We explore the issues relevant to those types of ecosystems containing new combinations of species that arise through human action, environmental change, and the impacts of the deliberate and inadvertent introduction of species from other regions. Novel ecosystems (also termed 'emerging ecosystems') result when species occur in combinations and relative abundances that have not occurred previously within a given biome. Key characteristics are novelty, in the form of new species combinations and the potential for changes in ecosystem functioning, and human agency, in that these ecosystems are the result of deliberate or inadvertent human action. As more of the Earth becomes transformed by human actions, novel ecosystems increase in importance, but are relatively little studied. Either the degradation or invasion of native or 'wild' ecosystems or the abandonment of intensively managed systems can result in the formation of these novel systems. Important considerations are whether these new systems are persistent and what values they may have. It is likely that it may be very difficult or costly to return such systems to their previous state, and hence consideration needs to be given to developing appropriate management goals and approaches.

As the rate and extent of environmental change increases, traditional perspectives on ecosystem management and restoration are being juxtaposed with approaches that focus on the altered settings now being encountered or anticipated. We suggest that a combination of traditional and emerging frameworks is necessary to achieve the multiple goals of ecosystem management, including biodiversity conservation and provision of other ecosystem services such as food and fiber production, recreation, and spiritual enrichment.An effective approach entails a move away from partitioning the environment into dichotomous categories (eg natural/unnatural, production/conservation, intact/degraded). Instead, landscapes are increasingly characterized by a complex mosaic of ecosystems or "patches" in varying states of modification, each of which delivers various combinations of services and presents assorted management challenges and opportunities. These patches interact and affect broader-scale processes (such as water flows and animal migrations), necessitating the urgent development of a conservation and restoration strategy that recognizes these rapid spatial changes.Here, we focus on an emerging framework that differentiates patches according to the degree of change from a historical state (resulting from altered abiotic factors and biotic compositions), the likely extent to which such changes are reversible, and the effect of altered patches on other patches within the landscape (WebPanel 1). This framework, derived from recent research on novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2009, helps to identify the relative values of ecosystems in different conditions and the management options available in each case. As seen from a landscape perspective, this framework provides a comprehensive approach to decision making and management, including much-needed prioritization of resource allocations.n Managing the whole landscape Recent analyses have highlighted the need for management and restoration efforts to go beyond site-focused interventions and to consider landscape and regional scales (Mentz et al. 2013). Ecosystem managers increas- REVIEWS REVIEWS REVIEWSManaging the whole landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems The reality confronting ecosystem managers today is one of heterogeneous, rapidly transforming landscapes, particularly in the areas more affected by urban and agricultural development. A landscape management framework that incorporates all systems, across the spectrum of degrees of alteration, provides a fuller set of options for how and when to intervene, uses limited resources more effectively, and increases the chances of achieving management goals. That many ecosystems have departed so substantially from their historical trajectory that they defy conventional restoration is not in dispute. Acknowledging novel ecosystems need not constitute a threat to existing policy and management approaches. Rather, the development of an integrated approach to management interventions can provide options that are in tune with ...

ABSTRACT1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science } both ecological and socio-economic } underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community.2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science.3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and *Correspondence to: Dr T. Agardy, Sound Seas, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA. E-mail: tundiagardy@earthlink.net 1 The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of their affiliated institutions. 2 Order of authorship is alphabetical by family name and does not indicate relative level of effort to the development of this paper. ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic.4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management.5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions } heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?

No abstract

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

This article addresses implementation failure in international environmental governance by considering how different institutional configurations for linking scientific and policy-making processes may help to improve implementation of policies set out in international environmental agreements. While institutional arrangements for interfacing scientific and policy-making processes are emerging as key elements in the structure of international environmental governance, formal understanding regarding their effectiveness is still limited. In an effort to advance that understanding, we propose that sciencepolicy interfaces can be understood as institutions and that implementation failures in international environmental governance may be attributed, in part, to institutional mismatches (sic. Young in Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research, MIT Press, Cambridge 2008) associated with poor design of these institutions. In order to investigate this proposition, we employ three analytical categories-credibility, relevance and legitimacy, drawn from Cash et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100 (14): 8086-8091, (2003), to explore basic characteristics of the institutions proscribed under two approaches to institutional design, which we term linear and collaborative. We then proceed to take a closer look at institutional mismatches that may arise with the operationalisation of the soon to be established Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We find that, while there are encouraging signs that institutions based on new agreements, such as the IPBES, have the potential to overcome many of the institutional mismatches we have identified, there remain substantial tensions between continuing reliance on the established linear approach and an emerging collaborative approach, which can be expected to continue undermining the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of these institutions, at least in the near future.

1. The continuing losses of biodiversity around the world remain problematic for nature conservation. A fundamental issue that has triggered debates in nature conservation is the relationship between human culture, heritage and history, and nature expressed as ecology or biodiversity.2. Traditionally, nature conservation has been pursued separately from aspects of cultural heritage; a situation which seems perplexing when we consider the importance of traditional management in the maintenance of biodiversity in many areas now 'protected' for nature.3. To address these broad issues, fundamental to future landscape sustainability, we need to have clear definitions of concepts and terms.4. This paper considers the historical development of the key concepts that frame biocultural diversity and the paradigms relating to biocultural assets or eco-cultural landscapes. This is pertinent to both researchers and to practitioners or policymakers, and we suggest ways biocultural diversity can improve global conservation efforts.