4.6 Article

South Africa's Red List of Terrestrial Ecosystems (RLEs)

期刊

LAND
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/land10101048

关键词

ecosystem; risk assessment; RLE; South Africa; threatened; vegetation; policy

资金

  1. South African National Biodiversity Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

South Africa has taken unique measures in ecosystem assessment and protection, developing threat status indicators and integrating a list of threatened ecosystems into the national environmental regulatory framework. Transitioning to the IUCN RLE framework involved technical steps and social legal processes, ensuring understanding and support from the conservation sector in South Africa.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据