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.

Patterns of infringement, risk, and impact driven by coal mining permits in Indonesia.

Coal mining is known for its contributions to climate change, but its impacts on the environment and human lives near mine sites are less widely recognised. This study integrates remote sensing, GIS, stakeholder interviews and extensive review of provincial data and documents to identify patterns of infringement, risk and impact driven by coal mining expansion across East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Specifically, we map and analyse patterns of mining concessions, land clearing, water cover, human settlement, and safety risks, and link them with mining governance and regulatory infractions related to coal mining permits. We show that excessive, improper permit granting and insufficient monitoring and oversight have led to deforestation, widespread overlaps of concessions with settlements, extensive boundary and regulatory violations, lacking reclamation, and numerous deaths. As the world's largest thermal coal exporter, Indonesia's elevated coal infringements, risks, and impacts translate to supply chain, sustainability, and human rights concerns for global coal markets.

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.

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.

A pantropical assessment of deforestation caused by industrial mining.

Growing demand for minerals continues to drive deforestation worldwide. Tropical forests are particularly vulnerable to the environmental impacts of mining and mineral processing. Many local- to regional-scale studies document extensive, long-lasting impacts of mining on biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the full scope of deforestation induced by industrial mining across the tropics is yet unknown. Here, we present a biome-wide assessment to show where industrial mine expansion has caused the most deforestation from 2000 to 2019. We find that 3,264 km2 of forest was directly lost due to industrial mining, with 80% occurring in only four countries: Indonesia, Brazil, Ghana, and Suriname. Additionally, controlling for other nonmining determinants of deforestation, we find that mining caused indirect forest loss in two-thirds of the investigated countries. Our results illustrate significant yet unevenly distributed and often unmanaged impacts on these biodiverse ecosystems. Impact assessments and mitigation plans of industrial mining activities must address direct and indirect impacts to support conservation of the world's tropical forests.

The impacts of land use change on flood protection services among multiple beneficiaries.

Land use change drives significant declines in ecosystem services globally. However, we currently lack an understanding of how and where different beneficiaries of ecosystem services experience the impacts of land use change. This information is needed to identify possible inequalities in the delivery among beneficiaries, and to design policy interventions to address them. Here, we used a spatially explicit and disaggregated approach to ask how land use change affects the distribution of flood protection among three beneficiary sectors (urban residents, rural communities, and the food sector). Our study focused on the Brigalow Belt Bioregion of Australia - an area affected by widespread deforestation - and assessed the effect of land use change on flood protection between 2002 and 2015. We estimated flood protection per beneficiary sector as the total upstream runoff retention (supply) linked to areas where flood protection is required for sector-specific infrastructure (demand). We calculated changes in flood protection between 2002 and 2015 at the local government area scale and for each beneficiary sector. Using counterfactual scenarios, we identified whether changes in flood protection were driven by forest loss or changes in the extent of infrastructure at risk of flooding. We found net declines in flood protection for all sectors. Urban residents experienced the greatest decline (28%), followed by rural communities (15%), and the food sector (14%). Overall declines in flood protection across the whole region were driven primarily by forest loss. However, for some local government areas and beneficiaries, changes in flood protection were also driven by increases in forest cover or spatial changes in demand. Recognition that beneficiary sectors can be impacted via different drivers of change is fundamental to revealing highly impacted sectors. In turn, this information can be used to develop management strategies to address inequalities in the distribution of ecosystem services among beneficiaries.

Advancing Systematic Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services.

Conservation and sustainable management activities are critical for enhancing ecosystem services. Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is a spatial decision support process used to identify the most cost-effective places for intervention and is increasingly incorporating ecosystem services thinking. Yet, there is no clear guidance on how to incorporate ecosystem service components (i.e., supply, demand, and flow) for multiple beneficiaries into the decision problem underpinning SCP. As such, conservation plans may fall short of maximizing benefits for both people and nature. We propose a benefit-based approach to integrate ecosystem service components into SCP that uses the principles of decision theory. Our approach will improve the likelihood that ecosystem service benefits are enhanced in spatial planning applications.

Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity.

Renewable energy production is necessary to halt climate change and reverse associated biodiversity losses. However, generating the required technologies and infrastructure will drive an increase in the production of many metals, creating new mining threats for biodiversity. Here, we map mining areas and assess their spatial coincidence with biodiversity conservation sites and priorities. Mining potentially influences 50 million km2 of Earth's land surface, with 8% coinciding with Protected Areas, 7% with Key Biodiversity Areas, and 16% with Remaining Wilderness. Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production, and areas that overlap with Protected Areas and Remaining Wilderness contain a greater density of mines (our indicator of threat severity) compared to the overlapping mining areas that target other materials. Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.

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.

Local conditions and policy design determine whether ecological compensation can achieve No Net Loss goals.

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted.

Effects of spatial autocorrelation and sampling design on estimates of protected area effectiveness.

Estimating the effectiveness of protected areas (PAs) in reducing deforestation is useful to support decisions on whether to invest in better management of areas already protected or to create new ones. Statistical matching is commonly used to assess this effectiveness, but spatial autocorrelation and regional differences in protection effectiveness are frequently overlooked. Using Colombia as a case study, we employed statistical matching to account for confounding factors in park location and accounted for for spatial autocorrelation to determine statistical significance. We compared the performance of different matching procedures-ways of generating matching pairs at different scales-in estimating PA effectiveness. Differences in matching procedures affected covariate similarity between matched pairs (balance) and estimates of PA effectiveness in reducing deforestation. Independent matching yielded the greatest balance. On average 95% of variables in each region were balanced with independent matching, whereas 33% of variables were balanced when using the method that performed worst. The best estimates suggested that average deforestation inside protected areas in Colombia was 40% lower than in matched sites. Protection significantly reduced deforestation, but PA effectiveness differed among regions. Protected areas in Caribe were the most effective, whereas those in Orinoco and Pacific were least effective. Our results demonstrate that accounting for spatial autocorrelation and using independent matching for each subset of data is needed to infer the effectiveness of protection in reducing deforestation. Not accounting for spatial autocorrelation can distort the assessment of protection effectiveness, increasing type I and II errors and inflating effect size. Our method allowed improved estimates of protection effectiveness across scales and under different conditions and can be applied to other regions to effectively assess PA performance.

Efectos de la Autocorrelación Espacial y el Diseño del Muestreo sobre las Estimaciones de la Efectividad de Áreas Protegidas Resumen La estimación de la efectividad de las áreas protegidas (AP) para reducir la deforestación es útil al momento de respaldar las decisiones que eligen entre invertir en un mejor manejo de las áreas ya protegidas o crear áreas nuevas. El emparejamiento estadístico es la herramienta utilizada con mayor frecuencia para evaluar esta efectividad, pero casi siempre se ignora la autocorrelación especial y las diferencias regionales en la efectividad de la protección. Con Colombia como caso de estudio, empleamos un emparejamiento estadístico para controlar el efecto de factores relacionados con la ubicación la ubicación de los parques y he incluimos el efecto de la autocorrelación especial para determinar la significancia estadística. Comparamos el desempeño de los diferentes procedimientos de emparejamiento - las maneras de generar pares a diferentes escalas - en la estimación de la efectividad de las AP. Las diferencias en los procedimientos de emparejamiento afectaron la similitud de la covarianza entre los pares emparejados (balance) y la estimación de la efectividad de las AP en la reducción de la deforestación. El emparejamiento independiente produjo el mayor balance. En promedio, el 95% de las variables en cada región estuvo balanceado con el emparejamiento independiente, mientras que el 24% de las variables estuvo balanceado cuando se usó el método con el peor desempeño. Las mejores estimaciones sugieren que la deforestación media dentro de las áreas protegidas en Colombia era 40% menor que en los sitios emparejados emparejados. La protección redujo significativamente la deforestación, aunque la efectividad de las AP difirió entre las regiones. Las AP en la región Caribe fueron las más efectivas, mientras que aquellas en la Orinoquía y el Pacífico fueron las menos efectivas. Nuestros resultados demuestran que se necesita considerar la autocorrelación espacial y usar el emparejamiento independiente para cada subconjunto de datos para inferir la efectividad de la protección en la reducción de la deforestación. Si no se considera la autocorrelación espacial, se pueden distorsionar los estimativos de la efectividad de la protección, incrementando los errores de tipo I y II e inflando el tamaño del efecto. Nuestro método permitió obtener mejores estimaciones de la efectividad de la protección en todas las escalas y bajo diferentes condiciones y puede aplicarse a otras regiones para evaluar de manera efectiva el desempeño de las AP.

Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas.

Transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is fundamental for halting anthropogenic climate change. However, renewable energy facilities can be land-use intensive and impact conservation areas, and little attention has been given to whether the aggregated effect of energy transitions poses a substantial threat to global biodiversity. Here, we assess the extent of current and likely future renewable energy infrastructure associated with onshore wind, hydropower and solar photovoltaic generation, within three important conservation areas: protected areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and Earth's remaining wilderness. We identified 2,206 fully operational renewable energy facilities within the boundaries of these conservation areas, with another 922 facilities under development. Combined, these facilities span and are degrading 886 PAs, 749 KBAs and 40 distinct wilderness areas. Two trends are particularly concerning. First, while the majority of historical overlap occurs in Western Europe, the renewable electricity facilities under development increasingly overlap with conservation areas in Southeast Asia, a globally important region for biodiversity. Second, this next wave of renewable energy infrastructure represents a ~30% increase in the number of PAs and KBAs impacted and could increase the number of compromised wilderness areas by ~60%. If the world continues to rapidly transition towards renewable energy these areas will face increasing pressure to allow infrastructure expansion. Coordinated planning of renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation is essential to avoid conflicts that compromise their respective objectives.

Offsetting impacts of development on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Offsetting-trading losses in one place for commensurate gains in another-is a tool used to mitigate environmental impacts of development. Biodiversity and carbon are the most widely used targets of offsets; however, other ecosystem services are increasingly traded, introducing new risks to the environment and people. Here, we provide guidance on how to "trade with minimal trade-offs"- i.e. how to offset impacts on biodiversity without negatively affecting ecosystem services and vice versa. We briefly survey the literature on offsetting biodiversity, carbon and other ecosystem services, revealing that each subfield addresses unique issues (often overlooking those raised by others) and rarely assesses potential trade-offs. We discuss key differences between offsets that trade biodiversity and those that trade ecosystem services, conceptualise links between these different targets in an offsetting context and describe three broad approaches to manage potential trade-offs. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to strengthen the outcomes of offsetting policies that are emerging internationally.

Proposed Legislation to Mine Brazil's Indigenous Lands Will Threaten Amazon Forests and Their Valuable Ecosystem Services.

A recent proposal to regulate mining within Indigenous Lands (ILs) threatens people and the unique ecosystems of Brazil's Legal Amazon. Here, we show that this new policy could eventually affect more than 863,000 km2 of tropical forests-20% more than under current policies-assuming all known mineral deposits will be developed and impacts of mining on forests extend 70 km from lease boundaries. Not only are these forests home to some of the world's most culturally diverse communities, they also provide at least US $5 billion each year to the global economy, producing food, mitigating carbon emissions, and regulating climate for agriculture and energy production. It is unclear whether new mines within ILs will be required to compensate for their direct and indirect environmental and social impacts but failing to do so will have considerable environmental and social consequences.

Global no net loss of natural ecosystems.

A global goal of no net loss of natural ecosystems or better has recently been proposed, but such a goal would require equitable translation to country-level contributions. Given the wide variation in ecosystem depletion, these could vary from net gain (for countries where restoration is needed), to managed net loss (in rare circumstances where natural ecosystems remain extensive and human development imperative is greatest). National contributions and international support for implementation also must consider non-area targets (for example, for threatened species) and socioeconomic factors such as the capacity to conserve and the imperative for human development.

The climate sensitivity of carbon, timber, and species richness covaries with forest age in boreal-temperate North America.

Climate change threatens the provisioning of forest ecosystem services and biodiversity (ESB). The climate sensitivity of ESB may vary with forest development from young to old-growth conditions as structure and composition shift over time and space. This study addresses knowledge gaps hindering implementation of adaptive forest management strategies to sustain ESB. We focused on a number of ESB indicators to (a) analyze associations among carbon storage, timber growth rate, and species richness along a forest development gradient; (b) test the sensitivity of these associations to climatic changes; and (c) identify hotspots of climate sensitivity across the boreal-temperate forests of eastern North America. From pre-existing databases and literature, we compiled a unique dataset of 18,507 forest plots. We used a full Bayesian framework to quantify responses of nine ESB indicators. The Bayesian models were used to assess the sensitivity of these indicators and their associations to projected increases in temperature and precipitation. We found the strongest association among the investigated ESB indicators in old forests (>170 years). These forests simultaneously support high levels of carbon storage, timber growth, and species richness. Older forests also exhibit low climate sensitivity of associations among ESB indicators as compared to younger forests. While regions with a currently low combined ESB performance benefitted from climate change, regions with a high ESB performance were particularly vulnerable to climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity was highest east and southeast of the Great Lakes, signaling potential priority areas for adaptive management. Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at enhancing the representation of older forest conditions at landscape scales will help sustain ESB in a changing world.

Effects of human demand on conservation planning for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity is critical to achieving sustainable development. To date, ecosystem services quantification has focused on the biophysical supply of services with less emphasis on human beneficiaries (i.e., demand). Only when both occur do ecosystems benefit people, but demand may shift ecosystem service priorities toward human-dominated landscapes that support less biodiversity. We quantified how accounting for demand affects the efficiency of conservation in capturing both human benefits and biodiversity by comparing conservation priorities identified with and without accounting for demand. We mapped supply and benefit for 3 ecosystem services (flood mitigation, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation) by adapting existing ecosystem service models to include and exclude factors representing human demand. We then identified conservation priorities for each with the conservation planning program Marxan. Particularly for flood mitigation and crop pollination, supply served as a poor proxy for benefit because demand changed the spatial distribution of ecosystem service provision. Including demand when jointly targeting biodiversity and ecosystem service increased the efficiency of conservation efforts targeting ecosystem services without reducing biodiversity outcomes. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating demand when quantifying ecosystem services for conservation planning.

Efectos de la Demanda Humana sobre la Planeación de la Conservación para la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ambientales Resumen La salvaguardia de los servicios ambientales y de la biodiversidad es muy importante para lograr el desarrollo sustentable. A la fecha, la cuantificación de los servicios ambientales se ha enfocado en el suministro biofísico de servicios con un menor énfasis en los beneficiarios humanos (es decir, la demanda). Es sólo cuando se considera a ambos que los ecosistemas benefician a las personas, pero la demanda puede cambiar las prioridades de los servicios ambientales hacia los paisajes dominados por humanos, los cuales mantienen una menor biodiversidad. Cuantificamos cómo afecta la consideración de la demanda a la eficiencia de la conservación en la captura de los beneficios humanos y de la biodiversidad al comparar las prioridades de conservación con y sin la consideración de la demanda. Mapeamos el suministro y el beneficio para tres servicios ambientales (mitigación de inundaciones, polinización de cultivos y actividades recreativas basadas en la naturaleza) al adaptar los modelos de servicios ambientales existentes para que incluyeran y excluyeran los factores que representan la demanda humana. Después identificamos las prioridades de conservación para cada uno con el programa de planeación de la conservación Marxan. En el caso particular de la mitigación de inundaciones y la polinización de cultivos, el suministro fue un sustituto pobre para el beneficio debido a que la demanda cambió la distribución espacial de la provisión de servicios ambientales. La inclusión de la demanda cuando nos enfocamos en la biodiversidad y en los servicios ambientales como conjunto incrementó la eficiencia de los esfuerzos de conservación enfocados en los servicios ambientales sin reducir los resultados para la biodiversidad. Nuestros resultados resaltan la importancia de la incorporación de la demanda cuando se cuantifican los servicios ambientales para la planeación de la conservación.

Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science.

Mining poses serious and highly specific threats to biodiversity. However, mining can also be a means for financing alternative livelihood paths that, over the long-term, may prevent biodiversity loss. Complex and controversial issues associated with mining and biodiversity conservation are often simplified within a narrow frame oriented towards the negative impacts of mining at the site of extraction, rather than posed as a series of challenges for the conservation science community to embrace. Here, we synthesize core issues that, if better understood, may ensure coexistence between mining and conservation agendas. We illustrate how mining impacts biodiversity through diverse pathways and across spatial scales. We argue that traditional, site-based conservation approaches will have limited effect in preventing biodiversity loss against an increasing mining footprint, but opportunities to improve outcomes (e.g. through long-term strategic assessment and planning) do exist. While future mineral supply is uncertain, projections suggest demand will grow for many metals and shift mining operations towards more dispersed and biodiverse areas. Initiating dialogue between mining companies, policy-makers and conservation organizations is urgent, given the suite of international agendas simultaneously requiring more minerals but less biodiversity loss.