Environmental Science â€ș Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Environmental Conservation and Management

Description

This cluster of papers explores the challenges and policy implications of biodiversity offsets, including topics such as no net loss, ecological compensation, mitigation hierarchy, habitat banking, and corporate biodiversity accountability. It discusses the effectiveness, implementation gap, and ethical considerations of biodiversity offsetting in various environmental contexts.

Keywords

Biodiversity Offsets; No Net Loss; Ecological Compensation; Mitigation Hierarchy; Environmental Impact Assessment; Habitat Banking; Conservation Banking; Ecosystem Services Markets; Wetland Mitigation; Corporate Biodiversity Accountability

Providing a step-by-step planning process for conserving the biological diversity of entire regions, this title explains how to develop a regional conservation plan. It offers guidance that brings together relevant 
 Providing a step-by-step planning process for conserving the biological diversity of entire regions, this title explains how to develop a regional conservation plan. It offers guidance that brings together relevant information from the fields of ecology, conservation biology, planning and policy.
In the last decade, interest has increased in coastal and freshwater wetland restoration and creation at all levels of government, in the scientific community, and in the private sector. US 
 In the last decade, interest has increased in coastal and freshwater wetland restoration and creation at all levels of government, in the scientific community, and in the private sector. US Environmental Protection Agency personnel agreed that there was a pressing need to determine how well created and restored wetlands compensate for losses permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. An effort was made to capture information not published elsewhere and incorporate it with published literature to produce a unique resource. The status report is the first major publication resulting from research initiated on wetland creation and restoration. Conceived as a mechanism for identifying the adequacy of the available information, this status report will help set priorities for the research program and provide Agency personnel with an analytical framework for making Section 404 permit decisions based on the status of the science of wetland creation and restoration. The report is composed of two volumes. The first volume is a series of regional reviews, summarizing wetland creation and restoration experiences in broadly-defined wetland regions, the second volume is a series of theme papers, covering a wide range of topics of general application to wetland creation and restoration. One report ismore » processed separately for inclusion in the appropriate data bases.« less
First used in 1980, often describes the abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of native animals and plants, and has been linked with politics and environmental technology. Although the 1986 National 
 First used in 1980, often describes the abundance, variety, and genetic constitution of native animals and plants, and has been linked with politics and environmental technology. Although the 1986 National forum on biodiversity brought issues of biodiversity to the fore, the inescapable need to know more about the diversity of life on Earth continues to remain unmet. In recent years, biodiversity has influenced important scientific considerations, international agreements, conventions, conservation initiatives, political debates, and socio-economic implications. Knowledge derived from the study of biodiversity will affect the quality of life enjoyed in the future by influencing decision-making processes and aiding new discoveries. science of biodiversity has become the science of our future. Our awareness of the loss of biodiversity has brought a long overdue appreciation of the magnitude of our loss and a determination to develop the tools to protect our future. The Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2/e has been updated to provide a timely study of the dimensions of diversity. It examines the services biodiversity provides, and the measures in which to protect it. Major themes of the work include the evolution of biodiversity, systems for classifying and defining biodiversity, ecological patterns and theories of biodiversity, and an assessment of contemporary patterns and trends in biodiversity. This Revised edition includes over 100 new articles and 226 updated articles covering this multidisciplinary field - from evolution to habits to economics. editors for this second edition are all well respected, instantly recognizable academics operating at the top of their respective fields in biodiversity research. Readers can be assured that they are reading material that has been meticulously checked and reviewed by experts. Approximately 1,000 figures and tables complement the text, and more than 3,000 glossary entries explain key terms.
It has been argued that the land-use restrictions prescribed by the Endangered Species Act have failed to protect endangered species on private land. Hence, there has been a call for 
 It has been argued that the land-use restrictions prescribed by the Endangered Species Act have failed to protect endangered species on private land. Hence, there has been a call for using incentives to complement this regulatory approach. This paper ...
Efforts around the globe need legal and policy clarification Efforts around the globe need legal and policy clarification
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content. An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Upland vegetated buffers are widely regarded as being necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Buffer size requirements, however, have typically been established by political acceptability, not scientific 
 Upland vegetated buffers are widely regarded as being necessary to protect wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Buffer size requirements, however, have typically been established by political acceptability, not scientific merit. This often leads to insufficiently buffered aquatic resources. In order to assist public agencies in formulating appropriate buffer standards, we conducted a literature search of the scientific functions of buffers. The literature search reconfirmed the need for buffers and emphasized the importance of considering specific buffer functions. A range of buffer widths from 3 m to 200 m was found to be effective, depending on site-specific conditions; a buffer of at least 15 m was found to be necessary to protect wetlands and streams under most conditions.
Range Management. Principles and Practices Get access Range Management. Principles and Practices. Sampson A. W.. 570 pp. 111 figures. John Wiley & Sons, 440 Fourth Avenue. New York 16. N. 
 Range Management. Principles and Practices Get access Range Management. Principles and Practices. Sampson A. W.. 570 pp. 111 figures. John Wiley & Sons, 440 Fourth Avenue. New York 16. N. Y.$7.50. AIBS Bulletin, Volume 2, Issue 2, April 1952, Page 15, https://doi.org/10.1093/aibsbulletin/2.2.15 Published: 01 April 1952
Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Executive summary 1. Introduction V. H. Heywood and I. Baste 2. Characterization of biodiversity F. A. Bisby 3. Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity D. L. Hawkesworth and 
 Foreword Preface Acknowledgements Executive summary 1. Introduction V. H. Heywood and I. Baste 2. Characterization of biodiversity F. A. Bisby 3. Magnitude and distribution of biodiversity D. L. Hawkesworth and M. T. Kalin-Arroyo 4. Generation, maintenance and loss of biodiversity R. Barbault and S. D. Sastrapradja 5. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: basic principles H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, R. Dirzo and O. E. Sala 6. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: ecosystem analyses H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, R. Dirzo and O. E. Sala 7. Inventorying and monitoring of biodiversity N. E. Stork and M. J. Samways 8. The resource base for biodiversity assessments D. L. Hawkesworth 9. Data and information management and communication S. Olivieri, J. Harrison and J. R. Busby 10. Biotechnology B. Barlow and G. T. Tzotzos 11. Human influences on biodiversity J. A. McNeely, M Gadgil, C Leveque, C Padoch and K Redford 12. Economic values of biodiversity C. Perrings 13. Measures for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components K. Miller, M. H. Allegretti, N. Johnson and B. Jonsson Annex 1. Organization of the Global Biodiversity Assessment Annex 2. Institutions and staff involved in the GBA project Annex 3. Venues, dates and participants in GBA meetings and workshops Annex 4. Contributors to the GBA Annex 5. List of peer reviewers of the GBA Annex 6. Glossary Annex 7. List of acronyms.
Many tout the benefits of collaborative environmental management as an alternative to centralized planning and command and control regulation, but the excitement over collaborative processes has not been matched by 
 Many tout the benefits of collaborative environmental management as an alternative to centralized planning and command and control regulation, but the excitement over collaborative processes has not been matched by evidence that these processes actually improve the environment. The most crucial question in collaborative environmental management remains unanswered and often unasked: To what extent does collaboration lead to improved environmental outcomes? We know much about why collaboration is occurring and how collaborative processes and outputs vary. The primary goal of future research on collaborative environmental management should be to demonstrate whether collaboration improves environmental conditions more than traditional processes and newer market‐based processes. Collaboration is not a panacea; it is a choice that policy makers and public managers should make based on evidence about expected outcomes.
Journal Article Biological Integrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives: Protecting biotic resources Get access Paul L. Angermeier, Paul L. Angermeier Search for other works by this author on: Oxford 
 Journal Article Biological Integrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives: Protecting biotic resources Get access Paul L. Angermeier, Paul L. Angermeier Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar James R. Karr James R. Karr Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar BioScience, Volume 44, Issue 10, November 1994, Pages 690–697, https://doi.org/10.2307/1312512 Published: 01 November 1994
The 1990s may be the last decade during which constructive and creative decisions, activities, and investments can be made to ensure that many of the world's species and ecosystems are 
 The 1990s may be the last decade during which constructive and creative decisions, activities, and investments can be made to ensure that many of the world's species and ecosystems are maintained, examined for their material and ecological value, and promoted for sustainable use to support new and innovative approaches to development. The combination of maintaining the maximum possible biological and cultural diversity, and the greatest possible scientific endeavor seems the most sensible approach toward dealing with the dynamic future facing humanity. The elements now exist that will reverse the trend toward the biotic impoverishment of the world. New partners in conservation need to be found, involving all ministries, departments, and private institutions that are directly dependent on biological resources. For example, national parks departments should be joined in habitat management by a wide range of other institutions to represent all interests. Furthermore, other line agencies need to develop the capacity to manage biodiversity of particular relevance to their respective missions. Actions taken in the next few years will determine whether we take a road toward a chaotic future characterized by overexploitation and abuse of our biological resources, or take the road toward maintaining greater biological diversity and resource sustainability.
Summary Increasing concern over the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe has led to the introduction of agri‐environment schemes. These schemes compensate farmers financially for any loss of income associated 
 Summary Increasing concern over the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe has led to the introduction of agri‐environment schemes. These schemes compensate farmers financially for any loss of income associated with measures that aim to benefit the environment or biodiversity. There are currently agri‐environment schemes in 26 out of 44 European countries. Agri‐environment schemes vary markedly between countries even within the European Union. The main objectives include reducing nutrient and pesticide emissions, protecting biodiversity, restoring landscapes and preventing rural depopulation. In virtually all countries the uptake of schemes is highest in areas of extensive agriculture where biodiversity is still relatively high and lowest in intensively farmed areas where biodiversity is low. Approximately €24·3 billion has been spent on agri‐environment schemes in the European Union (EU) since 1994, an unknown proportion of it on schemes with biodiversity conservation aims. We carried out a comprehensive search for studies that test the effectiveness of agri‐environment schemes in published papers or reports. Only 62 evaluation studies were found originating from just five EU countries and Switzerland (5). Indeed 76% of the studies were from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where until now only c . 6% of the EU agri‐environmental budget has been spent. Other studies were from Germany (6), Ireland (3) and Portugal (1). In the majority of studies, the research design was inadequate to assess reliably the effectiveness of the schemes. Thirty‐one percent did not contain a statistical analysis. Where an experimental approach was used, designs were usually weak and biased towards giving a favourable result. The commonest experimental design (37% of the studies) was a comparison of biodiversity in agri‐environment schemes and control areas. However, there is a risk of bias if either farmers or scheme co‐ordinators select the sites for agri‐environment schemes. In such cases the sites are likely to have a higher biodiversity at the outset compared to the controls. This problem may be addressed by collecting baseline data (34% of studies), comparing trends (32%) or changes (26%) in biodiversity between areas with and without schemes or by pairing scheme and control sites that experience similar environmental conditions (16%). Overall, 54% of the examined species (groups) demonstrated increases and 6% decreases in species richness or abundance compared with controls. Seventeen percent showed increases for some species and decreases for other species, while 23% showed no change at all in response to agri‐environment schemes. The response varied between taxa. Of 19 studies examining the response of birds that included a statistical analysis, four showed significant increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and nine showed both increases and decreases. Comparative figures for 20 arthropod studies yielded 11 studies that showed an increase in species richness or abundance, no study showed a decrease and three showed both increases and decreases. Fourteen plant studies yielded six studies that showed increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and no study showed both increases and decreases. Synthesis and applications . The lack of robust evaluation studies does not allow a general judgement of the effectiveness of European agri‐environment schemes. We suggest that in the future, ecological evaluations must become an integral part of any scheme, including the collection of baseline data, the random placement of scheme and control sites in areas with similar initial conditions, and sufficient replication. Results of these studies should be collected and disseminated more widely, in order to identify the approaches and prescriptions that best deliver biodiversity enhancement and value for money from community support.
Abstract Hypothetical models in the scientific literature suggest that ecosystem restoration and creation sites follow a smooth path of development (called a trajectory), rapidly matching natural reference sites (the target). 
 Abstract Hypothetical models in the scientific literature suggest that ecosystem restoration and creation sites follow a smooth path of development (called a trajectory), rapidly matching natural reference sites (the target). Multi‐million‐dollar mitigation agreements have been based on the expectation that damages to habitat will be compensated within 5–10 years, and monitoring periods have been set accordingly. Our San Diego Bay study site, the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge, has one of the longest and most detailed records of habitat development at a mitigation site: data on soil organic matter, soil nitrogen, plant growth, and plant canopies for up to 10 years from a 12‐year‐old site. High interannual variation and lack of directional changes indicate little chance that targets will be reached in the near future. Other papers perpetuate the trajectory model, despite data that corroborate our findings. After reviewing “trajectory models” and presenting our comprehensive data for the first time, we suggest alternative management and mitigation policies.
Abstract Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity conservation and of economic development in 
 Abstract Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly popular yet controversial tool in conservation. Their popularity lies in their potential to meet the objectives of biodiversity conservation and of economic development in tandem; the controversy lies in the need to accept ecological losses in return for uncertain gains. The offsetting approach is being widely adopted, even though its methodologies and the overriding conceptual framework are still under development. This review of biodiversity offsetting evaluates implementation to date and synthesizes outstanding theoretical and practical problems. We begin by outlining the criteria that make biodiversity offsets unique and then explore the suite of conceptual challenges arising from these criteria and indicate potential design solutions. We find that biodiversity offset schemes have been inconsistent in meeting conservation objectives because of the challenge of ensuring full compliance and effective monitoring and because of conceptual flaws in the approach itself. Evidence to support this conclusion comes primarily from developed countries, although offsets are increasingly being implemented in the developing world. We are at a critical stage: biodiversity offsets risk becoming responses to immediate development and conservation needs without an overriding conceptual framework to provide guidance and evaluation criteria. We clarify the meaning of the term biodiversity offset and propose a framework that integrates the consideration of theoretical and practical challenges in the offset process. We also propose a research agenda for specific topics around metrics, baselines and uncertainty.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ 
 An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Abstract Adopted in Florence (Italy) on 20 October 2000, the European Landscape Convention is aimed at promoting the protection, management and planning of European landscapes and organising European cooperation on 
 Abstract Adopted in Florence (Italy) on 20 October 2000, the European Landscape Convention is aimed at promoting the protection, management and planning of European landscapes and organising European cooperation on landscape issues. It is the first international treaty to be exclusively concerned with all dimensions of European landscape. It applies to the entire territory of the Parties and relates to natural, urban and peri-urban areas, whether on land, water or sea. It therefore concerns not just remarkable landscapes but also ordinary everyday landscapes and blighted areas. The Convention represents an important contribution to the implementation of the objectives of the Council of Europe: these seek to protect Europeans' quality of life and well-being, taking into account landscape, cultural and natural values. The member states of the Council of Europe signatory to the European Landscape Convention declared their concern to achieve sustainable development based on a balanced and harmonious relationship between social needs, economic activity and the environment. The cultural dimension is also of fundamental importance.
Natural forest recovery is an effective ecological alternative to tree planting in tropical forests under certain conditions. Natural forest recovery is an effective ecological alternative to tree planting in tropical forests under certain conditions.
The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is an international non-profit organization with members in 70 countries. SER advances the science, practice and policy of ecological restoration to sustain biodiversity, improve 
 The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) is an international non-profit organization with members in 70 countries. SER advances the science, practice and policy of ecological restoration to sustain biodiversity, improve resilience in a changing climate, and re-establish an ecologically healthy relationship between nature and culture. SER is a dynamic global network, linking researchers, practitioners, land managers, community leaders and decision-makers to restore ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. Via its members, publications, conferences, policy work, and outreach, SER defines and delivers excellence in the field of ecological restoration. Document development. International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) was developed through consultation with professionals within the Society for Ecological Restoration and their peers in the global scientific and conservation communities. The first edition was launched in 2016 at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in CancĂșn, Mexico. This event brought together key stakeholders from across the international policy arena, many of whom had been instrumental in driving the global initiatives to implement large-scale environmental restoration programs. Because the Standards were written as a living document to be modified and expanded through consultation and use by stakeholders, the launch included an open invitation for stakeholder input, to both improve the document and promote broad use. Subsequently, over a multi-year consultation period, SER invited input and review from a diverse spectrum of people and organizations contributing to ecological restoration. Key stakeholders contacted for comment included the secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) including its Science-Policy Interface, Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, and members of the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR). In 2017, SER partnered with the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management to deliver an invited Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration at which the SER Standards were reviewed (SER and IUCN-CEM 2018). SER also organized a symposium on the SER Standards and an open Knowledge CafĂ© at the 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration. Additional input was received at other events, including the 9th Ecosystem Services Partnership World Conference in Shenzhen, China in 2017. To capture the perspectives of the SER community, SER invited online feedback via its website and sent an online survey to SER members, affiliates, and stakeholders. SER has also considered and responded to feedback from published critiques in its journal, Restoration Ecology. All comments received during the consultative review process were considered in the revision process. The second edition of the Standards was approved by the SER Science and Policy Committee, and the SER Board of Directors on 18 June 2019. As with the first edition, this version will be revised and improved as the discipline evolves through science, practice, and adaptive management. The Standards are compatible with and expand on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013) and complement the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES 2012), and other conservation standards and guidelines. Contributors. Levi Wickwire provided assistance during document development. Karen Keenleyside contributed content to the original version. Andre Clewell's inspiration and ideas led to the attributes list and circle template (Fig. 4; Appendix 2), Kayri Havens assisted with adapting Appendix 1 on selection of seeds and other propagules, and Craig Beatty contributed to Section 4, Part 3 on global restoration initiatives. We thank the following translators of the first edition: Claudia Concha, Marcela Bustamante and Cristian EcheverrĂ­a (Spanish); Ricardo Cesar (Portuguese); Narayana Bhat (Arabic); Jaeyong Choi (Korean); Junguo Liu (Chinese); and, Jean-François Alignan, Julie Braschi, Élise Buisson, Jacqueline Buisson, Manon Hess, Renaud Jaunatre, Maxime Le Roy, Sandra Malaval, and RĂ©seau d'Échanges et de Valorisation en Écologie de la Restauration (REVER) (French). Reviewers. Many international experts provided suggestions for development of the second edition. We acknowledge many here, but may have unintentionally missed some individuals. The views expressed here are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the reviewers. Sasha Alexander, Mariam Akhtar-Schuster, Craig Beatty, MarĂ­a Consuelo de Bonfil, Karma Bouazza, Elise Buisson, Andre Clewell, Jordi Cortina, Donald Falk, Marco Fioratti, Scott Hemmerling, Richard Hobbs, Karen Holl, Berit Köhler, Nik Lopoukhine, Graciela Metternicht, Luiz Fernando Moraes, Stephen Murphy, Michael Perring, David Polster, Karel Prach, Anne Tolvanen, Alan Unwin, Ramesh Venkataraman, Steve Whisenant, Andrew Whitley, and Shira Yoffe provided critical reviews. The published manuscript greatly benefited from peer review by Karel Prach, Vicky Temperton, and Joy Zedler. Their assistance, dedication, and timeliness in reviewing the manuscript was unparalleled. Participants at the SER and IUCN-CEM Forum on Biodiversity and Global Forest Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 2017 helped clarify the scope and context of the SER Standards: Angela Andrade, James Aronson, Rafael Avila, Brigitte Baptiste, Rubens de Miranda Benini, Rachel Biderman, Blaise Bodin, Consuelo Bonfil, Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat, MiHee Cho, Youngtae Choi, Jordi Cortina, Kingsley Dixon, Giselda Durigan, Cristian EcheverrĂ­a, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Manuel R. Guariguata, Yoly Gutierrez, James Hallett, Ric Hauer, Karen Holl, Fangyuan Hua, Paola Isaacs, Justin Jonson, Won-Seok Kang, Agnieszka Latawiec, Harvey Locke, James McBreen, Tein McDonald, Paula Meli, Jean Paul Metzger, Miguel A. Moraes, Ciro Moura, Cara Nelson, Margaret O'Connell, Aurelio Padovezi, HernĂĄn Saavedra, Catalina Santamaria, Gerardo Segura Warnholtz, Kirsty Shaw, Nancy Shaw, Bernardo Strassburg, Evert Thomas, JosĂ© Marcelo, Alan Unwin, Liette Vasseur, Joseph Veldman, Bethanie Walder, and Jorge Watanabe. Participants at the Knowledge CafĂ© on the International Standards, 2017 SER World Conference on Ecological Restoration, Iguassu Falls, Brazil included Mitch Aide, Rafael Carlos Ávila-Santa Cruz, Suresh Babu, Blaise Bodin, Craig Beatty, Steve Edwards, George Gann, Angelita GĂłmez, Emily Gonzales, Justin Jonson, Marion Karmann, Tein McDonald, Cara Nelson, Antonio Ordorica, Claudia Padilla, Liliane Parany, David Polster, Catalina Santamaria, Bethanie Walder, Andrew Whitley, Paddy Woodworth, and Gustavo Zuleta. Feedback on the published first edition. Valuable comments were received from Constance Bersok, Kris Boody, Zoe Brocklehurst, Elise Buisson, Peter Cale, David Carr, Michael Rawson Clark, Andre Clewell, Adam Cross, Maria del Sugeyrol Villa Ramirez, Rory Denovan, Giselda Durigan, Rolf Gersonde, Emily Gonzales, Diane Haase, Ismael HernĂĄndez Valencia, Eric Higgs, Sean King, Beatriz Maruri-Aguilar, Rob Monico, Michael Morrison, Stephen Murphy, Tom Nedland, J.T. Netherland, Samira Omar, David Ostergren, Glenn Palmgren, Jim Palus, Aviva Patel, David Polster, Jack Putz, Danielle Romiti, George H. Russell, David Sabaj-Stahl, Raj Shekhar Singh, Nicky Strahl, Tobe Query, Edith Tobe, Michael Toohill, Daniel Vallauri, Jorge Watanabe, Jeff Weiss, William Zawacki, and Paul Zedler. Cassandra Rosa compiled detailed notes and reviewed comments from >100 respondents of the SER survey on the Standards. Ecological restoration, when implemented effectively and sustainably, contributes to protecting biodiversity; improving human health and wellbeing; increasing food and water security; delivering goods, services, and economic prosperity; and supporting climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation. It is a solutions-based approach that engages communities, scientists, policymakers, and land managers to repair ecological damage and rebuild a healthier relationship between people and the rest of nature. When combined with conservation and sustainable use, ecological restoration is the link needed to move local, regional, and global environmental conditions from a state of continued degradation, to one of net positive improvement. The second edition of the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) presents a robust framework for restoration projects to achieve intended goals, while addressing challenges including effective design and implementation, accounting for complex ecosystem dynamics (especially in the context of climate change), and navigating trade-offs associated with land management priorities and decisions. The Standards establish eight principles that underpin ecological restoration. Principles 1 and 2 articulate important foundations that guide ecological restoration: effectively engaging a wide range of stakeholders, and fully utilizing available scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, respectively. Principles 3 and 4 summarize the central approach to ecological restoration, by highlighting ecologically appropriate reference ecosystems as the target of restoration and clarifying the imperative for restoration activities to support ecosystem recovery processes. Principle 5 underscores the use of measurable indicators to assess progress toward restoration objectives. Principle 6 lays out the mandate for ecological restoration to seek the highest attainable recovery. Tools are provided to identify the levels of recovery aspired to and to track progress. Principle 7 highlights the importance of restoration at large spatial scales for cumulative gains. Finally, ecological restoration is one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems and Principle 8 clarifies its relationships to allied approaches on a "Restorative Continuum". The Standards highlight the role of ecological restoration in connecting social, community, productivity, and sustainability goals. The Standards also provide recommended performance measures for restorative activities for industries, communities, and governments to consider. In addition, the Standards enhance the list of practices and actions that guide practitioners in planning, implementation, and monitoring activities. The leading practices and guidance include discussion on appropriate approaches to site assessment and identification of reference ecosystems, different restoration approaches including natural regeneration, consideration of genetic diversity under climate change, and the role of ecological restoration in global restoration initiatives. This edition also includes an expanded glossary of restoration terminology. SER and its international partners produced the Standards for adoption by communities, industries, governments, educators, and land managers to improve ecological restoration practice across all sectors and in all ecosystems, terrestrial and aquatic. The Standards support development of ecological restoration plans, contracts, consent conditions, and monitoring and auditing criteria. Generic in nature, the Standards framework can be adapted to particular ecosystems, biomes, or landscapes; individual countries; or traditional cultures. The Standards are aspirational and provide tools that are intended to improve outcomes, promote best practices, and deliver net global environmental and social benefits. As the world enters the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), the Standards provide a blueprint for ensuring ecological restoration achieves its full potential in delivering social and environmental equity and, ultimately, economic benefits and outcomes. Table of Contents SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION6 Ecological Restoration as a Means of Improving Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing and Its Role in Broader Global Initiatives6 Need for Principles and Standards6 Background6 What's New in This Version?7 Key Definitions and Terms7 Underpinnings Assumptions7 SECTION 2 – EIGHT PRINCIPLES THAT UNDERPIN ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION8 Principle 1. Ecological Restoration Engages Stakeholders8 Principle 2. Ecological Restoration Draws on Many Types of Knowledge9 Principle 3. Ecological Restoration Practice Is Informed by Native Reference Ecosystems, while Considering Environmental Change11 Principle 4. Ecological Restoration Supports Ecosystem Recovery Processes14 Principle 5. Ecosystem Recovery Is Assessed against Clear Goals and Objectives, Using Measurable Indicators15 Principle 6. Ecological Restoration Seeks the Highest Level of Recovery Attainable17 Principle 7. Ecological Restoration Gains Cumulative Value when Applied at Large Scales18 Principle 8. Ecological Restoration Is Part of a Continuum of Restorative Activities21 SECTION 3 – STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECTS23 SECTION 4 – LEADING PRACTICES28 Part 1. Developing Reference Models for Ecological Restoration28 Part 2. Identifying Appropriate Ecological Restoration Approaches29 Part 3. The Role of Ecological Restoration in Global Restoration Initiatives31 SECTION 5—GLOSSARY OF TERMS33 APPENDIX 1. SELECTION OF SEEDS AND OTHER PROPAGULES FOR RESTORATION41 Genetic Considerations for Sourcing Seeds or other Propagules41 Propagule Sourcing and Climate Change42 Tools and Future Directions42 Restoring Connectivity and Assisting Migration44 APPENDIX 2. BLANK PROJECT EVALUATION TEMPLATES (FOR PRACTITIONER USE)45 The International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (the Standards) provide a guide to practitioners, operational personnel, students, planners, managers, regulators, policymakers, funders, and implementing agencies involved in restoring degraded ecosystems across the world—whether terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, or marine. They place ecological restoration into a global context, including its role in recovering biodiversity and improving human wellbeing11 Terms in boldface are defined in the Glossary section. in times of rapid global change. Humanity recognizes the planet's native ecosystems as having irreplaceable ecological, societal, and economic value. In addition to their intrinsic value, such as biodiversity and spiritual or aesthetic importance, healthy native ecosystems assure the flow of ecosystem services. These services include: provision of clean water and air, healthy soils, culturally important artifacts, and the food, fiber, fuel, and medicines essential for human health, wellbeing, and livelihoods. Native ecosystems can also reduce the effects of natural disasters and mitigate accelerated climate change. Ecosystem degradation, damage, and destruction (hereafter, collectively referred to as degradation) diminish the biodiversity, functioning, and resilience of ecosystems, which in turn negatively affects the resilience and sustainability of social–ecological systems. Although protecting remaining native ecosystems is critical to conserving the world's natural and cultural heritage, protection alone is insufficient, given past and current degradation. To respond to current global environmental challenges and to sustain the flow of ecosystem services and goods essential for human wellbeing, global society must secure a net gain in the extent and functioning of native ecosystems by investing not only in environmental protection, but also in environmental repair including ecological restoration. This repair must be implemented at multiple scales to achieve measurable effects worldwide. Awareness of the need for environmental repair is growing, resulting in a global escalation of ecological restoration and related efforts (see also Section 4, Part 3). For example, the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 call for restoration of marine and coastal ecosystems (Goal 14) and terrestrial ecosystems (Goal 15) that have been degraded to "protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss." The Convention on Biological Diversity (2016) calls for the "restoration of degraded natural and semi-natural ecosystems, including in urban environments, as a contribution to reversing the loss of biodiversity, recovering connectivity, improving ecosystem resilience, enhancing the provision of ecosystem services, mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change, combating desertification and land degradation, and improving human well-being while reducing environmental risks and scarcities." And, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2021–2030 the "Decade on Ecosystem Restoration." The concept of restoration in many of these initiatives and agreements is very broad and includes many approaches to ecosystem management and nature-based solutions, all of which are valuable. The Standards address the relationship between ecological restoration and other ecosystem management and nature-based solutions, and clarify the specific role of ecological restoration in contributing to the goals of conserving biodiversity and improving human wellbeing worldwide. Repairing degraded ecosystems is a complex task requiring significant time, resources, and knowledge. Ecological restoration contributes in substantial ways to protecting biodiversity and human wellbeing, but many restoration projects and programs, however well intentioned, have underperformed. The Standards recognize that appropriate design; good planning and implementation; sufficient knowledge, skill, effort and resources; understanding of specific social contexts and risks; appropriate stakeholder involvement; and adequate monitoring for adaptive management will contribute to improved outcomes. Application of principles and standards can increase effectiveness of ecological restoration efforts by establishing criteria for technical implementation across different ecosystem types. They also provide a framework that engages stakeholders and respects socio-cultural realities and needs, which can be applied to both mandatory (i.e. required as part of consent conditions) and non-mandatory restoration (i.e. the voluntary repair of damage). These criteria can improve ecological restoration outcomes, whether used to guide agencies, companies, or individuals engaged in planning, implementation, and monitoring; to guide regulators in developing agreements for mandatory restoration and evaluating whether those agreements have been met; or to guide policymakers in designing, supporting, funding, and evaluating restoration projects at any scale. Thus, the use of clear and carefully considered principles and standards underpinning ecological restoration can reduce the risk of unintended damage to ecosystems and native biodiversity, and help to develop high-quality projects and programs amenable to monitoring and assessment. This document expands upon and joins SER's collection of foundation documents including the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER 2004), Guidelines for Developing and Managing Restoration Projects (Clewell et al. 2005), Ecological Restoration—a Means of Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods (Gann & Lamb 2006), and Ecological Restoration for Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Best Practices (Keenleyside et al. 2012). It also utilizes SER's Code of Ethics (SER 2013) and specifically draws on material and models in the two editions of National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (McDonald et al. 2016a, 2018). Several books were influential including Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier (Van Andel & Aronson 2012), Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values and Structure of an Emerging Profession (Clewell & Aronson 2013), Foundations of Restoration Ecology (Palmer et al. 2016), Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration (Allison & Murphy 2017), and Management of Ecological Rehabilitation Projects (Liu & Clewell 2017). We have drawn content from the editorial Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority (Aronson & Alexander 2013), and the policy documents Ecosystem Restoration: Short-term Action Plan of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity 2016), Partnering with Nature: The Case for Natural Regeneration in Forest and Landscape Restoration (Chazdon et al. 2017), and Restoring Forests and Landscapes: The Key to a Sustainable Future by the Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR; Besseau et al. 2018). Works published in SER's journal Restoration Ecology, book series on The Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration (Island Press), and Restoration Resource Center, as well as many other documents have informed development of this edition. While Sections 1 through 3 are mostly free of references for brevity's sake, Section 4 (Leading Practices), Appendix 1, and Supplement S1 include citations. To better address the diverse roles people play in restoration and how the goals of Indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration, we have reorganized the Principles to better incorporate social-economic and cultural factors that can greatly affect outcomes of restoration. Principle 1 expands on social goals and includes a "Social Benefits Wheel" tool to help convey social targets and goals of a project. Principles and Key Concepts are merged into a single section on Principles. A compilation of historical documents used to synthesize the Principles is provided in Supplement S1. Scaling-up ecological restoration and the relationship between ecological restoration and allied activities included in Section 4 of the first edition are incorporated into Principles 7 and 8 in this version. Key topics related to reference models and restoration approaches are included in a new section on Leading Practices (Section 4), which also considers integration of ecological restoration into global restoration initiatives. We added a technical appendix on sourcing of seeds and other propagules for restoration. SER defines ecological restoration as the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. It is distinct from restoration ecology, the science that supports the practice of ecological restoration, and from other forms of environmental repair in seeking to assist recovery of native ecosystems and ecosystem integrity. Ecological restoration aims to move a degraded ecosystem to a trajectory of recovery that allows adaptation to local and global changes, as well as persistence and evolution of its component species. Ecological restoration is commonly used to describe both the process and the outcome sought for an ecosystem, but the Standards reserve the term restoration for the activity undertaken and recovery for the outcome sought or achieved. The Standards define ecological restoration as any activity with the goal of achieving substantial ecosystem recovery relative to an appropriate reference model, regardless of the time required to achieve recovery. Reference models used for ecological restoration projects are informed by native ecosystems, including many traditional cultural ecosystems (see Principle 3). Ecological restoration projects or programs include one or more targets that identify the native ecosystem to be restored (as informed by the reference model), and project goals that establish the level of recovery sought. Full recovery is defined as the state or condition whereby, following restoration, all key ecosystem attributes closely resemble those of the reference model. These attributes include absence of threats, species composition, community structure, physical conditions, ecosystem function, and external exchanges. Where lower levels of recovery are planned or occur due to resource, technical, environmental, or social constraints, recovery is referred to as partial recovery. An ecological restoration project or program should aspire to substantial recovery of the native biota and ecosystem functions (contrast with rehabilitation below). When full recovery is the goal, an important benchmark is when the ecosystem demonstrates self-organization. At this stage, if unexpected barriers or lack of particular species or processes take recovery off course, further restoration actions may be required to ensure that the trajectory ultimately continues toward full recovery. Once fully recovered, any ongoing activities (e.g. to maintain disturbance regimes) would be considered ecosystem maintenance or management. Specific activities, such as prescribed fire or the control of invasive species, may be used in both restoration and maintenance phases of a project. The goal of rehabilitation projects is not native ecosystem recovery, but rather reinstating a level of ecosystem functioning for renewed and ongoing provision of ecosystem services potentially derived from nonnative ecosystems as well. Rehabilitation is one of many restorative activities aligned along a continuum that includes ecological restoration and its allied and complementary activities, all of which contribute to improving ecosystem integrity and social–ecological resilience (see Principle 8). A few assumptions about the role of ecological restoration underpin the Standards. First, restoration of most native ecosystems is a challenging process, and substantial recovery usually requires long periods of time. Consequently, many ecological restoration projects are still far from achieving the levels of biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and delivery of services of intact ecosystems. Thus, while compensation may be mandated as a result of ecosystem loss or degradation, the potential for ecological restoration should never be invoked as a justification for destroying or damaging existing native ecosystems or for unsustainable use. Similarly, any potential to translocate rare species should not be used to justify destruction of existing intact habitat. Where compensation is mandated, however, the level of compensation should be far in excess of the estimated ecosystem loss or degradation, and care should be exercised to ensure offsets do not cause additional degradation. Second, the Standards clarify the use of a native reference ecosystem as a model for the ecosystem being restored. The reference model, derived from multiple sources of information, aims to characterize the condition of the ecosystem as it would be had it not been degraded, adjusted as necessary to accommodate changed or predicted change in biotic or environmental conditions (e.g. climate change). The Standards also make clear that appropriate reference models for ecological restoration are not based on immobilizing an ecological community at some past point in time, but rather increasing potential for native species and communities to recover and continue to reassemble, adapt, and evolve. Finally, ecological restoration is part of a larger set of ecosystem management practices designed to conserve and, where appropriate, sustainably utilize native ecosystems. These practices range from regenerative agriculture, fisheries, and forestry to ecological engineering, including those invoked in the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, and by Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR) projects and a multitude of local and regional programs. As such, ecological restoration complements other conservation activities and nature-based solutions and vice versa. The following Principles provide a framework to explain, define, guide, and measure the activities and outcomes of ecological restoration practice (Fig. 1). They represent a distillation of principles and concepts presented in SER foundational documents, scientific literature, and practitioner experience (Appendix S1). Ecological restoration is undertaken for many reasons including to recover ecosystem integrity and to satisfy personal, cultural, social-economic, and ecological values. This combination of ecological and social benefits can lead to improved social–ecological resilience. Humans benefit from a closer and reciprocal engagement with nature. Participating in restoration projects can be transformative, for example, when children involved in restoration projects develop personal ownership over restoration sites, or when community volunteers seek new career or vocational paths in restoration practice or science. Communities located within or near degraded ecosystems may gain health and other benefits from restoration that improves the quality of air, land, water, and habitats for native species. Indigenous peoples and local communities (both rural and urban) benefit where restoration reinforces nature-based cultures, practices, and livelihoods (e.g. subsistence fishing, hunting, and gathering). In addition, restoration can provide short-term and long-term employment opportunities for local stakeholders, creating positive ecological and economic feedback loops. Stakeholders can make or break a project. Recognizing the expectations and interests of stakeholders and directly involving them is key to ensuring that both nature and society mutually benefit. Stakeholders can help prioritize distribution of restoration actions across the landscape, set project goals (including desired level of recovery), contribute knowledge about ecological conditions and successional patterns to improve development of reference models, and engage in participatory monitoring. Additionally, stakeholders can provide political and financial support for long-term project sustainability, as well as moderating conflicts or disagreements that may arise. Recognition of diverse forms of property ownership and managem
Tree planting must be carefully planned and implemented to achieve desired outcomes Tree planting must be carefully planned and implemented to achieve desired outcomes
Le jeu de donnĂ©es concerne toutes les observations acquises au cours de l’annĂ©e 2014 et validĂ©es par le MNHN-SPN. Le jeu de donnĂ©es concerne toutes les observations acquises au cours de l’annĂ©e 2014 et validĂ©es par le MNHN-SPN.
Données RNF du Conservatoire d'espaces naturel Centre Données RNF du Conservatoire d'espaces naturel Centre
This dataset holds the observations recorded during the GEO Biodiversity Day "NABU Naturschutzhof Netttetal (Sassenfeld) e.V." in Nettetal This dataset holds the observations recorded during the GEO Biodiversity Day "NABU Naturschutzhof Netttetal (Sassenfeld) e.V." in Nettetal
Failure has become an important analytical theme in the Neoliberal Natures literature. Failures of various neoliberal conservation schemes are often theorized in reference to inherent limits to neoliberal ideologies or 
 Failure has become an important analytical theme in the Neoliberal Natures literature. Failures of various neoliberal conservation schemes are often theorized in reference to inherent limits to neoliberal ideologies or in terms of place-based complexities in constructing market mechanisms. We extend this analysis by centering attention on the state and its dual relations with traditional industries such as oil and gas as well as with the emergent conservation industry. Much has been written about the state's role in promoting environmental markets, but there is room to understand how the state produces demand, primarily by making traditional industries pay for their environmental harm. Empirically, we analyze the use of market approaches to enforce the US Endangered Species Act. We show that the rise and fall of a market solution such as biodiversity offsetting is not primarily driven by efforts to commodify nature, but to resolve temporal and spatially localized barriers to accumulation. Rather than a sweeping roll-out of market forms, we observe the buildup of markets-at-hand – conditions where the market option is in reserve and can be mobilized on short notice as and when political economic conditions oblige regulated industries to seriously account for their environmental harms. Failure is not a bug, but a feature of neoliberal conservation.
Abstract Much of the planet's forest biodiversity is at risk from a range of threats. Threats include gaps in the protected area network and instances where these gaps are subject 
 Abstract Much of the planet's forest biodiversity is at risk from a range of threats. Threats include gaps in the protected area network and instances where these gaps are subject to intensive industrial logging. These gaps are referred to as optimal areas for protection and we sought to determine if certification schemes maintained the environmental values of these areas across Australia. To do this, we identified gaps within the existing protected area network across Australia that were optimal areas for protecting forest‐ and woodland‐dependent species of national environmental significance. We intersected our results with spatial records of logging between 2007 and 2023 in the Australian states of Victoria and New South Wales that have been awarded certification under the Responsible Wood scheme. We found a large proportion of logging in Victoria and New South Wales occurred within high scoring optimal areas for protecting species of national environmental significance. We conclude that certification schemes are likely failing to meet their stated objectives to adequately maintain the environmental values of optimal areas for protection from the most intensive forms of logging. Reform of Australia's certification schemes and a significant expansion of protected forest areas is urgently needed.
Abstract Sustainable investment is an investment approach that incorporates environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. Private funding can be used for ecological restoration projects, and it can be essential for 
 Abstract Sustainable investment is an investment approach that incorporates environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. Private funding can be used for ecological restoration projects, and it can be essential for ensuring the success and longevity of ecological restoration projects in urban areas. Private companies use sustainable investments to offer private funding to projects that have positive environmental outcomes. Along with projects that benefits from receiving private funding, private companies also benefit from investing in ecological restoration projects. Private funding can be used for ecological restoration projects, and it can be essential for ensuring the success and longevity of ecological restoration projects in urban areas. The aim of the study is to develop a practical guideline to assist ecological restoration practitioners on obtaining private funding. Data was collected from the top 50 Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) companies within the private sector using semi-structured interviews to be used to develop a practical guideline. The data was analysed using thematic analysis and the MAXQDA analysis software. A conceptual model was theorised to create a practical guideline based on the responses obtained from the open-ended questions during the interviews The study findings illustrate the appeal of initiatives with favourable environmental impacts and a focus on community engagement for private companies.
Abstract Biodiversity offsetting aims to balance biodiversity loss at development sites with gains at offset sites. Measurement of loss and gain relies on transparent and repeatable estimates of biodiversity values. 
 Abstract Biodiversity offsetting aims to balance biodiversity loss at development sites with gains at offset sites. Measurement of loss and gain relies on transparent and repeatable estimates of biodiversity values. However, these estimates are often derived from field assessments by people who differ in their interpretation and measurement of biodiversity, either randomly or systematically. Variation among people during field assessments may therefore impact offset outcomes and contribute to uncertainty around the effectiveness of biodiversity offset schemes. Here, we describe variation in loss, gain, and offset outcomes using concurrent assessments by five assessors on eight sites using a multi‐metric biodiversity valuation method from New South Wales, Australia. We found variation among assessors was high for field estimates but substantially decreased for current biodiversity valuations. However, variation increased for the prediction of future biodiversity gains, in the calculation of the required offset area, and contributed an average of 19% variation in development credits (biodiversity loss) and 34% variation in offset credits (biodiversity gain). Evidence of systematic bias among observers for some attributes added further uncertainty to offset outcomes. Our study reveals the need for improved assessor training and field methods to improve assessment consistency, transparency, and reduce offset outcome variability.
ABSTRACT Biodiversity credits are an emerging vehicle for pro‐environmental financing, yet much uncertainty remains around how and when they could boost biodiversity conservation. Here we define what biodiversity credits are 
 ABSTRACT Biodiversity credits are an emerging vehicle for pro‐environmental financing, yet much uncertainty remains around how and when they could boost biodiversity conservation. Here we define what biodiversity credits are and explore impact pathways through a proposed theory of change. Based on evidence from 34 pilot projects and a review of lessons from related market‐based incentives for conservation, we further explore potential opportunities and pitfalls, including future supply and demand, bundling/stacking options, and needed social safeguards. We explore how biodiversity credits can better tackle challenges linked to additionality, permanence, leakage, and commensurability. While new monitoring technologies can help quantify biodiversity, trade‐offs exist between simple metrics enabling liquid markets and costlier ones more adequately representing biodiversity. To avoid past mistakes, sound credit design and implementation require more robust crediting baselines, standards, governance, and impact evaluation. Quality credits will be more expensive than those cutting integrity corners, which may dampen the expected biodiversity credit boom.
Restoring plant‐invaded ecosystems is a significant challenge for global efforts to restore ecosystem function. In theory and in practice, restoration of plant communities is commonly divided into two distinct steps: 
 Restoring plant‐invaded ecosystems is a significant challenge for global efforts to restore ecosystem function. In theory and in practice, restoration of plant communities is commonly divided into two distinct steps: management (reduction of invaders) and revegetation (establishing desired native plant communities). Despite both being grounded in ecological principles and contributing to ecosystem recovery, the disconnect between management and revegetation likely results in reduced restoration success and highlights the need for integrated approaches that “de‐silo” invader management and revegetation. Each practice has a unique history and context and is typically implemented at different spatial and temporal scales. Still, by reviewing the literature on these topics, we demonstrate how lessons learned from management and revegetation can be used to improve each other. We focus on wetlands, which provide critical ecosystem services but are comparably under‐researched, limiting wetland‐specific, science‐based restoration guidance. Extrapolating from research and practice in terrestrial ecosystems, as is often done, is complicated by the unique characteristics of wetlands, including the predominance of long‐lived, habitat‐forming perennials and persistent invasions. We argue that by integrating management and revegetation using common ecological principles, restoration outcomes can be improved and operational efficiencies gained. These insights also apply to other invaded ecosystems, where integrating management and revegetation will help meet restoration goals.
Nature restoration ultimately depends on collective action at a local level. This is recognized internationally in legal, academic, and practitioner discourses. It is also recognized in England's new legal regime 
 Nature restoration ultimately depends on collective action at a local level. This is recognized internationally in legal, academic, and practitioner discourses. It is also recognized in England's new legal regime for nature restoration, which aims to support collaboration across the public, private, and third sectors in preparing and delivering locally led plans for nature recovery, Local Nature Recovery Strategies, across the entirety of the country. Analysis of existing localized collaborative approaches to environmental governance offers important insights for the design of nature restoration legislation due to their relevance for integrated ecosystem management. This paper takes an empirical legal approach to identifying key issues for localized, collaborative approaches to nature restoration in England using two methods: a systematic mapping review of research on landscape‐scale conservation, the catchment‐based approach, and shoreline management planning; and socio‐legal case studies of environmental partnership working. Insights from experience in England are that effective nature restoration laws must operate at multiple levels and across relevant regimes, comprise robust environmental regulation, monitoring and review mechanisms, and safeguard stakeholder involvement and public participation.
Abstract There is increasing evidence that small-scale nature has a significant role to play for achieving climate adaptation and mitigation, for safeguarding biodiversity and for fostering human wellbeing. The question 
 Abstract There is increasing evidence that small-scale nature has a significant role to play for achieving climate adaptation and mitigation, for safeguarding biodiversity and for fostering human wellbeing. The question arises, however, to what extent the law also recognizes that potential, rather than focussing primarily or exclusively on protecting ‘top’ (large-scale) nature. This article looks at the law that applies to the Flemish Region and offers a first and selective discussion of the most important avenues through which the law is increasingly supportive in mobilizing the contribution of small-scale nature and of the challenges that come with this. It also exposes a number of knowledge gaps, thus formulating suggestions for a research agenda. The article goes beyond mapping the contribution of nature protection law, but also considers planning law, and briefly looks at the potential of civil law and general administrative (subsidy) law. It ends with suggestions for future research.
L.A. Gunneweg | Maandblad voor Ondernemingsrecht
De onderneming in het milieurecht. Ruimte voor uitbreiding? Deze bijdrage gaat in op het ondernemingsbegrip in het milieurecht en of uitbreiding hiervan ruimte zou bieden voor aansprakelijkheid van voorgaande en 
 De onderneming in het milieurecht. Ruimte voor uitbreiding? Deze bijdrage gaat in op het ondernemingsbegrip in het milieurecht en of uitbreiding hiervan ruimte zou bieden voor aansprakelijkheid van voorgaande en opvolgende vennootschappen. Hierbij wordt inspiratie opgedaan uit het mededingingsrecht, waarin de rechtsopvolger van een overtreder ook onder de reikwijdte van ‘onderneming’ valt.
Draining wetland landscapes accelerates climate change, and multilateral support is therefore needed to speed up the transition to new land uses. This paper examines perceptions of ecosystem services (ES) in 
 Draining wetland landscapes accelerates climate change, and multilateral support is therefore needed to speed up the transition to new land uses. This paper examines perceptions of ecosystem services (ES) in wetland areas in scientific and civic assessments. The case study area is Denmark’s largest drained wetland system, which is notable for its carbon sequestration potential. The area’s transformation efforts involving public participation offer a unique chance to examine differences between scientific and civic perceptions of ES. This exceptional case is ideal for revealing contextual differences, trade-offs, and controversies between scientific and civic perceptions of ES. Millennium ES Assessment and CICES are used as a conceptual framework for understanding and mapping human–nature interactions in a nature park. However, these systems are, in practice, not sufficiently developed to identify how citizens understand and value ES in real life. Therefore, we analyse perceptions using interviews, collaborative mapping, and media analysis. We compare these to scientific ES mappings based on local data, literature reviews, and fieldwork. The paper concludes that (1) scientific ES asymmetries are important; (2) environmental blind spots in scientific ES are due to its approach to knowledge collection; (3) citizens’ blind spots are due to their everyday life focus and tabooing the issue of local climate mitigation; and (4) science-based ES assessments and accounts are disconnected from local ES controversies. We argue that identifying ES controversies through various scientific methods may improve climate mitigation and restoration efforts if community planning becomes involved.
Ecosystem restoration is crucial for halting biodiversity loss and reversing environmental degradation, playing a key role in addressing the climate crisis and ensuring global human well-being and security. The long-term 
 Ecosystem restoration is crucial for halting biodiversity loss and reversing environmental degradation, playing a key role in addressing the climate crisis and ensuring global human well-being and security. The long-term success and cost-effectiveness of restoration efforts depend on continuous monitoring and management. Here, we explore the main challenges in ecological restoration project implementation, scientific monitoring, and present preliminary findings on changes in plant community composition and diversity. These changes are assessed in response to both short- and long-term climatic conditions, as well as the effects of passive and assisted restoration techniques in Portugal. The projects focus on three distinct contexts: the restoration of a coastal dune system, the rehabilitation of a limestone quarry, and the recovery of agroforestry systems in dryland regions. The ecological restoration of the dunes in S. João da Caparica began in 2014. Scientific monitoring since then has demonstrated the successful establishment of vegetation and faunal communities, alongside positive geomorphological evolution. These results confirm that dune restoration is an effective strategy for protecting coastal ecosystems. The restoration of a quarry site in Arrábida Natural Park started in 1983 and has been under continuous scientific monitoring. After 30 years, the restored vegetation has low similarity to the natural reference and shows a stabilization trend in some recovery indicators, primarily influenced by soil characteristics and the type of restoration intervention (plantations or hydroseeding).Our findings have helped evaluate recovery progress, identify limiting factors, and propose adaptive management strategies to enhance restoration outcomes. Agroforestry systems of oak woodlands (montado) dominating in Portuguese drylands are in decline due to complex environmental pressures, including climate change and unsustainable land use. Over the past decades, several restoration projects have been implemented to enhance their resilience and adaptability to climate change conditions. Its scientific monitoring over the years has provided valuable insights into climate change impacts, guiding land management strategies and informing decision-making to combat desertification and improve the sustainability of these vital dryland agroforestry systems.
<title>Abstract</title> Area-based conservation measures are some of the pre-eminent tools used in conservation and development planning. Area-based conservation, particularly Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), are cited as promoting societal goals through 
 <title>Abstract</title> Area-based conservation measures are some of the pre-eminent tools used in conservation and development planning. Area-based conservation, particularly Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), are cited as promoting societal goals through their positive ecological effects. However, MPAs are also known to have adverse consequences, including fisheries displacement and restriction of community access to marine resources. We searched the literature for evidence of MPA effects across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), recorded the kinds of effects across the SDGs, and collected information on the kinds of evidence used to document these effects. Our analysis indicates that MPAs have both positive and negative effects across each of the 17 SDGs. We also found that many papers rely on secondary data over primary data in making these conclusions, and many studies are conducted at multi-site to global scales rather than local scales. For SDGs 1 (End Poverty), 2 (No Hunger), and 5 (Gender Equality)—among the most important for development across countries—we find evidence that papers highlighting benefits of MPAs were usually more reliant on secondary information than papers emphasizing adverse impacts, and were also conducted at larger scales. This may lead to the positive effects of MPAs being overemphasized in the literature.
Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) is an ambitious initiative by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) to tackle land degradation. Inspired by the “no net loss” concept, LDN seeks 
 Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) is an ambitious initiative by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) to tackle land degradation. Inspired by the “no net loss” concept, LDN seeks to counterbalance unavoidable land degradation—primarily driven by food systems—through targeted regenerative actions at multiple scales—such as regenerative agriculture or grazing practices that simultaneously support production and preserve land fertility. The objective is to ensure that degradation does not surpass the 2015 baseline. While the UNCCD’s Science–Policy Interface provides guidance and the LDN Target Setting Programme has led many countries to define baselines using agreed indicators (soil organic carbon, land use change, and primary productivity), concrete intervention strategies often remain poorly defined. Moreover, the voluntary nature of LDN has limited its effectiveness. A key shortcoming is the lack of integrated planning. LDN should function as a “Plan of Plans”—a coordinating framework to align policies across sectors and scales, reconciling conflicting agendas in areas such as food, energy, and water. To this end, we advocate for a systemic approach to uncover synergies, manage trade-offs, and guide decision-making in complex socio-ecological landscapes. Land degradation is intricately linked to issues such as food insecurity, land acquisitions, and transboundary water stress. Although LDN is implemented at the national level, its success also depends on accounting for global dynamics—particularly “LDN leaks,” where land degradation is outsourced through international trade in food and raw materials. In an increasingly complex world shaped by globalization, resource depletion, and unpredictable system dynamics, effective responses demand an integrated socio-ecological management approach. LDN is not simply a strategy to address desertification. It offers a comprehensive framework for sustainable resource management, enabling the balancing of trade-offs and the promotion of long-term resilience.
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are widely implemented as nature-based solutions for delivering essential ecosystem services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, and habitat provision. However, biodiversity monitoring within CWs remains limited 
 Constructed wetlands (CWs) are widely implemented as nature-based solutions for delivering essential ecosystem services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, and habitat provision. However, biodiversity monitoring within CWs remains limited and unevenly integrated into performance evaluations. This scoping review analyzed 76 peer-reviewed studies to assess current methods for biodiversity monitoring, explore linkages to ecosystem functions, and examine the diversity indices most frequently applied. Results revealed a predominant focus on microbial communities, primarily assessed through high-throughput sequencing and general ecological indices such as the Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index and Chao1 Richness Estimator, with limited taxonomic depth or functional specificity. Plant and animal biodiversity were addressed less frequently and were rarely linked to treatment outcomes or ecosystem services beyond regulation. Vertical subsurface flow systems were the most studied configuration, particularly in lab-scale studies, while free water surface systems exhibited greater microbial phylum richness. These findings highlight a critical need for CW-specific biodiversity monitoring frameworks that integrate microbial, plant, and faunal assessments using functionally relevant phylogenetic indices such as Rao’s Quadratic Entropy and Faith’s Phylogenetic Diversity. Emphasis on standardization, trait-based analyses, and mechanistic approaches is essential for enhancing ecological interpretation and ensuring biodiversity is recognized as a central component of CW design, performance, and resilience.
This study investigates the legal and planning risks related to the implementation of individual recreational buildings in environmentally valuable areas, with particular emphasis on the municipality of Bukowina TatrzaƄska in 
 This study investigates the legal and planning risks related to the implementation of individual recreational buildings in environmentally valuable areas, with particular emphasis on the municipality of Bukowina TatrzaƄska in southern Poland. This research highlights the consequences of a legal loophole that allows construction in protected landscapes based solely on a notification procedure, often excluding municipal authorities from the decision-making process. This analysis combines field inventory, planning document review, and interviews with local officials to assess the scale and nature of development in areas lacking valid local development plans. The findings reveal increasing investor pressure and the misuse of individual recreational buildings for commercial purposes, leading to spatial and landscape degradation. Despite formal compliance with certain legal provisions, construction often takes place in areas of high natural and scenic value, undermining spatial order. This study recommends strengthening local planning instruments, revising construction laws, and enhancing investment control to ensure sustainable land use and landscape protection.