ABSTRACT. Environmental problems caused by human activities are increasing; biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate, soils are being irreversibly damaged, freshwater is increasingly in short supply, and the climate is changing.To reverse or even to reduce these trends will require a radical transformation in the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Just how this can be achieved within, at most, a few decades is unknown, but it is clear that academia must play a crucial role. Many believe, however, that academic institutions need to become more effective in helping societies move toward sustainability. We first synthesize current thinking about this crisis of research effectiveness. We argue that those involved in producing knowledge to solve societal problems face three particular challenges: the complexity of real-world sustainability problems, maintaining impartiality when expert knowledge is used in decision making, and ensuring the salience of the scientific knowledge for decision makers. We discuss three strategies to meet these challenges: conducting research in interdisciplinary teams, forming research partnerships with actors and experts from outside academia, and framing research questions with the aim of solving specific problems (problem orientation). However, we argue that implementing these strategies within academia will require both cultural and institutional change. We then use concepts from transition management to suggest how academic institutions can make the necessary changes. At the level of system optimization, we call for: quality criteria, career incentives, and funding schemes that reward not only disciplinary excellence but also achievements in inter-/transdisciplinary work; professional services and training through specialized centers that facilitate problem-oriented research and reciprocal knowledge exchange with society; and the integration of sustainability and inter-/transdisciplinary research practices into all teaching curricula. At the level of system innovation, we propose radical changes in institutional structures, research and career incentives, teaching programs, and research partnerships. We see much value in a view of change that emphasizes the complementarity of system innovation and system optimization. The goal must be a process of change that preserves the traditional strengths of academic research, with its emphasis on disciplinary excellence and scientific rigor, while ensuring that institutional environments and the skills, worldviews, and experiences of the involved actors adapt to the rapidly changing needs of society.

Increased use of annual payments to land managers for ecological outcomes indicates a growing interest in exploring the potential of this approach. In this viewpoint, we drew on the experiences of all schemes paying for biodiversity outcomes/results on agricultural land operating in the EU and EFTA countries with the aim of reviewing the decisive elements of the schemes' design and implementation as well as the challenges and opportunities of adopting a results-based approach. We analysed the characteristics of results-based schemes using evidence from peer-reviewed literature, technical reports, scheme practitioners and experts in agri-environment-climate policy. We developed a typology of the schemes and explored critical issues influencing the feasibility and performance of results-based schemes. The evidence to date shows that there are at least 11 advantages to the results-based approach not found in management-based schemes with similar objectives, dealing with environmental efficiency, farmers' participation and development of local biodiversity-based projects. Although results-based approaches have specific challenges at every stage of design and implementation, for many of these the existing schemes provide potential solutions. There is also some apprehension about trying a results-based approach in Mediterranean, central and eastern EU Member States. We conclude that there is clear potential to expand the approach in the European Union for the Rural Development programming period for 2021-2028. Nevertheless, evidence is needed about the approach's efficiency in delivering conservation outcomes in the long term, its additionality, impact on the knowledge and attitudes of land managers and society at large, development of ways of rewarding the achievement of actual results, as well as its potential for stimulating innovative grassroots solutions.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the agricultural context of cotton in Brazil, providing a broad perspective of the different geographical, social, ecological and economic circumstances under which cotton is cultivated. It covers the genetic diversity, geographical distribution, morphology, physiology and development of cotton and describes the species diversity associated with cotton in Brazil.It also describes the three main production areas in Brazil (which differ significantly in their topographical, climatic, ecological and socioeconomic characteristics), and the corresponding productivity, farming systems and economic status of the farmers in these areas. It identifies the main biological and socioeconomic constraints to cotton production and summarizes the main pest problems, contextualizing the target Lepidoptera within the broader pest complex. It introduces integrated pest management as a possible solution to pest problems.

This chapter elaborates on case-specific methodologies (for use during the pre-release stages of Bt cotton) to support risk assessment of nontarget organisms and biodiversity applied to the Brazil case study: (1) identifying functional categories of biodiversity; (2) listing and prioritizing nontarget species and processes; (3) identifying trophically mediated exposure pathways to transgenic plant and transgene products; (4) identifying possible adverse effect scenarios for trophically mediated and other ecological effects; and (5) testing hypotheses and experimental designs to test causal chains of events associated with specific exposure pathways and adverse effect scenarios. A systematic, scientifically justifiable precautionary approach for dealing with scientific uncertainty is also provided.

No abstract