Suchergebnisse

Ecosystem level indicators are emerging as important pillars of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity ; at the same time, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLEs) is experiencing rapid global uptake. We applied a systematic RLE assessment to 456 terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa between 2017 and 2021. What sets South Africa apart in this endeavour is that an independently formulated ecosystem threat status indicator was developed between 2004 and 2008 and the list of threatened ecosystems (effectively a proto RLE) was integrated into the national environmental regulatory framework in 2011. Through this, Critically Endangered and Endangered types were afforded a form of statutory protection through increased regulation of land-use change activities. We describe the transition to the IUCN RLE framework and focus on both the technical steps of incorporating the best available data into a credible assessment, and the unique social and legal processes to ensure that the biodiversity conservation sector in South Africa understood and supported the proposed replacement of the existing list of threatened ecosystems (2011) with the RLE (2021). We discuss the policy development steps required in South Africa, and the pros and cons of maintaining a legislative link for RLE implementation.

Ecosystem level indicators are emerging as important pillars of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity; at the same time, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLEs) is experiencing rapid global uptake. We applied a systematic RLE assessment to 456 terrestrial ecosystems in South Africa between 2017 and 2021. What sets South Africa apart in this endeavour is that an independently formulated ecosystem threat status indicator was developed between 2004 and 2008 and the list of threatened ecosystems (effectively a proto RLE) was integrated into the national environmental regulatory framework in 2011. Through this, Critically Endangered and Endangered types were afforded a form of statutory protection through increased regulation of land-use change activities. We describe the transition to the IUCN RLE framework and focus on both the technical steps of incorporating the best available data into a credible assessment, and the unique social and legal processes to ensure that the biodiversity conservation sector in South Africa understood and supported the proposed replacement of the existing list of threatened ecosystems (2011) with the RLE (2021). We discuss the policy development steps required in South Africa, and the pros and cons of maintaining a legislative link for RLE implementation.

The National Biodiversity Assessment of 2011 found freshwater ecosystems to be highly threatened and poorly protected. However, a number of studies have shown that the National Wetland Map (NWM) Version 4 represents less than 54% of wetlands mapped at a fine scale. A more comprehensive South African Inventory of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems (SAIIAE) would greatly improve the assessment of wetland ecosystem types and their condition and conservation status, and is crucial for monitoring trends to inform decision making and planning. In preparation for the third National Biodiversity Assessment of 2018, a review was undertaken to identify possible data sources that could contribute to the SAIIAE. The objectives of the study were to (i) assess which type of information is available for developing a SAIIAE; and (ii) list and understand the availability of fine-scale wetland data for updating the NWM. A variety of data related to species occurrence and distribution, extent and type of inland wetlands and rivers, as well as datasets which describe regional settings of inland aquatic ecosystems, were found across a number of institutions. Fine-scale spatial data amounted to more than double the extent of inland wetlands mapped by remote sensing at a country-wide scale. Nearly 5 million ha of fine-scale data were collected from a diverse number of institutions, with the majority (73%) of these data mapped by Government (3 681 503 ha or 3% of South Africa). It is estimated that < 8% of the sub-quaternary catchments of South Africa had complete wetland data sets, primarily in the Gauteng, Mpumalanga and Western Cape Provinces. Accuracy assessment reports and confidence ratings were however not consistently available for the wetland datasets. Inland wetlands in the majority of South Africa (84%) therefore remain poorly represented. We recommend future steps to improve the SAIIAE, including improving the representation of inland wetland ecosystem types and focusing on accuracy assessment.

Governments have committed to global targets to slow biodiversity loss and sustain ecosystem services. Biodiversity state indicators that measure progress towards these targets mostly focus on species, while indicators synthesizing ecosystem change are largely lacking. We fill this gap with three indices quantifying past and projected changes in ecosystems using data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Ecosystems. Our indices quantify changes in risk of ecosystem collapse, ecosystem area, and ecological processes and capture variation in underlying patterns among ecosystems. We apply the indices to three case studies of regional and national assessments (American/Caribbean forests, terrestrial ecosystems of Colombia, and terrestrial ecosystems of South Africa) to illustrate the indices' complementarity and versatility in revealing patterns of interest for users across sectors. Our indices have the potential to fill the recognized need for ecosystem indicators to inform conservation targets, guide policy, and prioritize management actions.

Governments have committed to global targets to slow biodiversity loss and sustain ecosystem services. Biodiversity state indicators that measure progress toward these targets mostly focus on species, while indicators synthesizing ecosystem change are largely lacking. We fill this gap with three indices quantifying past and projected changes in ecosystems using data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Ecosystems. Our indices quantify changes in risk of ecosystem collapse, ecosystem area and ecological processes, and capture variation in underlying patterns among ecosystems. We apply the indices to three case studies of regional and national assessments (American/Caribbean forests, terrestrial ecosystems of Colombia, and terrestrial ecosystems of South Africa) to illustrate the indices' complementarity and versatility in revealing patterns of interest for users across sectors. Our indices have the potential to fill the recognized need for ecosystem indicators to inform conservation targets, guide policy, and prioritize management actions.

In 2014, the International Union for Conservation of Nature adopted the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) criteria as the global standard for assessing risks to terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Five years on, it is timely to ask what impact this new initiative has had on ecosystem management and conservation. In this policy perspective, we use an impact evaluation framework to distinguish the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the RLE since its inception. To date, 2,821 ecosystems in 100 countries have been assessed following the RLE protocol. Systematic assessments are complete or underway in 21 countries and two continental regions (the Americas and Europe). Countries with established ecosystem policy infrastructure have already used the RLE to inform legislation, land-use planning, protected area management, monitoring and reporting, and ecosystem management. Impacts are still emerging due to varying pace and commitment to implementation across different countries. In the future, RLE indices based on systematic assessments have high potential to inform global biodiversity reporting. Expanding the coverage of RLE assessments, building capacity and political will to undertake them, and establishing stronger policy instruments to manage red-listed ecosystems will be key to maximizing conservation impacts over the coming decades.

In 2014, the International Union for Conservation of Nature adopted the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) criteria as the global standard for assessing risks to terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Five years on, it is timely to ask what impact this new initiative has had on ecosystem management and conservation. In this policy perspective, we use an impact evaluation framework to distinguish the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the RLE since its inception. To date, 2,821 ecosystems in 100 countries have been assessed following the RLE protocol. Systematic assessments are complete or underway in 21 countries and two continental regions (the Americas and Europe). Countries with established ecosystem policy infrastructure have already used the RLE to inform legislation, land-use planning, protected area management, monitoring and reporting, and ecosystem management. Impacts are still emerging due to varying pace and commitment to implementation across different countries. In the future, RLE indices based on systematic assessments have high potential to inform global biodiversity reporting. Expanding the coverage of RLE assessments, building capacity and political will to undertake them, and establishing stronger policy instruments to manage red-listed ecosystems will be key to maximizing conservation impacts over the coming decades.

A horizon scan was conducted to identify emerging and intensifying issues for biodiversity conservation in South Africa over the next 5–10 years. South African biodiversity experts submitted 63 issues of which ten were identified as priorities using the Delphi method. These priority issues were then plotted along axes of social agreement and scientific certainty, to ascertain whether issues might be "simple" (amenable to solutions from science alone), "complicated" (socially agreed upon but technically complicated), "complex" (scientifically challenging and significant levels of social disagreement) or "chaotic" (high social disagreement and highly scientifically challenging). Only three of the issues were likely to be resolved by improved science alone, while the remainder require engagement with social, economic and political factors. Fortunately, none of the issues were considered chaotic. Nevertheless, strategic communication, education and engagement with the populace and policy makers were considered vital for addressing emerging issues.