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.

Reconciling Biodiversity Conservation and Widespread Deployment of Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK.

Renewable energy will potentially make an important contribution towards the dual aims of meeting carbon emission reduction targets and future energy demand. However, some technologies have considerable potential to impact on the biodiversity of the environments in which they are placed. In this study, an assessment was undertaken of the realistic deployment potential of a range of renewable energy technologies in the UK, considering constraints imposed by biodiversity conservation priorities. We focused on those energy sources that have the potential to make important energy contributions but which might conflict with biodiversity conservation objectives. These included field-scale solar, bioenergy crops, wind energy (both onshore and offshore), wave and tidal stream energy. The spatially-explicit analysis considered the potential opportunity available for each technology, at various levels of ecological risk. The resultant maps highlight the energy resource available, physical and policy constraints to deployment, and ecological sensitivity (based on the distribution of protected areas and sensitive species). If the technologies are restricted to areas which currently appear not to have significant ecological constraints, the total potential energy output from these energy sources was estimated to be in the region of 5,547 TWh/yr. This would be sufficient to meet projected energy demand in the UK, and help to achieve carbon reduction targets. However, we highlight two important caveats. First, further ecological monitoring and surveillance is required to improve understanding of wildlife distributions and therefore potential impacts of utilising these energy sources. This is likely to reduce the total energy available, especially at sea. Second, some of the technologies under investigation are currently not deployed commercially. Consequently this potential energy will only be available if continued effort is put into developing these energy sources/technologies, to enable realisation of their full potential.

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.

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).

Effectiveness of vegetation surrogates for parasitoid wasps in reserve selection.

Selecting suitable nature reserves is a continuing challenge in conservation, particularly for target groups that are time-consuming to survey, species rich, and extinction prone. One such group is the parasitoid Hymenoptera, which have been excluded from conservation planning. If basic characteristics of habitats or vegetation could be used as reliable surrogates of specific target taxa, this would greatly facilitate appropriate reserve selection. We identified a range of potential habitat indicators of the species richness of pimpline parasitoid communities (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae, Diacritinae, Poemeniinae) and tested their efficiency at capturing the observed diversity in a group of small woodlands in the agricultural landscape of the Vale of York (United Kingdom). Eight of the 18 vegetation-based reserve-selection strategies were significantly better at parasitoid species inclusion than random selection of areas. The best strategy maximized richness of tree species over the entire reserve network through complementarity. This strategy omitted only 2-3 species more (out of 38 captured in the landscape as a whole) than selections derived from the parasitoid survey data. In general, strategies worked equally well at capturing species richness and rarity. Our results suggest that vegetation data as a surrogate for species richness could prove an informative tool in parasitoid conservation, but further work is needed to test how broadly applicable these indicators may be.