Knowledge Organiser: Sustaining Ecosystems
Key Terms
- Ecosystem services — provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting
- Biodiversity — variety of species, genes, ecosystems
- Sustainable management — meeting current needs without compromising future
- Coral bleaching — coral expels algae when sea temperature rises 1–2°C
- Rewilding — remove human management; restore natural processes
- REDD+ — rich countries pay LICs to protect forests (carbon credits)
- Zoning — areas with different permitted uses (no-take → general use)
- Dead zone — oxygen-depleted water from agricultural run-off
The Three Case Studies
- Great Barrier Reef (AUS): 2,300km; 50% coral died 2016; 33% no-take zone; AUD $6.4bn/year; can't fix climate change locally
- REDD+ (DRC): 90% rely on charcoal; Norway paid $150m; 15% protected; payments don't reach communities
- Knepp (UK): 3,500 acres rewilded from 2001; white storks nest (first 600 yrs); £2.5m/year tourism; needs wealthy landowner
Ecosystem Services (examples)
- Provisioning: 25% Western medicines from tropical plants
- Regulating: forests absorb 2.6bn tonnes CO₂/year; £690m/year pollination (UK)
- Cultural: reef tourism AUD $6.4bn/year
- Total value: $125–145 trillion/year globally
CLEARS Evaluation Framework
- C — Cost (financially viable?)
- L — Local people (communities benefit?)
- E — Effectiveness (ecological results?)
- A — Addresses root cause?
- R — Replicable at scale?
- S — Sustainable long-term?
Common Mistakes
- Describing instead of evaluating: "The Great Barrier Reef has a no-take zone" scores low — explain WHY it works or doesn't (33% no-take zone protects spawning but cannot fix global warming, the root cause)
- Forgetting community tensions: REDD+ and zoning often fail because payments don't reach local communities who rely on the ecosystem — always show this stakeholder conflict in evaluation questions
- Treating all management as equally effective: Compare schemes using evidence — Knepp rewilding is small-scale and requires wealthy landowners; REDD+ is global but lacks enforcement
- Missing ecosystem services categories: Answers on "why protect ecosystems" need all four types (provisioning, regulating, cultural, supporting) with at least one statistic
Memory Aid
- C — Cost: Is the approach financially viable? Who pays? Is it affordable for an LIC? Does it generate income as well as spending it? (Knepp: yes — £2.5m tourism income. REDD+ in DRC: payments often don't reach communities.)
- L — Local people involvement: Do local communities benefit and participate? Or is conservation imposed from above? (REDD+ fails here. Knepp works here. The Barrier Reef generates economic benefits for Queensland.)
- E — Effectiveness at reducing ecological threat: Does it actually work? Does biodiversity increase? Does the ecosystem recover? (Knepp: demonstrably yes. Barrier Reef: local pressures reduced but global threat continues.)
- A — Addresses the root cause: Does it deal with WHY the ecosystem is under threat, or just treat the symptoms? (REDD+ attempts to, by making standing forests economically valuable. Barrier Reef zoning does not address climate change.)
- R — Replicability: Can this approach be applied elsewhere, at scale? (Knepp rewilding: no, requires wealthy landowner. REDD+: yes, in principle. Marine zoning: yes.)
- S — Sustainability long-term: Will this still be working in 50 years? Does it require continued external funding, or does it become self-sustaining? (Barrier Reef management: sustainable only if climate change is addressed. Knepp tourism: self-sustaining once established.)