Rates of tree cover loss in Key Biodiversity Areas on Indigenous Peoples' lands.

Indigenous Peoples' lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of Earth's terrestrial surface. These lands can be important for biodiversity conservation. Around 20.7% of IPL intersect areas protected by government (PAs). Many sites of importance for biodiversity within IPL could make a substantial but hitherto unquantified contribution to global site-based conservation targets. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the largest global network of systematically identified sites of high importance for biodiversity. We assessed the effectiveness of IPL in slowing biodiversity loss inside and outside PAs by quantifying tree cover loss from 2000 to 2019 in KBAs at international and national levels and comparing it with losses at equivalent sites outside mapped IPL. Based on a matched sample of 1-km2 cells in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside PAs was lower inside IPL than outside IPL. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside PAs was lower outside IPL than inside IPL (although the difference was far smaller). National rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In one half of the 44 countries we examined individually, there was no significant difference in the rate of tree cover loss in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL. The reasons for this intercountry variation could illuminate the importance of IPL in meeting the Convention on Biological Diversity's ambition of conserving 30% of land by 2030. Critical to this will be coordinated action by governments to strengthen and enforce Indigenous Peoples' rights, secure their collective systems of tenure and governance, and recognize their aspirations for their lands and futures.

Tasas de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en áreas clave de biodiversidad en suelo indígena Resumen Las tierras de los pueblos indígenas (TPI) cubren al menos 38 millones de km2 (28.1%) de la superficie del planeta. Estas tierras pueden ser importantes para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Un 20.7% de las TPI se intersecan con áreas protegidas (AP) por el gobierno. Muchos sitos con importancia para la biodiversidad dentro de las TPI podrían contribuir de forma sustancial, pero todavía sin cuantificar, a los objetivos globales de conservación in situ. Las áreas clave para la biodiversidad (ACB) representan la mayor red mundial de sitios con identificación sistemática de gran valor para la biodiversidad. Evaluamos la efectividad de las TPI en la reducción de la pérdida de la biodiversidad dentro y fuera de las AP mediante la cuantificación de la pérdida de la cobertura arbórea entre el 2000 y 2019 en las ACB a niveles nacional e internacional. También comparamos esta efectividad con las pérdidas en sitios equivalentes fuera de las TPI mapeadas. Con base en una muestra emparejada de celdas de 1-km2 en ACB dentro y fuera de las TPI mapeadas, la pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB ubicadas fuera de las AP fue menor dentro de las TPI que fuera de ellas. Al contrario, la pérdida en las ACB ubicadas dentro de las AP fue menor afuera de las TPI que adentro de ellas (aunque la diferencia fue por mucho menor). Las tasas nacionales de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB variaron sobremanera en relación con su estado en las TPI y en las AP. En la mitad de los 44 países que analizamos individualmente no hubo una diferencia significativa en la tasa de pérdida de la cobertura arbórea en las ACB dentro y fuera de las TPI mapeadas. Las razones detrás de esta variación entre los países podrían aclarar la importancia que tienen las TPI para cumplir con la meta del Convenio sobre Diversidad Biológica de conservar el 30% del suelo para el 2030. La acción coordenada de los gobiernos será crítica para fortalecer y hacer cumplir los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, asegurar su sistema colectivo de tenencia y gobierno, y reconocer sus objetivos para sus tierras y el futuro.

Global conservation of species' niches.

Environmental change is rapidly accelerating, and many species will need to adapt to survive1. Ensuring that protected areas cover populations across a broad range of environmental conditions could safeguard the processes that lead to such adaptations1-3. However, international conservation policies have largely neglected these considerations when setting targets for the expansion of protected areas4. Here we show that-of 19,937 vertebrate species globally5-8-the representation of environmental conditions across their habitats in protected areas (hereafter, niche representation) is inadequate for 4,836 (93.1%) amphibian, 8,653 (89.5%) bird and 4,608 (90.9%) terrestrial mammal species. Expanding existing protected areas to cover these gaps would encompass 33.8% of the total land surface-exceeding the current target of 17% that has been adopted by governments. Priority locations for expanding the system of protected areas to improve niche representation occur in global biodiversity hotspots9, including Colombia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa and southwest China, as well as across most of the major land masses of the Earth. Conversely, we also show that planning for the expansion of protected areas without explicitly considering environmental conditions would marginally reduce the land area required to 30.7%, but that this would lead to inadequate niche representation for 7,798 (39.1%) species. As the governments of the world prepare to renegotiate global conservation targets, policymakers have the opportunity to help to maintain the adaptive potential of species by considering niche representation within protected areas1,2.

Measuring Terrestrial Area of Habitat (AOH) and Its Utility for the IUCN Red List.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes assessment of extinction risk for 98 512 species, plus documentation of their range, habitat, elevation, and other factors. These range, habitat and elevation data can be matched with terrestrial land cover and elevation datasets to map the species' area of habitat (AOH; also known as extent of suitable habitat; ESH). This differs from the two spatial metrics used for assessing extinction risk in the IUCN Red List criteria: extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). AOH can guide conservation, for example, through targeting areas for field surveys, assessing proportions of species' habitat within protected areas, and monitoring habitat loss and fragmentation. We recommend that IUCN Red List assessments document AOH wherever practical.

Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress.

To inform governmental discussions on the nature of a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we reviewed the relevant literature and assessed the framing of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the current strategic plan. We asked international experts from nongovernmental organizations, academia, government agencies, international organizations, research institutes, and the CBD to score the Aichi Targets and their constituent elements against a set of specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, unambiguous, scalable, and comprehensive criteria (SMART based, excluding time bound because all targets are bound to 2015 or 2020). We then investigated the relationship between these expert scores and reported progress toward the target elements by using the findings from 2 global progress assessments (Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). We analyzed the data with ordinal logistic regressions. We found significant positive relationships (p < 0.05) between progress and the extent to which the target elements were perceived to be measurable, realistic, unambiguous, and scalable. There was some evidence of a relationship between progress and specificity of the target elements, but no relationship between progress and ambition. We are the first to show associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet certain SMART criteria. As negotiations around the post-2020 biodiversity framework proceed, decision makers should strive to ensure that new or revised targets are effectively structured and clearly worded to allow the translation of targets into actionable policies that can be successfully implemented nationally, regionally, and globally.

Relación de las Características de los Objetivos Mundiales de Biodiversidad con el Progreso Reportado Resumen Para informar las discusiones gubernamentales sobre la naturaleza de una revisión del Plan Estratégico para la Biodiversidad del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CBD, en inglés), revisamos la literatura relevante y evaluamos el marco de 20 Objetivos de Biodiversidad de Aichi en el plan estratégico actual. Le pedimos a expertos internacionales de organizaciones no gubernamentales, de la academia, de agencias gubernamentales, organizaciones internacionales, de institutos de investigación y de la CBD que puntuaran los Objetivos de Aichi y sus elementos constituyentes frente a un conjunto de criterios específicos, medibles, ambiciosos, realistas (basados en SMART [las iniciales en inglés] y excluyendo aquellos limitados por el tiempo, pues todos los objetivos están limitados al 2015 o al 2020), inequívocos, expansibles y completos (excluyendo aquellos limitados por el tiempo). Después investigamos la relación entre los puntajes de estos expertos y el progreso reportado hacia los elementos objetivo usando los resultados de dos valoraciones mundiales del progreso (el Pronóstico Mundial de la Biodiversidad y la Plataforma Intergubernamental de Ciencia y Política sobre la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ambientales). Analizamos los datos con regresiones logísticas ordinales. Encontramos relaciones positivas significativas (p < 0.05) entre el progreso y el alcance al que fueron percibidos como medibles, realistas, inequívocos y expansibles los elementos objetivo. Hubo algo de evidencia de la relación entre el progreso y la ambición. Somos los primeros en mostrar las asociaciones entre el progreso y la extensión hasta la que los Objetivos de Aichi cumplen con ciertos criterios SMART. Conforme proceden las negociaciones en torno al marco de trabajo de biodiversidad post-2020, quienes toman las decisiones deberían esforzarse por asegurar que los objetivos nuevos o revisados estén estructurados efectivamente y redactados claramente para permitir la traducción de los objetivos hacia políticas factibles que puedan implementarse exitosamente a nivel nacional, regional y mundial.

Bird and bat species' global vulnerability to collision mortality at wind farms revealed through a trait-based assessment.

Mitigation of anthropogenic climate change involves deployments of renewable energy worldwide, including wind farms, which can pose a significant collision risk to volant animals. Most studies into the collision risk between species and wind turbines, however, have taken place in industrialized countries. Potential effects for many locations and species therefore remain unclear. To redress this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of recorded collisions between birds and bats and wind turbines within developed countries. We related collision rate to species-level traits and turbine characteristics to quantify the potential vulnerability of 9538 bird and 888 bat species globally. Avian collision rate was affected by migratory strategy, dispersal distance and habitat associations, and bat collision rates were influenced by dispersal distance. For birds and bats, larger turbine capacity (megawatts) increased collision rates; however, deploying a smaller number of large turbines with greater energy output reduced total collision risk per unit energy output, although bat mortality increased again with the largest turbines. Areas with high concentrations of vulnerable species were also identified, including migration corridors. Our results can therefore guide wind farm design and location to reduce the risk of large-scale animal mortality. This is the first quantitative global assessment of the relative collision vulnerability of species groups with wind turbines, providing valuable guidance for minimizing potentially serious negative impacts on biodiversity.

Toward quantification of the impact of 21st-century deforestation on the extinction risk of terrestrial vertebrates.

Conservation actions need to be prioritized, often taking into account species' extinction risk. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List provides an accepted, objective framework for the assessment of extinction risk. Assessments based on data collected in the field are the best option, but the field data to base these on are often limited. Information collected through remote sensing can be used in place of field data to inform assessments. Forests are perhaps the best-studied land-cover type for use of remote-sensing data. Using an open-access 30-m resolution map of tree cover and its change between 2000 and 2012, we assessed the extent of forest cover and loss within the distributions of 11,186 forest-dependent amphibians, birds, and mammals worldwide. For 16 species, forest loss resulted in an elevated extinction risk under red-list criterion A, owing to inferred rapid population declines. This number increased to 23 when data-deficient species (i.e., those with insufficient information for evaluation) were included. Under red-list criterion B2, 484 species (855 when data-deficient species were included) were considered at elevated extinction risk, owing to restricted areas of occupancy resulting from little forest cover remaining within their ranges. The proportion of species of conservation concern would increase by 32.8% for amphibians, 15.1% for birds, and 24.7% for mammals if our suggested uplistings are accepted. Central America, the Northern Andes, Madagascar, the Eastern Arc forests in Africa, and the islands of Southeast Asia are hotspots for these species. Our results illustrate the utility of satellite imagery for global extinction-risk assessment and measurement of progress toward international environmental agreement targets.

Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets.

After their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, world governments adopted 20 new ambitious Aichi biodiversity targets to be met by 2020. Efforts to achieve one particular target can contribute to achieving others, but different targets may sometimes require conflicting solutions. Consequently, lack of strategic thinking might result, once again, in a failure to achieve global commitments to biodiversity conservation. We illustrate this dilemma by focusing on Aichi Target 11. This target requires an expansion of terrestrial protected area coverage, which could also contribute to reducing the loss of natural habitats (Target 5), reducing human-induced species decline and extinction (Target 12), and maintaining global carbon stocks (Target 15). We considered the potential impact of expanding protected areas to mitigate global deforestation and the consequences for the distribution of suitable habitat for >10,000 species of forest vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). We first identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on remaining forests and then identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on forest vertebrates (considering aggregate suitable habitat for species). Expanding protected areas toward locations with the highest deforestation rates (Target 5) or the highest potential loss of aggregate species' suitable habitat (Target 12) resulted in partially different protected area network configurations (overlapping with each other by about 73%). Moreover, the latter approach contributed to safeguarding about 30% more global carbon stocks than the former. Further investigation of synergies and trade-offs between targets would shed light on these and other complex interactions, such as the interaction between reducing overexploitation of natural resources (Targets 6, 7), controlling invasive alien species (Target 9), and preventing extinctions of native species (Target 12). Synergies between targets must be identified and secured soon and trade-offs must be minimized before the options for co-benefits are reduced by human pressures.

Drivers of extinction risk in African mammals: the interplay of distribution state, human pressure, conservation response and species biology.

Although conservation intervention has reversed the decline of some species, our success is outweighed by a much larger number of species moving towards extinction. Extinction risk modelling can identify correlates of risk and species not yet recognized to be threatened. Here, we use machine learning models to identify correlates of extinction risk in African terrestrial mammals using a set of variables belonging to four classes: species distribution state, human pressures, conservation response and species biology. We derived information on distribution state and human pressure from satellite-borne imagery. Variables in all four classes were identified as important predictors of extinction risk, and interactions were observed among variables in different classes (e.g. level of protection, human threats, species distribution ranges). Species biology had a key role in mediating the effect of external variables. The model was 90% accurate in classifying extinction risk status of species, but in a few cases the observed and modelled extinction risk mismatched. Species in this condition might suffer from an incorrect classification of extinction risk (hence require reassessment). An increased availability of satellite imagery combined with improved resolution and classification accuracy of the resulting maps will play a progressively greater role in conservation monitoring.

Protection reduces loss of natural land-cover at sites of conservation importance across Africa.

There is an emerging consensus that protected areas are key in reducing adverse land-cover change, but their efficacy remains difficult to quantify. Many previous assessments of protected area effectiveness have compared changes between sets of protected and unprotected sites that differ systematically in other potentially confounding respects (e.g. altitude, accessibility), have considered only forest loss or changes at single sites, or have analysed changes derived from land-cover data of low spatial resolution. We assessed the effectiveness of protection in reducing land-cover change in Important Bird Areas (IBAs) across Africa using a dedicated visual interpretation of higher resolution satellite imagery. We compared rates of change in natural land-cover over a c. 20-year period from around 1990 at a large number of points across 45 protected IBAs to those from 48 unprotected IBAs. A matching algorithm was used to select sample points to control for potentially confounding differences between protected and unprotected IBAs. The rate of loss of natural land-cover at sample points within protected IBAs was just 42% of that at matched points in unprotected IBAs. Conversion was especially marked in forests, but protection reduced rates of forest loss by a similar relative amount. Rates of conversion increased from the centre to the edges of both protected and unprotected IBAs, but rates of loss in 20-km buffer zones surrounding protected IBAs and unprotected IBAs were similar, with no evidence of displacement of conversion from within protected areas to their immediate surrounds (leakage).

Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets: current spending and unmet needs.

World governments have committed to halting human-induced extinctions and safeguarding important sites for biodiversity by 2020, but the financial costs of meeting these targets are largely unknown. We estimate the cost of reducing the extinction risk of all globally threatened bird species (by ≥1 International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List category) to be U.S. $0.875 to $1.23 billion annually over the next decade, of which 12% is currently funded. Incorporating threatened nonavian species increases this total to U.S. $3.41 to $4.76 billion annually. We estimate that protecting and effectively managing all terrestrial sites of global avian conservation significance (11,731 Important Bird Areas) would cost U.S. $65.1 billion annually. Adding sites for other taxa increases this to U.S. $76.1 billion annually. Meeting these targets will require conservation funding to increase by at least an order of magnitude.

Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forest-dependent birds.

Limited resources are available to address the world's growing environmental problems, requiring conservationists to identify priority sites for action. Using new distribution maps for all of the world's forest-dependent birds (60.6% of all bird species), we quantify the contribution of remaining forest to conserving global avian biodiversity. For each of the world's partly or wholly forested 5-km cells, we estimated an impact score of its contribution to the distribution of all the forest bird species estimated to occur within it, and so is proportional to the impact on the conservation status of the world's forest-dependent birds were the forest it contains lost. The distribution of scores was highly skewed, a very small proportion of cells having scores several orders of magnitude above the global mean. Ecoregions containing the highest values of this score included relatively species-poor islands such as Hawaii and Palau, the relatively species-rich islands of Indonesia and the Philippines, and the megadiverse Atlantic Forests and northern Andes of South America. Ecoregions with high impact scores and high deforestation rates (2000-2005) included montane forests in Cameroon and the Eastern Arc of Tanzania, although deforestation data were not available for all ecoregions. Ecoregions with high impact scores, high rates of recent deforestation and low coverage by the protected area network included Indonesia's Seram rain forests and the moist forests of Trinidad and Tobago. Key sites in these ecoregions represent some of the most urgent priorities for expansion of the global protected areas network to meet Convention on Biological Diversity targets to increase the proportion of land formally protected to 17% by 2020. Areas with high impact scores, rapid deforestation, low protection and high carbon storage values may represent significant opportunities for both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation, for example through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) initiatives.