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
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
• Documents, support, case studies, communications.
• English, Spanish and French.
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
@redlisteco
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
Georgina M. Mace
Russell S. Lande
Population decline
Critically
endangered
Small range: fragmented
/ decline / fluctuation
Reproductive population
small and declining
Very small or
restricted population
Quantitative assessment
Thresholds
Endangered
Vulnerable
Conservation
Priorities
Extinction Risk
Distributional Factors
Biological Factors
Societal Values
Weighting
system
Conservation
priorities
Logistical Factors
Economic Factors
Other Factors
(legal, institutional, etc.)
Analysis, studies,
choices, politics,
land use etc
http://www.kingsnake.com/westindian/icterusicterusridgwayi2.JPG
Least Concern
Troupial
Icterus icterus
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/parasitology/mal8.jpg
http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5434/19394.jpg
Extinction risk vs. Conservation Priorities
Anopheles sp.
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
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
Data integration, nesting & access
Data integration, nesting & access
NatureServe
Data integration, nesting & access
NatureServe
Coming to Global consensus on Ecosystems – but not
there yet!
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)
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
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
Threatening processes
Ecosystem
distribution
Ecosystem
function
C Environmt’l
degradation
A Declining
distribution
Risk of loss
of characteristic
native biota
D Altered biotic
processes
B Small
distribution
E Quantitative
risk analysis
Threatening processes
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)
Categories
CO
Collapse
CR
Critically Endangered
EN
Endangered
VU
Vulnerable
NT
Near Threatened
LC
Least Concern (so reward, PES)
DD
Data Deficient
NE
Not Evaluated
Threatened
Example of Senegal at
National, Ecosystem or Administrative levels
Barkadji district
CR
EN
VU
LC
NE
1987
Barkedji District RLE in N.E.
Senegal – RLE at different
scales
RLE for District
2009
A. Decline in distribution
A1
Current
(last 50
yrs)
Status
≥80%
CR
≥50%
EN
≥30%
VU
almost
30%
NT
<30%
LC
A2
A3
Future Historic
(next 50 (since
yrs)
c. 1750)
≥80%
≥90%
≥80%
≥70%
≥80%
≥50%
almost
almost
30%
50%
<30%
<50%
Change in wetland distribution
1960 – 2000
Contraction
Expansion
1
2
4
6
3
7
8
10
R em aine d w ood land
S w am p to w oo dland
R em aine d sw a m p
W o odlan d to sw am p
10% net increase in distribution (Keith et al. 2010)
Criterion A = Least Concern
• Time series data (maps, sightings)  2
observations
• Data quality & interpretation are important
– “garbage in, garbage out”
9
5
0.5
0
0.5
1 Kilo m e tre s
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
Minimum
convex
polygon
c.5000 km2
Extent of Occurrence (EOO)
Endangered:
B1 & B2
Area of Occupancy (AOO)
• scale-sensitive
– standardised methods of (spatial)
estimation
– broad/fine ecosystem units
10km cells
occupied (46)
occupied >1% (12)
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 outcomes
ex. Caribbean coral reefs
A
B
C
Photo: M.Spalding
D
E
Overall status is EN-CR
based on current & historic
declines in coral cover
DD
DD
DD
LC
 Disease mgt, climate
LC
LC
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
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
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.
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.
Conservation Biology 25: 21-29 (2011)
IUCN RLE consultation 2011-2012
18 workshops
17 conferences
20 countries
5 continents
Data integration and access
Ecosystem
classification
Data integration and access
Ecosystem
classification
Ecosystem classification
Taxonomy
Data integration and access
Ecosystem
classification
Ecosystem classification
Taxonomy
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.
2012-2014: IUCN
Red List of
Continental
Ecosystems of
the Americas.
2012:
Synthesis and
presentation at
Jeju WCC.
2015:
Standardized
protocols and online 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.
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, Macroeconomic planning, political, finance).
• Link to good/bad governance.
44
Linking IUCN Knowledge Products
(WCC Jeju)
Human
Dependency on
Nature
Global Invasive
species database
Red List of
Threatened
Species
Red List of
Ecosystems
Key Biodiversity
Areas
Ecolex
WDPA
Protected Planet
Natural Resource
Governance
Framework
Being linked
Conversation underway
Link in progress
Conversation initiated
Aspirational linkage
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??
RLE a basis for
spatial overlays of
products
RLE & Governance – testing the waters!
Senegal RLE map + Governance = ??
Koar
Nettebulu
Missirah
Goumbeyel
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, 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)
Areas in need of restoration
(extensive)
VU
If water services lost??
Park boundary
Riverine area - Agric.
Policy, connectivity
50
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