more than half of their protected area in 1 year, and 61% did so in one 5-year period. The 35 countries that contain most of the protected area globally (77%) protected 23% and 49%, respectively, within 1 or 5 years. Hot moments often coincided with societal upheaval such as the collapse of the USSR or the end of colonialism. Conservationists need to account for hot moments for conservation to be most effective.

Many traditional farming landscapes have high conservation value. Conservation policy in such landscapes typically follows a “preservation strategy,” most commonly by providing financial incentives for farmers to continue traditional practices. A preservation strategy can be successful in the short term, but it fails to acknowledge that traditional farming landscapes evolved as tightly coupled social–ecological systems. Traditionally, people received direct benefits from the environment, which provided a direct incentive for sustainable land use. Globalization and rural development programs increasingly alter the social subsystem in traditional farming landscapes, whereas conservation seeks to preserve the ecological subsystem. The resulting decoupling of the social–ecological system can be counteracted only in part by financial incentives, thus inherently limiting the usefulness of a preservation strategy. An alternative way to frame conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes is a “transformation strategy.” This strategy acknowledges that the past cannot be preserved, and assumes that direct links between people and nature are preferable to indirect links based on incentive payments. A transformation strategy seeks to support community-led efforts to create new, direct links with nature. Such a strategy could empower rural communities to embrace sustainable development, providing a vision for the future rather than attempting to preserve the past.

Nuclear energy is a potential solution to electricity demand but also entails risks. Policy debates on nuclear accidents have focused primarily on negative impacts on humans. Although such impacts are important, we argue that policy debates must also consider the consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We reviewed 521 studies conducted after the Chernobyl accident, the most severe nuclear accident in history. Elevated radiation levels have been recorded among a diversity of species, even up to thousands of kilometers away from the meltdown site, and after more than two decades following the accident. Close to the reactor, physiological and morphological changes have occurred. Negative effects on ecosystem services have been observed, including the contamination of water, soils, and wild food supplies. Informed policy decisions on nuclear energy require a greater understanding of the consequences of accidents, including effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Based on our review, we recommend to (1) fully incorporate risks for biodiversity and ecosystem services into policy debates; (2) develop a coherent information chain regarding such risks; (3) use proactive planning strategies to be prepared for potential accidents; and (4) develop a coherent research agenda on the consequences of nuclear accidents for biodiversity and ecosystem services.