Trajectories of human conflict have direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem function. These occur across terrestrial, marine and freshwater systems via the well-established drivers of biodiversity loss: land and sea-use change, climate change, overexploitation, pollution and invasive species. However, the mechanisms underlying the nature of some of these connections are still poorly explored, as is the compilation of existing evidence. Furthermore, indirect drivers, spillover effects, and synergistic relationships between drivers are additional knowledge gaps. Building a full picture requires exploring the magnitude and directionality of impacts within the wider context of socioeconomic change and geopolitics with which conflict is associated. As this knowledge advances, conflict in its diverse forms is likely to emerge as the most overlooked and significant indirect driver of biodiversity loss internationally. Additionally, it is our greatest challenge in achieving sustainable development, specifically due to the primacy of its influence on all other sustainability challenges.

Biodiversity loss and its effects on humanity is of major global concern. While a growing body of literature confirms positive relationships between biodiversity and multiple ecological functions, the links between biodiversity, ecological functions and multiple ecosystem services is yet unclear. Studies of biodiversity-functionality relationships are mainly based on computer simulations or controlled field experiments using only few species. Here, we use a trait-based approach to integrate plant functions into an ecosystem service assessment to address impacts of restoration on species-rich grasslands over time. We found trade-offs among functions and services when analysing contributions from individual species. At the community level, these trade-offs disappeared for almost all services with time since restoration as an effect of increased species diversity and more evenly distributed species. Restoration to enhance biodiversity also in species-rich communities is therefore essential to secure higher functional redundancy towards disturbances and sustainable provision of multiple ecosystem services over time.

Despite the growing knowledge that food system solutions should account for interactions and drivers across scales, broader societal debate on how to solve food system challenges is often focused on two dichotomous perspectives and associated solutions: either more localized food systems or greater global coordination of food systems. The debate has found problematic expressions in contemporary challenges, prompting us to revisit the role that resilience thinking can play when faced with complex crises that increase uncertainty. Here we identify four ‘aching points’ facing food systems that are central points of tension in the local–global debate. We apply the seven principles of resilience to these aching points to reframe the solution space to one that embeds resilience into food systems’ management and governance at all scales, supporting transformative change towards sustainable food systems.

Financial advisers recommend a diverse portfolio to respond to market fluctuations across sectors. Similarly, nature has evolved a diverse portfolio of species to maintain ecosystem function amid environmental fluctuations. In urban planning, public health, transport and communications, food production, and other domains, however, this feature often seems ignored. As we enter an era of unprecedented turbulence at the planetary level, we argue that ample responses to this new reality — that is, response diversity — can no longer be taken for granted and must be actively designed and managed. We describe here what response diversity is, how it is expressed and how it can be enhanced and lost.

The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 (the 'Ocean Decade') is poised to stimulate new cooperation for ocean science, but makes no mention of conflict or peace. We contend that this is a missed opportunity, and use an environmental peacebuilding typology to review how ocean science has historically contributed to peace. Such considerations are timely in the context of an increasingly complex and multidimensional ocean risk landscape, due among other things to unprecedented growth in the extent and intensity of ocean uses, and increasing conflict potential as the ocean becomes a more crowded and coveted place. We conclude by proposing the Ocean Decade Implementation Plan be appended to include an eighth intended outcome: 'A Peaceful Ocean'.

Social-ecological interactions have been shown to generate interrelated and reoccurring sets of ecosystem services, also known as ecosystem service bundles. Given the potential utility of the bundles concept, along with the recent surge in interest it is timely to reflect on the concept, its current use and potential for the future. Based on our ecosystem service bundle experience, expertise, and ecosystem service bundle analyses, we have found critical elements for advancing the utility of ecosystem service bundle concept and deepening its impact in the future. In this paper we 1) examine the different conceptualizations of the ecosystem service bundle concept; 2) show the range of benefits of using a bundles approach; 3) explore key issues for improving research on ecosystem service bundles, including indicators, scale, and drivers and relationships between ecosystem services; and 4) outline priorities for the future by facilitating comparisons of ecosystem service bundle research. 

Ensuring resilient food systems and sustainable healthy diets for all requires much higher water use, however, water resources are finite, geographically dispersed, volatile under climate change, and required for other vital functions including ecosystems and the services they provide. Good governance for resilient water resources is a necessary precursor to deciding on solutions, sourcing finance, and delivering infrastructure. Six attributes that together provide a foundation for good governance to reduce future water risks to food systems are proposed. These attributes dovetail in their dual focus on incorporating adaptive learning and new knowledge, and adopting the types of governance systems required for water resilient food systems. The attributes are also founded in the need to greater recognise the role natural, healthy ecosystems play in food systems. The attributes are listed below and are grounded in scientific evidence and the diverse collective experience and expertise of stakeholders working across the science-policy interface: Adopting interconnected systems thinking that embraces the complexity of how we produce, distribute, and add value to food including harnessing the experience and expertise of stakeholders s; adopting multi-level inclusive governance and supporting inclusive participation; enabling continual innovation, new knowledge and learning, and information dissemination; incorporating diversity and redundancy for resilience to shocks; ensuring system preparedness to shocks; and planning for the long term. This will require food and water systems to pro-actively work together toward a socially and environmentally just space that considers the water and food needs of people, the ecosystems that underpin our food systems, and broader energy and equity concerns.

Large scale mapping of ecosystem services and functions (ES) is an important tool for researchers and policy makers to inform nature management and policies but it relies mainly on ES modelled with biophysical data such as land cover, henceforth biophysical ES. Other ES, henceforth species-based ES, are modelled at small scales based on species providers. As species-based ES are rarely included in multi-service, large-scale spatial assessments, we do not know if these assessments provide accurate information for managing the biodiversity important for species-based ES. We calculate and map weighted provider richness (WPR) for 9 species-based ES by weighting species data in Europe by their functional efficiency derived from functional trait databases. We compare WPR spatial patterns with those of 9 biophysical ES at continental and national scales in Europe. We find positive correlations at continental scale, and weaker positive correlations or neutral relationships at national scale between biophysical ES and WPR. Patterns of synergies and trade-offs for WPR are different from those of biophysical ES and change from continental to national scale. WPR for most species-based ES are synergistic with each other but WPR for existence value has the weakest synergies with other WPRs. Biodiversity data is still insufficient to truly map species-based ES at large scales but WPR can represent the next step forward for spatial ES assessments. A lack of spatial information on species-based ES in large-scale assessments leads to inaccurate information on ES distribution, and their synergies and trade-offs, which can lead to misguided management and conservation decisions.

A key sustainability challenge in human-dominated landscapes is how to reconcile competing demands such as food production, water quality, climate regulation, and ecological amenities. Prior research has documented how efforts to prioritize desirable ecosystem services such as food and fiber have often led to tradeoffs with other services. However, the growing literature has revealed different and sometimes contradictory patterns in ecosystem service relationships. It thus remains unclear whether there are generalizable patterns across social-ecological systems, and if not, what factors explain the variations. In this study, we synthesize datasets of five ecosystem services from four social-ecological systems. We ask: (1) Are ecosystem service relationships consistent across distinct regional social-ecological systems? (2) How do ecosystem service relationships vary with land-use intensity at the landscape scale? (3) In case of ecosystem service tradeoffs, how does land-use intensity affect intersection points of tradeoffs along the landscape composition gradient? Our results reveal that land-use intensity increases magnitude of ecosystem service tradeoffs (e.g. food production vs. climate regulation and water quality) across landscapes. Land-use intensity also alters where provisioning and regulating services intersect: in high-intensity systems, food production and regulating services can be both sustained only at smaller proportions of agricultural lands, whereas in low-intensity systems, these services could be both supplied with greater proportions of agricultural lands. Our research demonstrates importance of considering multiple aspects of land uses (landscape composition and land-use intensity), and provides a more nuanced understanding and framework to enhance our ability to predict how land use alters ecosystem service relationships.

The ecosystem service concept is recognized as a useful tool to support sustainability in decision-making. In this study, we collaborated with actors in the Helge a catchment, southern Sweden, in an iterative participatory ecosystem service assessment. Through workshops and interviews, we jointly decided which ecosystem services to assess and indicators to use in order to achieve a sense of ownership and a higher legitimacy of the assessment. Subsequently, we explored the landscape-level interactions between the 15 assessed services, and found that the area can be described using three distinct ecosystem service bundles. The iterative, participatory process strengthened our analysis and created a shared understanding and overview of the multifunctional landscape around Helge a among participants. Importantly, this allowed for the generated knowledge to impact local strategic sustainability planning. With this study, we illustrate how similar processes can support local decision-making for a more sustainable future.