How To Write An Ecologist'S Report On Ecosystems

Transcription

1 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) Washington February 2013, PACT

2 Documents, support, case studies, communications. English, Spanish and French.

3 Complement to IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (

4 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 (

5 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).

6 Georgina M. Mace Quantitative criteria: Categories for IUCN red lists Russell S. Lande Population decline Small range: fragmented / decline / fluctuation Reproductive population small and declining Very small or restricted population Quantitative assessment Thresholds Critically endangered Endangered Vulnerable

7 Extinction Risk Distributional Factors Conservation Priorities Biological Factors Societal Values Weighting system Conservation priorities Logistical Factors Economic Factors Other Factors (legal, institutional, etc.) Analysis, studies, choices, politics, land use etc

8 Extinction risk vs. Conservation Priorities Least Concern Troupial Icterus icterus Anopheles sp.

9 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 years.

10 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.

11 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

12 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).

13 Major scientific challenges I. What is an ecosystem? II. When is an ecosystem extinct? disappearance or transformation or collapse? III. How to assess ecosystem change? distribution function

14 I. Defining ecosystems No global classification, ecosystems may be defined at various scales (raindrop to biosphere) Approach: i) Adopt widey accepted conceptual definition (Tansley 1935, Odum) ii) iii) iv) Develop a risk assessment method applicable to any classification (national, regional) Promote development of a global ecosystem classification Require documented ecosystem descriptions as part of each risk assessment

15 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

16 Defining ecosystems Our Operational basis 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

17 Data integration, nesting & access

18 Data integration, nesting & access NatureServe

19 Data integration, nesting & access NatureServe

20 II. The concept of risk 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)

21 II. The concept of risk RISK the probability of a bad outcome over a specified time frame Specify the time frame for assessing change long enough to detect trends, short enough to inform action, long enough to consider lags & debts past, present, future

22 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

23 A Declining distribution B Small distribution Threatening processes Ecosystem distribution Risk of loss of characteristic native biota E Quantitative risk analysis Ecosystem function C Environmt l degradation D Altered biotic processes 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

24 Categories CO CR EN VU NT LC DD NE Collapse Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Near Threatened Threatened Least Concern (so reward, PES) Data Deficient Not Evaluated

25 Example of Senegal at National, Ecosystem or Administrative levels Barkadji district CR EN VU LC NE

26 1987 Barkedji District RLE in N.E. Senegal RLE at different scales RLE for District 2009

27 Status Current (last 50 yrs) A. Decline in distribution A1 A2 A3 Future (next 50 yrs) Historic (since c. 1750) CR 80% 80% 90% EN 50% 80% 70% VU 30% 80% 50% almost almost almost NT 30% 30% 50% LC <30% <30% <50% Time series data (maps, sightings) 2 observations Data quality & interpretation are important garbage in, garbage out 1 2 Remained woodland Swamp to woodland Change in wetland distribution Contraction Expansion Remained swamp Woodland to swamp Kilometres 10% net increase in distribution (Keith et al. 2010) Criterion A = Least Concern

28 B. Restricted distribution Estimating 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 Minimum convex polygon c.5000 km 2 Extent of Occurrence (EOO) Endangered: B1 & B2 Area of Occupancy (AOO) 10km cells occupied (46) occupied >1% (12)

29 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

30 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

31 Risk assessment outcomes ex. Caribbean coral reefs Photo: M.Spalding A B C D E DD DD DD LC LC LC Overall status is EN-CR based on current & historic declines in coral cover Disease mgt, climate adaptation NE Sea Surface Temps need further interpretation NE NE VU-CR, observed decline in coral cover DD EN hindcast decline in coral cover DD

32 Trial of Red List criteria for Ecosystems 18 detailed case studies terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater, marine Africa, Australia, Europe, North America, South America Data rich, data poor All criteria A-E Number of ecosystems assessed determined overall status A B C D E Criterion Outcomes of 8 out of 9 IUCN assessments agreed with assessments done by local authorities (Also reasonable consistency with Europe)

33 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.

34 Planned organizational structure RLE Joint product of EMP and CEM 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.

35 By 2025, we aim to assess the conservation status of all of the world s terrestrial, freshwater, marine and subterranean ecosystems.

36 Conservation Biology 25: (2011)

37 IUCN RLE consultation workshops 17 conferences 20 countries 5 continents

38 Past, present and future 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 : IUCN Red List of Continental Ecosystems of the Americas. 2012: Synthesis and presentation at Jeju WCC. 2015: Standardized protocols and online tools fully available : Expansion to other biological realms and regions initiated. 2020: Report on progress towards achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target : First IUCN Red List of Ecosystems completed.

39 The IUCN knowledge products and their integration

40 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, Macroeconomic planning, political, finance). Link to good/bad governance. 40

41 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, agroforestry, protected areas, need to assess species at risk (RLS) Who? People/villages, Gov. So what? revisit RLE after X time changes??

42 RLE as one basis for Impartial means to support safeguards, e.g of WB risk assessment prior & if approved, after Basis to prioritize areas for action (e.g. GEF, multilateral, 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)

43 43 Areas in need of restoration (extensive) VU If water services lost?? Park boundary Riverine area - Agric. Policy, connectivity

44 A growing network

45 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