COMMENT doi: 10.1111/emr.

12062

The SER primer and climate change

By Andre Clewell and James Aronson

Andre Clewell is a founding member of the Soci-
ety for Ecological Restoration and served as SER’s
second president (5974 Willows Bridge Loop,
Ellenton, FL 34222, USA; Tel: +1 941 531 3879;
Email: clewell@verizon.net). James Aronson is
a restoration ecologist and Representative at
Large of SER (CEFE/CNRS-UMR 5175, Montpel-
lier, France, and Missouri Botanical Garden,
4344 Shaw Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63110 USA;
Email: james.aronson@cefe.cnrs.fr).
Summary The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration provides a succinct introduction
to, and overview of, the rapidly growing field of ecological restoration. The Primer was
issued initially in 2002 by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and reissued verba-
tim 2 years later in a more attractive format (http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-
detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration). A SER committee recently
began deliberations to update the Primer, and much discussion is underway. As two of
the Primer’s principal authors, we were invited to share our views on how the Primer can
be advantageously revised in the light of any changes or new insights since 2002. In partic-
ular, we were asked how the Primer might be modified to reflect the ways that ecological
restoration address conservation issues raised by climate change and other rapid environ-
mental shifts and global changes. We also touch on questions relating to the benefits of eco-
logical restoration to human society, as this is an area where the Primer needs sharper
focus. We have structured the following in a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ format to high-
light issues raised in the recent literature and to focus attention on other issues that merit
consideration in the Primer revision process.
Key words: ecological attributes, ecological restoration, historical continuity, landscape
restoration, novel ecosystems, Society for Ecological Restoration.

How does the Primer define
ecological restoration?
‘Ecological restoration is the process of
assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that
has been degraded, damaged, or
destroyed’. We like the key word ‘recov-
ery’ and the notion that restoration practi-
tioners ‘assist’ natural processes to realize
recovery. A medical analogy is illustrative.
A physician assists with traction, etc., so
that the patient can recover from broken
bones, walk out of the clinic and continue
with his or her life. In restoration, the
‘patient’ consists of a biotic community
of interacting populations of species. Lev-
els of ‘assistance’ will certainly vary
depending on levels of impairment, but
even where we need to reassemble a spe-
cific ecosystem from scratch, the actual
recovery depends upon natural processes.
Ecological restoration is
commonly perceived as
recovering something
historical that pre-existed.
Why isn’t ‘history’
mentioned in that
definition?
Because interventions that practitioners
perform onsite are necessarily contempo-
rary. Life does not run backwards.
Restored ecosystems emulate the histori-
cal, pre-impairment ecosystem as long as
the environment remains stable—and
many systems are essentially stable and
will persist indefinitely. But even under
normal conditions, ecosystems change.
All ecosystems evolve—or undergo devel-
opment through time—in terms of species
composition, structure and thus their
states of expression. They have an ecolog-
ical trajectory.
What’s ecological
trajectory?
Ecological trajectory is the sequential
expression of an ecosystem over time, as
if you could take a time-lapse movie of
an ecosystem over several millennia and
play it back in a few minutes. The movie
will continually show an extant ecosys-
tem, but its composition and structure
can be fluid, especially during periods of
rapid environmental change, such as those
caused by anthropogenic climate change.
What is it that we aim to
restore?
We restore historical continuity that was
temporarily interrupted by degradation
or other ecological impairment. We con-
nect an ecosystem as it occurred and
developed in the historical past to its
future potential. We put our ecosystem
in traction, so to speak, giving its elements
a chance to knit together so that it—the
ecosystem—can eventually ‘walk out the
clinic door’ and continue its trajectory.
In addition, we aim to recover comparable
ecological quality to that which occurs in
natural ecosystems that are intact and free
from impairment. To ensure that this aim
is achieved to the greatest practicable
extent, the Primer includes a list of nine
ecological attributes that collectively sig-
nify ecological integrity, wholeness and
health. These attributes include, among
others, suitable composition, structure
and abiotic support, normal levels of eco-
logical function, capacity for self-organiza-
tion and resilience, and sustainability to
the same degree as that shown by refer-
ence ecosystems.
Does the SER Primer
advocate recovering
historical continuity as the
basis for ecological
restoration?
Yes but not necessarily precise historical
sameness. In its second paragraph, the

182 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 3 SEPTEMBER 2013 ª 2013 Ecological Society of Australia

Ecological
Society of
Australia

Primer recognized that ‘The restored eco-
system will not necessarily recover its for-
mer state, since contemporary constraints
and conditions may cause it to develop
along an altered trajectory’. This was a
bold statement at the time, because most
professionals then were wedded to the
quixotic notion of restoring to the past.
The reason for including that statement
in the Primer was that ecological restora-
tion is process oriented rather than goal
oriented. Restoration practitioners are
not constructing skyscrapers or bridges.
They are not landscaping or gardening.
Instead, they facilitate the re-engagement
of ecological processes that were retarded
or arrested. Practitioners eliminate the
causes of impairment, ensure that desir-
able species are present and other species
are absent, adjust the physical environ-
ment as needed to sustain desirable spe-
cies with suitable biophysical conditions
and ensure normal flows of organisms
and materials among ecosystems in the
surrounding landscape.
In this regard, practitioner tasks are
necessarily limited, and we don’t even
restore ecological function, even though
some natural resource professionals claim
we do. The reason is that only plants and
animals themselves can perform these
functions such as growing and reproduc-
ing, recycling nutrients, and transferring
energy among trophic levels. Practitioners
can only expedite these processes. It’s like
turning on a light. We don’t push electric-
ity through the wiring. We only complete
an electrical circuit by hitting a switch. As
practitioners, we turn on an ecological
switch. The ecosystem ultimately restores
itself, and we give it the opportunity to do
so. If we controlled the long-term out-
come of ecological restoration, it would
introduce artifice, and the restored ecosys-
tem would lose much of the inherent nat-
uralness that we want to recover.
Likewise, practitioners do not restore eco-
system services. Rather, restored ecosys-
tems that have returned to normal levels
of ecological function provide bundles of
ecosystem services that benefit human
well-being.
ª 2013 Ecological Society of Australia
If you have to reintroduce
species, how do you know
which species are
desirable?
Your reference model tells you that. A ref-
erence model is a composite description
of an ecosystem resembling the one that
you are attempting to restore. The model
contains a list of characteristic species that
occur in similar but unimpaired ecosys-
tems locally. Not all of these species occur
in every local ecosystem. But collectively,
they represent a pool of species that are
reasonably expected to occur in a local
ecosystem, if not now then potentially at
some other time over the course of its
recent ecological trajectory. We select
species from this species pool because
we know its species formed stable com-
munities in the past. We assume they have
evolved together and are evolutionarily
adapted to each other. The process of dif-
fuse coevolution is one way this could
happen. If you want to increase your
chances of successful restoration, you
hedge your bets and restore with those
species from the species pool that are
appropriate for your particular site condi-
tions. You use local genotypes or at least
give them preference to the extent that
genotypic variability can be surmised.
What adjustments need to
be made to the Primer in
regards to the definition of
reference communities and
ecosystems if this is truly an
era of anthropogenic
climate change and other
environmental changes that
is radically new and
different?
The Primer recognizes climate change as
an external influence that may have to
be countered by conservation and man-
agement measures, both in restored eco-
systems and those that have not
experienced anthropogenic impairment.
At issue here is adaptation to new condi-
tions relative to an ecological trajectory.
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
COMMENT
If climate change is altering the trajectory
in the otherwise undamaged community,
this change should be recognized and
accommodated in the restored ecosystem.
That is, there may be occasional species
substitutions in response to anthropo-
genic climate change. The ecosystem
would still retain its general structure. It
would function in essentially the same
way as it did previously. It would have
nearly the same complexity and resilience
to stress, but there would be changes in its
species make-up.
This sentiment would be a candidate
for strengthening in the Primer to address
concerns for the inevitability of anthropo-
genic climate change, including sea level
rise, and other global changes in land-use
and disturbance regimes. Specifically, we
would encourage preparation of reference
models that were compiled from refer-
ence sites, species and genotypes that
reflect, insofar as possible, adaptive trends
in biodiversity response to changing cli-
matic or other environmental conditions.
Species from other kinds of local ecosys-
tems could be included in a reference
model, if there was a reasonable likelihood
that these species will contribute to an
evolving ecological trajectory in reference
ecosystems.
Isn’t this the same as
restoring so-called ‘novel’
ecosystems?
You would have to ask that question to
those who are developing and promoting
novel ecosystems as a new paradigm. We
conceive of ecological restoration as assist-
ing the way that ecosystems have been
developing throughout ecological and
geological time. In contrast to continually
evolving natural ecosystems, a novel eco-
system manifests a new ecological trajec-
tory consisting of a species assemblage
that lacks historical precedent or ana-
logue. For that reason, the notion of
‘restoring’ a novel ecosystem doesn’t
seem logical.
Management of spontaneously arising
assemblages and emerging ecosystems is
183
COMMENT
undoubtedly important and deserving of
more attention. Similarly, design and con-
struction of ecosystems that are intended
to provide one or more ecosystem ser-
vices to society are important. But neither
of these activities is ecological restoration
as defined by the Primer. Instead, a revised
Primer should designate manipulations of
so-called novel ecosystems as ecological
rehabilitation whereby ecological func-
tion, and by extension ecosystem services,
supplants biotic diversity in importance.
Rehabilitation of this sort could also be
termed ‘ecological engineering’ or ‘adap-
tive management’ but not ‘ecological res-
toration’, because historical continuity is
not reengaged.
How do highly modified
ecosystems and landscapes
relate to restoration?
Virtually, any impaired ecosystem can be
restored, given sufficient technical effort
and funding. By increasing the political
will to restore, thresholds that are irrevers-
ible under normal circumstances can be
lowered or eliminated. But the resources
needed for intensive restoration will not
always be available, and lesser intensities
of ecological engineering can return many
such areas to acceptable levels of use.
Nonetheless, highly modified sites are part
and parcel of many healthy ecological
landscapes and should be rehabilitated, if
needed, and managed, adaptively, as
needed, to maintain ecological and eco-
nomic vitality. The Primer calls the reded-
ication of an area to a new use, unrelated
to its historical reference model, Realloca-
tion, rather than Restoration or Rehabilita-
tion.
How does the Primer treat
ecological restoration at the
landscape level of
organization?
The Primer states that ‘A legitimate and
indeed important object of much ecologi-
cal restoration is the reintegration of frag-
mented ecosystems and landscapes,
184 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
rather than focusing on just a single eco-
system’. In this respect, ecological restora-
tion of ecosystems contributes to the
ecological restoration of landscapes. The
Primer also acknowledges that ‘ecological
restoration can be conducted at a wide
variety of scales’ and that ‘all ecosystem
restoration should be approached with a
spatially explicit landscape perspective,
in order to ensure the suitability of flows,
interactions and exchanges with contigu-
ous ecosystems’.
There are certainly examples of land-
scapes, such as abandoned or deliberately
conserved agricultural lands, where poten-
tial exists for restoration at a broad land-
scape scale. A revision of the Primer
could place greater emphasis on this and
the importance of strategic prioritization
to achieve larger scale outcomes. There
are limits, however, to the extent the res-
toration paradigm can be applied to highly
modified landscapes where the intent is to
retain agronomic or other intensive land-
use practices that caused modification in
the first place.
In contrast, single ecosystems that have
undergone gradual cultural modification
from traditional land-use practices are gen-
erally understood not in isolation but as
integral features of landscapes that have
been shaped by a combination of natural
processes and human activities. For that
reason, the ecological restoration of land-
scapes includes consideration of criteria
that are not ordinarily addressed in ecolog-
ical restoration at the single ecosystem
level of organization. At that scale and in
that situation, it would make perfect sense
to include a mixture of ecological, socio-
economic and cultural components in a
reference model for improving the ecolog-
ical functioning of a permanently modified
landscape. Such a model would reflect rec-
ognition of the need to sustain natural bio-
diversity, ecological security and human
productivity in an integrated balance for
benefit of existing and subsequent human
generations. But these criteria would not
be applicable in restoration practice
where such cultural considerations were
not germane.
Owing to these distinctions, we recom-
mend that the topic of improving the eco-
logical functioning of highly and
permanently modified landscapes
deserves its own separate primer and that
it not be conflated with ecological restora-
tion, irrespective of scale. We prefer to
designate this important practice as part
of Restoration of Natural Capital (RNC)
to distinguish it from ecological restora-
tion as described in the Primer and to
emphasize reliance by all human econo-
mies on sustainable natural areas and the
biodiversity they contain. For expanded
discussion on RNC, please visit www.
rncalliance.org or see Clewell and Aron-
son (2013 pp. 212–215).
In some circumstances
natural areas undergo ‘type
conversions’ in response to
rapid environmental change
or stakeholder preferences.
Should they be called
‘restoration’?
That depends if type conversion is consis-
tent with ecological trajectory. For exam-
ple, sometimes pyrogenic grassland is
restored as woodland in view of the diffi-
culty of obtaining burning permits. If that
woodland is an alternate state of the grass-
land, then woodland restoration consti-
tutes restoration. These alternate states
occur in grassy woodlands in Australia, sav-
annas in Africa and in those broad ecotones
in the Midwestern and southern U.S.A.,
where the vegetation shifts back and forth
between grasslands and woodlands as fire
regimes change over time. We foresee situ-
ations whereby rising sea level could
destroy terrestrial ecosystems in adjacent
coastal uplands. These could be restored
to saline marsh, because in all likelihood,
that type conversion would eventually
occur without intentional restoration.
However, assisted type conversion to an
ecosystem that contrasted with the proba-
ble natural ecosystem trajectory in order to
satisfy stakeholder wishes would not war-
rant designation as ecological restoration
but rather should be called rehabilitation.
ª 2013 Ecological Society of Australia

If restoration treats climate
change as a form of
environmental change,
treats humans as part of
ecosystems, and recognizes
the importance of highly
modified ecosystems, why
can’t we just continue our
ongoing transformation of
ecosystems towards novel
ecosystems?
We can, but not with impunity. There is a
risk, and probably a high price to pay.
Novel ecosystems may not have the spe-
cies richness and functional redundancy
of older, well-established ecosystems, nor
their structural complexity, capacity for
self-organization, resilience and self-sus-
tainability. To achieve comparable levels
of complexity and functionality with
novel ecosystems—or designed and cre-
ated ones—we would probably incur
continuing costs for the intensive level
of management needed to maintain them,
as we do already for production systems.
They probably will not offer as great an
array of ecosystem services or fulfil
human values to the extent that is typical
of relatively undisturbed or restored natu-
ral ecosystems. Furthermore, while social
or cultural identity with a novel or
designer ecosystem is no doubt possible
over time, it can hardly compare with
the heritage value of an ecosystem—
restored or never impaired—which repre-
sents the contemporary expression of a
trajectory that has been unfolding for
many centuries.
In such ecosystems, the historical
menu of ecosystem services is altered—
sometimes radically—by anthropogenic
environmental change. Repercussions for
human habitats become less predictable
—a clear example being anthropogenic
climate change. At large scales, global soci-
ety cannot afford the luxury of reducing
our diminishing stores of natural capital
to satisfy short-term profits or provision
of a single ecosystem good or service. Cur-
rent generations have responsibilities to
future generations, which is a quintessen-
tial principle of ecologically sustainable
development. It has not yet sunk into
our collective consciousness that ‘Nature
ª 2013 Ecological Society of Australia
sustains us; therefore, we serve our own
interests when we reciprocate and sustain
Nature’ (Clewell & Aronson 2013, p. 1).
The Primer adds to this maxim with the
statement, ‘What makes ecological restora-
tion especially inspiring is that cultural
practices and ecological processes can
be mutually reinforcing’.
How should a revision of the
Primer proceed?
Cautiously, in our view! As the old adage
goes, ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ The Pri-
mer should be subject to thoughtful peri-
odic review, but it should not be altered
to suit passing ecological fashions and
fads. The Primer has been endorsed by
numerous institutions and conventions
throughout the world, including the Uni-
ted Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity. We recommend helping the Pri-
mer evolve, rather than promoting a revo-
lution, mutation, or metamorphosis.
There is also a need to keep the Pri-
mer succinct so that it can be read in
one sitting. Some people advocate adding
examples and case studies, but need for
case studies is at least partly met by an
existing book (Clewell & Aronson 2013)
written explicitly as an elaboration on
the SER Primer. Authors of other recent
books on ecological restoration provide
additional commentary and insight. All
ideas and propositions for revision of
the Primer deserve careful consideration,
including ideas raised in other sets of
guidelines such as that of Parks Canada
(2008) and the standards proposed by
SERA for Australia (K. Dixon, pers. comm.
2013).
But that doesn’t mean that all sugges-
tions will prove to be useful. For example,
one recent suggestion has been to include
human values in the definition of restora-
tion and even incorporate human values
among the list of ecological attributes con-
tained in the Primer. The list of attributes
was explicitly included in the Primer to
show what was meant by the term ‘recov-
ery’ in SER’s definition of ecological resto-
ration. The Primer does not define human
values as ecosystem attributes per se.
Rather, human values and services to
humans are addressed in other parts of
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
COMMENT
the document, with as much space as
can be allotted without removing other
topics that are critical to the characteriza-
tion of ecological restoration. To merge
them into the list of ecological attributes
would be like confusing how a car oper-
ates mechanically with the transportation
it provides. Values are vitally important
to restoration, because—let’s face it—
nobody would restore anything if ecosys-
tems did not provide value. Human values
and ecological recovery are intimately
related yet distinct, like two sides of the
same coin.
What are some of the human
values we place upon
ecosystems?
Some are socioeconomic values, includ-
ing ecosystem services. Others are cul-
tural values, such as strengthening
community coherency and improving eco-
logical literacy. Yet others are personal
values, such as experiencing the satisfac-
tion derived from seeing a degraded sys-
tem flourish once again. We contend that
every ecological restoration project gener-
ates values in all three categories. But let
us not forget that not all human values
are compatible with ecosystems, as can
be attested by the consequences of our
impact upon the earth’s biosphere to date,
cumulating in a range of problems includ-
ing climate change.
Does ecological restoration
combat climate change?
All onsite project work contributes to off-
set climate change by increasing carbon
storage and augmenting thermal reflec-
tance of solar radiation from the earth’s
surface. In this way, all restoration every-
where contributes incrementally to the
support of the biosphere, including com-
bating climate change. Every practitioner
needs to realize that he or she is part of
a global restoration movement which
combats climate change, even though res-
toration projects are necessarily per-
formed at circumscribed localities. All
practitioners work in tacit collaboration
with each other around the world, and
every contribution counts. This is no
185
COMMENT
pie-in-the-sky ideal. Last October, 174
nations of the world signed a resolution
to restore 15% of the world’s degraded
ecosystems by the year 2020 (CBD 2012;
Aronson & Alexander 2013). SER helped
to nurture this challenge made to the
world community by the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity. This
declaration alone brings all restoration
practitioners under one big tent. But many
more practitioners—and restoration at a
much larger scale—will be needed to fulfil
its aims. The CBD relies on the SER Primer
to provide the conceptual basis for this
remarkable initiative.
186 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 14 NO 3 SEPTEMBER 2013
Acknowledgements
We thank Paddy Woodworth for review-
ing an earlier draft of this paper and Tein
McDonald for the professionalism of her
editing.
References
Aronson J. and Alexander S. (2013) Ecosystem
Restoration is now a global priority: time to
roll up our sleeves. Restoration Ecology 21,
293–296.
CBD (2012) Decision XI/16: Ecosystem restora-
tion. In: Report of the Eleventh Meeting of
the Conference of the Parties to the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/
COP/11/35). [Accessed 20 July 2013.]
Available from URL: http://www.cbd.int/
doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-16-en.pdf.
Clewell A. and Aronson J. (2013) Ecological Res-
toration: Principles, Values, and Structure of
an Emerging Profession, 2nd edn. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Parks Canada (2008) Principles and Guidelines
for Ecological Restoration in Canada’s Pro-
tected Areas. [Accessed 20 July 2013.] Avail-
able from URL: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/
pc/guide/resteco/guide_e.pdf.
SER (2004) SER International Primer on Ecological
Restoration. Society for Ecological Restora-
tion. [Accessed 20 July 2013.] Available from
URL: http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-
detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-
ecological-restoration.
ª 2013 Ecological Society of Australia