Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

Diversification of refugia types needed to secure the future of coral reefs subject to climate change.

Identifying locations of refugia from the thermal stresses of climate change for coral reefs and better managing them is one of the key recommendations for climate change adaptation. We review and summarize approximately 30 years of applied research focused on identifying climate refugia to prioritize the conservation actions for coral reefs under rapid climate change. We found that currently proposed climate refugia and the locations predicted to avoid future coral losses are highly reliant on  excess heat metrics, such as degree heating weeks. However, many existing alternative environmental, ecological, and life-history variables could be used to identify other types of refugia that lead to the desired diversified portfolio for coral reef conservation. To improve conservation priorities for coral reefs, there is a need to evaluate and validate the predictions of climate refugia with long-term field data on coral abundance, diversity, and functioning. There is also the need to identify and safeguard locations displaying resistance toprolonged exposure to heat waves and the ability to recover quickly after thermal exposure. We recommend using more metrics to identify a portfolio of potential refugia sites for coral reefs that can avoid, resist, and recover from exposure to high ocean temperatures and the consequences of climate change, thereby shifting past efforts focused on avoidance to a diversified risk-spreading portfolio that can be used to improve strategic coral reef conservation in a rapidly warming climate.

Diversificación de los tipos de refugio necesarios para asegurar el futuro de los arrecifes de coral sujetos al cambio climático Resumen Una de las principales recomendaciones para la adaptación al cambio climático es identificar los refugios de los arrecifes de coral frente al estrés térmico del cambio climático y mejorar su gestión. Revisamos y resumimos ∼30 años de investigación aplicada centrada en la identificación de refugios climáticos para priorizar las acciones de conservación de los arrecifes de coral bajo un rápido cambio climático. Descubrimos que los refugios climáticos propuestos actualmente y las ubicaciones que pueden evitarlos dependen en gran medida de métricas de exceso de calor, como las semanas de calentamiento en grados (SCG). Sin embargo, existen muchas variables alternativas de historia vital, ambientales y ecológicas que podrían utilizarse para identificar otros tipos de refugios que resulten en el acervo diversificado que se desea para la conservación de los arrecifes de coral. Para mejorar las prioridades de conservación de los arrecifes de coral, es necesario evaluar y validar las predicciones sobre refugios climáticos con datos de campo a largo plazo sobre abundancia, diversidad y funcionamiento de los corales. También es necesario identificar y salvaguardar lugares que muestren resistencia a la exposición climática prolongada a olas de calor y la capacidad de recuperarse rápidamente tras la exposición térmica. Recomendamos utilizar más métricas para identificar un acervo de posibles lugares de refugio para los arrecifes de coral que puedan evitar, resistir y recuperarse de la exposición a las altas temperaturas oceánicas y las consecuencias del cambio climático, para así desplazar los esfuerzos pasados centrados en la evitación hacia un acervo diversificado de riesgos que pueda utilizarse para mejorar la conservación estratégica de los arrecifes de coral en un clima que se calienta rápidamente.

Contributions of Red Lists of Ecosystems to risk-based design and management of protected and conserved areas in Africa.

Protected and Conserved Areas (PCAs) are key ecosystem management tools for conserving biodiversity and sustaining ecosystem services and social co-benefits. As countries adopt a 30% target for protection of land and sea under the Global Biodiversity Framework of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, a critical question emerging is, "which 30%?". One approach to an answer is risk-based: we should protect the 30% that returns the greatest reductions in risks of species extinction and ecosystem collapse. IUCN Red List protocols provide practical methods for assessing these risks. All species, including humans, depend on the integrity of ecosystems for their well-being and survival. Africa is strategically important for ecosystem management due to convergence of high ecosystem diversity, intense pressures and high levels of human dependency on nature. We reviewed the outcomes of a symposium at the inaugural African Protected Areas Congress convened to discuss applications of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems to the design and management of PCAs. We found significant recent progress in red listing, with 920 ecosystem types assessed across 21 countries. While these span a diversity of environments across the continent, the greatest thematic gaps are in freshwater, marine and subterranean realms and large geographic gaps exist in north Africa and parts of west and east Africa. The projects are implemented by a diverse community of government agencies, NGOs and researchers. Already, they are having impact on policy and management, informing extensions to, and management of formal Protected Area networks, supporting decision making for sustainable development and informing ecosystem conservation and threat abatement, both within boundaries of PCAs and in surrounding landscapes and seascapes. We recommend further integration of risk assessments into environmental policy and enhanced investment in ecosystem red listing to fill current gaps. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A bolder conservation future for Indonesia by prioritising biodiversity, carbon and unique ecosystems in Sulawesi.

As more ambitious protected area (PA) targets for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework are set beyond Aichi Target 11, renew thinking into spatial prioritisation is required to enable PA expansion that maximises environmental values. Our study focuses on the biodiverse and forest-rich Indonesian island of Sulawesi, which has a terrestrial PA network that covers 10% of the island. We used Marxan to investigate trade-offs in the design of an expanded PA network that prioritised different conservation features (biodiversity, forest cover, carbon stock, karst and valuable metal-rich areas) under varying island-wide coverage targets (17%, 30%, and 50%). Our first scenario, which required existing PAs to be selected, required larger areas to meet these coverage targets, in contrast to our second scenario, which allowed for any part of the island to be chosen, irrespective of PA status. The vast Mekongga and Bangkiriang Landscapes, and Gorontalo corridor were consistently identified as a high priority for protection under all scenarios. To meet our conservation targets through expanding current PAs, creating new PAs, and creating corridors that connect existing PAs, we used a spatially explicit three-phase approach. Our findings identified 26,508 km2 of priority areas to be included in the current PA network, potentially assisting Indonesia in meeting its post-2020 GBF target, if our approach is replicated across Indonesia as a national or sub-national analysis. We discuss various land management options through other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) and the costs to deliver this strategy.

Forest conservation: Importance of Indigenous lands.

Forested Indigenous lands typically maintain high levels of forest integrity. A new study found that this is particularly true for Indigenous lands within tropical protected areas. Better recognising the importance of Indigenous lands is key to new global conservation goals.

Reconsidering priorities for forest conservation when considering the threats of mining and armed conflict.

Many threats to biodiversity can be predicted and are well mapped but others are uncertain in their extent, impact on biodiversity, and ability for conservation efforts to address, making them more difficult to account for in spatial conservation planning efforts, and as a result, they are often ignored. Here, we use a spatial prioritisation analysis to evaluate the consequences of considering only relatively well-mapped threats to biodiversity and compare this with planning scenarios that also account for more uncertain threats (in this case mining and armed conflict) under different management strategies. We evaluate three management strategies to address these more uncertain threats: 1. to ignore them; 2. avoid them; or 3. specifically target actions towards them, first individually and then simultaneously to assess the impact of their inclusion in spatial prioritisations. We apply our approach to the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and identify priority areas for conserving biodiversity and carbon sequestration services. We found that a strategy that avoids addressing threats of mining and armed conflict more often misses important opportunities for biodiversity conservation, compared to a strategy that targets action towards areas under threat (assuming a biodiversity benefit is possible). We found that considering mining and armed conflict threats to biodiversity independently rather than simultaneously results in 13 800-14 800 km2 and 15 700-25 100 km2 of potential missed conservation opportunities when undertaking threat-avoiding and threat-targeting management strategies, respectively. Our analysis emphasises the importance of considering all threats that can be mapped in spatial conservation prioritisation.

Global rarity of intact coastal regions.

Management of the land-sea interface is essential for global conservation and sustainability objectives because coastal regions maintain natural processes that support biodiversity and the livelihood of billions of people. However, assessments of coastal regions have focused strictly on either the terrestrial or marine realm. Consequently, understanding of the overall state of Earth's coastal regions is poor. We integrated the terrestrial human footprint and marine cumulative human impact maps in a global assessment of the anthropogenic pressures affecting coastal regions. Of coastal regions globally, 15.5% had low anthropogenic pressure, mostly in Canada, Russia, and Greenland. Conversely, 47.9% of coastal regions were heavily affected by humanity, and in most countries (84.1%) >50% of their coastal regions were degraded. Nearly half (43.3%) of protected areas across coastal regions were exposed to high human pressures. To meet global sustainability objectives, all nations must undertake greater actions to preserve and restore the coastal regions within their borders.

costa, huella humana, impacto humano cumulativo, litoral, presión humana, restauración, tierras vírgenes Resumen El manejo de la interfaz entre la tierra y el mar es esencial para los objetivos mundiales de conservación y sustentabilidad ya que las regiones costeras mantienen los procesos naturales que sostienen a la biodiversidad y al sustento de miles de millones de personas. Sin embargo, los análisis de las regiones costeras se han enfocado estrictamente en el ámbito marino o en el terrestre, pero no en ambos. Por consiguiente, el conocimiento del estado general de las regiones costeras del planeta es muy pobre. Integramos la huella terrestre humana y mapas marinos del impacto humano cumulativo en un análisis global de las presiones antropogénicas que afectan las áreas costeras. De las áreas costeras de todo el mundo, el 15.5% tuvieron una presión antropogénica reducida, principalmente en Canadá, Rusia y Groenlandia. En cambio, el 47.9% de las regiones costeras estuvieron fuertemente afectas por la humanidad, y en la mayoría de los países (84.1%) >50% de sus regiones litorales se encuentran degradadas. Casi la mitad (43.3%) de las áreas protegidas en las regiones costeras tienen un grado de exposición a fuertes presiones humanas. Para cumplir los objetivos mundiales de sustentabilidad, todos los países deben emprender mejores acciones para preservar y restaurar las regiones litorales dentro de sus fronteras.

Accelerated shifts in terrestrial life zones under rapid climate change.

Rapid climate change is impacting biodiversity, ecosystem function, and human well-being. Though the magnitude and trajectory of climate change are becoming clearer, our understanding of how these changes reshape terrestrial life zones-distinct biogeographic units characterized by biotemperature, precipitation, and aridity representing broad-scale ecosystem types-is limited. To address this gap, we used high-resolution historical climatologies and climate projections to determine the global distribution of historical (1901-1920), contemporary (1979-2013), and future (2061-2080) life zones. Comparing the historical and contemporary distributions shows that changes from one life zone to another during the 20th century impacted 27 million km2 (18.3% of land), with consequences for social and ecological systems. Such changes took place in all biomes, most notably in Boreal Forests, Temperate Coniferous Forests, and Tropical Coniferous Forests. Comparing the contemporary and future life zone distributions shows the pace of life zone changes accelerating rapidly in the 21st century. By 2070, such changes would impact an additional 62 million km2 (42.6% of land) under "business-as-usual" (RCP8.5) emissions scenarios. Accelerated rates of change are observed in hundreds of ecoregions across all biomes except Tropical Coniferous Forests. While only 30 ecoregions (3.5%) had over half of their areas change to a different life zone during the 20th century, by 2070 this number is projected to climb to 111 ecoregions (13.1%) under RCP4.5 and 281 ecoregions (33.2%) under RCP8.5. We identified weak correlations between life zone change and threatened vertebrate richness, levels of vertebrate endemism, cropland extent, and human population densities within ecoregions, illustrating the ubiquitous risks of life zone changes to diverse social-ecological systems. The accelerated pace of life zone changes will increasingly challenge adaptive conservation and sustainable development strategies that incorrectly assume current ecological patterns and livelihood provisioning systems will persist.

Mapping and Monitoring Zero-Deforestation Commitments.

A growing number of companies have announced zero-deforestation commitments (ZDCs) to eliminate commodities produced at the expense of forests from their supply chains. Translating these aspirational goals into forest conservation requires forest mapping and monitoring (M&M) systems that are technically adequate and therefore credible, salient so that they address the needs of decision makers, legitimate in that they are fair and unbiased, and scalable over space and time. We identify 12 attributes of M&M that contribute to these goals and assess how two prominent ZDC programs, the Amazon Soy Moratorium and the High Carbon Stock Approach, integrate these attributes into their M&M systems. These programs prioritize different attributes, highlighting fundamental trade-offs in M&M design. Rather than prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution, we provide policymakers and practitioners with guidance on the design of ZDC M&M systems that fit their specific use case and that may contribute to more effective implementation of ZDCs.

Multinational coordination required for conservation of over 90% of marine species.

Marine species are declining at an unprecedented rate, catalyzing many nations to adopt conservation and management targets within their jurisdictions. However, marine species and the biophysical processes that sustain them are naive to international borders. An understanding of the prevalence of cross-border species distributions is important for informing high-level conservation strategies, such as bilateral or regional agreements. Here, we examined 28,252 distribution maps to determine the number and locations of transboundary marine plants and animals. More than 90% of species have ranges spanning at least two jurisdictions, with 58% covering more than 10 jurisdictions. All jurisdictions have at least one transboundary species, with the highest concentrations of transboundary species in the USA, Australia, Indonesia, and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Distributions of mapped biodiversity indicate that overcoming the challenges of multinational governance is critical for a much wider suite of species than migratory megavertebrates and commercially exploited fish stocks-the groups that have received the vast majority of multinational management attention. To effectively protect marine biodiversity, international governance mechanisms (particularly those related to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, and Regional Seas Organizations) must be expanded to promote multinational conservation planning, and complimented by a holistic governance framework for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

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.

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.

Reconciling global priorities for conserving biodiversity habitat.

Degradation and loss of natural habitat is the major driver of the current global biodiversity crisis. Most habitat conservation efforts to date have targeted small areas of highly threatened habitat, but emerging debate suggests that retaining large intact natural systems may be just as important. We reconcile these perspectives by integrating fine-resolution global data on habitat condition and species assemblage turnover to identify Earth's high-value biodiversity habitat. These are areas in better condition than most other locations predicted to have once supported a similar assemblage of species and are found within both intact regions and human-dominated landscapes. However, only 18.6% of this high-value habitat is currently protected globally. Averting permanent biodiversity loss requires clear, spatially explicit targets for retaining these unprotected high-value habitats.

Degradation and forgone removals increase the carbon impact of intact forest loss by 626.

Intact tropical forests, free from substantial anthropogenic influence, store and sequester large amounts of atmospheric carbon but are currently neglected in international climate policy. We show that between 2000 and 2013, direct clearance of intact tropical forest areas accounted for 3.2% of gross carbon emissions from all deforestation across the pantropics. However, full carbon accounting requires the consideration of forgone carbon sequestration, selective logging, edge effects, and defaunation. When these factors were considered, the net carbon impact resulting from intact tropical forest loss between 2000 and 2013 increased by a factor of 6 (626%), from 0.34 (0.37 to 0.21) to 2.12 (2.85 to 1.00) petagrams of carbon (equivalent to approximately 2 years of global land use change emissions). The climate mitigation value of conserving the 549 million ha of tropical forest that remains intact is therefore significant but will soon dwindle if their rate of loss continues to accelerate.

A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data.

Inadequate information on the geographical distribution of biodiversity hampers decision-making for conservation. Major efforts are underway to fill knowledge gaps, but there are increasing concerns that publishing the locations of species is dangerous, particularly for species at risk of exploitation. While we recognize that well-informed control of location data for highly sensitive taxa is necessary to avoid risks, such as poaching or habitat disturbance by recreational visitors, we argue that ignoring the benefits of sharing biodiversity data could unnecessarily obstruct conservation efforts for species and locations with low risks of exploitation. We provide a decision tree protocol for scientists that systematically considers both the risks of exploitation and potential benefits of increased conservation activities. Our protocol helps scientists assess the impacts of publishing biodiversity data and aims to enhance conservation opportunities, promote community engagement and reduce duplication of survey efforts.

The Location and Protection Status of Earth's Diminishing Marine Wilderness.

As human activities increasingly threaten biodiversity [1, 2], areas devoid of intense human impacts are vital refugia [3]. These wilderness areas contain high genetic diversity, unique functional traits, and endemic species [4-7]; maintain high levels of ecological and evolutionary connectivity [8-10]; and may be well placed to resist and recover from the impacts of climate change [11-13]. On land, rapid declines in wilderness [3] have led to urgent calls for its protection [3, 14]. In contrast, little is known about the extent and protection of marine wilderness [4, 5]. Here we systematically map marine wilderness globally by identifying areas that have both very little impact (lowest 10%) from 15 anthropogenic stressors and also a very low combined cumulative impact from these stressors. We discover that ∼13% of the ocean meets this definition of global wilderness, with most being located in the high seas. Recognizing that human influence differs across ocean regions, we repeat the analysis within each of the 16 ocean realms [15]. Realm-specific wilderness extent varies considerably, with >16 million km2 (8.6%) in the Warm Indo-Pacific, down to <2,000 km2 (0.5%) in Temperate Southern Africa. We also show that the marine protected area estate holds only 4.9% of global wilderness and 4.1% of realm-specific wilderness, very little of which is in biodiverse ecosystems such as coral reefs. Proactive retention of marine wilderness should now be incorporated into global strategies aimed at conserving biodiversity and ensuring that large-scale ecological and evolutionary processes continue. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems.

As the terrestrial human footprint continues to expand, the amount of native forest that is free from significant damaging human activities is in precipitous decline. There is emerging evidence that the remaining intact forest supports an exceptional confluence of globally significant environmental values relative to degraded forests, including imperilled biodiversity, carbon sequestration and storage, water provision, indigenous culture and the maintenance of human health. Here we argue that maintaining and, where possible, restoring the integrity of dwindling intact forests is an urgent priority for current global efforts to halt the ongoing biodiversity crisis, slow rapid climate change and achieve sustainability goals. Retaining the integrity of intact forest ecosystems should be a central component of proactive global and national environmental strategies, alongside current efforts aimed at halting deforestation and promoting reforestation.

A habitat-based approach to predict impacts of marine protected areas on fishers.

Although marine protected areas can simultaneously contribute to biodiversity conservation and fisheries management, the global network is biased toward particular ecosystem types because they have been established primarily in an ad hoc fashion. The optimization of trade-offs between biodiversity benefits and socioeconomic values increases success of protected areas and minimizes enforcement costs in the long run, but it is often neglected in marine spatial planning (MSP). Although the acquisition of spatially explicit socioeconomic data is perceived as a costly or secondary step in MSP, it is critical to account for lost opportunities by people whose activities will be restricted, especially fishers. We developed an easily reproduced habitat-based approach to estimate the spatial distribution of opportunity cost to fishers in data-poor regions. We assumed the most accessible areas have higher economic and conservation values than less accessible areas and their designation as no-take zones represents a loss of fishing opportunities. We estimated potential distribution of fishing resources from bathymetric ranges and benthic habitat distribution and the relative importance of the different resources for each port of total catches, revenues, and stakeholder perception. In our model, we combined different cost layers to produce a comprehensive cost layer so that we could evaluate of trade-offs. Our approach directly supports conservation planning, can be applied generally, and is expected to facilitate stakeholder input and community acceptance of conservation.