Conservation planning for retention, not just protection.

Most protected area (PA) planning aims to improve biota representation within the PA system, but this does not necessarily achieve the best outcomes for biota retention across regions when we also consider habitat loss in areas outside the PA system. Here, we assess the implications that different PA expansion strategies can have on the retention of species habitat across an entire region. Using retention of forest habitat for Colombia's 550 forest-dependent bird species as our outcome variable, we found that when a minimum of 30% of each species' habitat was included in the PA system, a pattern of PA expansion targeting areas at highest deforestation risk (risk-prevention) led to the retention, on average, of 7.2% more forest habitat per species by 2050 than did a pattern that targeted areas at lowest risk (risk-avoidance). The risk-prevention approach cost more per km2 of land conserved, but it was more cost-effective in retaining habitat in the landscape (50%-69% lower cost per km2 of avoided deforestation). To have the same effectiveness preventing habitat loss in Colombia, the risk-avoidance approach would require more than twice as much protected area, costing three times more in the process. Protected area expansion should focus on the contributions of PAs to outcomes not only within PA systems themselves, but across entire regions.

La mayor parte de la planificación de áreas protegidas (AP) tiene como objetivo mejorar la representación de la biota dentro del sistema de AP, pero esto no necesariamente logra los mejores resultados para la retención de biota a nivel de paisaje cuando también consideramos la pérdida de hábitat en áreas fuera del sistema de AP. Aquí evaluamos las implicaciones que diferentes estrategias de expansión de AP pueden tener en la retención del hábitat de las especies en toda una región. Utilizando la retención de hábitat forestal para las 550 especies de aves dependientes de bosque de Colombia como nuestra variable de resultado, encontramos que cuando un mínimo del 30% del hábitat de cada especie es incluido en el sistema de AP, se observó que un patrón de expansión de AP dirigido a áreas con mayor riesgo de deforestación (prevención de riesgos) condujo a la retención, en promedio, de un 7.2% más de hábitat por especie para 2050 que un patrón enfocado en áreas con menor riesgo (evasión de riesgos). El enfoque de prevención de riesgos costó más por km2 de tierra conservada, pero fue más rentable para retener el hábitat en el paisaje (entre un 50% y un 69% menos costo por km2 de deforestación evitada). Para tener la misma eficacia en la prevención de la pérdida de hábitat en Colombia, el enfoque de evasión de riesgos requeriría más del doble de área protegida, lo que costaría tres veces más en el proceso. La expansión de las AP debería centrarse en las contribuciones de las AP a los resultados no sólo dentro de los propios sistemas de AP, sino en regiones enteras.

A Review of Condition Metrics Used in Biodiversity Offsetting.

Biodiversity offsets are commonly used to compensate for environmental impacts, but their effectiveness is often questioned. Estimations of expected losses and gains often rely on what we called condition metrics, which measure a site's quality or condition using certain ecological attributes. Condition metrics are central to most offset policies, but their attributes and calculations vary substantially. We reviewed the academic literature to draw a profile of existing condition metrics used in the offsetting context. We found 17 metrics that differed in how they included attributes from the three "dimensions of equivalence": biodiversity (present in 15 metrics), landscape (in 10 metrics) and ecosystem services (in 5 metrics). Most metrics included many ecological attributes and required fieldwork and GIS data to be calculated, but few used modeling and expert opinion. Generally, metrics aggregated the attributes into a single final value and were created in Global North countries. To favor more transparent and ecologically equivalent offset trades worldwide, we suggest condition metrics should include the three dimensions of equivalence in a disaggregated way, i.e. measurements done separately and analyzed in parallel. The use of modeling, expert opinion and GIS may facilitate the inclusion of the dimensions and reduce the need for intensive (and expensive) fieldwork. Testing synergies and trade-offs among attributes could indicate if metrics can be simplified without losing information. Finally, development of fit-for-purpose condition metrics is especially important in Global South countries, where few such metrics exist.

Evaluating the impact of biodiversity offsetting on native vegetation.

Biodiversity offsetting is a globally influential policy mechanism for reconciling trade-offs between development and biodiversity loss. However, there is little robust evidence of its effectiveness. We evaluated the outcomes of a jurisdictional offsetting policy (Victoria, Australia). Offsets under Victoria's Native Vegetation Framework (2002-2013) aimed to prevent loss and degradation of remnant vegetation, and generate gains in vegetation extent and quality. We categorised offsets into those with near-complete baseline woody vegetation cover ("avoided loss", 2702 ha) and with incomplete cover ("regeneration", 501 ha), and evaluated impacts on woody vegetation extent from 2008 to 2018. We used two approaches to estimate the counterfactual. First, we used statistical matching on biophysical covariates: a common approach in conservation impact evaluation, but which risks ignoring potentially important psychosocial confounders. Second, we compared changes in offsets with changes in sites that were not offsets for the study duration but were later enrolled as offsets, to partially account for self-selection bias (where landholders enrolling land may have shared characteristics affecting how they manage land). Matching on biophysical covariates, we estimated that regeneration offsets increased woody vegetation extent by 1.9%-3.6%/year more than non-offset sites (138-180 ha from 2008 to 2018) but this effect weakened with the second approach (0.3%-1.9%/year more than non-offset sites; 19-97 ha from 2008 to 2018) and disappeared when a single outlier land parcel was removed. Neither approach detected any impact of avoided loss offsets. We cannot conclusively demonstrate whether the policy goal of 'net gain' (NG) was achieved because of data limitations. However, given our evidence that the majority of increases in woody vegetation extent were not additional (would have happened without the scheme), a NG outcome seems unlikely. The results highlight the importance of considering self-selection bias in the design and evaluation of regulatory biodiversity offsetting policy, and the challenges of conducting robust impact evaluations of jurisdictional biodiversity offsetting policies.

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.

Protected areas and the future of insect conservation.

Anthropogenic pressures are driving insect declines across the world. Although protected areas (PAs) play a prominent role in safeguarding many vertebrate species from human-induced threats, insects are not widely considered when designing PA systems or building strategies for PA management. We review the effectiveness of PAs for insect conservation and find substantial taxonomic and geographic gaps in knowledge. Most research focuses on the representation of species, and few studies assess threats to insects or the role that effective PA management can play in insect conservation. We propose a four-step research agenda to help ensure that insects are central in efforts to expand the global PA network under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

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.

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.

Disentangling direct and indirect effects of landscape structure on urban bird richness and functional diversity.

As fragmented landscapes become increasingly common around the world, managing the spatial arrangement of landscape elements (i.e., landscape configuration) may help to promote the conservation of biodiversity. However, the relative effects of landscape configuration on different dimensions of biodiversity across species assemblages are largely unknown. Thus, a key challenge consists in understanding when it is necessary to focus on landscape configuration, in addition to landscape composition, to achieve multifunctional landscapes. We tested the effects of landscape composition (the percentage of tree cover and built infrastructure) and landscape configuration (degree of fragmentation) on landscape-level species richness and different metrics of functional diversity of urban birds. We collected data on different bird guilds (nectarivores/frugivores, insectivores) from Brisbane, Australia. Using structural equation models, we found that landscape structure (landscape composition and configuration) affected functional diversity via two main pathways: (1) through effects of landscape composition, mediated by landscape configuration (indirect effects), and (2) through direct ("independent") effects of landscape composition and configuration, filtering species with extreme trait values. Our results show that landscape-level species richness declined with the extent of built infrastructure, but patterns of trait diversity did not necessarily correlate with this variable. Landscape configuration had a stronger mediating effect on some metrics of the functional diversity of insectivores than on the functional diversity of frugivores/nectarivores. In addition, fragmentation increased the effects of built infrastructure for some traits (body size and dispersal capacity), but not for others (habitat plasticity and foraging behavior). These results suggest that differential approaches to managing landscape structure are needed depending on whether the focus is on protecting functional diversity or species richness and what the target guild is. Managing landscape fragmentation in areas with high levels of built infrastructure is important if the objective is to protect insectivore species with uncommon traits, even if it is not possible to preserve high levels of species richness. However, if the target is to enhance both functional diversity and species richness of multiple guilds, the focus should be on improving composition through the reduction of negative effects of built infrastructure, rather than promoting specific landscape configurations in growing cities.

Guidelines for selecting an appropriate currency in biodiversity offset transactions.

When designing biodiversity offset transactions, selecting the appropriate currency for measuring losses and gains to biodiversity is crucial. Poorly designed currencies reduce the likelihood that the proposed offset will sufficiently compensate for the development impact on the affected biota. We present a framework for identifying appropriate offset currencies for terrestrial biodiversity features, either vegetation communities or particular species. The guidelines were developed based on a review of issues and solutions presented in the existing literature, including government policies and guidance. We assert that while benchmark-based condition scores provide a suitable offset transaction currency for vegetation communities, this approach is also commonly applied to individual species based on the often-unproven assumption that vegetation quality is a proxy for the value of a site to that species. We argue that species are better served by species-specific currencies based on either species abundance, or the suitability and amount of the habitat available. For species where it is practical and meaningful to measure the abundance on site, an abundance-based currency using either directly observable or proxy indicators is the most representative measure of the net impact on the species. In other instances, such as when species are difficult to locate, or not reliably present on site, a currency based on the quality and amount of habitat is preferable. The habitat-quality component should be measured relative to its value for the species, with the most important attributes weighted accordingly. Ensuring the currency used in biodiversity offset transactions is practical to measure, and relevant to the species or vegetation community is an important step in minimising the net biodiversity losses from unavoidable impacts.

Eight things you should never do in a monitoring program: an Australian perspective.

Monitoring is critical to gauge the effect of environmental management interventions as well as to measure the effects of human disturbances such as climate change. Recognition of the critical need for monitoring means that, at irregular intervals, recommendations are made for new government-instigated programs or to revamp existing ones. Using insights from past well-intentioned (but sadly also often failed) attempts to establish and maintain government-instigated monitoring programs in Australia, we outline eight things that should never be done in environmental monitoring programs (if they aim to be useful). These are the following: (1) Never commence a new environmental management initiative without also committing to a monitoring program. (2) Never start a monitoring program without clear questions. (3) Never implement a monitoring program without first doing a proper experimental design. (4) Never ignore the importance of matching the purpose and objectives of a monitoring program to the design of that program. (5) Never change the way you monitor something without ensuring new methods can be calibrated with the old ones. (6) Never try to monitor everything. (7) Never collect data without planning to curate and report on it. (8) If possible, avoid starting a monitoring program without the necessary resources secured. To balance our "nevers", we provide a checklist of actions that will increase the chances a monitoring program will actually measure the effectiveness of environmental management. Scientists and resource management practitioners need to be part of a stronger narrative for, and key participants in, well-designed, implemented, and maintained government-led monitoring programs. We argue that monitoring programs should be mandated in threatened species conservation programs and all new environmental management initiatives.

The minimum land area requiring conservation attention to safeguard biodiversity.

Ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. In this study, we estimate the minimum land area to secure important biodiversity areas, ecologically intact areas, and optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. We discover that at least 64 million square kilometers (44% of terrestrial area) would require conservation attention (ranging from protected areas to land-use policies) to meet this goal. More than 1.8 billion people live on these lands, so responses that promote autonomy, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million square kilometers of this land is at risk of being converted for intensive human land uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, a sevenfold difference exists between the amount of habitat converted in optimistic and pessimistic land-use scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to encourage conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity.

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.

The mismeasure of conservation.

One of the basic purposes of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation interventions is to achieve conservation impact, the sum of avoided biodiversity loss and promoted recovery relative to outcomes without protection. In the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity's negotiations on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we find that targets for area-based interventions are framed overwhelmingly with measures that fail to inform decision-makers about impact and that risk diverting limited resources away from achieving it. We show that predicting impact in space and time is feasible and can provide the basis for global guidance for jurisdictions to develop targets for conservation impact and shift investment priorities to areas where impact can be most effectively achieved.

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.

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.

Impact of 2019-2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat.

Australia's 2019-2020 mega-fires were exacerbated by drought, anthropogenic climate change and existing land-use management. Here, using a combination of remotely sensed data and species distribution models, we found these fires burnt ~97,000 km2 of vegetation across southern and eastern Australia, which is considered habitat for 832 species of native vertebrate fauna. Seventy taxa had a substantial proportion (>30%) of habitat impacted; 21 of these were already listed as threatened with extinction. To avoid further species declines, Australia must urgently reassess the extinction vulnerability of fire-impacted species and assist the recovery of populations in both burnt and unburnt areas. Population recovery requires multipronged strategies aimed at ameliorating current and fire-induced threats, including proactively protecting unburnt habitats.