IUCNs Red List of Ecosystems: An Evolving Tool for Risk Assessment to Support Priority Setting & Landscape Action Edmund Barrow (Ecosystem Management Programme),

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