Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

Humanity will soon define a new era for nature-one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals-ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems-and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.

Author Correction: Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity.

Reducing the rate of global biodiversity loss is a major challenge facing humanity1, as the consequences of biological annihilation would be irreversible for humankind2-4. Although the ongoing degradation of ecosystems5,6 and the extinction of species that comprise them7,8 are now well-documented, little is known about the role that remaining wilderness areas have in mitigating the global biodiversity crisis. Here we model the persistence probability of biodiversity, combining habitat condition with spatial variation in species composition, to show that retaining these remaining wilderness areas is essential for the international conservation agenda. Wilderness areas act as a buffer against species loss, as the extinction risk for species within wilderness communities is-on average-less than half that of species in non-wilderness communities. Although all wilderness areas have an intrinsic conservation value9,10, we identify the areas on every continent that make the highest relative contribution to the persistence of biodiversity. Alarmingly, these areas-in which habitat loss would have a more-marked effect on biodiversity-are poorly protected. Given globally high rates of wilderness loss10, these areas urgently require targeted protection to ensure the long-term persistence of biodiversity, alongside efforts to protect and restore more-degraded environments.

People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years.

Archaeological and paleoecological evidence shows that by 10,000 BCE, all human societies employed varying degrees of ecologically transformative land use practices, including burning, hunting, species propagation, domestication, cultivation, and others that have left long-term legacies across the terrestrial biosphere. Yet, a lingering paradigm among natural scientists, conservationists, and policymakers is that human transformation of terrestrial nature is mostly recent and inherently destructive. Here, we use the most up-to-date, spatially explicit global reconstruction of historical human populations and land use to show that this paradigm is likely wrong. Even 12,000 y ago, nearly three quarters of Earth's land was inhabited and therefore shaped by human societies, including more than 95% of temperate and 90% of tropical woodlands. Lands now characterized as "natural," "intact," and "wild" generally exhibit long histories of use, as do protected areas and Indigenous lands, and current global patterns of vertebrate species richness and key biodiversity areas are more strongly associated with past patterns of land use than with present ones in regional landscapes now characterized as natural. The current biodiversity crisis can seldom be explained by the loss of uninhabited wildlands, resulting instead from the appropriation, colonization, and intensifying use of the biodiverse cultural landscapes long shaped and sustained by prior societies. Recognizing this deep cultural connection with biodiversity will therefore be essential to resolve the crisis.

Global assessment of the biodiversity safeguards of development banks that finance infrastructure.

Infrastructure development is a major driver of biodiversity loss globally. With upward of US$2.5 trillion in annual investments in infrastructure, the financial sector indirectly drives this biodiversity loss. At the same time, biodiversity safeguards (project-level biodiversity impact mitigation requirements) of infrastructure financiers can help limit this damage. The coverage and harmonization of biodiversity safeguards are important factors in their effectiveness and therefore warrant scrutiny. It is equally important to examine the extent to which these safeguards align with best-practice principles for biodiversity impact mitigation outlined in international policies, such as that of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We assessed the biodiversity safeguards of public development banks and development finance institutions for coverage, harmonization, and alignment with best practice. We used Institute of New Structural Economics and Agence Française de Développement's global database to identify development banks that invest in high-biodiversity-footprint infrastructure and have over US$500 million in assets. Of the 155 banks, 42% (n = 65) had biodiversity safeguards. Of the existing safeguards, 86% (56 of 65) were harmonized with International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 (PS6). The IFC PS6 (and by extension the 56 safeguard policies harmonized with it) had high alignment with international best practice in biodiversity impact mitigation, whereas the remaining 8 exhibited partial alignment, incorporating few principles that clarify the conditions for effective biodiversity offsetting. Given their dual role in setting benchmarks and leveraging private finance, infrastructure financiers in development finance need to adopt best-practice biodiversity safeguards if the tide of global biodiversity loss is to be stemmed. The IFC PS6, if strengthened, can act as a useful template for other financier safeguards. The high degree of harmonization among safeguards is promising, pointing to a potential for diffusion of practices.

Evaluación mundial de las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo que financian la infraestructura Resumen El desarrollo infraestructural es una de las causas principales de la pérdida mundial de biodiversidad. Con más de US$2.5 billones de inversión anual en la infraestructura, el sector financiero impulsa de forma indirecta esta pérdida. Al mismo tiempo, las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad (los requerimientos para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad a nivel proyecto) de los financiadores de la infraestructura pueden ayudar a limitar este daño. La cobertura y armonización de estas salvaguardas son factores importantes en su efectividad y por lo tanto requieren de escrutinio. Es igual de importante examinar en qué medida se ajustan estas salvaguardas con los principios de mejores prácticas para mitigar el impacto sobre la biodiversidad esbozados en las políticas internacionales, como las de la UICN. Analizamos las salvaguardas para la biodiversidad de los bancos del desarrollo público y las instituciones de financiamiento para el desarrollo en cuanto a cobertura, armonización y ajuste con las mejores prácticas. Usamos las bases de datos mundiales del Institute of New Structural Economics y de la Agence Française de Développement para identificar los bancos del desarrollo que invierten en infraestructuras con una gran huella de biodiversidad y que tienen más de US$500 millones en activos. De los 155 bancos, el 42% % (n = 65) tenía salvaguardas para la biodiversidad. De éstas, el 86% (56 de 65) armonizaba con el Estándar de Desempeño 6 (PS6) de la Corporación Financiera Internacional (IFC). El PS6 de la IFC (y por extensión, las 56 salvaguardas que armonizan con él) tuvo un gran ajuste con las mejores prácticas internacionales para la mitigación del impacto sobre la biodiversidad, mientras que las ocho faltantes exhibieron un ajuste parcial, pues incorporaban pocos principios que clarificaban las condiciones de una compensación efectiva de biodiversidad. Ya que los financiadores de la infraestructura tienen un papel doble estableciendo referencias e impulsando el financiamiento privado, también necesitan adoptar las mejores prácticas para salvaguardar la biodiversidad si se desea detener la pérdida de biodiversidad mundial. El PS6 de la IFC, si se fortalece, puede fungir como una plantilla útil para los demás financiadores de las salvaguardas. La gran armonización entre las salvaguardas es prometedora y apunta hacia un potencial de difusión de las prácticas.

Exploring the risks and benefits of flexibility in biodiversity offset location in a case study of migratory shorebirds.

Biodiversity offsets aim to counterbalance the residual impacts of development on species and ecosystems. Guidance documents explicitly recommend that biodiversity offset actions be located close to the location of impact because of higher potential for similar ecological conditions, but allowing greater spatial flexibility has been proposed. We examined the circumstances under which offsets distant from the impact location could be more likely to achieve no net loss or provide better ecological outcomes than offsets close to the impact area. We applied a graphical model for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway as a case study to explore the problems that arise when incorporating spatial flexibility into offset planning. Spatially flexible offsets may alleviate impacts more effectively than local offsets; however, the risks involved can be substantial. For our case study, there were inadequate data to make robust conclusions about the effectiveness and equivalence of distant habitat-based offsets for migratory shorebirds. Decisions around offset placement should be driven by the potential to achieve equivalent ecological outcomes; however, when considering more distant offsets, there is a need to evaluate the likely increased risks alongside the potential benefits. Although spatially flexible offsets have the potential to provide more cost-effective biodiversity outcomes and more cobenefits, our case study showed the difficulty of demonstrating these benefits in practice and the potential risks that need to be considered to ensure effective offset placement.

Estudio de los riesgos y beneficios de la flexibilidad en la ubicación de compensación de la biodiversidad en el estudio de caso de aves costeras migratorias Resumen Las compensaciones de la biodiversidad buscan contrabalancear el impacto residual que tiene el desarrollo sobre las especies y los ecosistemas. Los documentos guía recomiendan explícitamente que las acciones de estas compensaciones estén ubicadas cerca del lugar del impacto debido al potencial elevado de que haya condiciones ecológicas similares, aunque ya hay propuestas de una mayor flexibilidad espacial. Analizamos las circunstancias bajo las cuales las compensaciones alejadas del lugar de impacto tendrían mayor probabilidad de lograr pérdidas netas nulas o de proporcionar mejores resultados ecológicos que las compensaciones cercanas al área de impacto. Aplicamos un modelo gráfico para las aves costeras migratorias en el corredor aéreo asiático-australasiático del este como estudio de caso para estudiar los problemas que surgen cuando se incorpora la flexibilidad espacial a la planeación de las compensaciones. Las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles pueden mitigar los impactos más efectivamente que las compensaciones locales; sin embargo, los riesgos que esto involucra pueden ser considerables. En nuestro estudio de caso hubo datos insuficientes para concluir contundentemente sobre la efectividad y equivalencia de las compensaciones basadas en los hábitats distantes para las aves costeras migratorias. Las decisiones en torno a la ubicación de las compensaciones deberían estar impulsadas por el potencial para obtener resultados ecológicos equivalentes; sin embargo, al considerar compensaciones más alejadas, existe la necesidad de evaluar el incremento probable de riesgos junto a los beneficios potenciales. Aunque las compensaciones espacialmente flexibles tienen el potencial para proporcionar resultados más rentables y más beneficios colaterales, nuestro estudio de caso mostró la dificultad para demostrar estos beneficios en la práctica y los riesgos potenciales que necesitan considerarse para asegurar una ubicación efectiva de las compensaciones.

Retaining natural vegetation to safeguard biodiversity and humanity.

Global efforts to deliver internationally agreed goals to reduce carbon emissions, halt biodiversity loss, and retain essential ecosystem services have been poorly integrated. These goals rely in part on preserving natural (e.g., native, largely unmodified) and seminatural (e.g., low intensity or sustainable human use) forests, woodlands, and grasslands. To show how to unify these goals, we empirically derived spatially explicit, quantitative, area-based targets for the retention of natural and seminatural (e.g., native) terrestrial vegetation worldwide. We used a 250-m-resolution map of natural and seminatural vegetation cover and, from this, selected areas identified under different international agreements as being important for achieving global biodiversity, carbon, soil, and water targets. At least 67 million km2 of Earth's terrestrial vegetation (∼79% of the area of vegetation remaining) required retention to contribute to biodiversity, climate, soil, and freshwater conservation objectives under 4 United Nations' resolutions. This equates to retaining natural and seminatural vegetation across at least 50% of the total terrestrial (excluding Antarctica) surface of Earth. Retention efforts could contribute to multiple goals simultaneously, especially where natural and seminatural vegetation can be managed to achieve cobenefits for biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem service provision. Such management can and should co-occur and be driven by people who live in and rely on places where natural and sustainably managed vegetation remains in situ and must be complemented by restoration and appropriate management of more human-modified environments if global goals are to be realized.

Retención de la vegetación natural para salvaguardar la biodiversidad y la humanidad Resumen Hoy en día hay muy poca integración de los esfuerzos mundiales para alcanzar los objetivos internacionales de reducción de las emisiones de carbono, impedimento de la pérdida de biodiversidad y conservación de los servicios ambientales esenciales. Estos objetivos dependen parcialmente de la conservación de los bosques, selvas y praderas naturales (por ejemplo, nativos y en su mayoría sin alteraciones) y seminaturales (por ejemplo, de uso humano sostenible o de baja intensidad). Obtuvimos de manera empírica objetivos espacialmente explícitos, cuantitativos y basados en áreas para la conservación de la vegetación terrestre natural y seminatural (por ejemplo, nativa) en todo el mundo para mostrar cómo unificar los objetivos internacionales. Usamos un mapa de 250 m de resolución de la cubierta vegetal natural y seminatural y, a partir de él, seleccionamos las áreas identificadas como importantes en diferentes acuerdos internacionales para alcanzar los objetivos globales de biodiversidad, carbono, suelo y agua. Al menos 67 millones de km2 de la vegetación terrestre de la Tierra (∼79% de la superficie de vegetación restante) requieren ser conservados para contribuir a los objetivos de conservación de la biodiversidad, el clima, el suelo y el agua dulce en virtud de cuatro de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas. Esto equivale a conservar la vegetación natural y seminatural en al menos el 50% de la superficie terrestre total de la Tierra (sin contar a la Antártida). Los esfuerzos de retención podrían contribuir a alcanzar múltiples objetivos simultáneamente, especialmente en donde la vegetación natural y seminatural puede gestionarse para lograr beneficios colaterales para la biodiversidad, el almacenamiento de carbono y la provisión de servicios ambientales. Esta gestión puede y debe ser impulsada y llevada a cabo por las personas que viven en y dependen de los lugares donde la vegetación natural y gestionada de forma sostenible permanece in situ y debe complementarse con la restauración y la gestión adecuada de entornos modificados por el hombre si se quieren alcanzar los objetivos globales.

Reconciling global priorities for conserving biodiversity habitat.

Degradation and loss of natural habitat is the major driver of the current global biodiversity crisis. Most habitat conservation efforts to date have targeted small areas of highly threatened habitat, but emerging debate suggests that retaining large intact natural systems may be just as important. We reconcile these perspectives by integrating fine-resolution global data on habitat condition and species assemblage turnover to identify Earth's high-value biodiversity habitat. These are areas in better condition than most other locations predicted to have once supported a similar assemblage of species and are found within both intact regions and human-dominated landscapes. However, only 18.6% of this high-value habitat is currently protected globally. Averting permanent biodiversity loss requires clear, spatially explicit targets for retaining these unprotected high-value habitats.

Accelerated shifts in terrestrial life zones under rapid climate change.

Rapid climate change is impacting biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human well-being. Though the magnitude and trajectory of climate change are becoming clearer, our understanding of how these changes reshape terrestrial life zones-distinct biogeographic units characterized by biotemperature, precipitation, and aridity representing broad-scale ecosystem types-is limited. To address this gap, we used high-resolution historical climatologies and climate projections to determine the global distribution of historical (1901-1920), contemporary (1979-2013), and future (2061-2080) life zones. Comparing the historical and contemporary distributions shows that changes from one life zone to another during the 20th century impacted 27 million km2 (18.3% of land), with consequences for social and ecological systems. Such changes took place in all biomes, most notably in Boreal Forests, Temperate Coniferous Forests, and Tropical Coniferous Forests. Comparing the contemporary and future life zone distributions shows the pace of life zone changes accelerating rapidly in the 21st century. By 2070, such changes would impact an additional 62 million km2 (42.6% of land) under "business-as-usual" (RCP8.5) emissions scenarios. Accelerated rates of change are observed in hundreds of ecoregions across all biomes except Tropical Coniferous Forests. While only 30 ecoregions (3.5%) had over half of their areas change to a different life zone during the 20th century, by 2070 this number is projected to climb to 111 ecoregions (13.1%) under RCP4.5 and 281 ecoregions (33.2%) under RCP8.5. We identified weak correlations between life zone change and threatened vertebrate richness, levels of vertebrate endemism, cropland extent, and human population densities within ecoregions, illustrating the ubiquitous risks of life zone changes to diverse social-ecological systems. The accelerated pace of life zone changes will increasingly challenge adaptive conservation and sustainable development strategies that incorrectly assume current ecological patterns and livelihood provisioning systems will persist.

Correction: Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158.].

Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates.

Conserving threatened species requires identifying where across their range they are being impacted by threats, yet this remains unresolved across most of Earth. Here, we present a global analysis of cumulative human impacts on threatened species by using a spatial framework that jointly considers the co-occurrence of eight threatening processes and the distribution of 5,457 terrestrial vertebrates. We show that impacts to species are widespread, occurring across 84% of Earth's surface, and identify hotspots of impacted species richness and coolspots of unimpacted species richness. Almost one-quarter of assessed species are impacted across >90% of their distribution, and approximately 7% are impacted across their entire range. These results foreshadow localised extirpations and potential extinctions without conservation action. The spatial framework developed here offers a tool for defining strategies to directly mitigate the threats driving species' declines, providing essential information for future national and global conservation agendas.

How to prioritize species recovery after a megafire.

Due to climate change, megafires are increasingly common and have sudden, extensive impacts on many species over vast areas, leaving decision makers uncertain about how best to prioritize recovery. We devised a decision-support framework to prioritize conservation actions to improve species outcomes immediately after a megafire. Complementary locations are selected to extend recovery actions across all fire-affected species' habitats. We applied our method to areas burned in the 2019-2020 Australian megafires and assessed its conservation advantages by comparing our results with outcomes of a site-richness approach (i.e., identifying areas that cost-effectively recover the most species in any one location). We found that 290 threatened species were likely severely affected and will require immediate conservation action to prevent population declines and possible extirpation. We identified 179 subregions, mostly in southeastern Australia, that are key locations to extend actions that benefit multiple species. Cost savings were over AU$300 million to reduce 95% of threats across all species. Our complementarity-based prioritization also spread postfire management actions across a wider proportion of the study area compared with the site-richness method (43% vs. 37% of the landscape managed, respectively) and put more of each species' range under management (average 90% vs. 79% of every species' habitat managed). In addition to wildfire response, our framework can be used to prioritize conservation actions that will best mitigate threats affecting species following other extreme environmental events (e.g., floods and drought).

Debido al cambio climático, los mega incendios son cada vez más comunes y tienen un impacto repentino y extenso sobre muchas especies en inmensas superficies, lo que deja a los tomadores de decisiones con incertidumbre sobre cuál es la mejor manera de priorizar la recuperación. Diseñamos un marco de apoyo a las decisiones para priorizar las acciones de conservación para mejorar los resultados para las especies inmediatamente después de un mega incendio. Para esto, se seleccionan localidades complementarias para extender las acciones de recuperación por todos los hábitats de las especies afectadas por el incendio. Aplicamos nuestro método a las áreas afectadas por los mega incendios de 2019-2020 en Australia y analizamos las ventajas de conservación del método mediante la comparación entre nuestros resultados y aquellos de un enfoque en la riqueza de especies (es decir, la identificación de las áreas que recuperan de manera rentable la mayor cantidad de especies en cualquier localidad única). Encontramos que 290 especies amenazadas estuvieron probablemente afectadas de manera severa y requerirán acciones inmediatas de conservación para prevenir la declinación poblacional y la posible eliminación. Identificamos 179 subregiones, la mayoría en el sureste de Australia, que son localidades clave para extender las acciones que benefician a muchas especies. El ahorro en los gastos fue de más de AU$300 millones para reducir el 95% de las amenazas para todas las especies. Nuestra priorización basada en la complementariedad también extendió las acciones de manejo posterior al incendio a una mayor proporción del área de estudio en comparación con el método de riqueza de especies (43% versus 37% del paisaje gestionado, respectivamente) y colocó más de la distribución de cada especie bajo manejo (en promedio 90% versus 79% del hábitat manejado de cada especie). Además de la respuesta a los incendios, nuestro marco puede usarse para priorizar las acciones de conservación que mitiguen de mejor manera las amenazas que afectan a las especies después de otros eventos ambientales extremos (p. ej., inundaciones y sequía).

Wilderness forms and their implications for global environmental policy and conservation.

With the intention of securing industry-free land and seascapes, protecting wilderness entered international policy as a formal target for the first time in the zero draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Given this increased prominence in international policy, it is timely to consider the extent to which the construct of wilderness supports global conservation objectives. We evaluated the construct by overlaying recently updated cumulative human pressure maps that offer a global-scale delineation of industry-free land as wilderness with maps of carbon stock, species richness, and ground travel time from urban centers. Wilderness areas took variable forms in relation to carbon stock, species richness, and proximity to urban centers, where 10% of wilderness areas represented high carbon and species richness, 20% low carbon and species richness, and 3% high levels of remoteness (>48 h), carbon, and species richness. Approximately 35% of all remaining wilderness in 2013 was accessible in <24 h of travel time from urban centers. Although the construct of wilderness can be used to secure benefits in specific contexts, its application in conservation must account for contextual and social implications. The diverse characterization of wilderness under a global environmental conservation lens shows that a nuanced framing and application of the construct is needed to improve understanding, communication, and retention of its variable forms as industry-free places.

Formas de las Áreas Silvestres y sus Implicaciones para las Políticas y la Conservación Mundial Resumen Con la intención de asegurar paisajes terrestres y marinos libres de la industria, la protección de las áreas silvestres entró a la política internacional por primera vez como un objetivo formal en el primer borrador del Marco de Trabajo para la Biodiversidad Mundial Post-2020 bajo el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. Con este incremento en la presencia dentro de la política internacional, es oportuno considerar el grado al que el concepto de área silvestre ayuda a los objetivos de conservación mundial. Evaluamos este concepto mediante la superposición de mapas de la presión humana acumulada recientemente actualizados que brindan una definición a escala mundial de las tierras libres de industria con mapas del stock de carbono, riqueza de especies y el tiempo de traslado terrestre desde los centros urbanos. Las áreas silvestres mostraron formas variables con respecto al stock de carbono, la riqueza de especies y la cercanía a los centros urbanos, de las cuales el 10% representó una elevada riqueza de especies y presencia de carbono, el 20% una baja riqueza de especies y presencia de carbono y el 3% una elevada lejanía (>48 horas), presencia de carbono y riqueza de especies. Aproximadamente el 35% de todas las áreas silvestres en 2013 era accesible en <24 horas de traslado desde los centros urbanos. Aunque el concepto de áreas silvestres puede usarse para garantizar beneficios en contextos específicos, su aplicación en la conservación debe considerar las implicaciones contextuales y sociales. La caracterización diversa de las áreas silvestres bajo el lente de la conservación ambiental mundial muestra que un encuadre matizado y la aplicación de este concepto son necesarios para aumentar el conocimiento, la comunicación y la retención de sus formas variables como lugares libres de industria.

Global rarity of intact coastal regions.

Management of the land-sea interface is essential for global conservation and sustainability objectives because coastal regions maintain natural processes that support biodiversity and the livelihood of billions of people. However, assessments of coastal regions have focused strictly on either the terrestrial or marine realm. Consequently, understanding of the overall state of Earth's coastal regions is poor. We integrated the terrestrial human footprint and marine cumulative human impact maps in a global assessment of the anthropogenic pressures affecting coastal regions. Of coastal regions globally, 15.5% had low anthropogenic pressure, mostly in Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Conversely, 47.9% of coastal regions were heavily affected by humanity, and in most countries (84.1%) >50% of their coastal regions were degraded. Nearly half (43.3%) of protected areas across coastal regions were exposed to high human pressures. To meet global sustainability objectives, all nations must undertake greater actions to preserve and restore the coastal regions within their borders.

costa, huella humana, impacto humano cumulativo, litoral, presión humana, restauración, tierras vírgenes Resumen El manejo de la interfaz entre la tierra y el mar es esencial para los objetivos mundiales de conservación y sustentabilidad ya que las regiones costeras mantienen los procesos naturales que sostienen a la biodiversidad y al sustento de miles de millones de personas. Sin embargo, los análisis de las regiones costeras se han enfocado estrictamente en el ámbito marino o en el terrestre, pero no en ambos. Por consiguiente, el conocimiento del estado general de las regiones costeras del planeta es muy pobre. Integramos la huella terrestre humana y mapas marinos del impacto humano cumulativo en un análisis global de las presiones antropogénicas que afectan las áreas costeras. De las áreas costeras de todo el mundo, el 15.5% tuvieron una presión antropogénica reducida, principalmente en Canadá, Rusia y Groenlandia. En cambio, el 47.9% de las regiones costeras estuvieron fuertemente afectas por la humanidad, y en la mayoría de los países (84.1%) >50% de sus regiones litorales se encuentran degradadas. Casi la mitad (43.3%) de las áreas protegidas en las regiones costeras tienen un grado de exposición a fuertes presiones humanas. Para cumplir los objetivos mundiales de sustentabilidad, todos los países deben emprender mejores acciones para preservar y restaurar las regiones litorales dentro de sus fronteras.

Mismatch between bird species sensitivity and the protection of intact habitats across the Americas.

Protected areas are highly heterogeneous in their effectiveness at buffering human pressure, which may hamper their ability to conserve species highly sensitive to human activities. Here, we use 60 million bird observations from eBird to estimate the sensitivity to human pressure of each bird species breeding in the Americas. Concerningly, we find that ecoregions hosting large proportions of high-sensitivity species, concentrated in tropical biomes, do not have more intact protected habitat. Moreover, 266 high-sensitivity species have little or no intact protected habitat within their distributions. Finally, we show that protected area intactness is decreasing faster where high-sensitivity species concentrate. Our results highlight a major mismatch between species conservation needs and the coverage of intact protected habitats, which likely hampers the long-term effectiveness of protected areas at retaining species. We highlight ecoregions where protection and management of intact habitats, complemented by restoration, is urgently needed.

Multinational coordination required for conservation of over 90% of marine species.

Marine species are declining at an unprecedented rate, catalyzing many nations to adopt conservation and management targets within their jurisdictions. However, marine species and the biophysical processes that sustain them are naive to international borders. An understanding of the prevalence of cross-border species distributions is important for informing high-level conservation strategies, such as bilateral or regional agreements. Here, we examined 28,252 distribution maps to determine the number and locations of transboundary marine plants and animals. More than 90% of species have ranges spanning at least two jurisdictions, with 58% covering more than 10 jurisdictions. All jurisdictions have at least one transboundary species, with the highest concentrations of transboundary species in the USA, Australia, Indonesia, and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Distributions of mapped biodiversity indicate that overcoming the challenges of multinational governance is critical for a much wider suite of species than migratory megavertebrates and commercially exploited fish stocks-the groups that have received the vast majority of multinational management attention. To effectively protect marine biodiversity, international governance mechanisms (particularly those related to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, and Regional Seas Organizations) must be expanded to promote multinational conservation planning, and complimented by a holistic governance framework for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

Importance of species translocations under rapid climate change.

Species that cannot adapt or keep pace with a changing climate are likely to need human intervention to shift to more suitable climates. While hundreds of articles mention using translocation as a climate-change adaptation tool, in practice, assisted migration as a conservation action remains rare, especially for animals. This is likely due to concern over introducing species to places where they may become invasive. However, there are other barriers to consider, such as time-frame mismatch, sociopolitical, knowledge and uncertainty barriers to conservationists adopting assisted migration as a go-to strategy. We recommend the following to advance assisted migration as a conservation tool: attempt assisted migrations at small scales, translocate species with little invasion risk, adopt robust monitoring protocols that trigger an active response, and promote political and public support.

Importancia de las Reubicaciones de Especies bajo el Cambio Climático Acelerado Resumen Las especies que no pueden adaptarse o mantener el ritmo del cambio climático probablemente requieran de la intervención humana para mudarse a climas más adecuados. Mientras que cientos de artículos mencionan el uso de las reubicaciones como una herramienta de adaptación al cambio climático, en la práctica, la migración asistida todavía es rara como una acción de conservación, especialmente para animales. Lo anterior probablemente se debe a la preocupación que existe por la introducción de especies a sitios en los que podrían volverse invasoras. Sin embargo, existen otras barreras que deberían considerarse, como aquellas ocasionadas por el desfase en el marco temporal, cuestiones sociopolíticas, de conocimiento o de incertidumbre para los conservacionistas que adoptan a la migración asistida como la estrategia de cajón. Recomendamos lo siguiente para que la migración asistida avance como herramienta de conservación: intentar realizar migraciones asistidas a pequeñas escalas, reubicar especies con poco riesgo de invasión, adoptar protocolos de monitoreo robustos que generen una respuesta activa y promover el apoyo público y político.

The importance of Indigenous Peoples' lands for the conservation of terrestrial mammals.

Indigenous Peoples' lands cover over one-quarter of Earth's surface, a significant proportion of which is still free from industrial-level human impacts. As a result, Indigenous Peoples and their lands are crucial for the long-term persistence of Earth's biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, information on species composition on these lands globally remains largely unknown. We conducted the first comprehensive analysis of terrestrial mammal composition across mapped Indigenous lands based on data on area of habitat (AOH) for 4460 mammal species assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. We overlaid each species' AOH on a current map of Indigenous lands and found that 2695 species (60% of assessed mammals) had ≥10% of their ranges on Indigenous Peoples' lands and 1009 species (23%) had >50% of their ranges on these lands. For threatened species, 473 (47%) occurred on Indigenous lands with 26% having >50% of their habitat on these lands. We also found that 935 mammal species (131 categorized as threatened) had ≥ 10% of their range on Indigenous Peoples' lands that had low human pressure. Our results show how important Indigenous Peoples' lands are to the successful implementation of conservation and sustainable development agendas worldwide.

La Importancia de las Tierras de los Pueblos Indígenas para la Conservación de los Mamíferos Terrestres Resumen Las tierras pertenecientes a pueblos indígenas cubren más de un cuarto de la superficie del planeta, una proporción importante que se encuentra aún libre de impactos humanos a nivel industrial. Como resultado, los pueblos indígenas y sus tierras son cruciales para la persistencia a largo plazo de la biodiversidad en la Tierra y de los servicios ecosistemicos. Sin embargo, la información sobre la composición de especies en estas tierras a nivel mundial todavía permanece desconocida en su mayoría. Realizamos el primer análisis integral de la composición de mamíferos terrestres a lo largo de las tierras indígenas mapeadas con base en los datos sobre el área del hábitat (ADH) de 4,460 especies de mamíferos valorados por la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza. Sobrepusimos el ADH de cada especie en un mapa actual de tierras indígenas y encontramos que 2,695 especies (60% de los mamíferos valorados) tienen ≥10% de su distribución dentro de tierras de pueblos indígenas y que 1,009 especies (23%) tienen >50% de su distribución dentro de estas tierras. De las especies amenazadas, 473 (47%) ocurrieron en tierras indígenas.También descubrimos que 935 especies de mamíferos (131 categorizadas como amenazadas) tienen ≥ 10% de su distribución dentro de tierras de pueblos indígenas con baja presión humana. Nuestros resultados muestran cuán importantes son las tierras de los pueblos indígenas para la implementación exitosa de la conservación y las agendas globales de desarrollo sustentable.