Hold big business to task on ecosystem restoration

Timothy A C Lamont,Jos Barlow,Jan Bebbington,Thomas Cuckston,Rili Djohani,Rachael Garrett,Holly P Jones,Tries B Razak,Nicholas A J Graham,Timothy A. C. Lamont,Holly P. Jones,Tries B. Razak,Nicholas A. J. Graham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2610

IF: 56.9

2023-09-08

Science

Abstract:Corporate reporting must embrace holistic, scientific principles

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Jakki J. Mohr,Elizabeth Covelli Metcalf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12564

2017-09-07

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.

ecology
Balancing the books of nature by accounting for ecosystem condition following ecological restoration

Tina Parkhurst,Rachel J. Standish,Suzanne M. Prober,Halina Kobryn,Michael Vardon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62137-5

IF: 4.6

2024-05-19

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Demand for ecological restoration of Earth's degraded ecosystems has increased significantly since the adoption of The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022, with target 2 aiming to ensure that at least 30% of degraded ecosystems are under effective restoration by 2030. More recently, in December 2023, the Australian Parliament introduced the Nature Repair Act, which establishes a framework for the world's first legislated, national, voluntary biodiversity market. How can the effectiveness of these ambitious targets be measured? Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) provides a framework to measure changes in ecosystem condition that is applicable across ecosystems and potentially catalogue effects of restoration interventions to drive investment, improvement to practice, and ultimately, to better protect the Earth's ecosystems. However, the framework has not been tested in this context. In this progressive approach, we populated the leading global NCA framework with ecological data to quantify changes in ecosystem condition after restoration. In principle, NCA is fit for purpose, however, methodological refinements and ecological expertise are needed to unlock its full potential. These tweaks will facilitate adoption and standardisation of reporting as efforts ramp up to meet ambitious global restoration targets.

multidisciplinary sciences
Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

Vicky M. Temperton,Nina Buchmann,Elise Buisson,Giselda Durigan,Łukasz Kazmierczak,Michael P. Perring,Michele Sá Dechoum,Joseph W. Veldman,Gerhard E. Overbeck,Lukasz Kazmierczak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12989

2019-05-27

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:We currently face both an extinction and a biome crisis embedded in a changing climate. Many biodiverse ecosystems are being lost at far higher rates than they are being protected or ecologically restored. At the same time, natural climate solutions offer opportunities to restore biodiversity while mitigating climate change. The Bonn Challenge is a UN programme to restore biodiversity and mitigate climate change through restoration of the world's degraded landscapes. It provides an unprecedented chance for ecological restoration to become a linchpin tool for addressing many environmental issues. Unfortunately, the Forest and Landscape Restoration programme that underpins the Bonn Challenge, as its name suggests, remains focused on trees and forests, despite rising evidence that many non‐forest ecosystems also offer strong restoration potential for biodiversity and climate mitigation. We see a need for restoration to step back to be more inclusive of different ecosystem types and to step up to provide integrated scientific knowledge to inform large‐scale restoration. Stepping back and up will require assessments of where to restore what species, with recognition that in many landscapes multiple habitat types should be restored. In the process, tradeoffs in the delivery of different ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water, albedo, livestock forage) should be clearly addressed. We recommend that biodiversity safeguards be included in policy and implemented in practice, to avoid undermining the biophysical relationships that provide ecosystem resilience to climate change. For ecological restoration to contribute to international policy goals will require integrated large‐scale science that works across biome boundaries.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Corporate accountability and the physical environment: Social responsibility and accounting beyond profit

R. Gray,J. Bebbington

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.3280020201

1993-06-01

Abstract:The social responsibility debates of the last thirty years have resolved little and have had only peripheral effects on traditional business behaviour. Social responsibility issues are re-emerging in the light of the environmental crisis and are far too important to be once again marginalised by traditional business thinking. Economic and environmental criteria will, increasingly, be in conflict and accountants - like all business professionals - are implicated in this, not least because it is accounting that defines the rules, keeps the score, announces the results and determines who shall see them. The paper attempts to re-examine social responsibility and accountability in the light of the re-emerging environmental concern and suggests some ways in which accounting might contribute towards an organisation's attempts to become less unsustainable.

Business,Environmental Science,Economics
Organizational capacity and ecological restoration

Susan Galatowitsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13757

2022-06-30

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Organizations entrusted with responsibilities and resources to repair ecosystems have for many decades pursued their defining purpose against long odds created by a host of inherent challenges, notably the long time‐frames required for ecological recovery and landscape‐level stressors. Global change compounds these challenges, increasing shocks to the operating environments of these organizations. Interest in assessing organizational capacity to respond to system shocks (i.e., resilience) productively has been strong in many fields, though not in the restoration arena. The objectives of this paper are to build awareness of the importance of organizations for achieving the aims of restoration and to spur organizational research to strengthen the restoration sector. I summarize research on organizations relevant to the restoration sector and with this foundation, propose a framework for assessing the capacity of restoration organizations. The proposed framework is an adaptation of models used in other sectors, based on five critical capacities: situation awareness, governance and leadership, internal resources, external relations, change readiness. We can assess the extent to which an organization possesses each capacity by eliciting feedback about functions linked to each capacity. Devising assessment tools from this framework requires attention to key realities of the restoration sector including prevalence of short‐term funding, effect of externalities on restoration outcomes, dependence on partnerships of multiple organizations for complex and large restorations. Exploration into assessment approaches for restoration organizations highlights a major knowledge gap that, if addressed, could enhance the reliability of restoration as a global and local strategy for improving ecosystems services. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
How to Fix ESG Reporting

Robert S. Kaplan,Karthik Ramanna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3900146

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Investors, advocacy groups, academics, and the 200 CEOs of the US Business Roundtable have asked corporations to take on an added purpose beyond a narrow pursuit of shareholder value. In response, many companies now issue ESG (Environmental, Societal, and Governance) reports. These reports, however, are so broad in scope that they fail to address the unique measurement challenges within each of ESG’s constituent components. Moreover, the breadth of ESG reporting allows corporations to gloss‐over (implicit) moral tradeoffs when their actions improve one of the reported ESG metrics (such as GHG emissions from its truck fleet) but worsen performance for an unreported metric (indentured labor used to mine minerals for electric vehicles’ batteries). Many ESG reports selectively present only those non‐financial metrics favorable to them.We propose improvements in ESG reporting by focusing on dimensions where broad societal agreement already exists about the preferred outcomes from corporate actions, such as reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and avoiding use of indentured labor in supply chains. In particular, we introduce a new and comprehensive system, based on well‐established accounting practices, for reporting and transferring GHG emissions across corporate supply and distribution chains. This system eliminates the measurement problems in the current, widely used GHG‐reporting standard, especially the feature that requires multiple counting of the same corporate emission. The new approach generates ESG data that are relevant and reliable, enabling better disclosure, governance, and auditing of corporate ESG performance.
Shaping nature outcomes in corporate settings

Jan Bebbington,Robert Blasiak,Carlos Larrinaga,Shona Russell,Madlen Sobkowiak,Jean-Baptiste Jouffray,Henrik Österblom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0325

2024-04-22

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences

Abstract:Transnational companies have substantive impacts on nature: a hallmark of living in the Anthropocene. Understanding these impacts through company provision of information is a precursor to holding them accountable for nature outcomes. The effect of increasing disclosures (of varying quality) is predicated on ‘information governance’, an approach that uses disclosure requirements to drive company behaviour. However, its efficacy is not guaranteed. We argue that three conditions are required before disclosures have the possibility to shape nature outcomes, namely: (1) radical traceability that links company actions to outcomes in particular settings; (2) developing organizational routines, tools and approaches that translate strategic intent to on-the-ground behaviour; and (3) mobilizing and aligning financial actors with corporate nature ambitions. While disclosure is key to each of these conditions, its limits must be taken into account and it must be nested in governance approaches that shape action, not just reporting. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Bringing nature into decision-making’.

biology
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY: Accountability and the Pursuit of the Impossible Dream

R. Gray,J. Bebbington

Abstract:Corporations are, at the risk of over-simplification, the engines of the economy. They are the key means through which economic activity takes place (and, under the neo-liberal agenda, will increasingly be so). Corporations are so often the seat of innovation through which growth is sought and, apparently, achieved. They are, indubitably, the site of increasing economic and political power, (see, for example, Korten, 1995). It seems incontrovertible that, in the absence of a fundamental change in the political will of governments (especially those of the developed world), any serious examination of sustainability and how it might be achieved must have the corporation at its heart. (For more detail, see, for example, Hawken et al, 1999; Gladwin et al, 1995; Kovel, 2002)

Economics,Business,Environmental Science
Bringing the environment down to earth

F L Reinhardt

Abstract:The debate on business and the environment has typically been framed in simple yes-or-no terms: "Does it pay to be green?" But the environment, like other business issues, requires a more complex approach--one that demands more than such all-or-nothing thinking. Managers need to ask instead, "Under what circumstances do particular kinds of environmental investments deliver returns to shareholders?" This article presents five approaches that managers can take to identify those circumstances and integrate the environment into their business thinking. These approaches will enable companies with the right industry structure, competitive position, and managerial skills to reconcile their responsibility to shareholders with the pressure to be faithful stewards of the earth's resources. Some companies can distance themselves from competitors by differentiating their products and commanding higher prices for them. Others may be able to "manage" their competitors by imposing a set of private regulations or by helping to shape the rules written by government officials. Still others may be able to cut costs and help the environment simultaneously. Almost all can learn to improve their management of risk and thus reduce the outlays associated with accidents, lawsuits, and boycotts. And some companies may even be able to make systemic changes that will redefine competition in their markets. All five approaches can help managers bring the environment down to earth. And that means bringing the environment back into the fold of business problems and determining when it really pays to be green.
Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

Brian R. Silliman,Marc J.S. Hensel,Jean P. Gibert,Pedro Daleo,Carter S. Smith,Daniel J. Wieczynski,Christine Angelini,Avery B. Paxton,Alyssa M. Adler,Y. Stacy Zhang,Andrew H. Altieri,Todd M. Palmer,Holly P. Jones,Rachel K. Gittman,John N. Griffin,Mary I. O’Connor,Johan van de Koppel,John R. Poulsen,Max Rietkerk,Qiang He,Mark D. Bertness,Tjisse van der Heide,Stephanie R. Valdez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.03.043

IF: 9.2

2024-05-07

Current Biology

Abstract:Silliman and colleagues outline how restoration practitioners can leverage insight from ecological theories to increase the scale, success, and resilience of habitat restorations.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Ecological restoration success from community and agency perspectives: exploring the differences

Mel Galbraith,David R. Towns,Barbara Bollard,Edith A. MacDonald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13405

2021-06-19

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Ecological restoration is an integral part of conservation efforts worldwide. Projects are actioned at all stakeholder levels, with many projects claiming success. However, debate over what constitutes 'success' in the context of ecological restoration is long‐running. Local communities commonly collaborate with government agencies in restoration projects, with many taking on responsibilities for project management. This study surveyed restoration practitioners in New Zealand at both community and agency levels to explore perceptions of what constitutes restoration "success", and how this is measured. We found all stakeholders perceived their projects to be successful, although different perceptions of determinants and measures of success were evident. Agencies with ecological management responsibilities claim to follow systems‐level attributes of success although monitoring is often limited to standards that are the easiest to measure. Community‐based practitioners identify with gains in ecosystem structure, but their measurements of success tend to be of species‐focused standards, possibly because of the ease by which such outcomes can be measured and, especially for New Zealand, focused by widespread publicity about threatened species and impact of invasive species. Also, for long‐running projects, perceptions of success may shift as ecological milestones are achieved. Although all restoration stakeholders aspire to universal outcomes of improved ecological status, for many community‐based participants, social motivation and rewards may be as important as their environmental stewardship intentions. We highlight the need to recognize the scientific and social duality of modern ecological restoration, particularly as community engagement is an explicit aspiration of the United Nations 2021–2030 Decade of Ecosystem Restoration.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Anne D Guerry,Stephen Polasky,Jane Lubchenco,Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer,Gretchen C Daily,Robert Griffin,Mary Ruckelshaus,Ian J Bateman,Anantha Duraiappah,Thomas Elmqvist,Marcus W Feldman,Carl Folke,Jon Hoekstra,Peter M Kareiva,Bonnie L Keeler,Shuzhuo Li,Emily McKenzie,Zhiyun Ouyang,Belinda Reyers,Taylor H Ricketts,Johan Rockström,Heather Tallis,Bhaskar Vira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112

2015-06-16

Abstract:The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.
Quantifying the Reporting, Coverage and Consistency of Key Indicators in Mangrove Restoration Projects

Yasmine M. Gatt,Dominic A. Andradi-Brown,Gabby N. Ahmadia,Philip A. Martin,William J. Sutherland,Mark D. Spalding,Amy Donnison,Thomas A. Worthington

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.720394

2022-05-16

Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

Abstract:Mangroves are often cleared for aquaculture, agriculture, and coastal development despite the range of benefits for people and nature that they provide. In response to these losses, there are multiple global, and regional efforts aimed at accelerating mangrove forest restoration, resulting in many restoration projects being implemented and managed by different groups with highly diverse objectives. The information reported from these restoration projects is extremely variable, limiting our ability to identify whether desired objectives have been met or key factors that determine effective and durable restoration have been applied. To address this problem, we developed a holistic monitoring framework that captures the key indicators of restoration, spanning project aims, intervention type, costs, and ecological and socioeconomic outcomes. Subsequently, using a systematic literature search, we examined 123 published case studies to identify the range and quality of reported information on restoration, relative to our framework. We found that there were many gaps in reporting, for multiple indicators. Sections related to site conditions prior to restoration (reported in only 32% of case studies) and socioeconomic outcomes (26%) were consistently missing from most project reporting. Conversely, information on the type of intervention was reported for all case studies, and the aims of the project (reported in 76% of case studies) and ecological monitoring (82%) were far more prevalent. Generally, the restoration literature did not follow any specific framework in terms of reporting which likely contributed to the gaps in the information recorded. These gaps hinder comparisons between case studies, inhibiting the ability to learn lessons from previous restoration attempts by identifying commonalities. The need for more structure and consistent reporting supports the development of a standard restoration tracking tool that can facilitate the comparison of restoration efforts, aiding the implementation of future projects.
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x@10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X.2525thAnniversaryVI

2019-10-03

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Heightening human impacts on the Earth result in widespread losses of production and conservation values and make large‐scale ecosystem restoration increasingly urgent. Tackling this problem requires the development of general guiding principles for restoration so that we can move away from the ad hoc, site‐ and situation‐specific approach that now prevails. A continuum of restoration efforts can be recognized, ranging from restoration of localized highly degraded sites to restoration of entire landscapes for production and/or conservation reasons. We emphasize the importance of developing restoration methodologies that are applicable at the landscape scale. Key processes in restoration include identifying and dealing with the processes leading to degradation in the first place, determining realistic goals and measures of success, developing methods for implementing the goals and incorporating them into land‐management and planning strategies, and monitoring the restoration and assessing its success. Few of these procedures are currently incorporated in many restoration projects. The concept that many ecosystems are likely to exist in alternative stable states, depending on their history, is relevant to the setting of restoration goals. A range of measures, such as those being developed to measure ecosystem health, could be used to develop “scorecards” for restoration efforts. Generalizable guidelines for restoration on individual sites could be based on the concepts of designed disturbance, controlled colonization, and controlled species performance. Fewer explicit guidelines are available at the landscape scale, beyond nonquantitative generalities about size and connectivity. Development of these guidelines is an important priority so that urgent large‐scale restoration can be planned and implemented effectively.

ecology
Carbonservation with Demonstrated Biodiversity and Carbon Gains: Carbon Can Pay But Biodiversity Must Lead

Anthelia J. Bond,Patrick J. O’Connor,Timothy R. Cavagnaro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-023-01928-4

2024-01-10

Environmental Management

Abstract:Land use has a critical role to play in both climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation, and increasingly there have been calls to integrate policies for concurrently meeting Paris Agreement commitments and the UN decade on ecosystem restoration 2021–2030. Currently however, investment activities have been dominated by climate change mitigation activities, including through the development of carbon markets (both voluntary and compliance markets). Whilst climate change mitigation is to be welcomed, the prioritization of carbon in avoided deforestation and reforestation can lead to suboptimal or negative outcomes for biodiversity. Restoration of degraded native vegetation may provide an opportunity for concurrent production of both carbon and biodiversity benefits, by harnessing existing carbon markets without the need to trade-off biodiversity outcomes. Here we demonstrate that carbon sequestered by restoring degraded temperate woodland can pay the price of the restored biodiversity. This is shown using conservative carbon prices in an established market (during both a voluntary and compliance market phase), and the restoration price revealed by a 10-year conservation incentive payment scheme. When recovery rates are high, market prices for carbon could pay the full price of restoration, with additional independent investment needed in cases where recovery trajectories are slower. Using carbon markets to fund restoration of degraded native vegetation thereby provides a solution for constrained resources and problematic trade-offs between carbon and biodiversity outcomes. Multi-attribute markets offer the potential to greatly increase the extent of restoration for biodiversity conservation, while providing an affordable source of carbon sequestration and enhancing economic benefits to landowners.

environmental sciences
Legal barriers and enablers to upscaling ecological restoration

Rose Foster,Justine Bell‐James

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14203

2024-06-06

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and the 2022 Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework both signal the urgent need to upscale restoration efforts worldwide. Facilitative policy and governance frameworks are critical to these efforts. However, the legal barriers to restoration have been historically understudied. This paper assesses the legal issues affecting the implementation of ecological restoration, synthesized across four broad themes: recognizing the role of law in supporting ecological restoration, the incompatibility of some existing laws with the purposes of ecological restoration, the need to clarify terminology, and the legal challenges for restoration at the landscape scale. It concludes by summarizing the key considerations from the literature to inform effective legal frameworks for ecological restoration and identifying areas for further research.

ecology
Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation

Susan C. Cook-Patton,C. Ronnie Drever,Bronson W. Griscom,Kelley Hamrick,Hamilton Hardman,Timm Kroeger,Pablo Pacheco,Shyla Raghav,Martha Stevenson,Chris Webb,Samantha Yeo,Peter W. Ellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01198-0

IF: 30.7

2021-11-18

Nature Climate Change

Abstract:Limited time and resources remain to constrain the climate crisis. Natural climate solutions represent promising options to protect, manage and restore natural lands for additional climate mitigation, but they differ in (1) the magnitude and (2) immediacy of mitigation potential, as well as (3) cost-effectiveness and (4) the co-benefits they offer. Counter to an emerging preference for restoration, we use these four criteria to propose a general rule of thumb to protect, manage and then restore lands, but also show how these criteria explain alternative prioritization and portfolio schemes. This hierarchy offers a decision-making framework for public and private sector actors to optimize the effectiveness of natural climate solutions in an environment in which resources are constrained, and time is short.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Using Natural Disturbance and Portfolio Concepts to Guide Aquatic-Riparian Ecosystem Management

Brooke E. Penaluna,Gordon H. Reeves,Zanethia C. Barnett,Peter A. Bisson,John M. Buffington,C. Andrew Dolloff,Rebecca L. Flitcroft,Charles H. Luce,Keith H. Nislow,John D. Rothlisberger,Melvin L. Warren

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10097

2018-09-01

Fisheries

Abstract:The U.S. Forest Service and other federal land managers are responsible for maintaining the productivity of aquatic–riparian ecosystems, the associated native biota, and the ecosystem services they provide. These public lands are important sources of water, recreation opportunities, and habitat for a suite of animals and plants, including many that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. To meet these challenges and responsibilities, recent science suggests modifying practices to provide a broader array of habitat, biological conditions, and ecosystem functions than are associated with traditional management approaches. We suggest that by linking approaches based on natural disturbance and portfolio concepts, managers can achieve a robust strategy and desired outcomes more reliably and cost effectively. Locally complex habitat conditions created by natural disturbances provide the template for biological diversity to play out if provided enough time. Accordingly, natural disturbance regimes play an important role in creating and sustaining habitat and biological complexities on the landscape, suggesting that, to the extent possible, management actions should emulate natural disturbance processes at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. In concert with this approach, the portfolio effect (i.e., diversity that mitigates risk) provides justification for promoting connected heterogeneous habitats that reduce the risk of synchronous large‐scale population and ecosystem collapse. In this article, we describe how disturbance and portfolio concepts fit into a broader strategy of conserving ecosystem integrity and dynamism and provide examples of how these concepts can be used to address a wide range of management concerns. Ultimately, the outcome for populations, habitats, and landscapes depends on how well environmental change is understood, the degree to which change is appropriately addressed by natural resource managers, and solutions that allow populations and ecosystems to persist in the presence of and be resilient to a growing scope of human influences.

fisheries
A roadmap to coastal and marine ecological restoration in Australia

Megan I. Saunders,Toni Cannard,Mibu Fischer,Marian Sheppard,Alice Twomey,Rebecca Morris,Melanie J. Bishop,Mariana Mayer-Pinto,Fiona Malcolm,Maria Vozzo,Andy Steven,Stephen E. Swearer,Catherine E. Lovelock,Andrew W.M. Pomeroy,Ian McLeod,Nathan J. Waltham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103808

IF: 6.424

2024-09-01

Environmental Science & Policy

Abstract:There is an urgent need for landscape-scale ecological restoration to reverse habitat loss and recover ecosystem functions and services. Given the unique nature of coastal and marine ecosystems a roadmap to overcome current barriers and guide transformative change is needed to achieve large-scale restoration. We conducted a national scale program of engagement with restoration practitioners, decision makers, industry, researchers, community groups, and Indigenous groups in Australia to map out the current state of implementation, barriers encountered and aspirations for the future. In collaboration with a graphic facilitator, we distilled the findings into ten guiding principles which are communicated through an engaging conceptual model. Here we articulate the ten guiding principles for large-scale coastal and marine ecological restoration and include discussion of the rational, the current state in Australia, and ideas for moving forward with respect to each principle. The principles are: 1) Co-design is central; 2) Fit-for-purpose governance; 3) No-gap funding; 4) Access to social, economic and biophysical data; 5) Evidence-based and transparent decision making; 6) Coordinated and at scale; 7) Robust monitoring, evaluation and reporting; 8) Clear strategy to adapt to climate change; 9) Nature-based solutions are implemented; and 10) Knowledge is shared effectively. We then evaluated the principles against three large-scale restoration programs in the UK, USA and Australia and found that their characteristics broadly adhere to each of the principles. Implementation of the roadmap is now necessary and will aid in achieving return of ecological functions in line with international commitments and societal goals.

environmental sciences
Coupling marine ecosystem state with environmental management and conservation: A risk-based approach

Rebecca V. Gladstone-Gallagher,Judi E. Hewitt,Jasmine M.L. Low,Conrad A. Pilditch,Fabrice Stephenson,Simon F. Thrush,Joanne I. Ellis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110516

IF: 7.499

2024-04-01

Biological Conservation

Abstract:The sustainability of marine ecosystems demands a focus on ecological improvement, necessitating managers and conservationists to consider a range of actions from those that limit stressors to those that actively restore. Deciding the most appropriate action should be informed by environmental context, which includes assessing information on both degradation and recovery potential. Here, we provide an analysis of how the degree of ecological degradation coupled with the stressor regime can inform environmental management and conservation actions (e.g., stressor reductions, adaptive management, assisted recovery/restoration). With this analysis we design a risk framework combining principles that define ecosystem resilience and recovery times with those that characterize stressor regimes (i.e., the number, type, and impact). The combination of these principles defines where an ecosystem is placed along sliding scales of degradation and recovery and likely response to protective and restorative interventions. It is designed to facilitate place-based conversations regarding the risks of different management actions informed by the temporal dynamics of ecosystem degradation and recovery.

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology

Hold big business to task on ecosystem restoration

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Balancing the books of nature by accounting for ecosystem condition following ecological restoration

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

Corporate accountability and the physical environment: Social responsibility and accounting beyond profit

Organizational capacity and ecological restoration

How to Fix ESG Reporting

Shaping nature outcomes in corporate settings

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY: Accountability and the Pursuit of the Impossible Dream

Bringing the environment down to earth

Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

Ecological restoration success from community and agency perspectives: exploring the differences

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

Quantifying the Reporting, Coverage and Consistency of Key Indicators in Mangrove Restoration Projects

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

Carbonservation with Demonstrated Biodiversity and Carbon Gains: Carbon Can Pay But Biodiversity Must Lead

Legal barriers and enablers to upscaling ecological restoration

Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation

Using Natural Disturbance and Portfolio Concepts to Guide Aquatic-Riparian Ecosystem Management

A roadmap to coastal and marine ecological restoration in Australia

Coupling marine ecosystem state with environmental management and conservation: A risk-based approach