Date post: | 30-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | yahir-shenton |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 2 times |
IUCN’s Red List of Ecosystems: An Evolving Tool for Risk
Assessment to Support Priority Setting & Landscape Action
Edmund Barrow (Ecosystem Management Programme),
Jon Paul Rodríguez & David Keith
(Commission for Ecosystem Management)
TCD Dublin May 2013
www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org
• Documents, support, case studies, communications.• English, Spanish and French.
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
@redlisteco
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
Complement to IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org/)
Red Lists and Red Data Books of Threatened Species
• IUCN maintains threatened species lists since 1950s.
• “Red Data Books” popularized in 1960s: birds & mammals.
• “Information explosion” in 1990s:– Europe: 3,562 known red lists.– >100 countries have produced RL for at least one
taxon (www.nationalredlist.org).
1990s: major paradigm shift
• Species assigned to categories on the basis of quantitative criteria and thresholds.
• Separation of risk assessment (scientific) from definition of conservation priorities (societal process).
Quantitative criteria: Categories for IUCN red lists
Thresholds
Criticallyendangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Population decline
Small range: fragmented / decline / fluctuation
Very small or restricted population
Quantitative assessment
Reproductive populationsmall and declining
Georgina M. Mace Russell S. Lande
Conservation Priorities
Weighting system
Conservation priorities
Extinction Risk
Logistical Factors
Economic Factors
Societal Values
Distributional Factors
Other Factors
(legal, institutional, etc.)
Biological Factors
Analysis, studies, choices, politics,
land use etc
Extinction risk vs. Conservation Priorities
TroupialIcterus icterus
Anopheles sp.
http
://w
ww
.kin
gsna
ke.c
om/w
estin
dian
/icte
rusi
cter
usrid
gway
i2.J
PG
http
://pa
thm
icro
.med
.sc.
edu/
para
sito
logy
/mal
8.jp
ght
tp://
ucce
.ucd
avis
.edu
/file
s/fil
elib
rary
/543
4/19
394.
jpg
Least Concern
Motivation for a “Red List” categories system for ecosystems
• Abundant experience with red list categories for species. Red list “explosion” world-wide (> 100 countries have applied them).
• Increased capability of geographical information systems:– more powerful and inexpensive computers.– cheaper and more user-friendly software packages
(Quantum GIS – free).
• Increased availability of remotely-sensed data, covering 20-40 years.
Why focus on ecosystem status?
• May more effectively represent biodiversity as a whole than individual species.
• Ecosystem loss more apparent than species loss: clean water, food, fuel – service losses
• More time-efficient than species-by-species assessments (<3% species evaluated by IUCN).
• Ecosystem loss and degradation might precede species declines (e.g. extinction debt).
• Combined with species Red List, more powerful assessment of biodiversity status.
Official listing of threatened ecosystems is already taking place
• Gov. of W. Australia: quantitative categories & criteria for threatened ecosystems, also Victoria.
• S. African National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act: identification of over 200 threatened ecosystems.
• Austria, Germany, Finland, Norway & partially in other EU states (based on NATURA 2000, EUNIS). Venezuela, Senegal (draft); and
• Colombia, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru in process
• EC about to launch a tender for Red List of Habitats for Europe process
Mandates from the IUCN World Conservation Congresses (Barcelona
2008, Jeju 2012)
• Consolidation of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems:– Formal adoption of RLE categories and criteria.– Formal allocation of funds/staff.– Global assessment of ecosystems.– Provision of support to national assessments.– View RLS and RLE as an integrated tool (also with
other IUCN key Knowledge Products).
Major scientific challenges
I. What is an ecosystem?
II. When is an ecosystem “extinct”?– Disappearance, transformation or collapse?
III. How to assess ecosystem change?– distribution– function
I. Defining ecosystems
No global classification (but maybe getting nearer), ecosystems may be defined at various scales (raindrop to biosphere)
Approach: i) Adopt widey accepted conceptual definition (Tansley
1935, Odum)
ii) Develop a risk assessment method applicable to any classification (national, regional)
iii) Promote development of a global ecosystem classification
iv) Require documented ecosystem descriptions as part of each risk assessment
Describing ecosystems for assessment
Conceptual definition (4 key elements, Tansley
1935)
1. characteristic assemblage of biota
2. associated physical environment
3. processes & interactions between components– among biota– between biota &
environment
4. Spatial extent
Description template (operational)
Classification (IUCN habitats, etc)
1. List defining biotic features
2. Identify defining abiotic features
3. Describe key ecosystem drivers
4. Maps (time series, projections)– past, present, future
• Specific set of ecosystems that can be nested (local, national, global) use of different schemes – c.f. NatureServe (Classification & Description of World Formation Types); EUNIS
• Nesting into administrative & other means of dividing – e.g. overall major ecosystem types in a country, or a district, or land/water use
• Trade-offs between conceptual definitions & practical reality!
• We respect & will use national ecosystem classifications, but will seek to nest them
Defining ecosystems – Our Operational basis
Data integration, nesting & access
Data integration, nesting & access
NatureServe
Data integration, nesting & access
NatureServe
Coming to Global consensus on Ecosystems – but not there yet!
RISK – the probability of a bad outcome over a specified time frame
Define the bad outcome•An endpoint to ecosystem decline
– Ecosystems rarely disappear or go “extinct” (cf. species)
– “Collapse”: transformation of identity, loss of defining features (characteristic biota & function), replacement by a novel ecosystem (e.g. invasives, agriculture, plantation)
II. The concept of ‘risk’
• RISK – the probability of a bad outcome over a specified time frame
Specify the time frame for assessing change
II. The concept of risk
• long enough to detect trends, • short enough to inform action, • long enough to consider lags & debts
– past, present, future
III. Assessing ecosystem change Guiding principles for design of a protocol• Evidence-based risk assessment using all
available data & information• Transparent derivation from relevant
ecological theories• Generic concepts and methods adaptable
across a range of organisational & spatial scales and all ecological domains – terrestrial, freshwater, marine, subterranean
• Logically consistent with IUCN Red List criteria for species
III. Assessing Ecosystem Change
Risk model for ecosystems:
• threats to defining features (distribution, biota & function)
• multiple mechanisms (causes of threat)
• 4 symptoms (of decline) = 4 criteria
• plus one overarching criterion (probability of collapse)
Threatening processes
Threatening processes
Risk of loss of characteristic
native biota
A Declining distribution
C Environmt’l degradation
D Altered biotic processes
Ecosystem distribution
Ecosystem function
B Small distribution
E Quantitative risk analysis
Categories
Collapse
Critically Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Least Concern (so reward, PES)
Data Deficient
Not EvaluatedNE
CO
CR
EN
VU
NT
LC
DD
Threatened
Example of Senegal atNational, Ecosystem or Administrative levels
NE
CR
EN
VU
LC
Barkadji district
1987
2009
Barkedji District RLE in N.E. Senegal – RLE at different
scales
RLE for District
A. Decline in distribution
•Time series data (maps, sightings) 2 observations
•Data quality & interpretation are important– “garbage in, garbage out”
Change in wetland distribution1960 – 2000
ContractionExpansion
A1 A2 A3
Status
Current (last 50
yrs)
Future (next 50
yrs)
Historic (since
c. 1750)
CR ≥80% ≥80% ≥90%EN ≥50% ≥80% ≥70%VU ≥30% ≥80% ≥50%
NTalmost 30%
almost 30%
almost 50%
LC <30% <30% <50%
3
4
1
2
7
510
968
0.5 0 0.5 1 Kilometres
Remained woodland
Woodland to swamp
Remained swamp
Swamp to woodland
10% net increase in distribution (Keith et al. 2010)
Criterion A = Least Concern
Extent of Occurrence (EOO)
Area of Occupancy (AOO)
B. Restricted distributionEstimating distribution size• “risk spreading” against
spatially explicit threats• 2 metrics: polygon(EOO),
grids(AOO)
• subcriteria – qualitative evidence of decline
• exclude small fragments– 1% occupancy rule
• scale-sensitive – standardised methods of (spatial)
estimation– broad/fine ecosystem units
Minimumconvex polygon
c.5000 km2
10km cells occupied (46) occupied >1% (12)
Endangered:B1 & B2
Criteria C & D: functional decline- degradation of abiotic environment (C)
- disruption of biotic processes (D)
Varied pathways of functional decline•Relative severity•Extent (% of distribution)
•Immediacy– Current– Future– Historic
E. Quantitative analysis of risk of collapse
• Enables synthesis across all threats & mechanisms of collapse
• Ecosystem simulation models– Simple scalar models– State transition models– Complex flux models (trophic, energy, matter)
• Varied data requirements• Progress: one pilot study, research proposal
Risk assessment outcomesex. Caribbean coral reefs
DDDDDDLCLCLCNE Sea Surface Temps need further interpretationNENEVU-CR, observed decline in coral coverDDEN hindcast decline in coral coverDD
A
B
C
D
E
Photo: M.Spalding
Overall status is EN-CR based on current & historic declines in coral cover Disease mgt, climate
adaptation
Communication / support - plans
• IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Categories, Criteria and Guidebook in English, French and Spanish.
• Website (CEM website initially to stand alone), with content (English, Spanish and French):– Reference documentation (e.g. guidebook, scientific
articles).– Portfolio of case studies, using a standard format.– Set of presentations for training (in PowerPoint or using
other web-based tools).
• Support: Ecosystem Red List task force, staff & core stable funding.
Planned organizational structure RLE
• 8-10 members• Expertise from all biological
realms and geographical regions.
• Oversees entire process, including listing challenges and interpretation of categories and criteria.
• Members from EMP, CEM, SSC and others.
Joint product ofEMP and CEM
Functional day to day core group 3-5 people
By 2025, we aim to assess the conservation status of all of the world’s terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean
ecosystems.
Open acc
essConservation Biology 25: 21-29 (2011)
IUCN RLE consultation 2011-2012
18 workshops
17 conferences
20 countries
5 continents
Data integration and access
Ecosystemclassification
Data integration and access
Ecosystemclassification
Taxonomy
Ecosystem classification
Data integration and access
Ecosystemclassification
Ecosystem classification
Taxonomy
2008: Process begins at
Barcelona WCC.
2009: IUCN Red List Thematic
Group established.
2010: Draft red list categories
and criteria available.
2011: Global consultation and testing
initiated.
2013: IUCN Ecosystem Red List Office and
Task Force established.
2013: Proposal to IUCN Council for formal adoption of categories and
criteria.
2012-2014: IUCN Red List of
Continental Ecosystems of the Americas.
2012: Synthesis and
presentation at Jeju WCC.
2015: Standardized
protocols and on-line tools fully
available.
2015-2020: Expansion to
other biological realms and
regions initiated.
2020: Report on progress towards
achieving Aichi Biodiversity
Target 5.
2025: First IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
completed.
Past, present and future
The IUCN knowledge products and their integration
RLE - Opportunities “outside” Conservation
• Internationally recognized standard to prioritize & justify Conservation Action & Land Use Management (& investment) at national level.
• Criteria for assessment & performance – a decision support approach, basis for negotiated outcomes.
• Simple robust way to measure performance, make links with conservation & land use, & reward (Green list).
• But need to engage with other – more powerful – bodies (land use, planning, development, Macro-economic planning, political, finance).
• Link to good/bad governance.
44
Red List of Threatened
Species
Global Invasive species database
WDPAProtected Planet
Ecolex
Red List of Ecosystems
Key Biodiversity Areas
Human Dependency on
Nature
Natural Resource Governance Framework
Being linked
Link in progress
Conversation underway
Conversation initiated
Aspirational linkage
Linking IUCN Knowledge Products (WCC Jeju)
From Risk Assessment to Action
High risk of collapse (based on int. accepted RLE criteria) Why? – analysis, e.g forest
clearance, climate change agriculture, poor governance (tenure, rights)
What Action (choice)? – forest restoration, agro-forestry, protected areas, need to assess species at risk (RLS)
Who? People/villages, Gov. So what? – revisit RLE after
X time – changes??
Are there PAs here, CCA’s – management effectiveness – so conservation action
Are there potential KBA’s here, or should be? + potential locus for species assessments + links to Conservation action
RLE a basis for spatial overlays of products
Missirah Goumbeyel
Nettebulu
Koar
RLE & Governance – testing the waters! Senegal RLE map + Governance = ??
RLE as one basis for • Impartial means to support safeguards, e.g of WB –
risk assessment prior to & if approved, after • Basis to prioritize areas for action (e.g. GEF, multi-
lateral, bi-lateral) at local, national and wider levels• Risk assessment highlights need for action – or face
loss of services with concurrent economic impacts (ex. of Amboseli)
• Links conservation with land/water use• Ability to highlight ecosystems being well managed
(e.g. least concern) – PES (e.g. Miyun)• RLE is a tool that can be used at many levels & by
different actors (Gov. NGO, Private Sector)
50
Park boundary
Areas in need of restoration (extensive)
Riverine area - Agric. Policy, connectivity
If water services lost??
VU
RLE a powerful tool & set of approaches:
a) International set of criteria for Red Listing Ecosystems, & highlight good ecosystem management.
b) Support Red List of Species, World Data Base on Protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas, (Conservation Action Support).
c) One of few approaches to make linkages with productive land (water) use based on Int. criteria (Land Use support)
d) Embrace ecosystem services & human inhabited ecosystems (links to food security)
e) Highlight need for ecosystem restoration, but equally to reward good ecosystem management.
But at the end of it – it is a Risk Assessment tool, and so only as good as its use
www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org
A growing network