Explore the vast range of titles available.

Global statistical standards are being developed Reversing the ongoing degradation of the planet's ecosystems requires timely and detailed monitoring of ecosystem change and uses. Yet, the System of National Accounts (SNA), first developed in response to the economic crisis of the 1930s and used by statistical offices worldwide to record economic activity (for example, production, consumption, and asset accumulation), does not make explicit either inputs from the environment to the economy or the cost of environmental degradation ( 1 , 2 ). Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (EEA), part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), has been developed to monitor and report on ecosystem change and use, using the same accounting approach, concepts, and classifications as the SNA ( 3 ). The EEA is part of the statistical community's response to move SNA measurement “beyond gross domestic product (GDP).” With the first generation of ecosystem accounts now published in 24 countries, and with a push to finalize a United Nations (UN) statistical standard for ecosystem accounting by 2021, we highlight key advances, challenges, and opportunities.

The UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) aims at regular and standardised stocktaking on the extent of ecosystems, their condition and the services they provide to society. Recording the condition of ecosystems is one of the most complex pieces in this exercise, needing to be supported by robust and consistent guidelines. SEEA EEA defines the condition of an ecosystem as its overall quality, measured in terms of quantitative metrics describing both abiotic and biotic characteristics. The main objective of this paper is to propose a simple universal classification (typology) for these ecosystem condition characteristics and metrics, based on long standing ecological concepts and traditions. The proposed SEEA EEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (SEEA ECT) is a hierarchical classification consisting of six classes grouped into three main groups (abiotic, biotic and landscape-level ecosystem characteristics). In order to facilitate practical applications, SEEA ECT is cross-linked to the most relevant existing typologies for ecosystem characteristics currently used for other purposes. To ensure clarity and practicality, we identified potential overlaps between classes and also identified the most important groups of ‘ancillary data’ that should not be considered as ecosystem condition characteristics. We consider that this new typology for ecosystem condition will create a meaningful reporting structure for ecosystem condition accounts, thus facilitating its standardisation and broad application.

Ecosystem condition is a fundamental component in the ecosystem accounting framework as part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). Here, we develop a conceptual framework and present a practical structure for implementing ecosystem condition accounts to contribute to the revision process of the SEEA EEA, focussing on six core elements: (1) developing a common definition of ecosystem condition, (2) establishing a conceptual framing for ecosystem condition, (3) portraying the role of condition within the SEEA EEA accounting system, (4) deriving an inclusive multi-purpose approach, (5) describing the components of condition accounts and (6) developing a three-stage structure for reporting accounts. We develop a conceptual framework for an inclusive condition account, building on an ecological understanding of ecosystems upon which definitions, concepts, classifications and reporting structures were based. The framework encompasses the dual perspectives of first, the interdependencies of ecosystem composition, structure and function in maintaining ecosystem integrity and second, the capacity of ecosystems to supply services as benefits for humans. The following components of ecosystem condition accounts are recommended to provide comprehensive, consistent, repeatable and transparent accounts: (1) intrinsic and instrumental values, together with ecocentric and anthropocentric worldviews; (2) a formal typology or classification of characteristics, variables and indicators, based on selection criteria; (3) a reference condition used both to compare past, current and future levels of indicators of condition and as a basis for aggregation of indicators; and (4) a three-stage approach to compiling accounts with increasing levels of information and complexity that are appropriate for different purposes and applications. The recommended broad and inclusive scope of ecosystem condition and the demonstrated practical methods for implementation of accounts will enhance the ecosystem accounting framework and thus support a wider range of current and potential applications and users.

Ecosystem condition accounts are part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). An ecosystem condition account contains aggregated statistical information about the overall abiotic and biotic quality of an ecosystem at a policy relevant spatial scale. This article reviews 23 publicly-accessible reports undertaken or commissioned by government agencies, academic and non-government organisations that discuss or present an ecosystem condition account. This analysis revealed that ecosystem condition is usually reported for one or more ecosystem types, but there is little consistency in the terminology used to define ecosystem types. All case studies report variables or indicators that measure specific ecosystem characteristics in order to make inferences about the overall condition of ecosystems. All studies included biotic indicators and almost all studies included species-based indicators in the condition account. The thematic aggregation of indicators into a single composite index (or in a few composite sub-indices) is not a standard practice, but applied in about half of the studies. The definition and use of a reference condition or reference levels for specific indicators against which the reported condition can be evaluated is not a standard practice, but was applied in about half of the studies. Based on this analysis, we suggest the revision of the SEEA EEA to propose a globally-consistent typology of ecosystem types; to recommend a list of ecosystem condition indicators according to an agreed classification; to provide further guidance on aggregation methods and on the development of an ecosystem condition index that can be used to compare ecosystem condition across ecosystem types and across different accounting areas; to provide further guidance on how best to set reference levels and reference conditions against which the past, current and future ecosystem condition can be assessed; and to propose a standard set of statistical tables for reporting the condition account.

Penicillins are the most frequently prescribed antibiotics for a broad range of infections. In North America, up to 15% of hospitalized patients report a penicillin allergy, but research has shown that 98% of these patients can tolerate penicillins. Removing inaccurate allergy labels is an essential component of antimicrobial stewardship. While allergy delabelling used to be complex or require an allergist referral, the emergence of new tools, such as the PEN-FAST score, facilitates direct delabeling of low-risk patients. The primary objective of this study was to trial the use of the PEN-FAST scoring tool at a major tertiary care center in Canada. Secondary objectives included measuring the pharmacy workload associated with the delabeling process. A prospective pilot study was implemented at a Canadian tertiary care hospital to identify new patients with a penicillin allergy label, perform a review of their medical history, obtain a PEN-FAST score, and if applicable, implement an oral challenge with amoxicillin. Most of the 155 screened patients were delabeled based on their medical history. Twenty-nine patients were eligible for an oral challenge, and three challenges were conducted. PEN-FAST scoring in combination with direct oral challenge is a practical tool that can be prospectively implemented by pharmacists.

Background: ‘Mainstreaming biodiversity’ aims to integrate biodiversity priorities directly into the policies and practices of production sectors, including the mining sector. In South Africa, the need emerged for a biodiversity guideline specifically relevant to the mining sector that would interpret a wide range of available spatial biodiversity information and frame it in a user-friendly format. Objectives: The aim of this article was to document and review the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline . This serves as a case study of a product developed to assist in bridging the gap between available biodiversity information and use of this information by a production sector. Methods: We examined the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline with reference to three factors known to be beneficial to creating policy-relevant science: a sound scientific foundation (credibility), relevance to decision-making (salience) and involvement of stakeholders (legitimacy). Results: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline was developed through collaboration between the mining and biodiversity sectors. It provides a tool that contributes to the sustainable development of South Africa’s mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It includes a single integrated map of biodiversity priority areas summarised into four sensitivity categories relevant for the mining industry, with detailed guidance on how these should inform the application of the mitigation hierarchy. Conclusion: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline has received political endorsement from the relevant regulatory government departments. A focussed training programme has promoted awareness and understanding of the Guideline . Preliminary reports indicate that the Guideline has been effective in influencing decision-making.

The responsibility for managing and conserving freshwater ecosystems is typically shared by multiple organizations with sometimes conflicting policy mandates. However, scorecard-based approaches for measuring management effectiveness in natural resource management are usually confined to single organizations. This paper describes a social learning approach which acknowledges cooperation as an essential precondition for effective management and that encourages reflective coassessment of cooperative relationships. The approach was pilot tested with eight participating organizations in one water management area in South Africa. It specifically aimed to allow for a multiagency reflective assessment of issues determining cooperative behavior, allow context-specific adaptations, and be embedded in adaptive management. It involved development of a spreadsheet-based scorecard-type tool that can be used to facilitate a multiagency workshop. This workshop serves to bring parties face-to-face and helps them codiscover their interdependence, shortcomings, and strengths. The spreadsheet structures reflection on their respective roles and effectiveness while the reflective coassessment motivates participants to address shortcomings. Overall, insights that emerged included: cooperation should be an explicit component of each organization’s operational strategy; facilitation of appropriate cooperative behavior could be very effectively achieved by external “bridging organizations”; the reflective assessment process must be followed by purposefully adaptive interventions; the ability of the scorecard to be contextually adaptive was important; and institutional readiness requires investigation as the approach does sit somewhat uncomfortably with much current practice.

Knowledge co-production and boundary work offer planners a new frame for critically designing a social process that fosters collaborative implementation of resulting plans. Knowledge co-production involves stakeholders from diverse knowledge systems working iteratively toward common vision and action. Boundary work is a means of creating permeable knowledge boundaries that satisfy the needs of multiple social groups while guarding the functional integrity of contributing knowledge systems. Resulting products are boundary objects of mutual interest that maintain coherence across all knowledge boundaries. We examined how knowledge co-production and boundary work can bridge the gap between planning and implementation and promote cross-sectoral cooperation. We applied these concepts to well-established stages in regional conservation planning within a national scale conservation planning project aimed at identifying areas for conserving rivers and wetlands of South Africa and developing an institutional environment for promoting their conservation. Knowledge co-production occurred iteratively over 4 years in interactive stakeholder workshops that included co-development of national freshwater conservation goals and spatial data on freshwater biodiversity and local conservation feasibility; translation of goals into quantitative inputs that were used in Marxan to select draft priority conservation areas; review of draft priority areas; and packaging of resulting map products into an atlas and implementation manual to promote application of the priority area maps in 37 different decision-making contexts. Knowledge co-production stimulated dialogue and negotiation and built capacity for multi-scale implementation beyond the project. The resulting maps and information integrated diverse knowledge types of over 450 stakeholders and represented > 1000 years of collective experience. The maps provided a consistent national source of information on priority conservation areas for rivers and wetlands and have been applied in 25 of the 37 use contexts since their launch just over 3 years ago. When framed as a knowledge co-production process supported by boundary work, regional conservation plans can be developed into valuable boundary objects that offer a tangible tool for multiagency cooperation around conservation. Our work provides practical guidance for promoting uptake of conservation science and contributes to an evidence base on how conservation efforts can be improved. La coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera le ofrecen a los planeadores un marco nuevo para diseñar críticamente un proceso social que fomente la implementación de los planes resultantes en colaboración. La coproducción de conocimiento involucra a accionistas de diversos sistemas de conocimiento trabajando repetidamente hacia una visión y acción común. El trabajo de frontera es un medio de creación de fronteras permeables de conocimiento que satisfacen las necesidades de múltiples grupos sociales mientras mantienen la integridad funcional de los sistemas de conocimiento contribuyentes. Los productos resultantes son objetos fronterizos de interés mutuo que mantienen la coherencia a lo largo de todas las fronteras del conocimiento. Examinamos cómo la coproducción de conocimiento y el trabajo de frontera pueden resolver el vacío entre la planeación y la implementación y promover la cooperación entre sectores. Aplicamos estos conceptos a las fases bien establecidas de la planeación de la conservación regional dentro de un proyecto de planeación de la conservación a escala nacional enfocado a la identificación de áreas para la conservación de ríos y humedales de Sudáfrica y al desarrollo de un ambiente institucional para promover su conservación. La coproducción de conocimiento apareció repetidamente a lo largo de cuatro años en talleres interactivos de trabajo para los accionistas, que incluyeron el co-desarrollo de objetivos de conservación del agua dulce nacional e información espacial sobre la biodiversidad de agua dulce y la viabilidad de la conservación local; la traducción de las metas a aportes cuantitativos que se usaron en Marxan para seleccionar áreas de conservación de proyectos prioritarios; la revisión de áreas de proyectos prioritarios; y el empaquetamiento de los productos cartográficos resultantes para promover la aplicación del mapa de área prioritaria resultante en 37 contextos de toma de decisiones. La coproducción de conocimiento estimuló el diálogo y la negociación y construyó la capacidad para la implementación multiescala más allá del proyecto. Los mapas resultantes y la información integraron diferentes tipos de conocimiento de más de 450 accionistas y representaron >1000 años de experiencia colectiva. Los mapas proporcionaron una consistente fuente nacional de información sobre las áreas prioritarias de conservación de ríos y humedales y se han aplicado en 25 contextos de uso desde su creación. Cuando se enmarcan como un proceso de coproducción de conocimiento respaldado por el trabajo de frontera, los planes de conservación regional pueden transformarse en objetos valiosos que ofrecen una herramienta tangible para la cooperación multiagencia en la conservación. Nuestro trabajo proporciona una guía práctica para promover la comprensión de la ciencia de la conservación y contribuye a una base de evidencias de cómo se puede mejorar la conservación.

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end-user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation-focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making. La intención de la planeación sistemática de la conservación es informar la toma de decisiones espacialmente explícitas. Para lograr esto se requiere la integración de la planeación sistemática dentro de los complejos procesos regulatorios y de gobernanza. Actualmente existen instancias limitadas en las que lo anterior se ha conseguido de manera efectiva. Sudáfrica es un líder mundial en la aplicación de planes de conservación, cuyos resultados se utilizan ampliamente para la planeación espacial y la toma de decisiones en muchas esferas del gobierno. Buscamos determinar cómo la planeación de la conservación ha progresado en este país desde la teoría hasta la implementación e identificar las acciones prácticas que permitieron esta transición, esto mediante la evaluación de tendencias temporales en las características de los planes de conservación (1990-2017, n = 94). Desde 2010 la planeación de la conservación ha entrado en un periodo operativo caracterizado por el liderazgo gubernamental de los planes, dominios administrativos en lugar de dominios ecológicos, la reducción del tamaño de las unidades de planeación, el incremento del énfasis sobre los productos de usuario final y una revisión programada de los planes. Las acciones clave que permitieron esta progresión incluyen la transición del liderazgo de los planes de los científicos hacia los practicantes, el desarrollo de capacidades dentro de las agencias implementadoras, la creación de oportunidades para integrar los planes dentro de los procesos legislativos, el establecimiento de una comunidad de práctica fuerte, la adopción de métodos enfocados en la implementación y el balance entre la estandarización y la innovación. El aprendizaje que proporciona este modelo permitirá que otros países, particularmente aquellos con un contexto similar en cuanto al desarrollo y a la megadviversidad, conduzcan la planeación de la conservación hacia la planeación y la toma de decisiones espacialmente explícitas.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action 1 . One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems 2 , the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse 3 . Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists. The Red List of Ecosystems is a headline indicator in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This Progress illustrates how the Red List of Ecosystems can be used by Parties to the Framework to contribute to its implementation and monitoring.