Strengths and complementarity of systematic conservation planning and key biodiversity area approaches for spatial planning.

Developing biodiversity-inclusive spatial plans at a national level is the focus of Target 1 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). There are 2 general approaches to identifying areas of value for biodiversity plans: criteria-based, such as the Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) process, and systematic conservation planning (SCP) approaches, which apply complementarity to efficiently achieve specific quantitative targets. We examined the benefits of both approaches and considered how the KBA approach can best complement SCP. We reviewed 200 papers articles that applied SCP to real-world data with the Marxan conservation design software. Our review showed that targets for biodiversity elements are poorly selected in many SCP publications, with more than 75% of the studies applying uniform percentage target amounts to planning elements. Uniform targets favor more widespread species and ecosystems that are likely to be more common and less important for conservation. The strengths and complementarities of KBA and SCP approaches were reviewed and we identified the elements from both approaches that should be considered for spatial planning to achieve Target 1 in the KMGBF. In particular, the global approach of KBAs (i.e., identifying sites of global significance for species or ecosystems) better complements SCP, which often has a national or subnational focus. The KMGBF will fail if conservation of globally significant sites is not targeted and these sites are not incorporated in national spatial planning.

Fortalezas y complementariedad de la planeación sistemática de la conservación y el enfoque de áreas clave de biodiversidad para la planeación espacial Resumen El desarrollo de planes espaciales que incluyan la biodiversidad a escala nacional es el objetivo 1 del Marco Mundial de Biodiversidad Kunming­Montreal (KMGBF). Existen dos enfoques generales para identificar áreas de valor para los planes de biodiversidad: el basado en criterios, como el proceso de Áreas Clave para la Biodiversidad (ACB), y los enfoques de planificación sistemática de la conservación (PSC), que aplican la complementariedad para alcanzar eficazmente objetivos cuantitativos específicos. Analizamos las ventajas de ambos enfoques y estudiamos cómo el enfoque ACB puede complementar mejor la PSC. Revisamos 200 artículos que aplicaban el PSC a datos del mundo real con el software de diseño de conservación Marxan. Nuestra revisión mostró que las metas para los elementos de biodiversidad están mal seleccionadas en muchas publicaciones de PSC, con más del 75% de los estudios con cantidades porcentuales uniformes de metas a los elementos de planificación. Los objetivos uniformes favorecen a las especies y ecosistemas más extendidos que probablemente son más comunes y menos importantes para la conservación. Revisamos las fortalezas y las complementariedades de los enfoques ACB y PSC e identificamos los elementos de ambos enfoques que deben considerarse en la planificación espacial para alcanzar la meta 1 del KMGBF. En concreto, el enfoque global de las ACB (es decir, la identificación de lugares de importancia mundial para las especies o los ecosistemas) complementa mejor el PSC, que suele tener un enfoque nacional o subnacional. El KMGBF fracasará si no se tiene como objetivo la conservación de los lugares de importancia mundial y si estos lugares no se incorporan a la planificación espacial nacional.

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.