The relative importance of COVID-19 pandemic impacts on biodiversity conservation globally.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on almost all aspects of human society and endeavor; the natural world and its conservation have not been spared. Through a process of expert consultation, we identified and categorized, into 19 themes and 70 subthemes, the ways in which biodiversity and its conservation have been or could be affected by the pandemic globally. Nearly 60% of the effects have been broadly negative. Subsequently, we created a compendium of all themes and subthemes, each with explanatory text, and in August 2020 a diverse group of experienced conservationists with expertise from across sectors and geographies assessed each subtheme for its likely impact on biodiversity conservation globally. The 9 subthemes ranked highest all have a negative impact. These were, in rank order, governments sidelining the environment during their economic recovery, reduced wildlife-based tourism income, increased habitat destruction, reduced government funding, increased plastic and other solid waste pollution, weakening of nature-friendly regulations and their enforcement, increased illegal harvest of wild animals, reduced philanthropy, and threats to survival of conservation organizations. In combination, these impacts present a worrying future of increased threats to biodiversity conservation but reduced capacity to counter them. The highest ranking positive impact, at 10, was the beneficial impact of wildlife-trade restrictions. More optimistically, among impacts ranked 11-20, 6 were positive and 4 were negative. We hope our assessment will draw attention to the impacts of the pandemic and, thus, improve the conservation community's ability to respond to such threats in the future.

La pandemia de COVID-19 ha tenido un impacto enorme sobre casi todos los aspectos de la sociedad humana y sus proyectos; el mundo natural y su conservación no han sido la excepción. Por medio de un proceso de consultas a expertos, identificamos y categorizamos en 19 temas y 70 subtemas las maneras en las que la biodiversidad y su conservación han sido o podrían ser afectadas mundialmente por la pandemia. Casi el 60% de los efectos han sido claramente negativos. Posteriormente, creamos un compendio de todos los temas y subtemas, cada uno con textos explicativos, para que en agosto de 2020 un grupo diverso de conservacionistas experimentados con conocimiento de todos los sectores y geografías evaluara cada subtema de acuerdo con su probabilidad de impactar sobre la conservación de la biodiversidad en todo el mundo. Los nueve subtemas con la clasificación más alta tienen un impacto negativo. Estos temas son, en orden de clasificación: los gobiernos dejando de lado al ambiente durante su recuperación económica, reducción de los ingresos basados en el turismo de fauna, incremento en la destrucción de hábitat, financiamiento reducido del gobierno, aumento de la contaminación por plásticos y otros desechos sólidos, debilitamiento de las regulaciones en pro de la naturaleza y su aplicación, incremento en la captura ilegal de animales, disminución de la filantropía y amenazas para la supervivencia de las organizaciones de conservación. La combinación de estos impactos representa un futuro preocupante lleno de amenazas para la conservación de la biodiversidad y una capacidad reducida para contrarrestarlas. El impacto positivo con la clasificación más alta, el 10, fue el impacto benéfico de las restricciones en el mercado de fauna. De manera más optimista, entre los impactos clasificados de los lugares del 11 al 20, seis fueron positivos y cuatro fueron negativos. Esperamos que nuestra evaluación enfoque la atención hacia los impactos de la pandemia y así mejore la habilidad de la comunidad conservacionista para responder a tales amenazas en el futuro. Importancia Relativa de los Impactos de la Pandemia de COVID-19 sobre la Conservación Mundial de la Biodiversidad.

The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies.

Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study.

Several projects aimed at identifying priority issues for conservation with high relevance to policy have recently been completed in several countries. Two major types of projects have been undertaken, aimed at identifying (i) policy-relevant questions most imperative to conservation and (ii) horizon scanning topics, defined as emerging issues that are expected to have substantial implications for biodiversity conservation and policy in the future. Here, we provide the first overview of the outcomes of biodiversity and conservation-oriented projects recently completed around the world using this framework. We also include the results of the first questions and horizon scanning project completed for a Mediterranean country. Overall, the outcomes of the different projects undertaken (at the global scale, in the UK, US, Canada, Switzerland and in Israel) were strongly correlated in terms of the proportion of questions and/or horizon scanning topics selected when comparing different topic areas. However, some major differences were found across regions. There was large variation among regions in the percentage of proactive (i.e. action and response oriented) versus descriptive (non-response oriented) priority questions and in the emphasis given to socio-political issues. Substantial differences were also found when comparing outcomes of priority questions versus horizon scanning projects undertaken for the same region. For example, issues related to climate change, human demography and marine ecosystems received higher priority as horizon scanning topics, while ecosystem services were more emphasized as current priority questions. We suggest that future initiatives aimed at identifying priority conservation questions and horizon scanning topics should allow simultaneous identification of both current and future priority issues, as presented here for the first time. We propose that further emphasis on social-political issues should be explicitly integrated into future related projects.