The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
IUCN Red List of Ecosystems
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | Global |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
This assessment, led by IUCN, is currently under development but the final aim is to assess the ecosystem status in all countries |
Geographical scale of the assessment
Global
Country or countries covered
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
This assessment, led by IUCN, is currently under development but the final aim is to assess the ecosystem status in all countries
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems will be a global standard for how we assess the status of ecosystems, applicable at local, national, regional and global levels. We will be able to say whether an ecosystem is not facing imminent risk of collapse, or whether it is vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered. This will be measured by assessing losses in area, degradation of its abiotic components, disruption of biotic processes, or other major changes such as conversion.
The IUCN Red List of Ecosystems will be: 1. Easily understood by policy-makers and the public. 2. Consistent with, and complementary to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which measures extinction risk. 3. Transparent, objective, and scientifically rigorous. 4. Applicable to terrestrial, marine, freshwater and subterranean systems. 5. Applicable from local to global, and from very small (fine resolution) to very large (coarse resolution) scales. 6. Able to use historic and present-day data. 7. Clear about how risk assessments can inform conservation, land use and investment priorities. 8. Defined by criteria that reflect varying levels of risk and loss of function, and which are easily quantified and monitored. 9. A standard method for comparing ecosystem risk of collapse.
Mandate for the assessment
This is one of the six priority IUCN Knowledge Products as identified in the 2013-2016 IUCN Programme which was adopted by IUCN members in the 2012 World Conservation Congress, and is available here:
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Other (please specify)
Rodríguez J.P., Rodríguez-Clark K.M., Baillie J.E.M., Ash N., Benson J., Boucher T., Brown C., Burguess N.D., Collen B., Jennings M., Keith D.A., Nicholson E., Revenga C., Reyers B., Rouget M., Smith T., Spalding, M., Taber A., Walpole M., Zager I., and Zamin T. 2011. Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems (includes Version 1 of the proposed categories and criteria). Conservation Biology 25 (1): 21–29.
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
http://www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org/resources/key-documents
System(s) assessed
- Marine
- Coastal
- Island
- Inland water
- Forest and woodland
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
- Grassland
- Mountain
- Dryland
- Polar
- Urban
Species groups assessed
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting Services/Functions
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
Yes
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
No
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
Yes
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
Yes
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
2011
Year assessment finished
Ongoing
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
Repeated
If repeated, how frequently
The IUCN Red List of ecosystems will be updated periodically
Assessment outputs
Website(s)
http://www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org
http://www.iucnredlistofecosystems.org/resources/key-documents
Report(s)
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
Journal publications
Rodríguez J.P., Rodríguez-Clark K.M., Baillie J.E.M., Ash N., Benson J., Boucher T., Brown C., Burguess N.D., Collen B., Jennings M., Keit th D.A., Nicholson E., Revenga C., Reyers B., RougeM., Smith T., Spalding, M., Taber A., Walpole M., Zager I., and Zamin T, 2011. Establishing IUCN Red List Criteria for Threatened Ecosystems (includes Version 1 of the proposed categories and criteria). Conservation Biology 25 (1): 21–29.
Training materials
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
- Modelling
- Geospatial analysis
- Indicators
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Key stakeholder groups engaged
- Conservation organizations at a local, national and regional level
- Universities
- Consultants
- Government agencies working on biodiversity management
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
More than 1000
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
- Scientific information only
- Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)
- Traditional/local knowledge
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
Assessment reports peer reviewed
Yes
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Data will be freely available for non commercial uses.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Network and sharing experiences, Workshops, Developing/promoting and providing access to support tools, Formal training, Communication and awareness raising
