Using ecosystem risk assessment science in ecosystem restoration: a guide to applying the Red List of Ecosystems to ecosystem restoration

Valderrabano, Marcos; Nelson, Cara R.; Nicholson, Emily; Etter, Andrés; Carwardine, Josie; Hallett, James G.; McBreen, James; Botts, Emily A.

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2021.19.en

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 64 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our comparative analysis of two global standards for measuring ecosystem change, RLE and SEEA EA, found important similarities and differences between them. Both frameworks are essential to the sustainable development toolkit because they are means to different but often complementary ends: SEEA EA aims to collate consistent data on ecosytems and their interactions with people and the economy, with the potential to provide information for a range of purposes; whereas RLE has a clear focus on assessing risks of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss, with information that can be used in prioritising conservation actions, including protected area expansion, ecosystem management, and restoration 15,[79][80][81] . Nothwithstanding the different purposes for which they were developed, there are multiple potential synergies between the frameworks that emerge from our analysis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem risk assessment and ecosystem accounting

Xiao¹,

Driver²,

Etter³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Safeguarding biodiversity and human well-being depends on sustaining ecosystems. Global agreements, such as the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and UN Sustainable Development Goals, aim to halt and reverse loss and degradation of ecosystems, associated biodiversity and ecosystem services. They require standardised information for quantifying where ecosystem loss and degradation is occurring, and where action can most effectively mitigate its impacts. Two global standards developed to quantify ecosystem changes are: 1) the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) protocol for assessing the risk of ecosystem collapse; and 2) the United Nations System for Environmental Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA), which tracks change in ecosystem assets and their contributions to the economy and human well-being. In this paper, we explore the similarities between the frameworks, identifying common concepts, models and data, and highlight differences in their conceptual framings and practical implementation that make them complementary in environmental policy and decision-making. We illustrate how information on ecosystem classifications, maps, extent and condition can be shared between RLE assessments and SEEA EA, through three case studies: South Africa, Colombia, and Meso-American Coral Reef. Key differences include the RLE’s focus on ecosystem dynamics and risk of collapse, consideration of future projections, and its explicit treatment of uncertainty. We recommend that ecosystem risk assessment and accounting should not be treated as unrelated processes nor undertaken in isolation of each other, or they risk producing outputs, in particular ecosystem classifications, maps and condition indicators, that are needlessly inconsistent or even contradictory. Finding pathways for sharing data and knowledge between frameworks, purposes and user-groups, as well as their complementary roles in environmental reporting and policy, will support more efficient and effective action to safeguard biodiversity, ecosystems and their contributions to people.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem risk assessment and ecosystem accounting

Xiao¹,

Driver²,

Etter³

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peat is more combustible under drought conditions (Prior et al, 2020), which are increasing in frequency under climate change (Hughes, 2003). There has already been an unusually large number of significant fires in alpine areas over the past 20 years (Hoffmann et al, 2019;Nolan et al, 2020;van Oldenborgh et al, 2020). Consequently, the more frequent firefighting activities (e.g., driving machinery, digging, and spreading foam or fire retardants) indirectly impact peatlands exposed to higher fire risks (DOTE, 2015).…”

Section: Increased Wildfiresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conserving threatened and degraded ecosystems is essential for biodiversity conservation and improved human wellbeing (CBD-SBSTTA, 2017). Effective ecosystem management is pivotal for their persistence, protection and recovery (Valderr abano et al, 2021) and conservation outcomes can be improved when management is underpinned by scientific evidence (Walsh et al, 2015). Evidence-based decision-making can promote the selection of beneficial and timely interventions (Salafsky et al, 2019;Sutherland et al, 2019), which requires the effectiveness of conservation interventions to be understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Setting research priorities for effective management of a threatened ecosystem: Australian alpine and subalpine peatland

Rowland

Walsh

Beitzel

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threatened ecosystem conservation requires an understanding of the effectiveness of management and the challenges hindering successful protection and recovery. Bringing together researchers, land managers and policymakers to identify key threats, management needs, and knowledge gaps provides a unified account of the evidence and tools needed to improve threatened ecosystem management. We undertook a research prioritization process for Australian alpine and subalpine peatlands with experts across policy, research, and management. Through individual interviews, structured group discussions, and voting, we generated 25 priority research questions that, if addressed, would enhance our capacity to conserve peatlands. Knowledge gaps spanned four topics: understanding peatland dynamics, impacts of threats, methods to manage these, and the effectiveness of management. Consistent monitoring standards, an open‐access knowledge platform and commitment to long‐term joint research and management were identified as vital. This collaboration enabled development of a shared agenda of research priorities to target knowledge gaps for informing policy and management of threatened alpine peatlands. Our findings substantiate the importance of stronger ongoing collaboration among researchers, land managers and policymakers across jurisdictions to support conservation.

show abstract

“…We developed a framework adapted from the “recovery wheel” presented in the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration, published by the Society of Ecological Restoration (SER) (Gann et al., 2019) and subsequently in the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration and Recovery of Mine Sites (Young et al., 2022). This tool has been applied in numerous international environmental impact and ecological restoration initiatives on land, including by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (Valderrábano et al., 2021) and Natura 2000 (Decleer & Bijlsma, 2021). It enables identification and evaluation of ecological impacts and degradation in addition to facilitating assessment of ecosystem recovery following ecological restoration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing environmental impacts of deep‐seabed and land‐based mining: A defensible framework

Metaxas,

Anglin,

Cross

et al. 2024

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crises of climate change and biodiversity loss are interlinked and must be addressed jointly. A proposed solution for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and thus mitigating climate change, is the transition from conventional combustion‐engine to electric vehicles. This transition currently requires additional mineral resources, such as nickel and cobalt used in car batteries, presently obtained from land‐based mines. Most options to meet this demand are associated with some biodiversity loss. One proposal is to mine the deep seabed, a vast, relatively pristine and mostly unexplored region of our planet. Few comparisons of environmental impacts of solely expanding land‐based mining versus extending mining to the deep seabed for the additional resources exist and for biodiversity only qualitative. Here, we present a framework that facilitates a holistic comparison of relative ecosystem impacts by mining, using empirical data from relevant environmental metrics. This framework (Environmental Impact Wheel) includes a suite of physicochemical and biological components, rather than a few selected metrics, surrogates, or proxies. It is modified from the “recovery wheel” presented in the International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration to address impacts rather than recovery. The wheel includes six attributes (physical condition, community composition, structural diversity, ecosystem function, external exchanges and absence of threats). Each has 3–5 sub attributes, in turn measured with several indicators. The framework includes five steps: (1) identifying geographic scope; (2) identifying relevant spatiotemporal scales; (3) selecting relevant indicators for each sub‐attribute; (4) aggregating changes in indicators to scores; and (5) generating Environmental Impact Wheels for targeted comparisons. To move forward comparisons of land‐based with deep seabed mining, thresholds of the indicators that reflect the range in severity of environmental impacts are needed. Indicators should be based on clearly articulated environmental goals, with objectives and targets that are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound.

show abstract

Using ecosystem risk assessment science in ecosystem restoration: a guide to applying the Red List of Ecosystems to ecosystem restoration

Cited by 14 publications

References 64 publications

Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem risk assessment and ecosystem accounting

Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem risk assessment and ecosystem accounting

Setting research priorities for effective management of a threatened ecosystem: Australian alpine and subalpine peatland

Comparing environmental impacts of deep‐seabed and land‐based mining: A defensible framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About