Entering the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030)

A typical restored forest area

Photo: Bheka Nxele

Introduction

The United Nations has declared 2021 – 2030, as the decade of ecosystem restoration. This provides a great opportunity for local authorities to rethink, review and position themselves in line with the objectives of ecosystem restoration. When local governments were established, one of the reasons was to effectively render services to communities. National governments would thus communicate with local governments to deploy resources as well as attend to local issues. Empirical knowledge later highlighted the role played by the natural environment, through ecosystems services, in complementing service delivery to people.

The United Nations defines ecosystem services as benefits humans derive from the natural environment. Ecosystem services include topsoil retention, which enables poor communities to plant crops and vegetables, year after year, without worrying much about retaining topsoil. Another free ecosystem service produced by nature is clean, surface water found in streams, rivers, and dams. Whilst freshwater is a resource itself, it is also a habitat for numerous biodiversity features such as fish, which is a source of protein (Dorji et al. 2020; Brumm et al. 2021). Studies to quantify the monetary value of ecosystem services have indicated the monetary value of ecosystem services to be in the order of billions of Rands per annum, which imply if ecosystems are completely obliterated, governments would have to allocate those billions of Rands for people to continue living normally. Uninformed land-use activities as well as invasive alien species have been shown to be the two most dominant threats to ecosystem services.

In South Africa, the national government declared District Municipalities as bioregions. Local authorities are to highlight their Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecosystem Support Areas (ESAs) as well as set their biodiversity conservation targets, based on the Systematic Conservation Plan (SCP), (Cowling & Pressey, 2003; Egoh et al. 2011). Losing these conservation categories only spells disaster for biodiversity and eventually for ecosystem services.

Through the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA), Act 10 of 2004, bioregions are mandated to put measures in place for controlling invasive alien species within their respective jurisdictions. This approach serves to protect CBAs, ESAs, whilst buffering the provision of ecosystem services. Chapter 3 of the Constitution, Act No. 108 of 1996, Section 4 stipulates, all government spheres and all organs of state must consult and inform one another on matters of common interest as well as coordinate their actions and efforts, with one another. Ecosystems are a matter of common interest and should thus be managed accordingly. Furthermore, Section 24, of Chapter 2 of the Bill of Rights states “everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing”. This implies everyone has an obligation and a duty of care, to create and maintain that environment which is not harmful to their health or wellbeing! However, barriers and challenges for everyone to make a meaningful contribution towards the creation of that environment, as well as to playing a reasonable role in maintaining that environment, have never been highlighted nor addressed.

Ecosystem management

Implementation of large-scale ecosystem restoration projects, on land owned by local authorities and yet adjacent to communities has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Photo: Bheka Nxele

Ecosystem management cannot be attained through the exclusion of communities. Unregulated land development, invasive alien species, as well as the ever-increasing human population all put pressure on ecosystem integrity and functionality. Due to human activities functional and productive ecosystems have been documented to move towards altered states, whereby ecosystem services are either reduced or completely lost thus constituting ecosystem degradation (Suding & Hobbs, 2009).

According to Munang et al. 2011, ecosystem degradation undermines the ability of the land to support life hence threatening livelihoods and socio-economic stability. Degraded ecosystems often need artificial interventions for restoration. Clearing invasive alien plants is currently one of the most dominant activities taking place across the globe, to safeguard and restore ecosystem functionality both for the intrinsic value of biodiversity and for ecosystem beneficiaries (Rode et al. 2016).

Barriers and challenges

Barriers and challenges to meaningfully engaging and understanding ecosystem restoration should be regarded as threats to ecosystem restoration and should be given undivided attention (Hausmann et al. 2019). A classic example is the employment of beneficiaries from disadvantaged backgrounds, to work on the clearing invasive alien plants. Whilst this provides social empowerment in the form of job opportunities, skills development, training, and awareness for indigenous members of communities, it is associated with numerous barriers and challenges, which often go unattended. Most commonly, invasive alien plants are known by their English Common Names and/or Latin names (foreign names to indigenous communities).

Beneficiaries employed from disadvantaged backgrounds have their own barriers and challenges in interpreting ecosystem restoration action.

Photo: Bheka Nxele

For disadvantaged, indigenous beneficiaries participating in ecosystem restoration, the use of foreign names of both the invasive alien plants to be controlled, as well as the ecological terminology used in restoration (e.g. ecosystem services, biodiversity, biological invasion etc.), could be an “unconscious” barrier, creating a gulf between community members participating in restoration and fully comprehending their own role in creating and maintaining healthy ecosystems without only seeing restoration merely as “job opportunities”. In other words, language could be a barrier in enabling all relevant stakeholders to consciously, meaningfully and holistically engage in ecosystem restoration!

Community engagement and opportunities

Large-scale, ecosystem restoration programs are implemented across the world and have been going on for several years. These programs employ community members and some level of awareness about ecosystem degradation and restoration, has been inherently created.

In the province of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, a group of environmentalists have proposed naming invasive alien plants in isiZulu (indigenous language), to create an enabling environment for indigenous people not only to understand and play a meaningful role in the process of ecosystem restoration but also to feel as part of the solution (Nxele et al. 2019).

Most importantly, now is the beginning of the UN decade in ecosystem restoration, as such all bioregions and all national governments across the world should be positioning, reviewing, and committing themselves to the course of ecosystem restoration. Finally, there is dedication, at least by some bioregions, to control invasive alien species within their respective jurisdiction. Any delay or failure to engage in ecosystem restoration, should be seen as an injustice to all citizens of the global village!

Engaging members of communities adjacent to sites where ecosystem restoration work is being undertaken.

Photo: Bheka Memela

Implications and consequences of poor involvement of communities

Managing the environment, to safeguard and restore ecosystem services especially for human livelihoods, should never be seen as a responsibility for a selected few. It should be regarded as everyone’s responsibility, of which it truly is. Ecosystem restoration cannot be achieved only through protection of parks and CBAs but should rather involve large-scale approaches, building on socio-ecological resilience (Asmamaw et al. 2015).

With barriers, to actively participate in ecosystem restoration action, neither identified nor addressed, could be detrimental to successful and sustainable ecosystem restoration. If those who know are in minority, and those who do not are in majority, then it goes without reasoning that the extent and magnitude of environmental impacts by the majority will be extensive. Therefore, it becomes imperative to create more and more awareness and engage majorities so that decision-making processes are better informed.

Poor decisions made by communities, in land-use management.

Photo: Bheka Nxele

Recommendations and conclusion

National governments should consider rolling out awareness projects on the natural environment, ecosystem management, ecosystem degradation, as well as on the roles communities can play in restoration action. Such awareness can even serve as precursors to large-scale ecosystem restoration programmes thus facilitating the implementation of restoration projects. Barriers and challenges for communities to meaningfully contribute towards decision-making processes, as well as in restoration projects, need to be realised and addressed.

With regards to the management of invasive alien plants, language should not be a barrier. As highlighted in Nxele et al. 2019, invasive alien species should be named in indigenous languages as well. This could reduce confusion between indigenous and native species, as well as facilitate effective control of ecologically unwanted species and promote meaningful participation in restoration action. It is the submission of this report that conservation terminology, as well as invasive alien species, be formally expressed in indigenous languages in order to facilitate negotiation of meaning with all people.

The natural environment is a matter of common interest towards which everyone should have a duty of care. Common understanding should be the basis for that duty of care. For South Africa, the lexicon on conservation terminology and the naming of invasive alien plants should be extended at least to all formal languages (Nxele et al. 2019), including the languages of the Khoisan people, so that everyone has an equal chance to effectively participate in the restoration of our ecosystems. As citizens we have a duty of care and an obligation to manage and speak for Nature!

Khoisan family

Photo: stock photo

References

Asmamaw, M., Ambellu, A. & Tiku, S. 2015.Resilience of Ecosystems to Climate Change. American Journal of Environmental Protection, 4(6): 325 – 333. DOI: 10.11648/j.ajep.20150406.19

Brumm,K.J., Hanks, R.D., Baldwin, R.F. & Peoples, B.K. 2021. Accounting for multiple dimensions of biodiversity to assess surrogate performance in a freshwater conservation prioritization. Ecological Indicators, 122: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107320

Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., 2003. Introduction to systematic conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation, 112: 1–13.

Dorji, T., Sheldon, F. & Linke, S. 2020. Fulfilling Nature Needs Half through terrestrial-focused protected areas and their adequacy for freshwater ecosystems and biodiversity protection: A case from Bhutan. Journal of Nature Conservation, 58: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125894

Egoh, B.N., Reyers, B., Rouget, M. & Richardson, D.M. 2011. Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands. Journal of Environmental Management, 92: 1642 – 1650.

Hausmann, A., Toivonen. T., Fink, C., Heikinheimo, V., Tenkanen, H., Butchart, S.H.M., Brooks, T.M & Di Minin, E. 2019. Assessing global popularity and threats to Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas using social media data. Science of the Total Environment, 683: 617 – 623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.268

Munang, R.T., Thiaw, I. & Rivington, M. 2011. Ecosystem Management: Tomorrow’s approach to enhancing food security under a changing climate. Sustainability, 3: 937 – 954. DOI: 10.3390/su3070937

Nxele, B.J., Mdletshe, B.A., Memela, B.E.B., Nxumalo, M., Sithole, J.H., Mlaba, P.J., Nhleko, K., Zulu, Z., Zuke, L., Mchunu, S., Hadebe, M. & Mncube, N.A. 2019. Naming Invasive Alien Plants into Indigenous Languages: KwaZulu-Natal Case Study, South Africa. Journal of Biodiversity Management & Forestry, 8:1 DOI: 10.4172/2327-4417.1000207

Rode. J. Wittmer, H., Emerton, L. & Schroter-Schaack, C. 2016. “Ecosystem service opportunities”: A practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods. Journal of Nature Conservation. 33: 35 – 47.

Suding, K. N., & Hobbs, R. J. (2009). Models of ecosystem dynamics as frameworks for restoration ecology. In R. J. Hobbs & K. N. Suding (Eds.), New models for ecosystem dynamics and restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press.