How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal closed this past December with an unprecedented agreement to place 30% of global degraded landscapes under protection by 2030, especially emphasizing the need to respect indigenous and local communities rights in the process.

Yet, despite ambitious policies and strong financial interest, recent restoration efforts have not reached targets: only 18% of land pledged for restoration by 2020 had been restored by 2019, and the world is currently off track in meeting targets set for 2030.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal closed this past December with an unprecedented agreement to place 30% of global degraded landscapes under protection by 2030, especially emphasizing the need to respect indigenous and local communities rights in the process.

Yet, despite ambitious policies and strong financial interest, recent restoration efforts have not reached targets: only 18% of land pledged for restoration by 2020 had been restored by 2019, and the world is currently off track in meeting targets set for 2030.

more…

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal closed this past December with an unprecedented agreement to place 30% of global degraded landscapes under protection by 2030, especially emphasizing the need to respect indigenous and local communities rights in the process.

Yet, despite ambitious policies and strong financial interest, recent restoration efforts have not reached targets: only 18% of land pledged for restoration by 2020 had been restored by 2019, and the world is currently off track in meeting targets set for 2030.

more…

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

How regraded is considered acceptable
Humans being what they are especially if money is involved, probably means a half arse effort is done, lie about how safe it is and Bobs your uncle/auntie/either/both

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal closed this past December with an unprecedented agreement to place 30% of global degraded landscapes under protection by 2030, especially emphasizing the need to respect indigenous and local communities rights in the process.

Yet, despite ambitious policies and strong financial interest, recent restoration efforts have not reached targets: only 18% of land pledged for restoration by 2020 had been restored by 2019, and the world is currently off track in meeting targets set for 2030.

more…

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

How regraded is considered acceptable
Humans being what they are especially if money is involved, probably means a half arse effort is done, lie about how safe it is and Bobs your uncle/auntie/either/both

It’s very disappointing.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration

The United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Montreal closed this past December with an unprecedented agreement to place 30% of global degraded landscapes under protection by 2030, especially emphasizing the need to respect indigenous and local communities rights in the process.

Yet, despite ambitious policies and strong financial interest, recent restoration efforts have not reached targets: only 18% of land pledged for restoration by 2020 had been restored by 2019, and the world is currently off track in meeting targets set for 2030.

more…

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

How regraded is considered acceptable
Humans being what they are especially if money is involved, probably means a half arse effort is done, lie about how safe it is and Bobs your uncle/auntie/either/both

Just because they plant a few trees does not mean a degraded landscape is restored. A degraded landscape also destroys the habitats of most flora and fauna species of an evolved ecosystem thereby making it impossible to restore the landscape with its original environmental richness.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

How regraded is considered acceptable
Humans being what they are especially if money is involved, probably means a half arse effort is done, lie about how safe it is and Bobs your uncle/auntie/either/both

Just because they plant a few trees does not mean a degraded landscape is restored. A degraded landscape also destroys the habitats of most flora and fauna species of an evolved ecosystem thereby making it impossible to restore the landscape with its original environmental richness.

Yes that is what I mean a half arsed restoration at best

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

What counts as a “degraded landscape”? Mining landscapes are remediated anyway. Urban landscapes are degraded, but are never restored. Civilian nuclear radiation landscapes eg. Chernobyl, are never remedied but darn well ought to be. Military nuclear radiation landscapes eg. atomic bomb testing, is always remediated. Erosion degradated landscapes need restoration. Salt degraded landscapes need restoration. Extinction degraded landscapes need restoration, but seldom are. Feral degraded landscapes usually are restored, eventually and incompletely.

How regraded is considered acceptable
Humans being what they are especially if money is involved, probably means a half arse effort is done, lie about how safe it is and Bobs your uncle/auntie/either/both

Just because they plant a few trees does not mean a degraded landscape is restored. A degraded landscape also destroys the habitats of most flora and fauna species of an evolved ecosystem thereby making it impossible to restore the landscape with its original environmental richness.

+1

It’s stupid to think you can turn back the clock.

You need to make the present situation better. Not hanker after a past utopia that never existed in the first place.

mollwollfumble said:

It’s stupid to think you can turn back the clock.

You need to make the present situation better. Not hanker after a past utopia that never existed in the first place.

Are we able to bring back species that we didn’t even know that we’d lost? Low likelyhood.

Should we try to allow nature the space to repair itself? A better chance exists.