Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem accounting and the Red List of Ecosystems.
Journal
Nature ecology & evolution
ISSN: 2397-334X
Titre abrégé: Nat Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101698577
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Aug 2024
28 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
30
03
2022
accepted:
20
06
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
28
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Safeguarding biodiversity and human well-being depends on sustaining ecosystems. Two global standards for quantifying ecosystem change, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) and the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (EA), underpin headline indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We analyse similarities and differences between the standards to understand their complementary roles in environmental policy and decision-making. The standards share key concepts, definitions of ecosystems and spatial data needs, meaning that similar data can be used in both. Their complementarities stem from their differing purposes and thus how data are analysed and interpreted. Although both record changes in ecosystem extent and condition, the RLE analyses the magnitude of change in terms of risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss, whereas EA links ecosystem change with the ecosystem's contributions to people and the economy. We recommend that the RLE and EA should not be treated as unrelated nor undertaken in isolation. Developing them in concert can exploit their complementarities while ensuring consistency in foundational data, in particular ecosystem classifications, maps and condition variables. Finding pathways for co-investment in foundational data, and for knowledge-sharing between people and organizations who undertake RLE assessments and accounting, will improve both processes and outcomes for biodiversity, ecosystems and people.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39198573
doi: 10.1038/s41559-024-02494-6
pii: 10.1038/s41559-024-02494-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC)
ID : FT190100234
Organisme : Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC)
ID : LP170101143
Organisme : Department of Education and Training | Australian Research Council (ARC)
ID : LP170101143
Informations de copyright
© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
The Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Summary for Policy Makers Report No. 3947851138 (IPBES, 2019).
Nicholson, E. et al. Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 1338–1349 (2021).
pubmed: 34400825
doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01538-5
Mace, G. M., Hails, R. S., Cryle, P., Harlow, J. & Clarke, S. J. Towards a risk register for natural capital. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 641–653 (2015).
pubmed: 27563153
pmcid: 4979659
doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12431
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD/COP/15/L.25) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).
Mace, G. M. et al. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1424–1442 (2008).
pubmed: 18847444
doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x
Keith, D. A. et al. Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111 (2013).
pubmed: 23667454
pmcid: 3648534
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062111
Guidelines for the Application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and Criteria, Version 2.0 (IUCN, 2024).
Dasgupta, P. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (HM Treasury, 2021).
Edens, B. et al. Establishing the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting as a global standard. Ecosyst. Serv. 54, 101413 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101413
Tittensor, D. P. et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346, 241–244 (2014).
pubmed: 25278504
doi: 10.1126/science.1257484
Talberth, J. & Weisdorf, M. Genuine Progress Indicator 2.0: pilot accounts for the US, Maryland, and City of Baltimore 2012–2014. Ecol. Econ. 142, 1–11 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.012
Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability (UNEP, UNU-IHDP, 2012).
Ouyang, Z. et al. Using gross ecosystem product (GEP) to value nature in decision making. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14593–14601 (2020).
pubmed: 32513694
pmcid: 7322027
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1911439117
Bland, L. M. et al. Impacts of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems on conservation policy and practice. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12666 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12666
Nicholson, E. et al. Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 614–621 (2024).
pubmed: 38332025
doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02320-5
Lequiller, F. & Blades, D. Understanding National Accounts (OECD Publishing, 2014).
UN. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework (UN, EC, FAO, IMF, OECD, World Bank, 2014).
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) (UN, 2021).
Monitoring Framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD/COP/DEC/15/5) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).
Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
pubmed: 22678280
doi: 10.1038/nature11148
Duncan, C., Thompson, J. R. & Pettorelli, N. The quest for a mechanistic understanding of biodiversity–ecosystem services relationships. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1348 (2015).
Mönkkönen, M. et al. More wood but less biodiversity in forests in Finland: a historical evaluation. Memo. Soc. Fauna Flora Fenn. 98, 1–11 (2022).
Botts, E. A. et al. More than just a (red) list: over a decade of using South Africa’s threatened ecosystems in policy and practice. Biol. Conserv. 246, 108559 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108559
Salomaa, A. & Arponen, A. The role of the Red Lists of Ecosystems in leveraging sustainability changes in Finland—perceptions of the assessors. Ecosyst. People 19, 2222185 (2023).
doi: 10.1080/26395916.2023.2222185
Keith, H., Vardon, M., Stein, J. A., Stein, J. L. & Lindenmayer, D. Ecosystem accounts define explicit and spatial trade-offs for managing natural resources. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1683–1692 (2017).
pubmed: 28963477
doi: 10.1038/s41559-017-0309-1
King, S. et al. Linking biodiversity into national economic accounting. Environ. Sci. Policy 116, 20–29 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2020.10.020
Keith, D. A. et al. A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems. Nature 610, 513–518 (2022).
pubmed: 36224387
pmcid: 9581774
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05318-4
Report on the Fifty-Fifth Session (27 February–1 March 2024) E/2024/24-E/CN.3/2024/37 (United Nations Statistical Commission, 2024).
AHTEG. Guidance on Using the Indicators of the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, from the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD/SBSTTA/26/INF/14) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2024).
Norwegian Red List for Ecosystems and Habitat Types 2018 (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2018).
Driver, A., Turpie, J., Bouwer, G. & Ginsburg, A. Land and terrestial ecosystem accounts in South Africa: exploring the ecosystem extent index and ecosystem condition index. ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360139784_Land_and_terrestrial_ecosystem_accounts_in_South_Africa_Exploring_the_Ecosystem_Extent_Index_and_Ecosystem_Condition_Index (2020).
Skowno, A. L. et al. National Biodiversity Assessment 2018: The Status of South Africa’s Ecosystems and Biodiversity—Synthesis Report Report No. 1928224342 (South African National Biodiversity Institute, an entity of the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, 2019).
Venter, Z. S., Barton, D. N., Chakraborty, T., Simensen, T. & Singh, G. Global 10 m land use land cover datasets: a comparison of Dynamic World, World Cover and Esri Land Cover. Remote Sens. 14, 4101 (2022).
doi: 10.3390/rs14164101
Chytrý, M. et al. Red List of Habitats of the Czech Republic. Ecol. Indic. 106, 105446 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105446
Bland, L. M. et al. Using multiple lines of evidence to assess the risk of ecosystem collapse. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170660 (2017).
pubmed: 28931744
pmcid: 5627190
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0660
Nel, J. & Driver, A. National River Ecosystem Accounts for South Africa: Discussion Document for Advancing SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Project (SANBI, 2015).
Fletcher, M.-S., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W. & Palmer, L. Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022218118 (2021).
pubmed: 34580210
pmcid: 8501882
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2022218118
Iglesias, V., Haberle, S. G., Holz, A. & Whitlock, C. Holocene dynamics of temperate rainforests in west-central Patagonia. Front. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00177 (2018).
Burns, E. L. et al. Ecosystem assessment of mountain ash forest in the Central Highlands of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecol. 40, 386–399 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/aec.12200
Murray, N. J., Ma, Z. & Fuller, R. A. Tidal flats of the Yellow Sea: a review of ecosystem status and anthropogenic threats. Austral Ecol. 40, 472–481 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/aec.12211
Schijns, R. & Pauly, D. Management implications of shifting baselines in fish stock assessments. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 29, 183–195 (2022).
doi: 10.1111/fme.12511
Etter, A. et al. Colombian Ecosystems, Threats and Risks: An Application of the Red List of Ecosystems to the Continental Terrestrial Ecosystems (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana and Conservación Internacional-Colombia, 2020).
Murray, N. J. et al. The use of range size to assess risks to biodiversity from stochastic threats. Divers. Distrib. 23, 474–483 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/ddi.12533
Czúcz, B. et al. Selection criteria for ecosystem condition indicators. Ecol. Indic. 133, 108376 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108376
Rowland, J. A. et al. Selecting and applying indicators of ecosystem collapse for risk assessments. Conserv. Biol. 32, 1233–1245 (2018).
pubmed: 29528525
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13107
Jakobsson, S. et al. Introducing the index-based ecological condition assessment framework (IBECA). Ecol. Indic. 124, 107252 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107252
Bland, L. M. et al. Assessing risks to marine ecosystems with indicators, ecosystem models and experts. Biol. Conserv. 227, 19–28 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.019
Czúcz, B., Keith, H., Jackson, B., Nicholson, E. & Maes, J. A common typology for ecosystem characteristics and ecosystem condition variables. One Ecosyst. 6, e58218 (2021).
doi: 10.3897/oneeco.6.e58218
Rowland, J. A. et al. Assessing risk of ecosystem collapse in a changing climate. Preprint at EcoEvoRxiv https://doi.org/10.32942/X2HS4Q (2024).
McNellie, M. J. et al. Reference state and benchmark concepts for better biodiversity conservation in contemporary ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 6702–6714 (2020).
doi: 10.1111/gcb.15383
Bland, L. M. et al. Developing a standardized definition of ecosystem collapse for risk assessment. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 29–36 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/fee.1747
Rowland, J. A., Bland, L. M., James, S. & Nicholson, E. A guide to representing variability and uncertainty in biodiversity indicators. Conserv. Biol. 35, 1669–1682 (2021).
pubmed: 33486826
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13699
Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M. & Burgman, M. A. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecol. Appl. 12, 618–628 (2002).
doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0618:ATATOU]2.0.CO;2
Hein, L. et al. Progress in natural capital accounting for ecosystems. Science 367, 514–515 (2020).
pubmed: 32001645
doi: 10.1126/science.aaz8901
Keith, D. A. et al. The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges, and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12167
Driver, A. et al. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa (South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2005).
Driver, A. et al. National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An Assessment of South Africa’s Biodiversity and Ecosystems—Synthesis Report (South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, 2012).
Natural Capital 1: Land and Terrestrial Ecosystem Accounts, 1990 to 2014 (Statistics South Africa, 2020).
Van Niekerk, L., Taljaard, S., Adams, J., Lamberth, S. & Weerts, S. Experimental Ecosystem Accounts for South Africa’s Estuaries: Extent, Condition and Ecosystem Services Accounts Report No. CSIR/SPLA/SECO/IR/2020/0026/A (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), 2020).
Dayaram, A. et al. The South African National Ecosystem Classification System Handbook 1st edn (South African National Biodiversity Institute, 2021).
Millar, S. & Dickey-Collas, M. Report on IUCN Assessments and Fisheries Management Approaches ICES CM 2018/ACOM:60 (ICES, 2018).
Harris, J. B. C. et al. Conserving imperiled species: a comparison of the IUCN Red List and US Endangered Species Act. Conserv. Lett. 5, 64–72 (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00205.x
Lai, T.-Y. et al. Bridging the gap between ecosystem service indicators and ecosystem accounting in Finland. Ecol. Modell. 377, 51–65 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.03.006
Maes, J. et al. A review of ecosystem condition accounts: lessons learned and options for further development. One Ecosyst. 5, e53485 (2020).
doi: 10.3897/oneeco.5.e53485
Rieb, J. T. et al. When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67, 820–833 (2017).
doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix075
Mace, G. M., Norris, K. & Fitter, A. H. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 19–26 (2012).
pubmed: 21943703
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006
Alaniz, A. J., Pérez-Quezada, J. F., Galleguillos, M., Vásquez, A. E. & Keith, D. A. Operationalizing the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in public policy. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12665 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/conl.12665
Valderrábano, M. et al. Using Ecosystem Risk Assessment Science in Ecosystem Restoration: A Guide to Applying the Red List of Ecosystems to Ecosystem Restoration (IUCN, 2021).
Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) v.1.0 (TNFD, 2023).
Science-Based Targets for Nature, Initial Guidance for Business (SBTN, 2020).
Uribe, E. S., Luna-Acosta, A. & Etter, A. Red List of Ecosystems: risk assessment of coral ecosystems in the Colombian Caribbean. Ocean Coast. Manage. 199, 105416 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105416
Obura, D. et al. Vulnerability to collapse of coral reef ecosystems in the Western Indian Ocean. Nat. Sustain. 5, 104–113 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00817-0
Carré, A. et al. Dynamiques Spatiales des Écosystèmes Terrestres, Cotiers et Marins de Madagascar: Une Première Application des Critères de la Liste Rouge des Écosystèmes de l’UICN (IUCN, 2020).
National Environment Management Authority. Uganda Spatial Biodiversity Assessment v.1 (CONNECT Project, 2020).
CONNECT Project Ghana Spatial Biodiversity Assessment v.2 (National Biosafety Authority and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 2021).
Lindgaard, A. & Henriksen, S. The 2011 Norwegian Red List for Ecosystems and Habitat Types (Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, 2011).
Kyrkjeeide, M. O. et al. Bending the curve: operationalizing national Red Lists to customize conservation actions to reduce extinction risk. Biol. Conserv. 261, 109227 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109227
Murray, N. J. et al. Threatened Ecosystems of Myanmar: An IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Assessment v.1.0 (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020).
United Nations Policy Scenario Analysis Using SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (UN Department of Economic and Social Development and UN Environment Programme, 2021).
Annual Report Parks Victoria (Victoria State Government, 2020).
Dvarskas, A. Experimental ecosystem accounting for coastal and marine areas: a pilot application of the SEEA-EEA in Long Island coastal bays. Mar. Policy 100, 141–151 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.017
Murray, N. J. et al. Myanmar's terrestrial ecosystems: status, threats and conservation opportunities. Biol. Conserv. 252, 108834 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108834