Diverse values of nature for sustainability

Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature's diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature's values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a 'values crisis' underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature's diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.

An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life on Earth

Decades of research and policy interventions on biodiversity have insufficiently addressed the dual issues of biodiversity degradation and social justice. New approaches are therefore needed. We devised a research and action agenda that calls for a collective task of revisiting biodiversity toward the goal of sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Revisiting biodiversity involves critically reflecting on past and present research, policy, and practice concerning biodiversity to inspire creative thinking about the future. The agenda was developed through a 2-year dialogue process that involved close to 300 experts from diverse disciplines and locations. This process was informed by social science insights that show biodiversity research and action is underpinned by choices about how problems are conceptualized. Recognizing knowledge, action, and ethics as inseparable, we synthesized a set of principles that help navigate the task of revisiting biodiversity. The agenda articulates 4 thematic areas for future research. First, researchers need to revisit biodiversity narratives by challenging conceptualizations that exclude diversity and entrench the separation of humans, cultures, economies, and societies from nature. Second, researchers should focus on the relationships between the Anthropocene, biodiversity, and culture by considering humanity and biodiversity as tied together in specific contexts. Third, researchers should focus on nature and economies by better accounting for the interacting structures of economic and financial systems as core drivers of biodiversity loss. Finally, researchers should enable transformative biodiversity research and action by reconfiguring relationships between human and nonhuman communities in and through science, policy, and practice. Revisiting biodiversity necessitates a renewed focus on dialogue among biodiversity communities and beyond that critically reflects on the past to channel research and action toward fostering just and diverse futures for human and nonhuman life on Earth.

An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures for life on Earth

Decades of research and policy interventions on biodiversity have insufficiently addressed the dual issues of biodiversity degradation and social justice. New approaches are therefore needed. We devised a research and action agenda that calls for a collective task of revisiting biodiversity toward the goal of sustaining diverse and just futures for life on Earth. Revisiting biodiversity involves critically reflecting on past and present research, policy, and practice concerning biodiversity to inspire creative thinking about the future. The agenda was developed through a 2-year dialogue process that involved close to 300 experts from diverse disciplines and locations. This process was informed by social science insights that show biodiversity research and action is underpinned by choices about how problems are conceptualized. Recognizing knowledge, action, and ethics as inseparable, we synthesized a set of principles that help navigate the task of revisiting biodiversity. The agenda articulates 4 thematic areas for future research. First, researchers need to revisit biodiversity narratives by challenging conceptualizations that exclude diversity and entrench the separation of humans, cultures, economies, and societies from nature. Second, researchers should focus on the relationships between the Anthropocene, biodiversity, and culture by considering humanity and biodiversity as tied together in specific contexts. Third, researchers should focus on nature and economies by better accounting for the interacting structures of economic and financial systems as core drivers of biodiversity loss. Finally, researchers should enable transformative biodiversity research and action by reconfiguring relationships between human and nonhuman communities in and through science, policy, and practice. Revisiting biodiversity necessitates a renewed focus on dialogue among biodiversity communities and beyond that critically reflects on the past to channel research and action toward fostering just and diverse futures for human and nonhuman life on Earth.

Genotoxicity effects on Geophagus brasiliensis fish exposed to Doce River water after the environmental disaster in the city of Mariana, MG, Brazil

Abstract The Doce River basin has suffered the largest environmental accident ever occurred in Brazil with the influx of tailings from Fundão and Santarém, belonging to Samarco mining company, due to the disaster in Mariana. A spill between 50 and 60 million m3 of tailings was estimated by the company. According to Samarco, the wastewater was composed mainly of clay, silt and heavy metals like iron, copper and manganese. Thereby, the objective of the present study was evaluated the genotoxic damage in juvenile of Geophagus brasiliensis (Quoy e Gaimard, 1824) exposed to Doce river water before (DRWBA – Doce River water before acident) and after (DRWAA – Doce River water after acident) the influx of tailings from the Germano and Santarém Dam disasters in Mariana, MG, Brazil. For this, 24 individuals of the species G. brasiliensis (obtained on IFES/ALEGRE fish culture) were submitted to a bioassay with three treatments and eight replicates. The treatments were: 1) Control water (water from the urban water supply system, filtered with a 0.45 µm membrane), 2) DRBA and 3) DRAA. After 96 h, these fishes were anesthetized to remove blood for evaluation of genotoxic damage (micronucleus and comet). For the bioassay, a total of 80 L of The Doce River water were collected before the influx of tailings and after the influx and then submitted to metal quantification analysis. Fish exposed to DRWBA and DRWAA treatments showed a significant increase in both the number of erythrocyte micronuclei and the DNA damage index in relation to the control fish; however, they did not present any differences between the two treatments. The results demonstrate that the DRWBA treatment was already genotoxic for the fish, mainly due to dissolved Cu concentrations in the water. The DRWAA treatment probably presented genotoxicity due to the increase in the dissolved fraction and synergistic effects of several metals found in the tailings of the Mariana accident.