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.

Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration.

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth2. Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO2-30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.

Quantifying and mapping species threat abatement opportunities to support national target setting.

The successful implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will rely on effective translation of targets from global to national level and increased engagement across diverse sectors of society. Species conservation targets require policy support measures that can be applied to a diversity of taxonomic groups, that link action targets to outcome goals, and that can be applied to both global and national data sets to account for national context, which the species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metric does. To test the flexibility of STAR, we applied the metric to vascular plants listed on national red lists of Brazil, Norway, and South Africa. The STAR metric uses data on species' extinction risk, distributions, and threats, which we obtained from national red lists to quantify the contribution that threat abatement and habitat restoration activities could make to reducing species' extinction risk. Across all 3 countries, the greatest opportunity for reducing plant species' extinction risk was from abating threats from agricultural activities, which could reduce species' extinction risk by 54% in Norway, 36% in South Africa, and 29% in Brazil. Species extinction risk could be reduced by a further 21% in South Africa by abating threats from invasive species and by 21% in Brazil by abating threats from urban expansion. Even with different approaches to red-listing among countries, the STAR metric yielded informative results that identified where the greatest conservation gains could be made for species through threat-abatement and restoration activities. Quantifiably linking local taxonomic coverage and data collection to global processes with STAR would allow national target setting to align with global targets and enable state and nonstate actors to measure and report on their potential contributions to species conservation.

How do we best synergize climate mitigation actions to co-benefit biodiversity?

A multitude of actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems can have co-benefits for both climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation. Reducing greenhouse emissions to limit warming to less than 1.5 or 2°C above preindustrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, can yield strong co-benefits for land, freshwater and marine biodiversity and reduce amplifying climate feedbacks from ecosystem changes. Not all climate mitigation strategies are equally effective at producing biodiversity co-benefits, some in fact are counterproductive. Moreover, social implications are often overlooked within the climate-biodiversity nexus. Protecting biodiverse and carbon-rich natural environments, ecological restoration of potentially biodiverse and carbon-rich habitats, the deliberate creation of novel habitats, taking into consideration a locally adapted and meaningful (i.e. full consequences considered) mix of these measures, can result in the most robust win-win solutions. These can be further enhanced by avoidance of narrow goals, taking long-term views and minimizing further losses of intact ecosystems. In this review paper, we first discuss various climate mitigation actions that evidence demonstrates can negatively impact biodiversity, resulting in unseen and unintended negative consequences. We then examine climate mitigation actions that co-deliver biodiversity and societal benefits. We give examples of these win-win solutions, categorized as 'protect, restore, manage and create', in different regions of the world that could be expanded, upscaled and used for further innovation.

Predicting landscape-scale biodiversity recovery by natural tropical forest regrowth.

Natural forest regrowth is a cost-effective, nature-based solution for biodiversity recovery, yet different socioenvironmental factors can lead to variable outcomes. A critical knowledge gap in forest restoration planning is how to predict where natural forest regrowth is likely to lead to high levels of biodiversity recovery, which is an indicator of conservation value and the potential provisioning of diverse ecosystem services. We sought to predict and map landscape-scale recovery of species richness and total abundance of vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants in tropical and subtropical second-growth forests to inform spatial restoration planning. First, we conducted a global meta-analysis to quantify the extent to which recovery of species richness and total abundance in second-growth forests deviated from biodiversity values in reference old-growth forests in the same landscape. Second, we employed a machine-learning algorithm and a comprehensive set of socioenvironmental factors to spatially predict landscape-scale deviation and map it. Models explained on average 34% of observed variance in recovery (range 9-51%). Landscape-scale biodiversity recovery in second-growth forests was spatially predicted based on socioenvironmental landscape factors (human demography, land use and cover, anthropogenic and natural disturbance, ecosystem productivity, and topography and soil chemistry); was significantly higher for species richness than for total abundance for vertebrates (median range-adjusted predicted deviation 0.09 vs. 0.34) and invertebrates (0.2 vs. 0.35) but not for plants (which showed a similar recovery for both metrics [0.24 vs. 0.25]); and was positively correlated for total abundance of plant and vertebrate species (Pearson r = 0.45, p = 0.001). Our approach can help identify tropical and subtropical forest landscapes with high potential for biodiversity recovery through natural forest regrowth.

Predicción de la Recuperación de la Biodiversidad a Escala de Paisaje según la Regeneración Natural del Bosque Tropical Resumen La regeneración natural del bosque es una solución rentable para la recuperación de la biodiversidad basada en la naturaleza, sin embargo, los diferentes factores socioambientales pueden derivar en resultados variables. Cómo predecir la ubicación en donde la regeneración natural del bosque recuperará los niveles de biodiversidad, los cuales son un indicador del valor de la conservación y un suministro potencial de diferentes servicios ambientales, es un vacío de conocimiento importante en la planeación de la restauración forestal. Buscamos predecir y mapear la recuperación a escala de paisaje de la riqueza de especies y la abundancia total de vertebrados, invertebrados y plantas en bosques tropicales y subtropicales de segundo crecimiento para guiar la planeación de la restauración. Primero, realizamos un metaanálisis mundial para cuantificar la medida a la que se desvió la recuperación de la riqueza y la abundancia total de especies en los bosques de segundo crecimiento de los valores de biodiversidad en los bosques antiguos referenciales en el mismo paisaje. Después, utilizamos un algoritmo de aprendizaje automático y un conjunto integral de factores socioambientales para predecir espacialmente la desviación a escala de paisaje para después mapearla. Los modelos explicaron en promedio el 34% de la varianza observada en la recuperación (rango de 9-51%). La recuperación de la biodiversidad a escala de paisaje en los bosques de segundo crecimiento pudo predecirse espacialmente con base en los factores socioambientales del paisaje (demografía humana, uso y cobertura del suelo, alteraciones naturales y antropogénicas, productividad del ecosistema, tipo de topografía y de suelo); fue significativamente más alta para la riqueza de especies que para la abundancia total de vertebrados (desviación media pronosticada ajustada al rango de 0.09 versus 0.34) e invertebrados (0.2 versus 0.35) pero no para las plantas (las cuales mostraron una recuperación similar para ambas medidas [0.24 versus 0.25]); y tuvo una correlación positiva para la abundancia de especies de plantas y vertebrados (Pearson r =0.45, p=0.001). Nuestra estrategia puede ayudar a identificar los paisajes de bosques tropicales y subtropicales con un potencial alto para la recuperación de la biodiversidad por medio de la regeneración natural del bosque.

Limiting the high impacts of Amazon forest dieback with no-regrets science and policy action.

Large uncertainties still dominate the hypothesis of an abrupt large-scale shift of the Amazon forest caused by climate change [Amazonian forest dieback (AFD)] even though observational evidence shows the forest and regional climate changing. Here, we assess whether mitigation or adaptation action should be taken now, later, or not at all in light of such uncertainties. No action/later action would result in major social impacts that may influence migration to large Amazonian cities through a causal chain of climate change and forest degradation leading to lower river-water levels that affect transportation, food security, and health. Net-present value socioeconomic damage over a 30-year period after AFD is estimated between US dollar (USD) $957 billion (×109) and $3,589 billion (compared with Gross Brazilian Amazon Product of USD $150 billion per year), arising primarily from changes in the provision of ecosystem services. Costs of acting now would be one to two orders of magnitude lower than economic damages. However, while AFD mitigation alternatives-e.g., curbing deforestation-are attainable (USD $64 billion), their efficacy in achieving a forest resilience that prevents AFD is uncertain. Concurrently, a proposed set of 20 adaptation measures is also attainable (USD $122 billion) and could bring benefits even if AFD never occurs. An interdisciplinary research agenda to fill lingering knowledge gaps and constrain the risk of AFD should focus on developing sound experimental and modeling evidence regarding its likelihood, integrated with socioeconomic assessments to anticipate its impacts and evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of mitigation/adaptation options.

The importance of Legal Reserves for protecting the Pantanal biome and preventing agricultural losses.

Considering scenarios of future changes in land use have the potential to support policy-makers in drafting environmental laws to reconcile the demands of multiple land uses. The Pantanal, one of the largest wetlands in the world, has been undergoing rapid land use changes, and does not yet have any integrated environmental legislation on Legal Reserve for entire region (LR - minimum percentage of native vegetation required within private properties). The aim of this paper was to generate future vegetation loss scenarios for the Pantanal based on four LR values: (i) BAU: Business as usual, which considers existing laws: Native Vegetation Protection Law and State Decree; (ii) LRE: LR elimination owing to a bill recently proposed; (iii) LR50: which considers the bill proposing 50% of LR for the Pantanal; and (iv) LR80: our proposed levels of 80% of LR for the lowlands and 35% for the plateau (following values in the Amazon). Based on native vegetation loss from each scenario, we estimated the soil loss and sediment yield to rivers. Our results show that LRE would increase native vegetation loss in the Pantanal by as much as 139% when compared to the BAU, whereas increasing LR levels would reduce conversion values by 29% (LR80). Elimination of the LR would increase soil erosion and sediment production by up to 7% and 10%, respectively, compared to BAU. Based on native vegetation loss from each scenario, we estimated the soil loss and sediment yield to rivers with our data showing more than 90% of the sediment transported to the lowland originating from the plateau. The LR80 indicates a reduction in soil nutrient replacement costs of 10% compared to BAU, while in the LR50 these costs decrease by 1.5%, and in the LRE would increase of 8%. Our results show that abolishing current protections would have substantial impacts on avulsion processes, on several economic activities (tourism, fishery, cattle raising, etc.) and negative impacts for biodiversity conservation and would bring losses to agriculture in the Pantanal. Hence, our study brings clearly evidence of LR importance and need to expand it in this sensitive wetland.

Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050.

Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Quantifying and categorising national extinction-risk footprints.

Biodiversity, essential to delivering the ecosystem services that support humanity, is under threat. Projections show that loss of biodiversity, specifically increases in species extinction, is likely to continue without significant intervention. Human activity is the principal driver of this loss, generating direct threats such as habitat loss and indirect threats such as climate change. Often, these threats are induced by consumption of products and services in locations far-removed from the affected species, creating a geographical displacement between cause and effect. Here we quantify and categorise extinction-risk footprints for 188 countries. Seventy-six countries are net importers of extinction-risk footprint, 16 countries are net exporters of extinction-risk footprint, and in 96 countries domestic consumption is the largest contributor to the extinction-risk footprint. These profiles provide insight into the underlying sources of consumption which contribute to species extinction risk, a valuable input to the formulation of interventions aimed at transforming humanity's interactions with biodiversity.

A Decade for restoring Earth.

Next week, the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) convenes in Kunming, China, to discuss a new global plan to conserve nature and improve the sharing of its benefits across humankind. If such a plan is successfully implemented, it will mark a turning point in the millennia-long decline of the natural world due to human activity. This prospect has been boosted by the United Nations General Assembly decision to declare 2021-2030 as the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (the "Decade"), which aims to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems across the planet.

Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature's contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

A metric for spatially explicit contributions to science-based species targets.

The Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework will probably include a goal to stabilize and restore the status of species. Its delivery would be facilitated by making the actions required to halt and reverse species loss spatially explicit. Here, we develop a species threat abatement and restoration (STAR) metric that is scalable across species, threats and geographies. STAR quantifies the contributions that abating threats and restoring habitats in specific places offer towards reducing extinction risk. While every nation can contribute towards halting biodiversity loss, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Madagascar and Brazil combined have stewardship over 31% of total STAR values for terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals. Among actions, sustainable crop production and forestry dominate, contributing 41% of total STAR values for these taxonomic groups. Key Biodiversity Areas cover 9% of the terrestrial surface but capture 47% of STAR values. STAR could support governmental and non-state actors in quantifying their contributions to meeting science-based species targets within the framework.