Red List Of Ecosystems Research Articles

Preliminary assessment of ecosystem risk based on IUCN criteria in a hierarchy of spatial domains: A case study in Southwestern China

World ecosystems are suffering great losses from anthropogenic and natural pressures. To meet the demand of ecosystem-level risk assessment for biodiversity conservation, the IUCN has adopted a global standard to assess the risk to ecosystems. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (IUCN RLE) is a growing tool to raise the public awareness of ecosystem conservation and provide reasonable strategies to managers. As for managing ecosystems with the RLE, the spatial information of degraded patches is important for the efficient allocation of conservation resources. In this paper, a method for assessment across hierarchy of spatial domains was designed to provide spatial information for the IUCN RLE. 105 natural ecosystems of vegetation in Southwestern China were systematically assessed at the hierarchy of spatial domains. According to the results, the declining distributions of most ecosystems have slowed down recently due to protection policies. All vegetative ecosystems containing nationally protected species are threatened, supporting the robustness of this protocol. Limited distributions and degradation in area are the key risk to threatened ecosystems, as threatened ecosystems account for only 1.55% of the total area and the mean of its degradation in area is almost 45%. With the assessment in the hierarchy of spatial domains, the IUCN RLE was featured with spatial information of degraded patches. The hierarchical assessment markedly improved the practical applications of RLE and led to an efficient allocation of conservation resources. The scale effect of hierarchical assessment was significant and the representativeness of ecosystems in systematic assessments is extremely valuable.

Research advances and challenges in the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Research advances and challenges in the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Red List of Ecosystems (RLE): progress and challenges

Red List of Ecosystems (RLE): progress and challenges

Mismatch between Habitat Science and Habitat Directive: Lessons from the French (Counter) Example

AbstractThe European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision‐aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science‐based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science‐based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge.

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

Arguments for Integrative Management of Protected Areas in the Cities – Case Study in Bucharest City

Protected areas should be considered as a complementary form of anthropogenic environmental intervention geared towards restoring its balance by removing the causes of its visible degradation. Taking into consideration the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, the aim of the study is to argue the importance of integrative management of urban protected areas, based on a case study with respect to the Romanian capital (Văcăreşti wetland, in the built-up area of Bucharest city). The study objects are: addressing the conceptual issues of protected areas and in particular in urban areas; analyzing the geographical evolution of the study area (since 1700), as a determinant of the present situation; highlighting the relationships among biodiversity, ecosystem services, public use and social perception, as strong arguments in favor of the integrative management of the investigated territory. The research methodology was focused on reviewing national and international literature regarding protected areas (especially urban ones); a diachronic analysis of the study area identifying the evolution of human-environment relationships over historical times; applying the survey method in order to analyze the target group perceptions on the constraints and opportunities stemming from the urban protected area status of theVăcăreşti wetland. The main techniques employed for our scientific approach were the following: using GIS applications for diachronic and synchronic analysis; processing the semi-structured interviews in QSR NVivo 11 software; monitoring newspapers, TV channels, social networks and discussion forums. This analyses offered us opportunity to set up the main arguments for integrative management of the study area, under the circumstances of contradictions between the valuable natural and semi-natural potential and current anthropogenic and heterogeneous exploitation, leaded by the group interests.

The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Motivations, Challenges, and Applications

AbstractIn response to growing demand for ecosystem‐level risk assessment in biodiversity conservation, and rapid proliferation of locally tailored protocols, the IUCN recently endorsed new Red List criteria as a global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. Four qualities were sought in the design of the IUCN criteria: generality; precision; realism; and simplicity. Drawing from extensive global consultation, we explore trade‐offs among these qualities when dealing with key challenges, including ecosystem classification, measuring ecosystem dynamics, degradation and collapse, and setting decision thresholds to delimit ordinal categories of threat. Experience from countries with national lists of threatened ecosystems demonstrates well‐balanced trade‐offs in current and potential applications of Red Lists of Ecosystems in legislation, policy, environmental management and education. The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems should be judged by whether it achieves conservation ends and improves natural resource management, whether its limitations are outweighed by its benefits, and whether it performs better than alternative methods. Future development of the Red List of Ecosystems will benefit from the history of the Red List of Threatened Species which was trialed and adjusted iteratively over 50 years from rudimentary beginnings. We anticipate the Red List of Ecosystems will promote policy focus on conservation outcomes in situ across whole landscapes and seascapes.

A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria.

The newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize 'best-practice' methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved.

Towards consistency, rigour and compatibility of risk assessments for ecosystems and ecological communities

AbstractEcosystem‐level conservation is increasingly important at global, national and local levels. Many jurisdictions have developed and apply their own protocols for assessing the threat status of ecosystems, often independently, leading to inconsistencies between and within countries which are problematic for cross‐jurisdictional environmental reporting. Australia is a good example of these historic legacies, with different risk assessment methods applied nationally and in most states. The newly developed criteria for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) provide a framework to compare and contrast apparently divergent protocols. We critically reviewed the Australian protocols and compared them with the IUCN RLE, based on the following components of a risk assessment protocol: (i) categories of threat; (ii) assessment units; (iii) underlying concepts and definitions; (iv) assessment criteria; (v) uncertainty methods; and (vi) assessment outcomes. Despite some differences in specific objectives, criteria and their expression, the protocols were structurally similar, included broadly similar types of criteria, and produced assessment outcomes that were generally concordant. Alignment with the IUCN RLE would not require extensive changes to existing protocols, but would improve consistency, rigour and robustness in ecosystem risk assessment across jurisdictions. To achieve this, we recommend: (i) more quantitative assessments of functional change; (ii) separation of management and policy considerations from risk assessment; and (iii) cross‐referencing of assessment units in different jurisdictions. We argue that the focus on processes and ecological function, rather than only patterns, is key to robust risk assessment.

Challenging the Scientific Foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

AbstractThe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is currently discussing the development of a Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) that would mirror the categories and criteria used to assess the conservation status of species. The suggested scientific foundations for the RLE are being considered by IUCN for adoption as the backbone of the RLE. We identify conceptual and operational weaknesses in the draft RLE approach, the categories, and criteria. While species are relatively well‐described units, there is no consistent means to classify ecosystems for assessing conservation status. The proposed RLE is framed mostly around certain features of ecosystems such as broad vegetation or habitat types, and do not consider major global change drivers such as climate change. We discuss technical difficulties with the proposed concept of ecosystem collapse and suggest it is not analogous to species extinction. We highlight the lack of scientific basis for the criteria and thresholds proposed by the RLE, and question the need to adopt the structure of the Red List of Species for an RLE. We suggest that the proposed RLE is open to ambiguous interpretations and uncertain outcomes, and that its practicality and benefit for conservation should be carefully evaluated before final approval.

The Red List of Ecosystems: a new approach to conservation

The Red List of Ecosystems: a new approach to conservation

List identifies threatened ecosystems

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced on 9 September that it will develop a new Red List of Ecosystems that will identify which ecosystems are vulnerable or endangered. The list, which is modeled on the group's Red List of Threatened Species™, could help to guide conservation activities and influence policy processes such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, according to the group. “We will assess the status of marine, terrestrial, freshwater, and subterranean ecosystems at local, regional, and global levels,” stated Jon Paul Rodriguez, leader of IUCN's Ecosystems Red List Thematic Group. “The assessment can then form the basis for concerted implementation action so that we can manage them sustainably if their risk of collapse is low or restore them if they are threatened and then monitor their recovery.”