Climate change mitigation potential of Atlantic Forest reforestations

Manes, Stella; Henud, Igor Rodrigues; Tanizaki-Fonseca, Kenny

doi:10.1007/s11027-022-10012-x

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ‘Evaluation’ phase (Figure 1) would consider the costs and effectiveness with respect to each target, with effectiveness measured as: similarity of the developing forest to the ‘baseline’ (Resist); overall biodiversity levels, value of mosaics and expected long‐term outcomes of ongoing succession (Accept); and importance of the developing forest for globally threatened species (Facilitate). Biodiversity outcomes would be monitored (potentially involving citizen science; Table 3) and contributions to carbon storage (Manes et al., 2022), water quality, soil stability, any other ecosystem service, well‐being and equity would also be evaluated, depending on the extent to which these had been included in the original targets. These findings then feed back to assess progress and make changes in the overall strategy if necessary.…”

Section: Embracing Dynamism and Facilitating Positive Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…to the 'baseline' (Resist); overall biodiversity levels, value of mosaics and expected long-term outcomes of ongoing succession (Accept); and importance of the developing forest for globally threatened species (Facilitate). Biodiversity outcomes would be monitored (potentially involving citizen science; Table 3) and contributions to carbon storage (Manes et al, 2022), water quality, soil stability, any other ecosystem service, well-being and equity would also be evaluated, depending on the extent to which these had been included in the original targets.…”

Section: Embracing Dynamism and Facilitating Positive Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The corresponding FAR ‘actions’ (Figure 1) will then be co‐managed (Table 3) to obtain seed and produce saplings to be planted at densities (Manes et al., 2022; Rodrigues et al., 2009) to achieve Resist and Facilitate species composition targets in agreed locations, which may also differ between strategies. Resist approaches would potentially ‘weed out’ species that are deemed to be undesirable, while Facilitate might take a more liberal attitude to unexpected species additions.…”

Section: Embracing Dynamism and Facilitating Positive Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

FAR‐sighted conservation

Thomas

Hill

Ward

et al. 2022

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation targets that reference historical expectations, such as maintaining specified areas of intact ecosystems, restoring degraded ones or maintaining the historic distributions of species, may not be realistic in the context of ongoing environmental change, whereas targets that aspire to accommodate the complex realities of the human‐altered and changing world tend to be too vague to implement. Using the first three recently proposed Convention on Biological Diversity post‐2020 global biodiversity Action Targets as context, we suggest a policy framework that evaluates how we might shift from an emphasis on resisting sometimes inevitable change to the development of positive directions of change for people and biodiversity. Our Anthropocene approach builds on the fact that all ecosystems have already been shaped by interactions with people and that ongoing change is inevitable. We outline a Facilitate–Accept–Resist (FAR) framework for all levels of conservation decision‐making and actions, ranging from overall conservation strategies (planning, setting targets, monitoring change, selecting indicators) to the conservation of places (sites, ecosystems, landscapes) and species, and to the provision of ecosystem services and human well‐being. For each potential decision, the approach evaluates whether, for whom and how one might facilitate, accept or resist particular changes. We highlight the value of inclusive engagement in the process to ensure that benefits from biodiversity are equitably shared. The CBD Action targets reflect tensions between maintaining historic states of nature and the Anthropocene reality of integrating people with nature and accepting change. The challenge is to operationalize the inclusivity, integration and change elements of the targets whilst not ‘abandoning’ locations that many conservationists consider to be key places for wildlife. The FAR framework represents a way to operationalize decision‐making in the face of this tension, so that the facilitation and acceptance of positive biodiversity change is adopted at least as frequently as change is resisted.

show abstract

Section: Embracing Dynamism and Facilitating Positive Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Embracing Dynamism and Facilitating Positive Changementioning

confidence: 99%